yeah, technically a government is different from the nation-state (or state).[Y]
I really do wonder sometimes about the complete disconnect with logic some people’s minds have. Do state schools really do this to people?
- Why can a market not provide “modern amenities”?
Come on. If I don’t pay your taxes you’ll collect by force. That’s called stealing. If I resist your cops will kill me. Stop pretending you and your system are nice and humanitarian. They are not.
Nobody wants your trashy ‘services’ like COMPULSORY public education and the like. Stop lying. People are forced to attend school and forced to pay for it.
Cause somebody wants to trade with somebody in Beloit, OH. They find it profitable. And vice versa.
Ahhhh, my world is falling apart! lol silly [:P]
And in the meantime I’ve been learning quite a bit from a computer, not federally funded education, and via the local library that receives huge amounts of charitable donations.
Spot on Juan! [:D]
If you dont want to pay ANY taxes at all then how can you ethically use the services they provide. The only way the government will kill you is if you resist with force. You could simply resist by going somewhere where private property is not seen as a contract. Meaning you can move out of the industrialised world.
Your circular arguments just keep coming back around to “I want mine, I dont want to pay for it, and damn everyone else’”
I would love to see everything ran by private cooperation. But some things that are necessary are not profitable. If I build a road from Cleveland to Middlefield (a small town) to trade with party X, more people will use it than just party X. Then I have to maintain it, and its just not profitable.
Wasnt it Jefferson who said governments were created to ensure people’s lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. How do you propose they do that without some system of wealth sharing?
Public education could never reach the efficiency of private education. But thats why its public. Without the public assistance, there really wouldnt be any education to speak of at all. Except whats necessary to live an agrarian lifestyle.The free market only provides where its profitable. So only the cities would have any kind of decent education.
It may have its faults but, more than half of the whole country can read competently, and almost everyone has some amount of literacy
Are you playing dumb or what ? What you call ‘services’ I call concentration camp. I don’t want to use them and of course don’t want to pay for them.
Also, do you acknowledge you advocate violence against dissidents or will you keep on lying ?
jefferson the slave driver ? what about him ?
Because we DO pay for them. We are forced to. What is the problem here?
We support private property… seriously wtf is this? And besides, we have a right to be here and to not have our possessions stolen. Sure, one solution is to move away from civilization, but we should not have to do so. It is our right to keep our property.
No, you just dont understand our arguments, as you continue to show
Come on, dude. We are aware of the need for roads. This is not a problem. There are many ways in which private roads could be and are already profitable. Just because you cant think of them and havent taken the time to read about it doesnt mean it wont work.
I dont know what he said, but we do not propose that the government do anything… thats the point
So now the state is forcing us to move. Sounds like the Trail of Tears all over again.
Well in Pennsylvania we pay taxes for our roads and then the state hires private contractors to maintain and make most roads. So if we cut out the middle man (aka state) and hire these private contractors ourselves it would cost less.
Again, just because you do not see how education would be profitable and demanded, and therefore provided by the market, does not mean it would not work. I dont understand - do you really think we have not considered the question of education? Do you really think we just decided to be anarchists so we wouldnt have to pay taxes? There is plently of literature on this site alone on how the market could provide for education.
Every post makes you seem more and more like a troll
Do you ever really look this stuff up? Of course not, over and over again you lie. Home schooling repeatedly does better than public schooled kids. And home schooled kids who participate in all social activities that public school kids participate in (just not the classroom which is not to be a social event but a learning event individual and teacher hence why teachers find it better to have smaller classrooms to reach out to the individual students). Also home schooled kids only learn about two to three hours a day and usually learn a skill and help out around the home. They usually are many grade-levels ahead of public schooled kids. One prominent example of home schooled kids are they are the ones usually winning the National Spelling Bees.
Correct.
Really? Are you 100% sure about that?
How can they ethically extort me of my money for phoney “protection” and other services? I don’t want their inefficient services.
“The mafia extorting you will only kill you if you defend yourself (‘resist with force’). Otherwise, they’ll just take everything you rightfully own and keep you hostage in a cement builing for a few years.”
What right does some gang have to chase me out of my rightfully appropriated property?
What circular arguments? Do you even know what a circular argument is?
How about, “I want what I rightfully have earned to be mine, and I am willing to pay/choose for what services I want.”
You profit from the road by being able to trade with party X. You may further profit from the road by charging people who use your roads.
Jefferson wasn’t in favor of the unjust redistribution of wealth today known as “welfare.” Welfare does two things:
- It increases consumption at the cost of saving as it redistributes resources from the net savers (“the rich” and “the middle class”) to the net consumers (“the poor”). This slows economic growth as lower savings rates mean higher interest rates, which in turn mean lower capital accumulation. Lower capital accumulation means that production expands more slowly than it would have otherwise.
- It disincentivizes wealth creation. By allowing people to live a rather comfortable life simply by receiving a goverment check, you are in effect preventing them from getting jobs and thereby contributing their due to society.
Private education would be affordable for all and much more efficient. Without government licensing procedures, many non-profit organizations, like churches, would be able to direct some of their charity efforts toward education for the poor. Education would also focus more and more on topics which are actually useful in the real world: no more studies in Marxist thought, or feminist philosophy, or African American heritage. Schools would serve as a tool to educate children in order to become useful and productive members of society. You wouldn’t have people getting Bachelor degrees in sociology and then working at Pizza Hut trying to pay off their debt. There would be greater incentives for people to get on-the-job training and to go to technical schools after high school.
If you truly doubt a system of private education and homeschooling, please see this.
Briggs Armstrong:
Unwilling to shortchange his students or to pay for the copies himself, the visionary teacher found an alternative: he began to sell advertisements on his test papers. According to USA Today, he charged $10 per ad on quizzes, $20 per ad on chapter tests, and $30 per ad on semester finals. Within a few days he had over 75 email requests for ads! Farber has already generated $350 in ad revenue. The article also states that approximately 67% of the ad sales are inspirational messages, paid for by parents. Others are from local businesses.
This free-market solution enables parents to voluntarily provide additional funding in order to help their children. It also allows local businesses to benefit from targeted advertising. Local businesses may also benefit from an improved labor pool due to the improved education students receive from their funding. It is an excellent example of parties participating in voluntary exchange and everyone benefiting: students benefit from the improved education; parents are pleased by improved placement scores; and businesses benefit from a better labor force and more customers. This is capitalism at its finest.
[…]
The success of Farber’s experiment shows that, contrary to the common contention, parents would not be forced to shoulder the cost of educating their children alone in the absence of public schools. This is concrete proof that businesses do understand the importance of well-educated students and are willing to provide funding for such a valuable resource. Advertisement revenue is not the only source of funding for schools but it is an important illustration of one of the ways of providing excellent education without extracting funds by force.
Under the current system, everyone is forced to provide funding for schools, regardless of how poor the quality of education provided by those schools. Under a private system, various schools would compete for students and for funding. Both parents and businesspeople would be more willing to devote their resources to the better schools. Students would be the ultimate beneficiaries of such competition.
Thomas Jefferson:
It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.
Andrew Young:
As far as egalitarian goals go, the state system does a horrible job. Even its most vehement supporters would scarcely claim that public schools offer equal quality of education across socioeconomic lines. Jencks (1985) declares, “the annual expenditure per pupil in a prosperous suburb is usually at least fifty percent more than in a slum in the same metropolitan area … taxpayers typically spend less than $5,000 [per pupil, per year] for the formal education of most slum children compared to more than $10,000 for many suburban children.” Also, the statist system has failed to equalize primary education along racial lines. Coleman and Hoffer (1987, p. xxiv) found in private schools less racial segregation than their public counterparts. Furthermore, public education, even on average, is far from high quality. The National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that 50 percent of all high school seniors in America could not answer this question:
Which of the following is true about 87% of 10?
a. It is greater than 10;
b. It is less than 10;
c. It is equal to 10;
d. Can’t tell.
(Boaz, 1991, p. 2)
The NAEP also reported that a mere 7 percent of America’s 17 year old individuals, “have the prerequisite knowledge and skills thought to be needed to perform well in college-level science courses” (Boaz, 1991, p. 3). Further, a 1989 National Endowment for the Humanities survey discovered that 54 percent of college seniors, the vast majority of whom came from the public school system, could not identify the half century during which the Civil War occurred, 58 percent could not name Plato as author of The Republic, and 23 percent made the mistake of placing Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” in the text of the US Constitution (Bacon, 1989).
Not only is the quality of the public school system horrendous, but its cost is extraordinary. America’s public primary schools spent $5,246 per pupil on average during 1989.[12] That is $130,000 for a classroom of 25 students.[13] Furthermore this is above that of many private schools. Of the approximately $212 million spent on education through high school in 1989,[14] only 40 percent went towards teachers’ pay (West, 1983).[15]
[…]
Civil servants lack both positive and negative incentives to educate children in a manner satisfactory to the parents who foot the bill (i.e., pay the taxes). There is no automatic feedback mechanism encouraging government hirelings to design productive, cost-effective schooling which fits the distinct tastes of their “customers.” For example, perhaps poor families would forgo the cost of hiring teachers for basic physical education and art classes which often consist of no more than the activities children pursue outside of school on their own time. Under the public system, however, administrators have no incentive to challenge predominant school structure. If they do, there is no immediate effect on the tax structure, so parents would only see their children as losing services with no decrease in the price of education; also there would be no increase in salary for the inventive of the administrator. Supporters of the public school system, once having abandoned market forces as schools’ drive toward productivity, can only point at a district, state, or federal bureaucracy to take their place.
Exactly. Even relatively cost-free homeschooling is much more efficient than public education. Now imagine what would happen if you could get on-the-job training while attending a few hours a day or week at the local technical school. You could quickly become skilled at profitable skills, contribute to society, and as you save your money, eventually move on to non-technical education if you wish.
So youve never driven on a public road? You acquire and clean your water yourself? Never used the electric grid? Never used a hospital? If youve used these things then you have an obligation to pay for them.
You keep acting like I dont understand becuase I havnt read the texts. I havnt read your bibles. And just like the Bible, how much Ive read it has no bearing on my understanding of God, right, and wrong.
Act like you care what happens to Jojomba in Ethiopia. That you give a damn wether he has a chance or not.
Go ahead and hire the contractors. Whats stopping you. Do you know there was a town in Alabama that just got telephone service a few years ago? Why? Becuase they finally decided to allow the budget to provide for it. THe free market had no need to bring it there, and if it did it would be too expensive for anyone to afford it.
ooopss, you said private education is more efficient. I agree. Silly me.