[zerospinboson]

Some things that seemed pertinent that I ran across this afternoon reading Hegel on the topic of charity/poverty:

Poverty in itself does not make men into a rabble; a rabble is created only when there is joined to poverty a disposition of mind, an inner indignation against the rich, against society, against the government, &c. In this way there is born in the rabble the evil of lacking self-respect enough to secure subsistence by its own labour and yet at the same time of claiming to receive subsistence as its right. Against nature man can claim no right, but once society is established, poverty immediately takes the form of a wrong done to one class by another. The important question of how poverty is to be abolished is one of the most disturbing problems which agitate modern society.

When the masses begin to decline into poverty, (a) the burden of maintaining them at their ordinary standard of living might be directly laid on the wealthier classes, or they might receive the means of livelihood directly from other public sources of wealth (e.g. from the endowments of rich hospitals, monasteries, and other foundations). In either case, however, the needy would receive subsistence directly, not by means of their work, and this would violate the principle of civil society and the feeling of individual independence and self-respect in its individual members. (b) As an alternative, they might be given subsistence indirectly through being given work, i.e. the opportunity to work.

While I don't agree with everything he says here, what seems relevant is the boldened bit, coupled with the (admittedly easily overemphasized, but today also relevant when considering the topic of giving charity to, say, the African continent: Giving Charity is inherently (somewhat) demeaning, as it implies you're getting something you did not deserve, but which is given to you "from the bottom of W. Buffett's Heart". Considering that guy made his fortune from investing in companies that happily exploited of lots of Asians, "his heart" might not appeal to you much.
Anyway, this is something that, as a European, in my role as an earthling, particularly bugs me when it comes to discussions about education (as held with Xeno and others in different thread):

Why is it that receiving education is something that should be considered, by those who receive it at a later age, because they for some reason didn't get around to it earlier, a charitable "gift" rather than a right?

and 2:

Why is it that education is primarily considered something that is in your interest?

To the first question the musings before the question seem relevant, and to the second question, this/these consideration(s):

The primary beneficiary of your receiving a good education is not , even though it might seem that way, you, but society as a whole, and, somewhat more specifically, your neighbors, as well as later generations.
Given the fact that most people will manage to live a (relatively) enjoyable life whether or not they receive an education (we've been around far longer than formal schooling has been), this suggests to me that these artificial barriers and limits are in the disinterest of society as a whole, and through it its individual members.
Consider how society has been advancing at an ever-increasing rate ever since we started making sure our children inherited the information of our ancestors through increasingly formalized schooling, and how our civilization has taken off ever since the invention of the alphabet and paper, seeing how some of the fastest growth has been occurring over the past two centuries, when social and monetary barriers to education have been progressively lowered or nearly eliminated, and lastly, ignoring for the moment a number of rather violent wars, how we now enjoy a far higher standard of living than ever considered possible.
Sure, most of this has happened with the benefits only going to a certain percentage of society, but on the whole, the larger that group was, the faster we've been advancing.
Further, consider the fact that "intelligence" and "success" don't come from single, dominant genes, but are both highly unpredictable, polygenic, and influenced by the environment, which means it's impossible to with certainty predict which family might produce a next genius, and, more importantly, which one we might be squandering because he/she went unnoticed. Societies advance and become more tolerant of diversity (assuming this is preferable to you) mostly through education (and some ability/willingness): this applies equally to those who become the next Bernie Madoff and to those who become librarians or stay-at-home-parents.
Receiving a good education, and through it the aforementioned more tolerant attitude, as well as an decreased chance that someone might be taken in by some populist politician, is something that benefits most if not all other members of that society: so why is it that so large a part of the costs that come with getting that education has to come out of one's own pocket?
Just because you're not supposed to meddle in the affairs of other parents?
Sure, there are a few kooks around, and another few religious zealots might make it their goal in life to make sure everyone's kids are "educated right", but you can't avoid those people anyway, as they're also a part of those liberal democracy we're all part of (even though they seem a bit overrepresented in some countries, especially those who never really internalized the lessons of the religious wars of the 17th century).

It's all well and admirable if parents decide to "save up" (lots) and so rationalize the need to pay for their children's education as "a sacrifice I have to, and am very willing to make", and then have to scrape by for a number of years in order to ensure this, but this is only a given if you start from the assumption that only you should be the one who pay(s); and considering that a large part of the gain of having an educated population "goes" to everyone, why isn't a larger part of it paid for by society?
I'm not talking about, nor really interested in the consideration (also mentioned by Hegel in the above quote) how "charity" breeds indolence and idleness, and how there are more than enough chances for suitably motivated individuals to get ahead here, I'm talking about the ignored and/or (imho) underappreciated social value of education, and the strength of that argument as an argument in favor of better access to schooling through better, paid for through taxation, state/federal funding.
Yes, abuse of a system will happen, but even then, indolence happens in every social group, and I'm not convinced the cost from not educating a significant part of society who could've gotten and to some extent appreciated a better education weighs up against a system that focuses on making free-riding impossible.

PS. I'm really not interested in "federal government will likely waste it all" arguments against, as I'm working from the assumption that a government can be effective. Nor am I talking only about tertiary education here, I'm talking about all levels.

Entirely Off-topic: Why does the USA have a privatized prison system? Isn't it sort of odd to put incarceration and (the first part of) reintegration in the hands of people who have a business interest in making sure that recidivism happens?