Subject:
|
Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 05:28:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2395 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > > A community I lived in for a while didn't have access to a public • library,
> > > because the majority (but not an overwhelming majority -- something like
> > > 60%) of the people who lived there didn't want to pay the few cents in
> > > taxes to join the regional library program. And it wasn't because they • were
> > > building a privately-held public library of their own.
> >
> > So move to a community which does have a library.
>
> That's fine for the people who can afford to do so. Wouldn't this create a • set
> of uber communities that had all the services, and lower class communities • that
> had no services and people couldn't afford to move out of? Seriously, why • not
> just send them down the mines just now?
I don't think so. My feeling is that the reason we have so much crime is
that there are so many people who have little or nothing to lose, so the
potential gain from crime is tremendous. Seems to me that in this case the
best way to reduce crime is to better the lot of the poor. Paying taxes to
hire more drug cops and build more jails to house people caught with
personal quantities of drugs, but thrown away because they responded to an
undercover cops request to purchase drugs sounds like a pretty wrong headed
way to spend money, but boy does it win those popularity contests we call
elections. And then the system almost doesn't react when a horde of cops
blows away an unarmed individual (heck there was a case here in Raleigh
where the city tried to claim that the black TV reporter was supposed to
allow the undercover drug cop to arrest him after cutting him off while he
was driving home (because he [the reporter] was black, the same as the
robber whose description had just been broadcast on the police radio). Said
undercover cop didn't even flash a badge).
> How are children supposed to move to different community anyway? Or is it • fine
> to deny them the right to educate themselves because the concept of tax is
> supposedly evil?
Well, my parents chose which communities we lived in while I was growing up
based partly on the quality of the schools.
> I would take your comment as being flippant, but I do believe that it • reflects
> Libitarian policy regarding the funding of social services, which is the • scary
> part.
>
>
> > > I would submit that universal education and access to libraries (whether • or
> > > not a right) are good things. I'm not convinced that this would happen in • a
> > > purely free capitalist system.
> >
> > If it's worth the cost, it will happen. If it isn't worth the cost, then • it
> > isn't worth the cost.
>
> Worth the cost to whom? Libitarian views suggest that services would be
> provided by third party service providers. What if education needs • subsidies -
> ie the majority of parents can't afford to give their children an education
> without taxes?
>
> Ah - move to a different community and leave the poor people to their mud?
And this doesn't happen today? Well, of course it is being blocked in some
states which have decided to equalize the per-pupil spending (or at least
some states are on the path of such, I don't know how completely, I know
Massachusetts passed some kind if idiotic law).
However, I also believe that in Liberatopia, the poor communities WILL be
taken care of. There are plenty of charities which will step in (and are
already involved). Companies will start spending on schools in less
advantaged areas as the labor market gets tighter. Don't worry, they same
(or more) money will be spent. The difference will be that instead of
politicians spending the money to win popularity contests, the charities
will be vyeing for your hard earned dollars, which you are going to spend on
the charity which accomplishes the most bang for its buck.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Fair enough, but I still disagree :) I would say that a worthy artist is one who produces worthy art. I would also suggest that the requirement of any form of suffering or willingness to suffer, on behalf of the artist, is an intellectual one (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 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
|
|
|
|
