The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Government funded/provided "education"

rated by 0 users
This post has 5 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,920
Points 36,310
Spideynw Posted: Mon, Jul 7 2008 10:49 PM

I thought some of you may be interested in checking out this thread:

ttp://www.libertylounge.net/forums/32297-one-main-differences-between-liberals-libertarians-12.html#post193540

The question I am asking them to answer is if they can prove that government funded/provided education is the best thing the money spent on it could be spent on.  Of course the only answer would be a cost/benefit analysis, which is impossible to do.  But they continue to refuse to admit it after almost 200 responses.

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 787
Points 13,395
banned replied on Tue, Jul 8 2008 12:37 AM

Bah, externalities.

Honestly, I can't really figure them out. It seems rather subjective and entirely silly, why doesn't the government subsidize everything since it "leads to greater wealth"? If no one wants to get an education It would seem that that is an individual marginal assessment and it wouldn't be beneficial to force people into situations they don't want to partake in and do things they aren't willing to do, since that entirely contradictory to the premise that forced education is good: that it makes people more productive.

Hell, I thought markets were the aggregate wills of market actors who acted in a way that they believe would enhance their subjective standard of living. But maybe not, maybe markets are the mental fabrications of a few social elites who believe they can cure all of humanities ills.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,247
Points 65,050
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Funny thing is that, when I wear a nice cologne, for instance, that's an "externality". Same if I get a haircut people like. Thus, the state should compel them to pay me for the benefit I am providing them, as well as compel me to give part of it to the people who serviced me. That way, there are no "externalities". Of course, by this logic, I should also be forced to compensate anyone who doesn't like my hairstyle. It's more "efficient", that way. In reality, out of the fantasy world of some "economists", I undertake the action knowing fully well that there are benefits for which I cannot compel payment. If it bothered me to the point that I thought it wasn't worth it, I have an option: do not consume the service! Simple.

-Jon

To darkness I condemn you...

  • | Post Points: 45
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 836
Points 13,635
MacFall replied on Tue, Jul 8 2008 8:17 PM

Good post, Jon. I'm sure I'll plagiarize it sometime.

Pro Christo et Libertate integre!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 787
Points 13,395
banned replied on Wed, Jul 9 2008 12:51 AM

I'm going to get the government to subsidize it because I felt more productive after I read it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,920
Points 36,310

I like both posts by banned and Jon.  Excellent points.

At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items) | RSS

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