In this type of discussion I am thinking of using masses and individual the way I see it as being. Meaning the dictionary defs may not hold 100% to it. Just listen to my logic.
Individual and masses are two entities of the same being. Without one the other would not exist. Individual means apart or seperated from the masses in some way(a unique trait is one example). Masses is a group of individuals. Without one the other would not exist. They both have EQUAL importance. Becoming a part of a mass does not mean that you are no longer an individual rather you are both, just like you were before(anyone living on earth is part of a mass). It just means you as well as some others need/desire the same thing. And when weighing such decisions you must determine what helps the most with minimal sacrifice. If you hurt the masses you hurt the individual and vice versa. There is a balance that must be maintained. The question is how much can each side sacrifice without becoming unbalanced. It can not all be one way. It must equal out. The masses are not the slaves of the individual nor is the individual the slave of the masses. You see what I mean?
Thus I am for properly implemented public education. Why? Uneducated masses can actualy harm the rich individual(we are coming to the day and age where education is needed for many jobs). And the masses once educated will contribute, aiding the individual and the like. Also take note that this works like a loan. The masses that are educated took the loan to pay for thier education. And as they grow they pay that loan back in the same way they got it. As long as the government doesn't meddle too much once it is setup it is fine. The problem with private education is that in more rural areas there would only be one choice.. and thus the masses could be easily forsaken. And you can't forsake one or else the other recieves harm.
The argument for capitalism is that people realize this and thus to avoid harming themselves they will not harm the masses in such a way. The fact is though that many of the buisnessmen that are successful are so for a reason. They don't care if they have to screw someone over to get to the top, as long as they are the ones on top. So unless it would topple them they do not care. And one can damage the massses alot before it causes enough damage to topple the individual. Thus for fairness, and to be equal, you should supply a common baseline and then allow other extra services to be added. Thus a public school systems that also allows private schools is good. It means that the public has some competition and that the private schools will have competition in all areas, even rural. This is in fact in line with some capitalistic ideals. The problem is A) we don't have a properly implemented public education system B)The public education doesn't get enough competition from the private and C) the government really just keeps messing it up more. There are of course more problems. Such as money holes in some school systems, the fact that throwing more money doesn't help... etc.
oh boy... I don't even know what I wrote now... the writing had just taken a life of its own. Meh, it seems to make enough sense that I will just leave it as is, just remember that the second paragraph is the one I meant to write.. the rest just sort of flowed so it may have more holes then a truckload of swiss cheese.
