Who paid for that education? Did you or your parents pay for it? Or was it free (the government paid for it)? I was talking about being able to afford a good education if you wanted to get it.
Thats why I say, bring that issue up in 1950 or even earlier. It's the wrong time now.
In fact the government
forces children into school, it is not a matter of choice. (An explanation for this comes from the marxists: the government wants to control and brainwash the children into a capitalist worldview.)
I got a reasonably high education, my parents couldn't afford it and I had to pay for it myself. I had to supplement the student grant I got by working odd jobs in weekends and holidays, because the grant wasn't enough to pay for the books, let alone the tuition fees.
I tried with that so-called "higher education", and found it useless.
The matter is expalined in R.A.Wilson, Illuminatus, book II:
"they are not here to learn, they are here to aquire a piece of paper that would make them eligible for certain jobs"
That's what that "higher education" is about: it is just a legitimation for certain prestigious jobs. So if you want such a job, why should
other people pay (->taxes->government) for your legitimation??
I for my part somehow figured that out, and let it be - because I do not do what I do not want to do, only because of morals or opportunism.
Instead I engaged in smoking pot and understanding computers, which looked much more interesting and promising. (I had to steal the computers, as I had no money to buy them.)
Have you seen the tuition fees nowadays? And student grants have all been reduced to nothing. It wasn't much when I got it, you don't get anything anymore nowadays. Now you can only get a government funded loan to pay for it. And once you finished your education and start participating in the workforce you immediately start with 50.000 euro (or more) debt you need to pay off.
Yes, because what they do nowadays call "higher education" is no longer what was once called "studying". It is now only a fast lane to quickly shape people into that kind of zombies that the industry (i.e. the big money) needs as functioning monkeys for their graduated jobs.
So this is indeed only money-in/money-out, it has nothing to do with learning.
If you're smart and want to get a good education you shouldn't be held back because you can't afford it. You should have the same opportunity as the other smart person that happens to have rich parents.
The point is, it has nothing to do with "education"! You could as well demand that the taxpayer should pay you pool invest in the casino, so that you can win the same amount as the rich people.
I'm not suggesting everybody should be forced into a higher education.That would be somewhat ridiculous, not everybody is equally smart enough for it.
Never mind, that's already happening. As my teacher said, the social sciences are for these. And then they become our teachers, and -most importantly- our politicians (who will then never again let go of the never-ebbing udders of the milk-cow taxpayer).
On the other hand I also know plenty of people with university degrees that are just too dumb to grasp even the most basic ideas or problems. Then there's also a good chunk of people that would be smart enough for a higher education but chose to become a plumber, electrician, construction worker or some other skilled laborer because they simply enjoy doing that kind of work. Free education is about being able to choose to get it or not, regardless of your financial status.
But what You are demanding is NOT that the taxpayer should enable people to be equally free to choose the learning of their interest. What you are demanding is that the taxpayer should
give people money to be equally able to buy a degree!
Your argument was that as hunter/gatherers we didn't need a government and we did well without it.
Exactly. My argument is that we can learn from there, because that is proven to have worked for 100'000 years. Our modern lifestyle, to the contrary, works only for some 50 years yet.
My argument was that there has always been some form of authority, in other words, a governmental body.
That is NOT the same. A leader is somebody who takes responsibility (which is a natural thing). A government does no lead, it does govern. (And with our governments of today one can see that they have zero leadership skill.)
(Distinction: a leader is followed by the people out of their free will. A government needs laws and executives and police and military and jails in order to subdue the people.)
And the group/tribe/family as a whole took care of individuals because that's what social animals (that includes humans) do.
That was already thoroughly analyzed by the 1968 communards. There is knowledge there, one could grab it and understand, but nobody seems to care.
en.wikipedia.org
