HOME | DD
Valendale β Education in The Free Market
Published: 2014-02-08 10:23:54 +0000 UTC; Views: 2333; Favourites: 24; Downloads: 5
Redirect to original
Description
Education in The Free MarketRelated content
Comments: 36
that really hurts
www.raptoredu.com/blog.html
π: 0 β©: 0
As oppose to what we have now in which the government-run schools teach you how to repeat selective info and selective narrative and teach you to become an obedient serf who is smart enough to run the machines and dumb enough to believe this makes you smarter and wiser than everyone else.
I would take my chances with a "free market" education.
π: 1 β©: 1
All political topics seem to ruin everyone's logic, including my own of course. It's easier to see fallacies in other's logic by nature which is why we need each other's opinions to keep each other honest. In your first paragraph you criticized government-run schools. Let's pause there. I went to several public schools as a kid and I don't believe my teachers were sent in from Washington or something. So what I understand is that you don't agree with the objectives/methodology that public schools are currently using to "educate". I have to say I agree with you, but as I get older I also disagree. When you say that government-run schools teach you how to repeat selective info and selective narrative... well I believe this is a building block for learning. It's true that people should think for themselves, but they should also be able to understand the predominant viewpoints that make up our society. Also, everyone believes that they are smarter and wiser than everyone else by nature I think, including you and me.
Now the real issue with your comment: your criticism I can understand, even if I don't agree with it wholeheartedly... but then your conclusion doesn't seem to fix the problem. You would take your chances with a "free market" education. Don't understand why free market is under " ", and I don't understand why you would take your chances with it. I've never gone to a private school though, so maybe in private schools they don't test you on selected information and they don't award students for doing what they're told? So I just don't understand how a private education would be different.
I'm almost 100% sure I have fallacies within my argument, as that is the nature of the mind. I want you to keep in mind that I haven't committed myself within this comment nor within my own life to any particular system. I consider myself conservative by nature, although more accurately I consider myself an ecclectic because I don't really understand why I would reject ideas from the "other side" of the ideological spectrum just because those ideas come from the "other side".
π: 0 β©: 0
so what is the technocratic alternative to free market education?
π: 1 β©: 1
Free public education for all.
π: 0 β©: 1
well we the pg want a free private education for all and we can achieve this by abolishing the state
π: 0 β©: 1
If it's private then people can be denied access to it and discriminated against, and by what mechanism are you going to assure that everyone has access to free education? In TS everyone would have access to a free education as a right of access, provided via institutional systems governed by teachers and professors. Since there would be no monetary cost for any operations associated with the process, there would be no need to raise money through taxation to pay for it.
π: 0 β©: 0
well we the privadoygenteists also advocate a free market education. but it will be a little different for example, charity education will exist. in other words schools that were funded with donations and that teach people for free will exist.
so you will see charity schools competing against the free market schools, so that way children and students will have lots of options in education,
and we don't think poor people will exist because in our privadoygenteist society the people will print their own money and all coins wil have the same value. so people will have enough money to pay for a free market education. and as I said before, charity schools will also exist,
π: 0 β©: 1
Charity is always inadequate and can never be relied on as a basis for people's access to life's essentials, among which education is counted for obvious reasons.
"people will print their own money and all coins wil have the same value"
That doesn't even make sense. For one why would all coins have the same value? That's insane and there's no reason to think they would.
Also if everyone printed their own money that would either lead to money being rejected or runaway inflation, or both, and besides that money doesn't produce things, labor produces things.
π: 0 β©: 1
Β we privadoygenteists use the word charity to describe private organizations that will provide services and products to the people for free.
education is a service so the charity sector will create schools were people can learn for free. the people will have the choice between charity schools and the schools of the free market.
we believe that all actions are done best if they are voluntary
so from that logic we have come to the conclusion that if you had access to money(in this case private printed money) you can start your own private brand and start giving services and products to people in your city(that is how money produces things). people will not work for the pay since everyone is allowed to print their own money people will work because they want to cooperate with their society. also as I said before there will be some private organizations (we call them charity) that will give services and products to the people for free(similar to a gift economy)
so to conclude in a privadoygenteist system we will have a free market economy where people print their own money and they do voluntary work. and also a gift economy where people will get stuff for free provided by private organizations(the so called charity)
I hope I didn't bored you since this is the first time someone asks a question about our ideology.
we are a brand new ideology, we bareley started writing in 2013
and we are mainly in the border between mexico and the usa
I hope you understood what I wrote since English is not my first language
π: 1 β©: 0
really is nepotism vs sacrifice. the son of the rich will have a guaranteed place even was a retard ( bush jr )
π: 0 β©: 0
You appear to have mis-captioned this picture. The correct caption should read "Government Education." Public schools in rich neighborhoods regularly outperform public schools in poor neighborhoods.
Where's your egalitarianism now?
This is just a taste of free market education: mises.org/daily/3250
π: 0 β©: 0
Your going to have to be more specific.
π: 0 β©: 1
How things actually work in the real world. The self evident and obvious fact that charging money for education disadvantages the poor.
If you're being contrary on this issue you are clearly just taking the piss.
π: 0 β©: 1
Public Schools are free yet they regularly under preform when compared to their privately run counterparts. The simple truth in life is if you want quality you have to pay for it. Otherwise take the cheaper and get the lesser result. In either case you get what you pay for.
π: 0 β©: 1
Private schools regularly perform even worse, acting as diploma mills. And public school where? In the United States, of course, the public school system needs extensive reform and could do much better, but private school is no solution. When education is left up to the market, the poor are deprived of education and must carry disproportionate burden in order to acquire one.
And you know this, you're simply taking the piss.
π: 0 β©: 1
But Charter Schools which are privately run schools are the highest performing schools in both the US and Canada.
π: 0 β©: 1
Prove it.
And even if what you're saying were true, making students or their parents pay for education disadvantages the poor. Do you want a society in which the poor are deprived of an education?
π: 0 β©: 3
in a privadoygenteist system the people will print their own money. so they will have enough money to pay for their education. we do not need government run schools which by the way are very low quality brainwashing centers.
π: 0 β©: 1
"people will print their own money."
That's idiotic, money would be worthless.
Also what are people without the means to print supposed to do? What guarantee does your system make that everyone shall have access to the means to print their own counterfeit currency in unlimited supply, and why would any store owner or service provider take it when they could just print their own?
You don't understand anything about how value in the price system operates if you think that could ever work.
π: 0 β©: 2
people will have their own currency creation machines in fact that technology already exists
if they print their own money people will have enough money to pay for their sevices in a free market
that way poor people wont exist the only way for a free market to work is to allow people to print their own money so the gap between the rich and poor wont exist or it will be very small
π: 0 β©: 1
"people will have their own currency creation machines"
And how will this be guaranteed to everyone, and by what mechanism would hyperinflation be avoided?
"if they print their own money people will have enough money to pay for their sevices in a free market"
So everyone is just going to have a printing press, an unlimited supply of electricity, and an unlimited supply of printer ink and paper handed to them by the free market, and they'll print as much monopoly money as their hearts could ever desire, and the prices of things will never adjust and retailers will never refuse their monopoly money? Is that what you're saying?
π: 0 β©: 0
so if you think getting stuff with private money is idiotic how idiotic is getting stuff without working like in a ts society.
π: 0 β©: 1
"if you think getting stuff with private money is idiotic"
If everyone were printing their own money then money would become worthless, there would be no reason for anyone to ever trade anything for it because they could just print as much as they wanted at home. You really haven't thought this through have you?
"getting stuff without working like in a ts society"
Think about why people want money in the first place. People want money in order to access things that they aren't allowed to have without money. People aren't even allowed to have food if they can't pay for it. The price system assures that goods and services are only provided if it is profitable. It's already been explained to you how TS would work as an alternative, and it's been explained to you why what you propose can't work.
π: 0 β©: 0
the government should not even exist.
and people should not be forced to pay for stuff they don't get
for example it is unfair that couples that had no children pay forΒ the creation of public schools
I live in the Mexican-American border and in mexico when the socilalist raise the taxes that money that gets collected
usually ends up in the socilialist politicians bank account. in mexico those progressive politicians have mansions and some of them even
owned helicopters. so tell me how is that not a robbery by the left wingers?
π: 0 β©: 1
Taxing and spending isn't socialism, socialism is an economic system characterized by public control over the means of production for the public benefit, for example in a worker cooperative the workers collectively control the workplace to benefit the workers instead of having a private capitalist boss.
Using taxes to pay for public schools is like using taxes to pay for public roads, charity is incapable of providing adequate education to the masses, having education be based on income is social darwinism and deprives the poor of education (which also perpetuates poverty), and the argument could be raised that a childless couple depends on an educated society in order to live in civilization.
However the point could also be raised that the idea of taxing people to pay for things only makes sense in a society driven by the price system and markets, that there is no real financial cost of providing people with education other than what is artificially imposed by the constraints of a capitalist society, and that in a society driven by alternatives to capitalism and the market taxation may be entirely unnecessary.
π: 0 β©: 2
taxes are theft and people can get educated in a free market in fact you canΒ get a free private education not statist monopolisticΒ education that we have today.Β if you want an idiotic society monopolize their education.
π: 0 β©: 1
"taxes are theft"
No more than rent is theft. Any argument you make for why rent is voluntary can be turned around on taxes.
"people can get educated in a free market"
Leaving education up to the market is to apply social darwinism to education.
"you canΒ get a free private education"
There is no guarantee in a free market that everyone will have access to an adequate free education.
"if you want an idiotic society monopolize their education."
I never called for education to be monopolized, I only say that the child of a rich parent is not more deserving of an education than the child of a poor parent, leaving education up to the market is social darwinism and it's monstrous.
π: 0 β©: 0
so why is it that the political parties that raise taxes call themselves socialists?
π: 0 β©: 1
"so why is it that the political parties that raise taxes call themselves socialists?"
First of all they operate in capitalist countries which require taxation as a means of providing services.
Secondly there are many political parties with no affiliation to socialism, some in fact hostile against socialism, that raise taxes.
Thirdly, taxation is part and parcel of Keynesian Capitalism, capitalism collapses into severe economic recessions and eventually depressions if the rich aren't paying taxes, the means to operate in the economy become too heavily centralized and hoarded by wealthy capitalists and consumer capacity is exhausted otherwise.
Fourthly, the political parties that are against taxation are typically owned and work for wealthy capitalists, and will at least pretend to hold whatever positions their rich financiers want them to hold.
Finally just because a party calls itself socialist doesn't mean it's in any position to practice socialism, or even that it's honestly representing itself or well informed on what socialism is. The vast majority of western socialist parties are social democrat as some sort of compromise. Very few even advocate socialism in the workplace, they typically stick to trade unions and attempt to organize them or encourage them to consider forming co-operatives for example.
π: 0 β©: 0
I want a future were people are not robbed to pay for other people who for whatever reason could not do what most people have done and make a decent life for themselves. I want a future where a man's earnings are not stolen from him to pay off debts incurred by welfare programs. I want a future where kids get decent educations as opposed to our failing public school system.
π: 0 β©: 1
" people... robbed"
Taxes are no different from any other fee, you may complain that they are compulsory but so is paying rent if you live or work on the property of a landlord, the government is essentially a landlord agency that claims a vast territory and uses force to defend andΒ control it's property. It has every bit as much claim as you do, and I do not accept your notion of property to begin with. Further the only reason taxation is necessary to begin with is because the government operates within a market system, it doesn't actually cost money to educate people but teachers are required to collect money because otherwise they will be robbed of the right to live, deprivedΒ of everything needed to survive and ultimately die a poverty induced death.
π: 0 β©: 0
They are free to compite, that's all that matters Β
π: 0 β©: 0
So true.
For me, I have ADHD however my parents deny the evidence because of the cost of medication. However rich families can get ahead with tutors, private lessons, and influence.
So where does our education system leave us?
π: 0 β©: 0