User talk:Cracker/Sandbox
| RemBeau | TomMoore |
Exchange One[edit]
|
Tom -- You've said a lot i'd like to respond to, so i hope you are still in the game. I doubt there are many Libts (of the non-teen variety) that "favor the elimination of public schools". What most of us favor is some freemarket competition to them, and let parents choose. I don't anticipate that public schools would go out of business, and i expect the competition would improve them. There would always be some parents, for good reasons, that would divert their taxes to the public schools -- why shouldn't they? My apologies to the Brits for my American terminology (public vs private), i wouldn't want this to be seen as a Yanks-only discussion. Freemarket education would work everywhere. I know there are plenty of objections to school choice as i see it, and i would like to hear them, with a chance to respond. As to examples of govt bloat, i could propose and you could dispose -- we'd likely not select the same ones, so that route seems fruitless. But since we are on the topic of public schools, there is a good reason why they are so over-priced: employee bloat. They make up the largest chunk of the budget (just ask Human) and yet try dividing that chunk of money by the number of teachers, and the teachers (and you) will wonder why they aren't paid more, much more. One likely answer other than just inefficiency would be the number of non-teaching personnel in public schools -- probably top-heavy. (Human -- NB: if you divide but screw up, i promise not to go tit for tat.) Here is my approach to reducing govt bloat: set constraints on the amount govt could spend, THEN let Dems and Pubs haggle over where best to spend our money. You could hope they'd not put pork-barrel spending above essential services, but don't count on it. Some of them might put their own interests above the citizenry. (I'm just saying, it could happen.) Your slogan (fiat justitia ruat coelum) is surely Latin, and i've seen that one before, but all i've figured out so far is that the judge drives a cool Fiat ... i don't have a clue about ruat. |
Thank you for responding. "There would always be some parents, for good reasons, that would divert their taxes to the public schools -- why shouldn't they?" Please make sure I have this right: in your proposal, any citizen would be able to choose whether or not to pay taxes to public schools? I.e., it would essentially make them voluntary? "But since we are on the topic of public schools" Naturally, if there is "bloat" to the public school system it should be removed. Conservatives, liberals, and apparently libertarians all agree on this and the pejorative "bloat." I'm not certain what is particularly libertarian about this, unfortunately, so it is not helpful in this discussion. "...set constraints on the amount govt could spend, THEN let Dems and Pubs haggle over where best to spend our money." That seems a little short-sighted. I think you will agree if you think about it a bit more. To have a committee of some kind guess how much money will be needed in a fiscal year before the representatives can begin to assess where money is needed is essentially asking for a gross estimate of what the needs of the country might be every year - without even knowing those needs. I would suggest that this would just result in hundreds of special appropriations and no hope of government financial stability. My motto is (roughly) "let justice be done, though the heavens fall." Would you mind providing some specifics of libertarian policies beyond the one you have above. Even the one you gave seems unworkable and personal rather than representative of general libertarian policies, actually.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 08:49, 19 August 2008 (EDT) |
Exchange Two[edit]
|
No, that's not right. Where to divert shares of education taxes is the part that should be voluntary -- i don't think i addressed the method of taxation, nor have i suggested that paying those taxes should be voluntary. But i gotta go; i will respond to your other points when i can. -- RemBeau 09:09, 19 August 2008 (EDT) You have said that all those (Cons, Libs, and Libts) agree there is bloat in the school budget, but what they likely WOULDN'T agree on is how to fix the problem. I can't speak for Cons or Libs, but Libts would say let the freemarket do its job. As a Liberal, you might be surprised at the role competiton plays in making enterprises (that includes school systems) more effective and efficient, which also often results in employees (teachers, in this case) being happier at their job. That means better educated kids AND some tax relief for the community. There IS "no hope of government financial stability", and it'll get worse if we don't limit them somehow. They are absolutely addicted to spending and power; they go hand in hand. If we can't pressure them to resist spending increases, we should at LEAST limit govt taxes, which would call their bluff as to caring about deficit spending; that should apply some pressure on spending increases. The major govt players have to work under the restraints of reality at some point, and the reality is, if they don't pull back on spending, their pyramid scheme will collapse. Don't know when, or even how bad it'll be, but it WILL happen. |
"...let the freemarket do its job" What does that mean, please? Again, it sounds very nice, but it is not specific. I am trying to get some specific libertatian policies, and "remove bloat in schools by letting the free market do its job" doesn't fit the bill. "There IS "no hope of government financial stability" I disagree. Contrast the eight past years in America with the eight ones previous to it. Conservative deregulation and over-reliance on the "free market" led to a massive mortgage crisis, worsened by the government's wild instability as it threw good money after bad. "we should at LEAST limit govt taxes" What does that mean, please? Are you reiterating your idea about guessing the total money the government will need for the year before needs are known? If so, please make sure to respond to my earlier criticism first, since it still appears to me to be impossibly short-sighted. I have to say that this discussion is certainly reinforcing one view of libertarians I have had: they have many vague proposals but no practical solutions. "Solve it with the free market" is an idea, not a plan. Are there any libertarian practical policies?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:53, 19 August 2008 (EDT) |
Exchange Three[edit]
|
Your comments make it pretty clear to me that i am going to have to figure out a new way to respond. Part of the problem is that i'm having trouble understanding how you derive the things you say from MY comments. I cannot fathom how you get, from what i'm saying, "Are you reiterating your idea about guessing the total money the government will need for the year before needs are known?" That idea didn't come from me; i never suggested anything LIKE that idea. In fact, there are two or three assumptions in there that are completely alien to my thought processes. 1) "Guessing" the total money ... i don't understand why anyone would expect to know that ahead of time. As in real life, you know more or less how much income you will have a year ahead of time, but couldn't possibly expect to anticipate all the expenses, right? So you prioritize as you go along -- most important items up front, and the least important may not happen if you can't afford them. If your income continually fails to cover your spending, you are living beyond your means, and you should stop doing that, agreed? 2) Money the govt will "need"? Is it possible you believe that everything the govt spends on is needed? Surely not -- much of what it wants can hardly be considered "needs", even if you took out all the pork-barrel stuff. Just because pols want to spend money on what you want them to doesn't mean they are "needs", correct? I'm not sure what earlier criticism you wanted me to respond to first. Sorry. You ask, "What does [let the freemarket do its job] mean, please?" I only expect to be able to limn the answer to that in such a short space as a paragraph or two, but i'll give it a shot. It's about incentives, incentives based on what motivates people, what works with human nature. The freemarketplace abounds in natural incentives as opposed to threats, coercion, and other alternatives. If as a consumer you have access to a freemarketplace, you will try to pay the least for needed (and wanted) goods and services. Why? Because it is in your self-interest to do so, as it benefits you and your family. When govt foots the bill, price is no object, you just buy the best. This is always true, and the syndrome is called OPM (Other People's Money). OPM is heavily at work in those that hold the govt purse strings. No need to be frugal or careful with OPM. You DO agree with me on this point, correct? Okay, that was how a consumer benefits from the FM, now let's consider a producer in such a system. When you own a business, your standard of living rises and falls with the success of that business. Rather than having to meet govt quotas, you need to produce what customers want at prices they are willing to pay for, else they will, in a free society, take their business elsewhere. If they do that, your income (profits) will take a hit. They are not forced to buy, and you are not forced to produce. Providing it's not govt money that funds your business, you'll be risking your own capital, and if your business fails, you've lost your OWN money. One way provides a powerful incentive to achieve, the other, very little. There are always many in govt that just raid the treasury to fund a business their extended family runs, milks it down to the last penny, and produces nothing. Rarely, very rarely, does any congressman get in trouble with the "Ethics Committee" (George Orwell, take note). That problem is obviously caused by OPM -- wrong incentive. Natural incentives work; artificial ones just sound good. The sting of a lash is a poor substitute for natural incentives. If you disagree with my points, please stipulate. In such a short space, i couldn't go into much detail, but i'll gladly do it upon a specific request. |
'As in real life, you know more or less how much income you will have a year ahead of time, but couldn't possibly expect to anticipate all the expenses, right?" Except that in "real life," you are the sole arbiter of your own interests, and rightly so. But in a government, it is the legislators who work out what are the "most important" items and what should be cut. And that is the process by which that allocation is made. Your plan seems to require bypassing that process to make a blanket guess as to the needs of the government, without allowing the democratically elected representatives actually figure out those needs. It may seem very obvious to you what is "necessary," but to the government and the people, a $100 billion tax credit may or may not be "necessary." The only way to figure out that necessity is process. "Is it possible you believe that everything the govt spends on is needed? Surely not -- much of what it wants can hardly be considered "needs", even if you took out all the pork-barrel stuff." Is it really even necessary for me to point out that I used the word "need" in a colloquial manner, not in the highly literal way in which you are interpreting it? "incentives based on what motivates people... No need to be frugal or careful with OPM. You DO agree with me on this point, correct? ... else they will, in a free society, take their business elsewhere" I wasn't actually asking for an explanation of the notion of a free market. I have asked and just asked again for a specific libertarian policy position. This might be "reduced gun control by removing waiting periods and registration for all handguns, rifles, and semi-automatics." I am not sure how many different ways I can ask for a specific libertarian policy, but you keep giving me the vaguest of answers or - bizarrely - a brief explanation of market forces. Not helpful. --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:57, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
|
Exchange Four[edit]
|
Tom -- sorry -- i completely missed your post -- glad you nudged me. ..."a $100 billion tax credit may or may not be 'necessary.' " " Is it really even necessary for me to point out that I used the word "need" in a colloquial manner, not in the highly literal way in which you are interpreting it?" Absolutely, because if they aren't actual "needs", then you can't justify collecting all the taxes ahead of time to cover your "wants". You keep referring to govt "needs", and i keep saying you're looking at it wrong. Govt has plenty of funds to cover actual needs, and they don't have to guess at the rest, the "wants" as opposed to the "needs". Specific libertarian policy positions A) Decriminalize drug use. B) Laws to make it harder for local govts to use Eminent Domain to seize private property. C) Federal action to prevent Washington DC from not complying with the Supreme Court's ruling that WDC has to stop violating the "right to bear arms" as they have done for the last 32 years. D) Repeal the act that allows govt to use taxpayer's money to fund candidates. Maybe this is the kind of thing you are looking for. If not, point out which above answer your question and which don't. You say my explanation of market forces is not helpful. Is that because you already understand the benefit of market forces, or i'm not going deep enough, or you disagree -- what? I would write more, but i can't now -- wish i had seen your post earlier. |
..."but it is a good way to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, and how can that be bad, given the HUGE govt wealth? It will help the economy, and that is also always a good thing" My hypothetical tax cut was expressed in the most vague of terms. It is absolutely not always a good thing to cut taxes, nor will it necessarily help the economy. Take the Bush tax cuts, for example, which disproportionately benefited the wealthy. This drastically reduced government income - which could at least theoretically have been used to help people, although I admit Bush probably would not have done so - to little benefit except to those who already had more than sufficient discretionary income. "Absolutely, because if they aren't actual "needs", then you can't justify collecting all the taxes ahead of time to cover your "wants". You keep referring to govt "needs", and i keep saying you're looking at it wrong. Govt has plenty of funds to cover actual needs, and they don't have to guess at the rest, the "wants" as opposed to the "needs". " Very little in the budget is a "need," excepting things like salaries for the most essential employees and upkeep on buildings. And that sort of things is generally not in the "discretionary budget," which is to what we are referring. It may seem like 247m on "nuclear waste disposal" can be dissected into a "need" or a "want," but you're just quibbling over semantics; the notion of "need" or "want" is almost inevitably subjective, and so statements like "Govt has plenty of funds to cover actual needs" expresses nothing beyond your general feeling that the government spends too much. Please feel free to use whatever terms please you (as long as you define them), but don't try to interpret my everyday use of language into being some philosophical statement like "everything the government spends money on is a 'need.'" Neither I nor you think I meant that. "A) Decriminalize drug use. " All drug use for all drugs? I am happy to agree with you on marijuana, but are you also including heroin, cocaine, meth, and so on? Wouldn't the immediate impact of that be a massive loss of health and life in every poor area of the country? Would the FDA ensure purity of the currently illegal drugs the way they do with things like Viagra? "B) Laws to make it harder for local govts to use Eminent Domain to seize private property." You favor federal intervention on a states' rights matter? Currently those local governments make their own rules for that matter, ranging from making it illegal/impossible to making it only moderately difficult. Your position is a surprise to me, I must admit. "C) Federal action to prevent Washington DC from not complying with the Supreme Court's ruling that WDC has to stop violating the "right to bear arms" as they have done for the last 32 years. " I'm not sure what action you are proposing, but I do agree that the court ruling should be enforced. What specifically did you mean? Do you believe in an unlimited right to bear arms, incidentally? "D) Repeal the act that allows govt to use taxpayer's money to fund candidates." The name of the act (which you should probably know if you are calling for its repeal) is the "Federal Election Campaign Act." What is wrong with it? I actually like the fact that people like Tom Tancredo and other politicians not backed by massive parties actually get more of a chance to voice their opinions and influence the public discourse. --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 04:02, 22 August 2008 (EDT) Tom |
Exchange Five[edit]
|
Tom -- Even if i were to accept what you mean by "disproportionately benefiting the wealthy", i'm trying to think how it might not benefit the poor. This issue is a bit complex given how many look at it, so i thought it best to give this issue its page -- the article is titled Essay:Tax cuts. It is still in response to your post, just too much for right here. "... but don't try to interpret my everyday use of language into being some philosophical statement like "everything the government spends money on is a 'need.'" Neither I nor you think I meant that. " We're getting into a weird territory here. I'm coming to realize how much differently we think, and i don't know whether it is a language problem, or just you and i, or Liberal versus Libt thought. But it seems to me that, at the very least, some terms don't mean the same thing to both of us. Guaranteed that i may be wrong in my interpretation of some things you say, but to say i don't really think you mean something ... ??? I do try to err on the side of safety when i suspect i may be misinterpreting something you say, which is why i sometimes ask questions that may seem blindingly obvious. It's the only way i know how to do it. In any case, we are stuck on the word "need", which i am using in the concrete sense, not a vague sense, since the crux of my argument depends on it. So for me, it is not a quibble -- i assign real importance to it. "Bush tax cuts, ... drastically reduced government income ... theoretically have been used to help people ..." 1) Probably not actually "drastically reduced government income". Probably barely. 2) "Theoretically" could be used to hinder as opposed to help, and i'm not talking about intent (which would require speculating about motivation), but about actual results. It is a clash of worldviews -- your optimistic govt-half-full versus my pessimistic govt-90%-empty. On to (A) thru (D) -- A) Yes, i include ALL drugs. Not because i think drugs are harmless (i don't) or because i am a user (i'm not), but for philosophical AND practical reasons (intervention, good -- prosecution, bad). To make suicide illegal is ridiculous, even slow self-destruction. To wage a "drug war" is counter-productive, corrupting, and expensive. To clog courts with druggie cases is silly and wasteful, and to fill jails with them is nuts. B) Where is it written that states have unlimited rights? Citizens of the USA should not have to suffer from property seizure, especially arbitrary rulings from local govts. You can say that again, with gusto. C) Not unlimited IF you mean nuclear weapons, things of that kind. But as to what specific action should be taken to ensure that the DC powers that be don't drag their feet while conspiring against citizens and the US Bill of Rights ... i dunno. An honest and ethical lawyer would have to figure that out. D) The FECA, eh? (Who dropped the L?) What is wrong with it, you ask? Do you think it is okay to forcibly reduce a family's income in order to support candidates they are against? Really and truly? Am i missing some ethical point? Your namesake (not the Irish poet) would be on my side. |
Sure, I'll read it and address it :) "We're getting into a weird territory here. I'm coming to realize how much differently we think, and i don't know whether it is a language problem, or just you and i, or Liberal versus Libt thought. But it seems to me that, at the very least, some terms don't mean the same thing to both of us." I suppose. Inasmuch as I can see, the chain of events isn't convoluted. I was talking about government spending and referred to the expenses as "need." This is a subjective term and was used in the colloquial sense that encompasses both "wants" and literal "needs." As in "I need a bagel." For reasons unknown to me, you took issue and digressed into chastening me that not everything the government spends money on is a "need." I find it hard to believe you actually thought I was being literal, anymore than you might think I "needed" a bagel if I said so. But I'm just going to drop it, since there isn't any problem of terminology as far as I care. "1) Probably not actually "drastically reduced government income". Probably barely." A $100 billion tax cut would reduce government income by the amount of $100 billion. To put that in perspective, it is more than the total budgets of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, the FDA, the CDC, and the entire Justice Department. Or it's about a fifth of the DoD's total budget. So yeah, it's a bit of a chunk, actually. "2) "Theoretically" could be used to hinder as opposed to help, and i'm not talking about intent (which would require specualting about motivation), but about actual results. It is a clash of worldviews -- your optimistic govt-half-full versus my pessimistic govt-90%-empty. " Absolutely. But it's a question of leadership and reform. $100 billion could, for example, be well-spent on beginning to invest in solar power installations in the southwest. Of course, the free market dictates we keep using coal, since it's so much cheaper. It will take enough of a body count to influence the industrial market before there is a shift otherwise. On the plus side, this will increase the funeral home sector. "A) Yes, i include ALL drugs. Not because i think drugs are harmless (i don't) or because i am a user (i'm not), but for philosophical AND practical reasons (intervention, good -- prosecution, bad). To make suicide illegal is ridiculous, even slow self-destruction. To wage a "drug war" is counter-productive, corrupting, and expensive. To clog courts with druggie cases is silly and wasteful, and to fill jails with them is nuts. " Wouldn't the immediate impact of that be a massive loss of health and life in every poor area of the country? And would the FDA ensure purity of the currently illegal drugs the way they do with things like Viagra? "B) Where is it written that states have unlimited rights? Citizens of the USA should not have to suffer from property seizure, especially arbitrary rulings from local govts. You can say that again, with gusto. " It's not written anywhere, I just thought that libertarians tended to uphold states' rights things in this kind of situation. I don't actually disagree with you here, although considering the fact that three states have already eliminated the practice and there have only been a tiny amount of these cases, it's not a high priority for me. Or any kind of priority, actually. "C) Not unlimited IF you mean nuclear weapons, things of that kind. But as to what specific action should be taken to ensure that the DC powers that be don't drag their feet while conspiring against citizens and the US Bill of Rights ... i dunno. An honest and ethical lawyer would have to figure that out. " If nuclear weapons can be restricted, then why can't fixed-position belt-fed machine guns? And if they can be restricted, then why can't assault rifles? I am curious as to your actual reasoning at where you draw the line. What is the principle you use to determine the exact amount of destructive power a private citizen is allowed to carry in his trunk? "D) The FECA, eh? (Who dropped the L?) What is wrong with it, you ask? Do you think it is okay to forcibly reduce a family's income in order to support candidates they are against? Really and truly? Am i missing some ethical point?" It's not so much an ethical point as that I think you actually don't understand how it works. It's voluntary... when you file your taxes, you are permitted to either check the box to donate $3 of your return to the public financing funds, or not. There's no penalty for not checking the box. And checking it doesn't increase your return, it just designates that amount to go to the funds rather than the government.
"Your namesake (not the Irish poet) would be on my side. " My namesake took people he disagreed with about religion and burnt them at the stake, too. We all have our flaws. --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:30, 23 August 2008 (EDT) |
Exchange Six[edit]
|
Oh no -- Thomas Moore, who chose death before dishonor by refusing to grant Henry VIII an annulment -- he had heretics burned at the stake? Say it ain't so. I know life was cheap back then, but please tell me you got that from an untrustworthy source. C) Your question as to where to draw the line is a good one, and i don't know exactly. But i DO know that it would be wrong and ill-advised to criminalize private ownership of small arms. Would you have govt confiscate all privately-owned weapons? Did you happen to read about the granny that held a burglar at gunpoint until the cops arrived? It makes me proud, proud to be an American when that kind of thing happens. |
He actually was imprisoned for refusing to take an oath acknowledging Henry as supreme leader of the church, although the reason for that oath was so that Henry could grant himself an annulment. But yes, he had heretics burnt. "Your question as to where to draw the line is a good one, and i don't know exactly. But i DO know that it would be wrong and ill-advised to criminalize private ownership of small arms. Would you have govt confiscate all privately-owned weapons?" No, I wouldn't have that. But I do advocate strict gun control. People should only possess guns they need for reasonable purposes, as a general guideline. Hunting and home defense are two purposes, which is why I think rifles and shotguns are perfectly acceptable, as well as some handguns. However, automatic weapons and above only exist for the purpose of killing people. There is some argument to be made for recreational shooting, but that must be balanced against the welfare of the people as a whole. So you have no real reason for where you draw the line? So far your rationale works just as well for a fixed Browning as a Glock 17, so I am hard-pressed to see how you make your decision. I can't help but notice you have failed to respond on several topics and to questions I asked above regarding them. Am I to assume you are ceding the point on drugs and the FECA? --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 02:20, 24 August 2008 (EDT) |
Exchange Seven[edit]
|
Ha -- No to your final paragraph, but you MAY assume that time's winged chariot asserts its influence so that i have to limit my responses. I knew when i responded last night that i wouldn't have time to catch everything -- it is just that i wanted you to know that i was aware of your post, and not ignoring it. C) "So you have no real reason for where you draw the line? " I DO have a real reason to WANT to draw the line, i just don't know exactly where. (Only Anarchists have all the answers.) As you say, i am hard-pressed to see how to make that decision, on my own, at least. So were i to be the one that would HAVE to draw that line, i would convene a bunch of pro-gun types that are also logical and reasonable, and hash it out with them. But i am ABSOLUTELY clear and adamant that no govt should even attempt to ban all weapons in private hands in the USA, and that Wahington, DC immediately reverse its legislation that thumbs its nose at the Second A. D) So you are saying that NONE of my taxes help fund major candidates against my will -- if i don't check that box on the tax form? If that be true, i will stand corrected. A) "Wouldn't the immediate impact of [Rem's drug view] be a massive loss of health and life in every poor area of the country?" I doubt it. The immediate impact i would expect to see is less cop corruption, fewer false arrests, less seizure of property, fewer temptations for crooked judges, fewer incarcerations leading to less crowded prisons, less violent gang activity which means fewer murders. There was a time in America when cocaine (and probably other drugs) was not illegal to use -- were we worse off for it? I think not. Obesity i see as a much bigger problem. "And would the FDA ensure purity of the currently illegal drugs the way they do with things like Viagra?" No opinion. "A $100 billion tax cut ... " Where did you get that number, and what percentage would the tax cut reduce govt revenue by? Do you consider the curve of tax rates versus tax revenue to be linear? "Of course, the free market dictates we keep using coal, since it's so much cheaper." Given increasing gas prices, why would the FM not work to press businesses to try to develop alternative energy sources that would be more economical and cleaner? "On the plus side, this will increase the funeral home sector." Making the construction of nuclear power plants politically infeasible for decades DEFINITELY increased the funeral home sector. Bad politics. Let the FM do its job, that is the fastest and most efficient way to discover alternative fuels. You're not -- gulp -- suggesting govt should do the job? |
[[Wow, Rem that was an utterly incoherent edit. Seriously, I tried to follow it, but you weren't even ranting, you were just... incoherent. No blood, no foul, as they say. Care to try again? ħuman Made sense to me, actually, even if I disagree on most of it. Don't be mean to him, have some sympathy... he came here to pick a fight to defend his beliefs, and now it's just him arguing against a lot of somewhat hostile people. Cut him some slack :P --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT) "I DO have a real reason to WANT to draw the line, i just don't know exactly where. (Only Anarchists have all the answers.)" Speaking just for myself as a liberal, I personally tend not to take a position as outspoken as you on an issue unless I have an answer. I did ask for some libertarian policy positions to represent your specific views, so that we could get at the values behind them. Now I discover that your position on the matter is arbitrary. "As you say, i am hard-pressed to see how to make that decision, on my own, at least. So were i to be the one that would HAVE to draw that line, i would convene a bunch of pro-gun types that are also logical and reasonable, and hash it out with them. But i am ABSOLUTELY clear and adamant that no govt should even attempt to ban all weapons in private hands in the USA, and that Wahington, DC immediately reverse its legislation that thumbs its nose at the Second A. " What do you mean "have to draw the line?" We're discussing your policy positions, so of course you're the one that has to make the decision and advocate a useful principle in the matter. Further, I again suspect you didn't read that to which you are referring in your argument. The D.C. gun ban didn't ban all private ownership. It banned automatics and handguns and the like. Citizens could still own rifles and shotguns, although they had to keep them unloaded and broken down. It is again a question of degrees, not an outright ban on all guns. So because it is again a question of degree, before you can make bold statements about why it is wrong it would help if you could come up with some reason why it is wrong. You can't do that yet, and don't feel comfortable making the decision. That's absolutely fine. But in that case, you should probably not represent this as a specific libertarian policy you favor, don't you think? "D) So you are saying that NONE of my taxes help fund major candidates against my will -- if i don't check that box on the tax form? If that be true, i will stand corrected." You stand corrected, then, because that is the case. I strongly suggest that before you advocate eliminating a law, you read it. "I doubt it. The immediate impact i would expect to see is less cop corruption, fewer false arrests, less seizure of property, fewer temptations for crooked judges, fewer incarcerations leading to less crowded prisons, less violent gang activity which means fewer murders." Oh, certainly the amount spent on the war on drugs and collateral damage from crime will plummet. I agree with that, and think it would be great. But you don't honestly think that crack and meth, free of any constraints, will fail to kill hundreds of thousands? I'm not sure how you can think that; it and others are murderously addictive and unfailingly destructive to the body. If they became legal and cheap, it does not seem reasonable to think that fewer people would use them. Certainly, eventually the free market would sort it out, and most of those people would die as the rate of death settled into what the market would bear - a monstrous result, in my opinion. But to think that there wouldn't be a wave of chemical death... could you explain yourself? "There was a time in America when cocaine (and probably other drugs) was not illegal to use -- were we worse off for it? I think not. Obesity i see as a much bigger problem." There was a time when all drugs were legal, and following that laws were implemented on local levels by degrees. I would argue we actually were the worse off for it; opium was brought in in large shipments to pacify the immigrant Chinese who built railroads, as an example. Obesity is certainly a large problem as well, no pun intended. "No opinion." That's pretty important. "Where did you get that number, and what percentage would the tax cut reduce govt revenue by? Do you consider the curve of tax rates versus tax revenue to be linear? " It was an arbitrary number. It would cut revenue by something like 4%. You're misphrasing the curve question, but I believe I understand what you're asking. You're talking about the Laffer curve, yes? I do think it is linear in that sense, and that the curve is essentially accurate. "Given increasing gas prices, why would the FM not work to press businesses to try to develop alternative energy sources that would be more economical and cleaner? " The free market has no incentive to do so. It's cheaper to use coal by a wide margin, we're not going to run out of it within our lifetime or the lifetime of our great-grandchildren, and it can be converted to oil once the price of oil rises high enough. It's by far the most economical choice. Of course, it's also hellaciously damaging to the environment on a thousand different fronts. "'Let the FM do its job, that is the fastest and most efficient way to discover alternative fuels. You're not -- gulp -- suggesting govt should do the job?" I am suggesting that. Massive government investment and incentives are the only way. The free market has no incentive to do so... why would it venture into new and immensely less efficient fuels when it can just use coal? --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT) |
Topic Header[edit]
|
Rem |
Tom |
Topic Header[edit]
|
Rem |
Tom |
Topic Header[edit]
|
Rem |
Tom |
Topic Header[edit]
|
Rem |
Tom |
Topic Header[edit]
|
Rem |
Tom |
Topic Header[edit]
|
Rem |
Tom |
Exchange Eight[edit]
[unindent] Tom // I am suggesting that. Massive government investment and incentives are the only way. The free market has no incentive to do so... why would it venture into new and immensely less efficient fuels when it can just use coal?
It seems to me you are thinking of the FM as a monolith. The people that dominate the coal industry may feel no incentive to develop an alternative, but others would, and may be working on it already. But if i were, and i anticipated govt would pick up the tab on my research, i might be tempted to drop it and instead suck at the govt nipple. Much more lucrative that way, and there would be no rush to get the job done, or to do it well.
// You stand corrected, then, because that is the case.
Okay -- i stand corected concerning voluntary public funding of candidates. But if i may, i'd still like to address govt's role in doling out the cash.
Govt gets to decide how much to contribute to candidates and even which candidates will receive it. Yes, those decisions are based upon certain criteria, but that criteria was contived by Congress. I'm sure you're thinking "so what?", but doesn't the conflict of interest worry you just a bit? Don't you think incumbents already have a huge advantage over challengers, and there is the problem that they will conspire to reinforce that advantage? (Which would be a REAL problem if one party gets so much power they can just dictate rules that benefit them.)
Here are the flaws that i see. As a candidate, you can promise to go the public funding route, but when you amass five times as much funding (let's say) as your opponent(s), simply opt out. Meanwhile your opponent is constrained by rules you aren't, and has to deal with the risk of prosecution when trying to level the playing field. (I'm not talking Obama vs McCain,)
The rich already have an advantage, why enhance it? I would remove all funding restrictions. If George Soros wants to fund a candidate, circuitous routes to get around legislation shouldn't be necessary. (George, if you are reading this, why not fund Libts a bit? It would help your image. Start a MoveFree.com maybe.)
// But you don't honestly think that crack and meth, free of any constraints, will fail to kill hundreds of thousands?
Yes i do -- not nearly that number. Wouldn't a short burst of bodies duly noted by the newsies be a big natural deterrent? Especially if those bodies weren't whisked away immediately to keep school kids from seeing them. At the very least, leave them in a body bag until sundown.
Ultimately, with that natural deterence, we'd have many fewer deaths from drugs. "A monstrous result, in my opinion" is what we have NOW.
// Obesity is certainly a large problem as well, no pun intended.
Not bad as a pun, tho. As the problem worsens, do you doubt that statist solutions will be attempted? The Socialist argument (which i've already heard) will go like this: Look, if we provide "free" healthcare funded by the public, we have every right to proscribe unhealthy behavior -- we're paying for it doggonit.
Isn't there some meddling of this sort going on in LA already? Isn't the local gummint considering closing down fastfood joints everywhere near poor neighborhoods? If that came to fruition, would not that paternalism worry you?
Folks get all apoplectic when i say motorcycle helmets ruin the pleasure of a ride on a beautiful day, and govt should have no business in this affair. (This is one reason every Libt wants to move to NH.) This slope is much more than slippery.
// It [$100 billion rax credit] was an arbitrary number. It would cut revenue by something like 4%.
Anywhere near 4% is not what i would call "drastically reduced government income". I suspect we'll always differ on this -- i cannot imagine that a 4% diminishment would require cutting any essential services, and that is what i believe the argument should pivot on.
// You're misphrasing the curve question, but I believe I understand what you're asking. You're talking about the Laffer curve, yes? I do think it is linear in that sense, and that the curve is essentially accurate.
I don't consider "Do you consider the curve of tax rates versus tax revenue to be linear?" to be a misphrase. Does it not read well?
Laffer described the obvious, which was that it is defintely non-linear, but i didn't need him or his curve to make my case or raise the question, nor do i know if he would ask mine, so let's keep him out of it. It is i, not Laffer, that raised the question, so it is i, not he, that you should address. I have to make that point, lest someone starts attacking Laffer as if i were responsible for him.
If it WERE linear, that would mean there is NO tax rate at which revenues would actually decrease. Sorry for asking again, but is that what you believe? (If you're answer is a straight "yes", i shant bother you again on that.)
I'm out of time for now.
-- RemBeau 12:51, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
- It seems to me you are thinking of the FM as a monolith. The people that dominate the coal industry may feel no incentive to develop an alternative, but others would, and may be working on it already. But if i were, and i anticipated govt would pick up the tab on my research, i might be tempted to drop it and instead suck at the govt nipple. Much more lucrative that way, and there would be no rush to get the job done, or to do it well.
- Of course there are others working on it. In fact, the prices on solar energy (as an example) have been steadily decreasing for many years. And do you know why? Because that "government nipple" has been enabling them to do so. Solar power is inefficient and expensive and has been so since its inception decades ago, and the only reason companies have been able to continue to sell and design solar panels is because some darn liberals decided to help make the technology affordable.
- When coal costs about $2.10 per watt for a new plant, and concentrated solar electricity costs about $3.50, what energy company in their right mind is going to voluntarily choose the costlier one? Please tell me, so that I can immediately make sure I don't have any stock with them. Of course the market is not a "monolith," or else they would choose solar. They're individual rational actors, so they choose the short-sighted best choice for them, which is almost without exception the cheapest.
- Please, explain to me how you think the market would incline anyone to alternative energy. Then explain to me how your explanation might bear any resemblance to the real world, in which it has taken massive and continual government funding for such a move.
- Govt gets to decide how much to contribute to candidates and even which candidates will receive it. Yes, those decisions are based upon certain criteria, but that criteria was contived by Congress. I'm sure you're thinking "so what?", but doesn't the conflict of interest worry you just a bit? Don't you think incumbents already have a huge advantage over challengers, and there is the problem that they will conspire to reinforce that advantage? (Which would be a REAL problem if one party gets so much power they can just dictate rules that benefit them.)
- Here are the flaws that i see. As a candidate, you can promise to go the public funding route, but when you amass five times as much funding (let's say) as your opponent(s), simply opt out. Meanwhile your opponent is constrained by rules you aren't, and has to deal with the risk of prosecution when trying to level the playing field. (I'm not talking Obama vs McCain,)
- The rich already have an advantage, why enhance it? I would remove all funding restrictions. If George Soros wants to fund a candidate, circuitous routes to get around legislation shouldn't be necessary. (George, if you are reading this, why not fund Libts a bit? It would help your image. Start a MoveFree.com maybe.)
- It's hard to even know where to start on this one. Of all problems, I think the least likely one is that the incumbents from different parties will "conspire" to make it harder for challengers. Such a mindset is so foreign it's actually a little funny... the notion of Clinton and Stevens hunkering down to try to work out how to keep out the new kids is downright bizarre. The parties want to get more of their own guys in, always.
- I'm not sure exactly about the scenario you spin... you do realize that once you opt to use the program at the start of the general campaign, you can't leave it, right?
- I am baffled by your proposal to remove funding restrictions. That would essentially allow any office lower than statewide to be purchased; we might as well just work out a pricing system now and usher in a new cursus honorum of the old Roman Empire. Soros could afford to donate ten million dollars to a local state senator; no rival could match a tenth of that. A wealthy family could almost outright own all of a district's offices.
- If you want to worry about things like this, worry about campaign finance and gerrymandering. The latter is a hideously abusive use of power perpetrated aggressively by Republicans during the Reagan years and whenever they've had a chance since. The former is an issue so radioactive that virtually everyone promises to work on it and no one gets any real change made.
- Yes i do -- not nearly that number. Wouldn't a short burst of bodies duly noted by the newsies be a big natural deterrent? Especially if those bodies weren't whisked away immediately to keep school kids from seeing them. At the very least, leave them in a body bag until sundown.
- Ultimately, with that natural deterence, we'd have many fewer deaths from drugs. "A monstrous result, in my opinion" is what we have NOW.
- ...
- ...
- "Especially if those bodies weren't whisked away immediately to keep school kids from seeing them."
- Don't you think you might be verging on the irrational if you think that a viable plan is a wave of death being displayed to children? I mean, maybe you want to just step back and rethink your keynote "show the kids the corpses" plan.
- Do you think smoking crack cocaine is a rational decision? I mean, you seem to think that seeing people die from it will teach children that it's dangerous... do you think there was some mystery about that before? Smoking crack is not a rational thing to do. It's insane and stupid. Poverty and a drug culture lead to desperation and a situation in which the illusory and temporary appeal of drugs is more enthralling than a life that the poor perceive is already lost for them. We need to fight poverty and combat the culture, not throw up our hands, let them die, and show their bodies to children as a lesson.
- As the problem worsens, do you doubt that statist solutions will be attempted? The Socialist argument (which i've already heard) will go like this: Look, if we provide "free" healthcare funded by the public, we have every right to proscribe unhealthy behavior -- we're paying for it doggonit.
- I have no doubt that all kinds of solutions will be attempted. There are always people who propose disagreeable things... just the other day I was talking with a guy on the internet who wanted to teach children a lesson about drugs by letting the bodies of overdosing addicts hang around for an extra day.
- I do think, however, that with universal health-care more emphasis could be placed on prevention rather than crises. It costs enormously less to send someone to a nutritionist than it does to pay for their bypass.
- Isn't there some meddling of this sort going on in LA already? Isn't the local gummint considering closing down fastfood joints everywhere near poor neighborhoods? If that came to fruition, would not that paternalism worry you?
- Sure, that would bother me a lot. Do you have a reference or any more details other than a vague reference to a possible story occurring somewhere in the entire country?
- Anywhere near 4% is not what i would call "drastically reduced government income". I suspect we'll always differ on this -- i cannot imagine that a 4% diminishment would require cutting any essential services, and that is what i believe the argument should pivot on.
- I guess you missed where I mentioned that such a sum includes the total budgets for the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, the FDA, the CDC, and the entire Justice Department... all combined. Or a fifth of the DoD budget. I'm sorry it doesn't seem like a lot to you, but the folks at those agencies tend to disagree.
- If it WERE linear, that would mean there is NO tax rate at which revenues would actually decrease. Sorry for asking again, but is that what you believe? (If you're answer is a straight "yes", i shant bother you again on that.)
- No, of course that is not accurate. As an example, the taxes through much of sub-Saharan Africa are oppressively high and are helping crush many economies there; if they were lower, revenues would increase over the longer term as their economies were allowed to expand and generate more overall activity.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Exchange Nine[edit]
- 1 // Do you believe in an unlimited right to bear arms, incidentally?
- Not unlimited IF you mean nuclear weapons, things of that kind.
- 2 // If nuclear weapons can be restricted, then why can't fixed-position belt-fed machine guns? And if they can be restricted, then why can't assault rifles? I am curious as to your actual reasoning at where you draw the line. What is the principle you use to determine the exact amount of destructive power a private citizen is allowed to carry in his trunk?
- I DO have a real reason to WANT to draw the line, i just don't know exactly where. (Only Anarchists have all the answers.)
- 3 // Speaking just for myself as a liberal, I personally tend not to take a position as outspoken as you on an issue unless I have an answer. I did ask for some libertarian policy positions to represent your specific views, so that we could get at the values behind them. Now I discover that your position on the matter is arbitrary.
- No -- you haven't, but if that is the way YOU define arbitrariness and insist that you may not argue a topic unless you can draw a clear line, you'd have to throw out a HUGE amount of posts on RW -- d'accord? I don't mind being held to a higher standard, but your standard is impossible in almost all cases.
- Admiration -- that is how i feel about the skillful way you have handled this point. You carefully separated yourself from the Liberal horde as one who would not take a position unless YOU have an "answer". You apparently never responded to the Liberal Beliefs poll, an obvious place for me to search in order to come up with one of your responses, not as a Tu Quoque, but as a way to ferret out actual differences between how you justify your positions as opposed to mine. Nicely done, and that will make it harder for me to refute your rebuke, but refute it i must. If i let you get away with it, you could use it repeatedly in the future, regardless of its logic.
- You may not see it as i do, but your approach was Argument of the Beard. You ask me to draw a line as to what arms are covered by The Right To Bear Arms, and were i to draw one, you could say, "We'll what about low yeld nuclear weapons?" And when it is discovered that there is some point at which i cannot draw a line, you could imply that defeats my argument that the Second Amendment be honored. Or upbraid me (as you did) for not being able to have an answer ready as to exactly where that line should be drawn.
- That dog doesn't hunt. If it did, we could never have rape laws. But we HAVE to have them; the principle is extremely important despite the fact that sometimes drawing the line as to what constitutes rape can be very difficult, and in fact you can be certain that innocent men have been found guilty because of it.
- The fact that i, without consulting with others, am unable to draw the weapons line when it comes to keeping and using arms, but believe that nuclear weapons should be banned, in NO way weakens my argument that the 2nd A should be honored.
- Arbitrary, no -- logical, yes.
- Not unlimited IF you mean nuclear weapons, things of that kind.
- I DO have a real reason to WANT to draw the line, i just don't know exactly where. (Only Anarchists have all the answers.)
- I'm sorry, I don't understand. You have a reason to want to draw the line, of course. And you have a reason for saying some guns should be legal. But we're talking about specific policy opinions... if you can't actually draw that line, then what use are libertarian principles in arriving at decisions? It seems like they are great for vague statements, but when actually pressed on specific items, you tend to blur.
- No -- you haven't, but if that is the way YOU define arbitrariness and insist that you may not argue a topic unless you can draw a clear line, you'd have to throw out a HUGE amount of posts on RW -- d'accord? I don't mind being held to a higher standard, but your standard is impossible in almost all cases.
- I imagine that if I were to parse through RW, I'd find all kinds of things that weren't clear and nonarbitrary policy statements. But in fairness, I think you have to admit that few of those posts were under the same strictures as your own. As you recall, we began this discussion because I asked you for specific policy positions, from you as a libertarian. From the beginnings of this discussion and with mutual assent, you were being asked for concrete and specific items that libertarian principles held should be done.
- Admiration -- that is how i feel about the skillful way you have handled this point. You carefully separated yourself from the Liberal horde as one who would not take a position unless YOU have an "answer". You apparently never responded to the Liberal Beliefs poll, an obvious place for me to search in order to come up with one of your responses, not as a Tu Quoque, but as a way to ferret out actual differences between how you justify your positions as opposed to mine. Nicely done, and that will make it harder for me to refute your rebuke, but refute it i must. If i let you get away with it, you could use it repeatedly in the future, regardless of its logic.
- Well, since we're discussing libertarian beliefs and you have specifically held yourself to be a representative of those beliefs. So I'm sorry if you dislike being held to defending those beliefs, but that was what you came here to do, wasn't it?
- But to both of our good fortune, I did address the "Liberal Beliefs" thing here, out of the way of the tumult. And in fact I have even begun to write a statement of my general political beliefs, for you to examine my views if you care to do so.
- You may not see it as i do, but your approach was Argument of the Beard. You ask me to draw a line as to what arms are covered by The Right To Bear Arms, and were i to draw one, you could say, "We'll what about low yeld nuclear weapons?" And when it is discovered that there is some point at which i cannot draw a line, you could imply that defeats my argument that the Second Amendment be honored. Or upbraid me (as you did) for not being able to have an answer ready as to exactly where that line should be drawn.
- I disagree. I think that the only important question when it comes to American gun control is where to draw the line. Virtually no one thinks there should be unlimited gun ownership. And very few think there should be zero gun ownership. The only point of substance in the matter is where to draw the line. And yet you think it was unfair of me to ask you your principles and basis for establishing that line, and for some location for it?
- That dog doesn't hunt. If it did, we could never have rape laws. But we HAVE to have them; the principle is extremely important despite the fact that sometimes drawing the line as to what constitutes rape can be very difficult, and in fact you can be certain that innocent men have been found guilty because of it.
- And yet there is a line. And a reason for where that line is. In public law, it's an inconsistent line. But in private beliefs, I think it is not unreasonable to ask for a line, as well. I haven't parsed your statements into nothing as yet in the discussion, and did not intend to do so with an answer on this point, either.
- The fact that i, without consulting with others, am unable to draw the weapons line when it comes to keeping and using arms, but believe that nuclear weapons should be banned, in NO way weakens my argument that the 2nd A should be honored.
- Arbitrary, no -- logical, yes.
- I apologize, but I disagree. I think it establishes pretty clearly that libertarian principles aren't capable of drawing that line. If you need to consult with other libertarians on the matter, you can go ahead and do so; no one's stopping you. But as a self-proclaimed libertarian here to defend policy positions, I don't think you should be free to dismiss questions about those positions with such handwaving, "oh there's a line but I can't draw it."
- I have thought, and continue to think, that libertarian principles are heterogenous and inconsistent. They are usually used to dictate a very self-serving social construction of the world that would primarily benefit the holder of those beliefs; they are akin to Objectivism in that way. So when I ask you for some solid policy beliefs and then try to get at how you arrived at those, I am not surprised when you either offer entirely inaccurate positions based in ignorance (such as your opposition to public financing) or rather vague support for something like gun ownership without the ability to supply specifics. I'm sorry, but this is not dispelling my impressions (or those of others) about your belief system.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:45, 27 August 2008 (EDT)
Exchange Ten[edit]
- // ... if you can't actually draw that line, then what use are libertarian principles in arriving at decisions?
- A very strange comment. First, i told you how i would draw the line if i HAD to -- that is NOT the same as saying i couldn't draw the line if i HAD to -- nor is it equivalent to "can't actually draw that line". Please tell me you SEE that.
- I know you reject that as a satisfactory answer, fine, but that is different than i "can't actually draw that line". Just chalk it up to your opinion that YOU could draw that line, right now, and feel good about it, because maybe the only person who would disagree with the line you draw would be a Libt.
- Not only do i reject the way you see it, but i also see it as illogical to dismiss Libt principles on that account. My goal is to be adamant that the Second Amendment be respected, and it not be distorted -- those are the two biggest threats at the moment. That must surely be at cross purposes with your goal on the issue.
- But i don't even know what YOUR goal is, or why you are so intent in proving me wrong on the issue. Or maybe that is your ONLY goal?
- // It seems like they are great for vague statements, but when actually pressed on specific items, you tend to blur.
- Bunk, my Liberal friend. They aren't vague and i didn't blur, those are just YOUR terms for my point of view, being that you disagree with it. Nor does it make sense for you to characterize my repeated answers as "dismissing" the issue. It is how i SEE the issue. Maybe it's time to show how YOUR view is better.
- Libertarianism is about principles, NOT about specific policy positions, altho opinions should flow logically from those principles. That seems to be at loggerheads with Libs (and Cons), which is all about taking stands, which often appears to be nothing but partisanship. (I know, you see the Pubs as more partisan than the Dems.)
- // I have thought, and continue to think, that libertarian principles are heterogenous and inconsistent.
- Here you're on to something, but let me be specific
- Heterogeneous does, it seems to me, describe Libt views, but to me, that's not a bad thing, altho it would be nice i guess if every Libt saw everything EXACTLY the same way. Is this something Liberals have achieved, in your opinion? (I don't mean EXACTLY the same way.)
- Inconsistent? I'm guilty as charged, but most Libts don't have that problem. Is it your belief that Liberals AREN'T inconsistent? Liberal views dovetail, do they?
- Okay, as to me. I just do not BELIEVE that everything, given human understanding, CAN be consistent. Disagree if you like, and feel superior because you believe YOUR views don't have that defect, but if they don't, they'll be suspect in my eyes. There is a lot of backfilling going on, taking positions and THEN trying to invent consistent reasons to support it.
- It is my view that the underlying themes are often unknown to us mere mortals, and that until geniuses tease them out, many of the best views will appear to be inconsistent, when in fact, they really aren't at some level.
- ---
- Do not hesitate to remind me that i have left your posts completely unanswered in days -- i had missed two of them. I no longer receive notice when i login to RW that there are responses on my "watch" pages, and don't know why that is. (Maybe best to notify me on my talk page. They can always be deleted later.)
- A very strange comment. First, i told you how i would draw the line if i HAD to -- that is NOT the same as saying i couldn't draw the line if i HAD to -- nor is it equivalent to "can't actually draw that line". Please tell me you SEE that.
- I apologize, I must have missed where you told me the line would be. Inasmuch as I can see, you excluded only "nuclear weapons and that sort of thing," and declared that if need be you would meet with some other people and "hash it out with them."
- I know you reject that as a satisfactory answer, fine, but that is different than i "can't actually draw that line". Just chalk it up to your opinion that YOU could draw that line, right now, and feel good about it, because maybe the only person who would disagree with the line you draw would be a Libt.
- Not only do i reject the way you see it, but i also see it as illogical to dismiss Libt principles on that account. My goal is to be adamant that the Second Amendment be respected, and it not be distorted -- those are the two biggest threats at the moment. That must surely be at cross purposes with your goal on the issue.
- Your goal is to respect the Second Amendment and not distort it. That's fine. You could draw a line on this issue if you wanted to do so, but aren't going to. Libertarian principles could resolve this, but you're not going to use them to do so.
- You really want me to have to take your word on all of this?
- If libertarian principles, whatever those may be in this situation, are of use, then draw the damn line. If you cannot because you have to ask other people or you don't know libertarianism that well or this issue is too hard or whatever, then just say so. But the "I could but I'm not going to right now" answer doesn't hold any water with me, since my position remains that libertarian principles are useless for the matter.
- But i don't even know what YOUR goal is, or why you are so intent in proving me wrong on the issue. Or maybe that is your ONLY goal?
- I am intent on demonstrating that libertarian principles are ill-defined and useless in any practical matter. So far, I think I am succeeding admirably.
- Bunk, my Liberal friend. They aren't vague and i didn't blur, those are just YOUR terms for my point of view, being that you disagree with it. Nor does it make sense for you to characterize my repeated answers as "dismissing" the issue. It is how i SEE the issue. Maybe it's time to show how YOUR view is better.
- Well, you can't draw a line on gun control, although you could make vague statements about protecting rights. You couldn't specify any government bloat in the school budget or propose solutions for education, although you could make vague statements about competition improving things. You could propose eliminating the income tax donation to public financing, but as it turns out that's because you didn't understand it or the program. You could propose tax cuts across the board like Kennedy, but as it turns out that's because you didn't know that Kennedy cut taxes for the poor and middle-class (progressive taxation) from a rate not at all comparable to today's rate.
- Kinda blurry.
- Libertarianism is about principles, NOT about specific policy positions, altho opinions should flow logically from those principles. That seems to be at loggerheads with Libs (and Cons), which is all about taking stands, which often appears to be nothing but partisanship. (I know, you see the Pubs as more partisan than the Dems.)
- Oh, I agree. Libertarianism is all about vague principles.
- Heterogeneous does, it seems to me, describe Libt views, but to me, that's not a bad thing, altho it would be nice i guess if every Libt saw everything EXACTLY the same way. Is this something Liberals have achieved, in your opinion? (I don't mean EXACTLY the same way.)
- You're changing the goal mid-stream. I didn't say "exactly the same way." That would be an absurd and laughable goal, and discount the high value of diversity of thought. I said "heterogenous," meaning to indicate that libertarians generally hold few beliefs in common.
- Inconsistent? I'm guilty as charged, but most Libts don't have that problem. Is it your belief that Liberals AREN'T inconsistent? Liberal views dovetail, do they?
- To my great good fortune, I don't really claim to be representative of a group. I identify myself as a "liberal" for convenience's sake, and have a consistent belief system and set of policy positions.
- Overall, however, I do think that liberal views dovetail, even though it should be noted that liberalism in America is now generally only defined in opposition to conservatism, rather than being the coherent movement of conservatism or libertarianism.
- Okay, as to me. I just do not BELIEVE that everything, given human understanding, CAN be consistent. Disagree if you like, and feel superior because you believe YOUR views don't have that defect, but if they don't, they'll be suspect in my eyes. There is a lot of backfilling going on, taking positions and THEN trying to invent consistent reasons to support it.
- It is my view that the underlying themes are often unknown to us mere mortals, and that until geniuses tease them out, many of the best views will appear to be inconsistent, when in fact, they really aren't at some level.
- I view consistency as a goal, since it means that one began from principles to arrive at policy positions. That has been my effort, in any case. I'm sure some people do the opposite. I'm sorry you feel differently.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:15, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Exchange Eleven[edit]
[unindent] We're just going to have to agree i guess that you are wrong and i am right and move on. Voltaire would understand when i say, I defend your right to be wrong. Dogs with bones pale in comparison.
I do accept your insincere apology. As to your "You really want me to have to take your word on all of this?" -- i think that would be best, and your effort would be ennobling.
// I am intent on demonstrating that libertarian principles are ill-defined and useless in any practical matter.
A worthy goal from your perspective, and i expected no less. I have to warn you, i take off points for repeated assertions, and remind you that reciting the "libertarian principles are ill-defined and useless in any practical matter" mantra doesn't make it so.
// So far, I think I am succeeding admirably.
I've often said that Liberalism depends on fantasy worlds, and far be it from me to burst in on your daydream. Reality can be a drag, and i wish you could visit the dentist in my stead.
// ... you didn't know that Kennedy cut taxes for the poor and middle-class ...
Ah, it seems we have come full circle. Kennedy (and you) only THINKS that he is helping the poor at the expense of the rich. Simplistic thinking on his part as i have clearly shown. Too bad Abe Lincoln wasn't a Dem, lest you might respect, and even understand, him when he said, "You can't strengthen the poor by weakening the rich".
There is still time for you to alter your thought patterns, and i would be honored to have played a small part in leading you out of the cave into the light.
// To my great good fortune, I don't really claim to be representative of a group. I identify myself as a "liberal" for convenience's sake, and have a consistent belief system and set of policy positions.
Talk about luck -- you got it. And i don't doubt for one second that you "have a consistent belief system and set of policy positions", not to mention the strength of your superstitions.
// I view consistency as a goal, since it means that one began from principles to arrive at policy positions.
Izzat what it means to you? Actually i see making consistency a goal as forcing things to fit in places where they really don't. Logic, reason, and reality all trump consistency. Those three i find to be reliable guides.
// That has been my effort, in any case.
Your honesty commends you.
// I'm sorry you feel differently.
I hope that is not sympathy. I hate sympathy.
I do look forward to addressing your points that i have skipped so far. You must be able to type a million words a minute.
-- RemBeau 08:21, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- We're just going to have to agree i guess that you are wrong and i am right and move on. Voltaire would understand when i say, I defend your right to be wrong. Dogs with bones pale in comparison.
- I do accept your insincere apology. As to your "You really want me to have to take your word on all of this?" -- i think that would be best, and your effort would be ennobling.
- Haha, sure, I'm sure that's what everyone else sees, too. You can't answer the question, so I must be wrong. You are the very soul of rhetorical skill.
- A worthy goal from your perspective, and i expected no less. I have to warn you, i take off points for repeated assertions, and remind you that reciting the "libertarian principles are ill-defined and useless in any practical matter" mantra doesn't make it so.
- Repeated assertions... would those be things like asserting that current economic circumstances are similar to those of the Kennedy era, which is laughably untrue and which you didn't even attempt to support? And I think I've provided ample evidence in this discussion as to my "mantra"'s truth.
- Ah, it seems we have come full circle. Kennedy (and you) only THINKS that he is helping the poor at the expense of the rich. Simplistic thinking on his part as i have clearly shown. Too bad Abe Lincoln wasn't a Dem, lest you might respect, and even understand, him when he said, "You can't strengthen the poor by weakening the rich".
- You have shown? You have stated, but I don't think you have shown. Under Reagan and Bush and other recent Presidents who have cut taxes so much, we have seen the deficit explode each time. How did you "show" anything, beyond making statements that end up being demonstrably false?
- I do look forward to addressing your points that i have skipped so far. You must be able to type a million words a minute.
- You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for waiting for you to actually get back to addressing substantive points and not responding to your speech.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 11:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Exchange Twelve[edit]
- Sure, i forgive ... but i NEVER forget.
- Slights that is, but with your previous points, i will have to re-read them. Here's one now ...
- // You're changing the goal mid-stream. I didn't say "exactly the same way."
- I don't remember saying that you said that, but if i did, i take it back.
- // ... it should be noted that liberalism in America is now generally only defined in opposition to conservatism, rather than being the coherent movement of conservatism or libertarianism.
- Yoiks! I must be misreading this because i AGREE.
- > L) Helmet laws for motorcyclists // Yes.
- Am i allowed to know your reasoning on this?
- > M) Humanitarian intervention in other nations // Yes, absolutely. A responsible and moral nation has an obligation to help others.
- Hmm. This should probably be explored. In fact, why not make this a separate page, using that sentence as an exact headline? And titled, "Responsibilities_of_moral_nations". That should attract a lot of posts that reveal how people think, given that this topic is fraught with complex issues.
- N) Penalties on companies that hire offshore // Not "penalties," but incentives for domestic job production.
- Wonder what those would be? And why wouldn't it be smarter for govt to back off those policies which have priced the American worker out of the market?
- > X) Welfare // Absolutely. Numerous studies have established the "one-for-one crowdout" of charity is a complete myth.
- YO !!! ???
- // The poor should eat.
- I'm good with that. I know, you probably believe Libertarianism is about Social Darwinism -- i hope i am at least able to convince you that is false.
- Just ask a Liberal why Liberals are superior, he'll often answer, "more compassionate than others". Really? That needs to be probed.
- Could it not be that the difference is not the depth of compassion, but the approach we take to solve the problem of poverty?
- > 1 Building nuclear power plants // Not very strongly, but oppose for economic reasons. Solar power is the future.
- I hope you're right on this one, but it was my impression that we are nowhere near close to having the technology to meet the huge world energy demand, and that the economics involved is bad news. Have we recently made great strides with it?
- > 8 School choice // Expressed so vaguely, it's impossible to express a position.
- Okay -- did you happen to read my comments on this in response to a post of Human's? If so, do you agree at all with my comments? If not, i'll have to find it for you.
- ---
- Now that i have read your Liberal_Beliefs_Thing, it's clear you are not all a solid Liberal (as you hinted earlier), since you agree with me on so many issues. It may be you that you are a partial-crypto-Libertarian. (I probably should have whispered that, for your safety.)
- > L) Helmet laws for motorcyclists // Yes.
- Am i allowed to know your reasoning on this?
- To be honest, they just seem like a good thing. It's not something I've ever really thought about, since I've never owned a motorcycle or known anyone who has one. I can see the other side of the argument very easily as well. Not anything like an important issue to me, so I haven't thought into it much.
- N) Penalties on companies that hire offshore // Not "penalties," but incentives for domestic job production.
- Wonder what those would be? And why wouldn't it be smarter for govt to back off those policies which have priced the American worker out of the market?
- Tax incentives within reason to remain domestic. This is already being done in most places, but poorly and sometimes unreasonably. A national tax reform bill to this effect would be well-placed.
- Could you specify which policies you want to eliminate, please?
- > X) Welfare // Absolutely. Numerous studies have established the "one-for-one crowdout" of charity is a complete myth.
- YO !!! ???
- Is that a question?
- > 1 Building nuclear power plants // Not very strongly, but oppose for economic reasons. Solar power is the future.
- I hope you're right on this one, but it was my impression that we are nowhere near close to having the technology to meet the huge world energy demand, and that the economics involved is bad news. Have we recently made great strides with it?
- Yes. It is approaching a solid $1 per watt now, an enormous stride forward from $4.50 per watt some years ago. Plus, it's simply the best alternative for America. Other countries may need to choose other solutions, since they lack the American Southwest.
- Sorry to interrupt, but this advance definitely qualifies as "major". In case you haven't already seen it. --Kels 11:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- > 8 School choice // Expressed so vaguely, it's impossible to express a position.
- Okay -- did you happen to read my comments on this in response to a post of Human's? If so, do you agree at all with my comments? If not, i'll have to find it for you.
- No, I didn't see that. I didn't read anyone else's responses on that thing, actually.
- Now that i have read your Liberal_Beliefs_Thing, it's clear you are not all a solid Liberal (as you hinted earlier), since you agree with me on so many issues. It may be you that you are a partial-crypto-Libertarian. (I probably should have whispered that, for your safety.)
- I think almost everyone would consider me very liberal, but if you think otherwise, that's fine. It's not a label to which I am particularly attached.
- I can't help but notice you have completely abandoned even the pretense of trying to propose libertarian policies and back them with libertarian beliefs, and instead have moved on to questioning my own views. And while you are entirely within your rights to do so, the best place to do it is probably not from that absurd little quiz. This is much more thought-out, if you are going to abandon libertarianism and discuss my views instead.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:06, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Wherein human interrupts on the second holy amendment[edit]
I think, taking originalist thinking into account, that the second amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to own and bear muzzle loading rifles and flintlock pistols, since that is what "arms" were in those days. Oh, and also, cannon. The prohibition would be on weapons that used "sealed" cartridges, of any caliber. I think this is pretty clear, and would be understood by any "I wish I lived in the revolutionary era" libertarian. PS, that's a real quote. ħuman
01:02, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
- That's impossible. No Libertarian ever says a dumb thing. If he were to, it would reflect on me of course, and diminish my stature.
- -- RemBeau 21:43, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, you are "identifying" as one. I guess if no other libertarian I know is a true libertarian, you are a "party of one". So drop the label already and tell us what you think - you seem to prefer to attack others after asking what they think, to presenting your perspective and defending it. ħuman 23:24, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, you are "identifying" as one. I guess if no other libertarian I know is a true libertarian, you are a "party of one". So drop the label already and tell us what you think - you seem to prefer to attack others after asking what they think, to presenting your perspective and defending it. ħuman
- "Libertarianism is about principles, NOT about specific policy positions, altho opinions should flow logically from those principles" First, I tire of your random abbreviations. If I can type "libertarian", you can type "although". Anyway, to critique what I quoted you saying. If opinions flow logically from those principles, what the hell are your positions on the issues of the day? Because that is what matters. Or are you too trapped in your ivory tower of principles and philosophy to recommend to us mortals living in the material world what we should do next? ħuman 23:13, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Waffle[edit]
Thesauruses (thesauri?):[edit]
- Waffle
- equivocation
- Waffle
- pause or hold back in uncertainty or unwillingness; "Authorities hesitate to quote exact figures"
- hesitate, waver
- dwell on, linger over - delay
- boggle - hesitate when confronted with a problem, or when in doubt or fear
- hover, linger - move to and fro; "The shy student lingered in the corner"
- hover, oscillate, vacillate, vibrate - be undecided about something; waver between conflicting positions or courses of action; "He oscillates between accepting the new position and retirement"
- falter, waver - be unsure or weak; "Their enthusiasm is faltering"
Dictionary[edit]
- waffle
- Informal, chiefly Brit, Austral & NZ
- Verb
- [-fling, -fled]
- to speak or write in a vague and wordy manner
- Noun
- vague and wordy speech or writing [origin unknown]
Susanary[edit]
- Waffle
- To behave like a libertarian describing libertarianism
ContribsTalk 09:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
- I certainly agree, at least in the case of this particular "libertarian". ħuman 00:56, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- I certainly agree, at least in the case of this particular "libertarian". ħuman
Susanaria[edit]
Noun. Sue-zan-ah-REE-yah
An eating establishment designed to provide nourishment for the terminally confused. A last attempt, before shock therapy, to sort out bad cranial wiring.
-- Terminally Confused --
Adjectival phrase -- also can be a noun phrase.
Symptoms:
Inability to distinguish between waffles, funnel cakes, crepes, tortillas, and brilliant, nuanced opinions.
Prognosis:
Likely to rise no higher than Liberalism. Incredibly unlikely to reach the pinnacle of human achievement -- AKA Libertarianism.
-- RemBeau 00:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- Rimjob = Arrogant jerk. Cannot defend his so-called "positions" (since he takes none and only attacks others), and thinks he is smarter than everyone else, in spite of much evidence to the contrary. ħuman 01:02, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- Isn't everybody like that in their youth, Human? It takes years of life experience, and a CP block, to be able to say this. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 06:42, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
- Sooooo serious. Lighten up. It was just tit-for-tat humor -- thought you might enjoy it.
To quote (out of context, but it fits) the Scottish Play:" - it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." , Rembrant, I think you talk illconceived, imprecise, bollocks - at great length as if sheer weight of words will make whatever point it is that you're striving for. Your humor is not appreciated. (My entry was intended to be serious) ContribsTalk 15:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
Exchange Thirteen[edit]
Tom: // ... you have completely abandoned even the pretense of trying to propose libertarian policies and back them with libertarian beliefs ...
No, not true. I shall "propose libertarian policies and back them with libertarian beliefs" (school choice is one i will address shortly) when i think of them, but that is not so easily done. Here's why:
As Liberalism concocts a plethora of policies at the drop of a hat, and as Libertarianism is much more about principles than policies, there is bound to be an inbalance. To put it another way, Liberals have tons of policies and tend to be proud to trot them out. Libts have VERY few in comparison, and are proud to trot out principles instead, chief among them is that govt should be reigned in, drastically, which will eleviate many of humanities problems.
As you are by now aware, Libts are ABSOLUTELY convinced that we should be free, and that, by the way, a free society is much better able to bestow on its citizens the MOST blessings -- those blessings which pretty much all shades of political and western philosophical thought are agreed upon.
Thinking as a Liberal, you INSIST on discussing MY policies, and clearly have not understood my reluctance to provide them. (It reminds me a lttle bit of someone, having been told you speak French, asking you to "say something in French".) My policies hardly matter, my principles do. THAT is our contrast in approach and in thinking.
As a Libt speaking only for myself, i have not figured out how to convince anyone how incredibly important freedom is. And if someone doesn't have that little spark, that hint of a belief in freedom, discussion is hopeless in that regard. That is how i see it based on my experience. The natural tendency is for folks to want more government, and most won't be talked out of it.
So i am reduced to arguing on a utilitarian front -- freedom delivers the goods. Even there, statist tendencies are hard to overcome; Libt views go against the grain. Since i realize that, you may wonder if i hope to "convert" hard-core Liberals in a Liberal forum. Hardly. What i WOULD like to accomplish (and have no idea if i'm really succeeding) is to debunk the prejudices most Liberals have concerning Libertarianism. False ideas concerning Libertarianism abound in Liberal groups, and are much in evidence on this site.
The first hurdle is to get past the Liberal feeling that intent is destiny, and akin to that, determining a person's motivation is most important. If you are of good will and sincere, your policies will benefit mankind; surely they won't be counter-productive. Among Liberals especially, that superstition dies hard. And a corollary: if someone proposes an anti-Liberal policy, that person is evil, or at the very least insincere and ill-willed. Because if he weren't, he'd BE a Liberal.
How can a Libt make any headway if his motives are automatically impugned, given he disagrees with Liberal policies? He would have to pretend to be a Liberal, and chip away, ever so slowly, at hard-entrenched Liberal ideas, i suppose. Not honest, nor even a winning strategy. Maybe i can at least open some Liberal minds on the "not automatically harboring evil motives" front.
Perhaps an example would serve to bring some of these concepts into focus. Homosexuality. Do gays really believe that straight Liberals consider them equal? Or that only those that are pro-gay can be trusted? That would speak to relying on motivation, which in this case would be relying on a lot of hypocrisy. Gays are better off aligning themselves with those that strongly and dependably believe in live-and-let-live, those whose political principles are adamantly opposed to govt having any say on most issues. The only downside for Liberal gays is that would also mean no PRO-gay legislation. Some gays have figured that out, and have joined Libt ranks (several at every gathering), where they rub elbows with religious people, and nobody there has a problem with that. And very little patronizing goes on among the members, it has been my observation.
-- RemBeau 06:05, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
- Swell, a speech.
- Liberals have tons of policies and tend to be proud to trot them out. Libts have VERY few in comparison, and are proud to trot out principles instead
- Certainly true, although not something I would have imagined a libertarian would brag about. Not that uselessness isn't a charming trait in political approaches.
- My policies hardly matter, my principles do. THAT is our contrast in approach and in thinking.
- Indeed, that is the contrast. I think both matter a great deal. If a set of vague principles cannot provide any concrete improvement in approach to living our lives, then they might be of intense philosophical interest, but relatively little political interest. We can't govern by deciding that policies "hardly matter" and making speeches casting aspersions on other political philosophies, we have to actually do things. We live on this planet, not in whatever theoretical world would enable libertarianism to be useful.
- What i WOULD like to accomplish (and have no idea if i'm really succeeding) is to debunk the prejudices most Liberals have concerning Libertarianism.
- My prejudices against libertarianism were that it was useful for vague statements and useless for actual decisions. Guess if you've succeeded.
- if someone proposes an anti-Liberal policy, that person is evil, or at the very least insincere and ill-willed
- I have accused you of neither. I haven't even implied either.
- You admit that libertarianism doesn't lend itself to actually formulating policies and that it is very hard for you to come up with any policies based in your philosophy that you can defend. That's good. That's all I was interested in demonstrating from the beginning. I'm not really interested in some sort of rhetorical contest where you allege your principles are somehow better, since that's a laughably impossible way to compare two political philosophies. Politics only matter to the degree in which they affect people's lives.
- Make speeches. Praise the free market. Propose vague statements of principle. Abandon every unsupported policy you manage to propose when challenged.
- From first to last, sir, you are indeed a libertarian.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 06:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
Exchange Fourteen[edit]
- Your last comment -- nice of you to say so; a compliment at last.
- Here is an issue i promised to bring up, a very Libertarian one: choice in education. Usually Liberals oppose it.
- Given that govt gathers taxes for the purpose of educating kids, why shouldn't parents be allowed to divert those funds to the schools of their choosing (just that share that would be spent on their children)? That money should adhere to the kids rather than to specific schools, and there is no good reason that parents shouldn't be free to divert it to any educational system they think best for them. I've heard lots of statist objections from those in teacher's unions who want to be in control, and tend to see things from the point of view as to what's best for employees rather than what's best for customers (in this case, the students).
- Here is an issue i promised to bring up, a very Libertarian one: choice in education. Usually Liberals oppose it.
- Would you mind if we referred to this as "school vouchers" rather than "choice in education." The former actually describes the issue, while the latter is a term chosen by conservative proponents of vouchers in an attempt to paint opponents as being against the idea of "choice."
- Given that govt gathers taxes for the purpose of educating kids, why shouldn't parents be allowed to divert those funds to the schools of their choosing (just that share that would be spent on their children)? That money should adhere to the kids rather than to specific schools, and there is no good reason that parents shouldn't be free to divert it to any educational system they think best for them. I've heard lots of statist objections from those in teacher's unions who want to be in control, and tend to see things from the point of view as to what's best for employees rather than what's best for customers (in this case, the students).
- Thank you for returning to specific policy. Before we discuss this further, I should mention that I am assuming that you are advocating the most commonly-proposed form of the voucher system, with parents able to send their children to private schools if they so choose.
- The main flaw in your proposal is that we should try to educate all children, not just the ones whose parents made the smart choice. Education being a public responsibility and vital to the future of our nation, it's not something we can just abandon when it comes to the losers in "free market education." Let me explain.
- Parents will inevitably send their children to the best school they can find. In District 12, let us say there are three schools: two public, and one private. One of them, Urban High has a bad reputation for violence and poor education. With the voucher system, a high percentage of parents are going to send their children to the other two schools. Generously, let us call it 40% of Urban High. Correspondingly, and exactly according to plan, Urban High loses 40% of its funding, and it is split between the other two schools. The state actually pays out more per student, since the private school raises tuition to match demand (free market, after all).
- The private school does very well, of course. The wealthy in District 12 already paid for tuition previously, but now they universally send their children to "public school" and don't have to pay out any money themselves. The upper-middle class and upper class save quite a bit this way, and the private school - which raised tuition to match enormous demand, remember - can build a new science wing and auditorium. Everyone who goes to the school does well, particularly since as a private institution they can turn away everyone who is disabled, fails their entrance test, and so on. Special programs for the disabled are expensive, and it takes much more teacher time to educate the weaker students.
- It doesn't go so well for Urban High. The money per student wasn't spent on things like power and teachers, it was also spent on televisions and dodgeballs. Fewer students mean less expenses, but it also means there is much less extra money for the things that help education these days. And since Urban High can't turn away the disabled or poor students, they have more of them proportionally and much more to spend. They can't afford the best teachers, of course, either. Education suffers, and the number of people who send their students to the other schools becomes greater and greater.
- C'est la vie?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 23:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- "why shouldn't parents be allowed to divert those funds to the schools of their choosing (just that share that would be spent on their children)?" So, er, Rem, do I get to keep my money? (No kids) Or do parents get to take my share of the money and spend it on a school I have no vote at? ħuman 00:37, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- "why shouldn't parents be allowed to divert those funds to the schools of their choosing (just that share that would be spent on their children)?" So, er, Rem, do I get to keep my money? (No kids) Or do parents get to take my share of the money and spend it on a school I have no vote at? ħuman
Exchange Fifteen[edit]
- Tom: // Would you mind if we referred to this as "school vouchers" rather than "choice in education." The former actually describes the issue, while the latter is a term chosen by conservative proponents of vouchers in an attempt to paint opponents as being against the idea of "choice."
- It's fine with me if you want to refer to "school vouchers" as that scheme works for me. But i chose the term "choice in education" carefully, because there are likely many ways parental choice could be implemented, and i am not wedded to the voucher approach.
- I hope "choice in education" isn't going to find it's way onto the "code words" page, which would effectively brand it as non-PC -- this is the kind of thing that makes discussion very difficult.
- // Before we discuss this further, I should mention that I am assuming that you are advocating the most commonly-proposed form of the voucher system, with parents able to send their children to private schools if they so choose.
- Okay, but i reserve the right to speak of an alternative scheme should you define the school vouchers in a way that i couldn't agree with.
- // The main flaw in your proposal is that we should try to educate all children, not just the ones whose parents made the smart choice. Education being a public responsibility and vital to the future of our nation, it's not something we can just abandon when it comes to the losers in "free market education." Let me explain.
- // Parents will inevitably send their children to the best school they can find.
- Be careful not to assume that everybody would agree which school is best. I can guarantee you that parents have different criteria. I could probable come up with a dozen examples. And i would expect schools would differ in the quality of their different disciplines, and those that want a greater emphasis in math (say) may base their choice on that.
- // In District 12, let us say there are three schools: two public, and one private. One of them, Urban High has a bad reputation for violence and poor education. With the voucher system, a high percentage of parents are going to send their children to the other two schools. Generously, let us call it 40% of Urban High. Correspondingly, and exactly according to plan, Urban High loses 40% of its funding, and it is split between the other two schools.
- Possibly, but please refer to my comment just above.
- // The state actually pays out more per student, since the private school raises tuition to match demand (free market, after all).
- Do i understand you right that you believe free market competition actually raises prices?
- // The private school does very well, of course.
- What leads you to that assumption?
- // The wealthy in District 12 already paid for tuition previously, but now they universally send their children to "public school" and don't have to pay out any money themselves.
- There are potential contradictions here ... let me try to sort them out. Are you saying that the wealthy will universally send their kids to public school? And if that were so, nobody would have to pay more than their taxes covered, and that would somehow not be okay?
- // The upper-middle class and upper class save quite a bit this way, and the private school - which raised tuition to match enormous demand, remember - can build a new science wing and auditorium.
- Now i am totally lost. Even if i swapped the terms private and public, i can't understand it.
- // Everyone who goes to the school does well, particularly since as a private institution they can turn away everyone who is disabled, fails their entrance test, and so on.
- I'm not sure that things have to work that way.
- // Special programs for the disabled are expensive,
- True, but providing the lines drawn are the same, i can't see why they would cost more than before. (The lines i'm thinking of are the ones that divide the abled from the disabled, and the uneducable from both of those.)
- // and it takes much more teacher time to educate the weaker students.
- That's not at all true, it just depends on where you decide to put your resources. There is a very good case to be made that society would benefit more if there were more emphasis on educating the most promising students. I think i favor that, but i can't make my case here.
- // It doesn't go so well for Urban High. The money per student wasn't spent on things like power and teachers, it was also spent on televisions and dodgeballs.
- I'm not following. If this is to you an important point, i need to understand it.
- // Fewer students mean less expenses, but it also means there is much less extra money for the things that help education these days. And since Urban High can't turn away the disabled or poor students, they have more of them proportionally and much more to spend.
- // They can't afford the best teachers, of course, either. Education suffers, and the number of people who send their students to the other schools becomes greater and greater.
- Sorry. This probably depends on my understanding some of your previous points, unless you are just making assumptions.
- // C'est la vie?
- Vraiment.
- I am struck by how much differently you and i approach this issue. Very interesting. This topic has promise.
- Human: // So, er, Rem, do I get to keep my money? (No kids)
- This is slightly off topic, but i favor a tax system known as "empty nesters". Those that no longer have their kids in school would pay reduced taxes. Areas that don't do this get caught in a vicious cycle. Those without kids move out because of the tax burden, more people with kids move in, bigger schools have to be built, which increases the tax burden again.
- It's smart to keep childless taxpayers in town.
- // Or do parents get to take my share of the money and spend it on a school I have no vote at?
- That's the way taxes work, do they not? I don't remember having a say in where ANY of MY tax money is being spent.
- You REALLY want to be able to determine where parents have to send their own kids?
- -- RemBeau 20:48, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for replying. I appreciate that you would tax me at a lower rate than parents (you, of course, realize how hard passing that would be!? - unless all the "empty nesters" voted for it. I'm not one. Just never had kids). On the second point, no. I have a vote in how my taxes are used at the local schools. If the money can be funneled to a private school, I no longer have any oversight over how that money is spent (teaching YEC?), unless my government at some level also tightly regulates those private schools (which it really doesn't, as things are). Oh, lastly, "It's smart to keep childless taxpayers in town." - why, so we can be milked to pay for schools we "don't use", or just because we're nice people? ħuman 21:35, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Thanks for replying. I appreciate that you would tax me at a lower rate than parents (you, of course, realize how hard passing that would be!? - unless all the "empty nesters" voted for it. I'm not one. Just never had kids). On the second point, no. I have a vote in how my taxes are used at the local schools. If the money can be funneled to a private school, I no longer have any oversight over how that money is spent (teaching YEC?), unless my government at some level also tightly regulates those private schools (which it really doesn't, as things are). Oh, lastly, "It's smart to keep childless taxpayers in town." - why, so we can be milked to pay for schools we "don't use", or just because we're nice people? ħuman
- -- RemBeau 20:48, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Rem: "Okay, but i reserve the right to speak of an alternative scheme should you define the school vouchers in a way that i couldn't agree with." We are encouraging you to elaborate your "alternative scheme". Please do so, and amke sure it works in urban, suburban, and rural locales equally well. You can feel free to go "ivory tower" and describe your "ideal system" with no route as to how to get there, or describe an incremental change to how things are done and why it would be better than what we have. Please. ħuman 21:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- Rem: "Okay, but i reserve the right to speak of an alternative scheme should you define the school vouchers in a way that i couldn't agree with." We are encouraging you to elaborate your "alternative scheme". Please do so, and amke sure it works in urban, suburban, and rural locales equally well. You can feel free to go "ivory tower" and describe your "ideal system" with no route as to how to get there, or describe an incremental change to how things are done and why it would be better than what we have. Please. ħuman
(Unindent)
Be careful not to assume that everybody would agree which school is best. I can guarantee you that parents have different criteria. I could probable come up with a dozen examples. And i would expect schools would differ in the quality of their different disciplines, and those that want a greater emphasis in math (say) may base their choice on that.
I actually can think of only a few. The vast majority of parents will decide based on the reputation of the overall education, I believe. A much lesser number will send their children to schools based on ethnic makeup or concentration in math, but that will be rare.
Do i understand you right that you believe free market competition actually raises prices?
You do understand that "free market" is not a magical wand to wave over problems, right? In this instance, because the private school has hundreds more students, they have correspondingly escalating costs. Combined with the fact that demand had increased, this is going to make them increase their prices. If you disagree with this, I suggest you take it up with New Mexico, where prices increased after vouchers were implemented.
What leads you to that assumption?
They get to charge more to correspond with demand, they get to reject all of the slower students and those with special needs, and they get to continue to adhere to higher standards than the surrounding schools, as is typical with private schools.
There are potential contradictions here ... let me try to sort them out. Are you saying that the wealthy will universally send their kids to public school? And if that were so, nobody would have to pay more than their taxes covered, and that would somehow not be okay?
No, the wealthy will continue to send their children to private schools. But now the public is paying for it. After all, why pay out of their own pocket for something they can now get for free? This also means there is no reason for them to complain about higher tuition; the state is paying for it.
Now i am totally lost. Even if i swapped the terms private and public, i can't understand it.
Private students currently pay tuition to the schools to attend. In a voucher system, they can attend on the state's dime. So they stop paying, and the state pays instead.
I'm not sure that things have to work that way.
You are going to start requiring private institutions to accept anyone? That would violate all kinds of judicial precedent.
True, but providing the lines drawn are the same, i can't see why they would cost more than before. (The lines i'm thinking of are the ones that divide the abled from the disabled, and the uneducable from both of those.)
Except that now the public schools are shouldering a much higher burden; they have the same number of special needs kids, who are expensive, but much fewer regular kids to help pay their way. The school has become a school for those who can't get into the private school: the stupid and special. It's very expensive to educate those groups.
That's not at all true, it just depends on where you decide to put your resources. There is a very good case to be made that society would benefit more if there were more emphasis on educating the most promising students. I think i favor that, but i can't make my case here.
This is bizarre... are you saying that stupid children learn just as quickly and well as smart children?
I'm not following. If this is to you an important point, i need to understand it.
Money per student does not work out to a sum total of per capita resources that student uses. It does not just equal their share in water, electricity, teacher time, and chairs. There is aggregate additional money, pooled together to buy things like televisions and gym equipment. That's why smaller schools have very few of these items, and larger schools have more of them. It enables the larger schools to use interactive DVD presentations to excite the children about learning, for example. The change in resources has essentially downgraded Urban High to a much smaller school, so they have less of these items. Education correspondingly suffers.
In New Mexico, when they implemented the voucher system, 73% of the funds went to private school students. I assume this does not surprise you, so it is beyond me why you think it would be a good thing. Unless you start requiring private schools to lower their academic standards dramatically - something I think everyone involved would hate and is probably illegal - you are just stripping the public schools of their best and brightest, and condemning those who have no choice but to go to the nearest school, or who don't want to go to a religious institution, or any one of a dozen other reasons to go to the school filled with those who don't meet standards.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 00:08, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
- "There is a very good case to be made that society would benefit more if there were more emphasis on educating the most promising students." Really? What about the "harder to educate" - those who would benefit most? Or do you support a two-tier society, of the well-educated "promising" and the undereducated "unpromising"? Really? Please explain your premises and conclusions... ħuman 00:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
[unindent] Human: // Or do you support a two-tier society, of the well-educated "promising" and the undereducated "unpromising"?
A two-tiered system is what we have NOW. When local schools perform poorly, the rich send their kids to private schools -- something out of reach for most middle-class parents -- they're stuck, and this is wrong. No society can remove the advantages the rich and well-connected have, but in tax-supported education, there is no excuse for denying parents the right to choose a school that they believe best benefits their children.
Control is the issue here, and the inertia of the status quo. Who has it? The parents or the political, those that resist relinquishing control, a control that has a hold ONLY on those kids whose parents can't afford an alternative school.
The kids that are "harder to educate" would benefit most from education? I don't see that at all. What i do see at this time is a system in which average students benefit the most. The brightest are bored out of their skulls, and if they don't get special attention, may well become chronic under-achievers.
-- RemBeau 06:43, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
- In the middle-class neighborhoods, at least, there are oodles of opportunities for especially bright students. They're called "Advanced Placement (AP)" classes, as I recall. Not to mention summer programs offered by whatever the local college is.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 11:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
- > Do i understand you right that you believe free market competition actually raises prices?
- Tom: // You do understand that "free market" is not a magical wand to wave over problems, right?
- Nothing magical about it when it comes to economic issues, it just works better than controlled economies because of natural incentives.
- You didn't directly actually answer my question, tho, and it is an important point, if we disagree on it. What is obvious to me may not be obvious to you.
- // In this instance, because the private school has hundreds more students, they have correspondingly escalating costs. Combined with the fact that demand had increased, this is going to make them increase their prices. If you disagree with this, I suggest you take it up with New Mexico, where prices increased after vouchers were implemented.
- I have no idea how NM implemented their vouchers, nor of the data you're referring to, but i'd be willing to check out your link.
- // In this instance, because the private school has hundreds more students, they have correspondingly escalating costs. Combined with the fact that demand had increased, this is going to make them increase their prices.
- Increase beyond each student's share of education funds? There would be plenty of private schools that would be tickled pink to get the share per student the public school gets.
- // and it takes much more teacher time to educate the weaker students.
- > That's not at all true, it just depends on where you decide to put your resources. There is a very good case to be made that society would benefit more if there were more emphasis on educating the most promising students. I think i favor that, but i can't make my case here.
- Give the brignt kids more advanced material and teachers, and be prepared to pay more for it. Don't give slow kids material they can't really handle, and don't require them to spend more time being taught than the rest of the students. Taking more teacher time is not a solution.
- // the wealthy will continue to send their children to private schools. But now the public is paying for it.
- So the wealthy (and the middle class that were struggling to make extra payments) WERE paying twice, and now have to pay only once. Where is the problem?
- // After all, why pay out of their own pocket for something they can now get for free?
- Who gets education for free -- certainly not the rich. You seem to be discounting the greater amount the rich have already paid toward the education of all kids.
- // This is bizarre... are you saying that stupid children learn just as quickly and well as smart children?
- I can see how you could interpret this the way you did, but it is not what i meant. Of course, by definition those that are slow at learning can't be expected to learn the SAME material as quickly. But it is not realistic to expect all kids to learn the same material.
- // There is aggregate additional money, pooled together to buy things like televisions and gym equipment. That's why smaller schools have very few of these items, and larger schools have more of them. It enables the larger schools to use interactive DVD presentations to excite the children about learning, for example.
- I think i undertand what you're saying here. More on this later.