Private School

[araapatlio]

The state has banned , foxhunting, Harecoursing, smoking in shops/bars, the use of certain pesticides, capital punishment, breathalysers.

Yes, it has, but sheer force, not because it has any right to do so.
The state has also banned gay people from giving blood and proscribed certain political groups that it doesn't like - it doesn't make those things right.

Also, the state didn't "ban" capital punishment - it simply stopped killing people (well, it's own citizens... most of the time).

This has upset or inconvenianced some people but has benifited society as a whole. Your free speech point does not imho stack up

Who gets to determine what has benefited society as a whole?

 

[Primal Scream]

If the state tried to impose such limits on universities, Oxford would simply eschew state funding and evade the cap - making the problem worse. Unless you plan to simply impose it by force irrespective of accepting state funding?

By force! no just by legislation and it would be quite simple to legislate to stop any uni going "private"

 

[araapatlio]

What do you think legislation is? It is a threat of force. What do you think happens if you contravene it?

And again, what right do you have to stop a university eschewing the state system and interacting with people freely?

 

[MontyVeda]

...
I suspect when it comes down to it I have a chip on my shoulder about the attitude of some privately educated adults I've met and don't want my children to end up like them with a sense of entitlement and self importance.

agreed, but there's many a working class snob too... with a similar sense of entitlement and self importance, and are equally annoying.

 

[Moon bunny]

But what right does the state have to ban private education?
Asserting that the state should have the power to ban things because you don't like them or don't think they are good is not sufficient.
If the state can ban private education, why can it not regulate speech? Why can the state not restrict your right to speak freely, in the "national interest" or because someone thinks it would be "better" if you were not allowed to voice your opinion?

The state has the power to ban (almost) anything it wants to. It might not always be in the state's or nation's best interest to ban something, so allows it to continue. Incidentally, the state already has restricted the population's right to speak freely on certain things, because "someone" did think it was "better" if certain people were not allowed to voice their opinions on certain matters in any meaningful way.

 

[Primal Scream]

What do you think legislation is? It is a threat of force. What do you think happens if you contravene it?

And again, what right do you have to stop a university eschewing the state system and interacting with people freely?

Because society needs to be organised for the greater good of the majority and not the benifit of an elite.

StillI am off to the pub to have a skinfull i will then drive home oh and I will have a fag or ten in the pub because no one should be ale to force me not to.

 

[araapatlio]

The state has the power...

Yes, it does. Power, force, is the currency of the state. It can physically prevent private schools from operating and selling education to people, by threatening to locking up teachers, but that doesn't make it right.

...to ban (almost) anything it wants to. It might not always be in the state's or nation's best interest to ban something, so allows it to continue. Incidentally, the state already has restricted the population's right to speak freely on certain things, because "someone" did think it was "better" if certain people were not allowed to voice their opinions on certain matters in any meaningful way.

Yes and it is another egregious abuse of people's rights. The state has no right to ban speech on the basis that they don't like it.

 

[PK99]

Some thingthat were once legal are outlawed foxhunting for one. It would be better if in education at least the rich cannot buy additional privilege and advantage for their ofspring. When the elites have to use the state system hey may take more than a cursory interest in it.
afaiaa Finland has a top class education system and no private system.

You are working to the flawed assumption that it is only the rich who use private education

 

[araapatlio]

Because society needs to be organised for the greater good of the majority and not the benifit of an elite.

History is replete with examples of an authoritarian state acting in what it felt was "the greater good"

StillI am off to the pub to have a skinfull i will then drive home oh and I will have a fag or ten in the pub because no one should be ale to force me not to.

The state can stop you from threatening other people with your behaviour.
A private education is not analogous, there is no threat to anyone else.

The landlord can force you not to smoke, it is their property.

 

[araapatlio]

Because society needs to be organised for the greater good of the majority and not the benifit of an elite.

What do you think the state is...? It is run by a self-appointed elite, for the benefit of the elite.

 

[Primal Scream]

You are working to the flawed assumption that it is only the rich who use private education

Not quite, the rich and those who seem to think their children are to good and precious to mix with the locals.

 

[Primal Scream]

A private education is no threat to anyone else. You sure? try thinking about that one again.

I am enjoying this conversation but the Ashes has finished and I am off for a ride, laters

 

[Moon bunny]

It is not the landlord of a pub that forces you not to smoke, in fact many of them would prefer that you were allowed to.
It is a moot point whether private education is a threat to anyone else, as some would see it as a way of buying privilege and taking opportunity from those less well off.

 

[araapatlio]

A private education is no threat to anyone else. You sure? try thinking about that one again.

It is no threat to you, your life or your liberty.

I am enjoying this conversation but the Ashes has finished

Indeed it has!

I am off for a ride, laters

Enjoy

 

[araapatlio]

It is not the landlord of a pub that forces you not to smoke, in fact many of them would prefer that you were allowed to.

Indeed, it is the state. But in a free society, the state wouldn't be involved, but the landlord would still have the power to tell you not to smoke on their premises (as Wetherspoons did, even before the smoking ban).