How would they open up if they can't afford a teacher? Besides, as I said the demand will mean there will be schools.
Yes how would they, they being the private schools that you are advocating.
The only way to have "guarantees" is to sacrifice your freedom, just like getting a guarantee that you'll go to heaven when you die....if you are a sheep in life
Sorry, but no. The co operation of human beings in a free market is the way we're going to solve problems, not throwing money around
Why would we have to sacrifice our freedom to have some guarantees. You are purposely using ridiculous arguments to cover for your ridiculous arguments.
For example, equating guaranteed funding for inner city schools with a guarantee of life after death. Don't get stupid here.
Look, transportation, like school and everything else, will be provided on the free market, more efficiently and with better quality. If there's a demand, there most likely will be a supplier.
Ok, so if there is no demand because there is no money to create the demand then what. Then how do the poor kids get to school in another neightborhood, remember that was your idea.
If nobody wants to pay, then they can force others to pay?
If they want it they'll pay, if they don't want to pay then they're not getting something for nothing.
Again with the "if gov't doesn't do it it can't be done" attitude; people freely contributing and organizing will be better than any forced, inefficient, bureaucratic gov't program.
If they don't want to pay your going to force them to pay ? Sounds like what we have now.
This is tiring.
You never have "guarantees" of anything working; we have to take risks sometimes. And why would there be disorganization?
The reason we build in some guarantees of funding is for organization and planning. If there is no guarantee of funding, there is no way to organize because few would want to take the risk.
For example, you want to start a school. You will have to hire teachers, and other employees to run the school. You are NOT independently weathly to cover shortfalls in the system. People are relying on you to make sure their salaries are paid.
If the school expenses are not covered each month, you will go into debt. So you need to make sure via tuition fees and other source of funds that you will be able to cover it. If you want to make the school a success and want it to run for years and years, you will need to cover your expenses for years and years.
Where is the funding going to come from ? So lets say you are going to get 1/2 of it from tuition and the other half from private donations. What is the guarantee of the private donations ? Is it rock solid for 10 years. Is it solid for 1 year. After that time period you will need to find another donor. If you don't it dries up and you close up shop.
By guaranteeing the funding for the school it can plan, it can hire who it needs to cover additional students and other activities, it knows the money will be there.
There are drawbacks to every system, but I am claiming that if we don't publicly fund the inner city schools, the void will not be filled with private schools, and in the end, we will pay for it one way or the other.
Really?
People pay for cable, and they don't have to.
People pay for going to a theater, and they don't have to.
People pay to go to a restaurant, and they don't have to.
People pay for taxi cabs, and they don't have to.
People pay to go to college, and they don't have to.
If people want something we can safely assume they will be willing to pay for it. If they don't want it, then they don't have to pay, but if nobody wants it in a capitalist society such wasteful and inefficient entities will not exist. Capitalism builds from demand.
Yes, and as I said before there are a lot things that gov't does not need to be involved in.
People gladly pay for material things and entertainment. People pay for things that help them personally or provide something for them.
But will people pay for schools for poor kids ?
Apparently you won't. Because it doesn't affect you. And you only feel you need to pay for that what you want.
Do you want clean water. You have to pay for that.
Do you want a military to protect the borders, you have to pay for that.
Do you want your food inspected, you have to pay for that.
Do you want you fill in the blanks, you have to pay for that as well.
In the end you'll have 400 bills a month instead of it being paid by taxes. Brilliant.
“ And one of your arguments is that in a free market the best will rise to the top and be better paid for it. ”
Right, because the best will be more successful.
Let's go back to your prior comment which I responded to, shall we. See below
If their best interest is educating their community then why would they worry about payment?
Nuns don't get paid/barely get paid. ”
And one of your arguments is that in a free market the best will rise to the top and be better paid for it.
So in the system you are proposing what kind of teachers will you get if you don't pay them, or pay them very little.
So originally you said they should not have to worry about getting paid. They should just volunteer and be more successful just because of the free market.
Wow. Brilliant.
Schools established collectively by communities wouldn't be for-profit, so pay isn't that relevant. Teachers would be volunteers, most likely.
And here we are again. They don't get paid. That is your strategy so we don't have to worry about how were going to fund the damn place.
No, you're wrong. Nobody is forced to pay for anything in a free market.
Right so only the rich and the upper middle class will have schools.
Assuming people still want education in poor areas, there most likely will be provision of it either by private for-profit schools
Most likely. Exactly. No guarantee of funding, like I said. They would just wither away.
Private schools almost always tend to outdo public schools.
It sounds to me like you're just a marxist. So much for being a "rational atheist", huh?
Unless you wanted to go live in East Germany, which is your paradise, right?
So you have insulted me twice in the last post.
Please avoid the stupid comments please.
Nowhere in any of my posts have I indicated that the free market doesn't have value or that we should have gov't run everything.
Not once, I have clearly stated that each has it's place and there are somethings that the gov't can and does that the free market would not or may not or can not.
It sounds to me like you want to have all these things but don't want to have to pay for them.
And you looking for excuses to not have to.
So much for being a "rational atheist", huh?
What the hell does that have to do with anything.
You are starting to make desparate comments which indicates that you have run out of reasons to support your shortsighted vision or cure, and thus are resorting to personal attacks.
