To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 3429
3428  |  3430
Subject: 
Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:46:04 GMT
Viewed: 
2457 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:

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?

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.

So you would agree that education and poverty are areas which could do a lot
more than they do now if they were more efficient with the money they recieve?
Reorganise away, but remember that the Market isn't neccessarily the best
optimiser, perhaps the easiest though..


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.

And those parents who can't afford to move?


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.

Assuming that making systems and services more efficient won't cost millions of
jobs.. oh wait!

Either way, if not handled properly Libertopia would be a lot worse before it
started becoming better.


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.

Ah, so the charities are like a mini dollar-electable government?

Richard



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
(...) Sounds that way to me. It's Better than a one-vote-per-person system, because this way those who are wealthy (and therefore more qualified to decide what is good for society) get more say. Bill Gates [1] obviously shoud have 25 million times (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Libitarian guff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
 
Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) library, (...) were (...) set (...) that (...) not (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 8-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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR