zlacker

>>pessim+(OP)
This idea is not really new - the California Master Plan for Education essentially promised a free higher education to everyone in California. In 1960. [1]

As these things go, the plan was eroded over time, with the (in)famous Proposition 13 of 1978 dealing a big blow.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Hig...

>>xmddmx+Bo
They implemented a great component of those ideas. Seems like cause for at least some celebration, right? :)

>>ajju+Rp
I'm an educator, and a social democrat (approximately) so "yes"?

What saddens me is that grand (and simple) plan "free education for all" gets watered down and chipped away to "free education for those who have money or connections" and later attempts to shore it up offten amount to "free education for $special_group". While I don't deny $special_group should get free education, what gets me is all the special-pleading going on.

In OOM programming terms, it's like we had a universal principle which was easy to implement, and this has now been replaced by a bunch of switch/case statements...

>>xmddmx+ar
I'm approximately a social democrat too, but I'm also a pragmatist. Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony. Education, like everything, costs money, and we can't just wave a magic wand and change that. The only question is who pays for it: the student, or someone else. "Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea. But I really wish we'd stop calling it something that it's not.

>>lisper+Xs
"social democrat" - are you sure? the point remains: some services are social goods and should be treated as such, so that "nobody lacks for inability to pay". That's not literally "free" but has the same meaning in practice.

>>xmddmx+5y
Something is not free if someone else is forced to pay for it. It’s really easy to be generous with other people’s resources.

>>jonhoh+dC
That's not how the language works. We have long ago decided that "free", when used in the context of social services, is correct enough to be understood.

Do you think that definition is bad? If so, maybe you'll catch more nibbles by trying to engage in a dialog?

>>nxx788+2D
Who is "we"?

I've seen a lot of terms used for social services: subsidized, covered, available by grant, available to those who qualify.

But I don't always see those social services tossing around the word "free".

Sure, sometimes there are "free haircuts for the homeless" or "free medical services for the needy", or "free help to apply for benefits", but generally in the context of entitlements, we're not freely bandying this word around.

>>NoZebr+9K
Free police, free firefighters, free roads, etc. It's all free as far as your average layman is concerned.

>>markdo+KR
I don't think anyone thinks free services don't have costs. Everyone (or nearly everyone) understands they are taxpayer funded. Even to the layman.