Dan Fabulich wrote:
> > Question: Do parents, the people who would be funding this operation in
Dan, this ignores my question - if I pay money to give my child an education
what financial reward do I get in return? The question isn't about the
> > the absense of the state, have any serious economic incentives to give
> > their children a good education? I'm saying a big NO.
>
> Yes, that explains why parents never pay lots of money to send their kids
> to high quality private schools. And why no parent would ever sacrifice
> his/her life for the life of their child.
Rober J. Bradbury wrote:
> Now, Bryan has an interesting point with regard to the economic
> investment in a child. Presumably a parent never would want to
> act in such a way that their actions make their previous investment
> "worthless". (So generally, you don't kill children, you don't
> move to someplace where there are no taxes *and* no schools, etc.)
>
> In theory the economic incentive for parents to provide or
> fund an education is the desire to maximize the value of their
> previous investment. Now the point at which this fails is
> when the perceived benefit from that investment falls below
> the perceived investment.
Yes, and the problem is that most people can only accept a financial benefit for their investment, they cannot afford to give their children everything they would want to give them. But if it is true that better education would mean a more successful and wealthy child then there is a financial benefit to be had from the child, and the parent (or sponsor) should expect a return on their investment. This would also mean that those people who do not feel the natural urge to care for their children have a financial incentive to offer them the best education and welfare possible.
BM