Banning of Private schools?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Banning of Private schools?

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

So in the general forum there is a thread about schooling, in this I mentioned my dislike for Private schools and I shal here explain, so that we can debate this

It is founded on the principle that everybody should have equal opportunities, who your parents are should as little as possible influence your chances of doing what you want. Private school is, I believe atleast, per defenition a school where you either pay for your kids to get in, or they get a grant or scholarship.

This means that only some people have the choice of attending these schools, usually they take in some kids that are very good for free so that their school will appear better, but fact remains that Kid A and Kid B, where kid A is rich and kid B is poor, kid B not only then will most likely have worse conditions at home, but also have to attend a worse school.

This is my beef with private schools, per defenition they are more or less of a rich mans, or I guess childs, club.

Oh, and another side effect which is also negative but not as fundamental, is the further segregation of rich - poor, grade 1-3 I had friends of incredibly varied background, one had a single mother who was most likely a prostitute, another had a two architects, another a prominent business man, another one with working class background. I definatly think this kind of mix does all sorts of good.

So private schools are unfair in principle, and I'd prefer to have them banned.
What do you think?
Last edited by fjafjan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

Grincement
Should have Boobs (In theory)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:23 pm UTC

Postby Grincement » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:28 pm UTC

I've been in private education since I was 10 and it has given me a huge range of opportunity's which many people would not have got going to a state on school.

I think this could be taken as a prime example of "luxury goods". Yes it's unfair that I should be privillaged to get this education, and I've pondered (from my early years at private) that it's a vicious cycle in a way. Those who can afford to go these schools get a better chance at getting "higher" up in the world and earning more money so that their kids can go to private.

However, banning private schools would also be unfair. My parents have worked hard to get where they were and have chosen to send me to private. They are doing what most parents want to do, give their kids the best start in life they can. So I've got it easy? Well actually no, in the UK there's been such a movement to stop universities being biased towards private schools that the type of school you went to is coming into account when applications are processed. (This was in the news early last year). So, here a pet hate of mine, positive discrimination is coming into play!

So private schools aren't brilliant, but there are bursaries available. The school is a business not a charity so they can't accept every single person, yet if you are a student who is showing great potential then you can be offered a scholarship and/or bursary. A full bursary can be given (parents pay nothing) if the parents really cannot afford to send their child to school but the school believes that the school and the child will benefit from the child attending.

The best solution i've heard of are the school's that set your fee depending on the income of the household, this seems to be the most faireest way, but I don't know that much about it so can't really make a full judgement.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:28 pm UTC

Statement of Bias: I attended, and preferred, private schools all the way from elementary through high school.

That said, one valuable service that private schools provide is variety. Different people thrive in different environments, and often the only way to find those environments is to look at smaller and more specialized schools that, by necessity, use private tuition to fund their operations.

Until public schools can offer the quality and options that the private sector can, I think banning the private sector would be rather premature.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
singing about potatoes
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:10 am UTC
Location: Greater Los Angeles
Contact:

Postby singing about potatoes » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:38 pm UTC

I see no reason to ban private schools. In my experience, true learning comes not from a classroom, but from a library and a playground.
My hobby > yours. (yes, that is me)
singing about potatoes wrote:Theoretical-boobs and I both have dinghy access.
Fluff wrote:That sounds a bit kinky. :o

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

Yes it's unfair that I should be privillaged to get this education

Really this is all there is, your further commentarys is just attempts at rationalizing it, if you give one kid a cookie and nothing to his brother, he will eat it and try and rationalize it.

However, banning private schools would also be unfair. My parents have worked hard to get where they were and have chosen to send me to private. They are doing what most parents want to do, give their kids the best start in life they can.


The point is, who your parents are, or what they have done, should not matter. If your parents were criminals would it be "fair" for you to have to work off their debts or something?
Nope
Neither is it fair, and thus not ethically defendable, for you to inherit their work, especially not in the form of better education

. The school is a business not a charity so they can't accept every single person.

So why must a school be a business?
Charge no one nothing, rather, use taxes, those are already dependant on income.
A full bursary can be given (parents pay nothing) if the parents really cannot afford to send their child to school but the school believes that the school and the child will benefit from the child attending.


Again, this only moderatly improves the situation, it assumed that your parents care enough to find out about this school, or that the school board "likes you" or whatever, again, not even playing field.


The best solution i've heard of are the school's that set your fee depending on the income of the household, this seems to be the most faireest way, but I don't know that much about it so can't really make a full judgement.


What about, as said, no fee at all?
That way anyone who wants can attend. It's also called a public school.

That said, one valuable service that private schools provide is variety. Different people thrive in different environments, and often the only way to find those environments is to look at smaller and more specialized schools that, by necessity, use private tuition to fund their operations.


I agree that not one method of teaching etc is best for all, however, that is not to say that all should not have the same opportuniies, within one school, there can be "sub schools", it is always a delicate matter varying between free choice, forcing students to be introduced to new subjects and areas aswell as separating students that are on different levels of education, aswell as not segregating the classes and falling for the rosenthal effect.
Certainly I do not think I have mastered how to mix all that up, but I do not think that the income of ones parents need to enter into the mix.
I don't think private funding is necessary for the varied and high quality education of children, increase school spending, cut military, voila. Good education is a very good investment.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:51 pm UTC

In a perfect world where the public school system was adequate to fulfill everyone's educational needs, private schools wouldn't be able to fund themselves anyway, and would disappear by themselves.

Why would anyone pay money for a service you can get for free, funded by taxes that you're already paying anyway?

The only reason private schools can exist is because public schools are deficient in some way. If you want to eliminate them, your best bet would be to improve public schools until they die on their own.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:56 pm UTC

I think fjafjan, are you implying that private schools are better than public ones? I can't agree, at least not in all cases. Who's to say public schools are worse than private ones? I attended public elementary/middle/high school, and am currently sitting at the desk of a very nice job. I know friends who went to private school for most of their school life and aren't doing as well.

Would a private school have really been all that better for me? I doubt it. If people want to spend extra $ for a different education for their kids, let them.

Also, 'Private schools for the loose' makes me think of a whore academy.
9 x 6 = 42

Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:09 pm UTC

I attended a private school until 8th grade, then public school for high school. having been in both, admittedly at different ages, and different education levels, I have to say one isn't inherently better. Private schools CAN offer advantages, especially in younger grades, in that class size is generally smaller, so kids can get more individual attention. the downside to this is that because there are less kids (each class I was in was <31 kids, the same kids all the way through school for the most part) there's no way to seperate the 'gifted' kids and give them the challenges they would benefit from. they manage to help the kids that fall behind, but often it's at the expense of the rest of the class. basically the class goes as fast as the slowest student.
That being said, I think that it's really a matter of not private vs public school, but a matter of how much the school is willing/able to do to help the kids maximize potential. the really good schools are the ones that prepare student s for college, make them aware of their choices and help them make informed decisions about those choices. Then too, the school can be the best in the world at that, but it's still up to the students to take advantage of it. you get what you put into it. and if you're motivated enough, you'll find a way no matter what school you go to. if you're not, then the best school in the world won't help.

also, "for the loose" is kind of grating on my grammar/spelling nerves >.<
Last edited by AnonyMouse on Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:10 pm UTC

Belial wrote:In a perfect world where the public school system was adequate to fulfill everyone's educational needs, private schools wouldn't be able to fund themselves anyway, and would disappear by themselves.

Why would anyone pay money for a service you can get for free, funded by taxes that you're already paying anyway?.


For a variety of reasons, ranging from
"I don't want my kid to learn evolution
to
"I think they emphatise brittish history too much"
Most of those reasons are BS though, alot of them are religious reasons, all of those fall down the BS tube, children should not be indoctrinated with any religion, or something as stupid as creationism.
There's also the bounch "I am have alot of money and I am willing to spend alot of money on getting my kids the best possible education, ie better than "those other kids", so that they can have an advantage later in life
That is not morally defentable either
The group that are reasonable are the ones with concrete complaints in how the education is "being done", in lack of better term, they can however actually solve their arguments within the system.

The only reason private schools can exist is because public schools are deficient in some way. If you want to eliminate them, your best bet would be to improve public schools until they die on their own.


That will not be possible, if religious loonies are allowed to isolate their kids with other loonies a majority of those will remain religious loonies.
The people that will eventually go away in time are the one with reasonable complaints, but these are only a part of the groups that want their kids to attend different schools, neither the ones who do it for religious reasons or the ones who do it for elitistic reasons will not change nomatter how effecient the school is at teacher what should be taught.

EDIT:

think fjafjan, are you implying that private schools are better than public ones?


It is actually irrelevant if they are better or not, it is about the impaired choices of the financially impaired, It is nice to hear that public school in this case was better, but it does not change the core point - Equal rights for all.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Postby Belial » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:15 pm UTC

The group that are reasonable are the ones with concrete complaints in how the education is "being done", in lack of better term, they can however actually solve their arguments within the system.


I don't think that's true. You only get one elementary or middle-school education, and it is carried out over a finite window of time. If your parents spend 10 or 12 years "solving their arguments within the system" trying to make your educational experience adequate, you're graduated and gone with your *inadequate* education by the time they get anywhere.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to avoid that. It's a flaw of the system tha the only way to access that option is by paying money, but the solution to that is *not* to take the option away.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:20 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote: It is actually irrelevant if they are better or not, it is about the impaired choices of the financially impaired, It is nice to hear that public school in this case was better, but it does not change the core point - Equal rights for all.


If the quality is irrelevant, what's your point? Isn't the schooling all about just getting the best education, whatever the medium is?
If your point is that the 'financially impaired' deserve a crack at things out of their price bracket, then I completely disagree. I suppose you want them to have 'equal rights' to the 50" plasma TV too then, eh? Equal rights in this case means everyone should get an approximately (because no 2 schools anywhere are exactly the same) equal education. The medium and cost are irrelevant.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:24 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:If your point is that the 'financially impaired' deserve a crack at things out of their price bracket, then I completely disagree. I suppose you want them to have 'equal rights' to the 50" plasma TV too then, eh? Equal rights in this case means everyone should get an approximately (because no 2 schools anywhere are exactly the same) equal education. The medium and cost are irrelevant.


this brings up the question if, after a certain point, a higher quality education is a luxury item? should everyone get education up to whatever we've decreed is 'decent' then after that you only get a better one if you can afford it?

User avatar
dan
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:55 am UTC

Postby dan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:30 pm UTC

Whether it's unfair or not, private schools probably do have a positive effect on education overall, since it means more money is going into it - the parents are still paying taxes, so that means better value for the kids going to public schools than they would have if the rich kids went there too. Since education is good for society as a whole, you could say that this is a good thing. Then again, whether it outweighs any negative effect caused by creating a greater class divide and producing 'less rounded' people is hard to tell.

I've never attended a private school, and I'm not even sure I'd want to, but I don't know that they should be banned.

Grincement
Should have Boobs (In theory)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:23 pm UTC

Postby Grincement » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:30 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
squeak wrote: The school is a business not a charity so they can't accept every single person.

So why must a school be a business?
Charge no one nothing, rather, use taxes, those are already dependant on income.


Yes but how is that fair? You earn more, so you pay more taxes, yet you all still get the same product?

fjafjan wrote:
squeak wrote: A full bursary can be given (parents pay nothing) if the parents really cannot afford to send their child to school but the school believes that the school and the child will benefit from the child attending.


Again, this only moderatly improves the situation, it assumed that the school board "likes you"


Yes but surely thats similar to a job interview? If you're not liked then you don't get the job, it's the way of the world. Again, a private school is a business so you are applying for a position and you will get benefits from that school but you have to work for that, as you would in a job. So if you are not liked in the interview then maybe you weren't right for that school, there is more than one private school.

fjafjan wrote:
squeak wrote:The best solution i've heard of are the school's that set your fee depending on the income of the household, this seems to be the most faireest way, but I don't know that much about it so can't really make a full judgement.


What about, as said, no fee at all?
That way anyone who wants can attend. It's also called a public school.


That's the thing, there is the chance you will not have to pay a fee, if you cannot afford to pay it. Depending on how much you earn depends on how much you pay. Surely that is fair?

Oh and surely it would be lose in the title not loose.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:31 pm UTC

AnonyMouse wrote:This brings up the question if, after a certain point, a higher quality education is a luxury item? should everyone get education up to whatever we've decreed is 'decent' then after that you only get a better one if you can afford it?


Yes, and so applied throughout everything else. There is the standard applied to all, more can always be bought. Such is the capitalist society. Everyone is gauranteed the base functions and the right to buy up.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:35 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:
AnonyMouse wrote:This brings up the question if, after a certain point, a higher quality education is a luxury item? should everyone get education up to whatever we've decreed is 'decent' then after that you only get a better one if you can afford it?


Yes, and so applied throughout everything else. There is the standard applied to all, more can always be bought. Such is the capitalist society. Everyone is gauranteed the base functions and the right to buy up.


so where's the line? are we all entitled to base education? mediocre? good? excellent? or whatever our area happens to have for free? there's a huge disparity, at least in the US, from one state/region to another for what's considered a good education. there are efforts to standardize, but I think overall they fail. so if we, as fjafjan suggested, ban private schools, then you're just stuck with whatever your area happens to have (as you are if you can't afford to 'buy up'? On the other hand, would that be incentive to improve the public schooling in deficient areas since there's no other way to get a better education?

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:38 pm UTC

Ah, where's the line.
The same question arose in the luxury items thread.
Coincidence? I think not.

Guess what? There is no way to best define a line. Rational black and white lines cannot be drawn in a mostly grey society.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:43 pm UTC

then it becomes impossible to justify banning things, because we'd need some kind of a standard line. what's too much/not enough?

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:43 pm UTC

Remove inheritance!

All your assets above a particular amount are assigned to the government for re-dispersal on death.

These assets are accountable and may only be spent on education and health.

There.

Done.

You want to level the playing field for people.. do it properly.

Oh.. and don't carry it *too far* Egalitarianism
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

Grincement
Should have Boobs (In theory)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:23 pm UTC

Postby Grincement » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:45 pm UTC

AnonyMouse wrote: so if we, as fjafjan suggested, ban private schools, then you're just stuck with whatever your area happens to have (as you are if you can't afford to 'buy up'? On the other hand, would that be incentive to improve the public schooling in deficient areas since there's no other way to get a better education?


See in the UK people who can't afford to private schools are taking drastic action to get their kids into the better state schools. Our system dictates which school your child will go to depending on where you live, so thats why house prices in certain areas are high, thus meaning only the richer again can afford to go to the better schools.

There are also cases where parents, though not catholic, are trying to get their children into catholic schools because they are often better funded (through the church). In some places it has got so extreme that the vicar must confirm to the school that the child is present most sundays at church.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:47 pm UTC

VannA wrote:You want to level the playing field for people.. do it properly.


Even better, lets all switch to Communism. If we can't work out who can have what when, lets make everyone exactly equal. Lets all go flatline.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:56 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:
VannA wrote:You want to level the playing field for people.. do it properly.


Even better, lets all switch to Communism. If we can't work out who can have what when, lets make everyone exactly equal. Lets all go flatline.


You're right.

I used the wrong term of phrase.

I should be referencing handicaps at the starting line.

People should be able to excel and do well for themselves.
People should be able to start and finish on a level playing field.

I dislike communism solely because it tends to fail in rewarding excellance.
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:02 pm UTC

VannA wrote:I should be referencing handicaps at the starting line.

People should be able to excel and do well for themselves.
People should be able to start and finish on a level playing field.

I dislike communism solely because it tends to fail to reward excellance.


And now we hit the root of the issue. Those not rewarded are bitter.
If you can do better for yourself, you should be allowed to. Don't whine that others have the $ to put towards a different education or whatnot. Strive to do the same.

EDIT: Damn tags
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:04 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:
fjafjan wrote: It is actually irrelevant if they are better or not, it is about the impaired choices of the financially impaired, It is nice to hear that public school in this case was better, but it does not change the core point - Equal rights for all.


If the quality is irrelevant, what's your point? Isn't the schooling all about just getting the best education, whatever the medium is?
If your point is that the 'financially impaired' deserve a crack at things out of their price bracket, then I completely disagree. I suppose you want them to have 'equal rights' to the 50" plasma TV too then, eh?


50" plasma TV is not a right, but a luxury item
Education is a fundamental right for all children (and adults, but i'll be as bold as to claim it's more important to kids)

Yes but how is that fair? You earn more, so you pay more taxes, yet you all still get the same product?


*smack self on head*
Ugh
Okey, the argument was based on everybodys equal rights to education, the fact that you pay more taxes does not mean you should get "better access" to the public park, or a better school.
The fact that rich people make more taxes is because they can pay more, but let us not get into that, that's a bit OT

Yes but surely thats similar to a job interview? If you're not liked then you don't get the job, it's the way of the world. Again, a private school is a business so you are applying for a position and you will get benefits from that school but you have to work for that, as you would in a job.


But in most jobs your mom or dad, atleast ideally, can not buy you the position. there is corruption there aswell though, I don't see why we need to bring that to the school aswell though.

That's the thing, there is the chance you will not have to pay a fee, if you cannot afford to pay it. Depending on how much you earn depends on how much you pay. Surely that is fair?


I don't like paying for education at all, because it then comes down to how important you are to your parents(when you are young atleast). Education should be a free service provided to all.


this brings up the question if, after a certain point, a higher quality education is a luxury item? should everyone get education up to whatever we've decreed is 'decent' then after that you only get a better one if you can afford it?


No, education is never a luxury item, Knowledge should be able to all equally. The end. Arguing that there is some "base" education which all is inherited too but knowing advanced physics or philosophy is a "luxury" comparable to a fancy car is silly. Also, in a capitalistic society you are not givven any "base" services, it's every man or woman for himself.
(help me Leela!)


And now we hit the root of the issue. Those not rewarded are bitter.
If you can do better for yourself, you should be allowed to. Don't whine that others have the $ to put towards a different education or whatnot. Strive to do the same.


The root of the issue is equality.
You obviously think that unequal opportunities are fine, because ... I donno, those that do not have them are whiny, and should try harder.
Last edited by fjafjan on Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
dan
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 12:55 am UTC

Postby dan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:04 pm UTC

VannA wrote:Remove inheritance!
VannA, I've thought about this system before, as it is pretty logical, but how do you get around people giving away all their money before they die? You would just have a loophole where people still gave everything to their kids, but 'as a gift' rather than as inheritance. You can't just ban gifts, unless you want to be really unpopular.

Edit: Also, that would mean no family heirlooms, and no family businesses.

Edit: Sorry if that was getting too off topic.
Last edited by dan on Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:14 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:10 pm UTC

dan wrote:
VannA wrote:Remove inheritance!
VannA, I've thought about this system before, as it is pretty logical, but how do you get around people giving away all their money before they die? You would just have a loophole where people still gave everything to their kids, but 'as a gift' rather than as inheritance. You can't just ban gifts, unless you want to be really unpopular.

Edit: Also, that would mean no family heirlooms, and no family businesses.


Well gifts are already taxed unless I am misstaken, ofcourse minor gifts are irrelevant, but you can't just "give" your employees five thousand dollars each month, and then not pay tax for it.
Implementing the system perfectly would be hard though.

EDIT: this is getting a bit OT though, if you wish to discuss this further create a new thread
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:14 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:50" plasma TV is not a right, but a luxury item
Education is a fundamental right for all children (and adults, but i'll be as bold as to claim it's more important to kids)

Agreed. And the TV was a sarcastic element to draw attention to my argument.

fjafjan wrote:
this brings up the question if, after a certain point, a higher quality education is a luxury item? should everyone get education up to whatever we've decreed is 'decent' then after that you only get a better one if you can afford it?


No, education is never a luxury item, Knowledge should be able to all equally. The end. Arguing that there is some "base" education which all is inherited too but knowing advanced physics or philosophy is a "luxury" comparable to a fancy car is silly. Also, in a capitalistic society you are not givven any "base" services, it's every man or woman for himself.

Yes, and knowledge is available to all. The question is what the government, or whoever, can supply within reason. You cannot supply unlimited education resources to everyone. And you are 'given' services, through taxes. Education, fire, police, etc. You can buy more of any of these as you see fit, and have $ for.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

Fluff
See You Next Tuesday
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:27 am UTC
Location: The Departure Lounge

Postby Fluff » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:15 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote: the fact that you pay more taxes does not mean you should get "better access" to the public park, or a better school.


Why not?

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:18 pm UTC

Fluff wrote:
fjafjan wrote: the fact that you pay more taxes does not mean you should get "better access" to the public park, or a better school.


Why not?


because that would defeat the point of "public"

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:19 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Tractor wrote:And now we hit the root of the issue. Those not rewarded are bitter.
If you can do better for yourself, you should be allowed to. Don't whine that others have the $ to put towards a different education or whatnot. Strive to do the same.


The root of the issue is equality.
You obviously think that unequal opportunities are fine, because ... I donno, those that do not have them are whiny, and should try harder.

Since you added since I quoted you, I'll address this too.
I said nothing of unequal opportunities. I'll give you all the opportunities to do whatever you want. If for some reason you don't have the resources to take advantage of the opportunities, tough cookies, it doesn't mean they aren't there.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
VannA
White
Posts: 1446
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:57 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Postby VannA » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:19 pm UTC

Tractor wrote: Don't whine that others have the $ to put towards a different education or whatnot. Strive to do the same.



...

How many Kids can do that?

The problem is an equal starting field, so that ability is what makes the key difference to somebodies ability to succeed in life.

The Success of a parent should not influence the basic of a childs life.
Nobody *deserves* an artificial advantage.

Gifts are also easy to trace in any real amount, and yes, in Australia they are taxed quite considerably.

As a side note.. Social Credit
Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:23 pm UTC

Yes, and knowledge is available to all. The question is what the government, or whoever, can supply within reason. You cannot supply unlimited education resources to everyone. And you are 'given' services, through taxes. Education, fire, police, etc. You can buy more of any of these as you see fit, and have $ for.


As far as I know virtually all education is free here, uni, etc etc.
The Goverment should supply people with as much education as they want, if I want to study philisophy while training to be a doctor, I should be free to do so.
Fire and Police are different in the way they affect your future, I do for example not believe in private health care either, fire department I do not really care, as far as I know the fire department are very good at what they do, and I do not know of any alternative fire department service. It is not, while an essential service, as essential. Also there is only one police force, there may be private security but there is in no civilized society some sort of private police force you can hire that have the rights and or the responsibility of the police, that would virtually be vigilantes.

fluff wrote:why not?


...

Because these are services that are givven to all equaly, people who pay more taxes are not "great citizens" and people who pay little or no taxes should not be "sub citizens" or some sort of second class citizens.
Maybe we should give people more votes if they earn more aswell? Afterall they are contributing more to society!
No as said, All humans have the same right to have as good access as anyone else to essential services, and note that essential are not necessarily things that are required for survival, but for a decent life, such as access to education, health care, police and libraries.
Last edited by fjafjan on Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:24 pm UTC

VannA wrote:[
The Success of a parent should not influence the basic of a childs life.
Nobody *deserves* an artificial advantage.


maybe they don't deserve it, inherently, but shouldn't the parents,who've worked hard for their advantage, be able to give that advantage to their children? why shouldn't their success influence what their child gets? I'm not saying don't educate poorer families, I'm just saying that a PARENT'S incentive to work is probably to better their children's opportunities. why shouldn't their success allow them to give their child more?

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:25 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:
fjafjan wrote:
Tractor wrote:And now we hit the root of the issue. Those not rewarded are bitter.
If you can do better for yourself, you should be allowed to. Don't whine that others have the $ to put towards a different education or whatnot. Strive to do the same.


The root of the issue is equality.
You obviously think that unequal opportunities are fine, because ... I donno, those that do not have them are whiny, and should try harder.

Since you added since I quoted you, I'll address this too.
I said nothing of unequal opportunities. I'll give you all the opportunities to do whatever you want. If for some reason you don't have the resources to take advantage of the opportunities, tough cookies, it doesn't mean they aren't there.


A private school ---> you need X money to get in, or rather, your parents need to spend X money to get you in
Not all parents have, or wish to spend, X money on their child
Some children do not have the opportunity to attend said school
Unequal opportunities.
There is a private school, but the chance for everyone for attend is not there.

(and sorry for adding that in afterwards, I didn't want to double post, as I noticed your post afterwards)
Last edited by fjafjan on Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
AnonyMouse
Boobs, LOL!
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby AnonyMouse » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:29 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:
Tractor wrote:
fjafjan wrote:
Tractor wrote:And now we hit the root of the issue. Those not rewarded are bitter.
If you can do better for yourself, you should be allowed to. Don't whine that others have the $ to put towards a different education or whatnot. Strive to do the same.


The root of the issue is equality.
You obviously think that unequal opportunities are fine, because ... I donno, those that do not have them are whiny, and should try harder.

Since you added since I quoted you, I'll address this too.
I said nothing of unequal opportunities. I'll give you all the opportunities to do whatever you want. If for some reason you don't have the resources to take advantage of the opportunities, tough cookies, it doesn't mean they aren't there.


A public school ---> you need X money to get in, or rather, your parents need to spend X money to get you in
Not all parents have, or wish to spend, X money on their child
Some children do not have the opportunity to attend said school
Unequal opportunities.
There is a public school, but the chance for everyone for attend is not there.

(and sorry for adding that in afterwards, I didn't want to double post, as I noticed your post afterwards)


there is an equal opportunity for people to get that education. there is no one saying "you cannot come here". they simple said "it costs X to come here" if you value that education, you'll pay what it's worth. they don't get any of the public funding that public schools do, they have to keep the lights on and pay the teachers somehow. and there's enough people who DO value it (correctly or not) that they stay in business. how is this different from a parent being willing, or able, to stay at home and homeschool a child? it's not inherently a better or worse education, it's merely a different one and requires different sacrifices on the part of the parents. in the long run, it becomes about what value the parents place on any given education option, and what they are willing to sacrifice to get it. and I don't see anything wrong with that, since there IS a public/free alternative.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:30 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:A public school ---> you need X money to get in, or rather, your parents need to spend X money to get you in
Not all parents have, or wish to spend, X money on their child
Some children do not have the opportunity to attend said school
Unequal opportunities.
There is a public school, but the chance for everyone for attend is not there.

(and sorry for adding that in afterwards, I didn't want to double post, as I noticed your post afterwards)


No, public school --> tax funded, open to all.
Private school is available at a cost, if you're down with that sort of thing.

And I know fire/police services aren't entirely in the same category as education, but they are all gov't funded. They all have additional things you can pay beyond to get ( private school, body guards, fireproofing ). No, they aren't exactly the same as the gov't style ones, but they don't have to be.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:34 pm UTC

Tractor wrote:No, public school --> tax funded, open to all.
Private school is available at a cost, if you're down with that sort of thing.

And I know fire/police services aren't entirely in the same category as education, but they are all gov't funded. They all have additional things you can pay beyond to get ( private school, body guards, fireproofing ). No, they aren't exactly the same as the gov't style ones, but they don't have to be.


I knew that, but I mixed up the words in the midst of this debate.
but I agree in Vanna in that I wan't an equal starting field for all, even if you have great fire protection, only in rare instances will that affect your ability to become the best you can, the kid with sprinklers have no essential advantage over the kid who has none.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Tractor
Posts: 2467
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: no

Postby Tractor » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:40 pm UTC

fjafjan wrote:I knew that, but I mixed up the words in the midst of this debate.
but I agree in Vanna in that I wan't an equal starting field for all, even if you have great fire protection, only in rare instances will that affect your ability to become the best you can, the kid with sprinklers have no essential advantage over the kid who has none.


The equal starting field is there, the womb. When you pop out, you have equal opportunity to become whatever you want.
9 x 6 = 42



Note: Randall kicks ass.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Postby william » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:41 pm UTC

I'm kinda worried about private schools because if they ever become a common choice for a large amount of the population there will be a lot people there exploiting that.* Though I guess a system of accreditation similar to what is done with private colleges would probably fix most of that. In a related issue, I think public colleges should be free and recieve more taxpayer support as a result.

*Right now, the Catholic Church is the only one doing that.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Postby fjafjan » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:42 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
The group that are reasonable are the ones with concrete complaints in how the education is "being done", in lack of better term, they can however actually solve their arguments within the system.


I don't think that's true. You only get one elementary or middle-school education, and it is carried out over a finite window of time. If your parents spend 10 or 12 years "solving their arguments within the system" trying to make your educational experience adequate, you're graduated and gone with your *inadequate* education by the time they get anywhere.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to avoid that. It's a flaw of the system tha the only way to access that option is by paying money, but the solution to that is *not* to take the option away.


I forgot to adress this, and it is as I see it the biggest problem with banning on Public schools, and also the reason I am neutral towards "free schools", as they are called here. Basically they are founded by People, and or "foundations", they must obey to the National carriculum, or what it would be called, basically you have to learn the same essentials are everyone else. This means you don't get any wacky religious free schools, you are however free to teach these things in a more free way, as in, the way you see fit.
And they are payed for by goverment means, as in they get X money for each student (as much as public schools get), and anyone can apply, and they are not allowed to pick students, if they have more applicant the places then chance gets to decide who gets in.
It still means your parents will have to actively chose that, thus I do not like it, but I do not oppose it either.
I realise this explanation is a bit iffy, I'll try and rewriteit tomorrow.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests