But what makes that wrong? When people are in it "for the money" then they realize that they have to offer a valuable service. I'm not talking about you here, but a lot of people, I think, don't have a firm knowledge of running a business. I mean, clearly, if a school is out for profit at the expense of students, that's bad. But that simply doesn't happen (or, if it does, it cannot last). You're seeing people as sheep, here, who'll pay whatever people demand. I'm telling you; good customer service is key. If a school wants to stay alive, it has to either improve the quality or lower its prices.Originally Posted by bipper
I don't see how this is any different than how it is now (private schooling being the "Sears" and public schooling being the "Wal-Mart).I agree with this theory, but you would basically get different schools. A Wal-mart type school, a Sears type school, etc. All with verying views on educational standards. Sears might like to provide quality education, but the price would be high. Allowing only the kids with money to attend. The wal-mart school would offer the cheapest prices, but the worst education. This would widen the education gap via economic standards. If a kid is born poor, he deserves a chance.
They pay for it by pursuing their interests. Such as a school aiming for money. If they want more money, they'll offer better education, which is a benefit for society.I don't think that socialism is all bad. It is on points, but the freedom to rise above others (while still paying your part to society) is invaluable. Everyone benefits from society, and there for should pay for it.
I don't see individually-run schools having more bureaucracy. I go to a private university because the public universities has benchmarks and guidelines that I simply couldn't meet. After meeting with an official from the current private university, I was in. A hell of a lot less bureaucracy.Schools need less of this, but I think when people are working for money, there will be more buraccuracy than ever. More letters to sign, more school 'plans' etc etc.
Impossible if we are going to run a school fit for three thousand, but if you make a proportionately-sized school, it works.On this point also, a school is most certainly NOT cheap to run. A school needs to be kept up, heated (expensive here in Wisconsin), secure, roomy, and obey so many strict government issued codes, that I don't see a school being able to be paid for (cheaply) by 500 students. Bottom line is profit with priviatization. To make profit, schools have to run very clear of the red. There are a lot of expences in running a school, more than the parents of a handfull of kids could prolly afford. (I am talking the middle low class under $40K a year.)
Trust me, it's not the only industry that accounts for this. Running an airline isn't cheap, as well, but they manage to give affordable prices considering the costs.
Other than the protection of individual rights, I can't think of anything.There are also a lot of things a government can do better.
I don't care what mistake people could die for, as long as society stays the hell out of my way and allows me to live. That's where the government steps in - any action taken by an individual that hinders him would only take down those who voluntarily joined him.The strangest part of that story is that people are the ones making all the generalizations and false assumptions. The same individuals you would pin the aspirations of thier children on. The same individual whom could make any mistake, and die for it, at least in a unsocialsitic (Minimal) world. This is why I would have faith in the balance of Individuals vs Society. In your example, the individual make some crudley uninformed assumtuptions. You claim to kill the beast, I claim we should train it.
I won't repeat what I have been repeating, but I will repeat that this is virtually impossible.Fiscally loosening up taxes will break the chains of greed and allow people whom live for themselves, to hinder others greatly.
