Big Gov't vs. Small Gov't

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

H8sMikeMoore

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

thats not a free market. a free market would be no taxation and no vouchers. You would pay out of pocket period.

Yes they would open. If they went into a rural area they would make a school that accomodates that. The free market dosent garuntee anything. But this isnt a free market.

A voucher system in dangerous areas might be better too because it might give kids a reason to get off the street.

Actually the documentary i linked to (that I assume you didnt watch) went on to talk about this specifically, actually they dealt with that more than they did for rich kids.

stupid in america on youtube,

As you said there free market doesn't guarantee anything. I don't see why vouchers (money by another name) make it some "quasi" system and how there is a guarantee something all of a sudden.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

duxup

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

thats not a free market. a free market would be no taxation and no vouchers. You would pay out of pocket period.

Yes they would open. If they went into a rural area they would make a school that accomodates that. The free market dosent garuntee anything. But this isnt a free market.

A voucher system in dangerous areas might be better too because it might give kids a reason to get off the street.

Actually the documentary i linked to (that I assume you didnt watch) went on to talk about this specifically, actually they dealt with that more than they did for rich kids.

stupid in america on youtube,

As you said there free market doesn't guarantee anything. I don't see why vouchers (money by another name) make it some "quasi" system and how there is a guarantee something all of a sudden.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

because theres money thats specifically used for education. I dont know how much specifically we use per year right now but lets just throw a random number out therer and say 10,000 per kid. Thats 10,000 per kid of garunteed money. The only competition is between the schools. If it were a free market (a real one) there is not garuntee

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

H8sMikeMoore

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

thats not a free market. a free market would be no taxation and no vouchers. You would pay out of pocket period.

Yes they would open. If they went into a rural area they would make a school that accomodates that. The free market dosent garuntee anything. But this isnt a free market.

A voucher system in dangerous areas might be better too because it might give kids a reason to get off the street.

Actually the documentary i linked to (that I assume you didnt watch) went on to talk about this specifically, actually they dealt with that more than they did for rich kids.

stupid in america on youtube,

As you said there free market doesn't guarantee anything. I don't see why vouchers (money by another name) make it some "quasi" system and how there is a guarantee something all of a sudden.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

because theres money thats specifically used for education. I dont know how much specifically we use per year right now but lets just throw a random number out therer and say 10,000 per kid. Thats 10,000 per kid of garunteed money. The only competition is between the schools. If it were a free market (a real one) there is not garuntee

I think (not sure) we missed each other when we started using the word guarantee.

I meant there is no guarantee of equal or any service in the free market. The example being utilities (power, natural gas) and other services like phone, cable TV, and Internet only provide service in some areas because they are mandated by the government to do so. The government would have to do much the same for private education companies, essentially telling them "to do business here, you also have to do it here too".

Anyay I got to hit the rack for a bit.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

duxup

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

thats not a free market. a free market would be no taxation and no vouchers. You would pay out of pocket period.

Yes they would open. If they went into a rural area they would make a school that accomodates that. The free market dosent garuntee anything. But this isnt a free market.

A voucher system in dangerous areas might be better too because it might give kids a reason to get off the street.

Actually the documentary i linked to (that I assume you didnt watch) went on to talk about this specifically, actually they dealt with that more than they did for rich kids.

stupid in america on youtube,

As you said there free market doesn't guarantee anything. I don't see why vouchers (money by another name) make it some "quasi" system and how there is a guarantee something all of a sudden.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

because theres money thats specifically used for education. I dont know how much specifically we use per year right now but lets just throw a random number out therer and say 10,000 per kid. Thats 10,000 per kid of garunteed money. The only competition is between the schools. If it were a free market (a real one) there is not garuntee

I think (not sure) we missed each other when we started using the word guarantee.

I meant there is no guarantee of equal or any service in the free market. The example being utilities (power, natural gas) and other services like phone, cable TV, and Internet only provide service in some areas because they are mandated by the government to do so. The government would have to do much the same for private education companies, essentially telling them "to do business here, you also have to do it here too".

Anyay I got to hit the rack for a bit.

thats true but we arent talking about a free market. were talking about vouchers that make schools compete.

I dont know of the government forcing business to go places but if they do thats pretty effed up.

[QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="H8sMikeMoore"][QUOTE="duxup"]

People pay for the services I mentioned, and yet free market alone does NOT guarantee everyone would have them. The same would go for education. The companies would have to be forced to open up in some areas that they otherwise would not invest in to guarantee service to everyone.

duxup

sure, in a completely free market. But were not talking about that. Were talking about vouchers. Which is like quasi free market. The fact is they are garunteed money if theres enrollment, and if theres a town with no school then theyll open up shop. I know I would.

Vouchers are money, and if they're businesses ruining it, that is a free market. There's nothing quasi about the system there.

If the profits weren't high enough, they won't open. The free market NEVER guarantees supply evenly, and education to be fair must be distributed fair and evenly. The issues can be due to it being a rural area with a low / decreasing number of students, or a dangerous area where insurance costs would skyrocket. You'd have to mandate service in some areas no question. Heck you'd have to mandate future service just for local governments to be able to do land development.

thats not a free market. a free market would be no taxation and no vouchers. You would pay out of pocket period.

Yes they would open. If they went into a rural area they would make a school that accomodates that. The free market dosent garuntee anything. But this isnt a free market.

A voucher system in dangerous areas might be better too because it might give kids a reason to get off the street.

Actually the documentary i linked to (that I assume you didnt watch) went on to talk about this specifically, actually they dealt with that more than they did for rich kids.

stupid in america on youtube,

As you said there free market doesn't guarantee anything. I don't see why vouchers (money by another name) make it some "quasi" system and how there is a guarantee something all of a sudden.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that point.

because theres money thats specifically used for education. I dont know how much specifically we use per year right now but lets just throw a random number out therer and say 10,000 per kid. Thats 10,000 per kid of garunteed money. The only competition is between the schools. If it were a free market (a real one) there is not garuntee

I think (not sure) we missed each other when we started using the word guarantee.

I meant there is no guarantee of equal or any service in the free market. The example being utilities (power, natural gas) and other services like phone, cable TV, and Internet only provide service in some areas because they are mandated by the government to do so. The government would have to do much the same for private education companies, essentially telling them "to do business here, you also have to do it here too".

Anyay I got to hit the rack for a bit.

I guess you didn't read my post......

Education is a NEED, not a want. Every child is required to get an education, meaning there will be demand everywhere you go. And where there's demand there will be schools.

What your saying is that in rural or bad areas, there aren't any supermarkets for food. But guess what? There is. Because everyone needs food, so there are always going to be people/places that supply it.