Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:13:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera%StopSpam%.com
|
Viewed:
|
1029 times
|
| |
|
|
<3784B28D.82177A5A@voyager.net> <FEK6nL.DDI@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ed Jones wrote:
>
> 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.
Bully for you. Some public schools are better, some are worse. Point is
that parents have no recourse when trying to deal with the bad ones, and
raising "parent involvement" is a red herring. We need market forces.
> > 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.
Prove it. Correlation does not imply causation. Prove that there were
economic cutbacks, whatever that is. The economy did quite well during
the Reagan era, just as it is doing well now, in an accidental era of
less government under That Man.
> 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.
Which is what, exactly? That it is morally acceptable to promise people
unearned goods by taking them away from others? This IS your case, isn't
it? All this sparring about terms, statistics and so forth really boils
down to this. (1)
> 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)
Bingo. That's the difference. That and the benefit levels are set by
fiat with no correlation to "premiums" paid, claims experience,
investment results, or actuarial analysis.
> 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?
Nope. I have voluntarily entered into a contact with an organization to
lay my risk off on them. Unemployment insurance is not insurance, it
does not fit the definition of what insurance is. Please concede that
point and let's move on. Or refute it. But quit dodging it.
> Is accepting these benefits evil?
They're not benefits in the sense that they are not unearned free goods.
My voluntarily paid premium (actuarially) paid for them. You just can't
seem to grasp the distinction here, can you? As long as unemployment
insurance is not run under actuarial auspices it's wealth transfer.
Benfiting from wealth transfer is wrong.
>
> > 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?
1 - why don't we drop the entire set of specifics and just debate the
following:
"Resolved: that the majority has the right to confiscate goods from
their rightful owners and do with them as the majority sees fit, and
that the majority has the right to prevent individual behaviours, even
harmless ones, as it sees fit, and that morality is decided by majority
vote."
If that ISN'T what you are saying, in essence, what is? Explain.
--
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 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
|
|
|
|
