> 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.
Because voters decide how the school system works. Here the equality of the school system is a political goal (that even the political right stand behind because of popular support).
The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. If you want extra security you can hire a bodyguard (which would be analogous to the tutor).
So why have voters here decided that the lack of liberty in spending your own heavily taxed money is a price worth paying for having a more equal education system? I don’t know.
Voters could decide this in any country (in many they have already), just like they could decide that publicly funded universal healthcare is a good idea. Importantly - if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it (because I hope we agree that the real job of government isn’t to provide some god given laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve its citizens).
It’s not like a large welfare state would be “unconstitutional”, even in the US.
You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.
> The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police.
Not directly, though funding politicians who set policy for the police who will favor your interests is definitely a way that it can be, and is, regularly done (both with local police and broader-scope law enforcement.)
> Because voters decide how the school system works
Right, they're allowed to decide how the school money for public schools is spent. They have no control over what a free man does on his private property. If he wants to open a school and teach, there is no constitutional provision that allows the government to stop this.
America originally maintained the provision that unless you're infringing my basic liberties, the government has no business getting involved. Some people have perverted this and tried to buy votes with hand-outs, but the core principal remains the same. Read the Constitution; it clearly supports this ideal.
> you can't buy better service from the police.
Wrong. Many wealthy neighborhoods hire an extra sheriff or even a few extras to patrol the neighborhood.
> Voters could decide this in any country... if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it
Nope. The government upholds a narrowly-defined set of basic liberties laid out in the Constitution. It is not a tool with which the tyranny of the majority may extract its desired outcome from the minority. Socialized medicine is unconstitutional. Free college is unconstitutional. Honestly, public school as constituted today is unconstitutional and ought to be relegated to the states.
> I hope we agree that the real job of government isn't to provide some god give laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve it's citizens
Sorry, nope. I don't agree, so if you want to take this as a premise going forward, you'll have to actually support it.
> It's not like a large welfare state would be "unconstitutional", even in the US.
Again, that's incorrect. A reading of the Constitution provides no provision for a federal welfare state.
> You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.
Stop referring to public school through high school as bundled with this free college thing. They're separate. The rationale for public school as it exists today is that you cannot be a functioning member of a democratic republic without literacy, logic, etc. That is why we have public schools today. They don't meet expectations, but the justification is not "economic mobility".
You may read the above and wonder, "How would a government described above get any thing done?" The answer is that we are based on federalism. The rest of the world rests on large central governments, we do not. The core assumption is that the federal government does the bare minimum, and the rest of the power is retained by the state. The state will do what is necessary only at that level, and the rest is retained by counties and municipalities. Those fulfill their bare minimum of necessary duties, and most power is retained by the individual. Originally, the Constitution only protected rights from infringement by the feds. The 14th amendment changed that; these days the states cannot violate rights either. Theoretically, a state could introduce a health-care system. Indeed, California and Massachusetts do this already. The only reason why some one would try to do this at a national level is so he can force his personal views on those who disagree with him. This "stick it to the red state/blue state" (depending on who is in office) attitude of federal politicians is harmful and violates both the principles of federalism and the Constitution itself. These people have the biggest mouths, and try to promulgate the disingenuous idea that the federal government is the ultimate source of power. This is what people in other nations see. It is, however, not true.
You are approaching this from the perspective of Sweden - a bloated, over-might central government which is the ultimate receptacle of power. This central government then delegates down whatever rights it sees fit for you to have. This is why it can construct rights such as health-care. The feudal roots of modern European nations allows such behavior, as the cultural premise of noblesse oblige and "grace from above" is ingrained into your government. This is not the case here. Those who seek to make it so are motivated only by power, as that sort of structure carries vastly more.
Because voters decide how the school system works. Here the equality of the school system is a political goal (that even the political right stand behind because of popular support).
The police functions similarly in the US too. No matter how much you want to, you can’t buy better service from the police. If you want extra security you can hire a bodyguard (which would be analogous to the tutor).
So why have voters here decided that the lack of liberty in spending your own heavily taxed money is a price worth paying for having a more equal education system? I don’t know.
Voters could decide this in any country (in many they have already), just like they could decide that publicly funded universal healthcare is a good idea. Importantly - if they do decide that, then of course it is the job of the government to provide it (because I hope we agree that the real job of government isn’t to provide some god given laundry list of minimal services but to actually serve its citizens).
It’s not like a large welfare state would be “unconstitutional”, even in the US.
You are right that even with free higher education, kids to white collar parents are more likely to land high paying jobs. But it’s not like trying to maximize equality in schools and providing free higher education doesn’t help improve the situation at least.