[confused dot com]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
One of the stupidist things I've heard.

Why not ban private healthcare too because of how "unfair" it is. While you're at it ban ferraris and mansions because it is unfair that some cannot afford these.

Did you realise there are actually people who wan't to ban legitimate businesses/organizations?

I don't understand the animosity towards private schools tbh. Yes that environment may make learning a nicer experience, but if you want to succeed, I feel that you can do that regardless of where you go and I have friends who have done just that.

[TheIronist]

(Original post by beepbeeprichie)
Damned Rawlsian!

It is ironic (for this thread) that Rawls went to a private high school whereas Nozick went to one of them public high schools in Brooklyn.

But then again that was before Nozick became a bad person .

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by ed-)
Who are you to say that the rich don't deserve the money they earn? I'm sorry but that's highly subjective and I completely disagree. Social and economic hierarchies are a neccesary part of society.

That's an ad hominem based on lack of ethos. Right; some people in Britain earn £10 000 p.a.. Others earn £1 000 000 for the same amount of hours' work. Some earn £7.00 an hour, others £700. Are the second groups 100 times as useful as the first's? Capitalism's hierarchy is not ideal. It requires mitigation, as this improves everyone's quality of life. Take a humanist approach to society: what really matters? People and progress. The best method to get here, as far as I can see, is social democracy. If you would care to argue that, I'm game.

The poor are not poor because their parents were poor (neccesarily).

That is true. But it is most often the case.

It has a lot to do with values that people are brought up with. If a poor family brings their child up with the mentality of being poor it's them that's holding their child back. Same goes for if they drink, smoke, don't encourage them to engage in academic activities, let them watch exessive television etc.

These 'values' over which the individual has no control. 'The mentality of being poor' doesn't seem to make sense for me. Drinking and smoking can be overcome, but being borne into a society into which this sort of thing is rampant does not benefit the individual. Socialism means that education everywhere improves.

It's true that poor families have these bad values more than rich families - but values aren't to do with how much money you have. If you're bitter because you haven't made anything of yourself; fine, but don't inflict that on your children through bad values.
Money doesn't have everything to do with doing well. Are you trying to imply that no one has ever acheived anything from state schools?

Please use 'one' when it is necessary and 'you' when you are addressing me... I just read 'If you're bitter because you haven't made anything of yourself; fine' and felt incredibly insulted... Just an aside.
Quality of education and upbringing are not chosen by the individual. A failed upbringing should necessitate exclusion from society, but rather its aid.

Money indeed does not have everything to do with doing well. However, those who are rich have an immense advantage. Attending a private school should not give an advantage to those richer people... It would be stupid if I suggested that no-one has ever achieved anything from a state school, and against my argument completely.

The rich do not earn more than they deserve (on the whole). Skills don't = money. Sure, bankers may not be able to weld, or paint or plaster. But likewise manual workers can't manage the country's economy. Put it into proportion. We're not a rich country due to manual workers; we're a rich country due to the people ordering the manual workers.

The rich do earn more than they deserve. I've already mentioned this, the tiers created create tears in the eyes of the lowest. The rich earn disproportionate. Skills should equal money. Skills does not necessarily mean manual skills. Also, bankers don't manage the country's economy. They either help individuals or invest privately to earn lots of money to no real purpose. I think that manual work can be rendered obsolete quite quickly, and agree that those ordering are the staple of the economy as opposed to those ordered, however, the orderers do not deserve so much more than the ordered as the orderers receive.

Capitalism isn't perfect - that's why there is a welfare system and free education at all, as well as a tiered tax system.

That's what my argument is. I just think that the British system doesn't go quite far enough.

The system you proposed just sounds like communism...

No, this is social democracy, like Nordic states such as Norway.

Who wants a system where everyone is equal?

Don't you? I don't think it's the best idea at the moment, but everyone being closer to equality, I can only see is a good thing.

It's a ridiculous notion. It doesn't work.

Norway works.

People thrive on diversity.

Correct.

If everyone was of equal intelligence and wealth people would get mutinous very fast.

Why on earth do you think that? Not equal intelligence, but equal opportunities in education, I argue for, by the way. This is a vehicle for scientific and social progress...

I think some things should be more equal - but that should come from improving state systems, not denying people the right to use their money how they see fit.

I broadly agree for you, but one must draw a line somewhere before libertinism. I think that private schools should remain, but should not be better that state schools. However, it's the state's job to make the state schools better. That has been my thesis since the outset.

Poor people already have good living conditions in this country compared to others'. Those on benefits - I feel - have too comfortable a lifestyle. You shouldn't be comfortable on benefits - otherwise where is the insentive to improve? Again, a ridiculous notion. If people have good living standards for doing nothing, where is the insentive to contribute to society?

To some countries, but not to Nordic states. The cradle-to-grave benefits system works very well there, and justifies the 50% average tax. People who do not work should still be comfortable, as those who do not improve. There are more people in Britain than we need for economic stability, and even autarky. The state can support everyone. People who choose to work can do so, and are substantially better off than those otherwise. However, at less than current state of affairs, and even more so that libertarianism.

NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY.

The belief otherwise is a fundamental flaw to Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, Libertarianism and almost all systems. This is due to a mindset outdated since feudal times.

Thanks for your time.

[roh]

(Original post by Slumpy)
Apparently state schooling isn't any better



In theory I'm in agreement with private education; the competition should force an improvement in state schools until private schools aren't worth it. I fear the reality doesn't quite work out like that.

I realised that after I'd written and left the house, absolute shocker Should have followed the rule if you're being a pedantic b*****d make damn sure you check the post thoroughly before posting!

I don't believe you should be forced to go into state approved education but I think the private schools should do far more to justify their charitable status. Preferably they'd work like the American college system where they are needs blind on entry and you pay what you can afford, but make their money back by producing excellent alumni who then contribute to the school funds using their own money; so their success in doing the best they can brings in the money, rather than taking it up front. Ideally of course, as you say, everyone would have access to such an excellent education and the private sector would be redundant.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
i understand your point in that you make it sound like education is like levels, where theres no limit to how high you can go (e.g. making a super saiyan reference for example), but making this point doesnt justify having private education... education itself is a human right but not such that state schools represent the bare minimum, and private schools go beyond... do you not think it is unfair that great education has to be one of benefits that can be given to a child simply because ones wallet is well endowed? so if one couldnt afford such a priviledge, he or she is left there, regretting what (potentially) amazing opportunity could have been given to his/her child?

Well, how else can you go about it?
I mean okay, let's say a particular standard of education is a human right. Now suppose you designed the education system in this country such that everyone received the exact standard of education which is their human right. Let's say this is a great education that everyone is receiving.

Now suppose a very experienced teacher comes along and says "I can provide an even better education than that". His students will be getting an even better education than everyone else now. But nobody else can complain, can they? Since they're already receiving the standard of education which we determined was their human right.

Unless you're saying "Not only do I have the right to good education - I also have the right to prevent others from having an even better education".

good example but the flaw is that one does not base his life/his career/ his future on caviare or good food... food beyond the minimum is a luxury, i dont believe education should be the same...

But one could easily say the same about careers. A career which pays beyond the minimum amount a person needs to live (or some other specified amount) is a luxury.
People want better than minimum-wage careers so they can afford caviar (and luxuries), rather than live on bread and water (and only ever have basic necessities).

i dont understand your point at the end about extent? is it not to create future where:
1) level of education is pretty much similar across the country
2) such that they prepare kids to be outstanding pupils that are capable of getting a job
3) make sure kids are challenged, to be able to resolve problems
4) etc

The point about extent is that, when you say something is a basic human right, then (unless that thing is of unlimited supply) only a certain amount of it can be a basic human right. If it was a basic human right to have as much of it as you want, then there wouldn't be enough to go round everyone. This is also true of education.

fair enough with best education. why does there need to be a 'best' education? why not continually strive to improve education rather than find out if there is such a thing as best education or essentially, why need to find the limit/extent to where this can go. i think your question is more to do with the way of thinking, rather than an actual problem to be dealt with or a flaw...

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should try to find the limit to how good education can be. I'm saying that there is no limit. There is no such thing as perfect education.

But when a person says that "education is a right", limits have to be imposed on this. All people cannot have the right to infinitely good education, because this cannot possibly be provided, in practice.
It's like saying "everyone has the right to 100kg of food every day" when that much food doesn't even exist (for example).

[Slumpy]

(Original post by roh)
I realised that after I'd written and left the house, absolute shocker Should have followed the rule if you're being a pedantic b*****d make damn sure you check the post thoroughly before posting!

I myself fell victim to that the other day. Always mortifying!

[muddywaters51]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
That's an ad hominem based on lack of ethos. Right; some people in Britain earn £10 000 p.a.. Others earn £1 000 000 for the same amount of hours' work. Some earn £7.00 an hour, others £700. Are the second groups 100 times as useful as the first's? Capitalism's hierarchy is not ideal. It requires mitigation, as this improves everyone's quality of life. Take a humanist approach to society: what really matters? People and progress. The best method to get here, as far as I can see, is social democracy. If you would care to argue that, I'm game.


That is true. But it is most often the case.


These 'values' over which the individual has no control. 'The mentality of being poor' doesn't seem to make sense for me. Drinking and smoking can be overcome, but being borne into a society into which this sort of thing is rampant does not benefit the individual. Socialism means that education everywhere improves.


Please use 'one' when it is necessary and 'you' when you are addressing me... I just read 'If you're bitter because you haven't made anything of yourself; fine' and felt incredibly insulted... Just an aside.
Quality of education and upbringing are not chosen by the individual. A failed upbringing should necessitate exclusion from society, but rather its aid.

Money indeed does not have everything to do with doing well. However, those who are rich have an immense advantage. Attending a private school should not give an advantage to those richer people... It would be stupid if I suggested that no-one has ever achieved anything from a state school, and against my argument completely.



The rich do earn more than they deserve. I've already mentioned this, the tiers created create tears in the eyes of the lowest. The rich earn disproportionate. Skills should equal money. Skills does not necessarily mean manual skills. Also, bankers don't manage the country's economy. They either help individuals or invest privately to earn lots of money to no real purpose. I think that manual work can be rendered obsolete quite quickly, and agree that those ordering are the staple of the economy as opposed to those ordered, however, the orderers do not deserve so much more than the ordered as the orderers receive.


That's what my argument is. I just think that the British system doesn't go quite far enough.


No, this is social democracy, like Nordic states such as Norway.


Don't you? I don't think it's the best idea at the moment, but everyone being closer to equality, I can only see is a good thing.


Norway works.


Correct.


Why on earth do you think that? Not equal intelligence, but equal opportunities in education, I argue for, by the way. This is a vehicle for scientific and social progress...


I broadly agree for you, but one must draw a line somewhere before libertinism. I think that private schools should remain, but should not be better that state schools. However, it's the state's job to make the state schools better. That has been my thesis since the outset.



To some countries, but not to Nordic states. The cradle-to-grave benefits system works very well there, and justifies the 50% average tax. People who do not work should still be comfortable, as those who do not improve. There are more people in Britain than we need for economic stability, and even autarky. The state can support everyone. People who choose to work can do so, and are substantially better off than those otherwise. However, at less than current state of affairs, and even more so that libertarianism.

NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY.

The belief otherwise is a fundamental flaw to Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, Libertarianism and almost all systems. This is due to a mindset outdated since feudal times.

Thanks for your time.

did not read

plz go communist

[jamiep151]

If you believe private schools are unfair you must also agree private tutors are unfair no?

Now if you agree someone having advantage based on parents income is wrong surely you also agree advantage based on any aspect of the parent is wrong as well?

Now if that is true it is clear a parent should have no input on what their child learns and the state should provide everyone with their education as that is "fair", this is only logical isn't it?

[roh]

(Original post by Slumpy)
I myself fell victim to that the other day. Always mortifying!

Too true. I can practically hear my old English teacher eyes-popping 'Your and you're? Your and you're?! Jesus Christ have I taught you nothing?!' even though she's a thousand miles away!

[miml]

(Original post by dannyoh)
Fantastic idea. Then I and other young people around me would end up not living out our full potential and be stuck at the bottom end of society without any education or the chance todo well as we couldn't afford it.

And this is coming from someone not on the left.

You are assuming you can not afford a private school that is better than a state school you are currently act.

Given that we pay taxes for education, not many parents are willing to send their child to a private school - what's the point, you pay for 2 educations and get 1, hardly a good deal. As a result the only private schools that exists are 'luxury' private schools, aimed at those parents for whom the tax doesn't matter. The parents that can afford to pay for 2 educations.

So what happens if we get rid of state schools, and consequently any taxes that contribute towards education? Every parent now only has to pay for 1 education per child, and as a result private schools crop up for all income levels, and therefore everyone should be able to afford an education.

Now you'd probably argue that the education you are receiving currently in a state school is better than one you could receive in a private school (let's assume here that better means more expensive, ignoring for now any arguments about restrictions on state schools in terms of teaching). Well, most private schools provide bursaries or scholarships to attract students with the best potential, even the most expensive ones provide some sort of discount for motivated/bright students. This is an investment by the school, in that, bright students are likely to get good jobs and be the kind of alumnus that would make a decent donation to the school fund.

There's a ton of other arguments and methods in which this situation could be handled, but this is the main one. Eventually, you also find downward pressure on prices due to increased competition.

[roh]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
did not read

plz go communist

You have read The Communist Manifesto? For Marx (if not Engels) the end of class war and the entry into communism brings about the end of the state. As in no state whatsoever, same as Molinari and Rothbard of the Anarcho-Capitalists. For Marx it was a fundamental belief that everyone should work and contribute to society, which goes against the end of the post.

Therefore if that poster goes communist he would be advocating not just the abolition of state schooling, but the state full stop. I doubt this is what he believes in and thus he shouldn't go communist.

[Dmon1Unlimited]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Well, how else can you go about it?
I mean okay, let's say a particular standard of education is a human right. Now suppose you designed the education system in this country such that everyone received the exact standard of education which is their human right. Let's say this is a great education that everyone is receiving.

Now suppose a very experienced teacher comes along and says "I can provide an even better education than that". His students will be getting an even better education than everyone else now. But nobody else can complain, can they? Since they're already receiving the standard of education which we determined was their human right.

Unless you're saying "Not only do I have the right to good education - I also have the right to prevent others from having an even better education".

teacher could contribute by getting such "better eduction" noticed by those who govern the well being of schools, in attempt to get such teaching methods spread out? lecture hall/seminar/workshop full of representatives of said schools, where this could be announced? my lecturer went to one that emphasised simple recording of the lecture may not be the most appropriate.

heres an example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrTrhEOiOck
videos - represent the lecture recordings, frontiers is a module within physics...

ive been talking about continually striving to improve, so why make a point about me wanting to prevent learning? why say that? do you want me to hyperbole and say im rich (really its my family), i want to be special and take part in a private school so that ill be superior blah blah blah or i want my son to have resources/education that others cant afford to make him stand apart from the poor bastards instead of taking part in a campaign to improve schools in general that could mean everyone can benefit from uber-awesome education?

But one could easily say the same about careers. A career which pays beyond the minimum amount a person needs to live (or some other specified amount) is a luxury.
People want better than minimum-wage careers so they can afford caviar (and luxuries), rather than live on bread and water (and only ever have basic necessities).

and a way to obtain such careers is by (not limited to but damn well helps) receiving a good education... use the opportunity they have been given (one which would be a lot more advantageous than if education was merely split between private/state), with hard work and some luck, and this should be achieved...

im not saying everyone should get a pay rise, having a good job with good pay should be the fruits of your labour... education should be a stepping stone... regarding that phrase i mentioned earlier, i think it may be social diversity but im not sure...

The point about extent is that, when you say something is a basic human right, then (unless that thing is of unlimited supply) only a certain amount of it can be a basic human right. If it was a basic human right to have as much of it as you want, then there wouldn't be enough to go round everyone. This is also true of education.

again, why does there need to be a divide, while education can include books, it is not a 100% tangible thing like food that needs to be rationed at war to the point where everyone gets the minimum (which varies even in state sadly) and only rich people can have more... if a teacher went to a workshop designed to improve teaching methods and help students, what does this mean? has more food been grown? if education is of limited supply, then how is the current system of states having minimum and rich people having more of the rations ethical?

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should try to find the limit to how good education can be. I'm saying that there is no limit. There is no such thing as perfect education.

But when a person says that "education is a right", limits have to be imposed on this. All people cannot have the right to infinitely good education, because this cannot possibly be provided, in practice.
It's like saying "everyone has the right to 100kg of food every day" when that much food doesn't even exist (for example).

then there is nothing wrong with continually striving to improve, which should be treated as a positive trait, not a flaw...

if you want me to use your food example despite me not thinking its best then fine, state schools all have 80kg of food everyday, private has 200kg... remove privates (or turn to state, whatever) and spread this such that all state (privates dont exist/converted now) schools receive 85kg... the extra 120kg per private school has been collected together and evenly distributed to all schools, and monitored such that it is as even as reasonably possible (not perfect but still possible)...

[muddywaters51]

socialism is for retards who do not understand economics or have any logic.

It is interesting to watch them talk because you know they are wrong.

e.g Paul Krugman lmao

[SneakyDoug]

Why would you want to go to a private school? State schools are fine and if you are that bothered you will do well anywhere.

I could go to one but why would I? State schools give you a sense of real life whilst private schools take you to Africa for a week to build a shelter to show you life's hardships and go site seeing at the same time.

And plus there's not loads of snobby pricks at state schools.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by SneakyDoug)
Why would you want to go to a private school? State schools are fine and if you are that bothered you will do well anywhere.

I could go to one but why would I? State schools give you a sense of real life whilst private schools take you to Africa for a week to build a shelter to show you life's hardships and go site seeing at the same time.

And plus there's not loads of snobby pricks at state schools.

Apparently a bunch of inverse snobs though.
(For the record, state school here)

[OSharp]

I go to a brilliant state school, I am very lucky because I know this is not always the case, but if state education where as good as private education, we wouldn't be having this argument, the problem arises because its not necessarily the best students getting the best education its the ones who's parents are the most well off.

well its hardly a meritocracy is it?

[ed-]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
That's an ad hominem based on lack of ethos. Right; some people in Britain earn £10 000 p.a.. Others earn £1 000 000 for the same amount of hours' work. Some earn £7.00 an hour, others £700. Are the second groups 100 times as useful as the first's? Capitalism's hierarchy is not ideal. It requires mitigation, as this improves everyone's quality of life. Take a humanist approach to society: what really matters? People and progress. The best method to get here, as far as I can see, is social democracy. If you would care to argue that, I'm game.

The amount of money a person earns should not be purely based on the hours they contribute; it should have something to do with the value of the work they're doing - and the demand for that work. It makes sense, no, that a trade with more demand, and one that requires more skill (like a trade in law) is going to be more valuable than one that has less demand and requires less skill (like manual work). Of course, people and progress is key. But for poor people to better themselves you need a social and economical hierarchy for them to climb up. For progress to happen, you need some sort of benefit for those causing progress - i.e. capitalism.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
These 'values' over which the individual has no control. 'The mentality of being poor' doesn't seem to make sense for me. Drinking and smoking can be overcome, but being borne into a society into which this sort of thing is rampant does not benefit the individual. Socialism means that education everywhere improves.

Children don't have a say in many areas of their lives - the school they go to, the values they're brought up with (etc.)
My point is that the quality of a child's life is entirely down to their parents. Not neccesarily how much they earn but these 'values'. I think this is a fact that should be accepted. Not everyone is born into good families - some are born into families with bad (or good) values, just as some are born into families with little (or lots of) money

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Please use 'one' when it is necessary and 'you' when you are addressing me... I just read 'If you're bitter because you haven't made anything of yourself; fine' and felt incredibly insulted... Just an aside.
Quality of education and upbringing are not chosen by the individual. A failed upbringing should necessitate exclusion from society, but rather its aid.

Apollogies, I'm not articulate at the best of times.
Upbringing is never going to be equal - and that can never be chosen by the individual. Such inequalities are a part of life. Just as I didn't chose my eye colour or hair colour. Do you propose to stop people being born more clever or beautiful than others?

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Money indeed does not have everything to do with doing well. However, those who are rich have an immense advantage. Attending a private school should not give an advantage to those richer people... It would be stupid if I suggested that no-one has ever achieved anything from a state school, and against my argument completely.

Not all private schools are good, just as not all state schools are bad. Often people send their children to private school because they prefer the exclusivness, the lifestyle associated with it. Maybe they think there'll be less bad influences... Of course, some, like Eton are clearly elitist. But if you know you're having a child, and want the best possible start for that child (e.g. sending them to private school) isn't it up to the parent to do well?

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
The rich do earn more than they deserve. I've already mentioned this, the tiers created create tears in the eyes of the lowest. The rich earn disproportionate. Skills should equal money. Skills does not necessarily mean manual skills. Also, bankers don't manage the country's economy. They either help individuals or invest privately to earn lots of money to no real purpose. I think that manual work can be rendered obsolete quite quickly, and agree that those ordering are the staple of the economy as opposed to those ordered, however, the orderers do not deserve so much more than the ordered as the orderers receive.

Skills should not equal money as it's not skills that make a country great or not great. It's not people who are trainied in manual work, at the end of the day, who will run the country. There are always more people who can be trained in manual work, but there aren't a huge amount of people who are cabable of running the country, dealing with peoples' money (etc)
I also already mentioned that social and economic inequalities are neccesary. They inspire those at the bottom to better themselves, and those at the top to do a better job.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)

Don't you? I don't think it's the best idea at the moment, but everyone being closer to equality, I can only see is a good thing.

No, I completely oppose socialism and communism in all its forms.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)

Why on earth do you think that? Not equal intelligence, but equal opportunities in education, I argue for, by the way. This is a vehicle for scientific and social progress...

Because, like I said, people thrive on diversity. People don't like being the same as their neighbours. It may work in Norway but I think it's more likely to inspire extremist movements.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
I broadly agree for you, but one must draw a line somewhere before libertinism. I think that private schools should remain, but should not be better that state schools. However, it's the state's job to make the state schools better. That has been my thesis since the outset.

I think private schools should act as something for state schools to work towards - as the system is currently. At the end of the day, those who pay more for something will get a better deal than those who pay less; that's capitalism.
I think free schools are a good start.
And I entirely believe in grammar schools. If there's a way for intelligent people with no money to make their way in the world, it's through grammar schools.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
To some countries, but not to Nordic states. The cradle-to-grave benefits system works very well there, and justifies the 50% average tax. People who do not work should still be comfortable, as those who do not improve. There are more people in Britain than we need for economic stability, and even autarky. The state can support everyone. People who choose to work can do so, and are substantially better off than those otherwise. However, at less than current state of affairs, and even more so that libertarianism.

NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY.

The belief otherwise is a fundamental flaw to Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, Libertarianism and almost all systems. This is due to a mindset outdated since feudal times.

I simply don't understand how it can ever be Ok for people to be comfortable not working.
Even if the population is large enough to support the economy while some people don't work it shouldn't be a thumbs up for people to get money for doing nothing. Either people on benefits should be uncomfortable - forced to work - or they should contribute to society in other ways than a payed job - like community work.

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Thanks for your time.

It's good hearing your views!

[littlemissmidget123]

this thread is a pile of crap.. noone will ever get rid of private schools as they rake the money in (for the most past anyways)
i go to a private school, and have only ever been privately educated (mostly at the same school, but i left to live in munich for 2 years before coming back for alevels) it is a brilliant school, and hands down better than the neighbouring state school
at private schools kids get a hell of a lot more opportunities and better teaching - and class sizes are usually 20 to 25 max.. compared to the 30 or more kids in state schools
and all this *******s about people being rich.. some of my friends' parents have remortgaged their houses and the kid has a scholarship.. and they only just cover the bills.. so not everyone is the typical "rich brat" that people seem to stereotype about private schools.. you clearly need better educating if thats the case.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
ive been talking about continually striving to improve, so why make a point about me wanting to prevent learning? why say that?

Yes, you've been talking about continually striving to improve. But while you're in the process of doing that - at any given moment in time, as soon as you say "I want everyone to have an equal standard of education", whatever standard of education that happens to be, you have to prevent someone from having a standard of education which is higher than that. (See the last part of this post for more detail).

again, why does there need to be a divide, education including books, it is not a tangible thing like food that needs to be rationed to the point that only rich people can have more...

It's in limited supply though. There are a limited amount of teaching resources available. There are a limited number of teachers. And of that limited number of teachers, an even more limited number of them are among the best. This is something that cannot physically be changed.

That is why there has to be a limit to the education that you can consider "a basic right" at any time.

if you want me to use your food example despite me not thinking its best then fine, state schools all have 80kg of food everyday, private has 200kg... remove privates (or turn to state, whatever) and spread this such that all state (privates dont exist/converted now) schools receive 85kg... the extra 120kg per private school has been collected together and evenly distributed to all schools, and monitored such that it is as even as reasonably possible (not perfect but still possible)...

Okay. But then, how much food is everyone entitled to, as a basic human right? 85kg each?
But then if tomorrow, someone comes along and says "I've created some more food, so now I have 90kg", what's going to happen?

- Either you have to take his extra food away from him and distribute it amongst everyone else, so that everyone is equal. In which case, this goes back to what I said before. Not only does everyone have a right to 85kg of food, but they also have the right to stop anyone else from having more than that.
- Or, you have to just leave it as it is. The basic human right is 85kg of food, and everyone has at least that. So no further action needs to be taken.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by muddywaters51)
socialism is for retards who do not understand economics or have any logic.

It is interesting to watch them talk because you know they are wrong.

e.g Paul Krugman lmao

Paul Krugman, the neo-keyensian who has stated numerous times he is a pro-capitalist who, with regards to international capitalism/globalism/free trade, is more lassiez faire than most republicans?