You’re right; parents should foot the bill for their kids’ primary and secondary education
Every child is entitled to a K-12 education. Free college would be a federal benefit that you have to qualify for through ability and effort.
Free market gud.
There is a possible future where robots and computers become so advanced that we no longer need human input as a factor of production. Computers and robots replace humans in every form of production. Computers design the next generation of computers and robots and robots build the next generation of computers and robots. Better faster and cheaper than humans ever could. At that point the people who “own” the computers and robots pretty much own everything. What about those people who do not own shares in these AI robot companies? Do we just put them on the dole and limit them to a one child policy so they eventually breed themselves out of existence?
If its a state school then sure, why not?
And we already provide free housing
I don’t know how much we should expand that and what form it should take but the concept of eliminating homelessness through the use of public funds is not new.
Depending on the type of freedom it can guarantee horrible outcomes.
Private hospitals. But that costs money? Well, so does Fed Ex.
You know who made that gas right? Zyklon B - Wikipedia
But more seriously, I get your point but even the most libertarian conservative out there thinks that governments should have a monopoly on the use of physical force, the police power. And they government should provide for the military. It was THESE two things, not the existence of bloated social benefits programs or free college that gave government the power to do these horrible things.
Or we could make kids sign promissory notes for loans to pay for their K-12 education.
At that point I think the robots will decide.
We can use the amount you earn as a proxy for how valuable your education was and set up payments as some sort of “school tax”. 
I still think this is an essential part of the answer. If we imagine a village in which everyone feels tied together by bonds of blood-relation, the conservative villagers would be happy for their tax money to pay for public medicine and schooling.
But discussing some other areas of difference — belief in science, views on morality and human nature — lead to insult-throwing.
One of the more peculiar comments in the thread was
Note that this was not phrased as a comment about politicians in general, but about “left wing politicians.” Does octopus believe Martin Luther King Jr. fought for civil rights only because it gave him easy access to extramarital sex? That when “left-wing” Congresspeople “walked the plank” to raise taxes in 1993 knowing it might cost them re-election, that they were taking a long view — that they’d be seen as wise a decade later and get re-elected then? The mind boggles at such a claim.
I think most politicians have a mixture of motives. Yes, they enjoy personal prestige, etc., but also have sincere political views they are eager to further.
It’s hard for me to believe that anyone who makes a comment like octopus’s has ever read political biographies, or even introspected about motivation.
… Unless they truly think that “left wingers” are like an alien species, unfathomable unless we study them with the aid of a researcher like Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity.
It makes more sense than basing it on the value of your parent’s home.
But, you just excluded the middle. Maybe the responsibility – that is to say, the blame – lies with certain disproportionately powerful parts of society. And not the parts you are thinking of, either.
That’s not an excluded middle. That’s assigning the locus of responsibility outside the individual, which is the distinction I was making.
Who is responsible for a teenage single mother being poor? Is it the government, for not teaching her to use a condom? Or is she responsible for not using it? You can argue it both ways, starting from your base assumptions.
Regards,
Shodan
Uh…you know everyone is against human trafficking, right?
I was responding to Lumpy’s post:
If the implication was that conservatives are not interested in making life fair, then my post about how conservatives oppose human trafficking was to give an example of how conservatives do, indeed, believe in “making life fair.” Pretty much anyone who fights for justice is trying to “make life fair,” by definition.
I think there’s actually a very interesting issue there, which comes down to one of the core disagreements that I (and presumably other liberals) am having with Bricker over in the voter ID thread. Suppose we take an action that adds some obstacle to voting, but does not make it impossible. A cursory knowledge of human nature tells us that that will definitely decrease the number of people who vote. But voting wasn’t made impossible for anyone. Doesn’t each individual person have the responsibility to vote? Does looking at things from this higher level, reducing each individual person’s actions to just a statistic, somehow dehumanize people, or rob them of their individual responsibility, or something of that sort?
And to me the answer is that it’s kind of like light being both a wave and particle. Both things are true simultaneously.
I can simultaneously denounce voter ID laws for making voting more difficult, and still be cross with an individual guy who didn’t get off his lazy ass and get down to the DMV to get an ID so he could vote (although of course it’s often FAR more difficult than that).
I can complain that reducing after school programs increases the crime rate but also look at a case where some teenager who might have been going to one of these programs was caught committing a crime and still insist that he pay a price and be punished because it was still his personal actions and choices which led to his committing the crime – while also using his case as an anecdote in argument as to why the after school programs should be re-instated.
Looking at broad social numbers, making predictions about how laws and governmental actions will change the statistics about behavior on a large scale; does not absolve individuals of the responsibility for their own choices and their own lives. And I feel that sometimes conservatives are resistant to having the larger statistical conversation because they feel that doing so removes individual choices and responsibility from the equation entirely.
QFT. Outcomes have multiple causes. Problems require comprehensive thought, not simplistic solutions.
Assigning all blame to a single factor is a fallacy common among both the extreme left and the extreme right. (Of course, many of us agree that extremists have a strong foothold in only one of today’s major American parties.)
Hope the OP doesn’t mind my bumping his thread:
Many conservatives think welfare is far more lavish and readily available than it is.
Some liberals think that many people who commit crime or wrongdoing do not *know *that such behavior is wrong, and need only to be informed/taught that it is wrong in order to stop doing it.
Many Christian conservatives and liberals operate under the assumption that God exists and will hold them accountable for their political vote/words/deeds/inaction.
No problem bumping my thread!
I don’t buy the second one – if that’s true for any people who commit criminal acts, it’s very, very few, IMO. I think most people who do so commit criminal acts because they think they don’t have any other choice, whether to provide for themselves or family, build or maintain enough of a reputation to survive/thrive in their neighborhood (which may include impressing and/or intimidating others), feed an addiction or dependency, etc. I think the best way to fight this is both to make sure that there are, in fact, other opportunities out there for a decent and successful life, and make sure that those most vulnerable and most likely to get involved in crime are well enough educated to recognize these opportunities exist.
Global warming is an area where conservatives and liberals have wildly divergent assumptions / beliefs: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/
The difference on the abortion issue always gets me.
Conservatives see the child as its own person while Liberals will see it as an extension of the mother. Neither side is “right”, and its really just arguing over a line in the sand since no one has the authority to say which exact moment a child obtains its own rights. I could honestly see this debate going on for eternity
That’s only a part of it – the status of the fetus/baby is irrelevant to some pro-choice people (such as myself), who believe that the important point is that people have ultimate control over their bodies and anything or anyone inside them.