Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:50:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Where does all this magic money come from in Libertopia? Surely you're not
> > expecting corporations and charitable folks to contribute without expecting
> > some agenda-payoff in return. Why would a corporation, for example, fund
> > education without having a reasonable expectation of a return on that
> > investment?
> So we should instead have taxes pay for a school system with absolutely no
> expectation of a return on the investment?
That's an interesting assertion, but it has nothing to do with what I said.
> I would say that ANY entity (individual, corporation, or government) which
> invests money on something with NO expectation of return on that investment
> is being irresponsible (and before you say "what about charity?", my answer
> is that I expect a charity to accomplish something with my money, I don't
> expect to see an annual report which says "Franks $1000 did XYZ", but I
> expect to see constant communication that the charity is actually
> accomplishing something).
Obviously I'm not suggesting that all "charity" is or should be driven by
blind funds--that would be akin to throwing money down a well. My question,
however, is: what would prevent a very wealthy person or corporation from
driving the educations of many children toward a specific agenda. A
corporation could tailor an educational system to yield class after class of
product-oriented puppets. One might assert that parents would surely yank
their kids out of such a school, but what if there's no other option? Home
schooling would be nice, I guess, but only if the parents or parent is able to
afford to spend time at home instead of working.
> > Likewise, do you really think would individuals fund education
> > without forwarding their own notions of propriety? This is in fact a major
> > problem with current school systems funded by local taxes: parents and
> > individuals who fund the school demand a say in which books are used in that
> > education. As such, any charitable organization or corporation contributing
> > its magic Libertopia money to a school or education factory would definitely
> > demand a say in what is taught. Ideally, of course, this would be altruistic,
> > but in reality it would forward the political, social, and economic agendas
> > and value systems of the contributors, regardless of the wishes of the
> > families whose children are taught at such institutions.
>
> Show me a system which doesn't have this pitfall, and I'll think about that
> as an alternative. Liberatopia gives the best promise I can see to reduce
> this pitfall because there will be multiple competing education systems
> which will be held accountable to those investing in the systems, including
> the parents in most cases.
This free-market educational system you're describing would certainly offer
lower quality education at a reduced price, and many less well-off families
would be forced to send their children there, which would in turn make those
children less able to attain wealth, which would in turn basically guarantee
that whole generations are locked into cycles of poverty and poor education.
> > Who organizes these facilities? Who runs them? Who decides what is taught
> > in them? Besides which, even in Libertopia the fringe/criminal elements will
> > adhere to a wildly different set of social values, and you can hardly expect
> > them to step in line with society's notions of personal responsibility. Short
> > of a rehabilitative system like none currently in existence on Earth, prisons
> > will continue to function with their own complex infrastructure regardless of
> > the idealism of the outside world.
>
> So this is a reason to not have a Liberatopia, because it can't be perfect?
That's _yet another_ reason not to have a Liberama, but certainly not the
only one, and certainly not what I was addressing. Liberama isn't simply
imperfect--it's wildly out of touch with reality on issues fundamental to the
functioning of society. Only if humankind undergoes some unprecedented social
evolution allowing each to rely on the others' sense of responsibility we can
pursue this dream...
> I still think that in a Liberatopia, the correctional system(s) (there will
> be competing systems I'm sure) will be much more effective. For those who
> have a chance of redemption, it will concentrate on actually trying to
> reform them (while making sure they accept responsibility for their crime).
> For those who will not reform, it will put them on a chain gang or something
> (or just lock 'em up and throw the key away - if you're not going to make
> any effort to reform yourself, I don't want you out on the streets, if
> you're willing to make an effort, and actually accomplish something, I'm
> willing to give you a chance, I believe that most people will make an
> effort).
By the way, how would these "competing systems" of correction work? Would a
prisoner bid on the prison in which he'd like to serve, or does the victim
determine this? Does the prison itself bid on incoming convicts? I'll admit
that I'm intrigued by this concept, but how could it function, realistically?
> As to who organizes and runs the correctional systems? Probably during the
> transition, the government. Once we're transitioned, some will be taken over
> by private enterprise. I'm sure there will be plenty of groups overseeing
> the institutions to make sure the prisoners aren't abused (and abuse would
> be a violation of the prisoner's rights, so the government would have cause
> to involve itself).
Liberama abounds with this sort of "there will be..." statement without any
attempt to describe _how_ they'll come about. Once again, there seems to be
an assumption that willing contributors will step out of the woodwork to pick
up the tab, and that these contributors will be driven by the most pure, most
societally-responsible motives.
Once again, it isn't that Liberama's not perfect; the problem is that it
offers no concrete alternatives to many current societal structures. Its
strength is that it points out a lot of flaws in the existing system, but its
weakness is that many people--even those who understand what it's about--feel
it has far too many flaws to be workable in today's society. That's not to
suggest that the existing system isn't flawed, but unless there's a reasonable
guarantee that Liberama would work in reality, no one (definitely not a
majority, at least) is going to back it up.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
209 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
|
|
|
|
