Taxes for Education: Yea or Nay

[Madly_Sane]

I know many people on this forum (including me) wish to abolish public schools and privatize the whole institution.
I have seen a lot of people say they believe they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's child to go to school. I had a discussion with a previous teacher of mine a while back about this. If people still paid property taxes, but none of them went to education, there would be a chain of events that would still cause you to pay taxes, maybe even more than you originally would have had to pay.
Many highschool dropouts end up on the streets, homeless, or getting into trouble on a regular basis. What happens to most of the homeless? They get in trouble with the police, they go to jail/prison. Who pays for jails/prisons? Taxpayers.
If schools were not as good (for a lack of a better term) and were not able to educate, then many people would go without an education, end up homeless, have no job, etc. (Hypothetically) Most of those people would end up being in a lot of trouble with the police and end up in jail or prison. A surge of people going to jail just causes more of them to be built, i.e. higher tax rates.
Who didn't want to pay for someone else's education? Taxpayers
What happened to the people who didn't get an education? Went to Jail/Prison
Who pays for jails/prisons? Taxpayers
So, if you don't want to pay for someone now, expect to pay [more] for them later.
Thoughts? Please don't include anything about "If we privatized schools, we wouldn't have to deal with this."

[pcosmar]

NO

And the arguments in favor are bullshit.

Many High-school dropouts go on to be successful contributing members of society.
A great many educated people are criminal. ( Congress? Wall Street?)
And end up homeless. I have known college educated hobo's.

[Zippyjuan]

I see education as in investment in the future of the country- it needs a good education system for a prosperous future. There is room for (and we have) both private and public schooling. If all education is private you will exclude the right to an education from low income citizens since they will not be able to afford private schools. They will become less productive members of society if they do not have access to schooling.

[FrankRep]

If all education is private you will exclude the right to an education from low income citizens since they will not be able to afford private schools.

Karl Marx agrees with you. Education is a Right and should be Free!

:rolleyes:

[Paulfan05]

Im not so anti-public education, then again I went to one of the better public schools. I would be in favor of allowing kids to leave high school though, these days some kids don't want to be there and just make it crappy for everyone else.

[eqcitizen]

I disagree with the logic.
I have known many high-school dropouts and employ at least 3 of them (i am a cabinet maker). The point being advanced seems to me to be lacking in thought. There may be a correlation between those that dropped out and higher crime, but it could the opposite of the above. I mean that could it be perhaps those that would have been criminals or homeless anyway have dropped out. Maybe the schools are so intolerable that they mis-educate those who need it most and turn them off from living a normal law abiding life. Maybe those that drop out are lower on the IQ scale and therefore would be in the same position with or without school.
So the logic that we need to pay for public schools so that we do not have to maybe pay for the dropouts at some other time in the future seems to be a senseless argument. I would rather deal with certainty and maintain that i should not be forced to educate another person child against my wishes and to do so would be an injustice.

[Madly_Sane]

http://www.trevorscampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=5 (http://www.trevorscampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=5)

80% of homeless adults are school drop-outs

http://www.findyouthinfo.org/topic_transition_education.shtml (http://www.findyouthinfo.org/topic_transition_education.shtml)

In 2007, 16% of all young people aged 16 to 24 were high-school dropouts – approximately 6.2 million people (American Youth Policy Forum, 2009).

Between 20 and 25% of today's 14-year-olds will drop out of high school; approximately half will return to school and earn their diplomas or obtain GEDs by the time they reach age 25 (National League of Cities,2005).

3.4 million dropouts aged 16 to 24 in 2006 who had not reenrolled in school, only half were employed (U.S. Department of Labor, 2007).

Eighty percent of new jobs require at least some postsecondary education (National League of Cities, Institute for Youth, Education and Families).

I'll post more statistics, when I get back, have to go for a while.

[Pericles]

Nay - fee for service is ideal in this case. Education has to demonstrate the value received for money spent just as any other entity must.

Not every kid is a budding rocket scientist, and education appropriate to ambition is in the best interest all. Going back to school later in life should not be ruled out either.

[TonySutton]

If all education is private you will exclude the right to an education from low income citizens since they will not be able to afford private schools.

Currently many private religious schools work with parents to get children into those schools. There would be similar situations where industry would team with private schools to keep a good flow of workers. I would also expect to see charity organizations funding schools and/or providing tuition assistance for needy families.

and I agree with Pcosmar's comments.

[JamesButabi]

I see education as in investment in the future of the country- it needs a good education system for a prosperous future. There is room for (and we have) both private and public schooling. If all education is private you will exclude the right to an education from low income citizens since they will not be able to afford private schools. They will become less productive members of society if they do not have access to schooling.

I agree with all of your statements until you hit the bold. It seems to then develop into heresay. I have confidence if markets were allowed to function that education would be an abundant commodity. I think the real question is with the ruling of neglect on the parent. Is there a moral obligation for the parent to give the child access to a specific amount of education, and should societies force them to do so?

[oyarde]

Absolutely no fed taxes . Zero .

[Vessol]

Public schools are great for indoctrination, that's about it.

I never learned anything productive in primary or secondary school.

[fisharmor]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeegad.


I know many people on this forum (including me) wish to abolish public schools and privatize the whole institution.
I am generally not in favor of privatization.
Privatization likes to assume from the outset that there is one and only one way to do something, that that one way of doing it will survive (often despite evidence of its deserving quick dissolution), and that we are simply shifting the burden of maintenance to a fascist company.
In my ideal world the market drives educational needs, and the market has little need for school.


I have seen a lot of people say they believe they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's child to go to school.
I've been paying for other people's kids to be schooled for eight years, and as a result, I can't afford to pay someone to educate my children. The shame is that most people still think that schooling and education are in any way related. They aren't.


I had a discussion with a previous teacher of mine a while back about this. If people still paid property taxes, but none of them went to education, there would be a chain of events that would still cause you to pay taxes, maybe even more than you originally would have had to pay.
Many highschool dropouts end up on the streets, homeless, or getting into trouble on a regular basis. What happens to most of the homeless? They get in trouble with the police, they go to jail/prison. Who pays for jails/prisons? Taxpayers.
And who pays for the police to go looking for minor infractions to lock people up over?
Taxpayers.
And who pays for the court system to enforce those laws?
Taxpayers.
And who pays for the legislators who pass the laws?
Taxpayers.
And who doesn't see what's going on when those legislators actively kill businesses and job opportunities, which is the REAL cause of criminal behavior, and then try to cover it up with their myriad BS laws?

You're basically saying that since the taxpayers are being fleeced by other components of the system, we ought to support their being fleeced by another component of the system.
That's just bullshit.


If schools were not as good (for a lack of a better term) and were not able to educate, then many people would go without an education, end up homeless, have no job, etc. (Hypothetically) Most of those people would end up being in a lot of trouble with the police and end up in jail or prison. A surge of people going to jail just causes more of them to be built, i.e. higher tax rates.
Who didn't want to pay for someone else's education? Taxpayers

This whole paragraph again assumes that schooling is in any way related to education. Any human being with that attitude is doomed to failure. Education is an ongoing process, and anyone who expects forever to rest on the laurels of their achievement before the age of 22 actually deserves to be eating out of dumpsters and getting incarcerated for knocking over 7-11s.


What happened to the people who didn't get an education? Went to Jail/Prison
Who pays for jails/prisons? Taxpayers
So, if you don't want to pay for someone now, expect to pay [more] for them later.
Thoughts? Please don't include anything about "If we privatized schools, we wouldn't have to deal with this."

No, I'm actually looking at the problem, which is that our legislators have been chasing the no-brainer jobs out of this country with flamethrowers and ninja stars for over 30 years, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

I'm not old, and one of my grandfathers only completed the 8th grade. His wife only completed 6th. They raised four children. After he retired, his job begged him to come back at least part time because of the quality of work he was doing.

You ought not to be talking about school as if it's something other than the problem. You ought to be examining what it was about fairly illiterate, unschooled old men in the 1960's that made them better employees than the crap that is excreted out of our school system.

[Zippyjuan]

Just one chart for now: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/06/29/unemployed-this-might-explain-why.aspx

Category Unemployment Rate*

Age 45+, college graduate
4.3%

Ages 25-44, college graduate
4.3%

Age 45+, high school graduate
6.8%

Ages 15-24, college graduate
8.4%

Ages 25-44, high school graduate
9.3%

Age 45+, no high school degree
11.2%

Ages 15-24, high school graduate
14.7%

Ages 25-44, no high school degree
15.7%

Ages 15-24, no high school degree
26.6%


*12-month average ending Sep. '09.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, New York Times.

[Stary Hickory]

Absolutely not people are free to decide what is and what is not considered an education, it is not up to the government to decide what is defined as educational and what is not. We already know that the government thinks it's own propaganda is education and yet other subjects are poorly taught or not taught at all.

And also people who have no children should not be forced to pay for those that do.

[ClayTrainor]

This video sums up my thoughts on the subject, pretty well...

YouTube - Why More Atheists Than Anarchists? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5MEKNNgm3U)

[pcosmar]

I agree with all of your statements until you hit the bold. It seems to then develop into heresay. I have confidence if markets were allowed to function that education would be an abundant commodity. I think the real question is with the ruling of neglect on the parent. Is there a moral obligation for the parent to give the child access to a specific amount of education, and should societies force them to do so?

Can anyone tell me what college the Wright brothers went to?

And as I remember Bill Harley did not go to college till after he had built his first bike.

There are a great many notable entrepreneurs and inventors that had little formal education.

It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
;)

[Vessol]

@Zippyjuan

It has little to do with the education and more to do with the person receiving that education. College graduates have lower employment rates than those of high school dropouts because they have more drive.

I know a number of people who are high school drop outs. The good majority are lazy good for nothing parasites who have no desire to do anything but leech of the state and others. Note, I say most, I know one amazing girl whom dropped out due to personal reasons but is very smart and works very hard.

Is getting a college diploma tough? Well it's getting easier now, but it still takes determination and drive to take the time in obtaining that. If as a young teenage you can't put the effort into getting a useless high school "education", what effort are you going to put into the anything else?

[Slutter McGee]

I have no problem with state taxes and local taxes going to education in the current situation. I just want educational decisions to me made at the local level

Slutter McGee

[oyarde]

I have no problem with state taxes and local taxes going to education in the current situation. I just want educational decisions to me made at the local level

Slutter McGee

Yes.

[ChaosControl]

I support community funded education, yes.
I don't want any federal or state body involved though. The community can decide it'll fund it through a voluntary pool, or taxation, or however. But I do believe education access needs to be available to all, regardless of economic status. It is the single best investment a community can make. Of course we need to acknowledge that university education isn't the best kind of education for everyone, some people would be better being more educated in trades or arts.

I want a more educated and more cultural society.
I want a less criminal and less consumerist society.
If we focus more on education, of all types, we can increase the good and decrease the bad of modern society.

[moostraks]

Parents should be accountable for the financial burden of educating their children. Remove government and you will have more churches and charities step up to the plate for low income.Churches need something better to spend their money on than big screen televisions anyways... Parents who are home educated or private schooling are getting double billed for a service they are not using and people who don't have children paying for those who do is unjust. My two cents fwiw...

[charrob]

i agree with moonstraks. Why should my 84 year old father who is struggling on a fixed income have to pay for the guy down the road who has 6 or 7 kids?

Having children is a choice: you choose it, you pay for it.

As for crime: many of those in prison are there for minor drug offenses. Get rid of the 'war on drugs' and the size of the prisons will decrease dramatically.

Additionally, if you get rid of the income tax deductions for having children, that would go a long way to charging the costs of education to the people who are actually using those services.

[Son of Detroit]

I can go along with education completely controlled on the state and local level. On a federal level, absolutely not.

[Fredom101]

Nay, violence never solves problems in the long run and only creates problems. You can't get "education" from violence. :(

[Fredom101]

I support community funded education, yes.
I don't want any federal or state body involved though. The community can decide it'll fund it through a voluntary pool, or taxation, or however. But I do believe education access needs to be available to all, regardless of economic status. It is the single best investment a community can make. Of course we need to acknowledge that university education isn't the best kind of education for everyone, some people would be better being more educated in trades or arts.

I want a more educated and more cultural society.
I want a less criminal and less consumerist society.
If we focus more on education, of all types, we can increase the good and decrease the bad of modern society.

And you could have all of this if we had true freedom, no coercion backed by violence! :)

[ChaosControl]

And you could have all of this if we had true freedom, no coercion backed by violence! :)

Agreed. In a free society, a free market, it would exist.
In a state-controlled society, it will not exist.

[BuddyRey]

I bristle at the notion that attendance at school is what definitively marks a man or woman as having been "educated." All the institution of formal schooling does - all it was ever intended to do - is to promote laziness, procrastination, and perpetual disinterest in the pursuit of knowledge. If there are a few fortunate souls here and there who escape the soul-crushing Kinder-Gulags having actually learned something, that's purely coincidental.

[Acala]

The government's violent take over of education is probably the single worst thing that has ever happened to liberty in this country and maybe the world.

If I could write only one constitutional amendment it would be to keep government out of education at every level in every way.

[Sentient Void]

I have no problem with state taxes and local taxes going to education in the current situation. I just want educational decisions to me made at the local level

Slutter McGee

That's cool that you have no problem with it.

But are you going to hold a gun to my head to force me to pay into your local public school system as well, since I have a problem with it?

[ChaosControl]

I bristle at the notion that attendance at school is what definitively marks a man or woman as having been "educated." All the institution of formal schooling does - all it was ever intended to do - is to promote laziness, procrastination, and perpetual disinterest in the pursuit of knowledge. If there are a few fortunate souls here and there who escape the soul-crushing Kinder-Gulags having actually learned something, that's purely coincidental.

That is a good point. Of course we can have community funded education, which can mean charity funded, without having the traditional formalized "school".

Schools definitely cause a disinterest in learning for many. It wasn't really until I finished college that I actually became interested in learning things. Whether it be a scientific field, an art field, or a linguistic one. I've done all of those in formal school and had minimal interest, but outside of formal school and I find them all fascinating. Now this isn't true for all people, but I think it is for many. And formal school is certainly not the best educational standard for all people.

Education, an educated society, should be a goal. But that doesn't necessarily mean everyone goes to a school, or that schools even exist. Cheers.

[heavenlyboy34]

I see education as in investment in the future of the country- it needs a good education system for a prosperous future. There is room for (and we have) both private and public schooling. If all education is private you will exclude the right to an education from low income citizens since they will not be able to afford private schools. They will become less productive members of society if they do not have access to schooling.

I disagree with you.

http://johntaylorgatto.com/hp/frames.htm
Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn't go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren't looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated. We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of "success" as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, "schooling," but historically that isn't true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools? Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold: 1) To make good people. 2) To make good citizens. 3) To make each person his or her personal best. These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education's mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling's true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. ... Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim ... is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States... and that is its aim everywhere else.

[Humanae Libertas]

Not everyone should go to school and get an "education", that's why the value of education has gone down because too many people are going to school - look at the High School diploma, it is practically not worth anything today, but it was 40-50 years ago. Expect the same for a four-year Bachelor's degree in 15-20 years. More people are going to college getting useless degrees, which will drive the value of a 4-year degree way down. Pretty soon a Master's will be required for most high paying jobs. We can thank the government for that...


Just imagine if Harvard or MIT accepted anyone, you think they would be the schools they are today?

[tremendoustie]

I know many people on this forum (including me) wish to abolish public schools and privatize the whole institution.
I have seen a lot of people say they believe they shouldn't have to pay for someone else's child to go to school. I had a discussion with a previous teacher of mine a while back about this. If people still paid property taxes, but none of them went to education, there would be a chain of events that would still cause you to pay taxes, maybe even more than you originally would have had to pay.
Many highschool dropouts end up on the streets, homeless, or getting into trouble on a regular basis. What happens to most of the homeless? They get in trouble with the police, they go to jail/prison. Who pays for jails/prisons? Taxpayers.
If schools were not as good (for a lack of a better term) and were not able to educate, then many people would go without an education, end up homeless, have no job, etc. (Hypothetically) Most of those people would end up being in a lot of trouble with the police and end up in jail or prison. A surge of people going to jail just causes more of them to be built, i.e. higher tax rates.
Who didn't want to pay for someone else's education? Taxpayers
What happened to the people who didn't get an education? Went to Jail/Prison
Who pays for jails/prisons? Taxpayers
So, if you don't want to pay for someone now, expect to pay [more] for them later.
Thoughts? Please don't include anything about "If we privatized schools, we wouldn't have to deal with this."


Um, why would I want to pay upwards of 15K per student per year for a godawful education, when you could get a far better one in the free market for less than a third of that?

I'd happily donate to help highly motivated poor kids get a good education, but the last place I'd send them is government school.

[low preference guy]

Just imagine if Harvard or MIT accepted anyone, you think they would be the schools they are today?

Not really a good example. MIT sucks. Just look at the kind of people they produce: Krugman, Bernanke.

[low preference guy]

duplicate

[fisharmor]

Just one chart for now:

Thanks for demonstrating my point. Unemployment is high among high school dropouts precisely because there is no opportunity for them in this country.


Education, an educated society, should be a goal. But that doesn't necessarily mean everyone goes to a school, or that schools even exist. Cheers.

Agreed. I would follow up by asserting that education is never given.
Education is always taken.

I would also assert that the best incentive for taking an education is hopeless poverty.
Right now we subsidize uneducated poverty. We put people through the single process, and if they don't make it, then the safety net catches them.
Then we actively discourage any attempts they might make at improving their lot which do not involve more state-approved and controlled schooling.

Seems to me the entire problem is our attitude: we are out to give people something.
If we simply allowed them to take something, we'd be far better off.

[agitator]

That's cool that you have no problem with it.

But are you going to hold a gun to my head to force me to pay into your local public school system as well, since I have a problem with it?

Of course he is, just by proxy.

[Madly_Sane]

Again, I said, for now forget privatization, please.
Here are more statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States)


Lifetime self-reported alcohol, drug and mental health problems

62% Alcohol
58% Drugs
57% Mental health
27% Mental health and alcohol or drug (dual diagnosed)
Backgrounds.

23% are veterans (compared to 13% of general population).
25% were physically or sexually abused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse) as children.
27% were in foster care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care) or similar institutions as children.
21% were homeless at some point during their childhood.
54% were incarcerated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarcerate) at some point in their lives.
Education

38% have less than a High School diploma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_diploma).
34% have a High School diploma or equivalent (G.E.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.E.D.)).
28% have more than a High School education.
Employment

44% report having worked in the past week.
13% have regular jobs.
50% receive less than $300 per month as income.
70% work on street corners, pan-handling or prostituting themselves.
Sorry, I couldn't get these last night (yesterday), couldn't find time to get back on.

[tremendoustie]

Again, I said, for now forget privatization, please.


Well that's absurd. That's like asking what we should do to solve the fire in the living room, but asking people to ignore any solution involving an extinguishing agent.

Government's monopolization of education, which they pay for with extorted money (therefore eliminating all real accountability), IS the problem, and education's been getting worse and worse since they've gotten involved (especially at the federal level).

[orafi]

I agree with all of your statements until you hit the bold. It seems to then develop into heresay. I have confidence if markets were allowed to function that education would be an abundant commodity. I think the real question is with the ruling of neglect on the parent. Is there a moral obligation for the parent to give the child access to a specific amount of education, and should societies force them to do so?


Education is already an abundant commodity... Its called the internet :cool:

[Madly_Sane]

Getting rid of public schools will be a longer/harder process than just answering this simple question.

[tremendoustie]

Getting rid of public schools will be a longer/harder process than just answering this simple question.

Allowing freedom of choice in education will be an easier/shorter process than making government education effective or efficient.

[Acala]

Again, I said, for now forget privatization, please.
Here are more statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States)

[/LIST]Sorry, I couldn't get these last night (yesterday), couldn't find time to get back on.

If this is intended to prove that lack of education causes homelessness it fails. Far more likely that they failed to get a school education for the same reasons they cannot function in society.

Furthermore, those statistics come from a society where a school education is not only already funded by government force, but attendance is also at gunpoint. So if your point is that a mandatory, socialist school system will prevent homelessness, your argument fails again because you just proved that it doesn't.

[Slutter McGee]

That's cool that you have no problem with it.

But are you going to hold a gun to my head to force me to pay into your local public school system as well, since I have a problem with it?

I don't care if you have a problem with it. We can get into a debate about Federalism vs Libertarianism if you want. And why I might agree that ideally you are right, I also understand that the idea is not practical right now. No sense getting mad about it, especially if control is local, giving you a much bigger voice on how it is funded.

Frankly, if your taxes are to big because of all those people putting "guns" to your head as the overused and often innaccurate anology says, you have the choice to move somewhere where taxes are less. This is called Federalism.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Acala]

Getting rid of public schools will be a longer/harder process than just answering this simple question.

Why? Just start charging parents for public school on an increasing scale for five years at the end of which they pay the entire cost. Let it run that way for a couple more years and then shut them down. End of problem.

You need to get over the government-created myth that everyone needs a certain kind of education and that only government can provide it.

[tremendoustie]

Frankly, if your taxes are to big because of all those people putting "guns" to your head as the overused and often innaccurate anology says


It's exactly accurate. What do you imagine happens if you don't pay them? They ask nicely?



, you have the choice to move somewhere where taxes are less. This is called Federalism.


Sorry, they don't own me or my property, and have no right to force me to move in order to avoid paying their extortions.

Though you're correct that localized government, rather than central, is a significant improvement over what we have now, and allows for far more choice.

[Acala]

I don't care if you have a problem with it. We can get into a debate about Federalism vs Libertarianism if you want. And why I might agree that ideally you are right, I also understand that the idea is not practical right now. No sense getting mad about it, especially if control is local, giving you a much bigger voice on how it is funded.

Frankly, if your taxes are to big because of all those people putting "guns" to your head as the overused and often innaccurate anology says, you have the choice to move somewhere where taxes are less. This is called Federalism.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

This is called gangsterism. "If you don't want to pay protection money to the local thugs, you can just move. So quit complaining." Unfortunately, the earth is currently over-run with thugs.

[Madly_Sane]

Why? Just start charging parents for public school on an increasing scale for five years at the end of which they pay the entire cost. Let it run that way for a couple more years and then shut them down. End of problem.

You need to get over the government-created myth that everyone needs a certain kind of education and that only government can provide it.
If you could find where I said anything of the sort, please quote it. I don't remember ever saying that and I certainly don't believe it. If you look at the OP, you will see at the very top I said:

I know many people on this forum (including me) wish to abolish public schools and privatize the whole institution.

[Slutter McGee]

Why? Just start charging parents for public school on an increasing scale for five years at the end of which they pay the entire cost. Let it run that way for a couple more years and then shut them down. End of problem.

You need to get over the government-created myth that everyone needs a certain kind of education and that only government can provide it.

Of course privatization would be better in the long run. But public education is much like social security. We have created a society in which people rely on the service. And the idea that you could eliminate it in five years is ridiculous.

Choice and Competition. Increase these things in the public schools. Allow school vouchers. Eventually you can get on the road to such a thing.

But right now, public education is a legitimate function of local government. I can think of about a billion things more important to fight, specifically things that are violations of the function of government.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[tremendoustie]

If you could find where I said anything of the sort, please quote it. I don't remember ever saying that and I certainly don't believe it. If you look at the OP, you will see at the very top I said:

Fair enough ... but I don't understand the point of the question.

If you're looking for intermediate steps, short of abolishing government education, I think vouchers are a great idea -- you're still covering people's education, but they get a choice.

Getting the federal government out of schools would provide an improvement -- but ultimately, government education of any kind is not going to be nearly as effective as the alternatives.

[Slutter McGee]

This is called gangsterism. "If you don't want to pay protection money to the local thugs, you can just move. So quit complaining." Unfortunately, the earth is currently over-run with thugs.

Or you could stop bitching about not living in a perfect libertarian utopia.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Madly_Sane]

Why? Just start charging parents for public school on an increasing scale for five years at the end of which they pay the entire cost. Let it run that way for a couple more years and then shut them down. End of problem.

You need to get over the government-created myth that everyone needs a certain kind of education and that only government can provide it.
What about the 'poor' families, the ones who cannot afford to pay that? How will they pay for their childrens education? Are they going to teach their children? What if they don't have an education themselves?

[tremendoustie]

Of course privatization would be better in the long run. But public education is much like social security. We have created a society in which people rely on the service. And the idea that you could eliminate it in five years is ridiculous.


It could be done quickly -- five years might be a stretch. I'd give it 10 or 15.



Choice and Competition. Increase these things in the public schools. Allow school vouchers. Eventually you can get on the road to such a thing.


Yeah, I think vouchers are a great intermediate step -- assuming that doesn't open up private schools to a large amount of government regulation.



But right now, public education is a legitimate function of local government. I can think of about a billion things more important to fight, specifically things that are violations of the function of government.

I think this issue is extremely important. The education this generation receives shapes society for the future.

[Madly_Sane]

The point of the question was based on short term rather than long term. Forgive me, I should have included it. Slutter McGee has a good point:

Of course privatization would be better in the long run. But public education is much like social security. We have created a society in which people rely on the service. And the idea that you could eliminate it in five years is ridiculous.

Choice and Competition. Increase these things in the public schools. Allow school vouchers. Eventually you can get on the road to such a thing.

But right now, public education is a legitimate function of local government. I can think of about a billion things more important to fight, specifically things that are violations of the function of government.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[tremendoustie]

Or you could stop bitching about not living in a perfect libertarian utopia.


He's not bitching. He just pointed out that it's funded, and attendance is forced, by threat of aggressive violence, which is an accurate observation -- and germane to the topic.

[tremendoustie]

The point of the question was based on short term rather than long term. Forgive me, I should have included it. Slutter McGee has a good point:

Short term: Vouchers with no strings attached.

[Slutter McGee]

What about the 'poor' families, the ones who cannot afford to pay that? How will they pay for their childrens education? Are they going to teach their children? What if they don't have an education themselves?

In a perfect libertarian society-Charity. Choice and competition brings down costs. People are taxed less so have more disposable income to afford schooling or give more to charity.

I agree in theory. But what most people can't accept is that the above situation isn't going to happen anytime soon. And as it is, public education is the only alternative we have currently. As long as it is at the local level, the issue is at the bottom of the barrell of importance to me.

Slutter McGee

[Madly_Sane]

Most children under 18 are very immature and don't really look out for what is best for them in the long run, they would rather take the rewards that are offered in the short run.
Even though I think 'aggressive violence' isn't the road to take, there aren't really many alternatives that I can think of. But, I would love to hear some.

[Acala]

If you could find where I said anything of the sort, please quote it. I don't remember ever saying that and I certainly don't believe it. If you look at the OP, you will see at the very top I said:

Then what is your point? Government education is a demonstrable failure. Education is something that should be, can be, and for most of history was, handled by the private sector.

So why are you making the case for government education supported by force?

[Acala]

Or you could stop bitching about not living in a perfect libertarian utopia.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Is this supposed to be a reasoned rebuttal? Sounds like a man who has run out of arguments.

[agitator]

If they are "homeless." Then we taxpayers should provide them with a home. I guess food, medical and clothing too. Plus pay their utility bills and mow their grass. etc. etc. etc.

[Madly_Sane]

My point was to ask 'If you are in favor of part of the taxes (that are taken from you :p) being given to public schools?' Without taking privatization into consideration.

And the gov't education supported by force was to give my thoughts on tremendoustie's post.

[Acala]

What about the 'poor' families, the ones who cannot afford to pay that? How will they pay for their childrens education? Are they going to teach their children? What if they don't have an education themselves?

If you want to pay for their education, you can. And if that isn't enough you can use your skills to persuade others to help. People can also educate themselves. Or get their employers to pay for their education.

Why is education different than food or clothing?

[kahless]

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical" -- Thomas Jefferson


I wish they could raise the founders from the dead so they could come back and kick some ass. I cannot believe we have people here in a Ron Paul forum pushing for education taxes even at the local level. As people that are supposed to be for liberty you should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting policy that forces others to pay for to your charity and denies people the right to own private property.

Private property ownership is key to living in a free society. With education taxes linked to property taxes we do not have real private property ownership in America. We are therefore forced to rent property from government and are not free. The Communist Manifesto has been fulfilled because of YOUR support of such polices.

You want to have kids and educate them then that is your problem. Home school them or send them to a paid school of choice. If poor people cannot afford it, there will be charities that would quickly take the place of education taxes to fund schools.

They are bankrupting us with education taxes. With the money they take, the schools should be paved with gold here in NY and yet they are still screaming we need more money for the children. It is so completely corrupt. Seniors and people, including those that never had children are being driven from their homes due to the outrageous education taxes. People wonder why the "Rent is too dam high" should wake up and realize it is the education taxes being passed to the property owners which are raising the rents.

I, my family and friends are all being forced to leave NY because of outrageous education taxes that make us pay the highest cost per student more than anywhere in the world. Yet there is no where we can go in America to live freely on private property from YOU people that FORCE me to pay for YOUR beloved education taxes.

[Acala]

I agree in theory. But what most people can't accept is that the above situation isn't going to happen anytime soon. And as it is, public education is the only alternative we have currently. As long as it is at the local level, the issue is at the bottom of the barrell of importance to me.

Slutter McGee

Most of what we advocate, most of what Ron Paul advocates, is not going to happen anytime soon. But that wasn't the OP's question.

Public education is NOT the only alternative we have. It could be shut off rather easily.

And I can't think of anything MORE important. The public education system is the major reason our society has been turned into a bunch of government-dependent sheep.

[Madly_Sane]

Most of what we advocate, most of what Ron Paul advocates, is not going to happen anytime soon. But that wasn't the OP's question.

Public education is NOT the only alternative we have. It could be shut off rather easily.

And I can't think of anything MORE important. The public education system is the major reason our society has been turned into a bunch of government-dependent sheep.
Private Schooling seems like the only other alternative and I don't see how it could be accomplished within the next decade, with all the other problems people are focused on.

[Madly_Sane]

If you want to pay for their education, you can. And if that isn't enough you can use your skills to persuade others to help. People can also educate themselves. Or get their employers to pay for their education.

Why is education different than food or clothing?
People still go hungry, a LOT of people still go hungry. Same thing with clothing, a lot of people don't have that many clothes.
You run into the problem of people not wanting to contribute, etc.

[eugenekop]

As others have already said, 90% of the people will be able to afford a good school for their children. For the 10% who won't, they will be provided by charity. In any case privatization is better because it enables a market of different schools for different communities and different needs.

[Madly_Sane]

As others have already said, 90% of the people will be able to afford a good school for their children. For the 10% who won't, they will be provided by charity. In any case privatization is better because it enables a market of different schools for different communities and different needs.
In a perfect libertarian society... which I don't see happening ANY time soon, so for now, we will still focus on the issue at hand.

[eugenekop]

In the meantime we should lobby for vouchers and reduction of taxes in general.

[pcosmar]

In the meantime we should lobby for vouchers and reduction of taxes in general.

We ?
:confused:

[Madly_Sane]

lol

[moostraks]

Private Schooling seems like the only other alternative and I don't see how it could be accomplished within the next decade, with all the other problems people are focused on.

Why is private schooling the only other option???

[Madly_Sane]

Could someone explain to me how the vouchers would help?

[Madly_Sane]

I didn't say it was the ONLY other option, I just said it was the only one I could see. But if you could give me more alternatives, it would be great. I'd like to think about them.

[Acala]

People still go hungry, a LOT of people still go hungry. Same thing with clothing, a lot of people don't have that many clothes.
You run into the problem of people not wanting to contribute, etc.

People go hungry even though government promises, and steals vast sums of money, to keep that from happening. Same with clothing. And although government promises to provide education, by violentely stealing vast sums of money from the people, what it provides is total crap.

As I have said before on this forum, the government education system does two things well. It crushes the child's natural instinct to learn and it inculcates a resigned obedience to authority. Everything else it does poorly.

So how in the heck do you see government education as an answer to anything?

You seem to believe that forcing the entire population through a dismal and dysfunctional gauntlet of inept teachers and prison-like classrooms makes society a better place. Show me the evidence that the advent of government education made this country a better place.

[moostraks]

People still go hungry, a LOT of people still go hungry. Same thing with clothing, a lot of people don't have that many clothes.
You run into the problem of people not wanting to contribute, etc.

People don't give if they don't see the need. When 85% of my property taxes goes to fund a public education that is free for those who fall within the need category why would I subsidize their education elsewhere when the charitable foundations are not providing the service???

It is not the right and privilege of government to force their philosophy of education down my throat but in most states they feel entitled and better equipped to decide for my family what and how my children should be taught. Then they take my property taxes to enforce their regulations. Failure to comply will then get social services to remove your children and place them into government run schools. All this hinges on the fallacy that without government standards parents are to incompetent to educate and the poor children will do without. It is fear mongering.

One of the sad facts of life is some folks are going to have more than others. Relying on government to provide for those needs is what has gotten us into the sorry state of government dependence where trying to make it on ones own is made more treacherous due to the propaganda put forth by a system hell bent on keeping a monopoly on their peoples minds and funds.

[moostraks]

I didn't say it was the ONLY other option, I just said it was the only one I could see. But if you could give me more alternatives, it would be great. I'd like to think about them.

Homeschooling??? Why is private schooling the only option you can see?:confused:

[kahless]

Could someone explain to me how the vouchers would help?

If the public education taxes on your property are so high you cannot afford to send your kids to private school, the government would provide you a voucher to contribute to the costs of sending your child to private school.

Rather than vouchers they should start with eliminating education property taxes for those that are sending their kid to private school.

The private schools around me are all closing up shop because people cannot afford both the public school education property taxes and tuititon for private school. The reason we have education property taxes is for this very reason. Government eliminates all school competition in this fashion and therefore is able to maintain indoctrination of the youth with their propaganda.

[Madly_Sane]

People go hungry even though government promises, and steals vast sums of money, to keep that from happening. Same with clothing. And although government promises to provide education, by violentely stealing vast sums of money from the people, what it provides is total crap.

As I have said before on this forum, the government education system does two things well. It crushes the child's natural instinct to learn and it inculcates a resigned obedience to authority. Everything else it does poorly.

So how in the heck do you see government education as an answer to anything?[/quote]
I don't see it as the answer, (again) look at the OP and read the first sentence.

You seem to believe that forcing the entire population through a dismal and dysfunctional gauntlet of inept teachers and prison-like classrooms makes society a better place. Show me the evidence that the advent of government education made this country a better place.
I never said any of that and I don't believe any of that. I want to know what I said that made you think this.

[Madly_Sane]

Homeschooling??? Why is private schooling the only option you can see?:confused:
Also a form of private schooling...

[moostraks]

Also a form of private schooling...

No it is not. Homeschoolers and private schoolers are two seperate entities. They operate in completely different manners. That is like saying a restaurant and homecooked foods are the same.

[Acala]

I don't see it as the answer, (again) look at the OP and read the first sentence.

I never said any of that and I don't believe any of that. I want to know what I said that made you think this.

So why do you keep trying to make a case that government education is necessary?

[Original_Intent]

I don't mind public education, but I do mind federal public education.

It should all be local. If people of an area want public schooling, they should fund it locally. Or if they want to go all private. If ti were all done at the local level, the best models would succeed and could be emulated (or not) by those using less successful.

Also totally kills the propaganda aspect. If a neighborhood of Christians want creationism, let them have it and fund it, and we don;t have to deal with all the "separation of church and state" whiners - because "the state" is not involved.

And you can also have atheists/agnostics that have schools that teach rationalism and if they better educate students they will be more successful and the "stupid religionists" will fail and the free market prevail.

[kahless]

I don't mind public education, but I do mind federal public education.

It should all be local. If people of an area want public schooling, they should fund it locally. Or if they want to go all private. If ti were all done at the local level, the best models would succeed and could be emulated (or not) by those using less successful.

Also totally kills the propaganda aspect. If a neighborhood of Christians want creationism, let them have it and fund it, and we don;t have to deal with all the "separation of church and state" whiners - because "the state" is not involved.

And you can also have atheists/agnostics that have schools that teach rationalism and if they better educate students they will be more successful and the "stupid religionists" will fail and the free market prevail.

That would still be anti-private property rights. You would be forcing people to rent their property from government or lose it if they do not pay the education taxes.

[Madly_Sane]

So why do you keep trying to make a case that government education is necessary?
You are misinterpreting what I am saying.
Please quote where I said it was necessary or made it seem necessary, then I will explain what I intended it to mean.

[Acala]

You are misinterpreting what I am saying.
Please quote where I said it was necessary or made it seem necessary, then I will explain what I intended it to mean.

Okay, here's one:

"Private Schooling seems like the only other alternative and I don't see how it could be accomplished within the next decade, with all the other problems people are focused on."

The clear implication is that government schools are the answer.

[Madly_Sane]

Private schools are (in most cases) not gov't funded and are therefore not public schools. I didn't say they weren't the answer, it was just in reference to what you said:

Public education is NOT the only alternative we have. It could be shut off rather easily.
I was just trying to say, I don't believe abolishing public schools and making the institution private can happen within the next decade, not that it wasn't possible or that it wasn't the way to go.

[Madly_Sane]

I was looking up alternatives to public schooling...
here's a site that had a good list of alternatives:
http://www.school-survival.net/alternatives/ (http://www.school-survival.net/alternatives/)

[GunnyFreedom]

I really like what Stossel said in his program on education. America is just not ready to do away with public funding, they don't know any better and cannot envision how the poor and indigent will receive education if not for public funding. Perhaps one day when people are ready for it we can move away from public funding, but until then, in the interest of moving in the correct direction, attach all public funding to the individual student and let that family chose wherever they want to go full stop. Public, private, homeschool...a public system 2 counties over, charter schools, whatever suits that families fancy.

Once you introduce and familiarize people with the concept of "choice" letting the free market work and probaby producing the best educated students in the world, then you can go about backing the government apparatus out in a somewhat organized manner without collapsing the whole house of cards on the way out.

On the way, of course, spending will decrease dramatically as education subsidies devolve down to the poorest 10% of families. It may take 25 years to back 95% out of State funding (Federal funding and mandates should be decapitated YESTERDAY), but it's the only proactive way I can see out of this mess without creating 10x the chaos we have now in the process.

I got the idea from Stossel BTW, and I still like it. I think Stossel was a little more circumspect about the government eventually backing out altogether, but I am also probably far less opposed to funding the poorest 10% (at the STATE level, not the Fed) than he or most people on this board. Of course that ends up being pennies on the dollar to what we are paying now, and can probably be raised somehow other than thieving property taxes.

[Flash]

Slutter McGee you're basically saying we shouldn't push to end public schools because it's impractical, correct? Don't you realize that the great... VAST majority of Americans think bringing troops home overseas is impractical and unrealistic too? What about ending welfare? What about getting the government out of healthcare? More importantly, what about getting that radical Ron Paul person into the presidential office? Following that logic we should stop pushing for everything we believe in.

Yeah, getting education back to a local level would be a huge improvement. But what happens when public schools inevitably start slipping up? Progressives, Moderates, Independents, Liberals will push to once again create a new Department of Education. I think it's better to just be honest about what we're trying to accomplish.

[PaulineDisciple]

Read these books before you answer this question.

Free PDF book "the deliberate dumbing down of america" by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

and "N.E.A. - Trojan Horse in American Education" by Samuel Blumenfeld (scroll down to the bottom of the page to download the PDF) this is also Charlotte Iserbyt’s site that has many of the documents that she used to write her book.

http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?page=usercat&catid=34&count=2

and "The Underground History of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

These books basically document how the Marxists, in their own words, took over and intentionally destroyed the education system in this country.

All systems of education are, by definition, not neutral on matters of religious beliefs and therefore should be off limits to government control/influence. For example, all educational endeavors must first answer the questions; how should we view the students?, are they merely products of evolution or a special creation endowed with dignity above the rest of the animal kingdom, what kind of person are we trying to produce and are there objective moral standards that we should instill in them? Atheistic and Theistic answers to these questions are diametrically opposed to one another and the atheistic view is the only one being indoctrinated into students in our current system. Don't believe me, read those books and you will see this is exactly what they wanted and what we are getting. The pretended neutrality that they claim is just a ruse to deceive the public into thinking that they are being rational in their approach to education.

So in essence, if you think that our schools are failing, it is only because you are ignorant of our public schools intended purpose; its intended purpose is to produce ignorant little subservient slaves for our global masters.

Truth be told, as destructive to America as the FED has been, the educational system has actually done more damage since it was the means Marxists used to keep Americans from being able to see just how evil and destructive the FED is. 'We' are now stupid enough to accept what the MSM tells us about how we need a fiat money system to keep the economy growing and 'we' need to trust the "expert" economists and just accept the screwing that they have been giving to us since the FED's inception. The public education system in this country is an essential part of the plans to destroy America and is controlled by the same people/banking cartel behind the FED. It may sound conspiratorial but all you have to do is follow where the money comes from for all the educational foundations in this country and yep, they are the same people behind the FED.

Case in point, just ask yourself; how did we go from believing that we live in a country that has a form of government that protects the rights of the individual, as is apparent in the Bill of Rights to a form of government that imposes a frontal attack on individuals as outlined in the Communist Manifesto? Answer, you have to dumb down the public so they don’t know the difference. The books I linked to catalog this nefarious plan in the words of the planners themselves. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is documented fact. They are rejoicing in the success they have had.

Take a look at this article that demonstrates how America has basically adopted the Communist Manifesto by stealth;

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

We are truly living in an Orwellian Twilight Zone where war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is power and most of this nightmare can be attributed to our public education system whose role it is to make sure that we come out of their system ignorant to the truth of our slavery. Also, with the supposed “collapse” of Russia, we were told that we won the cold war but we are totally ignorant to the fact that we are now almost as communistic in our political structure as Russia ever was, the only difference is we haven’t had the widespread military crack down on our citizens, yet. This should remind you of what Nikita Kruschev said when he told America that communism would come to America without firing a shot.

Having said all of this, all is not lost, because of the internet, people, not only in this country but all over the world are waking up to these truths exponentially. I know I am preaching to the choir on this forum but we need to remind each other to press on, spread the word to our family and friends and it won’t be long before we defeat the evil people behind the dismantling of our country. And last but not least, and I know this may offend the non-Christians on this forum, but we must repent! And I am not singling out the non-Christians, Christians need to repent for giving their children over to people who, whether intentional or not, are programming them with destructive beliefs, repent from this abdication of responsibility. Repent of your apathy, laziness and greed, not the kind liberals accuse us of, wanting to keep what we earned is not greed but if we got to keep all the money we have earned, we should be more generous to those less fortunate. IOW, acts of theft so you can be generous with other peoples money is still theft. Get involved and educate those that are caught up in this charade, be patient, most of us in the liberty movement did not have our eyes opened over night, so don’t expect everyone to change over night. Focus on the main things, the books that I linked to above are a good start, they quote from the very people that have or have had control over our education system. The National Security Archive is also a good resource to give people willing to learn the truth about how evil and immoral people have controlled the highest seats in our government and have never been held accountable for their treasonous acts. Here is a link to their website;

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

Give people time to digest the meat you are giving them and encourage them to draw logical conclusions of the documents they are reading. Hopefully, if you’re patient and convincing, you will have won them over to the truth.

So to answer this question as well as a myriad of other questions regarding whether or not something is a legitimate expenditure of tax money is, NO!

Tax money should only be used to protect the rights of each individual citizen. If it cannot be demonstrated that the money is not being spent for this purpose, we should not be taxed for it. No Department of Education or Transportation, no FED, no funding art or "public" radio, no FDA, no DHS, no CIA, the list goes on and on. As Ron Paul has mentioned even the CIA needs to be dismantled since they are not accountable to congress and they have been found guilty of crimes against American citizens and this country. Evil people in government will always try to sell you on starting a new department to “protect” you but if we already have a department for that role, you can be sure that they are trying to scam you. From what I can determine, all level of governments combined should never exceed 5% tax on its citizens. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that this was the average rate for the average American citizen for about the first 50 years of our Republic. I haven’t seen a lot of history books that dig into this issue but I remember hearing something about it being about 5%.

[Stary Hickory]

NOPE, don't need taxes for schools...just need people who want an education and those that will provide. Free trade takes care of the rest. Robbing people or forcing people into slave labor does not make a great education.

[Slutter McGee]

Slutter McGee you're basically saying we shouldn't push to end public schools because it's impractical, correct? Don't you realize that the great... VAST majority of Americans think bringing troops home overseas is impractical and unrealistic too? What about ending welfare? What about getting the government out of healthcare? More importantly, what about getting that radical Ron Paul person into the presidential office? Following that logic we should stop pushing for everything we believe in.

Yeah, getting education back to a local level would be a huge improvement. But what happens when public schools inevitably start slipping up? Progressives, Moderates, Independents, Liberals will push to once again create a new Department of Education. I think it's better to just be honest about what we're trying to accomplish.

Ending welfare is unrealistic also. Even Dr. Paul realizes this when he says that you cant just cut off benefits. We have created a society in which people have to have these things. Same with health care. The war in Iraq is a different issue.

The point is pretty simple. It is the same with healthcare and education. Get the free market and capitalism back in these areas. And then take steps to start slowly taking apart the system.

The big difference is that public education at the state and local level is constitutional. Healthcare at the federal level is not.

Which why education should not be our number one priority.

Slutter McGe

[NYgs23]

I think public schooling makes people stupider and in the long run, more likely to be dependent on taxpayers for their support.

Government schooling is not about welfare. If it were, it would only be available to poor kids, not middle-class and rich kids. Government schools, rather, are about social engineering.

[Brian4Liberty]

Minimal public education (3Rs), paid for at the local level isn't the worst thing in the world.

[RokiLothbard]

I see education as in investment in the future of the country- it needs a good education system for a prosperous future.

That is great if you see it that way. Have a good time investing your money however you want. Now if you will please stop sending your goons out to steal 5K of my money every year, for the privelege of living on property that I already "own", to pay for actively bad education system that I don't use (we homeschool), we can get along just fine.

[Acala]

Minimal public education (3Rs), paid for at the local level isn't the worst thing in the world.

Putting aside the immorality of forcing people to pay vast sums of money for it at gun point, public education is terrible at what it purports to do. It fails to educate well. It is at best a poor babysitter and at worst an engine for statist indoctrination and inculcation of obedience.

If you want to continue to raise generation after generation of timid, ignorant sheep, public education is great. But if you want to raise free-thinking individuals with the habit of rejecting authority and investigating matters for themselves, then kill public education now and never let it raise its ugly head again.

[RokiLothbard]

Not really a good example. MIT sucks. Just look at the kind of people they produce: Krugman, Bernanke.

Hey Now!

David Nolan?

the famous internet libertarian RokiLothbard?:) If I hadn't heard the BS that is mainstream economics come directly from Rudi Dornbusch's mouth, I probably wouldn't be a believer in Austrian economics today.

[jclay2]

That is great if you see it that way. Have a good time investing your money however you want. Now if you will please stop sending your goons out to steal 5K of my money every year, for the privelege of living on property that I already "own", to pay for actively bad education system that I don't use (we homeschool), we can get along just fine.

Beautiful!

[Brian4Liberty]

Putting aside the immorality of forcing people to pay vast sums of money for it at gun point, public education is terrible at what it purports to do. It fails to educate well. It is at best a poor babysitter and at worst an engine for statist indoctrination and inculcation of obedience.

If you want to continue to raise generation after generation of timid, ignorant sheep, public education is great. But if you want to raise free-thinking individuals with the habit of rejecting authority and investigating matters for themselves, then kill public education now and never let it raise its ugly head again.

Minimal means bare minimal, not expensive. If they can give kids in India a better education than Americans, in mud-floored rooms with minimal money, than we should be able to do better. Local level means complete local level control, no bureaucrats, no outside agendas.

And I agree, whether to have any taxes at all is a separate subject.

[kahless]

Minimal means bare minimal, not expensive. If they can give kids in India a better education than Americans, in mud-floored rooms with minimal money, than we should be able to do better. Local level means complete local level control, no bureaucrats, no outside agendas.

And I agree, whether to have any taxes at all is a separate subject.

If you are for any property based education taxes than you are anti-private property rights. Private property rights are key to living in a free society.

America is not free since we are not allowed to own property outright and rather are just renting it from government through property based education taxes. People who have paid for land and own the structures on the land are being forced to be homeless by government throught property based education taxes.

Besides everything else that is discussed in this forum, if I had to take a guess I bet the next civil war in this country will be fought over this very issue. Those for restoring private property rights and those that want to starve us to death, make us homeless through property taxes.

This effects everyone including renters, since the property owners that rent thier property from government have no choice but to increase the rents of those that rent from them in order to pay for education taxes.