if we feel that the taxpayer should still be (wrongly) forced to pay for education. Oh, come off it. Have you forgotten the 'no free lunches' dictum? If education was privatised, the 'taxpayer' - i.e. the citizen - would pay through the nose for it directly. And the people who can't afford education - what are they supposed to do? This is, in any event, groundhog day; I asked you, or one of your ideological soulmates, for an example of a country that has mass, compulsory education provided by the private sector. I'm still waiting..... Shuggy | Email | Homepage | 10.27.05 - 9:30 am | #I'm replying in this new posting because a few days have passed since the 27th.
First, I haven't forgotten the "no free lunches" dictum. All it says is this:
Simply put, it means that one cannot get something for nothing. Even if something appears to be free, there is always a catch.I'm not arguing that education could somehow be "free" but that it shouldn't be financed through taxation - that's to say by coercion. The only citizens who should pay for education are those who choose so to do. One would expect parents to pay for most pre-university education but anyone is free to contribute voluntarily to educational charities just as has happened throughout history.
Why should people need to pay "through the nose" for private education? Already, state education costs just about the same as the fees charged by some private schools. If private schools had the whole market to themselves, costs and fees would fall considerably and all kinds of innovative alternatives would come into existence.
I really don't believe that many parents couldn't afford to pay for private education in a mass market. Naturally we'd have to end the welfare mentality that's so blighted Shuggy's own city of Glasgow - a place of which I am very fond. In a book that I've just finished Michael Barone writes about the welfare reforms pioneered in Wisconsin:
When Thompson left the governorship to become secretary of Health and Human Services in 2001, the welfare rolls in Wisconsin had been reduced by more than 90 percent.Where had they all gone?
In Fond du Lac County, I saw women walk out the door when the five-year-limit was explained to them: better not to use up the benefits now, but to save them up for when they might really be needed, and go out and get a job.Shuggy asked "you, or one of your ideological soulmates, for an example of a country that has mass, compulsory education provided by the private sector." I probably can't. But if you want an example of mass, non-compulsory education provided by the private sector, why not have a look at this:
According to a government survey 95% of children in 1860 had between five and seven years education.The government in question was British.
95% seems pretty a reasonable achievement for the private sector in 1860. Finally, why on earth would my ideological soulmates or I favour compulsion?