[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the best at debating especially at a topic I don't know as much as I'd like to about but I'll try my best to reply to the parts of your argument that I feel I can debate on.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not debating. I am not seeking to win an argument. People accepting free market economics, e.g. Austrian Economics, libertarian philosophy, or outright anarchism (in an intelligent way), takes a long time. I don't seek to "convert" (so-to-speak) anyone. I just challenge the ideas people have about the free market because it is often misunderstood. I don't care if you're knowledgeable or not. I, simply, hope that a discussion with me forces you to research what you think you know, or things that you don't know. You're free to disagree with me. But, I'm also free to think you're wrong

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

Your government may be but I would argue that my government is not owned by corporations to the same extent as the US is...at least, not yet.

Fair enough, I do not know enough about your government. I will say this, a lot of governments are controlled in the same way the US is. It's just more subtle.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

With government run facilities at least the general public have some ability to hold them accountable. We can choose who to vote or not to vote in elections, we can sign petitions and rally to get certain politicians removed from office (with varying success). With a free market the general public can't do this.

There have actually been surveys (I can't find the source at the moment) that show voting is the least effective way to express yourself. But, this doesn't really matter. I'll say this, I think in the free market the general public has a BETTER way of holding people accountable. How? Because in a free market we have the ability to choose winners and losers by the money we give them, or don't give them. We can still sign petitions to the companies, who are more likely to change than the government (I'll explain why in a moment), and rally against people we disagree with.

The reason this is better is because these companies are subjected to the people. The federal government, in the US, was designed to be limited. People were supposed to be able to choose who they support, and who they don't. It was never intended to be a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The government was supposed to operate similar to the free market. If we don't agree with them, we aren't required to abide. The problem is that the government is getting more and more power, and you are forced to agree with them because they can use their power over you if you do not abide by their rules, and if you use force against them, it's considered a crime. It's hypocritical. Our early government even stated that mankind should be able to bear arms, not as protection against criminals, but as protection against their own government.

Here's where it comes down to. In a free market, if I don't like something, I don't have to support it. Within a democracy, if the majority likes it, it destroys the freedom of the minority, and even the minority are demanded to support it, or else. THAT'S the problem!

However, if in a free market you only have the people to support you, then you're more inclined to do what the people want. And if other people disagree with that decision, they're free to go to your competitor, or simply ignore you altogether. They aren't forced to fund you with the threat of jail. That's why in a free market, you're more likely to persuade people. The government doesn't fear the people, and the government should because the government is supposed to be the servants to the people, not the rulers (at least in the US, but the philosophy still doesn't change, a large government causes tyranny).

Think of it this way, is genocide in history is more likely to happen from a free market? Or large governments?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

Let me note, I do not agree with everything he says. It's simply a resource to show you what I mean. So, you see, the big picture issue is MUCH, MUCH bigger than just public education.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

So any school that is failing we just let it go under leaving those students without a school? That means those students have to go through the hassle of moving to another school. What if there are no other schools for them close by? What if the other schools close by cost more and the parents can't afford it?

You're argument is actually a fallacy. One, you're assuming that if education continued in a free market that there would be a necessity for it to be accredited, rather than used for the purpose of bringing about a stable economy. Therefore, any education gained while at any school would prove useful because it is no longer about getting good grades, or graduating, but about providing services to further a society. However, let me consider your question another way, you're also assuming that if schools ran through a private accreditation (again, by people freely choosing if they want to attend a privately accredited school or not) that no one would step up to help those students. This is wrong. People would step up. In fact, if we look at the money the US government grants to art students in the US, private funding actually exceeds the amount the government gives, SUBSTANTIALLY!! The difference is this: It isn't with tax payer money. People are free to choose to support causes they believe in. Your false assumption is that we are incapable of performing minor functions without the government. We can perform all tasks privately. Hence the need for entrepreneurs in a free market. Instead of asking me what my solution is, why don't you stop and think for yourself (I'm not trying to come off rude or sarcastic, I'm trying to get you to think).

So, for example, lets takes roads. Say we removed the government. Who would fund the roads? In fact, I've seen this argument in a textbook for Universities (We the People), however, they said without the government we'd have no roads. This isn't true. In the early 1900s we had roads. Who funded them? The free market. How? Purchasing from companies. In other words, lets say I own a pharmacy. I want people to be able to conveniently get to my pharmacy. How would I accomplish this? Build roads. I'd even argue that these roads would be better maintained than public roads. Why? Because, I want people to get to my store safely, because you can be sure as shit that if Sally over here crashes her car because of a pothole, that she won't be coming to my pharmacy again, AND she'll tell all her friends, and I'll lose business. Now, obviously the price of these roads would have to be reflected in the cost of my services, but here's the thing, if I don't go to that pharmacy, I shouldn't need to pay for their roads. My point is, think outside the box. Take something, anything, and say, "If I removed the government from this task, how could we get it to function without?" I'll tell you this, anything the government does, the private sector can do.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

I'm not saying ONLY the government can measure quality, in fact I disagree with the way they only use standardised testing to measure how well at school is doing but I was merely looking for a suggestion of how this would change if schools were privatised. My experience (albeit little) with private schools is that they want their students to achieve the top grades possible and will do anything to make them get those grades.

I agree with you. This is the problem of state and federal mandated testing. Private schools want good grades because that means a better school (in the eyes of the public). However, the problem is that the government has forced these regulations, restrictions, and requirements on teachers that demand certain expectations on students to pass courses or the teachers get in trouble (and this applies to the current private education). The government is the reason so much emphasis is placed on grades and testing, rather than education. This is exactly my point. If we went to a free market, value would be placed on the education and not the grades. Why? Because there'd no longer be these requirements from the government. We'd have schools training kids for real world experience, rather than teaching them that to be good people they have to be politically correct, pay their taxes, and go to work every day (so the government can take taxes). Instead the emphasis would be placed on REAL experience to contribute to society and to make your own way in the world.

I think we agree entirely on the point that you brought up. All I'm saying is, if we disagree with the way the government runs things, why should we run to them to fix it? Because you know what it will cost to fix it? More tax payer money. And you know what else? There's no incentive for the government to actually fix it. Why? Because the government will get your money by force. You don't have the right to choose whether you agree with their methods or not. Which is my point, I'd rather have a system where WE choose the methods.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

I've experienced the NHS and think that's more than adequate healthcare for the general population so there's no privatisation of it required, despite what our government thinks.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the government fails in every aspect. I just think that the private sector can do better. Before major health insurance companies came around in the US, healthcare costs were more affordable here than anywhere else. In fact, many people could see a doctor for free. The problem is when insurance companies came around, the medical practitioners realized they could charge more and get more money. Which, then increased insurance costs, which is why we are in the state we're in. There are MANY reasons our insurance sucks, but Americans forget that about 60 years ago, we had a healthcare system that the world envied.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

As Dave said previously this is nothing new. How do you propose this would change if schools are privatised?

I never said it was new, as I responded before. The solution, for me, is a little unclear. However, I would say this. If all education was privatized there would be an emphasis on the actual education. Let me put it this way, as Albert Einstein said, if you try teaching a fish to climb a tree, it will live it's whole life believing it is dumb. Now, I take this not to mean that we should dumb down our standards, but contrary that we should place students in a system where they can succeed to become better people with real experience. In other words, if we raise a society on the same math, the same language books, the same history books, the same everything because federal and state mandates require it, we have graduates that ALL have the SAME exact qualifications. There's no diversity. So, how do you stand out to an employer? You can't, really. I mean, of course there are ways, but don't you think it's a little ridiculous on what you HAVE to do, just to stand out? E.G. taking unpaid interns, etc. etc. etc. Instead, if our education system allowed diversity, employers would be able to find that diversity based on the private school they were graduating from. It would allow an opportunity for people to stand out, rather than forcing people to be in debt solely to become just like every other bean in the can.

Originally Posted by Khaleesi.

Of course you are. I'm not especially inclined to carry on debating in order to change your opinion mostly because I think that I won't be able to.

I'm sorry I'm long winded. I think sometimes it's difficult to express these ideas in a few sentences. Then again, I've always been told I'm long winded when I get excited about something.

Anyways, as I've said, you're also free to disagree with me. I think that's one of the greatest things is the ability to freely disagree without punishment. I would never even think of using force against you for disagreeing with me. Would you grant me this, as well? In other words, I would never send armed and masked men over to harm you or throw you in a chamber for disagreeing with me. Would you grant me this, too?