What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes, I also like the fact that it is government run so that you have a large body of oversight that can regulate the educational standards.

Are you crazy.

Read this again:

So, what you are saying is that there are private colleges in your town that charge the same as the government funded colleges in your town and you somehow think that's a good argument FOR government funded colleges even though people pay twice with them, once with tuition the other time with taxes? T-that's your argument?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But my point is that the costs to run the college are the same no matter who's paying for it, and the tuition is geared to offset those costs. So the tuition would be the same.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Not really, lots of times people go to college and cannot get work in their chosen field right after so they have to take blue collar jobs to pay off the massive debt.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So people who don't have money shouldn't be protected by police and fire departments?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes it does, one of the leading factors of crime is poverty. And if people cannot afford post secondary education then all they can get is blue collar jobs, so then you have a massive influx of people trying to get these jobs and the job market is strangled and there isn't enough jobs for people. And so you have them turning to social assistance programs which puts more of a strain on them.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) society as it exists today requires people to have money. Even Canadian socialist society requires people to have money.

I don't think you get to call your taxes "responsible"

all encompassing might cover it...

I call them that when they are used in a responsible way. Subsidizing numerous politician pay raises is not responsible.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Did the bank require some form of collateral or was this a completely unsecured signature loan.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As always, the question is why? If it is so important to you to have funds for higher education you are free to spend as much money on it as you want (and Aster Phoenix can help you). You just can't force me to spend money in what you believe in (in fact, I probably would spend on that most of all, just hypothetical). The thing is, if 50% of society actually believe that paying taxes for higher education is important then they can do that. (150 000 000 people in the US can spend a lot of money), but, if 50% do not think that it is necessary and they just go along with it because their neighbors get stolen from as well then it is a minority opposing their will on the majority of people and therefore shouldn't happen in a democracy either.

I've spent a great deal on my education in debt and in lost income in that I could easily be working instead. I don't particularly feel I should be paying for people who don't work, or for military spending or for other things I don't believe in either. Even within higher education I find a whole bunch of degrees that I really don't see the point of my tax dollars going to.

"In spirit" I somewhat agree with you; but I don't foresee that an affordable higher education system, or a large amount of research that has led to the major breakthroughs of the last century would function well in the absence of at least some form of public funding.

Are you crazy.

No I like the fact that there is a body that can monitor and enforce better educational standards.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. If the government backed institute can only keep tuition with the privately funded institutes, it means it has a greater amount of expenses.

Social programs normally do more harm than good. They are too easily and too frequently abused to be a viable option.

How do they do more harm? As long as steps are taken to insure that the right people are on the right program. Then it works pretty good.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes but it insures that there is social programs to help with the burden.

And it also insures that if someone is trying to break into my home, the police come regardless of whether or not I have money.

the moral imperative against a government taking money without the need for consent is what I'd like you to address.

my answer to both of your above points is to say: If I am not consenting for my money to be spent on those things, the government is stealing from me. I believe stealing is bad. If I try to not have the government steal from me, they threaten me with a loss of personal liberty. I also feel this is bad.

Saying benefit, anyone's benefit, makes this ok does not work for me. It is akin to saying slavery is ok because it has economic advantages. Yes, this is a moral issue for anarchists.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Yes but the problem there is the if you have extra teachers, you need to know how to use them, when I was in elementary school I had a few classes that had 2 teachers in them, which was great, because students could get more individual attention.

ok, but I have to tell you, if I had any choice in how the money I spend on education in this country were spent, that is not the first thing I would do. This is the point. Personal choice with your money. I think most people would choose to fund schools.

We have an abundance of teachers? go work off that government subsidy in a Native community.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
No. If the government backed institute can only keep tuition with the privately funded institutes, it means it has a greater amount of expenses. If the source of revenue from the government is taken away, it will need to offset the rise in expenses. Ergo, rise in tuition

And/or the institutions Aster Phoenix is referring to may not carry the same standing or accreditation that a public institution may. Although that may not be the case in the States. And I agree that the argument he's trying to make is flawed.

The better argument being that charging the same amount for the same degree, if indeed they do, does not amount to providing the same level and quality of education.

Not that I don't agree that there should be less, or no, wasteful spending in public institutions that current exist.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't imply I didn't want it to be workable, just that I can't realistically see it as workable.

I've spent a great deal on my education in debt and in lost income in that I could easily be working instead. I don't particularly feel I should be paying for people who don't work, or for military spending or for other things I don't believe in either. Even within higher education I find a whole bunch of degrees that I really don't see the point of my tax dollars going to.

"In spirit" I somewhat agree with you; but I don't foresee that an affordable higher education system, or a large amount of research that has led to the major breakthroughs of the last century would function well in the absence of at least some form of public funding.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
How? The costs to run the college are the same regardless of who's paying.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I have money, you have money. Allot of people in society do not.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The point I am making is that simply because a person is poor or without money, it doesn't mean they deserve to be burnt alive or not have someone to call if they are the victim of a crime.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Did you read what I said? Less access to higher education results in more poor, not less.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
How do they do more harm? As long as steps are taken to insure that the right people are on the right program. Then it works pretty good.

Originally posted by inimalist
the moral imperative against a government taking money without the need for consent is what I'd like you to address.

Then I would like to address with moral question of should people die simply because they don't have money.

ok, but I have to tell you, if I had any choice in how the money I spend on education in this country were spent, that is not the first thing I would do. This is the point. Personal choice with your money. I think most people would choose to fund schools.

You don't know that. And it's too big of a risk to take when you consider the consequences if they do not.

We have an abundance of teachers? go work off that government subsidy in a Native community.

Again that goes to the issue of properly directing a surplus of teachers, in my elementary school we had a surplus and they used it to give more attention to the individual student which allowed them to preform better academically.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Private institutions tend to charge more as far as I'm aware, as they don't have the financial backing of government subsidies and thus need to to cover costs. Conversely they may simply not be able to hire the same quality of educator, or provide the same quality of materials and education that the equivalent public institution may.

And/or the institutions Aster Phoenix is referring to may not carry the same standing or accreditation that a public institution may. Although that may not be the case in the States. And I agree that the argument he's trying to make is flawed.

Not that I don't agree that there should be less, or no, wasteful spending in public institutions that current exist.

Honestly, it seems that the private institution just is more specialized and so doesn't pay as many teachers.

True.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Everyone has varying degrees of money.

Including none.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I never said that. They can still pay for police or fire if they want to.

If that's the version of freedom people are gaining it's not really freedom at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

If that's the version of freedom people are gaining it's not really freedom at all.

It is, though, isn't it?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
One more time:
In a free market ideal, both colleges would be without government funding. That means the one currently with government funding will lose a large part of its revenue. Therefore, it's tuition will go up. The private institute's will state the same because it did not lose fundings.

Simply, the right people aren't on the programs. Second, it is still my choice whether or not I pay for said people.

That's a bit of a blanket statement, allot of those people do need those programs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is, though, isn't it?

No it's not. The "freedom" to be forced to pay a large amount if your house catches on fire is not a gain for the individual or society.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No it's not. The "freedom" to be forced to pay a large amount if your house catches on fire is not a gain for the individual or society.

The hell. The freedom to choose which fire department if any you want to help you in case of an emergency is a freedom.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Then I would like to address with moral question of should people die simply because they don't have money.

so, like, should the lack of money itself be a cause for death? no

not having money usually indicates something. Mainly, that the person is doing nothing. If someone is unwilling to take whatever action is necessary to survive, then they are making the choice to die...

Also, I think both Bardock and myself have illustrated ways that people might be able to receive certain social assistance through community and charity based programs.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
You don't know that. And it's too big of a risk to take when you consider the consequences if they do not.

would you pay for schools?

Who on this forum would not pay for the school they send their child to?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Again that goes to the issue of properly directing a surplus of teachers, in my elementary school we had a surplus and they used it to give more attention to the individual student which allowed them to preform better academically.

right, so lets start a big huge government program to...

wait, you're a Canadian. Do you not remember the gun registry? Sponsorship scandal. All these other massive money sinks that our government constantly creates?

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell. The freedom to choose which fire department if any you want to help you in case of an emergency is a freedom.

Yes and then you have richer people getting better service and poorer people getting worse.

The current model insures that everyone has the same chance not to burn alive regardless of how much money they have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hell. The freedom to choose which fire department if any you want to help you in case of an emergency is a freedom.

My house is burning. I've recently lost a great deal of money and can't afford the exorbitant prices of the local fire departments. I'm now "free" to watch everything burn or go massively into debt. That benefits no one and doesn't rationally qualify as "freedom" unless you devalue people who don't have money.