To give a (fictional) answer the the OP - read a copy of Jennifer Government, the first chapter of what is actually a fairly good book can be found here
It’s more fiction (i.e. plot and story) than exploration of a truly corporate/libertarian US and world, but it still throws up some interesting ideas or what one would look and feel like for the people living in it. The idea of everyone having the last name of their employer was pretty horrible, if only because of the havoc it would play on being able to identify people (I work in a government Department of nearly 3000 people, if everyone had the surname ‘government’ it would make emailing anyone a nightmare).
Oh get off the soapbox Sam Stone - the OP is asking people to imagine what an non-existant alternative reality would look like, I’m just offering one that was prepared earlier by a writer. I made clear it’s a fictional account, just like the extended post earlier by Metacom; it’s an aid to the imagination, nothing more.
Don’t like what you’re read so far? Don’t buy the book. God bless the awesome power of free will.
What else do we have to go on? It’s not like Libertarians have ever been in charge of anything real. Personally, I regret that - I think a healthy dose of reality is exactly what Libertarianism needs.
Indeed. That was what I was trying to envision with my earlier post. While it’s a fair bit more pleasant than many non-Libs here would predict, it also doesn’t go nearly far enough for many idealistic Libertarians. I think a lot of their more “out there” ideas would evaporate completely when the rubber meets the road. I’d like to see how they’d handle actual power; not to say that I’m willing to volunteer my nation for that experiment.
But you haven’t answered my question: WHY should the taxpayers subsidize a pseudo-student at a state university? The subsidy is probably upwards of $10,000/year (at the University of MA). Is this worth spending the money, so a pseudo-student can party and get drunk every night? That is not good for that person OR the real students. But of course, universities need bodies, and nobody gives a damn about the taxpayers!
Libertarianism/ Ferengiism is the coldest nastiest economic philosophy I have ever encountered. It smacks of Economic Darwinism and boils down to anything that screws your fellow man is good if it is profitable.
To argue that the public school system should be abandoned is rediculous. The whole idea of making it possible to step up from poverty is born there. If schools are privatized ,it will only benefit the wealthy. There are arguments that the system needs fixing, none that it should be eliminated.
Corporations are designed to make profits. They will do anything to do so. Society ,through experience has discovered that they will harm the public in general to acheive their ends. Trust busting and breaking up monopolies was a response to corporate actions. It was not part of the original framework. They will pollute and lie about it. They can not be trusted.
To eliminate protections of the people to increase business will end up in unrest. It would be an extension of the neocon philosophy of one world government designed and built to help the few at the cost to the masses.
Whilst I accept that England is a bit of a special case when it comes to a public school system (as it’s the product of centuries of the “middle and upper classes only please” policies of virtually every government up until about 1900) if you were to suggest here that the public school system should be scrapped because it would make economic sense in the long run and give everyone real choice you wouldn’t make it out of the room alive.
The sanctity of a well managed and resourced publicly funded system has become a central tennet of virtually everyone who lives in the UK (specifically England), along with the NHS for health. We live the reality of a well established powerful independent school system that charges fees, selects people from the kinds of backgrounds it likes and grooms their pupils for all the best jobs because they’re reserved just for them (once they’ve been to Oxbridge, of course). The debate now is very much on how to ensure that the good schools in the publicly funded system are made accessible to the poor and (not PC but true) thick people of the country so that their children can have a real chance in life, to try and counterbalance the massively disproportionate power of the entrenched upper and upper-middle classes (who still dominate the best professions, funny that).
I’m trying to picture someone coming into this debate saying lets shut down the UK Department for Education and all local education administrations running the state-funded schools.What I’m seeing is causing me no small amount of amusement but it’s definitely not a pretty picture, I can tell you that.
It seems that the debate about libertarianism and a “pure free market” is very much an American/US one. The rest of the world seems quite happy with mixed economies (or even socialist ones, given the rise of the left in South America recently).
Why should taxpayers subsudize public education? Well, as colleges are only a part of public education as a whole, it means that the populace gets SOME level of education.
Then again, saying that college students all party and get drunk every night isn’t exactly fair. Part of college is about growing and meeting people and grappling with new-found freedoms.
If we didn’t give a damn about the taxpayers, we wouldn’t have public education.
I suppose the government might decide there is an overall benefit to society in promoting the existence of well-educated citizens. It’s not like the government set out to fund “pseudo-students” - these students must have looked like serious students at some point.
Personally, I don’t favor government paid tutions - I agree that it’s too easy for some irresponsible young people to see that as a gift to be used or misused at will. I would support programs of government student loans, which would allow students the opportunity to attend college while also placing the ultimate responsibility for payment on them.
And you’re completely wrong to think the government doesn’t give a damn about taxpayers. The government gets down on its knees for taxpayers. The problem is that for every taxpayer complaining about the cost of some government program, there’s another taxpayer complaining that he wants a bigger share of that same program. Ask some middle-class parents who have a college-bound child in their senior year of high school what they thing about government paid tuition - they’ll tell you it’s a great idea.
Nice way to evade the question. Specifically, it was, “WHY should the taxpayers subsidize a pseudo-student at a state university?”
The point is that when you have universal education, you pick up a lot of people who are just along for the free ride. They take up space that other students who couldn’t get into the college could have used. They waste our money, disrupt classes, cause Professors more work, and drive up the cost of education. Colleges are overcrowded. If the student had his loans tied to grades, that might be avoided. If the student had to use his own or his parent’s money to attend, he’d be a lot more serious about it, and it would be even better for him.
Private colleges have extremely high graduation rates. Up in the 90’s. State colleges can barely break 50%. That’s a hell of a lot of waste and resources that could be directed at the student who are really there to learn.
Or, rather more likely he wouldn’t be able to afford it, or would have his life essentially ruined by debt if he didn’t just give up. Loans tied to grades would mean you’d end up with people who’d be forced to drop out due to a lack of money, and there would be a lot of people in debt, with incomplete educations and no way to earn the money to pay off the debts.
That’s because like other private schools, they can better pick and choose who they take. Of course they do better; they have the easier job.
You mean like ohhh . . . Saddam ? As pointed out upthread, he didn’t, and it made no difference. Some tyrants try to disarm people; some don’t, and it makes no difference either way that I can see.
Well, my personal experience is that public universities enroll a lot of marginal students. these people don’t have a clue about what they want to do, so they wind up taking a lot of introductory courses. Later, when they have to declare a major(and have to take more difficult higher-level courses), the constant partying and lack of studying makes them unable to maintain passing grades-at that point they drop out-and yes, there is a tremendous waste to the taxpayers. all well and good for the rich, but I struggle to pay my taxes-and i see no reason to subsidize such foolishness.
I agree. I believe that helping students who GENUINELY want to learn and better themselves is one of the best things that can be done with tax dollars. Helping students who want to party and end up dropping out is one of the worst. I think that for any individual student, any public monies spent initially should only be at the community college level. If the kid proves himself there, then he or she can apply for a grant (which should be difficult to get), to finish at a 4-year school.
At the CC, they should have to take real classes that will genuinely count towards a degree at whatever state university they want to attend. When I was attending CC, I went to a counsellor and got a list of their classes that would count towards a degree in liberal arts at our state university…they will tell you ahead of time which ones they will accept as transferred hours, and which ones will fulfill requirements towards the desired degree (the two don’t always overlap). I only selected classes from that list. If a kid can do that, stick to those “real” classes and get decent grades, then I think that shows they are serious. I think, based on what I saw at CC, that it’s a great place to sort out the ones who are serious about getting an education from the ones who are just trying to transition from school to real life.