Reminds me of a convo I had with another member on here regarding the Apportionment Act of 1911. Check it out. Hasn't been revisited in a long time... I wonder why....

You make a very excellent point here. It is often easy (for me at least) to get caught in the circular Statist conundrum from time to time. I must be more mindful of this and remind myself that an invisible hand (not too invisible these days) is not totally required for a healthy, productive society.

I was privately educated in my younger schooling and went on to receive graduate training at a public University. It made not a lick of difference between the two sectors, but then again, I am a self motivated individual and not a passive learner. I conciously chose all of it, despite the fact that it was compulsory and later optional. I have seen both sides and the only thing I am able to conclude positively (all political garbage aside) is that education is the root of self-improvement, self-reliability and success in this World. You by all means don't need to pay $50K for it or even go to school, but the point being to continuously learn and improve your working/theoretical knowledge. I have personally seen the benefits and I just wish more individuals would understand how powerful it can be and additive in their lives.

Imagine a State like you are saying. There is no low-cost public education. No 'monopoly." Education costs are variable to market factors only. What about individuals who can't afford this education? Imagine if bettering yourself through learning were sold in the same fashion cars are. You want a good education-- it costs $40K, but you can get an poor education down the street for $2K, but you don't get the necessary skills to even make it worth going and it's not recognized as being valuable anyway.

Education is not a business, however; sadly it is going that way. It will end up just like health care in the US. You want care? Fine, save and pay for everything. You want an education? Fine, save and pay for everything.

You will find out quickly how 'monopolized' everything really is if you keep a capitalistic approach to your entire life.

Private schools can charge whatever they want. That is why they are expensive. The operating costs of a private school are identical to a public school of the same size and activities. Given these constants, the differences in price are made up by salaries, social parameters (exclusivity, religious teaching, special treatments, etc.) and socioeconomic demographics of the families that attend. Taxpayers pay for public schools to exist. The Gov't doesn't dole out extra cash making public schools able to exist better than private schools. The difference between public and private education is that generally private education is for profit. Public schools will always exist given the Gov't mandates compulsory education to a minimum grade level.


This is very true, however; it is not in the ruling party's interest to let the poor do this. Many argue that the poor are not worthy of having an education because they are poor (and why should they be supported if they can't themselves). This is a deep fundamental question in all societies. Education is treated this way in the US. It is a means to separate people. Many complain that the regular average joe who is hardworking can't afford a public school college education valued at ~$30K, yet they have a nice new Prius in their driveway. I am not arguing one way or another, but if you give people options instead of telling them what to do (on some things like education), history shows people are very short-term driven with poor ability to see the benefit in things outside of "what every else has." There will always be poor(er) people than others. Does this mean they don't deserve certain things?


Of course, funding from the Gov't for education (the US) is done mostly by headcount. The public sector of education has far more students than the private ones. It's like the difference between running a company like Google and running a small mom and pop grocery store. The public sector of education is so large, it makes it easy for money to be utilized poorly. The Gov't funds education by throwing money at it with no target or outcome desired. It just does it. The Gov't does this because: IMO, Americans don't really care about becoming smarter or educated. It is all profit driven. More education = more money. That's it.


You can now see the model changing for higher education (college). It is because of the public sector. States are no longer funding public colleges at the level they used to. This has strained colleges and in turn, they extend that strain onto incoming students in the form of higher tuition. It is to the point where a public college costs nearly as much as a private one. This is why people are pushing to put things online for free. Learning should not bankrupt people. It should be widely accessible, low cost and supported (if a country wants to remain competitive and adaptive with a bright people).


The illusion you're buying into is that somehow if you can vote with your dollar, your child will get "a better education" at a private school if everything were not mandatory. The value people place on education for the learning sake is broken. If I told you that paying for college would not get you a higher paying job (on average) in the future would you go? All things constant, if education were optional and that learning was not important to make money, would you still pay for it?

People in America go to college for the wrong reasons. You go to learn. To think. To develop thoughts about the World. Public school (K - 12th grade) teaches kids the basics of existing in a society (basic maths, personal finance, how to read, write). This NEEDS to be compulsory. These skills are a basic requirement of living in a society. See history for millions of examples of why this is important.

Taxpayers do. Even though parents actually fund the public schools, sans a State "to tell them to do it," would they on their own build/run the schools and educate without the hand of the State? My initial thoughts are no. Especially if 'going to school to become educated' is "worthless" in society (the State is indifferent to those who are educated).

I am here because BTC stands a chance of updating the archaic banking system of today and I'd like to profit if it becomes integrated into the way my country's (US) financials are undergone. I have no interest in how this technology might represent my ideological beliefs. It's adapt or be left behind.

You must be young. You really want a system this way? You're telling me you're going to purchase insurance your ENTIRE life (in a financially increasing step-wise fashion as you age counter to your income) planning for your own golden years someday? You're going to save each paycheck now so you can afford your bills as an old person who can no longer physically work (or at a very limited capacity) because you'd rather pay for your own by yourself instead of into a somewhat collective system that will help you and all involved?

In America, it is a human right to live. If it's your right, everyone must be entitled to it, not just the ones who can afford it. Having insurance OPTIONS is perfectly fine (a scalable by affordability/cosmetic/choice), but not the basics.


Bolded for emphasis.

IMO, it's a decent idea, however; it pigeon holes people into going down particular career/job tracks (i.e. 5% on a police officer's wage is quite a bit more burdening than 5% on an investment banker's salary). It's difficult to do, but education must be competitive for education's sake, not for "better" jobs.

My idea (adding onto this) would be to make education geared for particular jobs or careers. All education for non-specialized jobs (vocational, trades, mid-tier) would be free provided the student's received high marks. You would go to school with the direct intention of a particular outcome (to be a nurse, to be a plumber...) Free = funded by taxpayers.

Should the pupil want a more specialized track (doctor, professor, lawyer, etc.) they would have to have the necessary grades to prove their eligibility into those educational tracks (similar to Germany). If they have what it takes educationally to get in, the schooling would be either lower cost (an educational cost subsidy to keep them competitive) or you pay a % of your future earnings back to the system.

__

The cost of public education (9 - 12; high school) in the US is roughly $100-$1000/year depending on if the student plays sports, there are advanced technology fees, etc. Waivers can be gotten for most of thee costs if you are lower income. The mean adjusted cost is closer to $5-$200/year.

Now just think: Tax payers in America are complaining about this... Complaining about $200/year to send their kid to school. Mind them this includes free day care for 7-8 hours, exercise, low cost lunch, socialization for the kids, learning, etc. The list goes on. It amazes me how stupid most people really are. If you gave them the choice between the latest Ipad or sending their kid to school another year, you can bet there would be some agony involved.

Ahh, yes. Didn't mean it as a slight, I agree.

Does it make any sense for a state to have two competing armies in the state's disposition?

--> Good question. My initial thoughts also sway to competition as it usually benefits all parties in the long run with respect to innovation and advancement. Privatization of regimes would make for a very interesting dynamic (at least on the National stage). It would be similar to France's situation. You have their State defense and than you have the Legionnaires.

--> Private schools CAN compete with price. The wealthy attend private schools because other wealthy families attend those schools. It's not about the education, it's about the connections one gains there. Private schools are purely designed as meeting grounds for maintaining the future's already wealthy elite. Price is irrelevant to the rich. On-the-other-hand, if you are poor-middle class and gain acceptance into a private school, congrats as the "quality" of your education just got better (i.e. better chance at meeting good contacts).


--> There is no separation between free school and private schools as you say. More money in tax payers pockets (from not paying for education) would not equate to 'cheap private school'. Education through the 12th grade is not optional, it is compulsory (in the US). If the Gov't mandates compulsory education up until a certain point, it is de facto paid by everyone. Having the option to select your education (at the lower rungs i.e. K-12th grade) doesn't do anything for the sake of making education better or more widely accessible. It instead stratifies people based upon income. Public education lacks support in the form of teacher's wages. If you do not incentivize those doing the educating, how could you ever expect the product (the educated) to benefit from such an arrangement?

Private schools don't face this problem per say because they are paid on average far better than public school teachers. The education in either of these settings is equal given the material being presented. The social factors surrounding the conveying of the material is what is vastly different.


--> I don't think you understand the nature of education. Education cannot be price intrinsically. One dollar does not equal learning algebra. One dollar also does not translate into X dollars of earning potential in the future. Politicans and law makers alike have been arguing this fact since the dawn of education in America. You simply cannot put a price on it. Education is an investment into your country for the good of everyone with the hopes that a smarter population equates to higher standards of living in the future. A capitalistic approach (the US) to education results in an education gap that favors those with money gaining access to knowledge over those who cannot afford it. The point of education in America is not to become smarter, but to get richer monetarily by gaining degrees. Knowledge is a gatekeeper in the US. It has nothing to do with becoming better educated to better your life, how you approach the World, think about things, etc..


--> There is ample competition in the Gov't military sectors. Contracts are awarded to many enterprises yearly for producing war machine products. If military spending were more publicly controlled, we would not even have a fraction of the astronomical and uncheck armed forces spending we have today. Privatization helps those in charge. Not the converse.

This is my point exactly. Knowledge doesn't get you anywhere if you don't produce anything. There is ample evidence of this problem right now in today's US economy. Look at the financial sector. The banking and finance world have been the leading companies for years "producing" the most "product" (dollars). The finance industry doesn't create any real products made with real materials.

It's worthless. Great Nations are rarely built by knowledge components alone. They are built with blood, sweat and tears of hardworking men in the manufacturing and trades world. Look at today's US. We have a bunch of pansy ass entitled kids with no real job skills and unlimited amounts of time and whining. My father didn't whine. His father didn't whine. Now don't get me wrong, we need both, but we cannot have one without the other. I am one who is paid by my knowledge, but I cannot exist without the individuals "keeping the lights on" sort of speak.

The US needs to return a large stake of its work back to its soil. A Nation's ability to innovate can be seen as a sign of strength, but it is also a luxury. If the basic needs of a Nation are not met first, innovating is a waste of time and resources (necessity is the mother of all invention).

Technology is certainly not the problem. After all, I am involved in BTC. The US has high entrepreneurial rewards for those willing to try. The problem is the demand for our entrepreneurial spirit (i.e. most other nations don't care or don't have the fiscal capacity to care).

What's broken is the outlet for our innovations. There is nobody to sell it to because all the US does is innovate; we don't produce it. Take Apple for instance... Designed in California; made in China.

The US needs to start caring about itself instead of others. IMO, innovation in the US is made to export, not the reverse.

That's the ticket:

Do we (the US) scale back our innovative/entrepreneurial spirit in favor of restructuring the broken (or soon to be) architecture of America and returning to the fundamentals?

OR-

Ramp it up even more, riding the tidal wave all the way to the shore where we enviably crash into the beach suffering an economic depression as great as the 1930s or worse?

My German blood boils as well on things. It's built into the heritage to be efficient and precise. Germany has become highly feminized in recent years (along with the US). Doesn't surprise me about the urinating debacle. What's sad is that this will be the norm for a generation or so until they realize how too much progressivism can be extremely detrimental.

It's a catch 22 regarding the rulebook of society. If you don't enforce it, people take advantage. If you enforce it, people try to shirk it. In ancient times, breaking the rules = banishment sometimes. This was enough to stop most people from breaking the rules. Today, not so much. A few slaps on the wrist or a large cash donation to Uncle Sam and it's like nothing happened. Today, breaking the rules (in the US) is something of an accomplishment met with Gov't handouts and minority entitlements.

Somedays, I wish people had more pride in doing things themselves like they used to. I knew people growing up that were scared to go on food stamps (even though they needed help bad) because of the shame it brought on their families. Instead, the father worked two jobs to dig the family out of poverty. He certainly didn't go out and buy a new cell phone and a tattoo with the savings.

Jefferson had it right with Agrarianism. Too bad it didn't stick.

Great article post by the way.

There is no more violent crime today then there was in yesteryear. However; today there is a lot more police presence and pre-meditated violence on the part of police. The US has softened; becoming a weak shell of its former self. The militant/police state is coming (if not already here).

I'm not as doom and gloom as some, but men arm yourselves and begin to cultivate skills useful to your ancestors. The US is not going to change overnight, but self-reliance is going to take on a whole new meaning in years to come (and it doesn't mean grocery shopping alone).

I bolded a chunk of your quote. What's interesting is how the US operated in the 1800s roughly before the police were invented. According to many reports, there actually wasn't a lot of crime or anarchy. The masses policed themselves for crimes and shunned/took care of individuals that were not playing by the collective rules. Society takes care of itself on its own.

IMO, its not human nature to succeed individually when in an environment that is only ruled by mother nature. Evolution wouldn't let this happen, it wasn't wise to go it alone. You couldn't survive.

Now enter an invisible hand (the State) that controls most things... every individual is now polarized "against" their fellow man because they have to compete with them to get things from the State (who controls everything). This is where the the individualism comes from.

^anecdote: I just bought a vehicle the other day. A classic vehicle that is 35 years old. I traded an old vehicle for it. No money was exchanged. The State wants me to pay 6.5% sales tax on the "purchase" of a 35 year old vehicle that I paid nothing for. I refused saying I didn't need to pay tax on something I didn't pay for. Their reasoning: You must put something down on the line (sales tax line of the title form).

This is very true, but IMO only because the benefits of prioritizing self interest outweigh the converse. In many ways, the incentive to stake against this is so low that becoming a martyr for the cause is a waste of your life. Hence we have a large pop. of people that are gaming the system for their benefit. It's too late to reverse anything; it must play out now and restructure in the future.

The problem with Statism is the circularness of it. You don't end up getting anywhere long-term as you point out. What's interesting is that China has something like Statism going with regards to State ownership of public companies, however; they are quite long-term minded because of the guarantees the CPC affords in longevity.

If history show us anything, those other people have been living off of Greece as well (Germany v. Greece post-WWII). Greece wants a freebie like Germany got. Germany denies the freebie and wants Greece to honor austerity. Just a giant political circle jerk regarding "who fucked up." If anyone's to blame, it's the IMF, ECB and EC. They got greedy and what we have today is the results of that greed.

The highest price at any point will be $352 on December 31st, 2015. Spend less time trying to be an internet dick. My comment was valid and within all contexts of this thread. I will waste no more lines on you.