Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Argument FOR universal education.

HandsOff
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2008 9:37:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A liberal friend of mine gave a very convincing argument in favor of Univeral Education (up to a 4-year college degree). He said education is the great equalizer, and is that factor that most determines one's ability to succeed financially. Hence, he claimed universal education would be the best way to even the playing field and give no one an unfair advantage over the other.

My realization was that UE would likely put an end to the liberal arguments in favor of welfare for "unfortunate and disadvantaged" recipients. With UE available to everyone, there would be no more excuses. Able-bodied and able-minded individuals on welfare for extended periods of time would have absolutely no excuse, and recieve little or no sympathy. Even a liberal would have to agree that with UE in place, each person is completely responsible for his lot in life.

Someone please straighten me out on this. Am I giving liberals more credit than they deserve? Will they just come up with new excuses for those who choose to mooch off the rest of us?
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2008 9:45:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2008 9:37:41 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Someone please straighten me out on this. Am I giving liberals more credit than they deserve? Will they just come up with new excuses for those who choose to mooch off the rest of us?
They could always use the argument they usually use, the one I find most convincing - that the economy is biased towards those who already have money. I'm sure you know - money makes money. Someone who is born poor HAS to work for his money, someone who is born rich can simply use that money to make more money. Unless we're ready to equalize that, which would be ridiculous, that issue will still remain.

Also, I'm sure you know this as well - society needs people working low-end jobs as well as high-end jobs. If schooling was equalized to 4 years of college, 4 years of college is no longer enough to get hired to a good job. The standards would simply be raised, with high-end jobs expecting more than 4 years of college. We don't really need to have people spending ridiculous amounts of time in college, especially people who will end up doing grunt work. It's a waste of their time, and it's a waste of productivity for society.
HandsOff
Posts: 501
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2008 9:52:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Money makes money" is probably a better argument for why people get rich. I'm talking about getting a decent job, and staying off welfare.

As for the rest of your argument, it sounds like you think everyone will take advantage of a free eduation and there will be no one left to do the grunt work. I think you are overestimating people's drive here. I did not UE would eliminate low end jobs, just that those who worked them would have no one to blame but themselves.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2008 10:09:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/15/2008 9:52:38 PM, HandsOff wrote:
"Money makes money" is probably a better argument for why people get rich. I'm talking about getting a decent job, and staying off welfare.
Yes, but one of the main reasons libs want to assist the poor [through progressive taxation and government programs paid for by progressive taxation] is because the system is skewed against those without money. People with money can be unproductive and still make a fortune. Thus, we skew it back the other way.

As for the rest of your argument, it sounds like you think everyone will take advantage of a free eduation and there will be no one left to do the grunt work. I think you are overestimating people's drive here. I did not UE would eliminate low end jobs, just that those who worked them would have no one to blame but themselves.
Oh, no, there will be people left to do grunt work. They'll be the people who were unsuccessful in the free education and couldn't get a decent job because of it. And they'll be entering the workforce full-time 4 years late.
Also, most skilled laborers get on-the-job training as it is, which is the most productive way to do things. And consider unskilled laborers, people who do mundane tasks any child could do? They still get a 4-year education, and for naught.
And like I said, there has to be something to set the elite above the rest. Right now, since schooling through 12th grade is free, that's not enough to be competitive in the job market. Employers want people with 4 years of college. This is because 4 years of college means that an employee is of a certain caliber. With free, universal schooling, it means nothing. A new tier of private schools would come into existence, and people would have to spend even MORE time in school.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2008 10:20:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, so much for being absolutely consistent, eh HandsOff? I thought you were against welfare. Universal education is a certain brand of welfare. Taxpayers pay money, everyone gets free education no matter how much money they pay in taxes.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2008 9:22:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hello! This is Debate.org's resident socialist here! I hope I can help you with this one...

The privileged classes pay lots of money to send their children to private schools in order to give them all the advantages in life that are not open to the children from less affluent families.

True, this does not preclude the possibility that a kid that went to a failing school on a project (council estate) couldn't end up being a highly successful lawyer, doctor, financier or whatever. Neither does it follow that the son of a hugely wealthy oil tycoon couldn't end up flipping burgers at a truck stop.

But we all know that 99 times out of 100, the posh kids prosper while the poor kids are left behind. That is neither fair nor good for society.

No liberal advocates welfare for the workshy, everybody that is able to make an economic contribution to society should do so and state benefits should be reserved for the genuinely needy, not squandered on grasping layabouts.

Hope this helps!

Regards,

Brian.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2008 1:03:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/16/2008 9:22:08 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Hello! This is Debate.org's resident socialist here! I hope I can help you with this one...

The privileged classes pay lots of money to send their children to private schools in order to give them all the advantages in life that are not open to the children from less affluent families.

True, this does not preclude the possibility that a kid that went to a failing school on a project (council estate) couldn't end up being a highly successful lawyer, doctor, financier or whatever. Neither does it follow that the son of a hugely wealthy oil tycoon couldn't end up flipping burgers at a truck stop.

But we all know that 99 times out of 100, the posh kids prosper while the poor kids are left behind. That is neither fair nor good for society.

No liberal advocates welfare for the workshy, everybody that is able to make an economic contribution to society should do so and state benefits should be reserved for the genuinely needy, not squandered on grasping layabouts.

Hope this helps!

Regards,

Brian.

True, Libertarian's are basically on the ideology of 'Survival of the fittest' whereas Socialists are more along the lines of 'Equality for all, except the Bourgeois *bang*'.
Conservatives simply say 'Hail the book people, but interpret it into the death penalty, oil wars, gun rights, and big business tax breaks, that's what Jesus said right hehe' [Brian comes along] *bang*
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2008 1:20:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No liberal advocates welfare for the workshy,

Then why did liberals manage to get it for 50+ years in the United States? lol.

But we all know that 99 times out of 100, the posh kids prosper while the poor kids are left behind.

http://blogs.wsj.com...

Sorry, empirical numbers are better than ones pulled from the rectum.

In any case, universal education is just as much theft as regular welfare, so no reason to favor one over the other aside from which would be easier to get rid of, which is obviously regular welfare :D.

Keep in mind, without public schools (which, in fact, do fail the poor and help the rich, because the rich have political pool), there would be a market for private schools to find talent and invest in it (in the form of purchasing small shares in future earnings). This would provide an incentive to schools to actually make it easier for their poor students to earn money in the future.

Inherited money may be a minor boost to those who would be rich without it anyway-- but it is destructive to those who could not have earned it, removes whatever meager motivation they might have had for improvement. Spreading it around just makes matters worse.

Of course, there are presumably free market solutions for reducing inheritance further. One way, a way that might be adopted in Ragnar Land, would be to have bequeathment of estates to be an option to pay the law enforcement user fee, or a large part of it. This would provide a motive for high quality protection, so that the person manages to make even more money, and it would keep that money in productive hands as long as possible (i.e., until they die :D). Of course, depending on expenses, it might make sense to make it half or so of the estate, or some such... perhaps schools would also choose this as their method of investment in lifetime earnings, it all depends on how much revenue is needed from it. And people would be unlikely to sign on to such a program unless 5 or 10 percent would still be around for heirlooms or charity or whatnot.

Would be a question of options, there would be a living payment plan too, for those few who would rather do it that way.

One things for sure, no one will pay this way for health insurance :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: 19,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2008 1:21:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
er, political pull, not pool lol
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: 19,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2008 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lol, the employees, including police, would be salaried most likely, like most other major corporations are operated :D
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.