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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"...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."
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
