[someone234]

> it still transfers more responsibility to the student than subsidizing education to make it free

Nothing can be made free by subsidizing it. The cost is hidden, but it's certainly still there. When a government subsidizes something, it's just transferring wealth from some people to others.

The end result is much worse, because no one uses other people's money in a prudent way, and no one knows what the best use for your money is to you personally - only you do.

[aroberge]

So, you are arguing for K to 12 education to be private? And you are arguing for public health systems outside of the US to adopt the US model which is much more expensive with no demonstrated better outcome for the general population?

[someone234]

I'm advocating for everything to be private. But not advocating for the US system, which is far from a free market.

[aragot]

You're correct, but I believe you have been downvoted because instead of quoting general economist mottos about the misuse of public money, you could have cited factual examples. In fact in my (free) French engineering school, I know quite a minority of people who intended to become actors, musicians, sound technicians, travellers... (and succeeded). As much as I like the idea that artists have a knowledge of how the technical world works, I believe the Australian govt is the smartest at spending this money.

[someone234]

> I believe you have been downvoted because instead of quoting general economist mottos about the misuse of public money, you could have cited factual examples.

I just presented some obviously factual statements. Would you demand an example if I said there's no such thing as a round rectangle?