>While I realize it might offend the libertarian sensibilities of many here
No offence taken, I just hope you aren't affended as I start shooting a few holes in your theory.
>I must say I could not disagree with this more. The increase of the
>education level of the general population is a desireable thing in and of
>itself, if for no other reason than it makes each individual more a more
>productive contributor to the economy.
Desirable for who? The people themselves? Who makes up the people? Individuals.
>Are you suggesting _all_ education be optional? How many 7-year-olds do you
>know who have a thirst for knowledge? By your scheme, we'd have a
>generation of functional illiterates who can't read a street sign or
>multiply 6x7. Guess what happens to your personal standard of living when
>the economy tanks because of the ensuing labor-quality crisis? When there's
>nobody around to run the machinery, the machinery stops.
Actualy, those 7-year-olds who don't aquire a thirst for knowledge, dispite motivational efforts, and aren't forced into school by their parents will grow up to be 10 or so when they decide to get a job. After finding out that employers won't hire them because they can't read or right they learn they need to learn and school may be a way to do that. There will be plenty of other people who can read and write because employeers demand it. I know you can teach children the value of money and how it's earned. Also, lets not forget home schooling. I can picture a future of mass education via the internet and other media.
>A little government saying "You must learn enough to have the potential to
>be a productive member of society" isn't a bad thing; it's crucial.
And if you don't you probably won't survive. It's your choice not the governments!