Well, if you're determined to stay off topic, this is a good subject to discuss. Perhaps someone can move us to a new thread?
This doesn't exactly make your point that private schools are far cheaper...
You're right, it doesn't. I have to withdraw the 'far' cheaper comment until I can gather more evidence. Thank you for keeping me honest, and Mea Culpa. Still, there are other arguments to consider. Because most families can't afford to pay for both private AND public education, there is little demand for low-cost private education, so when the subsidized tuition of religious schools is taken out of the calculations, one is left with private schools that are largely the domain of the wealthy.
It's as if the government taxed everyone to supply the public with mid-size cars. Since everyone gets a car, and has to pay taxes for it, the only ones who can get something different are the wealthy, who buy luxury vehicles, and poor families who get mini vans subsidized by their church. If you elect to take out the minivans, the average price of private cars appears much higher than it would be in a free market for vehicles. It is reasonable to assume that if parents had the option of directing their child's tuition toward the school of their choice (public OR private), the volume of consumers purchasing low cost private education would drive the non-sectarian tuition average down.
The reason why I am challenging you is that privatization of schools is the latest koolaid in the US.
I'm happy to be challenged, regardless of your motivation. Anything that brings attention to vouchers,
education tax credits, and the benefits of a free market in education is okay by me. Now, there is no one in the US or Canada that has to pay for private education. Those that do so, do so willingly and sometimes at great personal sacrifice. It is reasonable to assume that there are more who would join if they could. People like
these. Describing that choice as 'the latest koolaid in the US' is inflammatory, and suggests an irrational bias.
The private education industry is spending billions in lobbying money (and giving lots to think tanks!) to see this come to pass.
Seeing as you caught me on my unsupportable tuition claim, I'm surprised you would put forward such an obvious exaggeration. I hope you will follow my example and either cite a reference or withdraw this.
Where there is huge money to be made there is a tendency to shade the truth.
I agree. This is why public school teachers and their unions, who are the recipients of this huge money as a result of their near monopoly, should have their arguments against privatization viewed skeptically.
I would take anything written by the Fraser or Cato Institutes with a big grain of salt and check their facts independently.
All facts should be checked independently. In that spirit, rather than resorting to smears, can you show that the Fraser or Cato Institutes are shills for Big Private Education?
BTW, libertarians hold a wide range of opinions on this issue. Although I personally think the education of one's children should be entirely the responsibility of the parents, there are plenty of libertarians who see public education as a necessary component of a democratic society, and therefore a valid public cost which should be shared evenly. So don't go telling everyone that libertarians are trying to shut down all the public schools. Just libertarians like me.