[Jabanga]

It is a component of child-rearing. Forcing people to pay for the education of other people is redistributive.

If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs.

As for social benefits, I believe the negative effect of encouraging people to have children when they're not capable of personally supporting them, and of reducing the incentive to be productive, outweighs the positive ones.

Before the era of government education, the level of education in society was improving steadily. I don't see history suggesting that society, left to voluntary relationships and income distribution, enters into a downward spiral.

[openasocket]

> If it's truly an investment, we could let the student loan market handle it, since the returns (in increased income) exceed the costs.

Student loans? I'm talking about primary and secondary education, not college education. I'm assuming you aren't talking about privatizing those and using students loans to funding things, right?

[Jabanga]

I'm saying that if funding primary education produces societal returns, that must mean the net increase in earning potential exceeds the cost of the education, and therefore it would be profitable to issue student loans to the poor parents of children who would make good use of that education.

[CuriouslyC]

Great, get a child locked into debt slavery from the start. Sounds like a good recipe for violent revolution.

[Jabanga]

It's not slavery when the debt is assumed with informed consent. We currently force people to pay taxes, and that is vastly less consensual than a student loan. If being compelled to pay a student loan that you chose to take on is slavery, what is being forced to pay a tax debt that you never agreed to assume? As for violent revolution, the history of education before the state got involved does not suggest that would be the outcome.