Nobody is saying that teachers would not “choose” to be teachers absent the government socializing education. The main difference would be that teachers would be funded voluntarily by people who chose them to educate their children. This seems far more sensible than saying we need people to be coerced and steal their money even if they don’t utilize public education. I don’t know where you get the idea they would not have jobs elsewhere. Without the state involved in education, there would be many people who would seek alternative means such as private schools, tutors, home schooling, etc. There would be a great incentive for private enterprise to get involved in education.
How do you define “cheap”? All value is subjective, perhaps your publicly funded education wasn’t so cheap for all the people who had their money stolen from them to pay for it. Maybe those people would have used that money to put food on the table for their families, pay for their child’s operation, or put it into a trust for their children. Perhaps you feel it is OK for A to steal from B to give to C, even though it is not in B’s interest.
Education is not cheap today by comparison with earlier times when the government was not involved. A person could work over the summer at a regular, low paying job and afford the following year of college tuition at a decent school. Show me one person today who pays for their tuition working at some low paying job. The government creating an excess demand for something does not make it cheaper; I hate to break the news to you. This goes for anything, not just education. Resources are scarce and hence private enterprise has to make the best use of the limited resources to keep costs low, so they can compete with others. This is competition, and competition is what creates efficiency. Obviously an efficient firm is able to offer goods/services at the lowest possible price. The government’s resources are not based upon how well they utilize what is scarce, but rather how much they steal from people directly (taxation) or indirectly (borrowing, inflation). If you can explain to me how obtaining and preserving otherwise scarce resources because you can steal them will give you incentive to be efficient, then you can claim that somehow public education or anything public has a lower cost than what is private - however, this is obviously laughable and why you sound ridiculous.
How can anybody be wrong when they say people might have something better to do with their time than go to school? Value is subjective - do you have some kind of measurement, a yard stick of values that human beings all use to measure their own personal values? Is there a measurement of value like centimeters or inches? You can NOT know, none of us can know, what somebody else would deem to be the best use of their time. Only the individual knows what they believe is best for them, and they demonstrate this by acting and preferring one thing to another. Your autocratic mindset is simply ludicrous. On a final note, you don’t even know what a broken window fallacy is.
In liberty,
Chris