I thought my point was obvious with the math I provided, but will give it another shot. Yes. Africans, and every other hunter gatherer society throughout the world have been growing food crops for thousands of years. We both agree that it doesn't take a genius to put a seed in the ground, and grow a crop to produce food. Why then do we see hundreds of millions dollars, and billions of dollars being wasted and squanded by UN organisations facilitating projects that teach and educate Africians "how" to grow and manage crops? For the last 30 years, hundreds of billions of dollars have been donated by western countries to help African villages be self-sufficient in food production to stop starvation. If the people in these countries are still starving, and require constant financial help, then where has the hundreds of billions of dollars vanished too, because it obviously has not went on providing them with basic seed. Maybe its been squandered by UN bureaucrats employing mates to estabilish worthless training projects, who have made themselves wealthy at the expense of tax payers generocity and the starving poor people of Africa. Check the UN charter for yourself, to discover just how many UN projects are designed and established to teach and educate African's how to grow crops and manage livestock. LOL LOL It doesn't take $20million of tax payers money to provide a rural African village with; 30 head of goats, sheep & cattle. 200 bags of wheat, rice and corn. Shovels, axes and picks to make that village completely self-sufficient in the future. For $10,000AUD this could be accomplished. So where the hell has all the hundreds of $billions gone too? I feel so sad for these people, but will not donate one red cent to any African country, because I know my money will never get to the people who need it the most. It will go to fund a wealth lifestyle of some fat-cat UN bureaucrat, or corrupt African politician.
So long as none of this education is funded through the theft and mandate of government then I have no issue with it. Education should not be mandatory or funded by the state. If you can convince TV writers then go nuts.
The lack of publicly exposed debate is because nobody has an answer that is publicly palatable. Imagine the anarchy if the only answer is destructive disease release. Perhaps all these world wide disasters is Mother Nature taking care of what we are too ignorant to.
First read what it is you are going to comment on. The television stuff is already being made and used to success All education should be free because we all benefit from it. A smarter population is a smarter country.
In fact I did read the page you linked. I was referring to public education programs such as the ones concerning alcohol, tobacco, the recent obesity one, etc. I have no interest in them so long as they're funded by taxation. I have nothing against such advertisements so long as they're funded voluntarily, such as the recent one by Australian Bananas, or World Vision, or anything like that. It's the funding I have a problem with, not the message. I'm not all that concerned with advancing the interests of the country. I have no interest in paying for your kid's education, and I don't support forcing others to.
The 'STATE' is US. WE pay to educate OUR children and WE have decided that it is going to be mandatory for ALL our children to go to school and get educated. We have decided this because it is in the best interest of the children and also being mandatory will protect the child from any whacko ideas or beliefs that may be held by the parents.
AM sit down ... I AGREE "Individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean." - Ryunosuke Satoro This rather selfish, self centred notion of Pie's, would cause the cost of education to sky rocket, without government control the schools which all would be private, they would look at the economics of it. It would be more profitable if they put their prices so high, that only the wealthiest say 25% could afford it, but they could put the price up by 100%, because the 25% of the wealthiest would know that their children would be the leaders, the doctors, the lawyers. By doubling then price they also capture the children from mostly high income professionals who could also afford tutors etc. The country would then truly be run by the affluent 25% and the rest word be the surfs, the poor, those that go without so the rich can have more. 75% of the population would live in bitter resentment of the others, civil unrest, violence crime and even revolution could result. Pie and Abbott and the others would be ok,maybe not during a revolution, but otherwise they sit in their mansions, surrounded by security. That is the most preposterous thing I have heard here for a while. figures here are just pulled out of my Rs, I think in reality it would be much higher.
Yes, that's a concise description of what I have no interest in. I value the people as individuals rather than as a collective.
So under your theory/model, only wealthy individuals could afford to have their children educated? I wonder what would have happened under your theory/model, if Einstein's parents were too poor to have had him educated?
Completely agree. - - - Updated - - - No you don't value them as individuals. If you did you would want equality of opportunity and not a return to the strict class system that existed before public education.
