Hey guys just a basic question. How would the really really poor afford school for their kids under a complete free market system?? I mean what if a family was extremely poor?? It seems to me that this is a tough question to answer when I am asked it.
Rubén:I was benefitted by the charity of Dr. Armand Hammer, who spent a great amount of his wealth helping out the governments of the U.S., the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, etc., and who somehow played a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall. I live to his ideals more than anyone else's.
Oh, the story gets better. Your private benefactor was an industrialist oligarch and globalist who may have come by his money dishonestly. Someone should make a movie out of this plot.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Rubén:I was benefitted by the charity of Dr. Armand Hammer, who spent a great amount of his wealth helping out the governments of the U.S., the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, etc., and who somehow played a role in the fall of the Berlin Wall. I live to his ideals more than anyone else's. Oh, the story gets better. Your private benefactor was an industrialist oligarch and globalist who may have come by his money dishonestly. Someone should make a movie out of this plot.
Why do you claim his money was made dishonestly? Dr. Armand Hammer was a very succesful businessman in excelled in the fields of pharmaceutics, pencil-making, asbestos, art galleries, art selling, liquor, cattle breeding, and transformed tiny Occidental into the Eighth Sister of all private Petroleum companies. His life was an example of hard work and promtion of intenational understanding. He has changed the lives not only of me but of tens of thousands of young adults from every country in the world.
This kind of resumé is very hard to beat.
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
liberty student: industrialist oligarch
industrialist oligarch
Is this a libertarian concept or a marxist cliché?
Well another way people could be provided for would be through voluntary community organizations aimed at ensuring certain kinds of social outcomes. For example, a home-owners' association could design a policy by which members who could not afford to send their kids to school would be granted financial support. Or individuals might participate in mutual aid societies which could perform similar functions.
As others have noted, we might also imagine the emergence of charitable institutions designed to help needy children afford an education, and it would be surprising to find schools failing to offer financial assistance in a decentralized educational system, given that most private schools already do so today.
Additionally, some children might be able to secure financial assistance for an education more directly aimed at preparing them for success in the workforce, where the ability to repay loans would likely be better and the education itself less costly. I have in mind here vocational schools with less emphasis on a broad liberal arts education and more emphasis on technical skills that would help children participate in the work force.
What we might find, however, in a radically decentralized system is that in communities that didn't place a high value on children receiving a broad liberal arts education, many children would end up going without one. It is somewhat reasonable to expect that given the sheer financial profitability of some level of education for a child, most families would be able to afford to have their children educated to some extent. But some facets of a liberal arts education may not be profitable in a financial sense, instead producing value for the child in the form of a rich life and improved intellect.
A proponent of radical decentralization would need to ask herself: In the event that charitable individuals and organizations in a community did not feel that a broad liberal arts education for needy children was worthy of supporting, and such an education would simply fall outside of the means of some families, would it be permissible to coercively take money from some individuals in order to ensure a liberal arts education for all children? If so, who would be justified in doing so, and how would they have to administer the support? Further, is failing to support a liberal arts education for poor children a violation of a duty, such that it would be morally impermissible to defend yourself against someone coercing you to do so?
I think that a case can be made on both sides in this debate, but ultimately I would expect to see the issue to be a moot point in most communities. As mentioned above, there are a number of mechanisms by which education could be supported in a decentralized system, and I would be surprised if we really ended up with communities where parents wanted to send their children to school, but simply couldn't find a way to afford it. It could be that in some communities, poor children might end up with more "practical" (i.e. market-participation-oriented) educations, which could be very regrettable. But the upshot is that these children would likely grow up to be able to afford better educations for their own children. And I would imagine that many communities would offer the kinds of assistance necessary to ensure that all children received a broad education, regardless of financial background.
Ultimately, though, what's needed is not an immediate abolition of the current educational system, but rather a movement away from centralized planning and towards more decentralized, competitive provision. Once we commit to that trend, we can start debating about the intricacies of a radically decentralized system. For now, we should focus on the area on which I think we share common ground: this is not an issue in which the federal government needs to interfere.
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Well, clearly there would be a market for education of underprivaleged kids. Humans tend to improve their own condition, so there would be a demand for said service.
The problem is what to do about children who are controlled by over-bearing parents who are poor, and seek to restrain the freedom and desires of the child. My opinion that the actuall number of children in this awful condition would be extremely low. I know parents of children right now, who earn very small incomes, but I know they are very concerned for the welfare of their child. In a free market the incidence of unprivaleged and restricted child would be very low, as it is today-shitty poor parents. Certainly private charity which would flourish in the absence of a predatory state would take care of many of these social problems. Perhaps even appreticeships, and child labor
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Rubén: liberty student: industrialist oligarch Is this a libertarian concept or a marxist cliché?
Neither; it is factually correct, with regards to oligarchs existing in a political system such as democracy. Automatically decrying things you do not fully understand or accept as "Marxist" will get you nowhere.Even if anything on the forum mentioned is Marxist, there is no shame in understanding or reading into a philosophy that one does not agree with, otherwise you are just engaging in rhetoric without full knowledge of the rhetoric itself (punditry). I assume that is partially why you are here (aside from brushing up on economics) ?
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Also: I always thought autodidactism was a great option for "poor" kids. The Internet has been the best "secondary" (might as well be primary, with what little I learned in school aside from basics) education I will probably ever have access to.
I can imagine that projects like the OLPC project benefit from the expansion of the education market.
Just think of all the spare computing cycles that become availiable for scientific research! That is of course, if all the OLPC of the world are preinstalled with a boinc manager or something. (There is no direct monetary benefit but there is no virtually no cost either)
Anyway, the problem is not the lack of education per se. It is the lack of knowledge to explore educational options. We just need more education salemen. That way the poor knows that there is a diverse range of education that he can acquires should he choose to.
After all, you can have the world's biggest library but it is no uses to anybody if they don't know about it.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Nitroadict: Rubén: liberty student: industrialist oligarch Is this a libertarian concept or a marxist cliché? Neither; it is factually correct, with regards to oligarchs existing in a political system such as democracy. Automatically decrying things you do not fully understand or accept as "Marxist" will get you nowhere.Even if anything on the forum mentioned is Marxist, there is no shame in understanding or reading into a philosophy that one does not agree with, otherwise you are just engaging in rhetoric without full knowledge of the rhetoric itself (punditry). I assume that is partially why you are here (aside from brushing up on economics) ?
I am also enrolled in the Venezuelan socialism of the 21st century forum, for which I also happen to have the time to read and post. It is a great source for Marxist theory and thoughts, and it actually has an English section if you are ever interested in checking it out. So I get to know both extremes of thought first hand without having to completely agree with either of them. It is funny that I am the capitalist for them, and I am the statist for you! Somehow I am able to find a few points in common every once in a while.
Rubén:I am also enrolled in the Venezuelan socialism of the 21st century forum, for which I also happen to have the time to read and post. It is a great source for Marxist theory and thoughts, and it actually has an English section if you are ever interested in checking it out. So I get to know both extremes of thought first hand without having to completely agree with either of them. It is funny that I am the capitalist for them, and I am the statist for you! Somehow I am able to find a few points in common every once in a while.
Libertarianism is not an extreme. It is a natural rational way to live. Communism, marxism, and socialism are unnatural. Which is why they always end in pain and suffering. In gulags and riots. Starvation and genocide.
Armand Hammer. He is a paragon. He is perhaps the most perfectly corrupt individual of the last, most corrupt century. Armand Hammer, who was a Bolshevik agent long after the Bolsheviks were dust. Armand Hammer, who bought banks so that he could blackmail congressman and senators, who boasted he kept Al Gore Senior in his wallet. Armand Hammer, admirer of the NKVD for shooting people for not keeping the trains running on time.
Where do you think he got the money to buy his banking and petroleum interests? He was a paid agent of the Bolsheviks. But of course, he used even them.
Even Al 'A' Gore's mother said she wouldn't leave Junior alone with Armand Hammer, because she knew he was the devil incarnate.
Congratulations on your scholarship.
liberty student: Rubén:I am also enrolled in the Venezuelan socialism of the 21st century forum, for which I also happen to have the time to read and post. It is a great source for Marxist theory and thoughts, and it actually has an English section if you are ever interested in checking it out. So I get to know both extremes of thought first hand without having to completely agree with either of them. It is funny that I am the capitalist for them, and I am the statist for you! Somehow I am able to find a few points in common every once in a while. Libertarianism is not an extreme. It is a natural rational way to live. Communism, marxism, and socialism are unnatural. Which is why they always end in pain and suffering. In gulags and riots. Starvation and genocide.
What is unnatural is to be closed to some of the achievements of other ideologies.
It is also unnatural to believe in an absence of government. So, by extension, bees that are governed by their queen are also unnatural, in your opinion? Government is part of human nature. Pain and suffering are part of life. The idea of having no government but instead a bunch of competing libertarian private police or security forces frightens me to the extent that envision further starvation and genocide should those forces start fighting against each other as is the natural action from market competition.
Philemon: Armand Hammer. He is a paragon. He is perhaps the most perfectly corrupt individual of the last, most corrupt century. Armand Hammer, who was a Bolshevik agent long after the Bolsheviks were dust. Armand Hammer, who bought banks so that he could blackmail congressman and senators, who boasted he kept Al Gore Senior in his wallet. Armand Hammer, admirer of the NKVD for shooting people for not keeping the trains running on time. Where do you think he got the money to buy his banking and petroleum interests? He was a paid agent of the Bolsheviks. But of course, he used even them. Even Al 'A' Gore's mother said she wouldn't leave Junior alone with Armand Hammer, because she knew he was the devil incarnate. Congratulations on your scholarship.
It is very easy to denigrate a dead person who cannot defend himself.
What sources do you have for what you said?
Armand Hammer served as a counsellor to FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter & Reagan. Al Gore Sr. introduced him as the 101th Senator of the U.S. How would these people have trusted Dr. Hammer if he had not demonstrated his goodwill? Of course he received money from the Bolsheviks, he did business with them. Instead of avoiding the existence of the USSR, he went there, worked hard and made part of his fortune, the capitalist way, in Russia. Later he reinvested his profits in Occidental, but what really turned that company around was his know-how on global business, not the amount of money he invested. Lots of people have invested far more money and got broke due to unsound business practices.
Please read your sources before making unfortunate, uninformed comments about the honorable legacy of Dr. Armand Hammer.
mr_anonymous:The schools would still be expensive because of the tools they would buy to educate their students i.e. computers, books, food/lunches, teacher's pay, and many new technological innovations that would come out of a free market system. I think it would cost less to operate a school under private ownership, but it would not be significantly cheaper despite being much more efficient.
Bull hockey puck.
mr_anonymous:From 15 years old, children would begin to focus their studies on an individual subject like math, english, engineering, chemistry etc. It would essentially be beginning a college education style at a much younger age.
In a free market society, most people will be in the workforce by age 15.
Byzantine: In a free market society, most people will be in the workforce by age 15.
And what is the point of having so many people in the workforce by age 15? That would increase the rate of unemployment, and it would deprive teens from a few years of extra education that would benefit them in the long run. This goes back to the previous topic of a person not having freedom during childhood but gaining it through adulthood.
I agree that marking the difference between childhood and adulthood at 15, 18 or 21 years old is arbitrary.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap