2 ms·
They aren't getting involved in an industry. When they do, it is to build public schools, which seems to be a great idea. What they are doing is submitting to
by Eisenstein 4y ago
They aren't getting involved in an industry. When they do, it is to build public schools, which seems to be a great idea. What they are doing is submitting to public demand that education be accessible to everyone by paying for it, or by lending people the money for it. It is like saying that food stamps are 'government getting involved in the grocery industry'. If one counts subsidies, then the government is involved in most industries in some way.
I think that by looking for an excuse as to why the government messes up everything and using that as a way to remove government from things, you haven't changed the need for that thing, you just make it so that in order to fill a public need the government has to enable it in some way that is probably less efficient -- like giving out lots of loans for education, or by having people forgo basic care and then ending up in the hospital with a huge bill that the government pays for because they cannot.
There is usually a medium between these things and it would be great to get off of our collective ideological horses and find them instead of blasting rhetoric at each other.
- WalterBright 4y agoIt's not ideological. All you have to do is look at the results. Lending people money for college led to huge increases in tuition.
- Eisenstein 4y agoIt seems ideological to me because the government was specifically mentioned. If it were a non-profit guaranteeing all college loans, would 'non-profit' have been mentioned instead of government? I doubt it.
- WalterBright 4y agoThere were and are non-profits scholarships. They simply aren't big enough to have the effect that government has.
- Eisenstein 4y agoCan you describe what you think the argument I am making is? I think you are confused and I would like to be more specific so that you don't end up making completely irrelevant statements like the one above.
- WalterBright 4y agoI anticipated the rhetorical trap you were laying, and simply cut to the chase.
- Eisenstein 4y agoYou are playing some kind of rhetorical chess and contending you are not being ideological -- strange way to respond to this: "it would be great to get off of our collective ideological horses and find them instead of blasting rhetoric at each other."