|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
On March 13 2012 21:23 Nizaris wrote: doesn't free education make the education basically shit? Schools starts cheating tests to keep subsidies etc etc. Teachers that never get fired even if they can't educate a monkey to eat a banana.
While a fully private education would be worse, the current system is pretty horrible. Free education definitely doesn't "make the education shit", we have free education here in Finland and we constantly score super high in PISA, and our universities are decent. Good schools attract more students, so schools want to be competitive. In Finland schools decide for themselves whether a teacher does a good job or not so bad teachers get fired if they don't perform. Additionally, teacher is a valued job which requires a good deal of University training so teachers are pretty good overall.
On March 13 2012 22:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 15:54 Arnstein wrote: It should be as in Norway, where we pay a good amount of taxes, but university, doctors etc. are free/very cheap. Correct me if im wrong but one of the problems in Europe is that altho docs are cheap, they aren't very widely available, at least not compared with how things are in the US. Is this correct? I've heard that waiting times to see specialists are often many months or longer, whereas in the US one can pick and choose from dozens upon dozens of specialists in any one sub-field. Not saying US health care is better by any means, but that's one point a lot of people overlook when going on about the nice things EU has The queues aren't as bad as some people claim, and even though we have public healthcare in Finland, you can still buy private health insurance and/or dish out dough at a private doctor/clinic for faster/better healthcare if you want.
On March 13 2012 23:21 Blasterion wrote: Education shouldn't be free. It should be an investment one makes for their future career. Besides if education was free, one wouldn't cherish the opportunity enough to motivate them to really try to do well. Also it's a lot easier on government budgeting. You're already losing money by not earning money by working, so it's already a financial investment (higher income later), and you're already motivated to study well because good performance in your studies will result in better further education/job market offers/options.
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay and to coerce payment from people through force is wrong. I'll break this down to two answers:
A. Taxes pay for education in countries where education is "free", so you pay (relatively) little over a long time period, thus lessening the financial burden on the person. Compare this with a situation, where a person who graduates is tens of thousands of dollars in debt - this poses a much higher risk for bankruptcy.
B. I really, really, really hate this shallow and frankly bizarre line of thought. Government is the institutionalised structure of the society in a democracy. A healthy, ie democratic, transparent government where representatives feel responsible to the people and not special interests tends to reflect the will of the people rather well. Government didn't impose itself out of some authorative "nothing", it was instituted and is supported by the people (in democratic societies).
In my country, Finland, we have high taxes and eg. public education and public healthcare. Who do you think instituted those taxes and services? People did. People organised, formed parties, protested, voted and thus brought about social changes in Finland. Public education and public healthcare are so popular here that not even the most right-wing, pro-capitalism party dares to dream about disestablishing either - heck, many people in said party don't even want to because they recognise their value to Finnish society, societal mobility, people's welfare and true equality of opportunity for all citizens and their offspring. It doesn't matter whether your parents were rich or poor, your education depends on your hard work, success and personal choices.
|
On March 13 2012 23:45 Zato-1 wrote: If the society as a whole can afford to pay for the education of all the children, then it should- this is one of the biggest steps towards having a more equal society without a lot of class tension and resentment. However, private schooling should NEVER be disallowed as an option; the idea of "free education" (a better term would be 100% subsidized education) is to help the children from families who might otherwise not be able to afford to send them to school, not to force children to go to public schools.
Well the most common solution is that the private schools get the same funding that public schools do, that they can do what they want with. They do have a list of criteria to fill up though, or their 'license' or whatever can be revoked.
|
No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
|
Funny, how in the USSR, and a lot of the previous socialist and communist countries have/had free education, free day care, extremely low living costs. Only problem was that the government was corrupt, and people had to work. Education should be free, so should any living expenses and basics for children. Food should become more expensive as a result. Would be much nicer than it is today, where any dead beat dumbass musician can make a song called Ho, and make millions of dollar from it.
Society is destined to fail, I see no future for the world.
|
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
Try reading the thread champ.
|
On March 13 2012 15:50 OsoVega wrote: Education does not spontaneously occur in nature. It is impossible for it to be free. Someone is always going to have to pay and to coerce payment from people through force is wrong.
Hilarious. The question isn't whether people should be forced to pay tax or not, they already are. The question is whether everyone, no matter which social class, should be able to attend higher education. The cost is then put on everyone in society, not just the one getting the education. This seems logical to me as the education is a net benefit to society in terms of GDP.
So, to sum up, it's a lot more fair, and it's a net benefit to society, therefore my answer is very simply yes, it should be free (to the ones attending the education).
I will add that progressive taxation goes hand in hand with this as you end up paying both for your education, faster, and more on top of that, apart from the general GDP growth that you will eventually be part of.
|
On March 13 2012 23:56 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. Try reading the thread champ.
I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
|
On March 13 2012 15:53 Datz2Ez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 15:45 NotSorry wrote: Feels kind of odd hearing people complain about that while in the US we pay 10x that each semester...., but then again a 100% increase does seem like a lot
I've always thought of college as a business, it's design is to make money off of training you for future work so that in theory you can make more money, but doesn't always happen that way. Yes indeed you people pay alot, however what happens if somebody has great potential but he's poor? Does he have any way to access a higher enducation?
Poor people get financial aid, they essentially don't have to pay anything. We do, however, make the rich pay. O_O zomg the U.S.A. is actually MORE progressive then the ever so forward thinking French Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. Strawman argument. Subsidized education is not socialism, it is perfectly compatible with capitalism as a Public Good. The government should provide funding for education if the society can afford it because having a more equal society is good for the society as a whole, including those who don't need subsidized education (if you won't take my word for it, I suggest you read the book "The Spirit Level"). As to the actual educational institutions, in my experience it'd be better if they're administrated privately, as that will tend to increase cost efficiency and quality of education- make them compete among themselves to provide better service, while the government gives education vouchers directly to the parents who can take them with them by moving their kids to a better school.
|
On March 13 2012 23:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:56 Euronyme wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. Try reading the thread champ. I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately.
You somehow missed the point where the retarded societies filled by socialism are topping the charts when it comes to education. If you've actually read this thread you've gotta be made of teflon if you came to that conclusion.
|
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum.
|
On March 13 2012 23:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:56 Euronyme wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. Try reading the thread champ. I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately. I think if someone who can understand the meaning behind what you wrote knows you answered OP. I agree 100% with unschooling and homeschooling, its the BEST possible and most efficient education for people who are not complete morons, and know what they want to do.I among others are wasting potential by being in schools and wasting time on things I could be learning.
But we have to make progress somewhere, free university is a start. That way people do not have to worry about marks or money required to go to university, and get 50% in all their courses before to learn more by themselves. Our system for education, economy, and voting are all horrid. For the US and CA. The rich keep getting richer because they are organized, less of them makes it easier. And the opposite with poor people. And the people in the middle are being slowly drained and put into the poor class. If we want the society to change for the better we have to change everything.
|
On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress.
USA has most expensive schools in the world. Yet people in USA spend more years in school by average than people from any other nation Why do say that free education would further the problem of over education?
Also 1 scientist out of 1 000 000 being home schooled is no prove that home schooling is always better. Imagine if all parents home schooled, then who would be doing the other work?
Also if
Socialism retards society then why has Finland, a nation where all education is 100% free and in later years heavily monetarily supported been the #1 western nation in international PISA test for who knows how many decades?
|
I love it how you assume what the state is meant for. If you're in a democracy the people should decide what the state is meant for. And if they decide it should "cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society' then the state will take steps towards that. Maybe in history the US is glorified, but in the UK or in France it's not exactly the case. Actually in France a big part of the history you are taught is how about France collaborated with the Nazi regime. Which is not glorious as you may expect.
And for your last sentence: "Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress." Sorry but if I'm a middle class or poor I prefer to live in Finland for instance than in the US. I don't know what you think the ultimate goal of a society should be, but we must differ grandly.
|
On March 14 2012 00:05 Sea_Food wrote:Also if then why has Finland, a nation where all education is 100% free and in later years heavily monetarily supported been the #1 western nation in international PISA test for who knows how many decades? Wegandi has a point about socialism retarding society. However, he is wrong to believe that government subsidized education implies socialism- it doesn't.
|
On March 14 2012 00:03 Red112 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum. You clearly have never met anyone who was home schooled. I have a friend who was home schooled through all of primary school, now in high school. He is the most intelligent person in that year, by far. But he doesn't have much discipline, so he never does any work and gets 50% in half of his courses.
Yes, a lot of people are home schooled because parents want their children to follow an agenda, which is bad. But when done correctly the most intelligent people come out successful from homeschooling.
|
On March 14 2012 00:03 Mafs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2012 23:58 Wegandi wrote:On March 13 2012 23:56 Euronyme wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. Try reading the thread champ. I did. Sorry, if my reply wasn't as mundane and myopic as all the rest. I think I answered the question adequately. I think if someone who can understand the meaning behind what you wrote knows you answered OP. I agree 100% with unschooling and homeschooling, its the BEST possible and most efficient education for people who are not complete morons, and know what they want to do.I among others are wasting potential by being in schools and wasting time on things I could be learning. But we have to make progress somewhere, free university is a start. That way people do not have to worry about marks or money required to go to university, and get 50% in all their courses before to learn more by themselves. Our system for education, economy, and voting are all horrid. For the US and CA. The rich keep getting richer because they are organized, less of them makes it easier. And the opposite with poor people. And the people in the middle are being slowly drained and put into the poor class. If we want the society to change for the better we have to change everything.
Just for the record. I'm pretty sure every university in the world requires good marks for you to be accepted. You have to send in your high school grades / do a test and then the uni accepts the best.
On March 14 2012 00:07 Mafs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 00:03 Red112 wrote:On March 13 2012 23:52 Wegandi wrote: No, the Government should not take from the mouth of labor and industry, nor shall it make compulsory attendance to their monopolized institutions, nor shall they provide any educational services.
If I say to you, I do not want the State to grow food, does that mean I want everyone to starve? The Socialist can only imagine so.
This first presumes that the States primary motivation is to actual cultivate intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, and a questioning society. I can't think of any such system employed. Almost all modern-State systems are built off the Prussian model. The entire purpose is to raise children to be conditioned for work as bureaucrats, industry-workers, and obedient to the ruling class. Nothing has really changed. Look at schools. There isn't much difference between them and prison. Cops patrolling the hallways, cameras, obedience to the masters, asking permission to exercise your liberties, curriculum biased and skewed to provide a positive view of the State and its actions.
Now, the economic side of having everyone scuttle on through these institutions can be clearly illustrated under the principle of marginal utility. The more you have of something the less value each additional unit has. This is why you see bachelors becoming the new High School diploma. It is almost become a requirement for so many jobs, where it didn't exist before. Furthermore, how many resources are wasted on useless knowledge or skills for people that will never use them and or forget the day after? Imagine what these resources could have been put to use on!
Bastiat clearly illustrates this with his the Seen and the Unseen. Throwing money down the 'education' hole makes society poorer, not wealthier. It however, makes the State-Universities, and other 'private' Institutions whose intake is almost wholly at the taxpayer trough very wealthy. The only reason these institutions can charge such exorbitant prices is because of the funneling of taxpayer money into their pockets (especially so since it is guaranteed and State-loans cannot be liquidated in bankruptcy). Before these existed you could afford college working part-time. Similarly, you have the currency constantly devalued increasing the prices throughout the economy.
So many people never look at the entire picture, the consequences, the interests at hand. Such a superficial mindset.
Just look at how antiquated the entire system is. Nothing has changed since it's implementation. This happens with any State-system. Kids were huddled in a room, with a desk, and a chalkboard, and made to rote memorize useless pieces of trivia since 1850. I would never send my child to those indoc centers. How on earth you think you can foster a childs or adults learning by having everyone being fed the same information the same way is beyond..you would have thought by now that people would realize that not everyone has the same interests, not everyone has the same skills, and not everyone learns in the same ways.
I can't stress enough the importance of unschooling and homeschooling. You didn't have State-school products run the Human Genome Project.
In fact, we wouldn't even have had Thomas Edison if we was born today because he would have been forced into those god awful schools. If folks weren't aware Edison was homeschooled, and did almost all of his learning on his own. Instead of encouraging folks to go to school to be a cog in the machine of the State and the Corporations, perhaps we should instead be cultivating and encouraging entrepreneurship. To provide services, invent new things, reap the benefits of labor, etc.
Socialism retards society and Civilization. It does not provide for its progress. One of the most ridiculous things I've ever read and only a moron would actually think home schooling is a good alternative. Home schooling seems to be a big thing in America, but it's mainly done by crazies who don't want their kids going to school to learn about science so they keep them home and teach them all about Jesus. e.g Rick Santorum. You clearly have never met anyone who was home schooled. I have a friend who was home schooled through all of primary school, now in high school. He is the most intelligent person in that year, by far. But he doesn't have much discipline, so he never does any work and gets 50% in half of his courses. Yes, a lot of people are home schooled because parents want their children to follow an agenda, which is bad. But when done correctly the most intelligent people come out successful from homeschooling.
Homeschooling university.. Well that's something I've never heard about. Sounds like it'd offer a wide array of possible careers.
|
I'm a firm believer of you get what you paid for, for the most part. I've heard arguments that with free education then the quality of education would actually go up because really smart people with poor circumstances that usually decline admissions because of not enough scholarship money will be able to go to their first choice out of state private schools (only talking about the U.S. here) but I don't buy that. I think universally free education will ultimately decline the quality of education, look at the U.S. public schools, which are completely free. They had to create the magnet school system to sort this stuff out.
|
Education isn't free. Somebody is paying for it. And if you're not paying, then those who *are* paying have more control over it than you do. But if you're OK with that, that's great, enjoy your "freedom" while you can still pretend that you have some.
|
On March 13 2012 15:48 tetrismaan wrote: In Denmark it is free, and we even get 1000$ each month from the government, with the chance of making a student-rent for 650$ each month with 1% interest.
Yeah, a few of my friends went to Denmark to do their Masters (among other reasons), they are upping the price here as well (if you take longer to study than allotted time you have to pay a ton more). For reference, my current tuition fee is still quite low at € 1.771,- per year (M2.1 currently).
|
|
|
|