I don't know much about the world bank, other then they don't like protesters. Do you think that it is a form of effective capitalism or third world help?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think it was an effective form of third-world help, and continues to be important in many ways. This is a good article on the changing role of the WB
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think Dr. Paul said it about as well as it could be said. The creation of state controlled corporate capitalism (sic) is what's given capitalism a bad name. Here in the US, if you ask people for an example of capitalism being bad, they almost always cite the "robber barons" and their railroads. If you tell them that the robber barons were only able to perpetrate their abuses with government support, they simply won't believe you.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"If you tell them that the robber barons were only able to perpetrate their abuses with government support, they simply won't believe you."
Lisa, I know you're not stupid, so I'm not going to mention that good public education for everyone is the best way to keep people from the kind of closed-minded race/gender/class-based cronyism that marked the robber-baron era, as well as the corruption going on today. IMHO. Did you have a better solution?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So steven, since you didn't tell the truth about what you weren't going to mention, does that also mean that you don't realize I'm not stupid?
"Good public education" is an oxymoron. You assume that the only way to be sure that children get an education is for the government to run schools. That's ridiculous.
And the best way to prevent the cronyism of the robber-baron era is simply to disallow government meddling in such things. Had the railroad owners been forced to make it or break it on their own, without government help, only the ones who were honest would have succeeded.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Good public education" is an oxymoron. You assume that the only way to be sure that children get an education is for the government to run schools. That's ridiculous.
While in many cases the public education system is very much not what most people would consider "good" to imply that public education is never good is simply untrue. I went to the local public high school, coming out of it I got into a top-30 university and have felt extremely well prepared the entire time I have been here. Better than many of the people who came out of private school for that matter. The fact that there are many poor public schools does not mean that "good public education" does not exist.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And the best way to prevent the cronyism of the robber-baron era is simply to disallow government meddling in such things. Had the railroad owners been forced to make it or break it on their own, without government help, only the ones who were honest would have succeeded.
Seriously? I would think that government deregulation (that is to say preventing the government's involvement, or "meddling" in a given industry) is probably the best way to ensure that the DIShonest people will come out ahead. True corrupt government intervention hurts, but no regulation hardly favors the honest people.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by xtownaga:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Good public education" is an oxymoron. You assume that the only way to be sure that children get an education is for the government to run schools. That's ridiculous.
While in many cases the public education system is very much not what most people would consider "good" to imply that public education is never good is simply untrue. I went to the local public high school, coming out of it I got into a top-30 university and have felt extremely well prepared the entire time I have been here. Better than many of the people who came out of private school for that matter. The fact that there are many poor public schools does not mean that "good public education" does not exist.
I disagree with you. You can learn well anywhere. But public education, by definition, is going to indoctrinate you in ways the government wants. That's the little "extra" you got along with the reading, writing and arithmetic.
quote:Originally posted by xtownaga:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And the best way to prevent the cronyism of the robber-baron era is simply to disallow government meddling in such things. Had the railroad owners been forced to make it or break it on their own, without government help, only the ones who were honest would have succeeded.
Seriously? I would think that government deregulation (that is to say preventing the government's involvement, or "meddling" in a given industry) is probably the best way to ensure that the DIShonest people will come out ahead. True corrupt government intervention hurts, but no regulation hardly favors the honest people.
What you don't understand, because the big corporations do their best to hide it from you, is that what allows them to misbehave and get away with it is government aid. They get bailed out. They get tax perks. They get favored status and they get government contracts. The regulation is a minor inconvenience to them, and it's more than worth it to them if they get to keep having their state-given goodies.
The only monopolies that really last are those that have government propping them up. The power companies could never have gotten as out of hand as they have without their government-granted monopoly status. If they'd had to compete like everyone else, power would be a helluva lot cheaper. And if people were able to switch to another power company when one of them spilled chemicals in their backyards (in addition to suing them), I guarantee you that the companies would be a lot more careful.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Note: I don't consider it government meddling to place limits on emissions and such from factories. If I point a gun out of my window and shoot someone across the street, I can hardly claim that I'm within my rights because I pulled the trigger on my property. Spewing filth into the air is fine, so long as it stays on the property of the spewer. But it doesn't work that way. Oozing poison into the ground is everyone's right, so long as it stays within the bounds of the oozer's property. But until someone figures out how to do that, it's legitimate to punish someone who oozes out of their boundaries or spews out of their boundaries, just as it's proper to punish me from shooting outside of mine.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Lisa, being a Jew, I hardly see how you can be against good public education. How else can people learn not to hate other religions and races? Private education won't do it, at least not always. I agree government meddling makes a mess, but...it also, I'd have to say, reduces bloodshed in the long run. When unions and employers go at it unchecked, the results are often ugly. Conflicts over class and race don't always resolve themselves, sometimes blood gets shed. The answer? Education.
Pogroms and the Holocaust were the direct result of ignorance, the kind of ignorance that only public education is designed to decisively weaken. Or did I miss something?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Lisa, being a Jew, I hardly see how you can be against good public education. How else can people learn not to hate other religions and races?
<shudder> That's terrifying. Steven, do you get that if the government is allowed to teach your children not to hate, it's also allowed to teach them to hate? That's Pandora's Box, Steven. You can't grant that kind of power and think you can control it.
This is not the role of government. If someone hates me, that's their right. If they do something to me because of it, that's not. Maybe you feel comfortable with a government that's about controlling how people think. But as you pointed out, I'm a Jew. I have relatively recent proof of how well that works.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Private education won't do it, at least not always. I agree government meddling makes a mess, but...it also, I'd have to say, reduces bloodshed in the long run. When unions and employers go at it unchecked, the results are often ugly.
Government should punish crimes. Not tell people how to act in the absence of crimes. Allowing employers to blow up unionizers is wrong. Allowing unionizers to blow up scabs is wrong. Legislating protection for unions so that employers can't fire who they want to is wrong. This is not what government is for. We are not meant to be ruled, Steven. Government is to protect us from violence, fraud and theft, and to mediate disputes.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Conflicts over class and race don't always resolve themselves, sometimes blood gets shed. The answer? Education.
The answer? Persuasion. Not coercion.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Pogroms and the Holocaust were the direct result of ignorance, the kind of ignorance that only public education is designed to decisively weaken. Or did I miss something?
Pogroms and the Holocaust were the direct result of the government establishing its own moral rules and enforcing them at the point of a gun. So... yeah, I guess you must have missed something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Government should punish crimes. Not tell people how to act in the absence of crimes. Allowing employers to blow up unionizers is wrong. Allowing unionizers to blow up scabs is wrong. Legislating protection for unions so that employers can't fire who they want to is wrong. This is not what government is for. We are not meant to be ruled, Steven. Government is to protect us from violence, fraud and theft, and to mediate disputes.
You're taking as a given a lot of things here that are really just a matter of opinion, obviously.
By the reasoning you're using, power that can be misused should never be granted in the first place. Well, the truth is, all power can be misused. The government should have the power to protect us from violence, you say? Well then, that surely means the government should have the power to ban boxing, for example, or drinking to excess in public, etc.
As for your talk about unions...well, the pendulum swings. For hundreds of years in this country, employers have had almost all of the power in their dealings with the employed. Do you imagine that they would have yielded that power up without some form of government coercion?
Which, by the way, was a foregone conclusion in a democratic society. There are more workers than employers, and so given a long enough time span, the workers will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I guess the question, Lisa, is...where do you get all these enlightened people to run the government? More to the point, where do you get the voters who will elect them? You have to educate them out of hate. It's easier to educate a young child away from hate, than to wait until he's an adult, and have to kill him. IMHO.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: By the reasoning you're using, power that can be misused should never be granted in the first place. Well, the truth is, all power can be misused. The government should have the power to protect us from violence, you say? Well then, that surely means the government should have the power to ban boxing, for example, or drinking to excess in public, etc.
That doesn't follow. Boxing, as distasteful as it is, is voluntary. Yes, the government should stop boxers from hitting people who don't want to be hit. But boxing is something that the two people agree on. It's their brains that are getting pounded, so it's their business. And drinking to excess? It isn't the place of government to protect people from themselves. But if you drink, its your choice. And anything you do under the influence should be considered as though it were premeditated.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for your talk about unions...well, the pendulum swings. For hundreds of years in this country, employers have had almost all of the power in their dealings with the employed. Do you imagine that they would have yielded that power up without some form of government coercion?
I don't know what kind of power you're talking about. The government should always have prevented employers from killing unionizers. That has nothing to do with business and trade; it's a matter of law. That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Which, by the way, was a foregone conclusion in a democratic society. There are more workers than employers, and so given a long enough time span, the workers will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
There are more Christians than non-Christians in the US. So given a long enough time span, the Christians will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Just paraphrasing. Except that we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents that. There should be the same sort of Constitutional separation of the government from the economy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I guess the question, Lisa, is...where do you get all these enlightened people to run the government? More to the point, where do you get the voters who will elect them? You have to educate them out of hate. It's easier to educate a young child away from hate, than to wait until he's an adult, and have to kill him. IMHO.
So because persuasion is harder, we should resort to coercion? I don't think that stands up ethically. Morally bad shortcuts aren't better because you like the results. The ends do not justify the means.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:That doesn't follow. Boxing, as distasteful as it is, is voluntary. Yes, the government should stop boxers from hitting people who don't want to be hit. But boxing is something that the two people agree on. It's their brains that are getting pounded, so it's their business. And drinking to excess? It isn't the place of government to protect people from themselves. But if you drink, its your choice. And anything you do under the influence should be considered as though it were premeditated.
I know it's voluntary, I was just wondering if your thinking on this was as absolute as your statement. So, we've got a qualifier. That's good.
As for drinking to excess, arguably it doesn't just hurt the people doing it. Families, friends, the health-care system, all are negatively impacted when someone goes to the hospital for a failing liver, or any other of a host of alcohol-related problems (such as drunk driving, for example).
I guess there shouldn't be seatbelt or helmet laws, either? For that matter, why should there be restrictions on firearm ownership? In fact, shouldn't I be able to own biochemical weapons (assuming I could make them), so long as I don't actually use them on anybody?
quote:I don't know what kind of power you're talking about. The government should always have prevented employers from killing unionizers. That has nothing to do with business and trade; it's a matter of law. That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
I think you would probably know what kind of power I'm talking about if you gave it some further consideration. Power to hire, fire, dock wages or raise them for any reason at all. Power to change working conditions for better or worse at whim. Power to compel extra hours at regular pay, or even at no pay as a condition of employment. Power to compel employees to live in your own housing, to buy your own merchandise, etc. etc.
These things are why unions got started in the first place. They didn't just up and decide, "Hey, workers, time to get uppity! Let's seize advantage wherever we can!"
quote:That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
This does not prove in and of itself that government should not be involved with employer-employee business relations.
quote:As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
*shrug* The place of government is where the governed says it is, ultimately. Unless we're talking about some abstract moral concept here, in which case why are you arguing as though you're reasoning from facts?
Not having the government involved resulted in some pretty crappy situations, Lisa. Monopolies, strike-breakers, poorly paid workers, etc. etc. Now it could be plausibly argued that we've gone too far, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that anything is too far.
quote:There are more Christians than non-Christians in the US. So given a long enough time span, the Christians will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Just paraphrasing. Except that we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents that. There should be the same sort of Constitutional separation of the government from the economy.
Eh, except that's not happening. In fact the trend is quite the opposite, despite the demographic majority of Christians in the USA, so your paraphrasing doesn't wash.
The relationship between employers and workers is quite different, and doesn't really make a reasonable comparison anyway.
Why should there be a 'First Amendmant' regarding the economy? All of your posts on this subject have seemed to be reasoning from this as a given. It's not.
quote:So because persuasion is harder, we should resort to coercion? I don't think that stands up ethically. Morally bad shortcuts aren't better because you like the results. The ends do not justify the means.
Coercion is always more ethical than persuasion, once the stakes get high enough. At least if you widen your scope past the individual.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Monopolies
oh no you di'int
oh you gon git it now
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lisa,
quote:That doesn't follow. Boxing, as distasteful as it is, is voluntary. Yes, the government should stop boxers from hitting people who don't want to be hit. But boxing is something that the two people agree on. It's their brains that are getting pounded, so it's their business. And drinking to excess? It isn't the place of government to protect people from themselves. But if you drink, its your choice. And anything you do under the influence should be considered as though it were premeditated.
I know it's voluntary, I was just wondering if your thinking on this was as absolute as your statement. So, we've got a qualifier. That's good.
You could simply have asked. Or would that have been less fun?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: As for drinking to excess, arguably it doesn't just hurt the people doing it. Families, friends, the health-care system, all are negatively impacted when someone goes to the hospital for a failing liver, or any other of a host of alcohol-related problems (such as drunk driving, for example).
No, no, no. The "emotional harm" to families is not the business of government. The health care system can only be impacted by it if you start with a bad health care system that makes other people pay for the drinker's idiocy. And drunk driving is something I already talked about. Any action taken while willingly under the influence of alcohol should be treated as premeditated. You choose to drink, you're guilty. You cause any harm by drunk driving, you should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I guess there shouldn't be seatbelt or helmet laws, either?
Good. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: For that matter, why should there be restrictions on firearm ownership? In fact, shouldn't I be able to own biochemical weapons (assuming I could make them), so long as I don't actually use them on anybody?
What's your point?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I don't know what kind of power you're talking about. The government should always have prevented employers from killing unionizers. That has nothing to do with business and trade; it's a matter of law. That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
I think you would probably know what kind of power I'm talking about if you gave it some further consideration. Power to hire, fire, dock wages or raise them for any reason at all.
And that's problematic exactly why? A job isn't a right. It's not some sort of natural resource that anyone has a right to. It's an agreement to trade money for work. Employers should be able to choose what labor they buy and from whom exactly as I'm able to choose what breakfast cereal I want to buy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Power to change working conditions for better or worse at whim.
That's what contracts are for. Changing working conditions in breach of a signed contract is something the government should deal with. But if someone chooses to work without a contract, that's just foolish.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Power to compel extra hours at regular pay, or even at no pay as a condition of employment. Power to compel employees to live in your own housing, to buy your own merchandise, etc. etc.
Again, it's a matter of value for value. If someone doesn't want to work under X conditions, they don't have to. They can go elsewhere. Employment is not a right. Employment as you want it is certainly not a right.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: These things are why unions got started in the first place. They didn't just up and decide, "Hey, workers, time to get uppity! Let's seize advantage wherever we can!"
I have absolutely no problem with unions. And boycotts. And other economic pressure. I have a problem with the government being involved.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That they didn't was because the businessmen were in bed with the politicians. Which is exactly what government should not be allowed to do.
This does not prove in and of itself that government should not be involved with employer-employee business relations.
No, it doesn't. But the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that a third party (government or otherwise) is entitled to interfere in agreements between individuals, whether the individual is an employer or otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:As far as economic power is concerned, no. Once again, it is not the place of government to use people as pawns and manipulate the way employer-employee relations work. That includes bad things such as minimum wages.
*shrug* The place of government is where the governed says it is, ultimately.
Might makes right. Nice.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unless we're talking about some abstract moral concept here, in which case why are you arguing as though you're reasoning from facts?
Because morals are a matter of fact.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Not having the government involved resulted in some pretty crappy situations, Lisa. Monopolies, strike-breakers, poorly paid workers, etc. etc. Now it could be plausibly argued that we've gone too far, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing that anything is too far.
Correct. And you're entirely incorrect. Those situations were not ones in which there was no government involvement. On the contrary, there was ample government involvement. Without it, monopolies would never have been able to exist (except to the benefit of everyone).
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:There are more Christians than non-Christians in the US. So given a long enough time span, the Christians will use the force of government to achieve their goals.
Just paraphrasing. Except that we have the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents that. There should be the same sort of Constitutional separation of the government from the economy.
Eh, except that's not happening. In fact the trend is quite the opposite, despite the demographic majority of Christians in the USA, so your paraphrasing doesn't wash.
My point is that if it weren't for the First Amendment, it most certainly would happen. The First Amendment is under constant attack by one Christian group or another. You're claiming that since there are more employees than employers, there will always be government interference. I'm saying "not if it were to be barred in the same way government interference in religion is barred".
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The relationship between employers and workers is quite different, and doesn't really make a reasonable comparison anyway.
Why should there be a 'First Amendmant' regarding the economy? All of your posts on this subject have seemed to be reasoning from this as a given. It's not.
Because it's an area where people, by their observable nature, cannot be trusted to leave others alone. As you pointed out yourself, without a Constitutional bar, people will use political power to get their way over others in the realm of economics, just as they would in the area of religion. It was for that reason that the First Amendment was created. The Founders knew better than to trust Congress to stay out of religion, so they took it out of their hands. But if you read what they wrote, they did think that the government would stay out of people's business. Not very foresighted of them, but no one is perfect.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:So because persuasion is harder, we should resort to coercion? I don't think that stands up ethically. Morally bad shortcuts aren't better because you like the results. The ends do not justify the means.
Coercion is always more ethical than persuasion, once the stakes get high enough. At least if you widen your scope past the individual.
There is no scope past the individual. And short of protecting individuals from the initiation of force against them and their possessions, there is no legitimate purpose of government.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Monopolies
oh no you di'int
oh you gon git it now
Heh.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:You could simply have asked. Or would that have been less fun?
I dunno, you tell me. You've used similar rhetoric before.
quote:No, no, no. The "emotional harm" to families is not the business of government. The health care system can only be impacted by it if you start with a bad health care system that makes other people pay for the drinker's idiocy. And drunk driving is something I already talked about. Any action taken while willingly under the influence of alcohol should be treated as premeditated. You choose to drink, you're guilty. You cause any harm by drunk driving, you should be prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
OK, so now we need to take a step further. We need to not only radically restructure government, but also radically restructure the health care system (on a fundamental level). Just to be clear here.
Also, having an alcoholic family member is often not just a matter of 'emotional distress', you know. But that goes back to this health care system which somehow has only the sick individual paying for his own health care, or is that only with drinkers and other self-inflicted maladies?
quote:Good. I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
No, we don't agree on that (and nice rhetorical technique, btw! *points up*). And frankly it's obvious there should be helmet and seatbelt laws, and I can justify it without even bringing in auto and health insurance costs: accidents involving serious injuries or even fatalities cost more for our law enforcement and emergency service people to handle. They put both those responders and passersby at greater risk, for example, interstate accidents.
Even if we assume that accident on a 70mph road has zero impact on health care and auto insurance costs, it still impacts everyone badly.
quote:What's your point?
My point is pretty clear: the line has to be drawn somewhere.
quote:And that's problematic exactly why? A job isn't a right. It's not some sort of natural resource that anyone has a right to. It's an agreement to trade money for work. Employers should be able to choose what labor they buy and from whom exactly as I'm able to choose what breakfast cereal I want to buy.
The government is not, nor should it be, (nor is it, according to the Constitution), in the business of solely protecting the rights of its citizens. Scope out the Preamble if you don't believe me.
The ability to switch jobs is not always as absurdly easy as it is to switch cereal brands, Lisa.
quote:That's what contracts are for. Changing working conditions in breach of a signed contract is something the government should deal with. But if someone chooses to work without a contract, that's just foolish.
Some people lack the means to effectively demand a contract, Lisa. Their children certainly can't compel their parent's employers to demand a fair contract. But those kids probably shouldn't have been foolish enough to be born to low-wage workers, or else we'll need to radically redesign another massive government system to your idea of survival of the fittest as governing principle.
quote:Again, it's a matter of value for value. If someone doesn't want to work under X conditions, they don't have to. They can go elsewhere. Employment is not a right. Employment as you want it is certainly not a right.
This is just wrong once you venture just a little bit out of the abstract. Johnny Workinman and Rosie Riveter, paying a mortgage and supporting two children, one with asthma, do not effectively have the choice to just pick up stakes and move elsewhere. I'm not advocating employment as a right, either.
I'm advocating a system which does not demand workers have access to high-powered attorneys to negotiate contracts on their behalf while being opposed by the attorneys of their employers. Who do you think gets routinely screwed in that fight, Lisa? Maria Lopez or Wal-Mart?
quote:I have absolutely no problem with unions. And boycotts. And other economic pressure. I have a problem with the government being involved.
Government involvement was only necessary because of a history of government involvement for employers.
quote:No, it doesn't. But the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to claim that a third party (government or otherwise) is entitled to interfere in agreements between individuals, whether the individual is an employer or otherwise.
It's a good thing I've got the Constitution on my side. Because it's not just about the individuals involved. Whadda you got?
quote:Might makes right. Nice.
Dude, that is precisely the system you're advocating.
quote:Because morals are a matter of fact.
Your morals, obviously. *rolleyes*
quote:Correct. And you're entirely incorrect. Those situations were not ones in which there was no government involvement. On the contrary, there was ample government involvement. Without it, monopolies would never have been able to exist (except to the benefit of everyone).
Pardon me, I was imprecise. I meant, "Not having government involvement with support towards the workers."
There are no privately owned businesses which I would trust to own and operate a monopoly of anything even approaching necessities.
quote:My point is that if it weren't for the First Amendment, it most certainly would happen. The First Amendment is under constant attack by one Christian group or another. You're claiming that since there are more employees than employers, there will always be government interference. I'm saying "not if it were to be barred in the same way government interference in religion is barred".
Attacks on the First Amendment are hardly limited to Christians. Also, you take it as a given that private religion is equivalent to employer-employee relations, which is, again, not remotely a given.
quote:Because it's an area where people, by their observable nature, cannot be trusted to leave others alone. As you pointed out yourself, without a Constitutional bar, people will use political power to get their way over others in the realm of economics, just as they would in the area of religion. It was for that reason that the First Amendment was created. The Founders knew better than to trust Congress to stay out of religion, so they took it out of their hands. But if you read what they wrote, they did think that the government would stay out of people's business. Not very foresighted of them, but no one is perfect.
Pretty simplistic analysis, Lisa. It was hardly only to prevent government interference that the First Amendment was created.
quote:There is no scope past the individual. And short of protecting individuals from the initiation of force against them and their possessions, there is no legitimate purpose of government.
In a community, there is often (perhaps even always) a scope past the individual. And you can state as fact your own philosophy on government all you want, it doesn't for a minute make it true. I think the purposes outlined in the Preamble to our Constitution are pretty damned legitimate, and they go further than protection against theft by force.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
"Natural monopoly" is a term invented as a justification for government sponsored monopolies. There's no such thing.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Lisa, violence is a part of life. You cannot breed this out of humans. Given this, the only way to beat the problem (that I yet am aware of) is to educate people fully. Since our world is yet populated, to some degree, by the ignorant/hate-filled...public education has it's place.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
"Natural monopoly" is a term invented as a justification for government sponsored monopolies. There's no such thing.
Wow. You know I"m a Ph.D student in economics, right? You've just lost any credibility I might have given you in the realm of economics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Lisa, violence is a part of life. You cannot breed this out of humans. Given this, the only way to beat the problem (that I yet am aware of) is to educate people fully. Since our world is yet populated, to some degree, by the ignorant/hate-filled...public education has it's place.
No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Lisa, may I ask what your position is regarding regulation in industries where natural monopolies exist?
"Natural monopoly" is a term invented as a justification for government sponsored monopolies. There's no such thing.
Wow. You know I"m a Ph.D student in economics, right? You've just lost any credibility I might have given you in the realm of economics.
And I'm a mere B.A. in economics, I know. What's your point? If you want to give an example, rather than use your degree program as a bludgeon, I'm happy to hear it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms—that is, there are economies of scale in social costs. Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.
The very fact that you consider the concept of "natural monopolies" as so beyond question as to make anyone suggesting otherwise lose all credibility in your eyes tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the Ph.D. program you're in. Question your assumptions, Jhai.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no.
Heck, we tried this for, what...thousands of years? Exclusive reliance on private education (or lack thereof), that is.
Didn't work so great.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no."
Tell you what, I'll pay for your daughter's college, assuming you'll send her to either Bob Jones, Pensacola Christian College, or Liberty University. I mean goodness, Lisa, really. Do you want to be taken seriously or not?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "No, it doesn't. Education, yes. Government run, no."
Tell you what, I'll pay for your daughter's college, assuming you'll send her to either Bob Jones, Pensacola Christian College, or Liberty University. I mean goodness, Lisa, really. Do you want to be taken seriously or not?
That's an odd comment for you to make, Steven. What does Bob Jones and Co. have to do with anything?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Isn't DiLorenzo that guy who keeps saying that the Confederacy should rise again and secede from the union?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't know. Does it matter? He certainly didn't say anything like that in the article I linked. Did you read it, or is it just easier to make ad hominem attacks?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Whoa there. Don't be so high strung.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
So, the government is not running education in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to insure even the lowest level of education in that case. Without basic literacy, voting becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental principals of a democracy.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms—that is, there are economies of scale in social costs. Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.
The very fact that you consider the concept of "natural monopolies" as so beyond question as to make anyone suggesting otherwise lose all credibility in your eyes tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the Ph.D. program you're in. Question your assumptions, Jhai.
Some people claim that communism works on the large scale, or that the earth is flat. They're free to say whatever they want, but making those claims means that I will no longer grant them much in the area of economics or science. Claiming that natural monopolies simply don't exist means you have a fundamental lack of understanding of key parts of microeconomics.
I'm reasonably open to your general positions, Lisa. I think the Austrian school has added value to mainstream economics, and there's a number of GMU economists I admire. But natural monopolies, as commonly defined, exist, and to claim otherwise is foolish. This isn't something my (mainstream) economics program has taught me, it's something I can read the literature on and decide for myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So, the government is not running education in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to insure even the lowest level of education in that case. Without basic literacy, voting becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental principals of a democracy.
Apparently that would be either the child's fault, or the parent's fault, in either case the child being screwed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:An industry is said to be a natural monopoly if one firm can produce a desired output at a lower social cost than two or more firms—that is, there are economies of scale in social costs. Unlike in the ordinary understanding of a monopoly, a natural monopoly situation does not mean that only one firm is providing a particular kind of good or service. Rather it is the assertion about an industry, that multiple firms providing a good or service is less efficient (more costly to a nation or economy) than would be the case if a single firm provided a good or service. There may, or may not be, a single supplier in such an industry. This is a normative claim which is used to justify the creation of statutory monopolies, where government prohibits competition by law. Examples of claimed natural monopolies include railways, telecommunications, water services, electricity, mail delivery and computer software. Some claim that the theory is a flawed rationale for state prohibition of competition.
The very fact that you consider the concept of "natural monopolies" as so beyond question as to make anyone suggesting otherwise lose all credibility in your eyes tells me that there's something seriously wrong with the Ph.D. program you're in. Question your assumptions, Jhai.
Some people claim that communism works on the large scale, or that the earth is flat. They're free to say whatever they want, but making those claims means that I will no longer grant them much in the area of economics or science. Claiming that natural monopolies simply don't exist means you have a fundamental lack of understanding of key parts of microeconomics.
Did you even bother reading it? It's not that long, and it's quite well sourced. Microeconomics does not mean that theory takes precedence over actual facts. The theory of natural monopolies was never established; it was simply maintained. And not by economists, either. It was a political maneuver, and economists have simply adopted it as a given.
In actual fact, every time competition has been introduced into a so-called "natural monopoly" situation, the result has been lowered prices and increased benefits for consumers. It's documented. Cognizant as I am of the fact that "voodoo economics" is often a bit of a redundancy, the field does not have to be detached from actual evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm reasonably open to your general positions, Lisa. I think the Austrian school has added value to mainstream economics, and there's a number of GMU economists I admire. But natural monopolies, as commonly defined, exist, and to claim otherwise is foolish.
It's foolish because... it is? Why is it foolish? If it fits the evidence in the real world, it's a good theory. If it doesn't, it's a bad theory. Can you give some examples of the theory of "natural monopolies" being borne out in the real world? Failing that, can you explain away the counter-examples in that paper? Assuming that you've read it, that is.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: This isn't something my (mainstream) economics program has taught me, it's something I can read the literature on and decide for myself.
I've offered you some literature. You've offered me your unsupported statement that natural monopolies simply must exist, otherwise microeconomics would be overturned, or something.
What's an example of a natural monopoly, in your view? If I can show you cases of competition in the area of your example that do not bear out the gloom and doom scenarios promised by mainstream economics, would you reconsider it? Would you at the very least offer up cases of competition in those areas that were disastrous, as a counter-example to my claims, or would you simply stick with, "Natural monopolies exist because they do"?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: So, the government is not running education in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to insure even the lowest level of education in that case. Without basic literacy, voting becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental principals of a democracy.
So, the government is not running meals in your perfect world. I don't see a mechanism to ensure even the lowest level of nutrition in that case. Without basic nutrition, healthy living becomes impossible, which is one of the fundamental needs of human beings.
And before you poo-poo the analogy, I suggest that you take a good hard look at it, because it's as close as analogies come to being good.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If I do not feed my child, the state will come and take her away. If I do not educate my child, will the state come and take her away? Does increasing the reasons for the state to take my child increase the state's power more than providing an education?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"That's an odd comment for you to make, Steven. What does Bob Jones and Co. have to do with anything?"
They are certainly private schools. Doesn't that make them automatically better than any public college?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: When monopoly did appear,it was solely because of government intervention.For example,in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company ]of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly. This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers,and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues.This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.
Legislative "regulation"of gas and electric companies produced the predictable result of monopoly prices,which the public complained bitterly about.--p6
Those lucky industries that were able to be politically designated as "public utilities"also used the public utility concept to keep out the competition.--p7
In one of the first statistical studies of the effects of rate regulation in the electric utilities industry,published in 1962,George Stigler and Claire Friedland found no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions from 1917 to 1932.Early rate regulators did not benefit the consumer,but were rather "captured" by the industry,as happened in so many other industries,from trucking to airlines to cable television.--p8
from Lisa's artcle, bolds mine. If there were "no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions" (the conclusion of a study the author uses to support his argument, even though it doesn't), how were public utilities "gouging" consumers and "sharing the loot" with fatcat politicians? And how would that be different in the author's radical arguement that all city streets should be privately owned? Wouldn't all that loot just go to rich private owners instead of local governments?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "That's an odd comment for you to make, Steven. What does Bob Jones and Co. have to do with anything?"
They are certainly private schools. Doesn't that make them automatically better than any public college?
No. There are a ton of private colleges. You're just playing games.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote: When monopoly did appear,it was solely because of government intervention.For example,in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company ]of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly. This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers,and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues.This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.
Legislative "regulation"of gas and electric companies produced the predictable result of monopoly prices,which the public complained bitterly about.--p6
Those lucky industries that were able to be politically designated as "public utilities"also used the public utility concept to keep out the competition.--p7
In one of the first statistical studies of the effects of rate regulation in the electric utilities industry,published in 1962,George Stigler and Claire Friedland found no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions from 1917 to 1932.Early rate regulators did not benefit the consumer,but were rather "captured" by the industry,as happened in so many other industries,from trucking to airlines to cable television.--p8
from Lisa's artcle, bolds mine. If there were "no significant differences in prices and profits of utilities with and without regulatory commissions" (the conclusion of a study the author uses to support his argument, even though it doesn't), how were public utilities "gouging" consumers and "sharing the loot" with fatcat politicians? And how would that be different in the author's radical arguement that all city streets should be privately owned? Wouldn't all that loot just go to rich private owners instead of local governments?
Did you read it, or just cherry pick quotes? The process is private enterprise agreeing to pay a big chunk of change to the government for the privilege of being labeled a "natural monopoly". A payment which they pass on to the consumers. Net result: they don't have to worry about competition, and the consumers pay through the nose.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"No. There are a ton of private colleges. You're just playing games."
Ahh, so good judgment comes into play. Yes. You neglected to mention the need for common sense, and I felt I had to find out if you believed in the need for it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "No. There are a ton of private colleges. You're just playing games."
Ahh, so good judgment comes into play. Yes. You neglected to mention the need for common sense, and I felt I had to find out if you believed in the need for it.
Like I said, playing games. People who want to send their kids to Bob Jones, steven, have that choice. What you want is to deny people that choice. Force them to send their children to government run schools, or if they choose to send them to private schools, pay for the public ones anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Like I said, playing games. People who want to send their kids to Bob Jones, steven, have that choice. What you want is to deny people that choice. Force them to send their children to government run schools, or if they choose to send them to private schools, pay for the public ones anyway.
As much as steven is playing games (not that you don't), you're not answering a fundamental question about what it appears you're suggesting: by what mechanism do you ensure children obtain an education?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If it's determined that an education is necessary for children, something I'd agree with, but something that isn't necessarily a given, I wouldn't have a problem requiring parents to provide an education for their children. In the same way that parents are required to provide food and other necessities to their children.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You think it's a given that government exists only for the purposes you outlined above, but it's not a given that education is necessary for children? That's a very puzzling disconnect to me.
quote:In the same way that parents are required to provide food and other necessities to their children.
How do you do this without the kind of government meddling you clearly despise? And what about really poor parents?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You think it's a given that government exists only for the purposes you outlined above, but it's not a given that education is necessary for children? That's a very puzzling disconnect to me.
Why? I know of people who did quite well without much formal education. It's not a given that withholding education is abusive. That said, I would probably be on the side claiming that it should be a parental obligation. Probably.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:In the same way that parents are required to provide food and other necessities to their children.
How do you do this without the kind of government meddling you clearly despise? And what about really poor parents?
If I choose to bring a child into this world, I'm accepting responsibility for this person's well-being. It's voluntary. A child isn't a possession, like a shoe. It's a person. And it didn't ask to be born. I'm responsible for my choices. So is every parent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess you'd have to have the children forcibly taken away frheyyy i see what you did there
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So... You guys don't trust monopolies...
Yet you trust government? The biggest, baddest monopoly of them all? Who can raise what you pay for their "services" without your consent? Who can order you into combat? Who can take your kids? Who can decide what you eat? What you smoke? What you can drive? Can thrust you into prison? Can destroy your life through accident, malice or incompetence?
Wow. But at least they protect us from other monopolies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:Why? I know of people who did quite well without much formal education. It's not a given that withholding education is abusive. That said, I would probably be on the side claiming that it should be a parental obligation. Probably.
It's certainly not a given that withholding college education is abusive. I'd say it's certainly a given that withholding education is abusive, if it's at all possible for a parent to see that their child gets it.
I don't understand why you're so reluctant about it being a parental obligation, though. If seeing to your child's education (degree of education is a different discussion) isn't a parental obligation, what it?
quote:If I choose to bring a child into this world, I'm accepting responsibility for this person's well-being. It's voluntary. A child isn't a possession, like a shoe. It's a person. And it didn't ask to be born. I'm responsible for my choices. So is every parent.
Ummm...OK. I don't recall saying that children were possessions, or that parents aren't responsible for their children. I was asking what happens to the children of the parents who fail badly?
-------
Pix,
Who said I trust government?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
TANSTAAFL There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The problem with libertarians, expecially with Libertarians and Randians, is that they think that the world should be all free lunch.
[ February 27, 2008, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I disagree, Aspectre. They don't in my experience believe in the free lunch, they just think the private sector can successfully provide for all the lunches.
I don't trust the private sector to do much beyond look after its own best interests.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope. They drive on the roads, but don't wanna pay the folks who built those roads. TANSTAFFL means that ya can't use the infrastructure and societal stability built by the work of the current and previous generations to subsidize building your own road. Not without paying the FULL cost.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it hardly matters if they don't want to pay the folks who built the roads right now, aspectre, `cause they are anyway. They just (usually) think that a privately-funded group, which would get paid probably more by the people who use the road, should do the building and that it could do so at a smaller cost.
I'm not sure what you mean about talking about past generations and such the build a road at 'FULL' cost.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The world didn't magicly appear out of nothing when a person finally became capable of working. That person was HUGELY subsidized all the way. If nothing else, by not having their brain splattered by the first thug who wanted their lollipop, or who didn't like the way they looked.
Thing is, there are a LOT of *something else*s which make up the infrastructure. And that infrastructure was built upon the infrastructure built by the previous generation, which was built upon the infrastructure built by the previous generation's previous generation, etc... To claim that eg a road is entirely paid for by the current gasoline tax is ignoring the usage of previously built infrastructure which made building that road financially feasible.
Current social stability is similarly subsidized by the work of previous generations.
Libertarians and Randians wanna pretend that it all came for free. Then set up a buncha thugs as police and judges and jailers and executioners solely to protect the parasites who can steal the most from our common inheritance.
[ February 27, 2008, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually the thing about the roads is they're paid for in a perfect way. A way a Libertarian would design it (apart from the anarcho-libertarians who think all roads should be private.)
When we buy a tank of gas, there is a gas tax associated with it. The more you use the roads (the more you drive) and the more you abuse the roads (drive a larger car/suv/truck/semi) the more gas you use and thus, the more gas tax you pay.
This all breaks down, of course, when the socialists loot the infrastructure funds to pay for more social programs.
Aspectre: And those roads and infrastructure were paid for by the gas tax of the time. They aren't free, they're ALREADY PAID FOR. Once you go back far enough, roads were created where people's wagons traveled more often than not. They were de facto roads and not made by any government.
Your charactarization of people who are well off betrays your underlying class envy. You don't think rich people earned what they have. You think they stole it and are, in your words "parasites."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
People who think that class is important enough to envy don't have any, never did, and probably never will.
And no, those roads were paid for by LOTS of others; you didn't pay for them. Neither will those who use those roads to build private roads. If they did, they couldn't afford to finance building a private road.
[ February 27, 2008, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Why? I know of people who did quite well without much formal education. It's not a given that withholding education is abusive. That said, I would probably be on the side claiming that it should be a parental obligation. Probably.
It's certainly not a given that withholding college education is abusive. I'd say it's certainly a given that withholding education is abusive, if it's at all possible for a parent to see that their child gets it.
I'd also argue that it's the case. But I do not accept that it's a given. Saying that it's a given means that no one can claim otherwise in good faith, and I'm not willing to say that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't understand why you're so reluctant about it being a parental obligation, though. If seeing to your child's education (degree of education is a different discussion) isn't a parental obligation, what it?
A really good idea. And I'll repeat, yet again, that I think it is a parental obligation. I feel that I have to repeat it, because you seem to be trying to push things to a point where you'll be able to say, "See, Lisa doesn't think parents need to provide an education!" I don't choose to allow you to do that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If I choose to bring a child into this world, I'm accepting responsibility for this person's well-being. It's voluntary. A child isn't a possession, like a shoe. It's a person. And it didn't ask to be born. I'm responsible for my choices. So is every parent.
Ummm...OK. I don't recall saying that children were possessions, or that parents aren't responsible for their children. I was asking what happens to the children of the parents who fail badly?
What happens to parents who can't feed their children?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: TANSTAAFL There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The problem with libertarians, expecially with Libertarians and Randians, is that they think that the world should be all free lunch.
<blink> And black is white. And hot is cold. And... other absolute nonsense that's the exact opposite of reality, such as libertarians and Objectivists wanting everything for free. Nutty.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Nope. They drive on the roads, but don't wanna pay the folks who built those roads.
What a load of hooey. We wouldn't have chosen for the government to take over the job of building roads in the first place.
Here in Chicago, we sometimes have a situation where you stop your car at an intersection, and a kid runs out and starts cleaning your windshield. And then asks to be paid for it. Screw that. I didn't ask for my windshield to be washed.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: TANSTAFFL means that ya can't use the infrastructure and societal stability built by the work of the current and previous generations to subsidize building your own road. Not without paying the FULL cost.
And I owe that kid for cleaning my windshield, because I'm benefiting from it. Feh.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Aspectre: No, they're already paid for. Just as I said.
It's funny you use the term inheritance, because that's a good word for it. Just as you inherit stuff from your parents, we inherit our laws, social structure and infrastructure from our parents.
You don't pay for inheritance. You get it by virtue of being the next generation. In a sense, it IS free.
John Adams said "I must study politics and war so my sons may study mathematics and philosophy" He did NOT add "And I will charge them for it." He did it because that's what the previous generation does. And that's what we will do for the next generation.
After, of course, we get done taxing their savings away to fund our social security and pay people not to work.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Here in Chicago, we sometimes have a situation where you stop your car at an intersection, and a kid runs out and starts cleaning your windshield. And then asks to be paid for it. Screw that. I didn't ask for my windshield to be washed.
I wonder if turning on your wipers as they approach would dissuade people from doing this.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa,
quote:A really good idea. And I'll repeat, yet again, that I think it is a parental obligation. I feel that I have to repeat it, because you seem to be trying to push things to a point where you'll be able to say, "See, Lisa doesn't think parents need to provide an education!" I don't choose to allow you to do that.
Well, you can read my mind all you like, but I'm not trying to get you to say that parents don't need to provide an education.
I'm trying to understand why you don't think it's a given that parents have an obligation to see to their child's education insofar as they are able. Thus, for example, a parent in sub-Saharan Africa whose child does not graduate from high school (or gotten a GED, or something) has not neglected any responsibility, whereas a parent of a child in the United States has. You're not comfortable saying that?
Also, I'll just point out again how silly it is to hear you complain about other people playing games, when you do so so often. Such as you've been doing for these past few posts.
quote:What happens to parents who can't feed their children?
If they can't as opposed to won't, they should have easy and reliable access to government assistance to adress the problem. What do you think should happen?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Here in Chicago, we sometimes have a situation where you stop your car at an intersection, and a kid runs out and starts cleaning your windshield. And then asks to be paid for it. Screw that. I didn't ask for my windshield to be washed.
I wonder if turning on your wipers as they approach would dissuade people from doing this.
I used to have a car where the washer fluid would shoot out almost sideways if you weren't moving. It was a perfect angle to catch washer-homeless in the face. (Good thing I lived in the boonies.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What a load of hooey. We wouldn't have chosen for the government to take over the job of building roads in the first place.
Here in Chicago, we sometimes have a situation where you stop your car at an intersection, and a kid runs out and starts cleaning your windshield. And then asks to be paid for it. Screw that. I didn't ask for my windshield to be washed.
Because, of course, obvious panhandling is exactly as useful to you as infrastructure.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Rak: I think her point was that she didn't ask for it. I happen to disagree with her when it comes to roads, but I think her point was pretty obvious. She did not give her consent, implicitly or tacitly, it was thrust upon her.
The obvious answer is "well, then leave" but unfortunately, every bit of usable world already has some government sitting on it and they're all worse than the one we have.
Just as soon as we find a nice earth-like planet and get FTL space ships though, sayo~nara.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pixiest,
I know what her ultimate point was, but the comparison she made was absurd.
quote:John Adams said "I must study politics and war so my sons may study mathematics and philosophy" He did NOT add "And I will charge them for it." He did it because that's what the previous generation does. And that's what we will do for the next generation.
I wonder, which generation should've been stuck with paying for the interstate highway system? Or World War 2?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm trying to understand why you don't think it's a given that parents have an obligation to see to their child's education insofar as they are able. Thus, for example, a parent in sub-Saharan Africa whose child does not graduate from high school (or gotten a GED, or something) has not neglected any responsibility, whereas a parent of a child in the United States has. You're not comfortable saying that?
Actually, I'm probably less likely to make that allowance for the parent in sub-Saharan Africa than you are, but sure, I'd probably say that. And at the same time, I say it's not a given. There may be situations, even here in wonderful USAmerica, where it's not the best choice. Where learning a trade is far more important and appropriate than learning geometry.
I will point out that I have yet to use trigonometry for anything whatsoever in my life. Okay, that's not entirely true. I did start out in engineering school, so I used it there, but other than that, never. Why should all children have to learn trig? Why should all children have to take literature courses? Reading is one thing, but reading Hamlet? To Kill a Mockingbird? Grapes of Wrath? Why?
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, I'll just point out again how silly it is to hear you complain about other people playing games, when you do so so often. Such as you've been doing for these past few posts.
I haven't done any such thing.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What happens to parents who can't feed their children?
If they can't as opposed to won't, they should have easy and reliable access to government assistance to adress the problem. What do you think should happen?
They should be entitled to ask any foundation or individuals for assistance. They should absolutely not be entitled to force me to assist them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What a load of hooey. We wouldn't have chosen for the government to take over the job of building roads in the first place.
Here in Chicago, we sometimes have a situation where you stop your car at an intersection, and a kid runs out and starts cleaning your windshield. And then asks to be paid for it. Screw that. I didn't ask for my windshield to be washed.
Because, of course, obvious panhandling is exactly as useful to you as infrastructure.
Concretizing analogies is a lame rhetorical trick. The issue is the same. You don't get to decide what's more and less useful to me. There are interstate highways I've been forced to pay money into that I've never used. My daughter goes to private school, but I pay for public school. Where's my utility there?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
If we find a couple dozen earth-like planets and get feasible space travel, I would love to see how it'd turn out if humanity said "Okay, all the Libertarians can go to this planet, all the Socialists can go to that planet, all the Anarchists can go to this other planet, etc." Like each colony ship has a statement of principles you have to agree to to sign on, and that's how the colony is going to be run.
For this scenario, instead of FTL how about cryogenics with slow space travel, so that any sort of inter-planetary government would be less feasible and each planet could have its own government (or lack thereof) with less interference. Then after all the colonies are there, see how it goes for a few hundred years.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wonder, which generation should've been stuck with paying for the interstate highway system? Or World War 2?
Who says the interstate highway system should have been built by the government? You don't build something if you don't have the money for it. Saying, "Well, we'll just force people to pay us for making this for them" is immoral.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They should be entitled to ask any foundation or individuals for assistance. They should absolutely not be entitled to force me to assist them.
*shrug* I'm absolutely fine with them being able to force you to help ensure their children won't starve to death, and I am very, very far from being even close to convinced that some foundations or individuals would spring up in the absence of government programs. And with paying in my share to the same cause.
The very reason private companies would be more efficient at building roads is because they're looking out for their own bottom line, that forces competition, and competition compels some measure of quality.
At what point are private organizations going to step up to help stop children from starving to death? Where's the money in that?
quote:I will point out that I have yet to use trigonometry for anything whatsoever in my life. Okay, that's not entirely true. I did start out in engineering school, so I used it there, but other than that, never. Why should all children have to learn trig? Why should all children have to take literature courses? Reading is one thing, but reading Hamlet? To Kill a Mockingbird? Grapes of Wrath? Why?
This gets into an argument of degree (no pun intended) of education, which is a different matter.
quote:There may be situations, even here in wonderful USAmerica, where it's not the best choice. Where learning a trade is far more important and appropriate than learning geometry.
Sure, in the abstract I'll bet there are such cases. In reality, though, I think it's safe to say that it's pretty much always a better choice to get a high school diploma than it is to learn a trade-programs for which generally involve getting a diploma.
quote:I haven't done any such thing.
Well, that's true I guess. When you said:
quote:No. There are a ton of private colleges. You're just playing games.
To steven, it wasn't exactly a complaint, even though it read that way.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Your daughter got a private education, but she still reaps many of the benefits of the public education system. She lives in an educated society. The class system is not nearly as static as it would be otherwise. There are more innovations and businesses and other opportunities (financial) when you have well educated people. As far as being forced to pay for something you don't want, you accept the benefits by living and working in this country. By being here, you are giving your acceptance. If you say, well, I would go somewhere else, but there is no where better,that is still a form of acceptance. You have chosen this as the best alternative. And since this is America, you can try to get people to your side and change the system. Convince enough people you are right and to vote as you want and you can have your society.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: If we find a couple dozen earth-like planets and get feasible space travel, I would love to see how it'd turn out if humanity said "Okay, all the Libertarians can go to this planet, all the Socialists can go to that planet, all the Anarchists can go to this other planet, etc." Like each colony ship has a statement of principles you have to agree to to sign on, and that's how the colony is going to be run.
For this scenario, instead of FTL how about cryogenics with slow space travel, so that any sort of inter-planetary government would be less feasible and each planet could have its own government (or lack thereof) with less interference. Then after all the colonies are there, see how it goes for a few hundred years.
--Enigmatic
Ooooooo! Perfect!!!
Too bad I'm already old and will certainly be dead before this can happen.
Rak: The generation that built them and fought them should pay for it, naturally. We don't pass debt down to our children.
And about the Interstate Highways in specific... They are part of our national defense. We are much better defended because we can move troops from sea to sea and from the rio grande to the st laurence more quickly with the interstate highway system.
As for roads we don't use... You'd be surprised how many we use without knowing it. Indirectly. Every item we buy must be transported and the vast majority of that is done by truck. All the roads that make transportation cheaper and faster contribute to a lower cost of goods. And you pay for those roads in the gas taxes of the truck that delivered them. It's all already figured into the price. Freight is expensive.
Next time you're at the supermarket filling up your cart, think about how many roads had to be traveled to get all that food just around the corner from your house.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rak: The generation that built them and fought them should pay for it, naturally. We don't pass debt down to our children.
If the previous generation had to pay entirely for those things, don't you think there might have been some other consequences? Such as a substantially poorer previous generation?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...instead of FTL how about cryogenics with slow space travel..."
Heck, cryogenics even with FTL. Otherwise some typically bright Randian is gonna rip out the obviously*useless wiring from systems such as navigation and environmental control to pound into bangles to sell to other Randians who wanna display proof that they're high class folks.
* "Hey, the wiring has to be useless cuz people would notice it being ripped out if they were actually using it."
[ February 27, 2008, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
aspectre: You have absolutely no clue of the world view of libertarians and objectivists. Your cartoonish portrayal of those you disagree with belittles your own arguments.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Your daughter got a private education, but she still reaps many of the benefits of the public education system. She lives in an educated society.
No, that's just your rationalization for tyranny. She lives in an indoctrinated society. I don't think society is better for having public schools. If you do, pay for it. Why should I have to?
quote:Originally posted by scholar: The class system is not nearly as static as it would be otherwise. There are more innovations and businesses and other opportunities (financial) when you have well educated people.
You say.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: As far as being forced to pay for something you don't want, you accept the benefits by living and working in this country.
Oh, no. I was born here. My living where I was born does not imply any sort of obligation on my part.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: By being here, you are giving your acceptance. If you say, well, I would go somewhere else, but there is no where better,that is still a form of acceptance.
No, it is not. This is what I mean by the analogy of the street kid and the windshield. You don't get to impose obligations on others and make up half-assed rules about it like "Your being here implies acceptance".
quote:Originally posted by scholar: You have chosen this as the best alternative. And since this is America, you can try to get people to your side and change the system. Convince enough people you are right and to vote as you want and you can have your society.
No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
What's the status on that plan for libratarians to all move to one state so they could influence the elections and try to get the world they want to live in? Lisa & Pix, if it ever ended up happening, would you move?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Depends on how much they got done.
In any event, Federal law would remain unchanged. Look at what California (and other states) did as far as Medical Marijuana and Massachusetts did as far as Gay Marriage. Federal law still trumps them both.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But you wouldn't move to try to help make it happen?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ElJay: This is exactly the thing... People who are motivated to "make a difference" are usually statists. They get all worked up about what they can DO and what they can get others to DO either through voluntary or coersive (ie: the law) means.
Libertarians generally just want to be left alone.
My dream house has lots of land and a big wall around it (the house and the land both) to keep everyone out. Not because I dislike them, but because I just want to be left alone.
Besides, I already uprooted once this lifetime. I'm not eager to do something so unpleasent again. Especially not for something that's doomed to fail.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
If my recollection is correct, you support enforcement of many criminal laws. Most libertarians I know support a civil court system to enforce contracts and various torts. Either you or Pixiest expressed support for the idea of environmental regulation for impacts off the property owner's land.
All these things require taxpayer money to accomplish. All of them benefit some people more than others. You've simply redefined the word "rob" to include "taxes used for programs I don't agree with."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: Some libertarians would counter with a "voluntary taxation" solution.
Personally, I don't think that'll happen. So yes, Taxes are theft and the masses robbing from anyone is wrong. Unfortunately it's a necessary evil to provide for protection against force and fraud.
And as a necessary evil, it needs to be kept to the smallest evil we can keep it.
Unfortunately, once our mutual protection is allowed for, it's the camel's nose and everyone comes up with a "compelling state interest" why "Piss Christ" should be funded with every one's money or why it's ok to pay farmers not to grow crops or why one disease that kills fewer people than others deserves to have it's research federally funded (more than any other.)
The only solution is to get back to basic government because social programs and other pork will drown us all.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Your daughter got a private education, but she still reaps many of the benefits of the public education system. She lives in an educated society.
No, that's just your rationalization for tyranny. She lives in an indoctrinated society. I don't think society is better for having public schools.
Why not?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If you do, pay for it. Why should I have to?
Because then some people would not be able to send their kids to school at all. I don't understand what moral code you could live by where you denounce taxes as tyrannical while at the same time implying that it's perfectly fair to tell a child that he can't go to school because of the social caste he happened to be born into. Unless, of course, money is god.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
Your use of "rob" and "thugishness" seems to imply that there is some absolute moral standard that taxes are breaking. What is it and how do you establish it?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No, that's just your rationalization for tyranny. She lives in an indoctrinated society. I don't think society is better for having public schools."
Society is certainly more educated and more productive for it. I'm not sure how you use "better," but by just about every measureable standard, public schooling makes society "better." So perhaps you are using some unmeasureable standard?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I don't understand what moral code you could live by where you denounce taxes as tyrannical while at the same time implying that it's perfectly fair to tell a child that he can't go to school because of the social caste he happened to be born into.
[devil's advocate]
I don't understand what moral code you could live by where, when you want something and don't have the money to pay for it, you dismiss any thought of earning the money yourself and instead immediately start wondering who should be forced to buy it for you.
I don't understand what moral code you live by where you have a child without being able to provide the things you feel are necessary for it, and consider that a justification to force strangers to pay for it to be raised.
[/devil's advocate]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, because strawmen are good ways to advocate for the devil...
Well, actually, strawmen probably WOULD be one of the devil's favorite tools.
Carry on, then.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I don't understand what moral code you could live by where, when you want something and don't have the money to pay for it, you dismiss any thought of earning the money yourself and instead immediately start wondering who should be forced to buy it for you.
I'll make sure to tell the next cashier I see that the best way for him to get out of his situation is to make more money
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I don't understand what moral code you live by where you have a child without being able to provide the things you feel are necessary for it, and consider that a justification to force strangers to pay for it to be raised.
Ah... so do you punish both me and the kid or do you punish neither? Is poverty an adequate punishment in and of itself? [Tangent] I have yet to see the mystical poor person living large off of welfare checks.
"Devil's advocate" noted Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
If my recollection is correct, you support enforcement of many criminal laws. Most libertarians I know support a civil court system to enforce contracts and various torts. Either you or Pixiest expressed support for the idea of environmental regulation for impacts off the property owner's land.
All these things require taxpayer money to accomplish. All of them benefit some people more than others. You've simply redefined the word "rob" to include "taxes used for programs I don't agree with."
No. I think it can be determined objectively that a government must prevent the initiation of force against individuals and mediate disputes between individuals. That in fact, this is the reason why government is necessary.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't think society is better for having public schools.
Why not?
Why? I'm not saying it's worse. I have nothing to substantiate. You're making the claim that it is better. That's a positive claim. Back it up and I'll tell you what I agree with and what I disagree with.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If you do, pay for it. Why should I have to?
Because then some people would not be able to send their kids to school at all.
And that's my problem exactly how? Good God, if everyone who was so concerned would get together and help fund foundations to help the people you think need to be helped, we wouldn't need government meddling. But it's easier for you to have the force of government behind you. Less work. Less uncertainty. The easy security of tyranny.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I don't understand what moral code you could live by where you denounce taxes as tyrannical while at the same time implying that it's perfectly fair to tell a child that he can't go to school because of the social caste he happened to be born into. Unless, of course, money is god.
Strawman. And school isn't some natural resource. It's a commodity, like anything else. There are things that I want and can't have. Is that fair? Well, not to a socialist, maybe, but in the real world, yes. How adolescent is it to say "I want it, and it's not fair if I can't have it!"
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
Your use of "rob" and "thugishness" seems to imply that there is some absolute moral standard that taxes are breaking. What is it and how do you establish it?
Go to the library. Find a book with the horrible name of The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Ignore the fact that it's by Ayn Rand and wipe any froth that happened to bubble up at the mention of that awful name off the corner of your mouth. If it did. Open the book to the table of contents and find an essay called "The Objectivist Ethics". Read it. Post or e-mail me and thank me for pointing you in the right direction. Tell other people to read it. Shall I continue?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Society is certainly more educated and more productive for it. I'm not sure how you use "better," but by just about every measureable standard, public schooling makes society "better." So perhaps you are using some unmeasureable standard?
Paul!!!!! I expected you earlier. I've been wondering where you were.
Yeah... no. I don't think it's necessarily better for it. Nor have you convinced me by asserting it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Whats your standard for "better?" If I know that, then maybe I can try to convince you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No. I think it can be determined objectively that a government must prevent the initiation of force against individuals and mediate disputes between individuals. That in fact, this is the reason why government is necessary.
Good God, if everyone who was so concerned about seeing that disputes between individuals are mediated would get together and help fund foundations to establish arbitration and mediation services, we wouldn't need government meddling. But it's easier for you to have the force of government behind you. Less work. Less uncertainty. The easy security of tyranny.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't think society is better for having public schools.
Why not?
Why? I'm not saying it's worse. I have nothing to substantiate. You're making the claim that it is better. That's a positive claim. Back it up and I'll tell you what I agree with and what I disagree with.
A lack of education limits economic mobility. This is established simply by the fact that a better education opens up more job opportunities (including those available to those without an education) which in turn provides more opportunities for economic mobility. Without public education, the richest kids would have access to better education (better education will tend to cost more) than the poorer kids thus creating a sort of virtual aristocracy. Eliminating public education would end up limiting the American dream of rags to riches.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If you do, pay for it. Why should I have to?
Because then some people would not be able to send their kids to school at all.
And that's my problem exactly how?
It depends on what your ideals are. Libertarians like to advocate the notion that they are promoting more equality for people when, in cases like this, the opposite is true. Under libertarianism everyone is not equal. Power is proportional to money even more so than it is in our current society. Public education helps to eliminate this equality divide between the rich and the poor.
EDIT: I will readily admit that this equality divide should not be totally eliminated because competition is necessary for fast technological progress (and other reasons). I think it should be eliminated for public schools because public schools actually have the potential to increase competition.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Good God, if everyone who was so concerned would get together and help fund foundations to help the people you think need to be helped, we wouldn't need government meddling.
There was a period when schools were not government funded and you know what happened? The people, to whom you supposedly want to grant more freedom , decided that the best way to fix education was to give the government control. Libertarians like to forget that this country started out much closer to Libertarian ideals than it is today and that we moved away from those ideals because they failed. We ended up with huge corrupt corporations and a virtual slave class that worked long shifts, six or seven days a week, for wages that were hardly enough to survive on.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
Your use of "rob" and "thugishness" seems to imply that there is some absolute moral standard that taxes are breaking. What is it and how do you establish it?
Go to the library. Find a book with the horrible name of The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Ignore the fact that it's by Ayn Rand and wipe any froth that happened to bubble up at the mention of that awful name off the corner of your mouth. If it did. Open the book to the table of contents and find an essay called "The Objectivist Ethics". Read it. Post or e-mail me and thank me for pointing you in the right direction. Tell other people to read it. Shall I continue?
Look. I can be pretty damn sarcastic sometimes and I'm sure I sometimes come across as obnoxious. However, I don't treat you like an idiot and would prefer the same treatment from you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We ended up with huge corrupt corporations and a virtual slave class that worked long shifts, six or seven days a week, for wages that were hardly enough to survive on.
To be fair, at least part of that was due to laws that made many forms of collective labor action criminal offenses. Those laws would not be supported by most libertarians.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
That's right. I forgot that labor unions are still perfectly legal under libertarianism ideals. A better example might be the horrific living conditions and problems with a lack of government regulation exposed in The Jungle. The public could have chosen to play the free market and buy from companies with better standards for meat processing and packing but that would have been extremely impractical. Instead, the public opted for more government regulation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: A lack of education limits economic mobility.
A lack of education can limit economic mobility. Then again, so can being ugly or having a high pitched nasal voice. Lots of people have done quite well with what you'd certainly consider a substandard education.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: This is established simply by the fact that a better education opens up more job opportunities (including those available to those without an education) which in turn provides more opportunities for economic mobility.
Can I tell you how many jobs I've been turned down for because I was "overqualified"?
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Without public education, the richest kids would have access to better education (better education will tend to cost more) than the poorer kids thus creating a sort of virtual aristocracy.
Not so. I went to public school through my freshman year in high school. When I went to private school, I paid full tuition. Which effectively made it possible for 2 or three scholarship students to attend as well. That's generally how it works, you know, at most private schools. Mine was excellent, btw.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Eliminating public education would end up limiting the American dream of rags to riches.
A dream doesn't justify robbery, Threads.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: An interesting link on the economic benefits to society from something as seemingly innocuous as preschool. Economic benefits of quality preschool education
Well, I don't accept "society" as an entity, so that's kind of unfortunate. But I'd actually contend that the cookie-cutter mentality produced by a government mandated curriculum and cross-subject peer promotion increases crime rates and loses us some of our most potentially creative minds by setting up a structure that independent minded individuals chafe against and rebel against. The very egalitarianism of public education standards puts undo pressure on children who can't handle it and leaves them no socially acceptable outlet.
That article says that kids who are indoctrinated from an earlier age fit in better. Bottom line, that's what it's saying. Pardon me while I stare in horror at the idea of that being a Greater Good.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: If you do, pay for it. Why should I have to?
Because then some people would not be able to send their kids to school at all.
And that's my problem exactly how?
It depends on what your ideals are. Libertarians like to advocate the notion that they are promoting more equality for people when, in cases like this, the opposite is true.
No, it's not. Equality doesn't mean that everyone gets a TV. We don't talk about the right to happiness; we talk about the right to the pursuit of happiness.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Under libertarianism everyone is not equal. Power is proportional to money even more so than it is in our current society. Public education helps to eliminate this equality divide between the rich and the poor.
So who is setting money up as god now? I reject the idea of economic "power" as an actual force. Except when it's given such power by governmental meddling. Public education does not do a thing to eliminate the gaps between the rich and the poor. It's still funded locally, and the fact that you have to pay for public schools whether you use them or not means that most poor people are stuck using them, and that they're worse than the public schools used by rich folks.
I grew up middle to upper middle class in Highland Park, Illinois. I know what schools are like there. My partner taught for a while in the Chicago Public School system. I know what that's like, too. Public schools have maintained a huge class difference. Meanwhile, at the private school I attended in high school, we had people from all different economic backgrounds.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: EDIT: I will readily admit that this equality divide should not be totally eliminated because competition is necessary for fast technological progress (and other reasons).
Yikes. You talk like you're playing chess with human pawns. Understand that it shouldn't be your decision to make. No one has the right to stand above it all and determine whether equality should or should not be eliminated. Ick.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: I think it should be eliminated for public schools because public schools actually have the potential to increase competition.
Feh. They do the opposite.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Good God, if everyone who was so concerned would get together and help fund foundations to help the people you think need to be helped, we wouldn't need government meddling.
There was a period when schools were not government funded and you know what happened? The people, to whom you supposedly want to grant more freedom , decided that the best way to fix education was to give the government control.
No. A relatively small group of elites decided to put their social engineering theories into practice, whether people liked it or not.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Libertarians like to forget that this country started out much closer to Libertarian ideals than it is today and that we moved away from those ideals because they failed.
On the contrary. People like you claim that they failed because we moved away from them. There was always a debate in this country between those who wanted to rule others and those who wanted to leave that kind of crap to the Europeans. Until about 140 years ago, when Lincoln's war and its aftermath ended that debate, pretty much for good. Since then, it's been one misbegotten scheme after another. Anti-trust laws. The income tax. The Federal Reserve. Every one of them a disaster in terms of freedom and the economy. Every one of them resulting in more of the wealth in the US migrating into the pockets of a smaller and smaller elite at the expense of the rest of us. And all the while, it gets explained away as being for our own good.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: We ended up with huge corrupt corporations and a virtual slave class that worked long shifts, six or seven days a week, for wages that were hardly enough to survive on.
Slave class, my arse. Everyone in the country was effectively getting wealthier. The economy was improving by leaps and bounds. All of the government manipulation managed to put the breaks on for the poorer part of the economy.
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: No. A majority doesn't have any right to rob from a minority. The power, yes. If that sort of thugishness appeals to you.
Your use of "rob" and "thugishness" seems to imply that there is some absolute moral standard that taxes are breaking. What is it and how do you establish it?
Go to the library. Find a book with the horrible name of The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Ignore the fact that it's by Ayn Rand and wipe any froth that happened to bubble up at the mention of that awful name off the corner of your mouth. If it did. Open the book to the table of contents and find an essay called "The Objectivist Ethics". Read it. Post or e-mail me and thank me for pointing you in the right direction. Tell other people to read it. Shall I continue?
Look. I can be pretty damn sarcastic sometimes and I'm sure I sometimes come across as obnoxious. However, I don't treat you like an idiot and would prefer the same treatment from you.
I apologize. Your blindness irks me. This thread irks me. The smooth confidence of people who think that they have the right to take what is mine because they think they know better what to do with my earnings than I do irks the hell out of me. But I overdid my response.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I apologize. Your blindness irks me. This thread irks me. The smooth confidence of people who think that they have the right to take what is mine because they think they know better what to do with my earnings than I do irks the hell out of me. But I overdid my response.
Your smooth confidence in your 'to hell with everyone else' government philosophy is pretty irksome too, Lisa. Trusting the law of the jungle to let things work out? Not very appealing, and actually pretty offensive to some of us who've lived at the edge of something you've only seen on a documentary.
And yes, despite your throwing a sop to government authority to protect against violence, law of the jungle is basically what you're suggesting.
It's a helluva lot easier to change an institution given power over that mess than it is to fundamentally change humanity so that mess is livable and humane. And yes, the institutions have changed.
quote: I reject the idea of economic "power" as an actual force.
Feh, your rejection isn't worth much. How many times have you had to decide, "Medicine or food this month?" How many times have you had to decide that for your children? Yes, yes, I know of course it's all your fault if you ever get into a position where you have to make that decision, but what about for your kids? I guess they just won the crappy parent lottery in such a case then, eh, and get to eat (or not) the results.
Oh, right, I forgot: individuals and foundations will spring up to cover this area, like daisies in the spring. Despite the fact that the powers you're relying on to motivate everything else economically in your system-competition and enlightened self-interest-are conspicuously absent here.
quote:They should be entitled to ask any foundation or individuals for assistance. They should absolutely not be entitled to force me to assist them.
I think this highlights a fundamental difference of opinion between you and I. Here's the thing: the children can't ask you for assistance. What are they gonna do, go door to door when their stomachs start to distend or their homes grow disgusting with their own filth because of their crappy parents?
Not only should society absolutely be entitled to force you to assist them, you should be happy to do it. I wouldn't normally get this preachy with anyone, but 'preachy' just about defines your posting style with regards to politics, so I don't mind.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Every time I want to criticize Lisa for finding some half-cracked philosophy or idea and propounding it like it's the best thing going, I keep remembering I have the tendency too. I don't know what to say, except that I hope I can have a sense of humor about it in myself. Whatever.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Lisa, given that we're in the middle of midterms, I simply do not have enough time to devote to debating with you over the existence of natural monopolies. I skimmed the article you linked to, and it did not seem a particularly legitimate piece of literature. If you do a search for "natural monopoly" on JSTOR's economics journals (only one place, but my default goto for the good economic journals), you'll find a number of articles which deal with both theory and case studies of natural monopolies.
The following brief, non-technical article by Holley Ulbrich might be of interest, since it's written about educating students on natural monopolies, and notes why some of the main principles texts make the topic more confusing than it needs to be: http://tinyurl.com/2lmezq Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I will point out that I have yet to use trigonometry for anything whatsoever in my life. Okay, that's not entirely true. I did start out in engineering school, so I used it there, but other than that, never. Why should all children have to learn trig? Why should all children have to take literature courses? Reading is one thing, but reading Hamlet? To Kill a Mockingbird? Grapes of Wrath? Why?
This gets into an argument of degree (no pun intended) of education, which is a different matter.
For Radians like Lisa, it's not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Open the book to the table of contents and find an essay called "The Objectivist Ethics". Read it.
Oh hey I did that.
quote:Post or e-mail me and thank me for pointing you in the right direction.
Actually what I did in that case was say "I want my time back"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For Radians like Lisa, it's not.
Icky should have his resources culled to help victims of awful math teacher puns.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Nobody should have their resources culled. As soon as you create a mechanism for taking people's money, you invite graphed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I didn't bother reading the article, but I feel like criticizing it anyway.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Nobody should have their resources culled. As soon as you create a mechanism for taking people's money, you invite graphed.
*Pis Icarus*
*Pis Icarus a second time*
Sined,
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Look Dag, I like fun and games as much as the next guy, but this is a serious thread; you really shouldn't go off on a pie-throwing tangent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You always have to say the opposite of me. I'm not sure why that is, but my hypotenuse is that you're cranky because of the kids in your secant period class.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, that's not it. It's because you're so obtuse, you don't even know to coincide when it rains.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
No theological punishment is too bad for the two of you. *scowl*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You guys are so Negative. It may be only sine of the Times, but I must add my own perspective. Don't be so un-product-ive
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, that's not it. It's because you're so obtuse, you don't even know to coincide when it rains.
No, corresponding with you has shown that I'm right and you just can't stand to say anything complementary about me.
It's acute, and I don't mean that in a bisectual way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No theological punishment is too bad for the two of you. *scowl*
Now, now, there's no need to bring origin sine into this.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: A lack of education can limit economic mobility. Then again, so can being ugly or having a high pitched nasal voice. Lots of people have done quite well with what you'd certainly consider a substandard education.
Exceptions don't make a rule. It has been well established that those with higher educations tend to earn more money.
quote:Originally posted by Lina: Can I tell you how many jobs I've been turned down for because I was "overqualified"?
I know there are exceptions but those aren't relevant to the broad picture. If I graduate from college then I am still qualified to apply for all of the jobs a high school dropout could apply for. The reverse is not true.
I've heard of people being rejected for being overqualified for jobs where their overqualifications would require higher pay (namely as what happened to my dad a few years). I've never heard of a someone like a computer programmer being rejected for a job as a janitor or a cashier. I'm sure it happens but I've seen no evidence to suggest that it is commonplace.
quote:Originally posted by Lina:
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Without public education, the richest kids would have access to better education (better education will tend to cost more) than the poorer kids thus creating a sort of virtual aristocracy.
Not so. I went to public school through my freshman year in high school. When I went to private school, I paid full tuition. Which effectively made it possible for 2 or three scholarship students to attend as well. That's generally how it works, you know, at most private schools. Mine was excellent, btw.
In practice that has been shown to not be enough. My parents will be paying full tuition for me when I go to college and, while that will help the college give financial aid to other students, there will still be kids who did not apply in the first place because they couldn't afford it. The competition among colleges has helped create the great selection that our country has to offer but it comes at the price of excluding people based solely on the family they were born in to. I'm willing to accept that to a certain extent but to privatize all schools and, in effect, prevent some people in our country from getting any education whatsoever is unacceptable.
quote:Originally posted by Lina: A dream doesn't justify robbery, Threads.
You haven't established how it is robbery.
quote:Originally posted by Lina: Well, I don't accept "society" as an entity, so that's kind of unfortunate.
What do you mean by that? "Society" is just a term to refer to organization among individuals. They exist.
quote:Originally posted by Lina: But I'd actually contend that the cookie-cutter mentality produced by a government mandated curriculum and cross-subject peer promotion increases crime rates and loses us some of our most potentially creative minds by setting up a structure that independent minded individuals chafe against and rebel against.
What do you have that supports such a claim?
quote:Originally posted by Lina: The very egalitarianism of public education standards puts undo pressure on children who can't handle it and leaves them no socially acceptable outlet.
Is that an inevitable product of public education or just a flaw in our current system?
Also, couldn't those children just go to private schools?
quote:Originally posted by Lina: That article says that kids who are indoctrinated from an earlier age fit in better. Bottom line, that's what it's saying. Pardon me while I stare in horror at the idea of that being a Greater Good.
I don't even view that as a valid complaint. What metric would you propose that would allow effective testing of the benefits and problems of public education?
What data supports the effectiveness of the libertarian system?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No, it's not. Equality doesn't mean that everyone gets a TV. We don't talk about the right to happiness; we talk about the right to the pursuit of happiness.
What about equal rights to the pursuit of happiness? Implicit in the libertarian system is the fact that those with more money have greater opportunities to the pursuit of happiness. That's true of our current system as well but is also an integral part of any system which intends to provide motivation for progress. All I'm advocating is that we have provide an acceptable baseline set of opportunities for everyone in our society. A poor kid is still free to good off and drop out but he can't claim that he didn't have a chance.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I reject the idea of economic "power" as an actual force.
What do you mean? Do you reject the idea that those with more money have greater influence over others? Microsoft has more power than a startup company partly because it has more money to invest in research, marketing, and suppression of competition.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Public education does not do a thing to eliminate the gaps between the rich and the poor.
On what grounds do you base that claim?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I grew up middle to upper middle class in Highland Park, Illinois. I know what schools are like there. My partner taught for a while in the Chicago Public School system. I know what that's like, too. Public schools have maintained a huge class difference. Meanwhile, at the private school I attended in high school, we had people from all different economic backgrounds.
I go to one of the top public high schools in New Jersey. It is not a magnet school and has to accept all students who live in the area who want to attend. A significant chunk of the graduating class each year gets accepted into ivy league colleges as well as other top colleges. That's rare but is also shows that public schools can succeed despite the fact that they cannot reject students based on their grade levels or mental disabilities like private schools can.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Yikes. You talk like you're playing chess with human pawns. Understand that it shouldn't be your decision to make. No one has the right to stand above it all and determine whether equality should or should not be eliminated.
Equality is not one dimensional. The issue here is balancing legal freedoms with the economic inequalities inherent in our system. Libertarianism places all of the focus on legal freedoms under the guise of supporting greater freedom in general.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Anti-trust laws. The income tax. The Federal Reserve. Every one of them a disaster in terms of freedom and the economy.
The problems I mentioned developed before the anti-trust laws.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Every one of them resulting in more of the wealth in the US migrating into the pockets of a smaller and smaller elite at the expense of the rest of us.
Then where did our middle class come from? Our country did not have a real middle class until after those laws passed.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Slave class, my arse. Everyone in the country was effectively getting wealthier. The economy was improving by leaps and bounds. All of the government manipulation managed to put the breaks on for the poorer part of the economy.
Was The Jungle a lie then? Those poor people working 16 hour shifts in factories for six or seven days a week and earning barely enough money to survive just didn't exist? Poor child laborers didn't exist?
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
The Jungle is the best possible example, unfortunately it is the most ignored.
People just don't like Lithunians showing the flaws in the system.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I will point out that I have yet to use trigonometry for anything whatsoever in my life. Okay, that's not entirely true. I did start out in engineering school, so I used it there, but other than that, never. Why should all children have to learn trig? Why should all children have to take literature courses? Reading is one thing, but reading Hamlet? To Kill a Mockingbird? Grapes of Wrath? Why?
This gets into an argument of degree (no pun intended) of education, which is a different matter.
For Radians like Lisa, it's not.
Because schools are dumb and need to be reformed? Every year I remember the same thing "this is our interpretation of the atom" and every year after that until university they say "what we taught you last year was a lie because we do not believe you are capable of the real thing".
Year after year, can you believe this? And then english class, 6 years of learning the exact same course with different books, 6 years of learning how to write an essay that is absurd.
1-2 years english tops, 1-2 years sciences tops, 3 years math tops but more evenly spaced and not constantly reviewing for more then a class, so we have more room for computer sciences while the kids are younger.
Right now public schooling is more akin to baby sitting, the movies Teachers comes to mind.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Blayne, what the hell does your post have to do with mine?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think I was trying to quotes rakeesh and misclicked.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You know I"m a Ph.D student in economics, right? You've just lost any credibility I might have given you in the realm of economics.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)