Unaffordable Education

[K-Mac]

http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm

I guess you don't live in Detroit?

Seriously though, you may have met someone who is illiterate and not even know it. They learn to get by pretty well much of the time. My uncle's wife used to work with illiterate people in Houston and I was amazed at the stories she would tell.

That being said, I have no idea what the national literacy rate here is, less a google search which I'm sure you've already done.

Interesting that Cuba is number one. I can't imagine they have too much to spend on education?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_literacy_rate

Edited June 9, 2009 by K-Mac

[brian0918]

Wow, that's pretty ridiculous - not that the govt. would put out misleading statistics about its products, but that the Wikipedia community would conclude the govt should have the last word on the subject. I'd rather state, "no conclusive data" than put that nonsense in an article.

So what is the source for the ~95% functional literacy before public education in the US?

Edited June 9, 2009 by brian0918

[SD26]

This literacy topic is really interesting to me. My wife took an extra job teaching an online college course. I'm figuring that some of the demand might be from stimulus money for retraining, individuals trying to get better themselves, etc.

Anyway, some of the stuff that is written, my wife is teaching in the English department, is so awful... It is laughable. At least it's a college course, and the requirements that the college has are at least not pandering to the special needs of the students and so on. One in four? With what I read, sure, I'd believe it.

[JUtley93]

I'm convinced that education wouldn't be a problem now. My Canadian, socialist, AP World History teacher told me to look at all the worst case scenarios in objectivism and I'll see the flaws. I can't find any in education anymore. This was also one of her biggest points.

[Chris.S]

'Ware them Canadians...they'll getcha, eh

[softwareNerd]

I'm convinced that education wouldn't be a problem now. My Canadian, socialist, AP World History teacher told me to look at all the worst case scenarios in objectivism and I'll see the flaws.

Well, it is a good thing she challenged you that way.

Now, if she really wanted to make your head spin, she should have asked you how you would do private non-highway, non-subdivision roads. Or, she could have asked you how you would solve the "freeloader problem" with people who did not volunteer "taxes", but enjoyed the services by default.

Edited June 10, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Well, it is a good thing she challenged you that way.

Now, if she really wanted to make your head spin, she should have asked you how you would do private non-highway, non-subdivision roads. Or, she could have asked you how you would solve the "freeloader problem" with people who did not volunteer "taxes", but enjoyed the services by default.

That medium-sized or "urban arterial" road problem has puzzled me too. I am not sure there was a practical solution to that until recently (now they simply say put transponders in your car and get a bill at the end of the month).

[brian0918]

That medium-sized or "urban arterial" road problem has puzzled me too. I am not sure there was a practical solution to that until recently (now they simply say put transponders in your car and get a bill at the end of the month).

Imagine how much faster our technology would have advanced if we would have had the motivation to devise an easy tracking/billing system to fill the huge demand for travel along private roads.

[L-C]

Poverty is mostly a non-issue under laissez-faire.

[Zip]

Poverty is mostly a non-issue under laissez-faire.

I think it will still be a problem but it will be an individual's problem, the rest of us won't have to pay for it. As a result of there being no government support to be poor there will definitely be fewer people who have that problem.

[L-C]

I think it will still be a problem but it will be an individual's problem, the rest of us won't have to pay for it. As a result of there being no government support to be poor there will definitely be fewer people who have that problem.

The (relatively few) poor will largely consist of people who choose to be (boohoo) and the disabled, who I predict will recieve support from relatives and charity, given how small the market for charity will be.

[themadkat]

The (relatively few) poor will largely consist of people who choose to be (boohoo) and the disabled, who I predict will recieve support from relatives and charity, given how small the market for charity will be.

Well, there is also the case of the temporarily poor who have fallen on hard times, that is to say people who are normally not poor but have fallen into severe misfortune. There would probably be charity available to help them too and they are unlikely to stay poor.

[JUtley93]

Well, there is also the case of the temporarily poor who have fallen on hard times, that is to say people who are normally not poor but have fallen into severe misfortune. There would probably be charity available to help them too and they are unlikely to stay poor.

Couldn't insurance also help with this?

[themadkat]

Couldn't insurance also help with this?

Absolutely.

[sanjavalen]

It is important not to context-drop, here.

Recall what taxation represents: the abogation (in principle) of your right to *any* property whatsoever. To say that the government has the right to any means there is no real principle to refer to, in order to claim it has no right to all of it. The rest is a matter of culture and time, one way or the other - as the history of America has amply demonstrated.

Yes, simply from the standpoint of benevolence, it is a shame that not everyone can get a world-class education. But to indulge in such questions while dropping the context of how it is paid for is a terrible mistake, and one of the things statists of all stripes rely on their victims/dupes to do in order to put them in power.

To give a child an education is nice, but not if it is paid for by force; an education has no value in the context of a society where the child will grow up a slave to the state, and that is the principle that you embody when you attempt to justify taxation for the alleged 'higher' need of children for a basic semblance of learning. Other peoples' lives (and it is their lives that you take, piece by piece, when you tax them; simply consider how many hours someone must work in order to pay for his taxes, before he can take a cent home to his own bank account, for his own use) are not means to ends.

Once that principle is accepted you will fully understand why Objectivism rejects the idea of government run education. It is the best thing, for everyone - for yourself, the potential taxpayer and the child as well, even if he would not get an education at all, or a bare minimum education, without government schools. Far better to be a free illiterate than a mediocrely schooled slave.

Edited June 11, 2009 by sanjavalen

[Uttles]

Families that cannot afford private school or a relatively high tax on schooling can pay significantly less and still send their child to a public school. Under objectivism, what happens to a child who's family cannot afford education?

You're operating on the premise that private education would be just as expensive as it is today if there were no public education.

If there were no public education, the cost of private education would be drastically lower.

[SD26]

You're operating on the premise that private education would be just as expensive as it is today if there were no public education.

If there were no public education, the cost of private education would be drastically lower.

Spot on.

Compare the salaries of public school teachers vs those in parochial schools. Huge difference. How about the administrators, overhead, public relations people, etc... More costs. Lavish buildings and retirement. Starting to sound like the same issues of some collapsing US auto businesses.

[L-C]

Statists pull this one all the time. "What would they do without 'free' education?". But they don't want to give them back the half paycheck they stole and let them decide for themselves. Nevermind that without public whatever, people would have lots and lots more cash to begin with.

And that's just taking into account the lack of taxes, and not how much wealthier society in general would be without statism.

[K-Mac]

You're operating on the premise that private education would be just as expensive as it is today if there were no public education.

If there were no public education, the cost of private education would be drastically lower.

In addition, in a LFC society, we'd all be more prosperous.