Originally Posted by Chris JeriG.O.A.T
If the government didn't have any involvement in education how exactly would poor people get to send their kids to school?
First we have to recognize that the current education system is a complete failure. This is evidenced by the fact that a high school degree is so worthless that everyone feels like they need to go to college to get a decent job, and even college graduates who choose an unmarketable degree are still left doing work they didn't go to school for, and not making enough to even pay off their student loans. So, when discussing a "libertarian solution" we have to be fair in admitting that we aren't looking for a perfect model, as the current model is extremely imperfect. This means there is a level of acceptable imperfection we have to allow to have a serious discussion about alternatives.
Secondly, what we have now is not just simply bad education, much of it is not education at all. Students spend a lot of time being fed propaganda or just learning about stuff that neither enriches them intellectually or prepares them for a job. I'd say about 99% of what I learned from kindergarten to high school was completely worthless, and has zero to do with what I got a college degree in or what I do for a living, or even what my intellectual interests are. Public education now is basically daycare and indoctrination and nothing more.
Education is clearly a hugely prioritized need - which means parents care enough about it to make sure its taken care of in the absence of the state. An education system that produces productive workers meets a market demand, which means companies will want to help facilitate that process. We see this already with corporate-sponsored school programs, research, etc. I've benefited from this personally when Amazon sponsored a bunch of senior projects at my school (including mine), and then they got a bunch of really good applicants come Spring, who can provide them a lot more in value than they spent sponsoring their projects. The answer of where the money to pay for this stuff comes from is pretty silly when you have a bunch of people who value something enough to pay for it even with the existence of a state. The absence of one just means people have more money to pay for that thing, and it'll be done a lot more efficiently and in a way that actually meets market demands.
As for how the poor would afford to send their kids to school. Well, given that school would be cheaper for everyone without government involvement than it is right now, a lot more poor would be able to send their kids to better schools than they get to go to right now, and the rest would have to rely on charity, of which there would be a lot more without having such a big government demanding more of people's resources. Perhaps there would be some children left behind, but that already happens in the system we have now, and the schools are shit and don't teach anyone anything of value. I know which system I'd prefer.
I got a bunch of grants to get through school. I've got a degree and make like $60,000 a year and I'm probably going to be making a lot more in the next few years. The government made a good investment on me. Assuming something bad doesn't happen to me I'll pay way more in taxes than what those grants were worth.
The government didn't make a "good investment" on you. Nobody in the government would suffer any consequences if the investment turned out bad, so it was nothing to them to make the investment, as they do, blindly, in pretty much anyone with demonstrated financial need. It's not their money, or even real money as the case is these days where we just pump more increasingly worthless money out of thin air into the economy and all of our taxes are just paying off interest in an accumulating, un-payable debt, which means even the "return on investment" doesn't actually mean anything to the government.