Total Posts:126|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Market School Is Better

personofsecrets
Posts: 75
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:46:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have yet to find an argument backed up be any credible sources explaining how public education serves the greater good and benefits society. I say follow the non-aggression principle (no forced taxes and no obligatory attendance for schools) until a good argument comes up stating the clear benefits of public school that are logically mapped.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:48:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So what happens when parents force their kids into schools that teach jihadi tactics and about how America is the Great Satan? Is that "free market" and "non-aggressive" enough for you?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:52:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:48:57 AM, Volkov wrote:
So what happens when parents force their kids into schools that teach jihadi tactics and about how America is the Great Satan? Is that "free market" and "non-aggressive" enough for you?

no obligatory attendance for schools

Wat.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:54:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
From my Micro-Econ AP book:

Education makes Chris a better worker, voter, parent and citizen. Because the benefits from education go beyond those that Chris enjoys himself, education provides externalities and should be subsidized.

The spillover effects described here are one type of externality. When externalities are positive, subsidies are required to bring the marginal benefit to the creator(s) of the externalities up to the social benefit. Otherwise, these goods and services will be underconsumed.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:56:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wouldn't school just turn into a really long commercial? I'm having trouble imagining what exactly it would be like with all education run by corporations.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:58:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:56:19 AM, Harlan wrote:
Wouldn't school just turn into a really long commercial? I'm having trouble imagining what exactly it would be like with all education run by corporations.

There are private schools that exist now, fyi.

And none of them are run by corporations.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 11:58:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:52:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
no obligatory attendance for schools

Wat.

Oh, how could I be so silly, because it so isn't easy to force kids to do things that they may not realize is bad. Actually, every child is a super-rational God-child that can make proper decisions by themselves and not be influenced by things you'd train your dog with!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:00:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:58:19 AM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 11:56:19 AM, Harlan wrote:
Wouldn't school just turn into a really long commercial? I'm having trouble imagining what exactly it would be like with all education run by corporations.

There are private schools that exist now, fyi.

And none of them are run by corporations.

I wouldn't say "none of them" but very few of them are, since that lowers their appeal to potential parents of students.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:03:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:00:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
I wouldn't say "none of them" but very few of them are, since that lowers their appeal to potential parents of students.

Which ones are run by corporations? Enlighten me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:03:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:58:55 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/15/2010 11:52:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
no obligatory attendance for schools

Wat.

Oh, how could I be so silly, because it so isn't easy to force kids to do things that they may not realize is bad.
The point is that he's proposing to ban such force, not that it isn't fairly easy to do at the moment (What does whether they realize it is bad have to do with it? If they don't realize it's bad why would you NEED to force them anyway?)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:05:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 11:56:19 AM, Harlan wrote:
Wouldn't school just turn into a really long commercial?
Would you pay to put your child through a bunch of commercials? Probably not.

And there are already private schools. I've visited two, and they have fewer company advertisements than my public school.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:06:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you do away with public schools, you do away with the somewhat equal platform upon which we raise ourselves up for our lives.

Rich parents should of course have the right to buy a better education for their children, because rich parents should have the right to spend their money however they want to. But doing away with public education would mean deepening the divide between the rich and the poor. Are you seriously ready to not even give the chance of success to a child simply because she was born in a poorer family?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:03:12 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:00:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
I wouldn't say "none of them" but very few of them are, since that lowers their appeal to potential parents of students.

Which ones are run by corporations? Enlighten me.

http://www.wmich.edu...

And here is a list of "corporate members" in the Arizona Charter School Association.
http://www.azcharters.org...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:10:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:03:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The point is that he's proposing to ban such force, not that it isn't fairly easy to do at the moment

How could he ban such force? That'd require quite a lot of government intervention. Especially if the school the child is sent to says it wants compulsory attendance. What do you do then?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:11:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:06:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
. Are you seriously ready to not even give the chance of success to a child
Give? No.

But if I have money to invest, sounds to me like we could work out a deal-- kid needs money no to go to school, I need more money later.

Oh and they probably won't need to take the same course 9 times this way, so they'll probably end up paying less than they would end up paying in taxes :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:12:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:10:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:03:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The point is that he's proposing to ban such force, not that it isn't fairly easy to do at the moment

How could he ban such force? That'd require quite a lot of government intervention. Especially if the school the child is sent to says it wants compulsory attendance. What do you do then?

The same thing the government does when a plantation says it wants compulsory attendance?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:15:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:11:11 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:09:54 PM, OreEle wrote:
http://www.wmich.edu...


And here is a list of "corporate members" in the Arizona Charter School Association.
http://www.azcharters.org...

So many.

...not.

That's why I originally said "I wouldn't say "none of them" but very few of them are, since that lowers their appeal to potential parents of students."

You were the one that said there were none and I proved you wrong. I tried to be nice and simply correct you, but you challenged and said "show me" so I did.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:15:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:12:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The same thing the government does when a plantation says it wants compulsory attendance?

I predicted that response from you - but I'm more interested in hearing the OP's. I expect a Reasoning/Rezz-type answer. Any bets?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:16:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:10:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:03:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The point is that he's proposing to ban such force, not that it isn't fairly easy to do at the moment

How could he ban such force? That'd require quite a lot of government intervention. Especially if the school the child is sent to says it wants compulsory attendance. What do you do then?

Typically, if police see a kid walking around during school hours, they will ask them why they aren't in school. If the child simply stays home, they are usually not caught.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:16:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:06:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
But doing away with public education would mean deepening the divide between the rich and the poor.

False. The poor already pay for public education through their property taxes. It isn't free by any means. Poor children are also more likely to drop out of high school than others, and once you remember that most education has little effect on job competence, there isn't really any significant benefit anyways.

Long before public school, in the 1700s, poor children could enter job training directly through internship-like programs (called an apprenticeship) and become part of the middle class. Job training, not education, is how people rise out of poverty.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:18:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:15:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
That's why I originally said "I wouldn't say "none of them" but very few of them are, since that lowers their appeal to potential parents of students."

You were the one that said there were none and I proved you wrong. I tried to be nice and simply correct you, but you challenged and said "show me" so I did.

LMAO. It's called an exaggeration, or perhaps sarcasm. Have you heard of it? Apparently not. You just proved absolutely nothing. My point was that corporations have realistically, no sway over education. Thanks for proving my point.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:22:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:15:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:12:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The same thing the government does when a plantation says it wants compulsory attendance?

I predicted that response from you - but I'm more interested in hearing the OP's. I expect a Reasoning/Rezz-type answer. Any bets?

You're the complex social animal, and I don't see a simple predictor, so I'll pass.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:24:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:16:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
False. The poor already pay for public education through their property taxes. It isn't free by any means.

The poor get much more in back from taxes than what they actually pay. They pay a very small percentage of their taxes on education.

Poor children are also more likely to drop out of high school than others, and once you remember that most education has little effect on job competence, there isn't really any significant benefit anyways.

Lol. Education has a very strong effect on job competence, I don't know what you're talking about.

Long before public school, in the 1700s, poor children could enter job training directly through internship-like programs (called an apprenticeship) and become part of the middle class. Job training, not education, is how people rise out of poverty.

The economy has drastically changed since the 1700s, in case you haven't heard. Everyone was employed, there was no unemployment. There was no unemployment because everyone had to produce something to live. The same isn't true for today. There is a much higher standard of living and people only have to work 40 hours a week, unlike the dreary existences and 24/7 work-weeks of the 1700s.
ilovgoogle
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:33:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What's wrong with schools run by corporations? Corporations are one of best things that come out of capitalism. I've done quite a bit of research on school vouchers so I'd say that's what we need to look toward when viewing reform.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:35:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:18:30 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:15:17 PM, OreEle wrote:
That's why I originally said "I wouldn't say "none of them" but very few of them are, since that lowers their appeal to potential parents of students."

You were the one that said there were none and I proved you wrong. I tried to be nice and simply correct you, but you challenged and said "show me" so I did.

LMAO. It's called an exaggeration, or perhaps sarcasm. Have you heard of it? Apparently not. You just proved absolutely nothing. My point was that corporations have realistically, no sway over education. Thanks for proving my point.

such blind loyalty and back tracking is fun to watch. You could have passed it for hyperbole if you claimed it was an exaggeration when I first said "I wouldn't say none of them..." but instead you said prove it. No one shouts "prove it" when they know they are exaggerating or being sarcastic to begin with.

http://www.publiccharters.org...

More then 1.5 million students attend charter schools (which are public schools that are free from many of the public regulations, and often have corporate sponsors). What determines "realistically" is highly subjective and so it is poor word choice.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:39:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:16:38 PM, OreEle wrote:
Typically, if police see a kid walking around during school hours, they will ask them why they aren't in school. If the child simply stays home, they are usually not caught.

Usually when a kid skips school, they don't skip school to stay at home.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:42:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:24:50 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/15/2010 12:16:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
False. The poor already pay for public education through their property taxes. It isn't free by any means.

The poor get much more in back from taxes than what they actually pay. They pay a very small percentage of their taxes on education.

The point is that they are still paying for education. A twenty percent property tax on $100,000 property is $20,000. Half of state money comes from these property taxes (http://www.texasbudgetsource.com...). Texas spends $50 billion on public education (http://www.texasbudgetsource.com...) out of a total budget of about $80 billion (http://www.statesman.com...). So, without public education, the state would only need $30 billion and only half of that would come from taxes (this is generous given that fines, etc, will not decrease; taxes will), so overall tax rates would decrease from 20% to about 5%. Someone with $100,000 property would save $15,000 dollars in the loss of the public education system and would be able to afford to send their children to the school of their choosing.

If you've ever read about the school voucher proposals, this is why they work.

Poor children are also more likely to drop out of high school than others, and once you remember that most education has little effect on job competence, there isn't really any significant benefit anyways.

Lol. Education has a very strong effect on job competence, I don't know what you're talking about.

Funny, I always here from my parents how little they remember from school because they "never use it".

Long before public school, in the 1700s, poor children could enter job training directly through internship-like programs (called an apprenticeship) and become part of the middle class. Job training, not education, is how people rise out of poverty.

The economy has drastically changed since the 1700s, in case you haven't heard.
ad Hominem
Everyone was employed, there was no unemployment. There was no unemployment because everyone had to produce something to live. The same isn't true for today. There is a much higher standard of living and people only have to work 40 hours a week, unlike the dreary existences and 24/7 work-weeks of the 1700s.

I don't see what your point is. None of this refutes that it is possible for children to get job training through internships (which are plenty more efficient) instead of schooling.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2010 12:44:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/15/2010 12:33:02 PM, ilovgoogle wrote:
What's wrong with schools run by corporations? Corporations are one of best things that come out of capitalism. I've done quite a bit of research on school vouchers so I'd say that's what we need to look toward when viewing reform.

facepalm:

private schools =/= schools run by corporations (though there are some that are).

corporations as a rule of thumb do stuff that benefit them (which is to be expected), when they do education, they tend to focus on the things that will benefit them and not on things that won't, which means some material will be left out or cut short, which is ultimately bad.

private schools, on the other hand, which aren't run by corporations (or aren't in bed with them for money) only have the goal of producing the best students possible for high end jobs and high end universities (since parents aren't gonna pay for their child to get a low paying job or to only go to a low rate college).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"