Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Matthias Julius wrote:
>> Is there no other way to create a motive other than money?
> There are other ways. Profit, however, is provably the most effective.
Below you say charities and church would setup more schools
if they had not to compete against public schools. Profit is
certainly no motive there.
> I mean the Soviets (formerly) and the Cubans (currently) motivate their
> economies with fear. I think we can safely say it doesn't work as well.
>>>Absolutely. I volunteer teach at my church's academy (K-12). They
>>>charge about $2000/year in tuition becauase they want to stay affordable
>>>to the working class families in the meighborhood where the church is
>>>located. They do an absolutely bang-up job. Far better than most
>>>public schools (and I had an *outstanding* public school experience).
>> This has nothing to do with a profit oriented, competetive business.
>> Do you think this could be a wide-spread model based on donations?
> Yes, I think if all education were private you would see many more
> church organizations, espcially in poor neighborhoods, start up schools
> at low cost.
Personally I think that if only church schools were accessible to the
poor would be not a good thing. But, this is a different issue. I
don't want to start a religious debate here.
> The problem is that many can't since they can't compete with "free."
> My church's school is, I think, very fortunate becuase some wealthy
> individuals have donated for scholarship funds and that has allowed
> them to admit students from families that are even under the poverty
> This tells me that there families out there for whom a good (in this
> case Christian) education is so important to them that they are willing
> to sacrifice to put their child(ren) in a good school. Anyone claims
> that private education is only for the wealthy is wrong.
This depends on how you define wealthy.
Another aspect of a public school system is that it is supposed to
provide equal opportunities to everyone independently form wealth. It
is supposed to make money not the deciding factor when deciding
whether to send a child to school or not.
> Maslow's hierarchy of needs is focused on the individual. Not only
> that, but your criteria originaly was "to live." Now you are expading
> it to include "be part of society." Those are two different things.
I was referring to "human-like life". This is a bit more than just to
make sure that person a doesn't die.