[cperciva]

This is exactly the business model which most private US universities work with, except with the minor difference that people are not required to give money back to their alma mater. As high as the cost of tuition fees may be, it's much less than what it costs universities to provide that education; the difference is made up by the fact that over their lives, many Americans donate significant fractions of their income to the institutions which educated them. (A more macabre version of this calculation is done at universities which provide free education to seniors because experience tells them that this is a good way to be written into someone's will.)

And of course we shouldn't forget governments: By providing free primary and secondary education, and (in most developed countries) free health care, governments provide per-capita funding on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and then call their annual dividends on equity "taxes".

[mynameishere]

By providing free primary and secondary education

It just slays me that people could type such a sentence.

"Free"

As in, the money is stolen.

"Free"

As in, they force you to go there.

[wanorris]

> As in, they force you to go there.

At least in the US you are under no obligation to send your kids to public school. You can send them to a private or parochial school or home school your children.

Why? Do you think making education completely optional would be better?

[mynameishere]

completely optional

It is completely optional. But you still have to "go there", to the building.

[hollerith]

Most children in the U.S. do not have to go to school if their parents are willing to help them avoid school: the parents need only tell the school district that they are homeschooling their child from now on. (The parents then of course become responsible for overseeing the child's education.)

The school district will probably not like it, but unless the parents are under court supervision for some reason (e.g., the parents were convicted of a crime) the school district probably cannot force the parents to send the child to school, especially if the parents are willing to do research on the internet or appear in court once or twice.

But if the child's parents want the child to go to school, then yeah, the child has to go.

The public school system is probably a waste of time for a bright child who can learn on his or her own unless the child lives near an exceptionally good public school. More bright children who have proven that they can learn things on their own should be homeschooled.

[wanorris]

> The public school system is probably a waste of time for a bright child who can learn on his or her own unless the child lives near an exceptionally good public school. More bright children who have proven that they can learn things on their own should be homeschooled.

Aren't there often socialization problems associated with home schooling? I don't know a lot about the topic, so I could be dead wrong. But overall, I would be more comfortable sending bright kids to a solid school with a good gifted and talented program where they can spend time with other kids their own age than home schooling them myself or having them skip a bunch of grades.

Is this a misconception on my part?

[hollerith]

I have not reviewed the evidence myself, but the homeschooling web sites I have read claim that the methodological evidence shows that homeschooled kids turn out to have closer friendships and better social skills than enrolled kids.

[byrneseyeview]

And of course we shouldn't forget governments: By providing free primary and secondary education, and (in most developed countries) free health care, governments provide per-capita funding on the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and then call their annual dividends on equity "taxes".

This is one of my favorite objections to socialized medicine: do you really want your lifestyle to be a liability on the government's balance sheet?

[edw519]

lol, I just received my college's invitation to Alumni weekend next month. One of the 2 adult education classes is "Estate Planning 101". I guess that's a nicer name than "Let Us Teach You How to Give Us More Money".

[xlnt]

taxes aren't dividends, they are taken by force. they decide how much they feel like taking this year, and you pay or go to jail. it's not a business transaction.

and of course they still take tax money from people who never went to their schools.

[wanorris]

As far as I know, there are countries that still accept immigrants if you feel that the social contract of the nation you are currently inhabiting is unreasonable.

Failing that, there's always working for political change, or even armed insurrection.

Or you could just log on to a website and complain about it. Hey -- done!

[byrneseyeview]

Indeed! And there are other dark alleys I could have walked down -- shame on me for complaining, just because someone is threatening me with punishment in order to take away property I've earned.

In addition, the government under which I live is kind of nasty about engaging in anticompetitive behavior. Apparently they don't allow other people to operate anywhere they do business. And sometimes they set up shop in overseas countries, and engage in the same monopolistic tactics! Frankly, they are being run very poorly, and it is terribly inconvenient that they use such tactics to maintain their market share despite more efficient competitors.

[xlnt]

You have no idea if I am working for political change, or not. Why be a jerk making a personal attack? i made a statement about what i think is true, and you respond with made up comments about how i'm not living up to something.

also advocating violence against Americans is pretty awful.

[wanorris]

Sorry, I guess that was unduly harsh. Maybe I misread the tone of your prior post.

Referring to the social contract of a democracy as simply taking things by force sounded to me like deeply seated anger, and I guess I responded accordingly. And yes, advocating violence against Americans is pretty awful, but if you believe you live in a tyranny, violent overthrow is one of the traditional avenues for rectifying that situation.

[xlnt]

there is no "social contract". i didn't sign anything. they use force. end of story. you don't pay, people with guns do come. there is no denying it.

but they aren't a tyranny, that's very different.

[wanorris]

While a representative democracy cannot be considered a tyranny in the sense of being run by a single ruler with absolute power, a common, looser definition is that a tyranny is simply an oppressive and unjust government.

If you believe that the government is making you do things over which you have no control and which you have not consented to do through the use of force, how would you consider a tyranny different?