Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?
Comments
-
You have advocated an all-private educational system in the past though; if you advocate that here, you need to show how it would not be subject to the same problems, and how to work upon the other problems it would likely create.This post had been deleted.
As an example, here is a research paper I've posted recently, showing that after adjusting for various conditions, private schools do not perform better than public schools at maths:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1541
An added example of a problem I posed earlier in the thread:KyussBishop wrote:an all-private system could easily make the problem worse by focusing disadvantaged (economically and developmentally) students into poorer schools, where there is not enough money to afford proper education.
As I also said:KyussBishop wrote:The government (since that 2009 report) has since launched a plan/program for improving literacy levels, which we won't find out the results of until the OECD's next study in 2015 (upon a brief look, finding more recent non-OECD studies is difficult).
So, it needs to be explained why such a drastic switchover to an all-private system is better, and why we should not wait to see the results of government efforts to deal with the problem.0 -
Suryavarman wrote: »I would've assumed that I had proven this by quoting from a book that examined British education before the development of "free education".
Had to trawl through the thread to figure out what book you were referring to. It was Education and State by a free-market economist called EG West.
Did a search and found some reviews of the book, which are worth printing in full imo. as the criticism relates just as well to these libertarian ideas for the Irish education system.
This one by A.H. Halsey:"Of all the verbal rubbish scattered about by the Institute of Economic Affairs, this book is so far the most pernicious. One deluded right-wing reviewer has referred to it as a Copernican revolution in the study of education. This is ridiculous, not simply because Mr West’s ideas are a crass and dreary imitation of those published several years ago by Professor Milton Friedman - a man whose brilliance in argument is made futile by the absurd irrelevance of his 19th-century assumptions - but because, if it were a revolution, it would be Copernican in reverse. Just as pre-Copernican science would ask us to believe that the earth is the sacred centre of the physical universe, so this crude version of liberal economics would place the market at the centre of all human institutions. That the market is not the only human contrivance for rationally relating means to ends is a commonplace to first-year students of economics. It is apparently unknown to Mr West.
His conception of the other social sciences is no less defective. A man who believes that, in the case of a child kept ignorant of reading and writing, ‘the faculties of learning are not in any way removed; it is quite possible for them to remain intact to be used later,’ is a man who knows no psychology. A man who imagines that James Mill’s education of his son is evidence for the shrewd exercise of the protection of minors by parents of early leavers knows no sociology.When it comes to the history of education in the 19th century, Mr West goes beyond tolerable error. He tries to make out that before 1870 ‘a vigorous growth of schools completely independent both of official support and of endowments was developing into what some would call a private school “explosion”’ and that the state schools were a regrettable interference with splendid educational progress through the market. In arguing this thesis he puts a great deal of reliance on the 1861 Report of the Newcastle Commission. But he omits to mention what the Commissioners actually wrote: that there were 34,412 schools run for profit with 860,304 pupils, that they were of ‘all degrees of merit’, but ‘it is to be feared that the bad schools are the most numerous’ and that 573,536 pupils were being taught in places ‘for the most part ill-calculated to give to the children an education serviceable to them in after life.’ By contrast the officers of the Education Department inspected 7,646 of the state schools and ranked 75.4 per cent of them a excellent, good or fair.This, however, does not deter him from objecting to Forster’s inquiries before the 1870 Act, which showed that a quarter of those between the ages of five and 13 were not attending school in Liverpool in 1869. Mr West suggests that Forster’s statistics were biased because the inspectors ‘had a vested interest in the expansion of their own department’. He then goes on to a preposterous demonstration that Forster was inaccurate because he assumed that the ages five defined the population of school age. Mr West rejects this as a basis for assessing the adequacy of school provision in favour of the Newcastle Commission’s use of the age-range five-I 1. But again he fails to mention the opinion of the Newcastle Commissioners themselves: ‘the average attendance is far shorter than it ought to be.’ Incidentally, on his own type of argument it would be easy to show that the children of the 1860s were being more than 100 per cent educated by defining the population of school age as the five to eight year olds!It is only when we accept that, in the case of education, as J. S. Mill wrote, ‘the foundation of the laissez-faire principle breaks down ‘altogether,’ and that ‘the person most interested is not the best judge of the matter,’ that we can begin to consider adequately the role of the state. And only when we appreciate that parents cannot be substituted for children in the liberal theory, because we are dealing here with a question of justice which arises afresh in each new generation, can the discussion of public education become relevant. From this point of view Mr West’s discussion of equality of opportunity is hopeless.He wastes much of a short chapter by questioning the sincerity and consistency of those who believe in equality but do not practice it - as if the validity of Christian ethics is to be challenged by the existence of murderers. He then brings two charges against R. H. Tawney - that he wrote elegant prose and that he did not recognise the implications of allowing life to offer prizes. The first charge is unlikely to be turned against Mr West. His argument on the second charge is as follows.If A works twice as hard as B and receives at least twice as much money, or if A saves more than B out of equal labour income, we can hardly inform A that he is forbidden to spend his extra earnings on the education of his son.
Why not? This statement is only possible if you beg the whole question by assuming that education is of no more social significance than cabbages. What escapes Mr \Vest is that civilised people like J. S. Mill have always recognised that education should be distributed by criteria other than the capacity and willingness of individual parents to pay. The important questions are those concerning the allocation of resources between education and other claims and, within education. between individuals who differ in ability. No ideal of equality could be realised for the next generation if these decisions
were left to parental choice even if the present generation of parents had equal incomes. Mr West has turned an ‘impartial inquiry’ into a gross distortion of the role of the state in education. Choices between beer and skittles may well be left to the market: but education, and the search for equality through education, is too serious a matter to be left to an irrelevant economic doctrine, and least of all to its less competent practitioners.
Were this a short book and a well written one it would be worth reading, if only for the oddity of the notions that it so solemnly propounds. Dr West is angry with all that left wing crew who have persuaded people that the state has some responsibility for seeing that its members are educated. He takes to task those dangerous adversaries, from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill to Sir Geoffrey Crowther and Lord Robbins, who have argued that the state does have such a responsibility.He is pretty doubtful that the arguments of these favorite educational philosophers of the Institute of Economic Affairs, Professors Peacock and Wiseman. They think that state provide education should be replaced by private education paid for out of vouchers given to parents by the state, and spent in schools subject to stat inspection.. Dr West clearly thinks that this is a bit red. The blurb-writer carelessly omitted to read the relevant chapter.Dr West thinks that state education causes crime. He is not much concerned to describe or to criticise the deficiencies of state education as it functions now (perhaps because one remedy for some of those deficiencies is clearly that the state should spend more). The Ministry of Education is not mentioned in his index. he like s using epithets like "Berlin Wall" to describe the practice of zoning school areas. he writes laisser faire incorrectly. There is no point in trying to argue against a nineteenth-century thesis in twentieth century terms, nor against a metaphysical one in economic terms.Behind Dr West's often inchoate theorising seems to lie the notion that it is for parents to choose how their children are to be educated; and all that state subventions specifically earmarked for education in principle - irrespective of the way in which the subvention is made - detract from parents rights. A century ago it was rightly pointed out that the English have never paid the full cost of their children's education. Discussing the transition in England from a an educational system based on tax-provided finance, an inspector of schools said:
it is one of the extraordinary inconsistencies of some English people in this matter, that they keep all their cry of humiliation and degradation for help which the State offers. A man is not pauperised, is not degraded, is not oppressively obliged, by taking and for his son's schooling from Mr Woodward's subscribers, or from the next squire, or from the next rector, or from the next ironmonger, or from the next druggist; he is only pauperised when he takes it from the State, when he helps to give it himself.But then Matthew Arnold actually knew what went on in the schools.
From the negative point of view the State exists as a power to control the power of the individual; not primarily to defend his possessions. Negatively, the State exists to repress hubris, not to encourage avarice. But positively, of course, the State is more than this: it is an emanation of society, and its function is cybernetic: that is, it promotes by discreet measures of control and communication that same social harmony which Mr West sees fit to put into inverted commas as passing his comprehension.The State's positive role is to ensure that society is accorded the optimum conditions for remaining society and to prevent its degenerating into Mr West's mere collectivity of individuals'. Underlying this inadequate concept of society is an inadequate conception of the human person. This is natural enough, since the two realities are complementary. In Mr West's language, person is translated by 'individual' and society by 'collectivity'. Consequently, he creates an unreal antithesis between collectivism and individualism. Naturally, he himself opts in favour of the latter, declaring no theory acceptable which does not take the 'individual ' as the 'primary philosophic entity'.Few people, I think, would boast of being' individualists' as openly as Mr West. But of course he does this because his only possible alternative is to be a 'collectivist'. Now this dilemma, as we have suggested, is quite false. It is not a question of sacrificing the individual to the collective, or vice versa, in the name of the over-riding rights. Neither the individual nor the collective possess rights in any case, for both are merely abstract entities. To decide to confer 'primary reality ' on either of these is purely arbitrary, as Mr West seems to realise when he makes his own option. Unfortunately, he does not seem to realise why it is arbitrary, and contents himself with informing the reader that 'intuitively [he] feels that very many people are ... disposed to the individualistic view'. No doubt, but this is hardly pertinent.
The real problem is how to reconcile the absolute quality of the human person with the real existence of society. Ironically, it is only in the metaphysical order of personality that Mr West's 'individual' becomes the 'primary philosophic entity'. At his own empirical level there is no doubt whatever that society is prior to the individual who owes to it his physical existence, and also, through social communication, the awakening of his human potential. But let us grant that Mr West is half right, that his concept is a sort of white blackbird which means person when he wants to affirm his rights and reverts to being a mere individual when he wishes to deny his duties.How can we reconcile the absolute quality of person with the. state of being in, or part of, society? Philosophically, the rights of the person are not primary: they are consequent on duties. I become aware of my rights (i.e. not as powers) only because I am aware of duties towards others, which presumably they in their turn have towards me. Thus I only have rights at all in a context of social solidarity.I am a social being not because I am a part or aspect of society, but because society is a part or aspect of my being and equally of every other person's being. Society is that dimension of personal being which is possessed equally and entirely by every person. Therefore I cannot damage society or refuse my duty to it without damaging myself. The 'individualist' is by definition anti-social and consequently he mutilates his own person by trying to deprive it of one of its essential qualities. When we realise how far Mr West is from an authentic conception of society, most of the other odd features of this book become more explicable.It is no wonder that, having disposed of the bond of social harmony, he attempts to replace it by the 'cash nexus'. The underlying assumption is that it is possible to talk about education simply in terms of the market. Indeed, the author seems to take a delight in comparing schools and universities to grocers' shops and hosiers. It is understandable that Robert Lowe should have spoken with approval of Scotland as a place where 'they sell education as a grocer sells figs', but it is astonishing that Mr West should concur.
There has never been a genuinely free market in education. Perhaps the nearest approach was the one in which Plato's sophists operated, and this is scarcely a recommendation. In defending 'individualism' and the free market in education, Mr West is at great pains to show, albeit rather hypothetically, that every consumer would benefit financially from his system or, at any rate, nearly every consumer. But he has little comfort to offer teachers, whom he regards as incorrigible disruptors of the free market. He speaks with relish of 'weakening the monopoly power of a professional group', and considers that lengthening the period of teacher-training was a sly plot to acquire for teachers an artificial scarcity value. How efficient teacher-training would be assured in a free market he does not say.Probably he considers it unnecessary, for he finds it odd of Dr Hodgson to regret that in 1850 many private-school teachers were qualified only as grocers, tailors, or bakers, and he hypothesizes that the modern schoolboy would prefer being taught by 'such a colourful variety of experienced adults'. The obvious inference that teachers are generally colourless, uniform, inexperienced and adolescent, may fairly be drawn, for Mr West takes the trouble to underline it with a quotation (going back to 1868) from a hostile witness.It is hard to resist concluding that the barrel is being scraped to make a case for a view based mainly on prejudice and unconscious dogmatism. At any rate Mr West has no hesitation in condemning three hundred thousand members of the community to salaries even more inadequate than their present ones, simply because the value of their contribution (which he cannot measure) to society (in which he does not believe) is not fairly reflected in the operation of the free market (which for him is a self evidently Good Thing).It is as guarantor of social solidarity and trustee of the common wealth that the State intervenes in education. By doing so it favours equality of opportunity, which, despite some sophistical criticism, remains a valid objective; for it means that lack of privilege can exert only a marginal, and not a determining influence on the progress of a person towards the creative fulfilment of his natural talents."0 -
Yes that does a very good job of centering in on and fleshing out some of the primary issues with this way of thinking; the underlying principals of many Libertarian arguments rely upon this extreme individualism, but what is not acknowledged (though sometimes tacitly is) is that in specific situations this is incompatible with a fair society on many levels.
Whenever arguments come up showing how taking these principals to their logical conclusion, is likely to create overall harm to society (particularly the social segregation issue with private education), the arguments are played down or just outright ignored; when these arguments are selectively ignored, it implies a tacit admission that it is not viewed as a problem by those who promote these ideals.
If unpalatable, potentially embarrassing and integrity-damaging aspects of these ideals are ignored, denied and/or played down by their proponents (as opposed to acknowledged as a problem), whilst still promoting the same ideals, that is not honest, and implies either an unresolved cognitive bias, or (what the cynic in me increasingly suspects) an unspoken agenda or vested interest.0 -
Good demolition of Suryavrmnan's book. On that subject, can someone point out to the libertarians on this thread that saying something - charity will replace state education - does not prove anything. Empirical facts prove things. The data on the level of education in a country and its economic success is vast, the fact that in the absence of free education fewer people get educated is verified in every single country in the world, and the fact that, in the case of Ireland - as one example - education levels rocketed after the introduction of free secondary school is easily researchable.. Of coure the libertarians want to stop the poor, or lower middle income groups from going to even primary school, unless they get charity - charity which may come with religious or other indoctrination - so education levels will drop back significantly losing, just from an economic perspective, the gains from having engineers or scientists from all classes.
So we have libertarian education, nothing for the poor. Other libertairan philosophies? no legal aid, I assume, no social welfare, no state pensions, massive loss of transfers, and huge property rights for the ever wealthier 1%. We've had this before, and they want it again. Libertianism is the real road to serfdom.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Private for profit business works best for most things but the model doesn't suit other things like education and healthcare for instance. To maximise profits a business provides as little as it can get away with as cheaply as possible which isn't a good system for education.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Heh; I could say the same about your naive optimism regarding the workability of an all-private education system, where you don't seem to explain solutions to many of the problems presented.Permabear wrote:This post had been deleted.
Your entire posts rails against the government and the current system, but doesn't explain how an all-private system would be better; your 'urgency' argument "I don't have the luxury of waiting around for another 15 years" is also ridiculous, because there's clearly not a hope of an all-private system being implemented in that time (the public wouldn't support it).
Also, I'm not "anti-private-education"; I did post a topic discussing the idea of getting rid of private schools, but I don't hold the view that that should be done.
Your arguments also imply that the literacy rates have always been bad; in the OECD 2000 report, Ireland was ranked in the top 5 in the OECD for reading performance, and that of course was with the public education system; the downward trend shown in the 2009 report is a new one, and our past performance implies it is reversable.
Also, the digital literacy tests for Ireland in the same year show an improved score relative to the paper OECD test performed in 2009; this shows that the 2009 report was likely to be overly pessimistic compared to the digital tests (which would make sense due to more schoolkids using computers regularly):
http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2011/06/irish-students-score-better-on-oecd-pisa-digital-literacy-test-minister-quinn-welcomes-improvement-in-literacy-scores/
As for "awkward silences", I notice you completely failed to reply to any of the problems posed with private education, or how it would resolve these literacy problems. If you propose such a system you should at least be able to acknowledge the faults in it; the supporters of the current education system generally do, and view that it is better to resolve the problems existing in the current system.
Some of the problems of an all-private education system (off the top of my head), that have previously been discussed and need resolving:
- From a previous post "an all-private system could easily make the problem worse by focusing disadvantaged (economically and developmentally) students into poorer schools, where there is not enough money to afford proper education.".
- Private schools are free to discriminate on what students they allow to enroll, for any reason (the Libertarian view is "this is not a problem", but many will regardless view it as one)
- Private schools have a demonstrated history of creaming off easy to teach students, segregating those with disabilities or varying degrees (from minor to severe)
- Many private schools will still be partially subsidized by government, through government vouchers, without any added responsibilities or strings attached
- The cost of education will not scale based upon income, meaning the less well off a family is, the greater a proportion of income they have to spend on education (vouchers don't solve this)
- There is a high likelihood for increasing amounts of social segregation and societal divides, as students are sectioned off based on the education their parents can afford0 -
This post had been deleted.
There isn't a Gov monopoly on education in Ireland there are private schools and one can homeschool if they want to. Why would a private system be any different, there are unions in the private sector also who can be just as "militant" (though Irish teachers have not been very militant lately).
Bad maths and literacy rates are mostly due to those leaving school early. Don't see how a libertarian system would do anything to stop that.0 -
The lack of libertarian logic continues, particularly from PB. We are looking for Libertarian solutions - how would it work, how many people would get to go to school? We get
1) An appeal to emotion; as a father I, my two year old
2) 1) is incorrectly argued anyway, for private education is not banned. There are two year olds, who in the libertarian solution, would be actually disadvantaged and couldn't go to school. Which is what we are looking at.
3) The blaming of Statism for falls in standards in this country, without regard to the previous success being also Statist.
4) The sins of omission. Below is a link from wikipedia on the massively successful, and statist, Finnish system. The Finnish system produces the best results in international tests (from Wikipedia).
5) Critisism of the existing system - which could be flaws within the statist system, and fixable within it - is not proof of your position, even if correct in tiny parts (Irish teacher unions are a bit too powerful). The thread is about the actual libertarian solution, that is largely not getting argued. Criticism of A is not proof of B.
The Finnish education system is an egalitarian system, with no tuition fees and with free meals served to full-time students. The present Finnish education system consists of well-funded and carefully thought out daycare programs (for babies and toddlers) and a one-year "pre-school" (or kindergarten for six-year olds); a nine-year compulsory basic comprehensive school (starting at age seven and ending at the age of sixteen); post-compulsory secondary general academic and vocational education; higher education (University and Polytechnical); and adult (lifelong, continuing) education. The Nordic strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[1] Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.[1]0 -
Bluewolf did try and answer the thread, however vouchers are just another form of state payments, with more choice. In fact the voucher is not necessary, we already have a system where the government lets you choose in third level where you want to go, you spend government money, and to a certain extent your points are also currency ( effectively this is a voucher system - there is no need for a physical voucher).
In fact vouchers could be used for more redistribution - i.e. give bigger vouchers to the poor, and disadvantaged, each representing a certain fund to the schools, and reduce the voucher given to the rich. The rich can top up with real money.0 -
Ya good breakdown above of the methods of argument.
There is room for fleshing out how the voucher system would be implemented I suppose; for a Libertarian system only those unable to meet sustainable payments would get them (which retains the core of the problems I previously mentioned), where as a voucher based version of the current system would be available to all, and would either provide a static payment to all, or a progressive payment which is higher for the poor and gradually declines with earnings.Duggys Housemate wrote: »Bluewolf did try and answer the thread, however vouchers are just another form of state payments, with more choice. In fact the voucher is not necessary, we already have a system where the government lets you choose in third level where you want to go, you spend government money, and to a certain extent your points are also currency ( effectively this is a voucher system - there is no need for a physical voucher).
In fact vouchers could be used for more redistribution - i.e. give bigger vouchers to the poor, and disadvantaged, each representing a certain fund to the schools, and reduce the voucher given to the rich. The rich can top up with real money.
I don't know what I think of the possibilities of a voucher-based transition of the current system; if payments are not flat across the board, it seems to be a de-facto fee based system, as fees will be necessary to make up the cost-difference per student.
I disagree with that, in that I think it's valuable to maintain fee-less education (with the option of paying fees though, of course EDIT: i.e. semi-private vs public), particularly at primary/secondary level, as it is effectively a guarantee of education; having increasing fees depending upon income (or whatever way you want to calculate wealth), doesn't factor in things constraining money supplies, like debt.
A family with a semi-decent income, but with a mortgage, can be worse off for paying fees than a family with a poor income, but with a mortgage fully paid off.
Alternatively, the flat-payment across the board seems more fair, but seems like it may be redundant compared to what we have now; I'm not sure whether this may encourage piling on of additional fees to schools, as the choice of where to spend the voucher may just be a psychological difference to the way it is now?
I'm assuming a system here, where schools still receive additional non-voucher government income; otherwise, with a flat-payment system, schools in disadvantaged areas (where the cost of schooling is generally known to be greater) would be at an even bigger disadvantage.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not to assume that the education discussion has yet run its course, but another issue of libertarianism in an Irish context would be food safety.
Could kick it off with BSE.
"Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) is a disease that affects adult cattle. BSE attacks the brain and central nervous system of the animal and eventually causes death.
Commonly known as 'Mad-Cow Disease', BSE has a long incubation period. This means that it usually takes four to six years for cattle infected with BSE to show signs of the disease, such as disorientation, clumsiness and, occasionally, aggressive behaviour towards other animals and humans."
BSE controls in place in Ireland since 1996 are very strict and there are layers of robust measures to ensure maximum consumer protection in relation to BSE.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) bases its decisions upon the best scientific data and knowledge, and develops inspection and audit controls to ensure maximum consumer protection in relation to meat and meat products."
http://www.fsai.ie/faq/bse.html
Short Thom Hartmann vid here explaining the possible ramifications in U.S context but the same principles apply to Ireland or anywhere:
0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »The lack of libertarian logic continues, particularly from PB. We are looking for Libertarian solutions - how would it work, how many people would get to go to school? We get
1) An appeal to emotion; as a father I, my two year old
2) 1) is incorrectly argued anyway, for private education is not banned. There are two year olds, who in the libertarian solution, would be actually disadvantaged and couldn't go to school. Which is what we are looking at.
3) The blaming of Statism for falls in standards in this country, without regard to the previous success being also Statist.
4) The sins of omission. Below is a link from wikipedia on the massively successful, and statist, Finnish system. The Finnish system produces the best results in international tests (from Wikipedia).
5) Critisism of the existing system - which could be flaws within the statist system, and fixable within it - is not proof of your position, even if correct in tiny parts (Irish teacher unions are a bit too powerful). The thread is about the actual libertarian solution, that is largely not getting argued. Criticism of A is not proof of B.
The Finnish education system is an egalitarian system, with no tuition fees and with free meals served to full-time students. The present Finnish education system consists of well-funded and carefully thought out daycare programs (for babies and toddlers) and a one-year "pre-school" (or kindergarten for six-year olds); a nine-year compulsory basic comprehensive school (starting at age seven and ending at the age of sixteen); post-compulsory secondary general academic and vocational education; higher education (University and Polytechnical); and adult (lifelong, continuing) education. The Nordic strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[1] Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.[1]
Most of the Nordic welfare states that are held up as examples of free health and education have a looming problem of aging populations. They are now in a situation were there is more elderly than there is teenagers. Who is going to pay for the up keep of the elderly. These countries are going to soon have to start increase the percentage of GDP on their welfare state.
Anybody who understand the mathematical function of growth will see that welfare states are unsustainable as there is a point that there will not be enough wealth generated to cover these bonds that have been created between state and its population.
Just to make a point there is no such thing as a free meal the wealth and resources have to be generated from some were. And the children who attend these schools parent pay taxes that then pays the meal. Why not just pay for the meal direct from their own pockets.0 -
football_lover wrote: »Most of the Nordic welfare states that are held up as examples of free health and education have a looming problem of aging populations. They are now in a situation were there is more elderly than there is teenagers. Who is going to pay for the up keep of the elderly. These countries are going to soon have to start increase the percentage of GDP on their welfare state.
Anybody who understand the mathematical function of growth will see that welfare states are unsustainable as there is a point that there will not be enough wealth generated to cover these bonds that have been created between state and its population.
Just to make a point there is no such thing as a free meal the wealth and resources have to be generated from some were. And the children who attend these schools parent pay taxes that then pays the meal. Why not just pay for the meal direct from their own pockets.
The first part is, once again, not an argument for a libertarian state, it is an argument for a reform of the welfare state. The problem with pensions is easily solved, increase the pension age. If people tend to live to 85, and there is a bunching of the population in the higher age brackets, then the population from 25-65 are paying for those from 0-25 (ish), and 25-65.
The lower bound is less of an issue. If population is falling long term, there would be more people in the 65-85 bracket than the 0-25 bracket. Just focusing there, it takes 40 years of workers to pay for 20 years of retirement. That's a 2-1 ratio. Were the retirement age 75, 50 working years would pay for 10 years of retirement, that's 5-1. The dependancy ratio drops from 50% to 20%. Even five years helps a lot, the dependancy ratio drops from 50% to 33%.Why not just pay for the meal direct from their own pockets
Because not everybody can afford to go, and we tax the rich proportionately more than the poor to guarantee this.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »The first part is, once again, not an argument for a libertarian state, it is an argument for a reform of the welfare state. The problem with pensions is easily solved, increase the pension age. If people tend to live to 85, and there is a bunching of the population in the higher age brackets, then the population from 25-65 are paying for those from 0-25 (ish), and 25-65.
The lower bound is less of an issue. If population is falling long term, there would be more people in the 65-85 bracket than the 0-25 bracket. Just focusing there, it takes 40 years of workers to pay for 20 years of retirement. That's a 2-1 ratio. Were the retirement age 75, 50 working years would pay for 10 years of retirement, that's 5-1. The dependancy ratio drops from 50% to 20%. Even five years helps a lot, the dependancy ratio drops from 50% to 33%.
Because not everybody can afford to go, and we tax the rich proportionately more than the poor to guarantee this.
As I have stated there is going to need to be a proportional increase in welfare expenditure to GDP based on the number of elderly being higher than working age population.
The falling population is due to birth rates and when this is taken into account against the number of elderly growing not decreasing extra funding is going to be needed to care for the elderly. The number of working cannot be increased due to the number of births decreasing in the working population.
Yes the population as a whole is decreasing as in all western countries but the number of elderly is increasing.
You are also making the assumption that these economies are planned and have the required structure for a 20 year expenditure program. Pensions can be planned over this period but general expenditure is over a much shorter period.
We only need to look at Ireland too see how quick a correction in the market has taken. No amount of reform of the welfare state can create more wealth. It is impossible to tax beyond 100% of wealth never mind the
fact that people will rebel against taxation figures well below 100%.0 -
football_lover wrote: »As I have stated there is going to need to be a proportional increase in welfare expenditure to GDP based on the number of elderly being higher than working age population.
You stated that, and I explained your fallacy.The falling population is due to birth rates and when this is taken into account against the number of elderly growing not decreasing extra funding is going to be needed to care for the elderly. The number of working cannot be increased due to the number of births decreasing in the working population.
What? Can you read? The number working can be increased by raising the pension age.Yes the population as a whole is decreasing as in all western countries but the number of elderly is increasing.
Keep repeating that mantra and ignore the mathematics.You are also making the assumption that these economies are planned and have the required structure for a 20 year expenditure program. Pensions can be planned over this period but general expenditure is over a much shorter period.
I made no such assumption, I showed that my increasing the age of retirement by 10 years we massively reduce the dependency ratio.We only need to look at Ireland too see how quick a correction in the market has taken. No amount of reform of the welfare state can create more wealth. It is impossible to tax beyond 100% of wealth never mind the
fact that people will rebel against taxation figures well below 100%.
Nobody is saying anything about 100% tax. What this thread is about is how libertarianism, not reform to centrist welfare states, would work. The entire off shoot about pensions is not relevant, but I thought I would take it down as the pension non-crisis bugs me.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »The first part is, once again, not an argument for a libertarian state, it is an argument for a reform of the welfare state. The problem with pensions is easily solved, increase the pension age. If people tend to live to 85, and there is a bunching of the population in the higher age brackets, then the population from 25-65 are paying for those from 0-25 (ish), and 25-65.
The lower bound is less of an issue. If population is falling long term, there would be more people in the 65-85 bracket than the 0-25 bracket. Just focusing there, it takes 40 years of workers to pay for 20 years of retirement. That's a 2-1 ratio. Were the retirement age 75, 50 working years would pay for 10 years of retirement, that's 5-1. The dependancy ratio drops from 50% to 20%. Even five years helps a lot, the dependancy ratio drops from 50% to 33%.
Because not everybody can afford to go, and we tax the rich proportionately more than the poor to guarantee this.Duggys Housemate wrote: »You stated that, and I explained your fallacy.
What? Can you read? The number working can be increased by raising the pension age.
Keep repeating that mantra and ignore the mathematics.
I made no such assumption, I showed that my increasing the age of retirement by 10 years we massively reduce the dependency ratio.
Nobody is saying anything about 100% tax. What this thread is about is how libertarianism, not reform to centrist welfare states, would work. The entire off shoot about pensions is not relevant, but I thought I would take it down as the pension non-crisis bugs me.
As I have pointed out and you ignored this pensions will not compensate for the overall expenditure of a care system for the elderly. Even a 25 year increase will not cover the cost as the number of people who live longer is increased as is the average age due to treatment advances.
To compensate for this taxation is going to need to be increased to counter the increase in welfare percentage of GDP. The Nordic model has GDP expenditure of about 50% and this figure is going to need to increase to cover the cost of the welfare state.
Taxation in these countries is very high and as I have stated taxation cannot go beyond 100% with incurring debt and this is a mathematical fact.
As the Taxation level increase purchasing ability decreases this is a basic fact that does not change. As the payer of the tax has less wealth to use.
The Figures do not need to reach 100% for the economy to become unsustainable.
Look at Ireland we are almost at the stage were people cannot pay any more tax and we have not reached 100%.
You seem to be ignoring the welfare states GDP ratio.
Sooner or later the mechanisms of the markets will force the nordic model to face bankruptcy.
Austrian economics shows that economics is not an empirical science as most welfare state proponents seem to suggest.
You say increase tax on the wealthy what happens when they decide to move their capital and you cannot tax it. You then loose the initial benefit of the increase. Building an economy around the concepts of taxation always leads to instability.
The current tax for VAT and Income tax in Ireland is about 21billion this amount of money would create about 1 million extra jobs in the economy at national average salary of about 22500 euros give or take an order.0 -
Advertisement
-
football_lover wrote: »As I have pointed out and you ignored this pensions will not compensate for the overall expenditure of a care system for the elderly. Even a 25 year increase will not cover the cost as the number of people who live longer is increased as is the average age due to treatment advances.
To compensate for this taxation is going to need to be increased to counter the increase in welfare percentage of GDP. The Nordic model has GDP expenditure of about 50% and this figure is going to need to increase to cover the cost of the welfare state.
Once again you fail to deal with my main point on the
Taxation in these countries is very high and as I have stated taxation cannot go beyond 100% with incurring debt and this is a mathematical fact.
As the Taxation level increase purchasing ability decreases this is a basic fact that does not change. As the payer of the tax has less wealth to use.
The Figures do not need to reach 100% for the economy to become unsustainable.
Look at Ireland we are almost at the stage were people cannot pay any more tax and we have not reached 100%.
You seem to be ignoring the welfare states GDP ratio.
Sooner or later the mechanisms of the markets will force the nordic model to face bankruptcy.
Austrian economics shows that economics is not an empirical science as most welfare state proponents seem to suggest.
You say increase tax on the wealthy what happens when they decide to move their capital and you cannot tax it. You then loose the initial benefit of the increase. Building an economy around the concepts of taxation always leads to instability.
The current tax for VAT and Income tax in Ireland is about 21billion this amount of money would create about 1 million extra jobs in the economy at national average salary of about 22500 euros give or take an order.
Go back and read what I said about increasing the pension age and how that will affect the dependency ratio. The rest of your post is not relevant to the discussion.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »Go back and read what I said about increasing the pension age and how that will affect the dependency ratio. The rest of your post is not relevant to the discussion.
Go back and read what I have stated.
The pension ratio cannot cover the cost.
Infrastructure and resources such as hospitals, transport, equipment, medication and specialist training that geriatric health care professional require cannot be covered by correcting pensions alone.
It is going to require taxes to be raised.
And just because you say that my points are not relevent to a welfare state does not change the fact they are.
Employment, education, Health care and infrastructure are all import to cost factors for the welfare state that is fact.0 -
football_lover wrote: »Go back and read what I have stated.
The pension ratio cannot cover the cost.
Infrastructure and resources such as hospitals, transport, equipment, medication and specialist training that geriatric health care professional require cannot be covered by correcting pensions alone.
It is going to require taxes to be raised.
The main cost is pensions, people living longer means that the costs are delayed, but the costs are the same, the last few months of your life. The real cost of an ageing population is pensions, and that can be dealt with.And just because you say that my points are not relevent to a welfare state does not change the fact they are.
I said your points were relevant to the discussion on pensions.Employment, education, Health care and infrastructure are all import[sic] to cost factors for the welfare state that is fact.
Yea, and none except health care related to the side topic you have brought us on to with regards to pensions.
But it is an opportunity to get back on topic. The claim by Austrians that welfare states can't adjust to ageing populations seems to me to be a desire to let old people, uninsured old people, die on the street rather than do something within the context of a reformed welfare state.
So the thread is not about the present, but the future libertarian state. Whats the solution to the fact that old people are a growing segment of the population and most won't have significant health insurance, in the absence of state transfers?
New Topic:
How does libertarianism work with pensions - in an Irish context.0 -
Duggys Housemate wrote: »The main cost is pensions, people living longer means that the costs are delayed, but the costs are the same, the last few months of your life. The real cost of an ageing population is pensions, and that can be dealt with.
I said your points were relevant to the discussion on pensions.
Yea, and none except health care related to the side topic you have brought us on to with regards to pensions.
But it is an opportunity to get back on topic. The claim by Austrians that welfare states can't adjust to ageing populations seems to me to be a desire to let old people, uninsured old people, die on the street rather than do something within the context of a reformed welfare state.
So the thread is not about the present, but the future libertarian state. Whats the solution to the fact that old people are a growing segment of the population and most won't have significant health insurance, in the absence of state transfers?
New Topic:
How does libertarianism work with pensions - in an Irish context.
The main Thread of the overall topic is "how would libertarianism work in an Irish context"
All the topics I have raised are relevant to to the welfare state as they are costed and structured in relation to taxation and debt. You cannot claim as stated "Yea, and none except health care related to the side topic you have brought us on to with regards to pensions" when in fact they are all part of the same welfare state model.
You have asked "How does libertarianism work with pensions - in an Irish context" and my answer is that pension system should be voluntary and should not be used for economic modelling they need to on a personal finance basis.0 -
In an Irish context,
would patents exist?
Copyright of something material would exist but some believe that intellectual property can not be copyrighted with patents.
Can anyone shed some light on this?0 -
Advertisement
-
In an Irish context,
would patents exist?
Copyright of something material would exist but some believe that intellectual property can not be copyrighted with patents.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
There is nothing in Austrian economics that would stop patents from existing but there would also be nothing to stop a manufacture in china from copying the patent as this already occurs.0 -
Duggy, it was not an appeal to emotion. He was asked why the rush of a sudden drastic switchover instead of hanging around to see what happens - he explained why he personally would want to see a reform as he does not have the luxury of waiting. And while private schools may exist in some places, that's no good to all the other parents of 2 year olds who are only near public schools and can't move, and are faced with the same problems, barring the aforementioned drastic switch.Duggys Housemate wrote: »The lack of libertarian logic continues, particularly from PB. We are looking for Libertarian solutions - how would it work, how many people would get to go to school? We get
1) An appeal to emotion; as a father I, my two year old3) The blaming of Statism for falls in standards in this country, without regard to the previous success being also Statist.
What previous success0 -
The 'urgency' aspect of that makes no sense though, because it's widely acknowledged that the switchover can't be done anytime soon, because (as Libertarians acknowledge themselves) there just isn't the public support for it, and likely wide-scale opposition instead.Duggy, it was not an appeal to emotion. He was asked why the rush of a sudden drastic switchover instead of hanging around to see what happens - he explained why he personally would want to see a reform as he does not have the luxury of waiting. And while private schools may exist in some places, that's no good to all the other parents of 2 year olds who are only near public schools and can't move, and are faced with the same problems, barring the aforementioned drastic switch.
If there is the be a transition, it's going to require a gradual change in public opinion, which is going to take (I'd guess) at least a decade or more.
Before that can even be done though, all the problems put forward with an all-private education system would need to be resolved and have arguments explaining the solutions, otherwise any gradual change in public opinion may not be possible due to the opposition to an all-private system.
The trouble with that, is (through discussions on these threads) it doesn't look like there are solutions to many of the problems, or many of the problems are viewed by Libertarian supporters as acceptable (despite those same problems being likely to cause a lot of opposition).
The main criticism thus far has been the poor literacy levels noted in the 2009 OECD report, and general cynicism from Libertarian supporters about the governments ability to rectify that.What previous success
Previously though, Ireland was in the top 5 of the OECD for reading performance, so the cynicism is unwarranted because we were previously a lot more successful, and our previous success there shows the downward trend is reversible.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
So just to clarify, you claim the bulk of the increase in illiteracy rates are due to immigration (i.e. multiculturalism)?
Why is this a criticism of our educational system then, when students from non-english-speaking countries, come to Ireland without being able to read/write English?
I acknowledge that this is a problem regardless of whether it's down to our educational system, or simply that these people are from a non-english-speaking country, and that work needs to be done there regardless, but it's hardly a criticism of the Irish educational system as a whole, but a side effect of immigration.
The logical solution clearly isn't a reversal of multiculturalism, but an effort to increase English/literary education of non-English speakers in the country; whatever way you look at it, this isn't an indictment of our educational system, it's a problem brought on by immigration (that admittedly should have been foreseen), which needs to be tackled in its own right.
That presupposes that an all-private educational system doesn't create a whole other class of victims, particularly those that (for one reason or another) are more expensive to teach, and the wider issues of social segregation plus every other criticism mentioned in my (and others) past posts.Permabear wrote:The real victims here are those middle-class parents who pay a huge chunk of their income in taxes to support the teachers' unions' €8.5 billion extortion racket — and then don't have enough left over to pay privately for their kids actually to get an education.
You present it as a simple situation of the evil state creating victims out of people, whereas the all-private system appears to create a whole different set of potential 'victims'.
You can't evaluate the different systems (public + private vs all-private) based upon these kinds of skin-deep analysis/criticisms; each system has a much wider set of intricate/complex conditions which create whole different sets of imbalances. You have to evaluate the systems as a whole to determine their merits/demerits, and the all-private system creates some very significant issues which are likely to draw quite a large amount of public opposition.
The common factor in these discussions is to rail against the problems with the public system, without providing solutions for the problems in the all-private system: I acknowledge and agree with a lot of your criticisms of the public system (even though I disagree with the proposed solutions), but you need to acknowledge and address the problems with the all-private system, and if those problems can't be resolved, you need to show why the cost of those problems is better than the cost of the mixed public/private system.0 -
This post had been deleted.
This article will probably make some uncomfortable reading for those that peddle the private school argument. Victims indeed, had a chuckle at that one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-183535390 -
There are varying degrees of thought on this topic re: Libertarianism. IMO they would/should still exist; perhaps moreso under a more Libertarian society. I believe there should be limits placed on patent via legislation (as there already is) and there should be some issues raised regarding morality and patents, perhaps opening up of patented drugs to third world via limited local production?In an Irish context,
would patents exist?
I don't follow. Copyright and Patent are separate branches of intellectual property which serve to protect different things in different manners. What is copyrightable is not patentable and vice versa. Maybe I'm missing your question here though?Copyright of something material would exist but some believe that intellectual property can not be copyrighted with patents.0 -
Here's some more.
"PISA has found that when public schools are given similar levels of autonomy as private schools, and when public schools attract a similar student population as private schools, the private school advantage is no longer apparent in 13 of the
16 OECD countries that showed this advantage."
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/43/48482894.pdf0 -
In terms of quality however the governments 'investment' seems to be failing miserably.This article will probably make some uncomfortable reading for those that peddle the private school argument. Victims indeed, had a chuckle at that one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18353539
So what you are essentially saying is that if you reduce the states involvement in a school, it'll then perform better. I don't think there'll be a whole lot of Libertarians disagreeing with that analysis.Channel Zero wrote: »Here's some more.
"PISA has found that when public schools are given similar levels of autonomy as private schools, and when public schools attract a similar student population as private schools, the private school advantage is no longer apparent in 13 of the
16 OECD countries that showed this advantage."
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/43/48482894.pdf0 -
So what you are essentially saying is that if you reduce the states involvement in a school, it'll then perform better. I don't think there'll be a whole lot of Libertarians disagreeing with that analysis.
Giving schools more autonomy in some aspects i have no problem with per se, if it's shown to be an improvement. And i personally have no problem with private schools existing (in tandem with public education for all).
Where the parting of ways occurs with the fundamentalist libertarian 'solution' as espoused by the most of the regulars here, is when they display a complete refusal to countenance anything other than complete destruction of public education based on narrow-minded ideological grounds. Private education somehow performs better because... it's private, even though the figures don't back that up at all.
To quote PISA again "On average across OECD countries, privately managed schools display a performance advantage of 30 score points on the PISA reading scale (in the United Kingdom even of 62 score points). However, once the socio-economic background of students and schools is accounted for, public schools come out with a slight advantage of 7 score points, on average across OECD countries (in the United Kingdom public schools outscore privately managed schools by 20 score points once the socio-economic background is accounted for).0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
Well that's a pretty clear example of being selective in your stats then; you don't get to choose what statistical variables you weigh in to these studies, to fit your preferred point of view, they are using well developed and standardized statistical methods.This post had been deleted.
I mean with the socioeconomic factors, it seems to imply that if you rollout an all-private system, it is likely to perform worse overall; that's implied just by the stats study alone, nobody has addressed all the other significant criticisms of an all-private system.
It looks quite likely, due to those other unresolved problems mentioned several times in previous posts, that an all-private system will undoubtedly be much worse over time, so on its face right now it seems totally unworkable.
Plenty of room for still discussing whether private schools in a mixed public/private system work better, but since some of the major all-private problems don't seem to get addressed at all, I'll assume that idea is given up.0 -
I think your use of the word unworkable belies a certain misunderstanding here. If every parent had the sovereign choice to educate their child as they saw fit; whether in a school focused on mathematics or an artistic school, homeschool, or any type of school that could potentially arise to meet demand, then who is deeming it unworkable? Unworkable for whom? On what basis? Unworkable to me suggests your inability to get rid of the idea of a central command running things.KyussBishop wrote: »It looks quite likely, due to those other unresolved problems mentioned several times in previous posts, that an all-private system will undoubtedly be much worse over time, so on its face right now it seems totally unworkable.
Another point on the apriori shunning of a freed education industry is that you can't measure or quantify the effects of such a move in advance. You (or anyone) have no idea what schools or institutions would arise in the absence of state interference, and as such, criticisms based on 'lack of evidence' (in your sense of the word) are entirely unfair.
What problems could you see developing if state-controlled education were to be jettisoned?KyussBishop wrote: »Plenty of room for still discussing whether private schools in a mixed public/private system work better, but since some of the major all-private problems don't seem to get addressed at all, I'll assume that idea is given up.0 -
I think your use of the word unworkable belies a certain misunderstanding here. If every parent had the sovereign choice to educate their child as they saw fit; whether in a school focused on mathematics or an artistic school, homeschool, or any type of school that could potentially arise to meet demand, then who is deeming it unworkable? Unworkable for whom? On what basis? Unworkable to me suggests your inability to get rid of the idea of a central command running things.
Another point on the apriori shunning of a freed education industry is that you can't measure or quantify the effects of such a move in advance. You (or anyone) have no idea what schools or institutions would arise in the absence of state interference, and as such, criticisms based on 'lack of evidence' (in your sense of the word) are entirely unfair.
Can't anyone do that now?
Homeschooling is legal in Ireland as are private schools.0 -
As 20cent says, the choice already exists for parents between public/private; private schools aren't unworkable, but an all-private system, subject to all the problems discussed in previous posts, is unworkable, as it seems highly likely it would be far worse than what we have now.
If you could get rid of government influence on schools, without creating all the negative side effects, then great I'd support that; I don't believe in "no-state-control/'total-freedom' at any cost" though, as it is extremely short-sighted, and all the problems either system would create need to be weighed against each other.
As for what the previous-mentioned issues are (most, if not all of these don't depend on 'a-priori' assumptions):
Copy-paste (consequences of all-private):
Creaming off of easy to teach students, and resulting segregation of more expensive to teach students; this includes students that have minor mental or physical ailments that make them more expensive to teach, not just those with severe problems. This creates a whole new societal exclusion of particular people (and is unacceptable in my view).
Giving private educational institutes the right (not just ability, but explicit right) to discriminate against people of a particular social background, race, nationality, religion, socioeconomic status...just, anything basically.
...
More expensive to teach students being concentrated in schools where the cost of their education is far higher compared to the benefit they receive compared to other schools, in a massively disproportionate fashion.
Among more issues.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78397606&postcount=228
Copy-paste:
Some of the problems of an all-private education system (off the top of my head), that have previously been discussed and need resolving:
- From a previous post "an all-private system could easily make the problem worse by focusing disadvantaged (economically and developmentally) students into poorer schools, where there is not enough money to afford proper education.".
- Private schools are free to discriminate on what students they allow to enroll, for any reason (the Libertarian view is "this is not a problem", but many will regardless view it as one)
- Private schools have a demonstrated history of creaming off easy to teach students, segregating those with disabilities or varying degrees (from minor to severe)
- Many private schools will still be partially subsidized by government, through government vouchers, without any added responsibilities or strings attached
- The cost of education will not scale based upon income, meaning the less well off a family is, the greater a proportion of income they have to spend on education (vouchers don't solve this)
- There is a high likelihood for increasing amounts of social segregation and societal divides, as students are sectioned off based on the education their parents can afford
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78934796&postcount=266
Issues with vouchers (was argued as a solution to some of above problems); makes vouchers either regressive or redundant, in my view:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78965136&postcount=2700 -
Hi,
As someone who attended private schools for all of primary school and secondary school, boarding for a year attending day school for the rest, i thought i would add a little. Generally even the most expensive private schools are run by religious orders and are even more dogmatic than state schools. Infact often the more exclusive the more dogmatic and draconian.
Parents often think they have more input as they are paying fees however a lot of schools (especially boarding schools) employ a contract that is non negotiable and quite constraining on parents.
Incidently many rural children board as there are no suitable schools near enough already.
People send their children to schools they afford so almost without exception you only ever encounter those from your own socio-economic background. It results in an intense snobbery and elitism. Many of my school mates still to this day only associated with, work with and socialize with those with whom they feel socially safe. Schools have associations with certain groups in society. If you have gone to the same school as so and so even if you don't know each other it's an 'in'. Having had a private education i can say it is it's own closed society. It contains it's own advantages and privileges way beyond what is paid for. It is not in anyway open or liberal. For example my school had a strict admissons policy and what that was 'OFFICIALLY' differed greatly from what that was 'UNOFFICIALLY', were you the right type? Were parents of an acceptable profession or class? For some schools it may be are 'you the right faith?'
Not in Ireland (i know we are speaking in an Irish context) but in America many faith schools are not teaching evolution.
There are benefits of private schools...for instance better facilities aside from acedemia. A much greater selection of subjects. Infact in my school if you wanted a subject they did not teach they would arrange it for you. Smaller classes , individual tutoring, better qualified teachers, benchmarking for teachers. It's an all round product with astro turfs swimming pools clubs societies etc. It is admittedly it's own world.0 -
It is not beyond the wit of man to devise a purely profit orientated capitalist solution to these questions. As a capitalist, I begin by ruling out the notion of state subvention from the outset. That done - we are now free to consider the matter at hand.As I understand it Libertarianism would favour the removal by the state in providing education. How would this work in a small, West of Ireland area where there is currently, say, a 2-teacher school with 20 children? Surely this would not be profitable for a private organisation?
To begin, people in rural areas subsidize urban services via their taxes while not benefiting from those urban services. Therefore, they should be taxed less. The money they save in taxes could then be used to pay the small, rural privately run school with 2 teachers.
This then raises a new question. How are the urban services to be funded without the usual subsidies from rural Ireland. Again the solution is privatization. Only the profit making services need be retained, whilst the wasteful self serving "services" can be dispensed with.0 -
^^ Right and if you look two posts up you can see a load of likely problems with that all-private system, which would indicate that it would likely be worse than a mixed public/private system.0
-
Advertisement
-
If you want to see real underfunded education I suggest you go to Rwanda. I am just back from that country and I can tell you that the material disadvantage you refer to is a wonderful motivator for Rwandan children. In Ireland children are not materially disadvantaged but they are certainly very disadvantaged because they are constantly bombarded with this toxic entitlement ideology. Telling kids that the world owes them rights they have not earned is an ultimate betrayal of the children. It offers them an excuse to give up at the first opportunity.KyussBishop wrote: »- From a previous post "an all-private system could easily make the problem worse by focusing disadvantaged (economically and developmentally) students into poorer schools, where there is not enough money to afford proper education.".
Private schools should be free to pick and choose their students, after all - they are private. If a student has special needs that would incur extra costs on the school then the school should be entitled to expect extra payment for receiving that student. The source of that payment is not the schools concern but there are several possibilities: the students parents, the state or a sponsor.KyussBishop wrote: »- Private schools have a demonstrated history of creaming off easy to teach students, segregating those with disabilities or varying degrees (from minor to severe)- Private schools are free to discriminate on what students they allow to enroll, for any reason (the Libertarian view is "this is not a problem", but many will regardless view it as one)
People who send their kids to private schools usually pay a lot more tax than those who would rather waste their money on drink, drugs, cigarettes, whores etc. Why do the high earners who pay must to the state benefit least in state subsidies. Private schools are entitled to everything they get from the state. By right they should get a hell of a lot more.KyussBishop wrote: »- Many private schools will still be partially subsidized by government, through government vouchers, without any added responsibilities or strings attachedKyussBishop wrote: »- The cost of education will not scale based upon income, meaning the less well off a family is, the greater a proportion of income they have to spend on education (vouchers don't solve this)
The lazy are creaming it. Not only do they spend their money on drink and cigarettes instead of on their kids education - they also send their kids to fully subsidized schools, they get subsidies for schoolbooks, uniforms etc. Why would they ever bother to work with the lavish social welfare system to prop them up. It seems to me that in many cases the "poor" would be more accurately described as the "lazy" or the "irresponsible" - although one could also argue that the "jealous" would be a more fitting description.
Social segregation is a state of mind and it is caused by those who propagate a socialist mentality. The entitlement culture gives kids a victim mentality. they end up thinking the world owes them a living. It gives them an excuse to give up and it destroys initiative and effort. Telling kids they have "rights" that they did not earn does nothing to foster a good work ethic. Children need to be told that if they work hard and study hard they can overcome any difficulty. Socialists have a lot to answer for, shame on them.KyussBishop wrote: »- There is a high likelihood for increasing amounts of social segregation and societal divides, as students are sectioned off based on the education their parents can afford0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TDhi7QF7IE
Advertisement