Originally posted by: yantastic

Originally posted by: Man is Truth

They are over-paid though. There are many people with equal or greater skill who perform the same service FOR FREE every day. In a free market, the entitled Union people would compete with people who teach because its great knowing people are learning. They fear and hate this, and hate most of all that there are people who feel that way, who are willing to educate children because it is rewarding. So they employ the violence of the state to suppress it, and to incentivize participation in their own educational establishments. Fizzity-factoid

I scored top ten in the GRE/GMAT/SAT/PCAT (entrance exams for grad school/business school/college/pharmacy school). I have a pre med degree and speak multiple languages.

I definitely don't work for free. my employer expects $200/hour and if that demand isn't met, I don't bother to get out of bed.

fuck all you peasants.

I just spent a year and a half cranking out paintings and now I go around sticking them on store windows. I use little foam adhesive strips so that the store owners don't have to bother with painting over the same bullshit tags they usually do. The paintings themselves are free to whoever has the will to take them. So far I have 20 volunteers helping me in the studio and on the street. I'm not about the money, I love the peasants, but then again I make my own decisions. So sorry to take up your time, sire, I'll be expecting an outrageous bill in the mail.

You are absolutely out of your fucking mind. You libertarian dipshits need to take a good long, hard look at what life was like back in the "good old days" before unions and government regulations. If you believe the market would solve all the problems inherent to unregulated, non-unionized labor, then explain to me please why the fuck it NEVER FUCKING DID.

It always does- historically though there were always people who claimed that because their great-grandparents were Otho the Thugsummoner or Hilmhelm the Fagmasher, that they were entitled to just take things from the market for the glory of their blood, or that because they were in these families, their commands were smarter and better and more righteous than market demands. Then around the 18th century people started dedicating scholarship to why this is a retarded concept, and they applied science to market principles to prove academically why the market is the best system for allocating resources. Naturally the entitled classes in whigs and fancypants didnt like this, and continue to this day to deny and fight this science. It endangers their ability to count on the productive classes as collateral on their debt to their bankers.

i'm not even sure what the fuck you're arguing but let's assume government was completely taken out of education. who is going to pay the teacher's salaries?

Government doesnt create resources- it takes resources from people through taxation, so, right now, just like always, regular people are paying teachers salaries. It just first passes through the hands of violent collectors and into a public trough, and is then filtered by lobbyists and competing special interests invested many generations back in networks of corruption. Wasteful, ignorant, backward system that leads to shitty education, like we have now everywhere. You cant argue about the money- in places where they spent the most, the education is the worst.

would parents pay tuition for k-12?

Yes they already do. the ones that dont get a shit product that is valueless. "Oh hey potential employer; yeah I have a high school diploma from the Camden County school system! Whats that? Oh, that proves only that I can wake up in the morning and get on a bus? Oh well..."

what do you think that would do to the economy?

Immediately create competing academic businesses and teacher networks in every county in america.

would the market be able sustain schools, even in poor neighborhoods?

The market already does sustain them, and only with what is left after the politicians raid the accounts.

would americans be able to compete in a global job market with people from countries that subsidized education (ie every other modern fucking country)?

They would utterly dominate, because one's ability to teach would determine his market position, and people would then compete with each other to learn from the better teachers. Instead of being herded on public transit to the right grid-building by ZIP code.

You do know that a market principle is that when something is not monopolized, the service gets better while the cost decreases, right? Remember what we were saying earlier- lots of people are always teaching FOR FREE.

Public education is about taking kids and putting them in boxes and making them jump when bells ring. There are books from Dewey and other glorious founders of american education that say exactly this. It is a strategy for engineering a controlled society. If its goal is education WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT BEING EDUCATED? The system is broken. Education is a property of mankind. It is physically wired into our DNA to educate our young, it is why and how we evolved. Naturally then government, which has replaced the Church in the simple minds of simple people, assumes then this function and power for itself, and naturally these people accept that, as they did when the Church made claims on their soul.

if we didn't have a national curriculum would states or maybe even districts be able to decide whether they wanted to teach something like intelligent design or that obama ordered the attack on 9/11 or that slavery was a noble institution that ended because of northern aggression? or mayber schools could get revenues from sponsorships. like mcdonalds could just buy a school and set the curriculum.

Sure, and you could be free to look at the school and say, "nah thats bullshit. Yo how about our friend Matt? Hes a genius. He can teach my kids math and physics and chemistry and I will give him some money and help his wife with their house."

seriously, the idea that schools could function at all without government oversight and subsidization is nothing short of mentally retarded.

the good schools in america are private...who is retarded?

and it's a "fizzity-fact" that teacher's are underpaid by 4-9% than if they went to work in the public sector.

No one can decide what under and over paid is except people willing to pay for things. You cant point ot a chart and say, "SEE! Thats how much we are worth!" if people dont want your service.


Unions are just mad because they know that regular people think schools are a joke, that diplomas have no value whatsoever, and that they would not pay a dime to keep them going if they were not forced to.

So what are we talking about, dissolving public schools or just learning institutions in general? So, in lieu of schools we'll have...not schools.

What is going on in here? What is happening?

Why do people keep saying "fizzity fact"?

Really we need to just throw away completely the idea that "being educated" means, "I sat through classes." There are so many intelligent people who left school so that they could go learn things. If we accept that, then we would measure people's education by their actual performance and knowledge, and get an idea of what to expect of this by asking where they learned what they know and who taught them. Good teachers will form good companies that have good reputations.

You guys talk like if the govt stopped funding schools, the teachers would be put to death or something- parents would still want their kids to learn things. They would pay teachers and make deals.

Dwarn and this tool need to be lovers.

You will stay haters

"Good teachers will form good companies that have good reputations."

Great idea. And just like everything else... the poor will either get the most basic they can afford or will do without. And that would, of course, have ZERO impact on our economy as a whole. After all... its not like we didn't see exactly this in the past.

As usual... Libertarians need to learn a bit more about history.

They can afford great education since a lot of smart people like teaching for free.

Lets talk about it concrete like, in our own neighborhoods- where I live there are about a dozen villages filled with welfare single mothers and drift-through male consorts. The children of these unions spend a great deal of time in public school. They are not educated at all. That is because public school is another arm of the same machine that pays their parents, and is not interested in their mobility at all.

In this same town are dozens of boarded up, collapsing abandoned buildings where once, people traded things of value and interacted peaceably. Were there not many restrictive fees and entangling licensing mandates, these buildings would have people in them trying to make money; people trying to make money pay you to learn how to help them.

In this same town are hundreds of young college graduates. They currently work dirty jobs that do not need employ their intellectual development. A reliable number of them will accept payment that is competitive with their current underemployed jobs at kmart and such. For example, 20 parents can contribute 5 dollars a week, and pay such a person for 3 or 4 hours to educate their children right in their front yard. This person can make multiple arrangements of this nature and do well for himself. Parents will spend half of their blunt budget and their child will receive education from a person that they selected, that they can fire at any time, and that they can supervise and interact with and approach with their concerns as partners.

Originally posted by: Man is Truth

They can afford great education since a lot of smart people like teaching for free.

If you are "smart" you wouldn't give your knowledge away for free.

Originally posted by: Man is Truth
In this same town are hundreds of young college graduates. They currently work dirty jobs that do not need employ their intellectual development. A reliable number of them will accept payment that is competitive with their current underemployed jobs at kmart and such. For example, 20 parents can contribute 5 dollars a week, and pay such a person for 3 or 4 hours to educate their children right in their front yard. This person can make multiple arrangements of this nature and do well for himself. Parents will spend half of their blunt budget and their child will receive education from a person that they selected, that they can fire at any time, and that they can supervise and interact with and approach with their concerns as partners.

What you just described here is called the privet educational system. It already exists and its incredibly expensive to have someone who is well educated and a good teacher to come into your home and teach your children.

Anyone who is intelligent enough to be able to run a privet home school program would also be smart enough to charge the arm and leg you would be willing to pay to have this happen.

If as a parent you are willing to trust your children's education to someone who charges 10 bucks an hour your an ass hole.

I used to make $25 for a half hour session to tutor 10 years ago


you need to stop smoking so much weed dude, your brain is fried.

Why would people spend money on teachers who live in ghetto apartment complexes when they can afford fancypants teachers with relatives that are wellplaced in different ruling monopolies and cartels? The expensive education will be synonymous with the nepotist education. Good education, however, is not expensive.

For example, I learned Spanish for free from a co-worker. Obviously not fluently, but this has more to do with my own lack of interest in pursuing it with any discipline. People learn how to drive and how to use computers and roll blunts all for free from other people who know and would just rather the people around them know also.

Anyway- that scenario I described before is great and would make people happy and thoughtful. And it would cost parents less in a week than they spend on anything else that they value.

"They can afford great education since a lot of smart people like teaching for free. "

Funny how it always comes around to SOMEONE doing work for free. So, tell me.. how do these smart people A. actually know what they are teaching in the first place? Oh yeah... an actual education... or reading books by people who had an actual education. And B. if they are so willing to work for free at this, what do they do to support themselves that pays so very well that they can then use their copious amounts of spare time to teach others for free?

"People learn how to drive and how to use computers and roll blunts all for free from other people who know and would just rather the people around them know also."

Yeah, not too many folks waiting around to teach others history, higher math, advanced science, etc... for free.

Its great for learning a few words of spanish or something that will require maybe a week to learn well enough to not need any more lessons.. not so great for learning things that actually require long periods of study and understanding of complex concepts.

I really think you need to move to a free love commune in the midwest. You sound like a lunitic. It's like reading drug induced hippie babble.