Well, the state already provides free (and compulsory) universal K-12 education, and yet many still do not take “advantage” (to the extent public school gives anyone an “advantage”). At what point do we accept that the individual does not value his education over the alternate ways he chooses to use his time?
I never said that we should be disgusted if someone does not recieve an education. But we should be disgusted if he wanted to, but could not. This is why compulsory education is so backward (and immoral as all get-out). Many leftists think that because education is such a good thing we should force it on people. Yet they dont realize that is impossible. Even forcing them into the school does nothing, they will just lay their head down and not learn anything anyway.
The individual makes his own valuation on education or not. But if he values it, it is my view he should be provided it.
It should make you cringe a lot less when you consider that poverty-level citizens in today’s industrialized countries have far higher standards of living than all but the elite of just 2 centuries ago (even despite exponential population growth since). This general prosperity has been achieved because savings has allowed for capital accumulation which increased productivity. I know it’s tempting to imagine how much all this saved wealth could improve the lives of the poorer people by enabling them to consume more, but in the long run, robbing from savings and investment for consumption will only slow future productivity increases which would have benefitted the poor even more greatly by increasing the real purchasing power of their meager incomes.
I have been saying that to my fellow leftists (and everyone else) for years. Poor people in america today live better, at least in subsistence, than the kings of europe. If the argument were capitalism v feudalism, Im choosing capitalism every time, hands down. (But, as it was recently pointed out to me, its more capital sophistication than accumulation, per se. Even if accumulation does contribute to sophistication)
But I am not wanting to provide more for the poor to increase consumerism (except in consuming of basic necessities). I am wanting to provide them more so they can easilier become capital accumulators. Im an anarchist, Im well aware of the problems of robbing Peter to pay Paul. But that doesn’t make me support these ideas any less. I see no reason why they can’t be provided voluntarily, barring people’s own subjective ethics, which can be changed.
If charity is not utilitarian, why support/donate to it at all?
I’m just glad that we didn’t decide as a society in the 1800’s that we’d accumulated enough capital, and it was now time to rest and stop saving and enjoy the fruits of our current technology. We would have missed out on so many of the technological developments of the industrial revolution and beyond that improved EVERYONE’S lives, rich and poor.
As am I. Socialism was never an argument that “we have gone far enough.” It is actually an argument that we have not gone far enough, that by empowering workers, which is most of the population, we can further increase capital accumulation and the capacities of the market. The argument is that most of the benefit of captialism (as opposed to market economics) goes to the ownership class, which is almost entirely the same class that held all the power in feudalism. And who would say that feudal landowners are/should be the legitimate owners of their land?