you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TooMuchClay 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I am horrified everytime I read about situations like this in the states : it's shocking how anti- liberal developments in the USA over the last 50 years or so have been.

Not that other western nations like mine are better... as you say choice on how to spend your money leads to better choices. But do you think -some- small schooling taxes should be withheld to support the really poor families?

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]TooMuchClay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    Nah - the random word soup button is broken: I wrote that all myself arent I clevers.

    As in "classical liberalism": i.e. turn of last century most Americans welfare was provided by private non- profit friendly societies, not welfare. It has been argued that much of African American over representation in negative demographics is due to the destruction of the family unit due to socialist welfare programs brought in by FDR. FDR admitted that his program would hurt them , but if he knew by how much is unclear (to me)

    In the same mode school choice is a win for the family unit that keeps society healthy

    By small school taxes I mean that rather than 100% of your tax component that goes to schools being converted to vouchers, only 99% with 1% (say) helping those who can't afford schools i.e. a parent with multiple sclerosis

    [–]IMissPorn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Two things. Based on that article, it seems less than 50% is going to vouchers, because it says they give out $7000 in vouchers and thereby save $7500. It's not clear what they do with the money saved, could well still go to public schools. But if the vouchers did get 100%, then why do you assume private schools couldn't operate on the same per-student budget public schools were getting before and continue to serve the needs of families who can't afford to chip in anything extra?

    [–]TooMuchClay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    That's a better system: it's more or less private citizens looking after each other

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]TooMuchClay 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Very very few. Any such socialist mechanisms I would hope to be rare and a last resort

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]TooMuchClay 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        That's why the private friendly societies early 20th cent. were good: sure you'd get welfare but they come round and check you weren't laming it up and help you back to work. They had their Dr's. as well to keep things on the level.

        And if you didn't like it? Could always change who you were with. Can't do that with State Monopolies.