DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Сообщение от MyTie

I think everything should be free for everyone. That way, no one would have to work and we could all just spend time with our families in opulence.

Сообщение от Rystrave

I think everything should be free for everyone. That way, no one would have to work and we could all just spend time with our families in opulence.

Would making everything free really make the world a better place? THAT SHALL BE TOMORROW'S DOTD QUESTION!

It would be nice to have it free, but it's a matter of should it really be free? There's a lot to the education system and having that free would mean less funds to pay for books, taxes, faculty, etc. Teachers already get thrown under the bus when it comes to pay, just think of the uprise it would cause if higher education were to become free o_o

Сообщение от MyTie

You're almost there, Rystrave.

There's really two questions here:

Who would "make" everything free?
If everything were free, what would be the incentive to work?

So, if no one worked, there would be nothing. You could quit your job, but the dude at the grocery store would also have quit his job. All the people that make the goods would have quit their jobs. The companies that make goods would have quit making them, as they wouldn't work that hard just to give their stuff away, they would want to go home to their families too. Making something "free" is another way of saying "government should pay for it". Saying "government should pay for it" is another way of saying "everyone should pay for it and it should be monopolized". Monopolizing something and automatically paying for it creates lowest bidder services combined with tenure, corruption, bribery, etc.

Сообщение от gamerunknown

Saying "government should pay for it" is another way of saying "everyone should pay for it and it should be monopolized".

Not necessarily. The taxpayer pays for lower education in the UK and US and by no means has a monopoly on lower education.

Сообщение от gnomerdon

yes. higher education should be free.

Сообщение от yukonjack

#42: Should higher education should be offered to all for free?

No and for a couple reasons, people tend to try harder when they are paying for their education and more importantly colleges and universities are bussinesses. at least in Canada and the US. Now the fact that they are indeed a bussiness fosters competition and this competition is what has given us, again in Canada and the US; some of the finest schools in the world.

Сообщение от Azazel

US; some of the finest schools in the world.

Uhh...

Сообщение от 678294

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Ordayc

#42: Should higher education should be offered to all for free?

I lean towards yes. As far as I know, there is a strong correlation between education and a lot of factors. Not only do more highly educated people earn more money (and thus pay more taxes), but they also tend to work longer, have fewer absences caused by illness, and tend to be more innovative and thus increase the potential for growth. Thus, I believe offering free education—especially to those whose parents do not have the financial capacities—strongly benefits the whole society. I have no actual numbers at hand, but I imagine that quite a lot of the money that is sunk into the education sector finds its way back through many other means.

If everything were free, what would be the incentive to work?

So, if no one worked, there would be nothing. You could quit your job, but the dude at the grocery store would also have quit his job.
Maybe I'm getting you wrong here. As I understand it, support for free education often comes from people who also support other left-wing politics measures such as "free" money for unemployed as well as subsidies in other fields, and you feel that being for one means being for all. I can totally understand the sentiment that you don't want to have to pay for others, which you would, since the money obviously has to come from someone. However, I think those things shouldn't be mixed up. As I said above, people with higher education on average do provide a lot to the society. It's not like people spend the rest of their lives at a university and live off of the rest of the people. (I'm aware that there are people for whom any money spent on education is wasted, because they end up doing a simple job after not receiving a university degree despite many years of education, but I'm fairly certain that those are not the majority.) Furthermore, even if education itself is free, people still need a source of income, because they require food, a living, etc.

Lastly, the question arises how much education should be free? Theoretically, the argument that higher education should to be paid by those who benefit from it (directly) could be extended to any education. Where should the line be drawn up to which point education should be free?

Сообщение от Squishalot

You can make a business case of it by justifying the future tax benefits you get from providing free education. I believe that childcare is state-supported in Sweden because it encourages people to go work instead and pay taxes (which subsequently fund the childcare).

Likewise, if you make people's first degree free (note - just the first one, to discourage the professional student), it's possible that the resulting increase in productivity will have flow-on tax benefits that allow such an initiative to have a net zero cost to the government.

Сообщение от FatalHeaven

#43: Should power-walking be an Olympic sport?

I use this one sport as the example in the topic because it is the one that I personally have the most objections to. However, I'm open to letting the topic grow wider than just this sport; if there's a different Olympic sport you don't agree with, say so. If you feel that one someone has listed should be an Olympic sport, give it some defense.

Сообщение от gnomerdon

no. i don't think it'll do any good.

Сообщение от FatalHeaven

no. i don't think it'll do any good.

I'm trying to understand the context in which your saying this. You don't think power-walking does any good? You don't think discussing this will do any good?

As far as power-walking doing any good, in reality no one sport does any "good." But some take more skill and finesse than others. I don't personally think it should be in the Olympics because I don't feel like it takes as much effort as other sports. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm open to other opinions; but there are some games in the Olympics that I think aren't deserving. And walking -power or not- is one of them.

Сообщение от 422429

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от gnomerdon

it won't do any good because

1. people won't see it as strenuous
2. feels like patty cake compared to the rest
3. to the naked eye, it's not even close to jogging or sprinting competitions

i wouldn't mind watching it, but the whole world would deem it as a waste.

Сообщение от gamerunknown

Why not bring Rugby back? It was named after an English town, Team GB should have a shot at reclaiming the title :p

Сообщение от 588688

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от ElhonnaDS

1) So do they have to do all of those things, or any of them? For instance, if they are verbally abusive to people (or an animal, per your example), do you think it's a capital offense? Should someone be killed for yelling at his dog too much?

2) How would one prove that they are aware they're doing evil things?

Also, rape is a violent crime by nature. It's about control and anger much more than about sexual urges.

DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Ответить