"Why was education deemed to be necessary for the capital-less?"
The US has benefitted from its parents struggles and now sits atop of giants. Without a socio-economic and political struggle, the idea that the provision of education should be what one can afford remains, as logical but foundation-less.
We see the same debate in Obamacare. It seems illogical to invest in the well-being of others but try to see the societal gain rather than income loss. We struggle in Europe to understand why the Senate vote against such programmes, then spend billions on Prisons/Police/Military. "For the people....?"
The US struggles it seems with the notion of socialism and pays too much regard to individualism. Ive often wondered if the US believed it got rich through capitalism and not that capitalists got rich through it. Of course it now can see capital endeavour moving away from its shores in search of ever wider margins.
The organisation of Religion and of Capitalism have themselves very similar traits and in a love/hate way support each others ends.
Educated populations are more open minded, less norm driven, less ideological, fanatical and more peaceful. I would want people (notice I didnt use the word "government"), people (tax payers) to invest in a supporting the development of a peaceful and open minded society.
The next question is what is it about "education" as its packaged today that would merit investment in it being a public asset.
