Quote:
Originally Posted by Surell
I'm still very confused by the concept of the crippled education system. You're insisting that a more available education system would result in a a generally less educated public. You infer from your own education, and the fact that you enjoyed such a thig when it was more luxurious, means that everyone had such an education, is not a rational conclusion. Because you were a part of such a fortunate circumstance, I'm sure you knew people of a similar sort, and indeed may have been surrounded by them. Do you really think the whole of a country had such luxuries, when your hypothesis relies on an education system not readily available to all? How could it follow then that education was universally better and thus able to produce more able musicians?
|
I am aware of the fact that there were school districts and school districts. Kids in the slums got an even worse education than us kids in the prosperous suburbs.
The trouble is that when the government provides "free" (i.e. tax-financed, i.e. financed by the looting of your fellow citizens) education - that not only makes "education" availible to the poor - it also destroys education for
everyone.
The solution to this problem is capitalism. Abolish the government's involvement in education. Education would not cost very much at all on a free market.
Ask yourself the simple question: What is necessary for a kid to get a good education?
Answer: A classroom, some simple furniture, a competent teacher and some decent books. That is all.
So private education would be much less expensive than the public schools America is cursed with today. But of course socialists would be unhappy about the fact that the parents would have to pay out of their own pockets for their own children's education!
The poor would have access to education in a capitalist society. They do not have access to education worthy of the name today. The kids in the slums and in the suburbs of America today often do not even learn to read and write decently!