OK, allowing only the best in for free is fair teamguns. But I doubt we would stop at that; after all, it would hurt the feelings of the other kids.

Wow, what another stupid thing you've just said. You say we shouldn't give free college because people would be hurt if they didn't get it?
HOW DOES THE SYSTEM WORK TODAY???

People are already not able to go to college cause they can't pay it, even though they have the grades, I believe that's enough to get feelings hurt.


So first you say college should be a privilege, then I say it should be free but also not easy to enter.
Second, you say people would be hurt cause they can't enter college if their not easy to enter.

I can't understand you.

And when I said " get a job, go to trade school, or join the army. Or marry someone rich. ", I was saying what to do INSTEAD of college, not to pay for it.

So you say the solution not to go to college is either the army, bad jobs or get married to someone rich. That's even worst... for obvious reasons.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer to your edit: rich people shouldn't go to college cause their rich. Just tax their parents and then use the money to make college free.

Meritocray doesn't work when rich students get advantages over poor students. If you're really middle class, you should understand it.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:33:11

"Wow, what another stupid thing you've just said. You say we shouldn't give free college because people would be hurt if they didn't get it?"
I was saying what the Democrats and liberals would say

"People are already not able to go to college cause they can't pay it, even though they have the grades"
Many get scholarships. For those who can't get them for whatever reason, I do believe we should help them a little. If they are athletic-ish and intelligent, service academies are excellent options.

"So first you say college should be a privilege, then I say it should be free but also not easy to enter.
Second, you say people would be hurt cause they can't enter college if their not easy to enter."
That second was sarcasm. However, I do believe that people would complain of not getting in and the bar would gradually lower, until our higher education is a joke.

Yea, it is actually something democrats and liberals would say. I was surprised you were using that argument to defend your idea, didn't got the sarcasm, my bad. Let them complain, people already complain of the actual system, less would of the one I believe it's the right one.

As for scholarships, the problem is that if 10 percent of the places on college are for scholarships, then we have a problem that 90 percent aren't. Because 90 percent of places aren't going to the best students fit for the place.


And higher education can be improved as well, we just need gvt to cut spending on useless sectors and put the money there.

I'd say you spend too much on your military and that you should cut it in order to spend in better areas. A report I've read not a long time ago said 25 percent of your military budget is wasted in bad spending, bureaucracy and corruption. You could cut that for a start.

And if you don't like the idea of cutting military, just cut subsidies and tax-breaks for the rich.

Both these solutions could fund free quality college and schools.

Les gars, c'est juste une perte de temps de débattre avec des gens aussi obtus que lui...

I agree with your last post, and I'm glad we could have such a rational discussion. However. my OP on this was intended to address people saying everyone should get higher education for free since it's a right. I assume you disagree with this

Je peut parle un peu de francais koala, et vous n'etes pas tres gentil

No, not everyone should have higher education for free. The state shouldn't spend billions more to educate morons who doesn't want to work for their places. But everyone should have the opportunity to have it. That's what I believe.

@Angry Koala, nous devons toujours discuter de politique avec des inconnus quand possible, ça aide a changer leur points de vue et les éduquer. Au pire ils sauront comment argumenter mieux leurs points de vue (sauf s'ils sont d'extreme droite, là c'est un cas perdu).

That is reasonable. I agree.

EDIT: the far-right bit also applies to far-left. Any extremist really.

Edited 2/9/2016 19:08:47

Neh, I prefer to talk to far-left people then to far-right ones. Far-right never acknowlages facts against them and are impossible to convince their wrong.

I've managed to make many far-left people agree with my points of view by arguing, never a far-right one.

@General PE

No ones advocates that everyone should go to college. There are limited places to enter college. Making college tuition free makes the entrance into college based on merit, not on money. If you have money but don't have the intellectual capacity to go to college, then you shouldn't be able to enter. And if you have the intellectual capacity to go to college, then you should be able to enter it, no matter your social status. That's what Bernie Sanders always advocated for.

On socialism:

socialism means public programs funded by all society (socially funded), that can be enjoyed by everyone regardless of wealth.
If you think that every citizens should pay taxes to fund the military, to fund road and railroads and public parks and other public infrastructures then you already are a socialist regarding these issues.

What Bernie Sanders advocates for is 3 other social programs:

- Public funding of health care
- Public funding of Education
- Public funding of elections

"socialism means public programs funded by all society (socially funded), that can be enjoyed by everyone regardless of wealth."
No, that is welfare, social programs, redistributionism, etc. Not true socialism.

subsidized education is a failure. subsidized medical care is a failure. price controls had the complete opposite effect. farm subsidies only inflate the cost of any product that comes from agricultural pursuits. Any and all forms of socialism have failed. Communism is a lie. Communism is death.

I believe you're mixing subsidies with government controlled sectors...

Gvt controlled health is a success, in France, Canada and the UK.
Gvt controlled education is a success, in Germany, Finland and Norway.

Just cause it don't works in your country, you shouldn't say it doesn't work at all.

It doesn't work. I recommend you read Thomas Sowells' Basic Economics

I recommend you to read stats comparison between the US and any other industrialized country.

Already have its a failure.

Economy is magic, and I don't understand the magic too well. But just a few notes: just about every country today has some kind of kind of socialist policies: police, public schools, roads, so on. And also, there is a positive corelation with living standard and suicide rate.

Also, long live the right.

Edited 2/10/2016 01:32:34

Police, public schools, etc are not truly socialist. That is a leftist-propagated lie to make socialism sound better.

Police, public schools, etc are not truly socialist. That is a leftist-propagated lie to make socialism sound better.

No...anything funded by taxes is a socialist institution.

Not true.

The idea of a government is too protect people directly. Education will not directly protect people. Cops will.

Government=/=socialism