Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:50:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1104 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
That's amazing. When I taught - there were parent/teacher conferences every
month in the evening and twice a year on Saturdays.
But weren't there also PTA meetings in the evening? Couldn't you have made
your complaint known at those meetings?
You're dodging the real issue which is that public
> schools are not market driven, nor can they ever be.
When did that become an issue? That's a given.
>
> Granted. But I was speaking in the general case. 1/2 of my high school
> classes were a total waste.
In what sense - didn't you select the courses you wanted in high school?
Hey I went to a very small public high school - 60 in my class - in very rural
Ohio (10 miles from the GM Lordstown Plant). Obviously, the course offerings
were minimal (college prep, clerical or general). However, what was great was
that there was never more than 20 people in any of my classes (of course more
in band, PHed, etc.) and many times no more than 10.
Even back in those dark dreary days of the late 60's, another student and I
worked with the guidance counsel, principal and the math teacher (there was
only one) to allow us independent study in calculus while we were supposed to
be in Algebra II. The teacher took the extra effort to meet with us twice a
week. The school library purchased the books.
>
>
> > 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.
I was only referring to the statistics in question. You have certainly
acknowledged statistics as acceptable in the past. However, the rise in
homeless in NYC in the 1980s can be directly attributed to to closure of mental
and drug facilites due to Reagan econmic cut-backs. In fact, NYC got the added
advantage in that NJ put their displaced people one-way buses to NYC.
> > 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.
Not conceded at all. Simply wanted to state my case.
> > 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.
Exactly, we told them that you are going to pay unemployment insurance so that
when you are unemployed you will collect a benefit.
> 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.
How do you differentiate unemployment insurance from home owner's insurance or
life insurance? (Other than the fact that you have no choice but to pay
unemployment insurance) You carry insurance for your home - you pay into that
policy. If your house burns to the ground after 1 year, would you expect not
to be paid the allowable amount of the policy - isn't that what insurance is
for? Do you have a life insurance policy? If you die today, will your family
collect a sum of money far greater than the amount of money you have invested
in the policy? Isn't that, by your definition, a right to free goods? Is
accepting these benefits evil?
> 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 am speaking of businesses - whether huge corporations or an individual who
owns and operates his/her own business. From what I am reading above, it is
not OK for corporations to discriminate but it is permissable for a small
individual business owner to discriminate.
For instance, a person owns a 2 family house. They live in one unit and rent
the other unit. Can that person practice discrimination when renting the
rental unit?
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
