/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3926567
Nope.

Obama is the best choice.

\thread

>>3926567

You never will.

/thread

He's not cutting the NSF?

So you knowingly cooperated with the NSF?

>>3926579
SAUCE

>>3926579

> mfw

>>3926567
ron paul just hates how complicated reality is. He's essentially the physics equivelent of anti-string theory.

DING DING DING FUCKING DING

this is what democracy is about. supporting the candidate that gives shit to you. people like OP have no principles. they just want our fucking money.

and this is in his rational self interest. this is in the majority's self-interest. democracy is fucking retarded.

common/polycentric law master race.

>>3926592
Christy Marks

>>3926614
Do you ever think about how little internal logic the statement you just made has?

>>3926625
it made complete sense. i have a feeling you're about to do a mental gymnastic flip concerning "the majority" and "self interest" or whatever, but i expect that from fucktards.

>people like op have no principles
>op just wants money

HURRR IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE

>>3926567

Ron paul would let his friend die on the street if he wasn't insured by some shitty private company.

Ron Paul used to be a doctor. Im glad he quit.

>>3926642
Better yet, you fucking say admit that it's a principle in the next paragraph.

>>3926646
>>3926642
what the FUCK are you even talking about?

no, better question.

why the FUCK does it even matter? shut the fuck up.

>>3926643
Actually Ron Paul used to give free medical treatment to people who couldnt afford it or were on some government assistance so he didnt take government money.

>>3926567

I work in a university lab as well.

Every time i get a raise, my health insurance premiums go up or the contribution Im forced to make in the system's mismanaged pension plan is increased.

I take home 10$/month more than I did 2 years ago =\

>tfw

>>3926633
>>3926625
Do you two ever realize that your stated beliefs appear indistinguishable from both magic and religion?

>>3926650
>mfw irrational rightard rages

>>3926643

> mfw ron paul worked in a hospital that never turned anyone away
> mfw he made three dollars an hour as a doctor

>>3926663
>rightard

so fucking retarded. no more replies from me.

>>3926643

premise of this assertion is that the poor wouldn't receive medical services if the government didn't steal money to pay for it.

oh no, you might have to find employment at a private sector lab!
how horrible!

>>3926667
Excellent. Just to reinforce this, you first claim he has no principles. Then, you explicitly say that he has principles, ie, the desire to extract money from the system.

>>3926666
>pictute of obama
>666
>Anti christ

Pick all three

He is the only candidate who has stayed consistent and supported the same ideals for 10+ years.

His de-regulations are intended to increase private sector research and development.

>>3926567
>Convince me to vote for this man.
Why the fuck would I do that? You and me both know that privatized fundamental research will never work.

I work in a university lab as well, by the way.

>>3927645
>He is the only candidate who has stayed consistent and supported the same ideals for 10+ years.

This is normal for candidates that don't actually get elected.

Here is the post liberty would have said if he wasnt an asshole:

The increased efficiency in the economy due to tax cuts would enable a new firm to hire you. One that is more efficient at doing what it does than the government doing what it does.

Not that that is necessarily true (although there is probably some amount of truth to it). But thats what the monosyllabic jerk should have said.

It's not like privatized labs have ever done anything right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Labs

>>3927645
>He is the only candidate who has stayed consistent and supported the same ideals for 10+ years.
You say consistent, I say dogmatic. A person will change their ideals or viewpoints when presented with a better option.

>His de-regulations are intended to increase private sector research and development.
This is something that always bothers me. Free-market science will never fucking work. You know why? Because of fundamental research. Sure, research is being done on developing new technologies, but the emphasis will always be on the most economically viable techniques. After a few years or even decades, research will stagnate, because no one is willing to invest in the fundamentals, with no direct applications. Do you think a project like the LHC would ever happen from private initiatives alone? No, it wouldn't. THAT is the reason regulations are in place.

>>3927666

Has has. He used to be Pro-Capital Punishment, Now he is against it

>>3927666

For the sake of argument...

A free marketeer might argue that if you lower taxes and regulations companies things like the LHC will become more affordable to companies.

You could say that aerospace would never have become a pirvately funded venture. But the further we get into the future the more affordable it becomes for companies to get involved. You are just impatient.

...for the sake of argument

Going to register republican to vote for him in the primary (registered dem last election), if he were to win I would vote for him for president without a moment's hesitation.
He's a crackpot old fool who doesn't understand economics and whose foreign policy beliefs are ridiculous, not to mention the creationist thing. If he could institute a quarter of the policies he believes in it would be a disaster. But as president, he would be so limited in his power by congress that, honestly, I think the damage he could do by fucking shit up as president would be outweighed by the good he would probably be able to do legalizing weed (or at least stopping all federal enforcement) and getting the troops home. Obama has already proven himself to be pretty worthless and full of shit, but unfortunately I'll still probably end up voting for him if any of the other republican front runners right now end up winning. I can't be sure but I'd be willing to believe that Barack Obama has a better understanding of economics than Ron Paul, but honestly a good hearted fool is better than a clever con artist.

>>3927680
That's hardly consistent, now is it? Nevertheless, kudos for that.

>>3927682
It's not a matter of the research opportunities being unavailable to corporations, it's a matter of there not being a demand. Yes, honestly, if it had been left to private companies during the Cold War I'm sure we would have made it to space and to the moon, but the demand was from the government. No one else was going to spend billions of dollars on the startup tech at that point in time, just like no one is going to rationally invest in a lot of pure scientific research that could be funded and done right now for years if ever.

>>3927682
I see what you're saying, but my point is that there is no incentive for companies to ever get involved. Even if it was dirt cheap they wouldn't spend money on int, because actual profitable applications will not be around for decades. Furthermore, the scientific findings are common property. All companies could profit from it regardless of investment. Unless findings would also belong to the company that produces them, which would make science stagnate even faster for obvious reasons.

>>3927691
math and science used to be like that in the middle ages, with discoveries being kept secret for profit and to prove how good the person who made them was
then it opened up as scientists and universities became a sign of culture and prosperity and scientists began to be funded by kings, nobles and governments mostly as a curiosity but on relatively fraternal terms with no bad-natured competition
perhaps someday in a decade or two once corporations begin to control most aspects of daily life and get into the school business and such we will reach a similar state, with successful corporations funding research labs they use for profit generating patents and possible profit opportunities but also for the prestige and marketing boost

>>3926599
>reality is complicated:
Enforce rigid top down rules.

Encourage diffusion of power and enable people with local knowledge make their own choices

Pick one.

Bonus point. Reality is very very complicated, but never complex enough that anyone sane could have come to a different conclusion about matters.

>>3927689
>>3927691

Certainly there is some demand though. For $0 a company would make an LHC. Now how about $.01? How much do you think it would have to cost for not even one LHC to be demanded? We can just guess. The actual cost was around 9 billion dollars. 9 billion dollars would be a very big burden for even the largest of companies. Which would suggest it has more to do with cost than application.

Even if it just came down to "Our reputation would be better if we made an LHC" the incentive to make one would be pretty big. Even then I think people who work in companies are only human would have have an interest in building such a thing.

I think often on /sci/ people get this really rigid idea of what profitability it. Yes, profits mean high revenues and low costs, but how one attains high revenue and low costs is totally subjective and open for interpretation. Even then there is nothing illegal about running an unprofitable company (maybe illegal to intentionally run an unprofitable corporation, but thats a seperate issue)

>>3927706
>Even then I think people who work in companies are only human would have have an interest in building such a thing.
But it doesn't work like that, any company that can afford to build an LHC is going to be an enormous corporation, and investing huge amounts of money (that ISN'T THEIRS, it's the investors') on a project like an LHC with absolutely no real chance of profitability is grounds for the executives to be legally liable for lost value. It works if it's small pet projects, if it's somehow aimed at profitability or if a private investor is interested enough but research on the order of billions like the LHC is not going to get done without government demand.

And even that research which ends up being profitable in years, ends up not being done now, when it's possible, in favor of being done years from now when it finally becomes profitable, causing the loss of all those years of having the results and being able to apply it and build off it.

>>3927683
>doesn't understand economics
His economic beliefs are fairly consistent with a lot of the 'Austrian' economic community.

>>3927734
>doesn't understand economics

>>3927691
Then he would argue that if there is no incentive for private to get involved, then it is not reflective of what the public truly want, and should not be undertaken.

If I had a conscience, I would be libertarian and treat people equally and shit, but dumb niggers need to have their money taken from them and spent on science. The public need to be told what to value, otherwise they will value absolute crap.

>>3927736
Are you saying that Ron Paul as a person does not understand his own policies? Or is this a personal attack because you do not agree with his policy?

>>3927731

> and investing huge amounts of money (that ISN'T THEIRS, it's the investors')

Well... I think thats a bit misleading...

Sure corporations sell stock, and then they have money. But after that its the corporations money so is any loan or investment the company makes. The corporation does have an obligation to work for the shareholders interests, and technically the shareholders own the company, but, the management in the company are really the decision makers here in this picture.

Virgin is a publicly traded company for example that got into the aerospace business. Anyone is more than capable of arguing that wasnt a good business decision, and shareholders are free to sell off their stock in the face of such a decision.

>And even that research which ends up being profitable in years, ends up not being done now, when it's possible, in favor of being done years from now when it finally becomes profitable

And who is to say thats a bad thing?

I mean, I would say its not a bad idea to finance these projects now. But I dont think its an inherently good or bad idea. Like, we could probably build a colony ship right now. Doesnt mean now is the time to do so. But you could still use the same argument that we "should" do it now before it becomes profitable.

>>3927745
No, I'm saying that his policies are based on an amateur and extremely biased understanding of economics more dependent on emotions and what sounds good than actual conclusions drawn from facts and evidence.

>>3927666

Drug manufacturing R&D is a key part of US healthcare and it is pretty much all private sector. It only requires intellectual property rights laws of sufficient breadth and enforcement.

Things like the LHC don't happen because of regulations, they are projects funded by taxes. The Manhattan Project or the Apollo Missions did not get done through regulating anything, they were public ventures, which the government decided would be beneficial and deserving of support.

>>3927749
Look, I'm not talking about questionable business decisions, you mentioned the LHC and its 9 billion dollar price tag and I was just pointing out that no corporation would ever make an investment right now. It's really not feasible. Yes, there'll be investment in science, obviously aerospace is now being largely privatized even though the federal government is still most of the demand, but there are things that are never going to be funded and things that are not going to be funded for a long time.

That's all I'm saying, the economist in me is dying to stop there and not go any farther because what I've said is pretty much factual and everything else is my opinion, but yes, I do think having a significant amount of public funding for science is a good thing because I think having the research done sooner is better for science and thus for humanity at large, although I personally believe most national laboratories not working on defense should be phased out or at least have new funding deferred to university research. That's all my opinion, though, the fact is that fully privatized research without public demand would result in a huge drop in research funding that would not come close to being made up by the tiny decrease in taxation that would facilitate.

>>3927752
I agree to some extent, for example I find his constitution rhetoric repetitive and basic (I am a New Zealander, so have a more 'un-patriotic' perspective). But a lot of his economics policy is sound. Perhaps the reason you find it strange that it is simple is that for years politicians have been overcomplicating economics in government. Complicated government intervention is one of the reasons the US economy is struggling; you have tariffs on ridiculous things, you have unnecessary regulation (I found out the other day that 'Kinder Surprise Eggs' are banned, google them, WTF...), and a lot of complicated systems regarding healthcare and other services. All of this not only limits the private sector's growth, but imposes massive costs on the taxpayer with the extra bureaucracy involved. Reducing government sounds simple, but it is sometimes very effective.

I'm not arguing that everything he supports is right, just that his policy is simple for a reason - it avoids a lot of the 'bullshit policies' politicians create to sound good, and attract uneducated voters.

>>3927765

Okay, yeah, I agree. I dont want to get stupid about this. I really do agree with you I was just pushing the limits on this discussion.

With that said a lot of university research seems really ridiculous. I mean a lot of grad students are obligated to do research for their paycheck. It seems like there isnt very much incentive for them to do meaningful research.

my paycheck also comes from NSF :(

But he isn't even cutting the NSF

>>3927778
I hope you understand what you are supporting. You are taking money from people in society, a lot of them poor, most of them with no interest or understanding in science, and spending their money so that well-paid researchers can do theoretical academic studies. These studies will only be of benefit to the curiosities of the academic community and will rarely have an impact on the lives of the people who's money your are spending. These people would much rather be spending money on something which would materially be benefiting them - subsidising increase in the kinds of technology which are actually useful to them.

I mean, I'm all for it it. I think it's great that we spend their money on science.

>>3927779
>for years politicians have been overcomplicating economics in government
lol see that right there is a pretty big red flag that you have no understanding of economics

Politicians just talk a bunch of bullshit, the economic policies they talk up and vocally support are generally absolute bullshit that doesn't accomplish anything and the shit they actually do do is largely bullshit and largely not covered by the media. And you are completely buying into a strawman argument about deregulation. Yes, there are a lot of stupid bullshit regulations, and yes, they are bad for the economy. That doesn't mean regulation is bad. Don't listen to what anyone else tells you, deregulation is what caused the financial crisis. Yes, the government was part of the motivation for a lot of the bad mortgages but the reason they built up to entangle the whole economy, the reason all the banks were tied together in a domino effect before the bailout and the reason bad mortgages and the housing bubble pushed the global economy into a recession is the deregulation of the financial sector that allowed all kinds of mortgage derivatives to be repackaged, relabeled and sold everywhere at a profit. Bitch and moan all you want about what if any economic policies the government should take to deal with the recession now but without meaningful regulation of the financial sector which hasn't happened at all the root of the problem is still not fixed.

>>3927797
Yep.
I'm also all for taking money away from the rich fucks who make their living moving money around and selling shit to other rich fucks and using it to fund food, housing, education, healthcare and parenting aid for those poor people who are struggling to make it.

>>3927765

Why are you all assuming under Ron Paul research would be completely privatized? He is in favour of empowering the states much more than they are now. He does want to cut quite a lot of Federal programs (though most actual gubmint science is done through the Military, which will not be significantly cut under ANYone), whilst at the same time giving more freedom to local government.

This means that if a state has a surplus of resources it can embark upon a project of its choosing either on its own or with other states. I posit that voters have much more power over actions of local government opposed to Federal.

Think about this seriously. When is there ever something so very very immense and so very very important it MUST be done on a Federal level. Europe created the LHC, a massive, wonderful construct. Now does America really need to make a bigger collider?
Whenever something is so urgent and necessary the Federal government's hand is usually forced to take part in it. Making the first atomic bomb, for instance, was a federal act in complete secrecy of the public that was brought out of urgency and actual need. The same is true for the space race (In both of these the demand is essentially the government's want of military dominance).

Ron Paul isn't trying to cut NASA here, and he's not stopping anyone from making the next great experimental venture, he just believes the resources should come from those that support the project, rather than every American taxpayer without say.

The American government doesn't do much for science right now, in any case.

>>3927803

The actual number of rich people who make money off interest and other financial stuff is pretty small. A minority among rich people. Even among people who get degrees in finance, I bet most of them end up working in a department that doesnt make money off investments or loans or anything like that.

>>3927799
That's actually a really interesting viewpoint. Do you have any videos/reading/etc that I can look at? I've watched a lot of Friedman lately so I'm felling pretty libertarian, but I haven't really looked hard at the arguments against it all.

>>3927799

Is that not to say: "Our current regulations are ineffective and thus should be removed, and replaced with a set of regulations that work."

...You do all realize that when people talk about "de-regulation", it refers to the subtraction of regulations, rather than necessarily a complete obliteration of every regulation ever?

>>3927812
Doesn't matter if you're sitting back passively making money off your own investments or if you're making money making deals and profits on others' investments, you're still just moving money around. Not really saying it's a bad thing, just saying I support both targeted welfare and science funding just like I support taxation of the poor and higher taxation of the rich.
>>3927815
Reading books and articles isn't going to give you the facts about the financial crisis, it's going to give you people's explanations of what happened, which are already tainted by their own conclusions, and in the case of most "pop-econ" books and all the documentaries that means their own political agenda. Read a macroeconomics textbook, and then read news reports, facts, dates and numbers or actual scholarly papers on what happened, and conclude from there. It seems fairly obvious to me but it's economics, it's not a science and you could very well look at the data and come to a different conclusion than I based on your starting assumptions. But I guarantee you one thing, that Ron Paul hasn't done that much research and neither have any of the other pissant politicians and rabble-rousers calling for an end to the Fed, hating on Bernanke and even defending the fucking banks themselves. Obama, honestly, probably has, but he's already three years in the hole as president and there's no chance of him being honest or putting public interests over corporate at this point.

>>3927827
No. Yes, we should remove a lot of the idiotic regulations and subsidies fucking with both the economy and the government's budget. But we need to separately add several levels of new regulations in the healthcare and finance industries or we have about 20 years of a roller coaster ride of economic crashes and then a federal government default.

>>3927811
Just to clarify, I'm the guy you're responding to and my reasons for disliking Ron Paul's economic views are different from my thoughts on public funding for science, it's one of those things that honestly isn't that big a deal but he couldn't just cut off as president anyway even if he wanted to.

As a side question, what does everyone think of Friedman's negative income tax? Man I wish there was a politics and economics board.

>>3927867

Yes, they need to bring back /new/ and /r9k/ as well as create a /econ/. Once that day comes, /sci/ will be devoid of much trash. Until then we wait.... and wait...

>>3927867
Honestly, I think the way things are now is best, there's usually an econ thread or two on /sci/ and relative to the average thread on 4chan they're fairly educated and civil, but if there were a politics or econ board it would turn into a shitfest like /new/ about how jews and niggers are everything wrong with the world pretty quickly and every actual economics thread would be hijacked by either antisemitism or just white superiority.

Because there is no way he will get elected, it is a protest vote.

youtube.com/watch?v=8cGwDJ0C0X8

Also Ron Paul is one of a few congressmen who actually persistently opposed the war and various other bullshit over the years. The chances of him becoming another Obama if he ever were elected are 0.

Cutting funding would result in short term loss for you but it would result in long term gain, hopefully you are logical enough to realize voting should be down to your values and not short term hedonism like an undisciplined dog.

>>3927894
I am happy that paul fans only account for 10%~ of republicans.
If ron paul was elected Nothing important will happen those 4 years.

>>3927828

>Reading books and articles isn't going to give you the facts about the financial crisis, it's going to give you people's explanations of what happened

Completely agree

>>3926567

Etatist scum...

>>3927900
Like nothing important happened under Obama?

>>3927913
Exactly my point.

take congress today nothing can get passed without being watered down shit.

Also add a Libertarian president Reps and Dems will block any legislation a lib president would sign.

>>3927924
That's what I said as well, Ron Paul won't be elected in 2012, it's a protest vote. The purpose is to get people to view his ideas as feasible mainstream goals, he wants to pull out of pointless wars and stop crony capitalists from having access to central banking and now directly dipping into tax dollars it seems. Obama is already discussing another round of QE, Obama isn't resisting this like some president who wants to make a difference but keeps getting blocked, he's actually behind him, he's best buddies with the Bernanke.

Dennis Kucinich is likely the only guy who has an extremely sane approach to how he'd tackle America's problems. If you fags will go Ron Paul 2012 then I'm gonna advocate for Kucinich.

Ralph Nader
2012 - infinity

>>3927974
fuck yeah, another kucinich supporter here. he is wonderful...

>>3928042

>>3927974
Kucinich seems pretty cool. What is Ralph Nader's stance on things? Wikipedia just tells me he's a greenie, and it's unlike an economist to support that.

Ron Paul has a few really good ideas , but a lot of really horrible ones.

People tend to support him because they ignore the bad , and focus on the good.kind of like Christians do with there religion.

They'll repeat the stuff about not killing/stealing and the peace Jesus stuff like a mantra but never mention stupid shit like not being able to wear mixed fibers.

Similarly Ron Pualites will cling to his anti-war message and anti-big government, but ignore his planned policy's like repealing Roe v. Wade, stopping the FDA from interfering with healthcare ,lowering taxes in a deficit while implementing a flat tax which fucks the poor over ect;

I guess the only way you should vote for him is if your masochistic.

>>3928064
He also wants to abolish the Department of Energy and Education.

Since he thinks that private enterprise does everything better I'm so extremely worried about NASA.

>>3927974
>>3928042
>>3928055

Kucinich seems like a neato guy. However wikipedia said he supports an end to fractional reserve banking, which would be really really really bad.

>>3928061

Hes basically a consumer advocate. He doesnt like when society gets the raw end of a deal. Like, he is responsible for a lot of the safety regulations in automobiles. The reason why cars no longer have those distinctive 50's era shapes, is because Ralph Nader whined enough that those designs are very efficient at killing predestrians in the event of an accident. Because of Ralph Nader cars today have seat belts, and round predestrian friendly edgs.

Hes pro environment. I disagree with him a bit about his health care plan, but he is pro healthcare, and he is smart enough to make a decent one (which is immensely better than any other politician).

Also why am I stereotyped as a conservative? I fucking love green things.

>>3928069

Abolishing the DoE is a GOOD thing

>>3928069

Well, we really should get rid of the Department of Education. Or at least restructure it into a system which doesnt publically provide education.

Also, why do we need a department of energy? I mean, Im not anti-nuclear or anything. Im just wondering

>>3928088
Support doesn't mean the same as 'would implement.' I support it too, but I'd make arrangements for the easing off of using such methods to generate money, not just scrap it immediately.

>Also why am I stereotyped as a conservative? I fucking love green things.
And that's why you're a bro.

Ron Paul is Pro-Nuclear. Vote for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJcrg6A1TtE&feature=channel_video_title&t=3m33s

>>3928091
Explain.

>>3928094
>Well, we really should get rid of the Department of Education. Or at least restructure it into a system which doesnt publically provide education.
Clarify as I may misunderstand, but you want private enterprise to completely take over education?

>>3928094
>education is bad
>this is what american republicans actually believe

Enjoy your shithole america!

>>3928100
>>3928103

>>3928104
Doesn't the spending also go up because the amount of people to teach goes up?

>>3928104
>shows irrelevent graph

Yep, republicans really are that stupid.

>>3928104
That's showing what the DoE is doing at the moment isn't working, not that you should scrap the DoE.

>>3928116
>Isn't working at the moment

It hasn't worked at all

>>3928100

Where do you live inurdaes? I forgot if you are American.

I just dont feel like lower education is valuable at all. Its like day care for teenagers. I blame the government. I think they are really bad at providing education. It could be argued that education is a public good, or that, everyone should get the opportunity to go to school. I can agree to those statements but I dont think we need a public school system to do that.

Yeah I do think private schools can replace our public school system. We spend the most money per student in lower education, and it does nothing.

Our university level education is excellent though. Some people talk about providing that to people for free like lower education. That is such a bad idea. That is going to fuck everything up if that happens. The quality of education will go down, and now people with actual capacity will just have to spend even more time in school to prove their worth.

>>3928103

My Face when no matter what I say or do people think I am a republican

>>3928113

Im pretty sure that graph is per student

>>3928116

fair enough

Because the job you could have in the private sector pays more. I know I don't regret leaving my university job to join the ranks of oil industry workers. Vote Ron Paul.

>>3928124

I'm pretty sure he lives around Port Pirie, South Australia

>>3928124

Making it so only those with disposable income can send there kids to school is a horrible idea. I can agree public schools need reform but destruction.

What you do is basically create an even larger divide between have and have not's, making things worse in the long run for every body.

>>3928124
>Where do you live inurdaes? I forgot if you are American.
New Australia, Mars

>I just dont feel like lower education is valuable at all. Its like day care for teenagers.
I know that feel bro, but think of what happens when there is no day care for the average teenager.

>I think they are really bad at providing education. It could be argued that education is a public good, or that, everyone should get the opportunity to go to school. I can agree to those statements but I dont think we need a public school system to do that.
How can you guarantee that private enterprise will supply primary and high school at extremely similar prices if not even lower per year than the money that people must pay in taxes for public schooling?

>Our university level education is excellent though. Some people talk about providing that to people for free like lower education. That is such a bad idea. That is going to fuck everything up if that happens. The quality of education will go down, and now people with actual capacity will just have to spend even more time in school to prove their worth.
I am so thankful to our Dear Leader Gillard that we have relatively cheap university where we only start paying a relatively small debt with little interest only after we start earning above $44,000 and a small fraction of it is taken to repay that debt. I really, really would not like a policy similar to America's implemented here.

>>3928134

>Making it so only those with disposable income can send there kids to school is a horrible idea

I am open to the idea that there needs to be more equality among those who can get into school. But this can be remedied without a publicly provided education.

>>3928136

>I know that feel bro, but think of what happens when there is no day care for the average teenager.

What do you think is going to happen? I think that people dont know how to spend their time. Maybe in the short term teenagers with free time will do destructive things. But in the long run I think we can all find our place. With enough free time I think people can even learn to love learning, and do so on their own time, willingly.

>How can you guarantee that private enterprise will supply primary and high school at extremely similar prices if not even lower per year than the money that people must pay in taxes for public schooling?

Well it comes down to efficiency. I dont have any facts or figures in front of me about the efficiency of schools versus private schools. But I think competitive businesses would be far more efficient in this regard. School is just bureaucracy otherwise.

>>3928149
>Maybe in the short term teenagers with free time will do destructive things. But in the long run I think we can all find our place. With enough free time I think people can even learn to love learning, and do so on their own time, willingly.
I'm sorry, but most people just simply aren't like us in that respect. I would fully expect that the next generation would just grow up way more retarded in comparison to the older ones, go out partying and screaming at their parents for not buying them an iPad 4 with their potential college money.

>But I think competitive businesses would be far more efficient in this regard
Because?

>>3928153

>I'm sorry, but most people just simply aren't like us in that respect.

I think thats very pessimistic. Not to say you are right or wrong about your pessimisism, but no amount of pessimism can justify infringing on the rights of others. No one should be forced to go to school by the government. I would consider 90% of teenagers wandering around like stupid apes to be better than that.

>Because?

Because if they dont do a good job they go out of business...? Also they and their customers are free to define "good job" anyway they want. The government can just just go around doing whatever it wants, and it has no worries as its "customers" are forced to pay for their education. Also the interest shifts to poorly measuring test scores and things like that.

I will admit, that perhaps the public has no rational understanding of what a good school system should be, and thus the school that survives best on the market might perhaps be arbitrary. I think that would justify a standardization in academia, but not justify a complete take over of education.

>Pic unrelated, its my governor. She is an evil woman who even looks evil.