|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
I get that people think everybody deserves a chance at an education. Okay, so then make that the policy, make it so that if they want to pay for it they have that option. But structuring it like we do now hurts the least skilled and least intelligent the most by displacing them and taking away their most productive years.
Who refers to ages 14-18 as "their most productive years"
This is pretty farfetched wuf. Plus, it only holds water if that 15 year old janitor saves money instead of blowing it on microtransactions in video games.
Furthermore, you're destroying income mobility. By sending this 15 year old out into the world with a narrow education and set of skills, you have committed him on a path with few future options. That's not a good thing.
Further, furthermore, how would you even implement this plan? Do you really want the government evaluating the long-term prospects of each kid and deciding which teens should stay in school, and who gets handed a broom??
Somebody who can't eat doesn't have access to a fair marketplace either. Why should the government run the farms and the transportation and the grocers?
Is hunger really the result of a lack of access?? Is it at least possible that this hungry person had access to food, but decided to spend money on heroin instead? I would contend that the majority of cases of hunger and homelessness are caused by a person's bad choices, and not because of a lack of access, or opportunity.
Regardless, in those cases, a humane society would provide safety nets for those people. Food stamps are a thing wuf.
|
Reply With Quote