pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 13 replies \ @CliffBadger 12h \ parent \ on: If you were an authoritarian leader, what weird things would you do? AskSN
My friend, if my country adopted your model of good government I'd be dead in a week for thoughtcrime. I'll take my chances with the jungle.
You cannot explain the reasoning behind this comment.
Because it is not based on logic, but misrepresentation.
At best hyperbole, at worst, trolling.
You do this because your ideology cannot be easily defended with reason.
reply
Where's the hyperbole? Do you think the PRC is "good government"? If I were a citizen, would I be allowed to say the CCP is infested with demons? Because if you don't think such basic self-expression should be permitted then I can't take seriously your claims about how an ideal society should look.
reply
Where did I say such self expression shouldn't be allowed?
That's blatant misrepresentation.
You are taking comments from other posts/threads about economic performance and dropping them out of context into this post which is about education- that's deliberate misrepresentation.
If I acknowledge Chinas economic performance in the context of the contest for global hegemony between China and the west I am not saying I agree with Chinas policies on freedom of speech. You seem to think/infer it is. You are completely wrong.
You are incapable of a sequential good faith contest of ideas and so repeatedly stoop to blatant and crude misrepresentation because your ideology is incapable of a good faith debate.
You are misusing and abusing freedom of speech in a manner that undermines the process of a good faith contest of ideas- you are thus undermining reason, good faith and democracy.
reply
Politics isn't separable from economics. You said property rights need government force for protection, so what does that good government look like?
reply
Economic performance can be exceptional where other aspects of politics, like freedom of speech can be very poor...so aspects of politics and economics can be quite separate.
Where there is wealth and security there tends to be greater freedom of speech or at least greater demand for freedom of speech, whereas in emerging/developing economies most people tend to prioritise economic development...for obvious reasons.
To have a thriving capitalist economy investors need to have both secure property rights and law and order, otherwise who would invest in an economy?
The subject of this thread however was education and whether or not it should ideally be free.
See if you can participate in good faith in a sequential reasoned debate, without wandering, randomly, far and wide, off the topic.
Note- The whole rationale/argument for freedom of speech is that it is fundamental to healthy free markets, science, and democracy- however this rationale depends on enough people using their freedom of speech in a constructive good faith manner - if people abuse and misuse freedom of speech they are undermining the very rationale/s upon which it is based.
reply
It's never free. It costs money to build the school and hire teachers. The question is whether the state should be taking money from some people to provide it free at point-of-use to others. The answer is no. What will happen is the state-funded schools will be trash, wealthier parents will go out of their way to pay for a superior education, the wealth gap will get even worse, socialists will use that to justify greater spending on failing schools, and it'll just be a never-ending cycle of violently chasing richer people's money, until eventually everything is owned by the state, everything is bad, and the only way anyone can afford something nice is by working for the state.
reply
Yes it is an investment.
Often a strategic and vital one of nation building significance.
The only entity with a mandate, motive and the economic positioning to logically provision education to all citizens is the government.
A government that fails to provision education to its citizens is failing to invest in the creative and productive potential of its citizens.
This is thus a core role for any responsible 'good' government.
Your logic falsely assumes all government is bad.
The way it is done is in a democracy dependent upon enough citizens participating and steering the process toward as close as possible to the ideal.
Even autocracies like China can strategically direct focus and resources toward education in a manner that leads to advantageous economic growth and prosperity- China places a very high emphasis on engineering and this has lead to huge economic advancement where in certain skills areas they lead the west hugely and strategically.
China can now build robots and refine rare earths far more efficiently because it has the human resources and skills to do so while the west now tragically lacks such strategically developed human resources...because the 'free market' failed to provide them.
A totally free market approach will leave many citizens denied of the access to an education capable of realising their potential- as is seen in so many tragic cases globally.
You will end up with a surplus of lawyers and financial advisors (because that is what the free market provided) and a dearth of skilled technicians and engineers and you will lose global hegemony...
reply
All government is bad. When Bitcoin replaces the state then it becomes obvious. All the school textbooks in the year 3,000 agree that the fiat era of state-run public schools was a dark age.
Calling it an investment is a post-hoc rationalization for the state's motivations, which is the control of information and the replacement of the child's parents as their primary authority figure.