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
How would Libertarianism work in an Irish context?
Options
Comments
-
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 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 79125
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
Advertisement