NationStates Jolt Archive

Walt Dixie feels he can do nothing but support this issue .

Well you could be against it or feel indiffrent too...

http://www.hostmysig.com/data/raziel/Icon8.jpg
Immortal Emperor Tobias Raziel
Holy Empire of Penguenia
Penguenian Lady Guard (http://boards.gamers.com/messages/overview.asp?name=Penguenia)

Commie commie commie! You are no better than Stalin! free education? No! free markets! Free education is discrimination against the rich. The rich are supirior to the poor in that they all worked hard for their wealth (being born is hard work too... besides... PROPRTY RIGHTS, you COMMIE!)what with all these lazy workers surfing the web on the job and thus STEALING from them...

Poor folks' kids should be WORKING anyway! Lazy poor people!

Perhaps I should remind you that a worker with an education is more valuable to his/her employer than a worker who is uneducated. If you disagree with this, then please give me the numbers which show that the cost of educating a worker exceeds the increase in his/her productivity as a result of the education.

Perhaps I should remind you that a worker with an education is more valuable to his/her employer than a worker who is uneducated. If you disagree with this, then please give me the numbers which show that the cost of educating a worker exceeds the increase in his/her productivity as a result of the education.

Unless they work for "free"

If an employer values educated employees, then let him pay for the education of the employees.

But to force people at gunpoint to pay for the education of someone else's child whether they want to or not is evil.

Walt Dixie feels he can do nothing but support this issue.

We've already had two of tehse resolutions.

I personally believe in a tax credit and private school system.

Commie commie commie! You are no better than Stalin! free education? No! free markets! Free education is discrimination against the rich. The rich are supirior to the poor in that they all worked hard for their wealth (being born is hard work too... besides... PROPRTY RIGHTS, you COMMIE!)what with all these lazy workers surfing the web on the job and thus STEALING from them...

Poor folks' kids should be WORKING anyway! Lazy poor people!

Global Slave Market is Free Outer Eugenia by the way. I figured him out within two days of creating his spoof. Here's a hint: don't log in at the same time as your spoof nation for two days in a row. :lol:

Unlike a lot of my colleagues, I DO support free education, but funded by a system of TAX CREDITS and PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

EVERYBODY should be guarenteed tax credits up to 8th or 9th grade, but after that you have to demonstrate academic potential to recieve a free high school education. Or you can pay for one.

This MINIMIZES government control over education, MINIMIZES cost, and MAXIMIZES quality. This is one of those compromises between objectivism and pragmatism that I'm going to have to make.

However, students should have the RIGHT to drop out of school AT ANY TIME THEY CHOOSE.

Capitalism functions best in a literate society.

Global Slave Market is Free Outer Eugenia by the way. I figured him out within two days of creating his spoof. Here's a hint: don't log in at the same time as your spoof nation for two days in a row. :lol:
Congratulations on figuring out that Global Slave Market is a puppet nation meant to poke fun at you and your insanity.

Here, have a biscuit.

EVERYBODY should be guarenteed tax credits up to 8th or 9th grade, but after that you have to demonstrate academic potential to recieve a free high school education. Or you can pay for one.
So students with LESS academic potential but MORE money can get better education than students with more academic potential but less money? What a wonderful way to create a feudal caste society and to keep the masses illiterate and poor! You should be proud of yourself.

I firmly believe that children should not be rewarded or punished for the successes or failures of their parents. Money should have no place in education.

Private education is the greatest enemy of meritocracy.

I suggest you look into adding the words "scholarship" and "charity" to your vocabulary. It might be a good idea.

Just a suggestion...

Global Slave Market is Free Outer Eugenia by the way. I figured him out within two days of creating his spoof. Here's a hint: don't log in at the same time as your spoof nation for two days in a row. :lol:
Congratulations on figuring out that Global Slave Market is a puppet nation meant to poke fun at you and your insanity.

Here, have a biscuit.

EVERYBODY should be guarenteed tax credits up to 8th or 9th grade, but after that you have to demonstrate academic potential to recieve a free high school education. Or you can pay for one.
So students with LESS academic potential but MORE money can get better education than students with more academic potential but less money? What a wonderful way to create a feudal caste society and to keep the masses illiterate and poor! You should be proud of yourself.

I firmly believe that children should not be rewarded or punished for the successes or failures of their parents. Money should have no place in education.

Private education is the greatest enemy of meritocracy.

You're misunderstanding my statement.

YOU SHOULD GET FREE HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION (at a private school, through tax credits) IF YOU DEMONSTRATE ACADEMIC POTENTIAL.

If you DONT demonstrate academic potential, you can STILL go to high school... but you have to pay for it.

I suggest you look into adding the words "scholarship" and "charity" to your vocabulary. It might be a good idea.

Just a suggestion...

Yeah this is a VERY good point. Only about 10% of students at Ivy League schools pay the full price of tuition.

You're misunderstanding my statement.
No, I understand your stament perfectly:

If you DONT demonstrate academic potential, you can STILL go to high school... but you have to pay for it.
So you're saying that rich parents can BUY their children a better education than they deserve, at the expense of the poor children who would have gotten those places in highschool if money wasn't an issue.

I suggest you look into adding the words "scholarship" and "charity" to your vocabulary. It might be a good idea.

Just a suggestion...
Don't be an idiot. Charity is random and unreliable, thus it is little more than a pathetic joke. And scholarships still put the poor at a disadvantage: the rich can BUY their way in, while the poor can't.

You're misunderstanding my statement.
No, I understand your stament perfectly:

If you DONT demonstrate academic potential, you can STILL go to high school... but you have to pay for it.
So you're saying that rich parents can BUY their children a better education than they deserve, at the expense of the poor children who would have gotten those places in highschool if money wasn't an issue.

I suggest you look into adding the words "scholarship" and "charity" to your vocabulary. It might be a good idea.

Just a suggestion...
Don't be an idiot. Charity is random and unreliable, thus it is little more than a pathetic joke. And scholarships still put the poor at a disadvantage: the rich can BUY their way in, while the poor can't.

90% of Ivy League students get financial aid. That's pretty reliable to me.

And as for that high school thing, only offer tax credits for say the best 40-50% of students. This way the poor AREN'T harmed if the rich buy their way in... there would just be more schools.

The system in China works like this. You are guarenteed 9 years of education. At 9th grade the top third are allowed to continue their free education at a public school. The other two-thirds can:

- Go to a vocational school, which are free or very cheap
- Pay money to go to a private school
- Get a job

Now just change the world 'public' to 'private' in the first paragraph and add the right to drop out whenever you want and presto! That's my plan.

I certainly agree with the proposal. I believe that no one owes anyone else a living, luxuries or success- I firmly believe in a meritocratic society.

Believing in such a society, where each and every citizen gets exactly what the deserve, demands certain egalitarian concessions. In order to assure that each person succeeds or fails based on their own merit, a certain 'equal start' is demanded. Clearly someone who has no access to school will probably not succeed, no matter their individual worth, drive and ambition. Moreover, someone who can afford to pay their way through school and university, regardless of their actual merit, will do considerably better. Thus an equal access to education is nessecary if we wish to make a truly fair, just society.

This doesn't nessecarily have to infringe on percieved inviolable property rights: (that's a different argument) since each individual citizen should be rewarded based solely on individual merit, clearly the institution of inheritance makes little sense- the inheriter does nothing to deserve this wealth, and the deceased individual clearly has no claim on it. Thus education could be funded for all without a tax.

Clearly we will never have a society based solely on merit, but free education is an important step in that direction.

double post

If an employer values educated employees, then let him pay for the education of the employees.

But to force people at gunpoint to pay for the education of someone else's child whether they want to or not is evil.

While I would agree with you in principle, the main problem is that a useful level of education takes several years to acquire. No employer would pay to educate an employee if the employee will not reach a useful level of skill for several years unless there was no other reasonable way to gain an employee with such skills. Thus, employers would be greatly biased towards hiring only those employees who ALREADY possess useful skills, and would not care to hire ones who need extensive training.

If an employer values educated employees, then let him pay for the education of the employees.

But to force people at gunpoint to pay for the education of someone else's child whether they want to or not is evil.

While I would agree with you in principle, the main problem is that a useful level of education takes several years to acquire. No employer would pay to educate an employee if the employee will not reach a useful level of skill for several years unless there was no other reasonable way to gain an employee with such skills. Thus, employers would be greatly biased towards hiring only those employees who ALREADY possess useful skills, and would not care to hire ones who need extensive training.

And if he can find enough people who already possess the necessary amount of education, you'd be right--although that'd still be too bad, as it would not justify robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This doesn't nessecarily have to infringe on percieved inviolable property rights: (that's a different argument) since each individual citizen should be rewarded based solely on individual merit, clearly the institution of inheritance makes little sense- the inheriter does nothing to deserve this wealth,

But the person who obtained it originally DID. He has the right to do as he wishes with it, including giving it to another person who has not earned it without restriction, in which case it becomes the legitimate property of the receiver.

This doesn't nessecarily have to infringe on percieved inviolable property rights: (that's a different argument) since each individual citizen should be rewarded based solely on individual merit, clearly the institution of inheritance makes little sense- the inheriter does nothing to deserve this wealth,

But the person who obtained it originally DID. He has the right to do as he wishes with it, including giving it to another person who has not earned it without restriction, in which case it becomes the legitimate property of the receiver.

So?

Since you STILL haven't shown me that rights are fundemental, absolute and unchanging, they cannot nessecarily be viewed as more important/valuable than equally abstract notions like fairness and justice.
It is JUST to give each individual a 'fair start' in life, regardless of the social situation they were born into, and moreover it is fair. It is also what we, as rational self-interested actors, would want to see in our society. (i.e. J. Rawls maximin)

If you can prove that rights are fundementally absolute and universal, then you may have an argument.