> Sweden

Again, how do you propose to spend as much money as the best private schools, per-student? It would actually be more, as public schools are vastly more inefficient.

> That's a detail of implementation

The right actually supports something like this with "school vouchers": you can choose where your child's tax dollars go to work. The left is for some bizarre reason opposed to this.

> basically you can't start a school where you accept money from parents to provide a more expensive education

Why? If I've got money to burn, why? Who cares what some one does with his money, if he's already payed taxes? What right have you to dictate how I spend my money? It's mine, not yours, you have no say how it's spent.

> I think it's fine to pay tax money for someone else to study arts with absolutely no possibility of ever "repaing" society economically.

All right, you think it's okay. I don't; that's not how I want to spend my money. Instead of trying to force me to do it too, why don't you just contribute to a charity that provides scholarships? Also, most college students spend a lot of time partying, drinking, etc. Why on God's green earth ought I to pay for that?

> I'm arguing ideologically, not "practically".

Ok, let's discuss ideology. At the end of the day, if you do not pay your taxes and do not show up in court, a bunch of guys will pull up in a black van, bust down your door, and haul you off to jail. If you resist, they might shoot you. This sort of force ought to be reserved for only serious cases. When you force someone to contribute tax, you force him to set aside any possible moral objections or personal issues with the threat of a gun. That threat underlies all the government's day-to-day authority.

Such authority ought not to be used to force me to pay for someone spending four years skipping class and binge-drinking. In other words, the basic function of government is to protect my liberties. Forcing me to pay for the college of another does nothing towards this end.

> it's not like half the population has to du menial jobs and half can do white collar jobs

No, but all of the menial jobs must get done. You claim you want a society where a poor kid is just as likely as a rich one to become a doctor. How do you propose to achieve that? Even with "free" college, you will not achieve that. Poor kids do worse in school, worse in college.

> It's not a zero sum game where the number of qualified jobs is fixed.

No, but the number of qualified jobs will not expand nearly as much as the pool of qualified applicants. This is because by taxing people more to pay for this free college, you will reduce their income, giving them less to spend. This means you probably won't see much growth in the number of jobs, as the people who pay for things made by these "white-collar" jobs are the ones who you will be most taxing. You will have a large pool of college grads and a smaller pool of jobs; wages will tank.

> Because the drive to provide healthcare and education for myself and my family is somehow a positive "force" that drives society and the economy (perhaps I misunderstood)? Shouldn't that be evident in statistics, e.g. that happiness/quality of life indicators are somehow higher the more "want" there is? All I can see is that they seem...lower

You're not, say, seeking an extra job to get more for your family. You're trying to vote yourself other people's money to get more for your family. That's theft.

With respect to statistics on quality of life:

1. You just said your argument was ideological, not practical.

2. The job of the government is not to make you "happy". It is to safeguard a few basic liberties, roughly outlined by our constitution.