I got it from Fox news, if any snide criticism can be laid at the source.

That wouldn’t be difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Administrative_divisions

23 out of 26 Iraqi provinces are stable, and the three remaining are where the majority of violent incidents are occuring.

The three remaining also account for the majority of the population, do they not?

Aren’t you implying that most of those who would buy for their children ‘low-quality, low-cost’ learning, would be giving preference to buying such things as I have mentioned: home renovations and decorations, cars, TVs, boats, caravans, DVDs, mobile phones, microwaves, pizzas, playstations, and so on.

Nope, I’m not implying that. However, you seem to imply that the only reason people can not afford to purchase a good education for their children is because they spend so much on things they don’t need. Do you really think in a truly free market economy there would be no lower economic class?

Your argument depends on the false premise that the whole population is at the level of subsistence and is thus unable to afford their own living expenses, including educating their own children, and that’s why they need the state to pay.

No, my argument assumes that for a long time to come there will be a nontrivial portion of parents who are relatively poor. To me, it is insane that their children will not be able to participate in the economy as productive citizens due to lack of a good education (and, at least in the USA, due to lack of decent police protection). Why condemn the kids for the sins of their parents (if being poor is in any way a sin)?

Also, you have not addressed the issues I have raised as to why this or that should be considered a public good.

Education is a public good because everyone pays for the ignorant. Ignorance is a vast drain on the economy; people can not be as productive (or as good as consumers) without knowledge and skill. I thought this was obvious.

If education, why not food?

You’ll not be surprised that a minimum of food, shelter, and medical care is in my program too. Why? When people struggle to put food on the table and a roof over their heads, they can’t participate in the economy in a useful way.

Why not everything?

Because not everything is essential to being productive. Education, food, shelter, and health care are pretty much the foundation. You know the saying, “Teach a man to fish….”

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=67

Q8 Taking everything into account, do you feel that things are better for you now under the present political system or do you think thinks were better for you before under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein?

49% Better under the current system
26% Better under the previous regime
16% Neither, they are just as bad as each other
5% Don’t know/Refused
3% No Answer

49% say it is better and 42% say it is no better. Positive but hardly decisive. Maybe the first figure will improve with time.

Aren’t you implying that most of those who would buy for their children ‘low-quality, low-cost’ learning, would be giving preference to buying such things as I have mentioned: home renovations and decorations, cars, TVs, boats, caravans, DVDs, mobile phones, microwaves, pizzas, playstations, and so on. You are not addressing the issue. Your argument depends on the false premise that the whole population is at the level of subsistence and is thus unable to afford their own living expenses, including educating their own children, and that’s why they need the state to pay.

Also, you have not addressed the issues I have raised as to why this or that should be considered a public good. If education, why not food? Why not everything?