I am not much of a cheerleader for public education in its current form in the U.S., but surely a case can be made that it is society's job to educate people -- because it is in society's best interest that people be educated.
And if society determines that one effective way to ensure that all people, even those of limited means, have an opportunity to receive an education, is to devote public dollars toward the effort, I see no reason why we can't say that, by proxy, it is the government's job to educate people.
(Personally, though, I would like to see the government's role as being primarily the benefactor and not the administrator or provider of education.)
As an aside, adding the words "full stop" to a statement may communicate extra intensity, but it doesn't excuse you from having to provide evidence to back up what you say.
"society" != "the government". Government is unique in that it reserves for itself the "right" to use force to compel people to cooperate with it's directives. "Society" can accomplish many things without needing force, and one of the mechanisms "society" uses to accomplish things is voluntary exchange in a free market environment.
I would agree that it is not "the government"'s job to provide education, since there is no valid reason to use force / aggression as part of educating people.
>> One of the mechanisms "society" uses to accomplish things is voluntary exchange in a free market environment.
You're right, Phil. That's ONE of the mechanisms society uses to accomplish things. That's not the only mechanism, and it's certainly not the appropriate mechanism for many things.
I'll give you a concrete example.
In my state, the Department of Transportation only plows snow from arterial roads, not from neighborhood roads. In order to get snow plowed on a neighborhood street, residents have to organize a civic association that collects dues, and those dues are used to pay for plowing; the state then reimburses the civic association for a portion of its expenses. But because membership in the civic associations is entirely voluntary, we end up with a 30 percent participation rate. My share of the dues, in effect, pays for not only myself but two of my neighbors who aren't willing to pay their fare share.
That is ridiculous. It is a perfect example of a case in which it is simpler and fairer for a couple of bucks to be added to each household's property taxes and have the plowing be publicly funded (although it could still be privately plowed).
Furthermore, the idea that the only role of the government is in situations where force is necessary is pretty darn limited. You might have a case if you're talking about national government, but I imagine that the bulk of the tasks your municipal government takes care of, outside of police work proper, don't require acts of aggression.
The example you provide is indeed a valid one. But one that only presents itself because of the nature of "public property". That's why you had a situation where a few of you were compelled to pay for the snow clearing, while others' still had usage of those roads.
In a truly free society, there would be no such thing as "public property". It would all be private, and usage of that road would have to be paid for by those that want to use it. And the owner of said private property would maintain that property such that it would provide value for all those that wish to pay for usage of it.
Did you ever consider that maybe those individuals on those houses don't use those roads? Maybe they walk, bicycle, or are plain hermits? (Odds are they aren't, but I'm sure there are a few). You want to work with absolutes, and then deny that aggression is present. Do you want to argue that taking money from someone in return for something they don't use is not aggression? How about a thief taking money from your wallet on the counter, and then handing you a sack of grain in return? Would you say that's not aggression?
That's very no true scotsman with regards to freedom. Saying the road is private inherently infringes on my freedom to use that land just as much as anyone else. Under this idea of free I could buy a road and the land around your house and declare it for my personal use only. I could then offer you a silly price to either go along that road or a silly price for your, now worthless to you, house. How is that any more free than a public system. Sure there's soloutions to this under a private system but once you've constructed it in your mind ask just how similar the entity you've constructed is to a local government, then ask how it's any more or less free.
So I think it's fair to say that a public system has drawbacks but being generally less free than a private system is definitely not the case.
Wrong. Considering that education is the single most powerful element to advance society (and create more justice), government should definitely ensure that everyone gets as much education as they can stomach and are willing to digest. And that means, it should mainly be financed via taxes.
Those, on the other hand, who want the public to remain manipulatable will continue try to limit education to the wealthier percentage.
You're right - it doesn't have to be the government's job to educate people...
...We could just as easily act like, say, Jamaica, in the township of Treasure Beach, where the government does not educate the children, leaving them to farm ackee, sell souvenirs on the beach and fish for a living.
However, the government is under our control, and as a group, our collective people who came before us figured out it was extremely valuable to educate people. And since then, every generation has valued education even more.
So, even if your personal values preclude the government from educating people and you prefer aristocracy and a severe gap between peasants and oligarchy, you are fortunately vastly outnumbered by others who believe in either a. a chance at equality, or b. the power of educated as a group for promoting the nation's interests.
You're playing word games. I take the meaning of "control" is the argument as "de jure" control, in the sense of "for the People", while you have in essence redefined the word to mean "de facto" control, in the sense of the undue influence of money in politics.
Your redefinition makes your point irrelevant to the argument made.
