How would you refute this argument? Don't get me wrong, it's not a challenge. I myself am neutral. It's a request.
Part 1: "Education is NOT FREE, and never will be. You can pontificate about how no one should have to pay for it as much as you want, but it ultimately will not resolve the fact that the upkeep of schools, supplies, and educational research costs money. People will always have to pay for education, whether they do it through the market, or through government taxes. It's only a question of who and how much.
1) What type of school system will provide the highest quality education at the lowest possible cost?
Without a doubt, without debate, without room for dissent, the economic system that will provide the best education at the lowest possible cost overall is a privatized, free market system. What this means is that rather than the government siphoning off your income for the funding of "public education," you as the consumer make a choice in the market with your own money about which school you would like to purchase services from, either for yourself or for your kids.
Reasons why this system is by a nearly infinite shot the most efficient:
- In public education, the income of school officials is not directly dependent on the performance of the school they are in charge of. Since the government forcibly collects and channels large amounts of money directly from tax payers to schools, the schools themselves have no direct incentive to use resources efficiently and strive for higher achievement. Now, obviously, the government can try to do things like impose state standards, and have a bureaucrat walk around once and a while and "check" the quality of a given school. Obviously, in extreme situations, even public employees can be fired. But the point stands that the economic livelihood of those who manage public schools is not dynamically dependent on the success of their school. In a private system, however, the relationship would be dynamic, because it would behave the same way as it does for a business in any other industry. A school that was not performing well would see a gradual decline in enrollment rates, leading to a direct loss of money to the school, leading to the shareholders electing a new principal-E-O.
- Competition in the market place mandates efficiency. Often people who think they disagree with this principle are actually disagreeing with something else, or are alienated by the fact that the "empirical evidence" doesn't seem to support free-markets. Truth is, it does, and they're wrong (Obama's pathetic attempts to paint the Bush era as one of "laissez-fair capitalism" is one of the most dishonest acts of slander I have seen in a long time). Just think about it. If two schools are competing in the same area for students, then both of them have to perform at a certain level, or else risk being shut out of the market by their competitor. This system encourages both schools to find innovative ways to cut costs, and to look for creative solutions to problems. The overall result of this competition is that costs are lowered and quality increases. This principle works successfully in 99.9% of industries, so why should we assume it won't apply to education? Education is not fundamentally a different type of commodity from anything else; it follows the same economic rules as any other service. People just instinctively resist treating it like a normal economic good because of all the "fundamental right" sentiment that is attached to it.
- The free market allows choice, which helps economic mobility enormously. Under the current system, people pay a lump sum of their annual income to the government, in exchange for the right to a public education, along with the requirement that they go to the public school in their "zone." While this seems like a reasonable way to manage the system, there are key problems with the "zones." For one, compulsory zones make students captive consumers, providing even less incentives for failing schools to improve the quality of their service. Once can easily imagine an anecdote about a dedicated student from a poor neighborhood, who, despite his significant economic disadvantages, has nevertheless transcended the circumstances in which he has been brought up and reached a high performance standard as a student. Under our current system, if this student lives in the ghetto, he is forbidden from taking the bus across town to the well-managed suburban school where his academic potential could be fully realized"
2) To what extent is education a "fundamental right" that people deserve regardless of their ability to pay for it? And if it IS a fundamental right, what is the best mechanism for providing it to the disadvantaged without disrupting the system we agreed is best in answering the first question?
While the free market is without a doubt the most efficient economic system, it is a legitimate charge to argue that it is not always the most just one. People who are born in significantly disadvantaged economic circumstances will indeed find it a challenge to move up substantially in the world within the span of their own lifetime.
So, is education a fundamental right? I personally still cling to traditional views of earned property, regardless of your disadvantages going into life, but I am highly sympathetic to the opposite perspective. What I am about to describe is a possible system that provides welfare to the less fortunate without tampering with the fundamental framework of a f
framework of a free market system.
One word: vouchers.
The government collects taxes, disproportionally from the rich. It then redistributes these taxes disproportionally to the poor, in the form of education vouchers. Let's say these vouchers are for $10,000 dollars a year per person. These vouchers are now redeemable at any school as a contributor to the price of tuition. This way the poor have the resources to PURCHASE their education without disrupting the price mechanism of education in the market.
And it's that simple. This avoids the public bureaucracy, and maintains the competitive forces that makes schools efficient, all the while allowing the disadvantaged to get opportunities-
That's it. So, to all those who don't agree with it (I already said I'm neutral), could you please refute it? I like to read people's arguments, because it teaches you different ways of viewing issues. Thank you all!
Part 1: "Education is NOT FREE, and never will be. You can pontificate about how no one should have to pay for it as much as you want, but it ultimately will not resolve the fact that the upkeep of schools, supplies, and educational research costs money. People will always have to pay for education, whether they do it through the market, or through government taxes. It's only a question of who and how much.
1) What type of school system will provide the highest quality education at the lowest possible cost?
Without a doubt, without debate, without room for dissent, the economic system that will provide the best education at the lowest possible cost overall is a privatized, free market system. What this means is that rather than the government siphoning off your income for the funding of "public education," you as the consumer make a choice in the market with your own money about which school you would like to purchase services from, either for yourself or for your kids.
Reasons why this system is by a nearly infinite shot the most efficient:
- In public education, the income of school officials is not directly dependent on the performance of the school they are in charge of. Since the government forcibly collects and channels large amounts of money directly from tax payers to schools, the schools themselves have no direct incentive to use resources efficiently and strive for higher achievement. Now, obviously, the government can try to do things like impose state standards, and have a bureaucrat walk around once and a while and "check" the quality of a given school. Obviously, in extreme situations, even public employees can be fired. But the point stands that the economic livelihood of those who manage public schools is not dynamically dependent on the success of their school. In a private system, however, the relationship would be dynamic, because it would behave the same way as it does for a business in any other industry. A school that was not performing well would see a gradual decline in enrollment rates, leading to a direct loss of money to the school, leading to the shareholders electing a new principal-E-O.
- Competition in the market place mandates efficiency. Often people who think they disagree with this principle are actually disagreeing with something else, or are alienated by the fact that the "empirical evidence" doesn't seem to support free-markets. Truth is, it does, and they're wrong (Obama's pathetic attempts to paint the Bush era as one of "laissez-fair capitalism" is one of the most dishonest acts of slander I have seen in a long time). Just think about it. If two schools are competing in the same area for students, then both of them have to perform at a certain level, or else risk being shut out of the market by their competitor. This system encourages both schools to find innovative ways to cut costs, and to look for creative solutions to problems. The overall result of this competition is that costs are lowered and quality increases. This principle works successfully in 99.9% of industries, so why should we assume it won't apply to education? Education is not fundamentally a different type of commodity from anything else; it follows the same economic rules as any other service. People just instinctively resist treating it like a normal economic good because of all the "fundamental right" sentiment that is attached to it.
- The free market allows choice, which helps economic mobility enormously. Under the current system, people pay a lump sum of their annual income to the government, in exchange for the right to a public education, along with the requirement that they go to the public school in their "zone." While this seems like a reasonable way to manage the system, there are key problems with the "zones." For one, compulsory zones make students captive consumers, providing even less incentives for failing schools to improve the quality of their service. Once can easily imagine an anecdote about a dedicated student from a poor neighborhood, who, despite his significant economic disadvantages, has nevertheless transcended the circumstances in which he has been brought up and reached a high performance standard as a student. Under our current system, if this student lives in the ghetto, he is forbidden from taking the bus across town to the well-managed suburban school where his academic potential could be fully realized"
2) To what extent is education a "fundamental right" that people deserve regardless of their ability to pay for it? And if it IS a fundamental right, what is the best mechanism for providing it to the disadvantaged without disrupting the system we agreed is best in answering the first question?
While the free market is without a doubt the most efficient economic system, it is a legitimate charge to argue that it is not always the most just one. People who are born in significantly disadvantaged economic circumstances will indeed find it a challenge to move up substantially in the world within the span of their own lifetime.
So, is education a fundamental right? I personally still cling to traditional views of earned property, regardless of your disadvantages going into life, but I am highly sympathetic to the opposite perspective. What I am about to describe is a possible system that provides welfare to the less fortunate without tampering with the fundamental framework of a f
framework of a free market system.
One word: vouchers.
The government collects taxes, disproportionally from the rich. It then redistributes these taxes disproportionally to the poor, in the form of education vouchers. Let's say these vouchers are for $10,000 dollars a year per person. These vouchers are now redeemable at any school as a contributor to the price of tuition. This way the poor have the resources to PURCHASE their education without disrupting the price mechanism of education in the market.
And it's that simple. This avoids the public bureaucracy, and maintains the competitive forces that makes schools efficient, all the while allowing the disadvantaged to get opportunities-
That's it. So, to all those who don't agree with it (I already said I'm neutral), could you please refute it? I like to read people's arguments, because it teaches you different ways of viewing issues. Thank you all!