Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:11:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1410 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Dave Schuler wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> My point was that I agree absolutely that it is foolish to contribute to
> charity without some sense of where one's money will wind up but I don't feel
> I can trust a corporation or a single wealthy individual to fund an
> educational system without furthering some agenda with which I might find
> myself in marked disagreement. And if, for example, I am insufficiently
> wealthy to send my children to another school or to instruct them at home, how
> do I prevent that corporation from imprinting its agenda on my child?
> I see this as distinctly different from simple media commercials because in
> a corporate school the children can be fully immersed in the company's
> propoganda. Some in this thread have decried the current "liberal" atmosphere
> of the educational system; my complaint is similar but deeper.
Who says a single individual or corporation is going to be running most
schools? Currently the government gets most of its money from the middle
class. These people will still have this money to spend on services. I
know that I would be at least as active with the board of the school my
(potential future) children would be in in Libertopia as in the current
system. If I'm not active, what right do I have to expect that the
outcome bears any resemblance to what I want?
As I see it, the only issue is how the schools for the poorest people
are run. I'm confortable that many decent schools will be run. Churches
will run many of them (and there will be enough different churches
running them that you needn't worry too much about the kids being forced
to go to some school which doesn't reflect the parents religious ideals
- if nothing else, for all but the most conservative people, I'm sure
that liberal religious groups like Unitarian Universalists will run very
secular schools). Sure, a small number of kids will fall through the
cracks. I'm confident that that number will be LESS than under the
current system. Why? Because instead of handing the whole responsibility
for education over to the government, with a single "one size fits all"
solution, there will be a wide variety of schools.
> > > 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 trouble accepting that you wrote these two "advantages" with a
> straight face, and I flatly refuse to believe that these systems won't be
> horrifyingly abused, even in Libertopia, along prejudicial lines of race,
> culture, and economic standing, among others.
> Who decides that kids aren't going to learn? And can you really support a
> system optimized as a factory to produce unskilled laborers? What if your
> child gets a "non-learner" stamp at an early age--would you accept it? Can
> you appeal it? How would this segregation not destroy society, or at least
> create irreparable rifts in it?
> These are, hands-down, the most terrifying assertions I've heard from the
> Libertarian camp.
If my child is unable to learn in the school system I can afford, what
right do I have to expect someone else to pay to have my child educated,
no matter how poor the results? If I have a nearly brain dead child,
should I expect society to pay millions of dollars to attempt to educate
my child?
I do happen to believe that society does have a certain responsibility
to help people better themselves. I am convinced that enough people
accept this responsibility that for the most part, people will get the
help the need and deserve.
> > 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?
>
> Don't use quotes to imply that I wrote something which I did not. I've
> never asserted the crud you mention, and if you infer it then you're
> deliberately misreading what I've presented.
I'm sorry if I painted with too broad a brush. This comment was a
general comment about the whole thread, you are not the only one
contributing to my perception here. The quotes in this instance were not
to imply something you said (in that case, I would have used the >
quoting mechanism).
> For every example of a
> benevolent, charitable individual you can cite, I can name dozens of back-
> stabbing, self-interested people who work only for their own ends regardless
> of others' well being or needs. Matt Miller pointed out that corporations,
> given the chance, have dumped countless tons of dreadfully toxic substances
> into the environoment when it is economically viable. Elsewhere I've observed
> that the Securities Exchange Commission, a body of the government machine, was
> created and empowered to police Investment industry because brokers were
> demonstrably unable to resist abusing their clients for the sake of money.
Libertopia will still have a court system, one which won't shield
corporations from liability. Much of the dumping of waste has also
occured because the government is incapable of providing a reasonable
cost solution. Either the waste has to go somewhere, or we as citizens
need to accept that the products produced by the factories producing
this waste are things we really don't need.
> Every morning when I stand on the trolley to work I see very elderly people
> likewise forced to stand because young, able-bodied individuals refuse to give
> up their seats.
So a few people are jerks.
> Further, every single time there is a large-scale power
> outage, society disintegrates to riots and chaos in a matter of hours.
Hmmm, I must have missed the riots in Raleigh North Carolina when the
city was close to paralyzed by Hurricane Fran. In fact, the response of
the community with very little intervention by the government is one of
the strongest indicators that I have seen that humanity is basically
good. It is also why I didn't particularly worry about what might have
happened with Y2K problems. Almost every grocery store gave out free
water and ice, bringing truckloads in from other areas at considerable
cost. People helped neighbors clear trees. Sure, a few jerks ripped off
a few people. Show me a system which prevents those few jerks from doing
anything (this is the one area the government tried to intervene in, but
didn't accomplish very much).
I also must have missed the riots in Troy/Albany/Schenechtady New York
when an ice storm took out a transformer on a power line which knocked
out power over the whole area for a couple days (in the winter no less).
I don't remember reading about riots when the recent ice storm which
paralyzed New England and Eastern Canada.
Please point me to some examples here.
> Are
> these the same people you trust to watch over themselves while simultaneously
> considering the good of society at large? This is the reality in which we
> live, and it needs policing. I don't mean a cop on every corner, but all
> evidence demonstrates that society cannot be relied upon to behave itself all
> by itself.
Again, I point you to Raleigh North Carolina after Hurricane Fran. I saw
a society quite able to act in a reasonable manner. In fact, I invite
you to investigate the community response after almost any disaster in
the world. What I have overwhelmingly seen is communities responding to
the disaster in positive ways.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
