Austro-liberal Anarchist is the technical term for my political views. Liberal = old liberal, not modern liberal. Modern liberals are in fact in direct opposition opposition to the liberal tradition.
If I had to vote for a U.S. president it would be Ron Paul.
Your words. If you do not have to pay for education and/or healthcare directly, then you will have greater freedom. I am assuming its because you seem to think you have more disposable income in the household than before, thus you have greater "freedom" in what you can pursue in life.
We all know that "free" education/healthcare is in fact not "free". It is paid for via taxes.
So if the taxes used to pay for education, are = cost or the price you would pay if you didn't pay the tax, then you do not in fact have a greater disposable income, thus you do not in fact have greater freedom.
If the taxes paid are less than the cost, then essentially someone else is making up the shortfall, and they are experiencing a LOSS of disposable income.
So your increase in disposable income is paid for out of someone else's decrease in disposable income.
Saying the money for your childs education or your health comes out of your wifes taxes doesn't change the fact that taxes are a COMPULSORY levy, it might benefit you but it doesn't benefit me.
Now I will show you how, if you have "free" education, it will increase the price of private education.
On the market, firms compete with each other on price and quality of the product. Basically the firm who offers the most value to consumers (Value as a function of price and quality) will stay in business and be more profitable than other firms.
Now private schools require children (Consumers/Payers) in order to remain open. They are competing for consumers with government schools. Government schools do not have the same need for kids as private schools do. Any shortfall can simply come out of more taxes (Compulsion or force, private schools cannot force people to come to them and pay them)
If government school education becomes free then private schools cannot compete with public schools (By luring consumers away) on price. As they cannot offer education for free.
They can only compete on quality(Must offer greater value than public schools). In order to do this they have to have the very best in order to justify the prices charged,as any price charged will seem excessive when compared to "free" public education.
In order to have the best teachers, equipment, facilities etc. private schools have to buy the best and lure the best teachers away from government schools by offering huge salaries, further INCREASING the costs of private education and DECREASING the quality of public education, as generally all the best teachers will work in the private sector. Not to mention that even if private citizens pay huge amounts for private education, they STILL pay for government education through taxes.
Thus one can demonstrate how "free" public education, similar to healthcare, increases the cost of private education/healthcare.
If you then make private education illegal to get around this problem, then you are REMOVING choice from individuals. Thus restricting freedom and individual liberty.
Is that rational and coherent enough for you? I think you need a more coherent understanding of the liberal tradition, freedom, property and market forces.
If I had to vote for a U.S. president it would be Ron Paul.
Your words. If you do not have to pay for education and/or healthcare directly, then you will have greater freedom. I am assuming its because you seem to think you have more disposable income in the household than before, thus you have greater "freedom" in what you can pursue in life.
We all know that "free" education/healthcare is in fact not "free". It is paid for via taxes.
So if the taxes used to pay for education, are = cost or the price you would pay if you didn't pay the tax, then you do not in fact have a greater disposable income, thus you do not in fact have greater freedom.
If the taxes paid are less than the cost, then essentially someone else is making up the shortfall, and they are experiencing a LOSS of disposable income.
So your increase in disposable income is paid for out of someone else's decrease in disposable income.
Saying the money for your childs education or your health comes out of your wifes taxes doesn't change the fact that taxes are a COMPULSORY levy, it might benefit you but it doesn't benefit me.
Now I will show you how, if you have "free" education, it will increase the price of private education.
On the market, firms compete with each other on price and quality of the product. Basically the firm who offers the most value to consumers (Value as a function of price and quality) will stay in business and be more profitable than other firms.
Now private schools require children (Consumers/Payers) in order to remain open. They are competing for consumers with government schools. Government schools do not have the same need for kids as private schools do. Any shortfall can simply come out of more taxes (Compulsion or force, private schools cannot force people to come to them and pay them)
If government school education becomes free then private schools cannot compete with public schools (By luring consumers away) on price. As they cannot offer education for free.
They can only compete on quality(Must offer greater value than public schools). In order to do this they have to have the very best in order to justify the prices charged,as any price charged will seem excessive when compared to "free" public education.
In order to have the best teachers, equipment, facilities etc. private schools have to buy the best and lure the best teachers away from government schools by offering huge salaries, further INCREASING the costs of private education and DECREASING the quality of public education, as generally all the best teachers will work in the private sector. Not to mention that even if private citizens pay huge amounts for private education, they STILL pay for government education through taxes.
Thus one can demonstrate how "free" public education, similar to healthcare, increases the cost of private education/healthcare.
If you then make private education illegal to get around this problem, then you are REMOVING choice from individuals. Thus restricting freedom and individual liberty.
Is that rational and coherent enough for you? I think you need a more coherent understanding of the liberal tradition, freedom, property and market forces.
