If the minimum reason a government exists....

[ElectricMucus]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

The next thing is education would be very specific early on, depending on which employees the shareholders think to need in to future for their other companies. For instance it might not be a requirement for industry to hire people with decent language skills. And finally at some point not only the school but also the housing (of their workforce) would be owned by the same shareholders putting people who are in the system very dependent on it.

[myrkul]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

What are the costs that preclude this?

[ElectricMucus]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value. In order to be still profitable there would have to be certain things be employed which improve profitability already in use in commerce.
Like overbooking. (there would be more students assigned to a class than there are seats to account for the probability of absence)
Or labour which doesn't improve education. (highly repetitive for instance)

At some point low priced education wouldn't even qualify as education any more. (by my standards)

[myrkul]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture, more channels, 3-d, extra pixels. But they're both televisions, and both do the same job. A poor person may not be able to afford the best education for their child. But teaching them how to learn, and giving them the necessary skills to learn is not hard, nor expensive, and asking them "What do you want to be when you grow up," and then pointing them to the knowledge required for that particular profession is not much more added expense. That's basic education. Extra stuff, like social studies, history, etc, can be added if you want, or studied on their own. Learning is best accomplished when you want to learn.

[ElectricMucus]

You are right, it would work. But I think it would even turn out to be worse for the proletariat (sorry to use that term)
IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

For instance I am for the full abolishment of copyright and intellectual property since they only depend on artificial scarcity.
Education, obviously would be affected by this as well. Can't buy the hardcopy version? download it.

[myrkul]

You are right, it would work. But I think it would even turn out to be worse for the proletariat (sorry to use that term)
IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

For instance I am for the full abolishment of copyright and intellectual property since they only depend on artificial scarcity.
Education, obviously would be affected by this as well. Can't buy the hardcopy version? download it.

That would make knowledge free (as in beer). Completely free knowledge, coupled with the other societal changes I advocate, such as the removal of licensing restrictions for entry into professions, would make upward mobility a very easy thing to do, at least to your level of ability in your chosen field.

[asdf]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

[myrkul]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

[asdf]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

Sorry. I didn't read the whole thread.

[myrkul]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

Sorry. I didn't read the whole thread.

Or even the whole post you quoted?

[ElectricMucus]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

First come first serve.

[CountSparkle]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they...

No, because they don't see that as their job. Does Google make cars? Does government make cell phones? What's your point?


Are you such a horrible person that the only reason you give anything to support those poor, uneducated, retard orphans is because the government is forcing you, and believe thats the only reason everyone else gives to charity, too? Do you not know that mega corporations like Walmart, Target, Mcdonalds, and others give millions to charity every year, despite it going against their profit models, sometimes because they want good publicity for their company, and sometimes because their owners are human beings, too, and feel charitable? You have a pretty bleak view of the world   

[myrkul]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture...

Completely free knowledge, coupled with the other societal changes I advocate, such as the removal of licensing restrictions for entry into professions, would make upward mobility a very easy thing to do, at least to your level of ability in your chosen field.

You see, this is why I hardly bother replying any more. There was obviously something very, very wrong with your education.

Ask yourself this: what upward mobility would the 'poor' demographic have if -- as a result of their shitty education -- they are systematically denied the best jobs, get lower pay for the same role, are less able to support themselves, and on average their offspring are put in exactly the same situation?

<snip typical blablahblah from wawahwah>

What makes you think they would be? If you demonstrate better competency in a skill than someone who was more "educated" (as is often the case, especially in technical careers), why would you not get the job? If you did not get the job, why would you not then go into direct competition with your prospective employer, offering the same service, better, for lower rates? I say again, you're clearly not cut out to be a capitalist.

[CountSparkle]

Ask yourself this: what upward mobility would the 'poor' demographic have if -- as a result of their shitty education -- they are systematically denied the best jobs, get lower pay for the same role, are less able to support themselves, and on average their offspring are put in exactly the same situation?

Huh? Do they deny jobs based on the school you went to where you live?

In an An-Cap society, the kids could volunteer to have their organs harvested! They only really need one kidney, and the liver grows back from a stub. Bone marrow, skin grafts... What's your stance on child prostitution? If the kid agrees, it's legit, right?

Oh,  I see. So you are just a psychopath. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this, but the world doesn't work like this. We aren't all ready to kill or starve each other, or force children to sell their own organs to survive, with the government the only thing keeping us at bay. Seek some psychological help, dude!

[Dalkore]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture, more channels, 3-d, extra pixels. But they're both televisions, and both do the same job. A poor person may not be able to afford the best education for their child. But teaching them how to learn, and giving them the necessary skills to learn is not hard, nor expensive, and asking them "What do you want to be when you grow up," and then pointing them to the knowledge required for that particular profession is not much more added expense. That's basic education. Extra stuff, like social studies, history, etc, can be added if you want, or studied on their own. Learning is best accomplished when you want to learn.

I disagree that we should reinforce a class society any more than we do.

Myrkul is correct on his point about "basic education" and what is included in one.  Myrkul now gets a reward:  John Taylor Gatto on Education it has 5 parts over 5 hours and it is worth watching.  I have been collecting many of the source documents to verify, so don't trust him or me.  For subjects like this, do your homework. 

[deeplink]

This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

[deeplink]

This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

Are you complaining about something specific? Or do you just not like it whenever there is a group of more than 1 person and you are "brutally coerced" into compromising? Do you think I like paying taxes more than anyone else? (Or dealing with other annoying government stuff?) Hell no! But I'd rather put up with moderate governments instead of being forced to deal with "mob rule" and hard-line supremacist attitudes.

That is exactly my point. You believe that you have the right to enforce your will upon others because that is how YOU prefer to live. Where is the compromise?

[TheButterZone]

Tyranny, or death!

[FirstAscent]

This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

Are you complaining about something specific? Or do you just not like it whenever there is a group of more than 1 person and you are "brutally coerced" into compromising? Do you think I like paying taxes more than anyone else? (Or dealing with other annoying government stuff?) Hell no! But I'd rather put up with moderate governments instead of being forced to deal with "mob rule" and hard-line supremacist attitudes.

That is exactly my point. You believe that you have the right to enforce your will upon others because that is how YOU prefer to live. Where is the compromise?

Where is your compromise? And maybe that's why your world view has not manifested - it's too absence of any type of compromise for it to be accepted. Sucks to be you, man.

Voting is compromise. That's where the compromise is.

[deeplink]

No don't like emo. More into rock.

"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."


But back on topic. I am all for compromises, if they are made voluntarily by all parties involved. That is not the case here. Or as blahblahblah put it: AND SO DO YOU! Sorry bro, but I don't think so.