Black market schools

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a world of privatly owned schools there will always be some cost to the parent, right?

What happens to the kids of the junky/breadline/neglectful/lazy parent who refuses to, or cannot, pay?

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be those. However, there are those now, and there are also those who attend school but for all practical purposes get no education. You have to ask whether we'd be better off overall, not whether some individuals might fall through the cracks. There's a point where the expense of leaving no child behind exceeds its value.

Also, I still don't see why providing education for the poorest of the poor requires providing schooling for 100% of the population. Yes education is a necessity, and it's horrible to think anyone goes without it, but food is the same way--even more so because without food you die. We have a private market that does a pretty damn good job providing plenty food at affordable prices (despite being artificially propped up). Yes, we have food stamps for a small portion of the population (and even then, the people are issued vouchers to buy what they choose...what a novel idea), but hardly anyone is calling for 100% government funding of food. (And just imagine what that would taste like!)


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that the gov. should provide 100% of schooling, I have no problem with parents sending their kids to private schools. Vouchers for schooling sounds like a great idea.

The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a world of privatly owned schools there will always be some cost to the parent, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's always a cost to *someone*. Just like there is always a cost to someone in a world of state-run, coercively funded schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. It just so happens in this case, the cost futher down the line could exceed the up front costs. The children of these uneducated people will have even less chance than their parents, when added to the next generation of regular deadbeat offspring you get a kind of negative feedback that can only get worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

It *could*? Well, the death star "could" appear in orbit tomorrow, we better spend a lot of money to cover that situation, too.

If you want to argue on a cost/benefit basis, you need something better than "X could be more expensive than Y, so we need to use force to make sure Y happens." Couldn't Y be more expensive than X?

People say that anarchocapitalists only care about dollars. But time and time again, the arguments used against them are about money, and purposefully ignore the moral implications.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What happens to the kids of the junky/breadline/neglectful/lazy parent who refuses to, or cannot, pay?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. What would you like to happen? Perhaps someone (like you, perhaps) will think these kids need some education and allocate some funds towards that goal. You seem to think it's a worthy cause, are you willing to pay for it? Or are you only in favor of it when you can make other people pay for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like 95% of the population, I'm lazy, given a chance i probably wouldn't give money if it was strictly voluntary. I'm glad money goes out of my paycheck because i see the long term benefits of lower crime and a competent basic workforce. As everyone in society recieves exactly the same benefits, then i see no problem charging accordingly.

If it was left to voluntary contributions, there would not be enough money. You may veiw taxation as theft, but do you really rate theft as a worse than destroying an innocent childs life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody would stop you from making a deal with some violent thugs to come knock on your door and take X% of your money and give it to charity XYZ.

Nobody would stop you from working for a company that would set this up for you automatically.

Now, please explain why your laziness and your lack of imagination about how you might accomplish your chosen goal creates any obligation on my part to do things your way. Please explain why, even if we share the same goal, I should be compelled to contribute to the same tactic for achieving that goal.

Please explain why you use loaded appeals to emotion? I have a finite amount of resources. If I spend them all on saving children A, B and C, but children D, E and F starve, have I destroyed those innocent children's lives? I *could* have saved them, but I did something else with the money.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Humor me and assume for a second that there was no state provided education. I'm pretty sure that the following would happen:
1) There would be some pretty cheap schools and it would be affordable for everyone to attend school. Not everyone would get to attend a great school but that's not the idea anyways
2) There would be quite a bit more self study and some system of recruitment into the workforce based on self study
3) There would be way more scholarships and recruiting of talent meaning that intelligent but poor kids would actually be better off
4) Companies would start their own school programms and waive the fees if you work for them later or something of that kind

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
FedEx can, in many cases, deliver packages cheaper than the postal service.

[/ QUOTE ]

And one reason for this is because there is a Postal Service

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FedEx can, in many cases, deliver packages cheaper than the postal service.

[/ QUOTE ]

And one reason for this is because there is a Postal Service

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Care to explain this? I'm trying to think up any sort of explanation as to why this could even conceivably be true, but I'm stumped. I mean, other than the general "competition lowers prices" thing, but there's no reason that you need a govt monopoly for that--we have DHL, Fedex, UPS, etc.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is public education anywhere close to as vital as food? The stuff we learn in public schools, or even in most private schools, isn't 'vital' at all. Not everyone needs to learn the same stuff, and there are tons of kids who don't want or need to learn a lot of the stuff that they'll never use in their life.

Why not just let each child and their parents decide what stuff is important for them to learn, and let them go about it however they see fit?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a world of privatly owned schools there will always be some cost to the parent, right?

What happens to the kids of the junky/breadline/neglectful/lazy parent who refuses to, or cannot, pay?

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be those. However, there are those now, and there are also those who attend school but for all practical purposes get no education. You have to ask whether we'd be better off overall, not whether some individuals might fall through the cracks. There's a point where the expense of leaving no child behind exceeds its value.

Also, I still don't see why providing education for the poorest of the poor requires providing schooling for 100% of the population. Yes education is a necessity, and it's horrible to think anyone goes without it, but food is the same way--even more so because without food you die. We have a private market that does a pretty damn good job providing plenty food at affordable prices (despite being artificially propped up). Yes, we have food stamps for a small portion of the population (and even then, the people are issued vouchers to buy what they choose...what a novel idea), but hardly anyone is calling for 100% government funding of food. (And just imagine what that would taste like!)


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that the gov. should provide 100% of schooling, I have no problem with parents sending their kids to private schools. Vouchers for schooling sounds like a great idea.

The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[/ QUOTE ]

good series of posts Foosh. Its sums up why, earlier in this thread (at least I think it was this thread), I pointed out that taxes for education are important to solve the free-rider problem when education benefits society as a whole, not just the families with school age kids.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]

The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The desire to prepare your children for the future, to give them the skills they need to prosper and thrive and some day go on to have happy healthy children of their own is equally strong and instinctive. If we can't trust people to do this for their own children, what can we trust them with?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't trust people to do this for their own children, what can we trust them with?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government, of course!

And they can educate children far better than their parents ever could--only the government can solve the free rider problem!

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The desire for food is a basic need that everyone understands, there is no need for the gov. to pass laws making eating compulsory. Education is different, it's almost as vital but some parents, and a lot of children don't realise this.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have laws that say you're required to feed your kids. I have no problem with these, and I really don't have a problem with laws that require you to educate them as well (the ACists haven't won me over yet). But this is not about making school compulsory, it's about who controls it and who pays for it.

The market provides plenty of food at affordable prices for the vast majority of Americans. There is no reason this wouldn't be the case with education (nor is there any more reason for the government to provide everyone's education than there is for them to provide everyone's food).