Abolishing tariffs, the minimum wage, and public education would help poor people.

Idontcare: public schools are called that for a reason, anybody can go, and if you take them away There isn't a way for the people who can't afford a private school to go to and who do you think will get pushed way down the acceptance list would be? Reply: Two things--you think that somehow private schools are a fixed entity and you are forgetting that since public schools are immune from competition, they drive up the cost of schooling. If public schools didn't exist, there would still be demand for education, which would cause entrepreneurs to build new types of schools: Your school could have just ten students, there could be schools for music, schools for math and science, or schools that operate essentially the same way as schools do now. And since there would be more competition, prices would come way down. Idontcare: As for the part about giving the money to the people, how do we decide who gets it? And how much? Reply: For deciding who gets what, there are a number of possibilities. One thing is to just divide the money among everyone. Most states spend a little over $10,000 dollars per pupil. Instead of giving that amount to the student through the school, it could be given directly to the child's family, where they could decide how to spend it. In most other welfare schemes, the consumer--not the producer--is subsidized. Food stamps are given to the people buying the food instead of people who produce the food. Schools are the opposite. But if the options were just public schools or no public schools, the no public schools would still be the better choice, since not only do public schools not work, they are a drain on societies resources. The poorest of the poor who couldn't afford any type of school would be better taken care of by charity than by the government. Idontcare: Not to mention how do we know it's being spent on what would truly benefit their lives? Reply: Your unstated assumption is that you know what is best for people's lives better than they do. But life is complex and we are all trying to make sense of it from different vantage points, and no centralized authority can have that sort of knowledge. The degenerate parent who would rather spend on booze than education would most likely have their child taken away by social services in any situation. Idontcare: Or does it not matter if government handouts are being spent on cigarettes and drugs? I'm not saying that it all would be spent on those things, but I'm guessing a good portion would be. Reply: This claim is unfounded. I'm not sure why a good portion would be. I could think of why a very small fraction would be, and that is because humans have evolved to naturally care for their young, so our neurological hardwiring is one thing that would discourage that sort of thing. Of course there are some bad parents, but they are the very small minority. As I mentioned earlier, in any case they would have their children take away, and it would be better to give the money to the foster care home instead of the school, where they, instead of government bureaucrats, could work out what is best for their children. Idontcare: Also According to 2007's budget almost 373 Billion dollars was spent on public education last year, do you really think the government is really going to hand out that kind of money? I didn't think so and an education, forced or not, is better than no education. Reply: In one sense, you are right--the government isn't going to shill out 373 billion dollars. But what is stopping this are bureaucrats and teacher's unions who don't want to ruin their sweet deal that comes at the cost of everyone else. But if you are saying that a voucher program would be more difficult to administer than our current education system, there seems to be no evidence for that. This isn't a radical idea, but rather, it is already practiced in several countries, with great success. Also, you seem to forget that education and schooling are not the same thing. Alexander Hamilton had only about 3 to 4 years of formal schooling, and he was one of he most brilliant Americans ever to live. Furthermore, pubic schooling is bad because it assumes that there is a set of knowledge everyone must know. Outside of basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, it is hard to see how this is the case. So the grades of about 4-12th are really a waste of time. And there is no reason why a government school would do any better at teaching basic reading, writing, and arithmetic than a private school. Also, public education spoon feeds information, rather than encouraging critical and independent thought. It is the infallible teacher and text book that has all the answers. Education needs to be geared more towards what is called "unschooling"--that is, education that is self-directed and based on the students interests. But this is nearly impossible with forced government schooling, because by making education government property, you erode everything down to one end to be pursued, which is why all government schools basically are the same and teach the same things. Private property leads to a diversification of ends to be pursued, which would lead to a dynamic system of schools, catering to different needs and desires. It's the same principal on why we have dozens of different soaps to choose from at the grocery store, and in the soviet union, you only had one, if any at all. Idontcare: The minimum wage may pool a large group of people in one place, but it stops them from paying them less. Reply: But it isn't the amount of zeros in the check that matter, it is the purchasing power that is important. You would be better off having $5 dollars instead of $10 dollars if the $5 dollars could buy you everything you need for $3 than if the $10 dollars could buy you everything you needed for $7. (In the first scenario, it only takes 60% of your earnings to buy everything, where in the second it would cost 70%) Idontcare: Employers will always want to make the largest profit margin, and DUH people are going to pay a brain surgeon more than a factory worker, they do a much more talented, and risky job, he deserves more money he can do something that most people can't and the rarer a profession is, the higher the pay, also known as supply and demand, or capitalism, whichever you like better they all fit. Reply: Here you are missing the point. Let me clarify with a thought experiment: suppose that Everyone at McDonalds would be required to make the same amount as a brain surgeon. If I'm smart and talented enough to be a brain surgeon, I could either spend a vast amount of time and money trying to become one, or I could just work at McDonalds and skip all that and make the same amount of money. If I'm an employer, I can either choose between hiring a possible brain surgeon, or a person who only has a GED. It's obvious who would be picked. In reality, what would happen is that McDonalds couldn't operate. So it is with minimum wage. What is interesting is that a lot of big businesses (such as Wal-Mart) support minimum wage, because they can take the hit in their profit margins, while smaller businesses can't, but they make up for it in the gain of market share. So minimum wage leads to two outcomes: the low-skilled person loses his job to a person of higher skill, or the business can't afford the low-skilled person's services, which leads to his losing his job. Either way, you are cutting out the bottom rung on the economic latter that low-skill people need to live, save, and work towards acquiring better skills. I am almost out of room, so the shorthand version of the tarrifs is that while you may be protecting certain jobs, those costs are passed on through the rest of the economy. If a tarrif increases the cost of importing energy, then businesses who use energy have their costs go up, which in turn gets passed on to the consumer, and poor people.