In Oz, back in prehistoric times...when I went to school...education was 'free'.  You paid through the nose for 'better' education ie. via Private schools .... fortunately I was 'clever' enough to win scholarships which covered 'most' of the fees....otherwise my family wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Tertiary Ed was free .... as long as your pass marks got you in.... [and you avoided conscription to 'Nam].

Of course, back in the early 70's we were pre-occupied with changing the world...and the Ed system....to the point of boycotting some of the exams because they [we claimed] were nothing that we were taught....but were infact simple general knowledge.

Militant bastards we were.... in between sitting in on court cases re draft-dodging [real-life sociology].

It was interesting times ...

Kantok: you make good points on education cost.

That said, I think some government regulation is necessary to preserve the free market.  Free markets either end up in equilibreum or some form of failed market- you need governments to push things towards equilibreum, and to handle externalities.

I don't think not wanting to have third-party costs imposed by much more powerful entities that do not have your self-interest in mind at all (At least government in theory answers to the people, though that's being strained these days by stuff like the NSA) is entitlement.

However: what will make fewer Brads is that the paths to upward social mobility are much more difficult now than in my time, and my time was slightly more difficult than the 50s/60s.

That said, one counter-possibility: employment may become so bleak that nearly everyone who can will work for themselves, because working for someone will become too little reward.   In this scenario with more businesses starting, we'll see enough of a disparity in outcomes to produce more new rich (but many more new poor who failed at business)

I agree.  The problem is we don't have this now in the US.  We have regulation for the sake of favors designed to benefit particular groups.  Or we have ridiculously complex regulation that is supposed to solve all our problems dreamed up by halfwits and really just full of more favors and pie in the sky ideas, but written into law.  And all of this is never ending regulation (and taxes) which causes the government to grow every larger and ever more invasive.  This is a problem because the larger and more complex the system the greater the barriers to the entrepreneur just starting out.  Regulation certainly should exist, but it needs to be simple and fair.  Two things our system hasn't sniffed in years.  The system NEVER gets simpler, which is why the continually growing complexity should be fought every step of the way. 

Fun example of the system never getting simpler:  people in Pennsylvania were, until the last few years, still paying a tax to support relief efforts from the Johnstown Flood.  Interesting, since the flood occurred in 1889.  
 

This growing sense of difficulty is exactly what I am talking about as a result of the ever increasing complexity of the system.  

Most people who argue against the size of government and the ever increasing regulatory burden are not against having government or regulation, they're just caricatured that way.  They're really against have a system that is so complex that the average small business person can't understand it without thousands of dollars in legal and accounting fees spread across all sorts of areas their business might touch.