3 ms·

Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, t

Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, the chances of achievement would be particularly low. It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother? Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.

hgoel 7y ago
Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system". Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse. For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line. I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech. You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?

hgoel 7y ago

Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system". Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse. For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.

ownagefool 7y ago
Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line. I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech. You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?