> >> And isn't that what capitalism is all about?
> >
> > No, capitalism is about makeing a buck at any cost. Sweat shops are captialism unbound. The Black Market is unfettered Captialism. The idea that a economic theory that, when unregulated, leads to great suffering and abuse can be applyed to education is foolish. Part of capitalism is that each party becomes a preditior, captialism is based on the theory that someone is has to loose. Capitalism in education is a dangerous thing. And Private schools do compeate with Public schools already, if they want more students they can lower tuition. If a school distric has problem with teachers unions that is a whole other issue, stripping the school of funds isn't going to improve it.
> >
> > Public schools are part of the goverments domain and the goverment has a responsibility to maintain and imrpove them. The school voucher system is just a way to pass the buck and shrink for that responsibility.
> >
> > This rant brought to you by
> >
> > Speed'I had a tough day'ball
>
> /me steps onto the biggest soapbox he can find.
>
> This is truly a gut-reaction interpretation. Capitalism in the strictest sense is an economic situation where individuals own the means of production. It is best encapsulated as, "Self-Interest." From a very liberal point of view, self-interest is reviled as selfishness. There are, however, very important distinctions. [Note: the near-definitive works on the ethics of self-interest are the 'novels' of Ayn Rand, who fled the USSR to come to the US] Self-interest never degrades others, and most especially never degrades one's self. Self-interest is seeking to be the best one can be; it sometimes requires great unselfishness.
>
> Economic self-interest requires advancing the wealth of all people including oneself, for the reason that the market would otherwise fail, bringing one's ruin. Self-interest is by far the most efficient means to accomplish the goal of prosperity, as an individual can wield his or her own capital to far greater effect than a centralized agency. Part of this derives from the emotional attachment to personal property, the remainder results from faster turnaround and diversity of individuals' choices. Self-interest dictates discretion and wisdom, encouraging the populace to stay informed and enrich themselves educationally.
>
> Self-interest in government mandates activity in political affairs and world scenes, again for the greatest personal benefit, which typically ensues from the greatest total benefit. (Freedom for all is the best guarantee of freedom for any.) An entire populace seeking their own self-interest maintains a strong control over their government, ensuring that laws are fair to all. When government strips individuals of the right to self-interest it creates dependancy on the system. Dependancy has a snowball effect for which powerful checks are necessary to retain freedom.
>
> An effect of self-interest is that, by sheer luck if nothing else, some individuals will succeed and others will fail. Many current systems punish success by exacting higher and higher taxes as individuals gain wealth. This is absurd: far from decreasing the gap between rich and poor, such helps the gap to widen. The wealthy, following the same self-interest that made them wealthy in the first place, invest the money in ventures which benefit everyone. They hire more workers, raise wages, buy products, pay for services, deposit in stocks, give loans, lower prices, donate to charities, provide scholarships, improve the environment, increase competition, research new technologies, lobby for expanded trade, offer benefits, and create more wealth to put back in the cycle. (In short, trickledown economics works as long as people aren't liberal--"group gain" has a lowest common denominator effect.) Wealth is all that holds economies together; it is utterly illogical to hate the wealthy. [Note: I'm in the lower middle class.]
>
> Monopolies offer short-term gain only. Given time, monopolies drive the economy down, and therefore are against self-interest. The black market destroys resources, and is therefore against self-interest. Sweatshops only thrive because of lack of competition/capitalism; sweatshop workers have no better opportunities.
>
> Capitalism is not "making a buck at any cost." Capitalism is doing one's best to bring to fruit the greatest personal, and thereby total, gain possible.
>
> gab"didn't proofread = weird writing"by

That is all well and good, but like Marx's Maneffesto it lacks in one importnat detail. It assumes peopel on a whole are smart, reasonable, not selfish, and can see the big picture.

A good view of what unfettered Captialism can lead to is the condition of Industrial Revolution England. There was no control set on factory owners and they abused their power, it wasn't good for their economy, but it was good for their personal bank account on a short term baises and that is what they were interested it. Child labor, 20 hr days, no retierment plan (most workers didn't live that long). Unfettered Captialism leades to selfishness, because those that rise to the top gain great power, and power has an unhappy habbit of corrupting those who have it. Self-Intrest may not be a bad thing, but their must be balances to protect those who can't rise, for Captialism is still competative, and in competitions there are lossers. Darwinism in action in an economic setting, the strong corrportations trive, the weak perish.

Unfettered Communism and Socialism are just a dangerous mind you. Either direction leads to opression, but a balance must be found, Controlled Capitalism.

Well, now that I said that can just agree to dissagree, I don't want this to degereate into a flame war. I've said my peice.

Speed'Liberal and Proud of it'ball