The debate "There should be free university that is funded by the government" was started by
September 19, 2018, 6:25 pm.
63 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 30 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
SMNR posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, A_communist94 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Fowling posted 2 arguments, Stuart posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Crystals, Nemiroff, em2001, affiq, Jakellutis, Coriander, A_communist94, zain, Kanwal, Yonekun, TJ, WiseWords and 51 visitors agree.
Fowling, chanchal123, TheNewHuman, lachlan2, Stuart, JDAWG9693, Seejay, jrardin12, nativeRepublican, TD and 20 visitors disagree.
I agree with stuart, but to turn it into a simple example everyone can agree with: everyone agrees murder is bad, yet some still commit murder. so despite the consensus against it, we still need to have people to enforce the concensus.
the thing is that many of the people who dodge taxes arent against taxes in general. they dont want to live in a country with zero taxes, they want to live in a country where others pay taxes, while they do not.
like a farmer agreeing to limit production of a crop to raise prices, but then secretly planting more. he gets his higher price while also maximizing sales. he certainly would not have wanted for everyone to grow to the max and have the price tank, he wanted the best of both worlds, and the consensus has every right to feel betrayed.
in America, they use our tax to fund the war. wake up America
Yes, taxation is consensus of the people as in the vast majority of people within a democratic society agreed to a particular value decided by conflicting groups of economists and mathematicians about what percentage of tax is both sustainable in a particular economic time frame and what is fair to the general population, we the free people agree and anyone who does not follow this law is a criminal and the law should be upheld and enforced by the police without mercy. It is in the court of law where a defence can be mounted and a jury decides if you are in fact guilty or innocent, and if found guilty the judge takes both sides of the argument and any extenuating factors into consideration to provide as fair a punishment as humanly possible... Conversely, IT'S A FREE SOCIETY... you therefore have the freedom to leave if you do not agree to a governments or a society's ideals.
If its consensus of the people why do you need force? lol you said taxation is consnesus of the people.
all laws need to be enforced
Yes because the state seized all roads. But thats irrelevant.
So taxation should not be enforced then?
arent traffic laws enforced by police?
Taxes are agreed to by consensus?!?!
So then paying taxes should not be enforced by police, yes? Since its a consensus the revenues won't decrease right?
taxes are laws just like speed limits. openly stated and agreed to by consensus. robbery would be enforcing them suddenly or retroactively. but sensible laws are not robbery.
private property is great, but the building of the public highway system allowed us as a nation to take a great leap forward.
No, your trying to dodge voluntarism by equating private transactions with government property. Nice try.
True, when governnent seizes something like roads we never consented to it. So ypur answer is privately owned roads.
Private property is set with rules consented with voluntary transactions just like any other existing private industry.
if I dont consent to speed laws, does that mean I can drive as fast as I can?
In fact unconsentual trade is not "trade at all" is just robbery where the robber offers a service afterward. Trade requires voluntary action.
Why are you unable to tell a difference between forced action and voluntary action? Like I really want to know, I assume anyone with higher brain functions can tell a difference, is that true?
Unconsentual trade is robbery. We trade because we get in return something more valuable to us personally. Value is subjective, not objective, so both sides gain value. Some people chose not to buy college because the what they pay is not more valuable to them thab what they gain. It is vain to believe that your scale of values is the same as everyone else, and ypu can put a gun to another individual's head and force them to buy college. Forced trade is still robbery.
You're not robbing people, it's a trade, you take money to give something much more valuable to the learner
Why wouldn't there be? Smart people, smart society and that's just common sense.
And you can't take people's money.
As an Egyptian, I am witnessing first hand the results of free and cheap education, and trust me, you don't want that... Education requires resources for it to be qualitative, and students should be driven towards their field of study... I think a very expensive hard to access real education can achieve both goals and more much better than a cheap or free semi-education ... College education is a deeper understanding of a domain of expertise to be able to work with it afterwards and be productive, when it's cheap or free to study, faculties tend to cut some of their research and development budget and sometimes even payrolls which impacts the whole system badly, and you also end up with thousands of students who are only here because it's free with no actual drive towards any of the subject...