Would you like Private schools to be banned? (POLL)

Because I believe the poor shouldn't steal from the rich?

I've commented on threads like this before, but I will say it again.

Because you go to a private school does not mean you are rich. I go to a private school on a 100% scholarship. I'm about as far from affluent as you can get. I am there through my own hard work. To say that only the rich get good university places is untrue, as it is on intellectual ability - I will prove this over the next year or so.

I agree that state schools need more input, but frankly, I'm sick of reading stigma towards private schools.

Rant over. Bring on the negs.

I've commented on threads like this before, but I will say it again.

Because you go to a private school does not mean you are rich. I go to a private school on a 100% scholarship. I'm about as far from affluent as you can get. I am there through my own hard work. To say that only the rich get good university places is untrue, as it is on intellectual ability - I will prove this over the next year or so.

I agree that state schools need more input, but frankly, I'm sick of reading stigma towards private schools.

Rant over. Bring on the negs.

What does stealing have to do with it? Libertarian nonsense. Taxation is a legal and political act of a democracy, not theft.

Just like the rich steal the hard earn rewards the poor produce, through serious graft and labour. How about tax havens and avoidance too? how about MP expenses? Take your rose tinted glasses off and see the reality of society please, thank you.

I'll tell you what should be banned. people just coming into a thread and saying what they reckon without having read the thread. People are saying the same things over and over and over. A three page debate has stretched to a forty eight page mess that's made no progress beyond based four or five arguments/counters.

Lol. The rich steal nothing (theft is something like 'taking someone else's property without their consent'). People working in factories rarely own anything they make. And when they do they sell it (i.e. give consent to transfer the property.

As for tax havens it seems to me that the poor are stealing from the rich by virtue of the insane income tax rates they pay compared to the poor.

Taxation is legal!? NEVER!

And I'm not a democrat. What is right is right independent of what others say is right.

Most taxation is morally equivalent to theft or theft itself.

Your right, and after reading 48 pages, at least I made a post that had facts in it.

Taxation is legal!? NEVER!

And I'm not a democrat. What is right is right independent of what others say is right.

Most taxation is morally equivalent to theft or theft itself.

Do you get your orders from the US Republican Right via Brain Scanners and pick them up in your teeth on shortwave?

What sort of taxation system do you propose to have then that would be fair.

This is a big tangent away from the banning of private schools, but I want to make a brief comment on 'tax is theft'.

Firstly, without taxation there would be no property. Without taxation there could be no government which sets up the legal systems needed to uphold a system of private property and capitalism to begin with.

Secondly, your money only has worth because the government says so. The value of our currency is backed up by all the soldiers and nurses and policemen who work for our country and accept it as legal tender. The government provides a legal framework for this money system to operate in, and this is a part of capitalism. If you don't like the idea of paying the government/the people for this sort of money system, then you are free to go an use a barter system, which of course is free of government tax. But don't expect everyone to accept your currency, and don't expect the government to insure your money either.

This is a common line of reasoning against private property rights (the social construction argument). The problem is that you're assuming 'private property' rights only have a legalistic meaning. Private property is also a normative/moral concept that is equivalent to 'society should be arranged in such a way as to protect property rights'. Note that this is conceptually independent of a state i.e. you could have a system of private property without a state so long as people generally respected private property rights. Another way of saying basically the same thing is that private property are rights (i.e. rights to do as you like with your property, with appropriate provisos). Would you also argue against rights if the government did not exist ? If government did not support the right to not be tortured would you say that was ok? As for the empirical arguments it seems clear that a system of private property would have emerged because of the utility of such. Finally, I'm a minarchist and support government protecting property rights.

I don't really understand what this has to do with limited government and private property rights. Sure, we currently have a fiat currency but wealth would still exist without it! If government disappeared tomorrow all the houses,rings etc would not disappear. And a legal system could arguably exist without government (polycentric law). And all those government services (police,healthcare etc) can be provided privately.