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

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "higher education wouldn't be as important."

I'm still not seeing how the books would balance though. Even if costs somehow miraculously dropped, I still can't see them falling to the extent that such an education would be available to anyone who wanted it and qualified for it. And I'm not sure that haven't several dozen additional "higher education institutions" wouldn't just result in subpar education.

Also I'm curious about the ramifications there would be on intellectual property and copyright as well. It seems to me you're saying these things would no longer apply. Which further reduces the incentive for research.

The problem there is, if you make education something only the rich can afford then you will end up with shortages in many higher end careers and to many people in the blue collar job market which could strangle it and then have a hefty drag on social assistance programs.

It is in the governments best interest to fund education and make it as affordable as possible.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by "higher education wouldn't be as important."

I'm still not seeing how the books would balance though.

Also I'm curious about the ramifications there would be on intellectual property and copyright as well. It seems to me you're saying these things would no longer apply. Which further reduces the incentive for research.

Well, autodidacts would have more chance. You could basically go to anyone, a higher education would not be a requirement.

The Books wouldn't balance it out if you'd have to pay 60 K, true.

I'm not exactly sure as to the ramifications, but obviously there wouldn't really be such a thing as intellectual property. There may be ways to protect your thoughts, but I am not sure what they would be

Also, I feel you are disregarding my best point.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The problem there is, if you make education something only the rich can afford then you will end up with shortages in many higher end careers and to many people in the blue collar job market which could strangle it and then have a hefty drag on social assistance programs.

It is in the governments best interest to fund education and make it as affordable as possible.

Actually I think governmetn funded education has more troubles than solutions.

I'm not sure I want someone who has undergone their medical training via self-directed learning to operate on me should I need cardiac surgery. Or taught themselves civil engineering and architecture to design my buildings.

Sorry, reiterate your best point, as I may not have gotten it the first time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually I think government funded education has more troubles than solutions.

Why? It allows people more equal opportunity access to education. Which in turn means we have more things like Doctors for example.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm not sure I want someone who has undergone their medical training via self-directed learning to operate on me should I need cardiac surgery. Or taught themselves civil engineering and architecture to design my buildings.

Sorry, reiterate your best point, as I may not have gotten it the first time.

And the point that schools would have to compete with each other on a free market.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, but doctors already need to have excellent funding to start with, so where would be the problem.

And the point that schools would have to compete with each other on a free market.

The free market isn't the monster allot of people make it out to be true, but when it comes to something like education, it's not the solution you think it is. My city has privately funded colleges and they charge just as much as the government run colleges do.

And in a more government funded education system, the financial burden on doctors would be at least somewhat eased.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, but doctors already need to have excellent funding to start with, so where would be the problem.

And the point that schools would have to compete with each other on a free market.

I'm not certain having a larger number of institutions wouldn't simply lower the standard of education.

Having several dozen additional higher education institutions would presumably result in competition to attract students, and ergo lower tuition fees.

The problem being several dozen additional higher education institutions would also have to compete for educators, ergo higher salaries.

It doesn't balance up. This is excluding trying to figure out where all the other costs of running courses would derive.

I'm not sure what your doctor comment meant, if you could elaborate that would be good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Since we have 3 anarchists here, what's your opinion on copyright and intellectual property?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh I partially addressed that in an edit after you quoted me.

I'm not certain having a larger number of institutions wouldn't simply lower the standard of education.

Having several dozen additional higher education institutions would presumably result in competition to attract students, and ergo lower tuition fees.

The problem being several dozen additional higher education institutions would also have to compete for educators, ergo higher salaries.

It doesn't balance up. This is excluding trying to figure out where all the other costs of running courses would derive.

I'm not sure what your doctor comment meant, if you could elaborate that would be good.

Well, my argument goes something like this.

Students that want to be doctors already have to pay a big amount of money

Though the government funding for education would not exist anymore, the prices would likely still go down as the free market competition between schools as well as generally cheaper prices would force lower tuition fees.

And that doesn't take into account possible charities or community funding that I can of course not say will certainly be there, but would still assume would exist as well as University and Company scholarships.

[edit] My point is that it wouldn't be perfect, but at least just as good as what we have now (which isn't that good)

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Reasonable suits arbitrated by a mutually chosen mediator to resolve the conflicts wold be what I would support.

I think the overarching point might be that revolutionary ideas are going to be needed in science and education if they were to work in an anarchist society. I'm a bit of a technocrat, and believe largely that technology is the only true way to liberate people, so, I'm 100% for free online publication of all scientific research. Some publishers do this, and the cost for researchers to publish in those journals is much higher.

Free access to that information is, at the very least, a step in the right direction for anarchist education. Potentially treating research like a trade? maybe not. I have less solutions for medicine...

Intellectual property rights in general: Somewhat difficult. I have little problem with the loss of distribution rights, though I do have a problem with others profiting from your work.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my argument goes something like this.

Students that want to be doctors already have to pay a big amount of money

Though the government funding for education would not exist anymore, the prices would likely still go down as the free market competition between schools as well as generally cheaper prices would force lower tuition fees.

And that doesn't take into account possible charities or community funding that I can of course not say will certainly be there, but would still assume would exist as well as University and Company scholarships.

[edit] My point is that it wouldn't be perfect, but at least just as good as what we have now (which isn't that good)

I think what we have now would work better. As I said in my city there is privately funded colleges and so far the tuition between the two is the same. So the free market isn't lowering prices in that case.

And scholarships go to the small top percentage of students. That does help the others who have good enough grades to get into post secondary education but do not get the scholarships.

I think the system we have no would work better with more government funding, not less.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But who would make sure that anyone takes intellectual property serious.

What do you mean by serious though? How is it not being taken serious in the world today?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But who would make sure that anyone takes intellectual property serious.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I think what we have now would work better. As I said in my city there is privately funded colleges and so far the tuition between the two is the same. So the free market isn't lowering prices in that case.

It's not a free market if you have to compete with heavily funded government colleges.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And scholarships go to the small top percentage of students. That does help the others who have good enough grades to get into post secondary education but do not get the scholarships.

So?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix

I think the system we have no would work better with more government funding, not less.

Yeah, that's a general problem we have in this society today, people think you can make problems disappear with stealing money and throwing it at the problem. Usually not a good solution at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's not a free market if you have to compete with heavily funded government colleges.

Yeah, that's a general problem we have in this society today, people think you can make problems disappear with stealing money and throwing it at the problem. Usually not a good solution at all.

Stealing money?

as odd as it is, there still is the moral consideration:

Is it right for a government to take money from people in order to educate someone else, or to fund research without those people's consent?

Regardless of how good it is for science, I feel this deserves at least a little consideration. Obviously I love science and do not want to see it lose funding.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my argument goes something like this.

Students that want to be doctors already have to pay a big amount of money

Though the government funding for education would not exist anymore, the prices would likely still go down as the free market competition between schools as well as generally cheaper prices would force lower tuition fees.

And that doesn't take into account possible charities or community funding that I can of course not say will certainly be there, but would still assume would exist as well as University and Company scholarships.

[edit] My point is that it wouldn't be perfect, but at least just as good as what we have now (which isn't that good)

The government subsidizes tuition fees, which lowers them and makes them moderately affordable, although they still remain expensive. But the reason the government subsidies are required are the costs of running the courses.

This funding makes up for the difference between what students pay and what courses actually cost.

If you remove the government funding.
And somehow let competition account for reduction in fees to the same level they are today when government subsidies are factored in.
You still end up with a shortfall on the costs of providing this education.

I'm not sure where Universities would derive the money to provide scholarships for the students they've already dramatically reduced fees to attract, while somehow attracting quality educators and making up for the loss of government funding.

Also the set-up costs of universities and other higher education institutions are enormous. So I wouldn't envisage the lowering of costs to be particularly rapid.