Someone explain to me...

[Kai]

...the reasoning in the statement:

"Getting rid of public schools and moving to private will increase the standard of education and remain affordable due to competition."

Because I just can't wrap my head around the idea that businesses would have the best interests of the people in mind, or that everyone would be able to afford private education.

~Kai,

Knows a very annoying socialist hating libertarian.

[Requia ☣]

I'm more amused with the idea that parents will choose good schools once the marketers get involved.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The reasoning, Kai, is that the rich should get Andover, and everyone else should get schools run by WalMart or Wackenhut.

The people espousing this are "pre-rich", and of course will be able to afford Andover.  Somehow.

Fact is, Libertarianism is a religion, and there is absolutely no sense in arguing with them.  Just point, laugh, and walk away in search of someone with a brain.

[Corvidia]

Hmm, in my libertarian days my general explanation was that in order to make more money, schools would accept more kids, and in order to accept more kids they would have to lower the price.

The idea relied far too much on the idea the businesses will think in terms of the long run. They don't and libertarians neglect to notice this.

[AFK]

It's complete bull.  Competition?  How does that work exactly.  Is every town in America going to have multiple private schools to choose from?  No.  A town out in the middle of nowhere, and hour drive from civilization is going to have one school to choose from, and it will be damned expensive.  IF, they have a school at all.  If not, they're shit out of luck or they're gonna be spending half their day driving their kids to and from school.  And so you'll have more home schooling for those who cannot afford or who are too far from a school.  I think tests scores would get progressively worse and the social class war would escalate.  

In other words, it's a big huge recipe for failure.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hmm, in my libertarian days my general explanation was that in order to make more money, schools would accept more kids, and in order to accept more kids they would have to lower the price.

The idea relied far too much on the idea the businesses will think in terms of the long run. They don't and libertarians neglect to notice this.

Libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails.  End of story.

[Requia ☣]

Hmm, in my libertarian days my general explanation was that in order to make more money, schools would accept more kids, and in order to accept more kids they would have to lower the price.

The idea relied far too much on the idea the businesses will think in terms of the long run. They don't and libertarians neglect to notice this.

Private colleges work in the exact opposite manner though.  In order to raise prices, they have to be seen as a 'better' school.  To be seen as better, they reject more applications.  Most Ivy league schools aren't actually worth anything above state universities except for the brand name and the networking you get from hanging out with rich kids.

So why would large scale private schooling be any different?  The school thing never made sense to me, and its probably the biggest reason I pushed libertarianism aside.  Did not want to agree with whackjobs who thought that would work.

[Cain]

The reasoning is indeed, as suggested, that multiple schools will compete to attract as many students as possible, and so cut prices.

However, the real world problems with that are clear, as this thread points out.  Education is not really like a bottle of cola, it doesn't follow the same rules.

Incidentally, my main worry would be that privately run schools would not offer bad education, but they would offer a very narrow education, focusing on "job-related skills".  They don't do that over here, but only because most private schools are the preserve of the elites, where a grounding in philosophy, classical literature and history are considered necessary for social standing.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree with all of the above.

While I personally don't think the Government has a right to make demands about what their citizens can and cannot choose to do, that doesn't mean that corporations would supply the niceties of modern civilization better than the government can. That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine" or "You can't grow weed in your basement, for you to smoke on your own"... I do think that IF we have a government, its a useful way to provide social services to the country at large.

Libertarianism, as TGRR pointed out has the dogmatic problem that religions have... rather than saying "The government should tell us what we can and cannot do... but hey, at least they can provide services for the average Joe", they just assume Government = Evil. There are some good arguments for a more lIbertarian stance on some areas.... this particular one is not at all a good argument.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"

Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.

[Jenne]

It's a false premise, plain and simple.  Because you can point to pleny of scenarios both present and past where the have's do not and will not share with the have-not's.  The correct premise is that the have's do not provide for the have-not's unless forced.  That force is government, NOT market share.

Witness:  the current health care debacle.

[AFK]

Public school is what gives a poor kid a fighting chance in a world where everything else is pretty much stacked against him. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The reasoning is indeed, as suggested, that multiple schools will compete to attract as many students as possible, and so cut prices.

However, the real world problems with that are clear, as this thread points out.  Education is not really like a bottle of cola, it doesn't follow the same rules.

Incidentally, my main worry would be that privately run schools would not offer bad education, but they would offer a very narrow education, focusing on "job-related skills".  They don't do that over here, but only because most private schools are the preserve of the elites, where a grounding in philosophy, classical literature and history are considered necessary for social standing.

Yeah, there's no economy of scale with early childhood education. In fact, people thinking there would be is 

[Requia ☣]

Public school is what gives a poor kid a fighting chance in a world where everything else is pretty much stacked against him. 

No, the schools are stacked against em too in most places.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That is, while I find no compelling argument that the government can or should say "You can't make your own moonshine"

Other than a blind and/or insane population, I can't think of a single reason why, either.

I believe that people should have a legal right to make or grow whatever they damn well want to make or grow, and consume it as they please, provided it doesn't pose a pubic hazard (distillery explosions, meth labs etc) because whether they get it right or poison themselves should be to them.

They should have to be inspected and licensed in order to SELL it, though.