pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 8h \ parent \ on: If you were an authoritarian leader, what weird things would you do? AskSN
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.
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.
reply
Some government is bad.
When your government becomes 'owned' by corporate sponsors who direct it to maximise their private gains but your public sector and strategic assets and infrastructure are steadily degraded- that is bad government...and they are not accountable- you vote them out to just get another bunch of corporate sponsored puppets!
In contrast where a government invests in the nations people, skills, infrastructure and development- then you have the chance for a brighter more secure future.
People like you who do not understand your wealth was built upon the strength and dominance of your country due to the strategic positioning, opportunity and integrity of your government cynically write off the importance of government- you give permission to corruption by abdicating responsibility to participate and demand your government serve you and not just some wealthy rich prick corporate banksters.
Yes Bitcoin is great as our fiat money has been captured by sly rentseeking Jewish usury and we and our governments have been enslaved by the fiat debt slavery banksters...so I much prefer to hold Bitcoin as it is a logical and positive and peaceful response to these parasitic fiat debt slavery overlords.
Bitcoin can and does address one major aspect of the corruption of western democracies but its probably not going to solve the whole range of problems. That will require citizens to get more involved and to throw the parasites out of our governments.
Yes public education has have the tendency to inculcate the collective values and principles of a nation- that can be used for good or evil and you only see the potential for evil government, not the potential for good- a tragic and fatal misapprehension of reality and blatant ignorance of history is revealed - the common understanding and mutual values of a society can be a powerful asset in protecting and building a nations security and wealth...without generally agreed principles and too much woke inclusiveness and 'diversity' you are vulnerable to other more united and determined nations dividing and ruling you. Just look at history for plenty of evidence of this.
reply
But Bitcoin necessarily drives the government into bankruptcy. If they lose the ability to issue currency at zero cost, they can't keep financing all the projects you're asking them to manage.
reply
Wrong.
Bitcoin limits the ability of government to debase the currency it issues and by so doing imposes some much needed disciplinary pressure upon them to not do so.
Asian countries have long understood this with their relatively open and liquid gold markets- this limits the ability of these governments to squander their fiat monopoly because it gives citizens an alternative liquid SoV- Bitcoin builds on this by providing SoV and also MoE.
However a responsible government can manage its fiat system or even allow Bitcoin to become the dominant MoE and still tax citizens and still invest in worthwhile projects - Bitcoin does not cripple governments- it simply imposes some healthy discipline over their fiat debasement capacity.
A nation operating on the BTC standard should have a much empowered private capital sector- with much more capital allocation directed by citizens (who have exercised healthy thrift and accumulated Bitcoin capital) and much less parasitic debt.
A strong economy is entirely possible and a good and principled government could undoubtedly work within those limits.
Such a nation could perhaps be free of the Jewish banksters and its wealth could truly accumulate to those who contribute productive effort and investment rather than being taxed by shadow bankers and puppet politicians owned by those banksters.
They would first have to escape the clutches of the fiat debt slavery bankers cartel IMF.
reply
Maybe. I suspect the limits Bitcoin imposes are a lot more radical and not easily resolved with minor changes to budget allocations. It's effectively a regression to pre-WWI spending levels because income and wealth taxes can't replace currency debasement.
reply
Good!