It's May 04, 2024, 12:50:10 AM
Education wouldn't be regulated to fit a certain standard.
Schools would reach a competitive nature. Schools wouldn't cost thousands of dollars like private schools do today. Education wouldn't be regulated to fit a certain standard. Trade schools and apprenticeships would be much more common. With the competitive low cost of these schools parents who wish to buss there kids to certain learning facilities would be able to afford it.
Quote from: Overseer on July 12, 2004, 09:31:09 AMsome stuff off of the top of my head...pro-abortion (to a limit.. not late term sht.. )pro birth controlanti death penalty- govt. backed basic housing for everyone provided at a standard rate. this would lead to reductions in homelessness etc this would all be of a standard quality but provide only basic facilities.perhaps to set of standard templates depending upon family size to keep things fair.e.g. a 2 bed house is for 2 or 3 people, not 1. e.g. a 1 bed appartmen/house. is for 1 person, maybe 2.of course privately if people can afford to rent or buy something bigger, they can do what they like.these wouldnt be crammed together too much.. they'd be arranged in a hexagonal system so to everyones 'rear' is a garden. so housing would be in clusters. these would also take advantage of modern water recycling, and energy collection techniques.- govt. provided health, dental care, education at all levels BUT alternatives are allowed to exist if people can afford to go private.- transport would not be govt funded. (uk govt has lost major money this way in the past, esp through the rail system).would up the taxes for people who own more than one vehicle as a deterrent.- abolish the seperate govt agencies police, army, navy, and air force and all combine them into one force. a mergnig of what i see as rival establishments into a more effective force. - govt. sponsored jobs program. where the unemployed *have* to work for the govt if they dont have a job.perhaps in my 'new govt system' or something.- prisoners would work to keep themselves where they are, or opt for education (where they'd still have to work a bit as well)Shit, the tax rate would be atrocious.
some stuff off of the top of my head...pro-abortion (to a limit.. not late term sht.. )pro birth controlanti death penalty- govt. backed basic housing for everyone provided at a standard rate. this would lead to reductions in homelessness etc this would all be of a standard quality but provide only basic facilities.perhaps to set of standard templates depending upon family size to keep things fair.e.g. a 2 bed house is for 2 or 3 people, not 1. e.g. a 1 bed appartmen/house. is for 1 person, maybe 2.of course privately if people can afford to rent or buy something bigger, they can do what they like.these wouldnt be crammed together too much.. they'd be arranged in a hexagonal system so to everyones 'rear' is a garden. so housing would be in clusters. these would also take advantage of modern water recycling, and energy collection techniques.- govt. provided health, dental care, education at all levels BUT alternatives are allowed to exist if people can afford to go private.- transport would not be govt funded. (uk govt has lost major money this way in the past, esp through the rail system).would up the taxes for people who own more than one vehicle as a deterrent.- abolish the seperate govt agencies police, army, navy, and air force and all combine them into one force. a mergnig of what i see as rival establishments into a more effective force. - govt. sponsored jobs program. where the unemployed *have* to work for the govt if they dont have a job.perhaps in my 'new govt system' or something.- prisoners would work to keep themselves where they are, or opt for education (where they'd still have to work a bit as well)
Quote from: GoodLuvn169 on July 16, 2004, 02:19:58 PMSchools would reach a competitive nature. Schools wouldn't cost thousands of dollars like private schools do today. Education wouldn't be regulated to fit a certain standard. Trade schools and apprenticeships would be much more common. With the competitive low cost of these schools parents who wish to buss there kids to certain learning facilities would be able to afford it.The schools that take on richer kids would get more money. Correct? So society would be uneven because the rich would keep getting better chances in life. You're just trying to insure that the elite continue to be at the top.
Quote from: Jay ay Beee on July 19, 2004, 04:33:54 AMQuote from: GoodLuvn169 on July 16, 2004, 02:19:58 PMSchools would reach a competitive nature. Schools wouldn't cost thousands of dollars like private schools do today. Education wouldn't be regulated to fit a certain standard. Trade schools and apprenticeships would be much more common. With the competitive low cost of these schools parents who wish to buss there kids to certain learning facilities would be able to afford it.The schools that take on richer kids would get more money. Correct? So society would be uneven because the rich would keep getting better chances in life. You're just trying to insure that the elite continue to be at the top.absolutely. its the ultimate selfish system. a super clever "poor kid" would be excluded from going to a school/uni to train him to his full potential.also lack of regulation in education quality is ludicrous. you'd have things bad quality doctors coming out of the system, just because their daddy's could afford to put them in a med school that didnt have high standards.'trade schools' went out with the ark.. who trains for a trade these days? you'll find that in the old days trade schools actually cost a hell of a lot, not less and people had to do exceptionally long apprenticeships.your system keeps the poor poor, and the rich rich.competition between schools always favours the rich, because beyond actuall skill the money or (as we see over here more) blue blood will give you those options.money doesnt make you any better, or more clever. what it does is give you more options if you use it correctly.