Talk politics.

Taxes are not theft. If you disagree, explain how a society can function with no taxes.

"It is the public system which is failing and producing spectacles of ignorance and miseducation..."

Yes, and (let's leave the stupid right and the stupid left out of it for a minute) it's astounding how, regardless that is a fact, it is simply ignored in these arguments. It's as if the fact of education is entirely beside the point of the funding sources for it. "It doesn't matter how much it sucks, so long as it's paid for by someone or another, who cares?"

The systems broken, and it's not going to matter if you throw more fresh cash at it or keep throwing the same old cash at it, because, like a crumbling plaster wall, it can't be papered over with any amount of green paper, no matter who's supplying the paper.

Insanity.

Get off the fucking computer. Without public education AND public investment in scientific research over many many years you wouldn't have one no matter how many little green pieces of paper you might have access to.

I've gotten close, at times, to buying the Libertarian line, and I still think that Government should be very careful about how money is spent, but as time goes on I see proof upon proof that the Libertarianism (with a big L in particular) is utter madness, and dangerous at that.

I support raising taxes right now on the top 5%, particularly the top 1% or 2%. As it stands, they've been robbing the world blind, and have way too many suckers convinced of a taxes-as-theft ideology which simply heaps more and more power into an unrepresentative tiny minority of elites.

Well, we're taxed because we elect representatives that enact legislation allegedly in line with the constituents' reasons. It's not a wholly involuntary process, it's a democratic republic. If you're below 18, then I suppose it could be theft for you, but most people that age don't even pay taxes so it's really a non-issue for them.

We allow others to represent us because ordinary people do not have the time, energy, or education to properly manage the surrounding aspects that make up their day-to-day lives. This is a much better arrangement than leaving all these duties to private entities, because many systems require monopolies which leads to wholesale greed within private organizations, whereas public institutions are required to be transparent and carry a much harsher penalty for corruption. This is not true in all cases, but I've certainly not heard of the latest plumbing or roadwork scandal.

It's also possible to have private entities do this stuff, as long as it is heavily regulated to the point where it is impossible to exploit the clients which have no choice but to rely on them for that service. Where it is regulated to the point where it would be equivalent to a public service anyway. Very small incentives for corruption, very harsh penalties.

Society benefits much greater from laws that prevent exploitation and corruption than it does without. Greed and inflicting misery is human nature, like it or not, and there is an ironic study that states that some of the best leaders are also the worst people- that they have an inflated sense of ego and are motivated to exploit others for profit. For everyone under them, this is a great deal and they are likely to benefit, but for everyone else that person becomes someone who wants to get into their pockets and bank accounts. This is not true in all cases, in fact I won't even say most or half, but these people exist and they're self-serving to the point of criminal negligence.

Not to say that the best society is the most heavily regulated one, in fact many regulations in the US are highly beneficial to corporations as they enable government-mandated or incentivized monopolies to create huge entry barriers to competition. However, without regulation the same thing happens, as you can clearly see from Edison's destructive policies that forced Tesla into a paragraph of history, instead of a book like Edison. In fact, most corporate practices in the early 20th century, from robber barons to new industries, would cut out your eye if it would make them a quick buck. We do not want to return to those times.

So, could private enterprises run a cheaper (in net costs) and better education? Maybe, but it wouldn't be accessible to everyone. In the long run, an uneducated populace is highly detrimental to the growth of a country. Especially for America, who prides itself on its thinkers and innovators. Having a society of haves and have-nots is exactly the conditions that lead to a 3rd world nation.