Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

Education is state-supported in many nations already, but should also be cheap or funded by taxes in those places where it is not readily affordable now. A caveat, though—cheaper education may lead to lower salaries for educators, which in turn may contribute to lower quality teachers and a watering-down of the benefits of education.

I was lucky enough to have my education state-funded; no loans. I was appalled when loans were introduced.

Those loans were the primary driver of the higher education cost-spiral of the last 40 years.

https://fee.org/articles/how-government ... -millions/

I paid for mine out of my pocket, and it was easily affordable, even on the "average" salary I was making at the time.

Education benefits all; put the knowledge into the community and let it spread! All education should be funded by the state, which is to say, the tax-payer. IMO.

That depends upon how "all" is distributed. If you mean it collectively ("Alfie's education benefits everyone") your statement is false; if you mean it distributively ("Everyone benefits from his/her education") it is true. Alfie's education does not likely confer any benefit on Bruno, and thus the latter has no obligation to pay for it.

[Astro Cat]

Those loans were the primary driver of the higher education cost-spiral of the last 40 years.

https://fee.org/articles/how-government ... -millions/

Why do libertarian think tanks always blame the government for something private entities are doing?

In this case the driving argument is: "If government gives students money, schools will raise their prices. How dare the government?"

Why doesn't anyone in Libertarian-land ever blame the entities actually responsible, the bad actors taking advantage of good faith situations?

I paid for mine out of my pocket, and it was easily affordable, even on the "average" salary I was making at the time.

Most people can't do that anymore. Wages aren't high enough to support themselves for a lot of people, let alone to be able to afford an education.

That depends upon how "all" is distributed. If you mean it collectively ("Alfie's education benefits everyone") your statement is false; if you mean it distributively ("Everyone benefits from his/her education") it is true. Alfie's education does not likely confer any benefit on Bruno, and thus the latter has no obligation to pay for it.

It's true both collectively and distributively. You do benefit from Alfie's education because you live in a society held up by peoples' education. The engineers built the buildings and roads you live on, after all. You go to the doctor when you're sick, assuming you're insured. You might enjoy a film or a book because of fine arts majors.

You can't just declare that you gain nothing from others' education. The fact that you live in a society that [mostly] has rules, aesthetic structures, entertainment, infrastructure, and a social contract all ultimately come from people getting an education. People that don't get a higher education (and that's fine!) often rely on resources from those that did.

[GE Morton]

Those loans were the primary driver of the higher education cost-spiral of the last 40 years.

https://fee.org/articles/how-government ... -millions/

Why do libertarian think tanks always blame the government for something private entities are doing?

Well, first, most students attend public (government-operated), not private, colleges and universities. And costs have increased more in the former than the latter:

"Tuition is increasing across the board at both private and public colleges. U.S. News data shows that over 20 years, tuition at national universities increased by 144% at private colleges, 171% at public colleges for out-of-state students and 211% at public colleges for in-state students, not taking into account inflation."

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... c-colleges

The reason for the increase is the economic adage, "Vendors of any good will charge what the market will bear." There is also the law of supply and demand: the student loans created a huge new demand, which existing schools could not meet. So they lobby for more classrooms, more faculty, more support staff, more raises for both, newer computers and other technology. If the government is willing to pay the bills for all those wish-list items the schools will certainly take advantage of it. They're not concerned with whether the student will be able to repay that debt; they get paid up front. You can trace the cost spirals in health care and housing over the last 40 years to the same cause --- government interference and insertion of $billions into those markets. The 2008 housing crash was the direct result of government guarantees of mortgage loans to sub-prime borrowers, which created a vast new demand, resulting in a housing cost spiral --- and a crash when those borrowers defaulted (as predicted). The political thrust now is for the government to forgive those student loans, thus avoiding the criticism the politicians would sustain if they attempted to collect on those loans when they default.

Why doesn't anyone in Libertarian-land ever blame the entities actually responsible, the bad actors taking advantage of good faith situations?

You're mistaking the desire of politicians to win votes (by delivering free lunches to various constituencies) and thus retain and perhaps expand their power for "good faith."

That depends upon how "all" is distributed. If you mean it collectively ("Alfie's education benefits everyone") your statement is false; if you mean it distributively ("Everyone benefits from his/her education") it is true. Alfie's education does not likely confer any benefit on Bruno, and thus the latter has no obligation to pay for it.

It's true both collectively and distributively. You do benefit from Alfie's education because you live in a society held up by peoples' education. The engineers built the buildings and roads you live on, after all. You go to the doctor when you're sick, assuming you're insured. You might enjoy a film or a book because of fine arts majors.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't work. I do indeed benefit from other people's education. But I pay for the actual benefits I receive from that engineer or doctor or author when I pay them for the services they render for me. The costs to them for their education will be built-in to the prices they charge for their services. I.e., if Dr. Alfie treats me, I will pay a portion of his education costs when I pay his bill. But If I've received no services from Dr. Bruno I owe nothing for his education costs.

[Astro Cat]

Well, first, most students attend public (government-operated), not private, colleges and universities. And costs have increased more in the former than the latter:

"Tuition is increasing across the board at both private and public colleges. U.S. News data shows that over 20 years, tuition at national universities increased by 144% at private colleges, 171% at public colleges for out-of-state students and 211% at public colleges for in-state students, not taking into account inflation."

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-c ... c-colleges

The reason for the increase is the economic adage, "Vendors of any good will charge what the market will bear." There is also the law of supply and demand: the student loans created a huge new demand, which existing schools could not meet. So they lobby for more classrooms, more faculty, more support staff, more raises for both, newer computers and other technology. If the government is willing to pay the bills for all those wish-list items the schools will certainly take advantage of it. They're not concerned with whether the student will be able to repay that debt; they get paid up front. You can trace the cost spirals in health care and housing over the last 40 years to the same cause --- government interference and insertion of $billions into those markets. The 2008 housing crash was the direct result of government guarantees of mortgage loans to sub-prime borrowers, which created a vast new demand, resulting in a housing cost spiral --- and a crash when those borrowers defaulted (as predicted). The political thrust now is for the government to forgive those student loans, thus avoiding the criticism the politicians would sustain if they attempted to collect on those loans when they default.

Fair enough, I think you've made a good point.

You're mistaking the desire of politicians to win votes (by delivering free lunches to various constituencies) and thus retain and perhaps expand their power for "good faith."

Heh, and another good point. I don't even have an objection to that.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't work. I do indeed benefit from other people's education. But I pay for the actual benefits I receive from that engineer or doctor or author when I pay them for the services they render for me. The costs to them for their education will be built-in to the prices they charge for their services. I.e., if Dr. Alfie treats me, I will pay a portion of his education costs when I pay his bill. But If I've received no services from Dr. Bruno I owe nothing for his education costs.

Would there be enough doctors, engineers, architects, scientists, lawyers, and so on if they weren't able to afford an education, though? You suggest that you pay a portion of the education cost when you directly use a service; but what if there aren't enough people for you to get the service in the first place?

I think you might have a point if someone is able to afford tuition on a part-time job, for instance: if higher education is available for people to be able to afford it themselves (and still have the time to immerse themselves in their studies properly), then there doesn't seem to be a problem.

The problem arises when a part-time job can't sustain an education.

I'm a graduate student right now, my tuition is high enough that I can't afford rent, a vehicle, energy, internet, a phone, etc. alongside 6 credit hours of classes an 3 of research & thesis: I've had to do night work and dip into a few loans along the way. What's the solution to all of this?

[Sy Borg]

Education is state-supported in many nations already, but should also be cheap or funded by taxes in those places where it is not readily affordable now. A caveat, though—cheaper education may lead to lower salaries for educators, which in turn may contribute to lower quality teachers and a watering-down of the benefits of education.

I was lucky enough to have my education state-funded; no loans. I was appalled when loans were introduced. Education benefits all; put the knowledge into the community and let it spread! All education should be funded by the state, which is to say, the tax-payer. IMO.

Agreed. There is an overall benefit. Those worried about having their taxes go to educate others will still reap the benefits of a more productive, civil and internationally competitive society. Education is a societal investment. Now, alas, such ideals will have to be put aside while everyone splurges on the military.