Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:36:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1333 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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.
Maybe I need to re-read what you wrote, but perhaps you could expand and
clarify what you were trying to say.
> > 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.
It seems to me we are on the verge of corporations running the schools
anywise. Look at all the product advertising which is starting to go
into the schools. Besides, what's wrong with a few schools meeting some
wealthy person's agenda? The schools today certainly meet other people's
agendas. Why not at least have schools with varying agendas?
> 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.
For the most part today, poor children don't have much of a chance.
Sure, they theoretically get the same education that other kids do, but
the reality is they don't. Some advantages I see in a Liberatopia
include:
- less waste on money on kids who aren't going to learn
- tailoring the schools for poor kids to produce poor kids
who can at least qualify for some kind of job, and probably
don't even run as long as high school, if they're just going
to do unskilled labor, why not get them out there making money
earlier?
I have not yet seen one concrete suggestion for improving the lot of
poor people which doesn't depend on just taking money from me and giving
it to them. I want to see the lot of poor people improved, but just
giving them a monthly check isn't going to do it. I have family members
who have been on welfare. All of them are off it now. My younger sister,
whose situation is the one I'm most familiar with is much better off
because she took advantage of the basic needs that were provided and
went to school and is now productively working. She got somewhere
because she WORKED at something. I want to give money to a charity which
will work with the people to accomplish something (and spend less time
worrying about the fact that single mom left her kid in the car while
she ran into a store - one hassle my sister had to deal with). I want it
to be accountable. I want a system which CAN discriminate (the
government can't). I want a system which will recognize that the person
who has managed to find a 10 hour a week job is making progress, and
keep supporting them, instead of cutting their support (and then they
wind up back on welfare again because a 10 hour a week job doesn't pay
enough to support them, so they never build up experience and seniority
to get a better job). The government can't do this very well because
everything runs on "one size fits all" rules (which it almost has to
since the government can't discriminate).
> > > 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'm starting to get real sick of this "humans are depraved,
irresponsible beings" crud. If we are so horrible and depraved, how do
you think we've managed to create a society which does actually manage
to support most people in it?
> > 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?
To some extent the prisoners would be able to bid. One way I see it
working is that when someone gets sentenced to correction, the judge, in
conference with the prosecution, victim, and defence, will make a
determination as to which system to place the prisoner in. The prisoner
would then have the opportunity to start proving themself. If they prove
themself better than the system they were initially placed in, several
things might happen. A system which handles prisoners who are taking
more responsibility might make a bid to get that prisoner into their
system. The defence lawyer might make a plea to the judge to move the
prisoner. In some cases, the victim might even make a plea (for example,
if the crime was mostly monetary in nature, the victim might want the
prisoner in a system which he earns more, so is able to pay more
restitution).
Of course right now for a diminishing set of crimes, the judge does have
some choices. Liberatopia would only increase these choices.
> > 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.
I will agree that not everyone will operate with the purest of motives,
but I think in a system which depends less on some far reaching
government to decide just how you should run your life, a lot more
people would step out of the woodwork.
Here's a random thought as to how the tax system perhaps cripples
charities. Because of the tax law, charities have to be very carefull of
how they spend their money so that they remain tax deductible, so that
people will donate money. One result is that they are probably less able
to actually pay their workers, one result of which is less people are
willing to work in charity. Now certainly some charities do pay some of
their people, but overwhelmingly, they depend on donated labor. I wonder
how many more people would do charity work if they could get paid for
it? Right now, the best way to get paid for charity work is to work for
a government agency, but then you get sucked into all sorts of
bureaucracy.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
