Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:15:41 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
LPIENIAZEK@antispamNOVERA.COM
|
Viewed:
|
1183 times
|
| |
|
|
<3784A057.A9F1E5A7@voyager.net> <FEK0ss.3A1@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ed Jones wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > Because they have no say in whats done and aren't getting their money's
> > worth? As long as public schools have a monopoly on tax dollars and
> > sending your kids to a competitive private school means you pay twice,
> > of course voters are going to turn down millage, it's the ONLY way they
> > have of expressing their displeasure.
>
> That may be your reason or your idea of why people school tax levies down. I
> disagree. People vote down tax levies simply because they do no want to pay
> taxes.
Why, exactly?
>
> > > 2. Lack of parental guidance. Few parents take an active involvement in the
> > > children's schooling. Too many view it as a day time baby sitter. The same
> > > schools that produce undereducated children produce well educated children.
> > > Explain the difference - parental involvement.
> >
> > True. However public schools make it very very hard to be involved for
> > someone who works. I know, I speak from bitter experience on this.
>
> Is it any easier to be involved in a private school for someone who works?
Good question. And the answer is yes. Private schools, being market
driven, have reason to make it easy for their customers to interact with
them. Public schools, shielded from the market, don't. The owners of the
Montessori where I sent Taya would meet with me any time. Taya's Florida
public school teacher would NOT meet with me except one time a week from
3:30 to 4. In person, not over the phone. Not very convenient when you
work the hours I do.
> Glad to hear that you and your wife are involved. But I'd be very interested
> to know how your children's classmates are doing. I would predict that your
> children are doing quite well while those children whose parents are not
> involved are not doing well. All the chilrednin the room are receiving the
> same education - some are simply taking advantage of it while others are not.
Some better, some worse. Our school system is the best in Michigan, so
the average is pretty high. Not denying by any means that parental
involvement is important, but we seem to be sparring about stuff where I
agree with you. You're dodging the real issue which is that public
schools are not market driven, nor can they ever be.
> Interesting assumption to make since you do not know what I taught. I taught
> instrumental music to 5th and 6th graders. It was an elective - they did not
> have to take instrumental music. In fact, they were not permitted to take
> instrumental music unless they had their parents permission.
Granted. But I was speaking in the general case. 1/2 of my high school
classes were a total waste.
> Well, as you refuse to accept statistics as fact I won't bother persueing the
> point.
Good choice, as that means you don't have to address the real issue
which is that correlation does not imply causation. However, it's rather
sweeping and untrue to say I refuse to accept statistics. I don't accept
this particular one, but in general, well founded statistical studies
often provide significant information about conditions and states of
being. They do rather less to prove causation. Prove that Reagan's
economic policies caused homelessness please.
> In your predicted idealistic future maybe, but certainly not the real future.
> You can spout predictions are you want. I'm dealing in realities
No, you're dealing in how you think the world is but in REALITY, it's
not that way at all, you cannot dodge causality no matter how much you
wiggle or prevaricate. You haven't actually addressed any cause and
effect questions I've raised the entire time this debate has been going.
> > This "auto workers should get unemployment while on planned shutdown" is
> > just ridiculous. The notion that you KNOW something is going to happen
> > and you shouldn't have to plan for it is evil.
>
> Why is it evil? Why is it evil to put money into unemployment
Dropped "insurance" I see, so you must have conceded my point, left
unaddressed, that it's not insurance, it's wealth transfer.
> and then expect
> to collect when you're laid off. Isn't that THE PLAN. That's like saying that
> you can't put money into an IRA and expect to collect that money later. Sorry,
> its totally illogical.
I put MY money into an IRA which is MY property, and I can take it out
at any time. IRAs are nothing like wealth transfer programs. In fact
they're not even like insurance. So your example doesn't hold.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying it's an unreasonable expectation in
today's society for the unemployed to collect a benefit. We told them
they could. I'm just saying that it's evil to collect a benefit. Period.
Benefit in this sense means an unearned transfer of wealth. That's what
unemployment "insurance" is. No amount of claiming that payments were
made can dodge that point, which is why you keep failing to even address
it.
> > Refusing equal rights to housing is an individual decision, not a
> > societal one. Go after the individuals. Don't tar me with that brush, I
> > wasn't born yet, and my parents weren't here yet. However, I have no
> > issue with declining to do business with an individual for any reason or
> > no reason whatsoever. I have a right to do as I see fit with my
> > property.
>
> Sorry, but as long as society allows it to occur, it is a societal problem. In
> another post you stated that the Libertarians would not allow discremination.
> Yet above you say "I have no issue with declining to do business with an
> individual for any reason or no reason whatsoever. I have a right to do as I
> see fit with my property". You can't have it both ways.
Oh, YOU can, but I can't? LOL. That's OK, I'm NOT having it both ways.
Please quote me where I said that the libertarian government would not
allow private individuals to discriminate. What I actually said was that
governments themselves, libertarian or not, must not discriminate. But
since you haven't internalised what property is, apparently, I can see
why you would have trouble with the distinction between private property
and governments.
To be clear: Governments, since they have monopolies on the use of
force, must not discriminate. Individuals, in their private dealings
with other individuals, may choose to do or not do business as they see
fit, since those other individuals have the right to choose to do
business with those who do not discriminate.
I personally would choose not to, and I would shop on that basis. I
don't condone discrimination, I think it's silly, stupid, and short
sighted. But we cannot disallow people from being foolish in their
private dealings if they so choose.
This distinction between what we must allow, and what we favor, is a
classic problem for statists to grasp. They feel that what they disfavor
must be disallowed. I would think that you, having made a perfectly
valid lifestyle choice that much of society disfavors, would grasp the
importance of not disallowing disfavored, but not morally wrong,
behaviours.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
