Should School Attendance be Compulsory?

[New haven america]

Do american high schools not offer technical and vocational classes? Serious question. I know that here in leafland education on how the fuck to do taxes is also sorely lacking.

American schools are literally the worst

False, American schools are usually around the lower 20's when it comes to education rankings.

Also known as the lowest scoring developed nation in the world.

[Bressen]

I can't fathom why people don't understand that all us Libertarians want, at our core, is a society based on voluntary, consensual actions.

1. You want a society where people voluntarily help others with the compassion of their hearts, where the government is just there to make laws and maybe work on infrastructure, and 2. where economics works nothing like how it does in the real world.

3. Which is ironic, considering most of the people in our government who represent Libertarians are neither compassionate, willing to let go of control over other people, or unversed when it comes to economics.

1. I'm such a monster, right?
2. How wouldn't economics work? No, really, how wouldn't they? How does making the use of all services a voluntary exchange suddenly transcend economics into ''not working like it does in the real world''? Did the free market not exist before taxes?
3. Which government are you talking about? If you mean the UK government, then there's next to no Libertarians in there. If you mean the US government, Ron (prior to his resignation) and Rand Paul have their entire platform based on getting the government out of the business of its citizens, which sounds like they're more than willing to let go of control.

[New haven america]

1. You want a society where people voluntarily help others with the compassion of their hearts, where the government is just there to make laws and maybe work on infrastructure, and 2. where economics works nothing like how it does in the real world.

3. Which is ironic, considering most of the people in our government who represent Libertarians are neither compassionate, willing to let go of control over other people, or unversed when it comes to economics.

1. I'm such a monster, right?
2. How wouldn't economics work? No, really, how wouldn't they? How does making the use of all services a voluntary exchange suddenly transcend economics into ''not working like it does in the real world''?
3. Which government are you talking about? If you mean the UK government, then there's next to no Libertarians in there. If you mean the US government, Ron (prior to his resignation) and Rand Paul have their entire platform based on getting the government out of the business of its citizens, which sounds like they're more than willing to let go of control.

1. Not a monster, just misguided.
2. If a government couldn't collect taxes, where do you expect them to get the money to actually run without over printing and causing a massive inflation problem? (Which would have an adverse affect on all classes)
3. The US. I'd like to point out the highest ranking person in the US government to be or associate with Libertarianism is Paul Ryan.

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that charities alone could fix the US' poverty problem? (46 mil. and counting) This is becoming a very popular ideal amongst Libertarians recently, and I want to know how you fell on this.

[Bressen]

1. I'm such a monster, right?
2. How wouldn't economics work? No, really, how wouldn't they? How does making the use of all services a voluntary exchange suddenly transcend economics into ''not working like it does in the real world''?
3. Which government are you talking about? If you mean the UK government, then there's next to no Libertarians in there. If you mean the US government, Ron (prior to his resignation) and Rand Paul have their entire platform based on getting the government out of the business of its citizens, which sounds like they're more than willing to let go of control.

1. Not a monster, just misguided.
2. If a government couldn't collect taxes, where do you expect them to get the money to actually run without over printing and causing a massive inflation problem? (Which would have an adverse affect all classes)
3. The US. I'd like to point out the highest ranking person in the US government to be or associate with Libertarianism is Paul Ryan.

4. Let me ask you a question: Do you think that charities alone could fix the US' poverty problem? (46 mil. and counting) This is becoming a very popular ideal amongst Libertarians recently, and I want to know how you fell on this.

2. My main is opposition is to income tax. I've made the case for having a sales/consumption/VAT system which the government could depend upon to fund the essentials, such as the courts, military and the police. However, see point 4 for why this might not even be necessary.
3. Paul Ryan isn't a Libertarian, not by a long shot. He's just a good advocate for limited government, which is a value Libertarians and Conservatives share and hence why the Republican party was home to Rand and Ron Paul.
4. There's no reason why it couldn't, but you don't even need to revert to charities to do all that work. My only issue is that the government shouldn't be involved in the process of social welfare if their involvement is at the expense of the taxpayer; if you want to VOLUNTARILY give money to fund these government programs, go ahead and do it. I'm sure the government's social welfare programmes would survive just fine if they reverted to a voluntary source of income for them, because people like these social welfare programmes. Hell, even I'd probably voluntarily give some of my paycheck to the government if they showed aptitude in and were better than charities at alleviating poverty. They key point here is that it needs to be a voluntary exchange; it's a feudalist idea that the government (or those in charge) should be able to force their citizens to give them money under the threat of being thrown in a cage.

[New haven america]

1. Not a monster, just misguided.
2. If a government couldn't collect taxes, where do you expect them to get the money to actually run without over printing and causing a massive inflation problem? (Which would have an adverse affect all classes)
3. The US. I'd like to point out the highest ranking person in the US government to be or associate with Libertarianism is Paul Ryan.

4. Let me ask you a question: Do you think that charities alone could fix the US' poverty problem? (46 mil. and counting) This is becoming a very popular ideal amongst Libertarians recently, and I want to know how you fell on this.

2. My main is opposition is to income tax. I've made the case for having a sales/consumption/VAT system which the government could depend upon to fund the essentials, such as the courts, military and the police.
3. Paul Ryan isn't a Libertarian, not by a long shot. He's just a good advocate for limited government, which is a value Libertarians and Conservatives share and hence why the Republican party was home to Rand and Ron Paul.
4. There's no reason why it couldn't, but you don't even need to revert to charities to do all that work. My only issue is that the government shouldn't be involved in the process of social welfare if their involvement is at the expense of the taxpayer; if you want to VOLUNTARILY give money to fund these government programs, go ahead and do it. I'm sure the government's social welfare programmes would survive just fine if they reverted to a voluntary source of income for them, because people like these social welfare programmes. Hell, even I'd probably voluntarily give some of my paycheck to the government if they showed aptitude in and were better than charities at alleviating poverty. They key point here is that it needs to be a voluntary exchange; it's a feudalist idea that the government (or those in charge) should be able to force their citizens to give them money under the threat of being thrown in a cage.

2. Ok, enjoy having a candy bar cost more than 30$.
3. Yes he actually is (At least heavily associated with the party). He's a major Rand supporter (who created Objectivism, which is one of the largest influences on American Libertarianism), and does a lot to limit government and social services/safety net (Leaving it more to the people). Granted he has said that he reject Rand's ideals, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions haven't changed, at all...
4. Knew you were gonna say something along those lines, here's why you're wrong: There is almost no organization that collect nearly enough money to help large poor populations except for one: A countries government. There is no charity big enough to collect and manage that much money, nor are people generous enough to actually donate enough to keep those things running, and thinking that there is is horrendously naïve. The government is the only body in a country that can actually handle such large populations, they're the only body that can handle the amount of stress and responsibility that a job like fixing poverty would cause.

[Bressen]

2. My main is opposition is to income tax. I've made the case for having a sales/consumption/VAT system which the government could depend upon to fund the essentials, such as the courts, military and the police.
3. Paul Ryan isn't a Libertarian, not by a long shot. He's just a good advocate for limited government, which is a value Libertarians and Conservatives share and hence why the Republican party was home to Rand and Ron Paul.
4. There's no reason why it couldn't, but you don't even need to revert to charities to do all that work. My only issue is that the government shouldn't be involved in the process of social welfare if their involvement is at the expense of the taxpayer; if you want to VOLUNTARILY give money to fund these government programs, go ahead and do it. I'm sure the government's social welfare programmes would survive just fine if they reverted to a voluntary source of income for them, because people like these social welfare programmes. Hell, even I'd probably voluntarily give some of my paycheck to the government if they showed aptitude in and were better than charities at alleviating poverty. They key point here is that it needs to be a voluntary exchange; it's a feudalist idea that the government (or those in charge) should be able to force their citizens to give them money under the threat of being thrown in a cage.

2. Ok, enjoy having a candy bar cost more than 30$.
3. Yes he actually is (At least heavily associated with the party). He's a major Rand supporter (who created Objectivism, which is one of the largest influences on American Libertarianism), and does a lot to limit government and social services/safety net (Leaving it more to the people). Granted he has said that he reject Rand's ideals, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions haven't changed, at all...
4. Knew you were gonna say something along those lines, here's why you're wrong: There is almost no organization that collect nearly enough money to help large poor populations except for one: A countries government. There is no charity big enough to collect and manage that much money, nor are people generous enough to actually donate enough to keep those things running, and thinking that there is is horrendously naïve. The government is the only body in a country that can actually handle such large populations, they're the only body that can handle the amount of stress and responsibility that a job like fixing poverty would cause.

2. Now who's being unrealistic?
3. He might identify and associate with Libertarianism, but being pro-war and pro-obscenity laws isn't very Libertarian.
4. If that's the case, that still doesn't mean the government can't be funded voluntarily by the people to provide these services.

[Thermodolia]

American schools are literally the worst

False, American schools are usually around the lower 20's when it comes to education rankings.

Also known as the lowest scoring developed nation in the world.

So pretty much the worst

[New haven america]

False, American schools are usually around the lower 20's when it comes to education rankings.

Also known as the lowest scoring developed nation in the world.

So pretty much the worst

No, that's some rural African or Asian country.

America's only the 20th worst, so you'll learn some things... maybe.

[New haven america]

2. Ok, enjoy having a candy bar cost more than 30$.
3. Yes he actually is (At least heavily associated with the party). He's a major Rand supporter (who created Objectivism, which is one of the largest influences on American Libertarianism), and does a lot to limit government and social services/safety net (Leaving it more to the people). Granted he has said that he reject Rand's ideals, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions haven't changed, at all...
4. Knew you were gonna say something along those lines, here's why you're wrong: There is almost no organization that collect nearly enough money to help large poor populations except for one: A countries government. There is no charity big enough to collect and manage that much money, nor are people generous enough to actually donate enough to keep those things running, and thinking that there is is horrendously naïve. The government is the only body in a country that can actually handle such large populations, they're the only body that can handle the amount of stress and responsibility that a job like fixing poverty would cause.

2. Now who's being unrealistic?
3. He might identify and associate with Libertarianism, but being pro-war and pro-obscenity laws isn't very Libertarian.
4. If that's the case, that still doesn't mean the government can't be funded voluntarily by the people to provide these services.

2. Where do you expect them to get the fekking money then? Get rid of income tax, everything else is gonna get raised to compensate. (This can be seen in Oregon, which got rid of sales tax, but had to compensate with income tax)
3. Yes, but due to how he views himself and how others view him, he's now your figurehead in America. Embrace that, maybe him and Bernie can have an epic dual or something.
4. No, it can't, no human is generous enough to support the government with the billions-trillions it needs.

[Bressen]

2. Now who's being unrealistic?
3. He might identify and associate with Libertarianism, but being pro-war and pro-obscenity laws isn't very Libertarian.
4. If that's the case, that still doesn't mean the government can't be funded voluntarily by the people to provide these services.

2. Where do you expect them to get the fekking money then? Get rid of income tax, everything else is gonna get raised to compensate. (This can be seen in Oregon, which got rid of sales tax, but had to compensate with income tax)
3. Yes, but due to how he views himself and how others view him, he's now your figurehead in America. Embrace that, maybe him and Bernie can have an epic dual or something.
4. No, it can't, no human is generous enough to support the government with the billions-trillions it needs.

2. A sale tax isn't going to cause a substantial increase in the cost of goods if that sales tax is used only to fund the essentials of government.
3. Yeah, no. I'd rather not embrace a pseudo-Libertarian.
4. Why wouldn't it work? People are pro-taxes because they value the services the government provides, so they've no excuse to not voluntary donate to these services other than the fact they genuinely don't care about these services or only want everyone else's to fund these services whilst getting them for free; "I like taxes, but not for me".

[New haven america]

2. Where do you expect them to get the fekking money then? Get rid of income tax, everything else is gonna get raised to compensate. (This can be seen in Oregon, which got rid of sales tax, but had to compensate with income tax)
3. Yes, but due to how he views himself and how others view him, he's now your figurehead in America. Embrace that, maybe him and Bernie can have an epic dual or something.
4. No, it can't, no human is generous enough to support the government with the billions-trillions it needs.

2. A sale tax isn't going to cause a substantial increase in the cost of goods if that sales tax is used only to fund the essentials of government.
3. Yeah, no. I'd rather not embrace a pseudo-Libertarian.
4. Why wouldn't it work? People are pro-taxes because they value the services the government provides, so they've no excuse to not voluntary donate to these services other than the fact they genuinely don't care about these services or only want everyone else's to fund these services whilst getting them for free; "I like taxes, but not for me".

2. If you remove income tax, everything will be risen to compensate.
3. Why? Our government already has.
4. Because people are greedy and would rather keep their money, and in a society where that's a perfectly viable option (If one could actually survive for more than a few days off paper), no one's going to give their money away. Until we eliminate scarcity this will always be a problem.

[Thermodolia]

So pretty much the worst

No, that's some rural African or Asian country.

America's only the 20th worst, so you'll learn some things... maybe.

We are still the worst of the developed world, so much so that we might as well be a third world nation

[Lady Scylla]

In many cases today, vocational training is more valuable than traditional college degrees. We should look into funding those some more, or at least incorporate some more relevant life skills into school curriculums. Let's teach kids how to cooks steaks, change tires, balance budgets and etc. instead of underwater basketweaving, Latin, and comic book analyzation.

Do american high schools not offer technical and vocational classes? Serious question. I know that here in leafland education on how the fuck to do taxes is also sorely lacking.

They do at mine. There was a 'Life' class that taught bills, cooking, etc and then farming, automotive, livestock, woodworking, business & communication, law enforcement, ROTC, and computer tech.

[Narland]

Usually whenever I try to complain about stuff, I make a fool of myself. Now for a controversial topic that probably won't make me sound stupid. Anyway, so, I am personally against compulsory school due to the fact that people should be responsible for getting their own education. If schooling is left to be a persons decision, it will probably then go back to being left to the free market. This would be good because it could allow schooling to be competitive and create supply and demand for schooling.

Whatd'ya think? I know I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, so feel free to correct me politely

Re: Should School Attendance be Compulsory? No. no, it should not.

Schooling and education are not synonymous. In some systems schooling is a great hindrance to one's education. Some people thrive under scholastic tutelage, and others languish until they can be set free to learn for themselves.

I did much better reading through the entirety of the textbooks; writing theses, reports, and essays from the local public and college libraries and presenting them to the teacher (and expositions to class when permitted); than when stuck in those same classes bored to tears over material already learned. Except for a 7th grade Chemistry experiment (--successful, I might add), which got me suspended for two weeks, it worked out pretty well. Compulsory attendance would have diminished my education greatly.

Good rules of thumb:
1. Never confuse schooling with a good education.
2. Never let schooling interfere with a good education.
3. Always let your schooling spark/arouse/draw out a good education in you.
4. Always learn as much and as best you can. (Good teachers are able to help you do this).
5. Find the best teachers and learn from them when feasible.
6. If learning isn't (educationally) a challenge you are may be doing schooling wrong.
7. If learning isn't (educationally) rewarding (irl) your schooling may be doing you wrong.

Good questions to ask:
1. What model of education does the school purport to use--i.e. What is their purpose and goal?
2. If you agree, how efficacious are they at reaching those goals?
3. What kind of adult are they trying to create?
4. What is the end (result) of the typical graduate?
5. Is that the type of adult you want to be at graduation?

[Zottistan]

But why would they do that? A large inspiration for the market to build a school would be to make a profit and employ people.

Well what's more important?
The profit or the education of one's children?

So I'm dubious about leaving education to the market because I in general don't trust the free market, but that's an incredibly stupid question. It's like asking a car manufacturer "what's more important, profit or making a quality car?". You can't do one without the other.

I'd feel weird saying classroom attendance should be compulsory considering I am at present skipping school but yeah, it really should.

[Calladan]

Well what's more important?
The profit or the education of one's children?

So I'm dubious about leaving education to the market because I in general don't trust the free market, but that's an incredibly stupid question. It's like asking a car manufacturer "what's more important, profit or making a quality car?". You can't do one without the other.

I'd feel weird saying classroom attendance should be compulsory considering I am at present skipping school but yeah, it really should.

Oh that is so not true. You can make a lot of profit by making incredibly cheap and tatty crap as long as you have a good marketing campaign. Most movies work on that assumption. Even political campaigns.

iPhones are not the best phones in the world, but Apple's marketing is second to none. They make it the "NEXT BIG THING" and people want it because they are told they should want it, so they make a fuck load of profit of a second rate product.

Betamax was a clearly superior type of video tape, but VHS won out because it had more mass market appeal.

You can either educate children well, or you can make a profit. It is rare that you can do both well.

[Frank Zipper]

Betamax was a clearly superior type of video tape, but VHS won out because it had more mass market appeal.

The reason Betamax failed was you could fit a whole movie on a VHS tape, whereas on a Betamax tape you couldn't.

[Industrial Virginia]

So I'm dubious about leaving education to the market because I in general don't trust the free market, but that's an incredibly stupid question. It's like asking a car manufacturer "what's more important, profit or making a quality car?". You can't do one without the other.

I'd feel weird saying classroom attendance should be compulsory considering I am at present skipping school but yeah, it really should.

Oh that is so not true. You can make a lot of profit by making incredibly cheap and tatty crap as long as you have a good marketing campaign. Most movies work on that assumption. Even political campaigns.

iPhones are not the best phones in the world, but Apple's marketing is second to none. They make it the "NEXT BIG THING" and people want it because they are told they should want it, so they make a fuck load of profit of a second rate product.

Betamax was a clearly superior type of video tape, but VHS won out because it had more mass market appeal.

You can either educate children well, or you can make a profit. It is rare that you can do both well.

What are you, some sort of android user? < jokes. Anyway, I don't believe education will work that way due to the need of education to employ people. A large part of education would be to get people employed, and if that doesn't happen the corporation won't have people to work the jobs.

[Forsher]

Usually whenever I try to complain about stuff, I make a fool of myself. Now for a controversial topic that probably won't make me sound stupid. Anyway, so, I am personally against compulsory school due to the fact that people should be responsible for getting their own education. If schooling is left to be a persons decision, it will probably then go back to being left to the free market. This would be good because it could allow schooling to be competitive and create supply and demand for schooling.

Whatd'ya think? I know I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, so feel free to correct me politely

Invariably, the people who oppose compulsory education are those who misunderstand the relationship, purposes and nature of education, school, society and people.

In the case of the above OP... competition, quite simply, does not work in education. Think about who exactly the consumer is. Is it the child who understands nothing, something or not so much as they think? Is it the parent who isn't actually consuming the service? Is it the government for whom each citizen is little more than a new steam engine/other capital item? The consumer is problematic, even if we can identify the supplier.

The truth is, from the perspective of a school, that the pupil is, essentially, a raw material that is in short supply. Thus, what competition actually means, when it comes to school, is about pupils and acquiring them. There are obviously several ways of doing this in an entirely "free" system. You can offer a product so flash people will kill for it. You can make people think people kill for it.* Or you can talk the talk, and exploit the existence of transfer (? I've forgotten the jargon) costs that make people unwilling to switch schools (e.g. a different school is out of the way, pupil resistance, destabilising consequences of change**) in the case people notice you're not walking the walk. In practice, of course, you're going to try and offer the best service you can, but you can't do this without a consistent roll, so you're going to spend money on marketing (which is wasted money insofar as it could be spent on improving the product***).

When we generally talk about introducing competition to a market (or more of it), what we're after is the stimulation of innovatory practices created by a sort of natural selection (and when this doesn't happen you might imagine zombie firms as the result... see: Japan). How exactly survival translates into improvements is unclear, but a lot of the time it revolves around finding inefficiencies and resolving them. Increasing productivity is, thus, probably the main thing to takeaway. So, our question, then, is how would firms (er, schools) improve education if they're competing for pupils? That is, assuming it is not so broad as does competition help with education?

When you actually talk to people involved in education or, even, free-market ideologues like parts of NZ's National Party, co-operation is actually the big thing. Basically, developing networks of exchange and participation, sharing of resources and [stuff]. Yet, we've already established that competition in schools actually means pitting schools against each other in order that they maintain roll sizes (look up death spirals for why this is important). In other words, we're hoping that schools collude, reducing competition, and form cartel like things (hopefully without the drugs or the oil prices... I'm hilarious). What was the point again?

Look, maybe we'll get some teachers in a garage who figure out some better way of teaching or of marketing education, but why doesn't that happen anyway? It's not possible to design a non-arbitrary means of measuring teacher performance, for the same reason that it is possible to argue that "schooling" and "education" are entirely separate things. Hence, the incentives teachers possess will either be for the best interest's of their pupils (compromised by competition) or to develop methods that better work within the framework of whatever arbitrary measurement system they're subject to (which would be good, if we assume that the measurement system aligns with what we're after).

Does the specific means of "competivising" education suggested here (i.e. non-compulsory attendance) functionally change the above analysis? Insofar as the starting point is roll maintenance... no. You see, instead of marketing to parents (who control where their darlings go to school), you're now marketing to pupils. Yet, it happens that education is filled with credence qualities... or, in other words, the point of the lesson today might hit you on the head in ten, twenty years time. People do not know what they need, but they do know what they want... and even when their wants align with society's wants. that might not be a good thing. The best we can do is try to strike a balance between individual desires and social need... and between temporal demands (imagine how you would feel if you started a thread about education and assumed supply and demand for it doesn't exist without competition because that week you decided to spend playing Candy Crush robbed you of the relevant economics lessons?). That is to say, we're not here to let you close doors that you'll regret having had closed later... and that if you're in the minority who wants to "rebel" against this dastardly practice, you're just going to have to lump it.

To move beyond the OP a bit... if non-compulsory schooling worked for society, it would exist.

*Remind you of anything? It should. Do you even know where you are?

**At this point, refresh your memory of the assumptions of perfect competition... i.e. the case where the market works properly.

***Technically, marketing is more than just promotion so these kinds of product improvement are included. However, I am being condescending so I'm assuming you don't know this fact.

[Kaboomlandia]

Wait...it isn't already?

[Forsher]

Oh gee looks like my post was skipped over, I guess it's because this guy does not understand the affect of population on economic activity
I tell ya, what's up with folks praising markets while only having a rough idea how they work?

I know how markets work.

I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.

Ah, the inflation fallacy.

Here's a clue: what if I told you that you were a company too?

I know how markets work.

I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.

Inflation is a measure to reduce the effects of debt on both a personal and national level, for fuck's sake.

Not really?

I mean, inflation is really important to take into account when you're thinking about debt (see: time value of money), but it's a more general concept, i.e. a sustained increase in the price level (or something more technically described).

It causes a bunch of issues, but should work out in the long term (see above) and is somewhat necessary (and broadly agreed to be better than deflation, which is why people worry if we're in a new era where low inflation is natural... this gives little slack to avoid falling into deflation).

No.

A debt is a fixed figure of cash value money you owe someone, minus the interest.
Inflation functionally devalues the figure of debt.
After 100% inflation, a £3000 debt is "worth" only £1500 of "old money", because it's still valued at £3000.
Meanwhile, your pay packet goes from £20k to £40k.

Use the term real... the nominal value (£3000) remains the same but the real value decreases with inflation. It's real because it reflects the tangible usefulness of currency, e.g. how much rice the debt is worth.

How this works with government debts is probably more complex. I don't know off the top of my head. I hesitate to guess.

[Calladan]

Betamax was a clearly superior type of video tape, but VHS won out because it had more mass market appeal.

The reason Betamax failed was you could fit a whole movie on a VHS tape, whereas on a Betamax tape you couldn't.

Wouldn't that depend on the length of the movie? (smirk)

But from a brief reading of this and this it suggests the main difference was cost. VHS was cheaper, so it was more popular.

Which - as I said - shows that you can make cheaper tat, because in the end people will probably buy something of slightly less quality because it is cheaper than something of higher quality if it costs more.

And while for video recorders, or food, or even cars that is not that serious, when it comes to educating your child, I am not sure that is the best way to run a system.

[Frank Zipper]

The reason Betamax failed was you could fit a whole movie on a VHS tape, whereas on a Betamax tape you couldn't.

Wouldn't that depend on the length of the movie? (smirk)

There aren't many movies under an hour in length, which was the longest tape available on Betamax at first. Watching movies, either recording off TV, or renting, was what the market wanted more than higher quality home movies.

[Ryock]

On the poor and education thing, you do know there is such thing as public charity right?
People will try to look good, or are actually good, so they will donate to charity.
Plus, there is also inheritance and finally, EARNING YOUR MONEY.
You should try and earn money or save up before having a child! Otherwise, don't have one.

If you are raped, or just have an unexpected pregnancy, take birth control or have an abortion.
DONE.

What if those people cannot afford birth control or abortions?

[Industrial Virginia]

On the poor and education thing, you do know there is such thing as public charity right?
People will try to look good, or are actually good, so they will donate to charity.
Plus, there is also inheritance and finally, EARNING YOUR MONEY.
You should try and earn money or save up before having a child! Otherwise, don't have one.

If you are raped, or just have an unexpected pregnancy, take birth control or have an abortion.
DONE.

What if those people cannot afford birth control or abortions?

uhhhhhhhh, going back to EARNING YOUR MONEY
And if you dare say that the government should provide that, it's taking that from OTHER PEOPLE'S money. Which they EARNED