[cherrycherry98]

Nothing the government provides is free. It's paid for with taxes that are forcefully collected and would have been spent or invested privately otherwise. I'm not someone who's against taxes but it's a myth and propaganda that the government can just magically provide free stuff. I'm ok with the government providing things but I want them to be honest about what the costs are.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

They are being honest, you're just being pedantic. The fact that everyone pays taxes which ultimately pay for e.g. socialized health care/insurance or college-level education doesn't alter the fact that for the person receiving it, said good comes with no invoice, which is a conventional meaning of "free".

The fact that paying taxes is required of all members of the community that organizes, collects and distributes resources in this way doesn't change the relationship between the person and the service at the point of service.

[chongli]

If we’re talking about social costs and social benefits then it does matter. Different countries can have wildly different costs for delivering the same education, an education whose value to society (or lack thereof) needs to be taken into account.

Whether an education is paid for by loans or by higher taxes, the cost is ultimately borne by someone. In neither case is it free and in both cases its cost-benefit difference should be scrutinized.

[lurk2]

> The fact that paying taxes is required of all members of the community that organizes, collects and distributes resources in this way doesn't change the relationship between the person and the service at the point of service.

That’s irrelevant to the point the grandparent comment was making, which is that these resources don’t just fall out of the sky and that “I got it for free and I liked getting it for free,” isn’t a good basis for policy.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Anybody who imagines that the use of the term "free" in connection these resources/services means that they fall out of the sky should stay as far away from public policy decisions as possible.

I went to school (K-BS(c)) in the UK, and it was entirely normal to talk about that as "free", despite the fact that in dozens of conversations my parents would discuss the way in which their local taxes funded all of it, including my university education. People are not that stupid ...

[viccis]

>Nothing the government provides is free.

Yes it is. "Free" doesn't mean "has no cost paid by anyone" and never has in these discussions. It means "at no cost to the student".

Apologies if English isn't your first language.

[lurk2]

> "Free" doesn't mean "has no cost paid by anyone" and never has in these discussions.

Calling these programs “free” obfuscates the issue because there are people (even college-educated people) who genuinely believe the government can just make something appear from nothing; they genuinely don’t understand that the resources have to come from somewhere, which means someone else who does not necessarily benefit from the program pays for it now or those benefitting from the program have to pay for it later.

> Apologies if English isn't your first language.

I would encourage you to review the site guidelines. These kinds of quips are discouraged here.

[viccis]

>there are people (even college-educated people) who genuinely believe the government can just make something appear from nothing

Untrue.

>These kinds of quips are discouraged here.

"Free" has a specific meaning in English, and someone who doesn't speak it fluently might think that it means, for example, "appearing from nothing". Whereas a fluent English speaker of sound mind understands that "free" refers to the price in a transaction. No one thinks that the "free pizza" at an event was created at no cost to anyone in the supply chain that brought it there. They just understand that it means that they won't be charged for consuming it. But for some reason, I never hear people make a big deal about how "I can't believe you'd say free pizza when I know that your organization had to pay for it!" It's always when it comes to reactionary opposition to social services where this simple word immediately becomes so much more nuanced and impossible to comprehend for the layperson.

[lurk2]

> Untrue.

You know these people exist. Try asking them where the money is going to come from to finance this education and see if more than 10% of them can explain it to you.

> "Free" has a specific meaning in English

You’ve made a few allusions to the idea that the people pushing back on this reading of the word “free” speak English as a second language when there’s been no indication that this is true; it’s just something you’re saying to imply that these people are less intelligent than you. I would again encourage you to read the site guidelines. Posting like this is contrary to the spirit of the forum.

> Whereas a fluent English speaker of sound mind understands that "free" refers to the price in a transaction.

The price for whom? If a parent pays for their child’s education, it would be very uncommon for the child to say that his education was “free.”

Similarly, state-funded education is free to the college student. It’s not free for taxpayers who don’t attend the college. They are a party to the transaction because they are the ones paying for it.

[yatopifo]

TANSTAAFL

[viccis]

Obviously. But part of a democracy is voting on politicians who will choose what resources are distributed. Do you think "TANSTAAFL" every time you take a road without paying a toll?

[DaSHacka]

> It means "at no cost to the student".

and GP's whole point was that it is not at no cost to the student.

Apologies if reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

[viccis]

The student does not participate in a transaction that involves paying money in exchange for education. Taxes are collected and allocated as seen fit by the state. Students and others pay their taxes, but taxes are not directly transactional.

Apologies if English isn't your first language.

[baiwl]

…but there is cost to the student or their family. The difference being that paying for it or not is not an option. You can’t just say “I won’t go to uni, so I won’t pay for it”

[viccis]

By this definition, nothing is "free"; there is always some cost, whether financial or otherwise. It's an absurd bit of pedantry that does nothing but derail discussion. Free tuition is free at the point of sale to the student, just like the interstate I drive on sometimes is free to use as compared to the toll roads, even though my taxes paid for both. It's not complicated terminology.

[thatfrenchguy]

It's not free, but because of its unique market shaping power, the government is often the best & the cheapest way to do things like education or health care, because it has no incentives to spend money on bullshit to raise prices.

That's why there's a harpist in the hall in fancy hospitals in the US and not at Necker in Paris, or why the administration at universities in the US is multiple times the size you'll see in France. Market shaping incentives.