"they are obliged to follow the majority's rules until they CAN."
1. obligated, or forced? there is a difference.
2. Why?
"health care is CHEAPER and better in the those other countries! "
1. is there any other choice in those countries?
2. If it is really cheaper, you would have no problem finding volunteers to "opt in".
" Why ANYONE would rather see fellow Americans go without health care, or go bankrupt because of an expensive illness is beyond me! "
You have the option of paying for the care of anyone you wish. I do not advocate for the highly regulated and monopolized US medical care model. I favor a free market model.
"We should be AMERICA, not individual Americans! A TEAM, which is what DEMOCRATIC socialism requires, and the Constitution expects."
Serious question:
What prevents those who agree with you from forming a private medical care system, paid for by and available only to members, in the "democratic socialism" model? You could vote on who pays the most dues, using any criteria you wish (wealth, income, race, etc.) with those dues paying for staff (members, of course) facilities, supplies, etc.
If it is really a more efficient and better model, no one would want to pay for the less efficient free market model. If it isn't better, and only works if there is no legal alternative, then you haven't destroyed a superior system, to test an inferior one.
(ignoring the emotional rant)
As for the roads, money was stolen from producers, not leeches, to pay for them. The roads could be built privately, paid for privately by people who actually produce things that others value, instead of voting for the wealth that others created.
>"It's possible in all other industrialized countries,...OF COURSE, the taxes are higher."
Then it isn't voluntary, is it?
Voluntary would (at least) be the ability to opt out of both the service and paying for it through taxes.
Do you believe that there are enough people who want to be in the system to sustain it, if you were allowed to opt out?
>"How come "tax" is a four letter word in America, and only 3 in most countries ?"
It isn't. It is a five letter word..."theft". ;)
Also, your mises.org sources are nothing but ideological hogwash; libertarian nonsense.
Then refute the logic. Give examples of where it has failed, without interference.
I'll give you a topic:
The Austrian business cycle theory.
Prices may have fallen, but at the cost of a quality product.
evidence?
No, it is a libertarian think tank centered around classical liberal political and economic philosophy.
Planned-Socialism relies principally on planning to determine investment and production decisions. Planning may be centralized or decentralized. Market-socialism relies on markets for allocating capital to different socially-owned enterprises.
Can you describe the details of the market-socialism model?
On Medicare, are you saying that over 90% of Canadians are incorrect for loving their free health-care system?
Whether you enjoy it or not, it is theft. :/
This was a large part of Standard Oil’s business practice.
They lowered prices for the consumer. That is good for the consumer. No firm has ever been able to follow through with the lower/kill competition/raise prices, formula. Competition always comes back.
So, hoping to undermine the economic system that allowed you to achieve your success is alright?
Hoping, and ability are different. No one has ever successfully done it, and kept the market.
and by selling proprietary software bundled with nearly every home computer, as well as most business related computers... in the market has allowed technology to progress in more diverse ways than if Microsoft had continued its dominance.
Prices for consumers have continued to fall, throughout the process, including the "monopoly" years.
And licensing can be a hassle, but some people insist on having their labor licensed.
not licensing. state governments have the only authority to license. State gvts have universally given the AMA the monopoly power to accredit med schools. This is one of the reasons for the high price of doctors and med schools.
One of the earliest invocations of the Act [Sherman anti-trust act] was in 1894, against the American Railway Union led by Eugene V. Debs, with the intent to settle the Pullman Strike.[9] Several years would pass before the first use of the Act against its intended perpetrator, corporate monopolies.
Good info. Thanks. :)
First you make sure you have plenty of cash. Then drive down to the red-light district...
I concede this argument. iamdavidh & TheBogle88 have compelling arguments on the subject. Well played. :)
This is opinionated. Economic rights are very extensive, and and can very greatly. Influence in means of production should be included.
This is no less opinionated.
My list of rights do not have to be supplied by the action or labor of others, do yours?
If others must labor to supply your rights, that means you have a right to the labor of others. If this is true, then others have the right to your labor. If we all have equal rights, then each has a right to an equal share of everyone's labor, and the net gain in the right to the labor of others is zero. Why not just skip the middle man and agree that we only have a right to our own labor, and that no other may enslave us?
Each has influence in the means of production to the degree that he produces goods or services for trade. This keeps loafers from influencing things to which they have not contributed. Think of it like sharing a cab with someone who is broke. If they don't contribute to the fare, they should not decide where the cab goes.
I live in Canada. What you call sacrifice, we call mutual assistance.
If you can't opt out, it isn't "mutual assistance", it is legal robbery.
Capitalism with strong constitutional restrictions on government being able to treat market actors differently.
Unlimited. The nature of free-market capitalism is such that it is possible for one individual to control all means of production over a large geographical region.
This is an assertion, not evidence. By what mechanism would this happen?
Approved unanimously by the Founding Fathers and, prior to the Constitution, 12 of the 13 original colonies.
Yup, nobody's perfect. ;)
hopes to
Hopes to and being able to do so are different.
Ibm hoped to extinguish competition with microchannel, back in the 80s, too. Didn't happen. People tend to use what is most useful. Proprietary tech tends to be less useful.
If Standard Oil had been allowed to maintain a monopoly on the oil market, those 150 competitors would have been driven out of business, costing jobs and money for the US. If Standard Oil had survived to the present day, gas prices would certainly be much more inflated than they are now.
Another assertion. What is your evidence?
Most anti-trust legislation is brought, not because the company is gouging consumers, but because it is being more efficient than jealous competitors.
What do you constitute as help from the government?
Lobbying for special laws or regulations to keep competitors out of the market. An example would be the AMA, monopoly on medical school certification, and use of the medicare codes. Oil company and green energy company subsidies are also included, as are farm subsidies. The companies that rate bonds (whose names are written into law as the "official" rating agencies to comply with some regulations), licensing for crap that shouldn't need a license, like interior decorating, all keep competition out of the market.
When people go on strike, they are usually not paid or fired. The workers have their families in mind.
That's what unions are for. But unions should have no special bargaining privileges granted by government. They should be more like "employment insurance".
Not unless it infringes on the economic rights of others. (Which they usually do)
The only economic rights are the right to own property, and the right to the mutually voluntary trade of that property.
Without theft or fraud, how can these rights be infringed upon?
Most certainly economic power,
To maintain economic power, one must continue to satisfy the demands of the consumer.
political power can be bought.
Again, this would require government interference in the market. This is not capitalism, it is rent-seeking.
I would rather have slightly less income, then pay a 50 000 dollar medical bill.
Sacrifice is a noble thing, so long as it is someone else who is doing it. ;)
On the contrary; modern scientific discoveries have ruled out the possibility of the Abrahamic god that appears in the Bible, Koran, and the Torah.
But not the possibility of any god. Atheism is a definite belief that there is no god/gods. Otherwise they are just agnostic.
I don't believe in Vishnu, but that does not make me an atheist. ;)
Not according to your own logic. Anti-theism and atheism are two distinct factions.
I will concede this point. I will consider atheists who do not try to prove to others (unprompted) that there is no god to be true atheists. And those who try to convince others that there is no god (unprompted) to belong to the "anti-theist" religion.
Unlimited purchasing power and accrual of resources.
Unlimited? or just large?
If you know that someone will pay big bucks for something do you charge them little?
Microsoft controlling the prices of their products while ensuring competition remained virtually nonexistent.
Patents and copyright are government grants of monopoly on intellectual "property".
How did they ensure no competition?
I use Linux. My friends use Mac.
Being as all corporations are subject to regulations of the US, none.
I'll name a famous "monopoly" case: Standard oil.
They increased their efficiency, lowering prices, bringing them down so everyone could afford their products. Their competitors petitioned to have it broken up as a monopoly. At the time of their break up, they had no fewer than 150 competitors. There has never been a case where a harmful monopoly was successfully gained or maintained, in a free market. Even before the "anti-trust" laws.
The nature of free market capitalism makes it almost impossible.
However, these regulations can and have been overcome to build a monopoly on certain goods and services.
Name a case where a coercive monopoly has gained its position without the help of government.
"certain goods and services" compete with all other goods and services, for the money of the consumer.
If you want to know why money in the US seems to flow toward the richest (and it does) look no farther than the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking system, enforced by our government.
This is not capitalism. It is government interference in the economy, through the most prevalent economic good: the medium of exchange.
Unfortunately this is very difficult in a capitalist society because there are always clear economic winners and losers.
Not always. There are only losers when there are people who do not produce.
The winners are those who produce wealth to trade (value for value). The losers are those who do not.
Capitalism is not a zero sum game. When 2 people trade, they are both winners, because they each traded something they valued less, for something they valued more. If not, they would not trade.
Besides, Socialism is based on cooperation. Don't you remember from kindergarten? Sharing is good.
Voluntary sharing is good, and foments goodwill. Socialism isn't about voluntary sharing. It is about forced sharing. Forced sharing foments resentment.
Let's say you studied hard for a class and got an A. Your classmate goofed off, and got a D. She complains to the teacher. The teacher decides that she wasn't as smart as you, and you didn't need an A to do well, so he lowers your score to a B (still good) and raises the dufus's score to a C.
How do you feel about the other student?
How do you feel about the teacher?
What is your incentive to study hard for the next class?
--------------
Let's say that you worked all summer and saved up for a car.
Now let's say that your parents tell you you must ferry your younger sister around, as much as you drive for yourself, because it isn't fair that she doesn't have a car.
Within the context of this situation:
How do you feel about your sister?
Your parents?
Saving up for that 4-wheeler you wanted?
and attempt to use debt as a means to control the population.
Interest rates are manipulated (by government) in the US to encourage debt. It is part of the Keynesian system, which bears no relation to capitalism.
Economic oppression is when people do not have what is necessary to live, and do not have control over production.
Labor is the primary component of production. Individuals have a great deal of control over their own supply of labor.
Capitalism becomes polluted because of some people are better at business than others.
So, they should be punished for their ability?
These people gain more and more money and put down competition.
By satisfying the demands of the consumer, more efficiently than the competitor.
They end up with the vast majority of power.
What sort of power?
Political? Keep government out of the market and this is not a problem.
Economic? As long as they are satisfying the needs of the consumer, the most efficiently, this is a boon for the consumer. If they stop giving value for value, they invite competitors (both in their field, and substitutes for their product) to gain market share.
They don't do better than those in Sweden :)
Actually, they do.
*"Relative to household in the United States, Swedish family income is considerably less. In fact, the study concludes, average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country."
( http://mises.org/daily/955 )
More links: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/
it is most prevalent in unregulated Capitalism where wealth and resources are able to be concentrated into a few hands.
What is the mechanism whereby resources are concentrated?
In well-regulated capitalism, this is deterred by regulations (especially anti-trust legislation).
Name a situation where an anti-trust case was brought against a business that was harming the consumer (not competitors).
Name a case where a harmful (to the consumer) monopoly was gained or maintained without the help of government "regulations".
Show me a country where a capitalist system failed, and I will show you the government interference (not part of capitalism) that caused it.
Capitalism originates as economic freedom, but it quickly becomes polluted and turns into economic oppression.
Define economic oppression.
What pollutes the capitalism?
How does the pollution turn into economic oppression?
On your second point, I would be much obliged if you would clarify.
The poorest people in the US (formerly much more economically free) are still doing better (have more wealth) than average people in many other industrialized countries.
Demand calculates need.
How is the demand communicated?
This is one thing that is similar to Capitalism. The result is sent to those who do the labor.
Socialism does not have the same communication system as capitalism.
Okay Milton Friedman ;)
LOL, you flatter me. :D
Decision-making is made by workers and consumers on the enterprise-level.
How do they calculate the need?
How do they communicate the result of the calculation?
What you are calling capitalism is interventionism, corporatism, and rent-seeking.
---------------------
Capitalism does not involve a private central bank setting interest rates.
Capitalism does not involve a private central bank adjusting the money supply.
Capitalism does not involve a system of fiat currency that requires legal tender laws to make people use it.
Capitalism does not involve protection for lenders, such as commercial bank bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve protections for investors, such as FDIC deposit insurance or investment firm bailouts.
Capitalism does not involve a government responsible for spending 40% of the nations GDP.
Capitalism does not involve massive amounts of regulations on business.
Capitalism does not involve government subsidies to certain industries.
Capitalism does not involve government contracts with corporations.
Capitalism does not involve using tax payer dollars to clean up private corporate disasters.
Capitalism does not involve government buying up the majority of resource rich land, then leasing that land out to favored corporations, such as major oil producers and mining corporations.
Capitalism does not involve restrictions on private property owners being able to harvest resources from the land they own.
Capitalism does not involve tax payer backed mortgage firms.
Capitalism does not involve a massive military industrial complex that makes all of its profits from tax dollars, unwillingly taken from the public.
Capitalism does not involve government seizing private property through eminent domain and then handing that land to private developers.
Capitalism does not involve government creating jobs.
Capitalism does not involve taxes on money (real money, such as gold and silver).
Capitalism does not involve corporate lobbying for government contracts, kickbacks, tax breaks, subsidies, favorable regulations, regulations that hinder competition, regulations that hinder startups from competing, or any other government involvement in industry.
Capitalism does not involve forcible redistribution of wealth.
Capitalism does not involve a heavy progressive income tax on people's labor.
------------------
What does capitalism involve?
Protection of private property rights, where a person can use their property as they see fit.
Protection of private property rights, where a person gets to keep what they produce (money).
Protection of private contracts, where people are free to negotiate voluntary contracts with each other and have the courts uphold those contracts.
Free markets, where people can voluntarily exchange goods and services with each other as they see fit.
Protection of money's value, where those who counterfeit and artificially inflate the money supply are charged with a crime, rather than be rewarded with profits.
-------
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
-Benito Mussolini, author of The Doctrine of Fascism, Italian Fascist Dictator (Duce) 1943 – 1945
Socialism seeks to eradicate poverty. Capitalism encourages poverty. This cannot be denied.
I deny it, as does reality. Everywhere there is more economic freedom, there is greater prosperity.
A higher standard for some, but not all.
The poorest people in the US, even running on what is left of the capitalist system, is higher than that of countries with a greater degree of central planning (socialism) in the economy.
Central planning also looks at what people need and to an extent, what people want.
How do they know?
How is this calculated?
This information is passed on to producers.
how?
How would a new type of product, such as an iPhone, be invented and produced under socialism?
The goal of socialism is beautiful and poetic.
The effect of socialism is poverty.
The goal of capitalism is cold and calculating.
The effect of capitalism is a higher standard of living for everyone in the society.
Capitalism makes a general rule of one of our most base- personal greed.
Capitalism has each of us competing to fulfil the needs of our fellow man. Whoever does this the best, prospers the most.
How is information about demand communicated to producers in a socialist society?
How is capital for building new projects/factories raised?
Who decides what projects get built and how?
Atheism isn't a religion genius.
It is a definite belief about a deity.
Atheists tend to preach atheism and proselytise as much as Christians, with no more proof of the position than any other religion.
I would say that modern atheism has become more anti-theism, and has many of the hallmarks of religion.
IMHO, atheism is a de facto religion.
I would go farther and say that there should be a separation between government and all enforcement of an active morality. This would include forced charity (welfare) and all other forms of transfer payments.
If I expect you to own a ferrari, does that create a need for you to own a ferrari?
Does having gadgets make you more accepted by society?
Do you really want to belong to a society that does not accept you unless you own these gadgets?
Desire and need are different.
Is revealing the existence of a thing (advertizing) the same as forcing you to want that thing?
Did you see Mal's urinal/sink on Firefly?
Something like this:
Urinals should just be standard for all restrooms. problem solved.
Home bathrooms, too?
I find it offensive to call them fags. They should be called by their true name. "Aeromatic Hydrocarbon Dispensers".
I wondered if anyone would pick this. This is my preferred method.
:) sorry, many of my debates go like that. I think the ambiguous wording of some of the questions is to blame.
In this one, we have television and cinema, sex and violence, and censored v. not censored. This allows for 8 different views, even if we only keep to the specific topics discussed. :/
Children have and always will get into things their parents try to keep from them.
That's where the "explaining to them" comes in. You tell them what you expect, and what happens if they do not comply.
Do you mug people? Why not? :) Do the police watch you 24/7? You fear the consequences of being caught. Same with kids and parents. Additionally, explaining the reasoning behind a restriction reinforces the respect between you and your kids. They know that the rules have a purpose and are not arbitrary. It is not 100% fool proof, but it is better than having government control all media to a great degree.
>Implying that gun and 2nd amendment advocates also advocate the initiation of violence with guns.
Parents can't police their children all the time,
Why not? It is called parenting. You allow what you feel is appropriate, and explain to them why what is inappropriate, is inappropriate and unacceptable. It is not the responsibility of the government to raise children. To allow government to raise your children, if you are unwilling, is laziness.
If you want less risky or unacceptable behavior, show and allow people to suffer the consequences of risky or unacceptable behavior.
I would say ebola, but the infection period is too short. No time for the thing to spread. Bubonic plague is good, only it's blood-bourne.
Some variant of flu, probably.
Defending the Advertiser:
"Advertising has long had a "bad press." The case against it is detailed and seemingly compelling. It is claimed that advertising entices people, forcing them to buy products they would otherwise not buy. It preys on the fears and psychological weaknesses of people. It is misleading, with its juxtaposition of a beautiful woman and a commercial product, implying that she is somehow part of the deal. It is foolish, what with its contests, marching bands, and jingles. It is an insult to our intelligence...
...How strong is the case? First, it seems clear that advertising does not lure or force people to buy what they would not otherwise buy. Advertising attempts to persuade people — perhaps in ways some members of the community find objectionable. But it does not and cannot coerce. (Fraudulent advertising is logically equivalent to theft, and is not to be confused with advertising per se. If the seller advertises wheat but delivers rocks, he has actually stolen the money price of "wheat.")"([Excerpted from Defending the Undefendable (1976; 2008). Walter Block]
You mean worst, as in least effective? I'm gonna have to go with body lice. :P
I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms at play.
The primary mechanisms are contained within the Austrian theory of the business cycle (Mises/Rothbard) and the broken window fallacy (Bastiat/Hazlitt).
The business cycle theory explains the role that prices and interest rates play as a communication system in the structure of production, and in the incentive to produce.
The Broken window fallacy explains the destructive nature of diverting resources to purposes other than those which the producer of those resources intended.
Hazlitt's "The Failure of the 'New Economics'" is a point by point refutation of Keynes's 'General Theory'.
Keynes's theory is the basis for our current failing monetary/economic system, and is the primary cause of the boom/bust cycle.
Most government interference relates to interference in the economic system, because it involves the diversion of resources from the role of production as a means to the ends of the individual to production as a means to the ends of the government. The entire incentive to increased production is diminished if there is little or no perceived increase in benefit to the one producing. This makes for less wealth, and a lower standard of living, over the entire society.
Please describe the mechanisms (or give references) and incentives associated with government intervention making things better. Please avoid phrases such as "I feel" or "it seems to me".
It just says the feds can do what the constitution says it can do.
No, it also says that if the constitution doesn't give the fedgov the power, that power is reserved to the states or the people.
falling on def ears here. ;)
;)
What would make government fail at everything where other large organization don't seem to?
All large organizations have the same problem, information.
The more centrally planned (larger) the organization, the less efficient it is at meeting the demands of the individual consumer.
Other large orgs. rely on trade with the people. Government relies on its ability to force people to its will.
ttfn, will probably write more later. have a good nite. :)
All government intervention including vouchers distort markets because of taxation.
True, but "baby-steps, you know. :)
Allow the parent to control the funding through vouchers. The parent chooses the best school for the child. If the school is bad, it will not be funded, but no kids will be there any more, so they can't be hurt. They went to a better school.
Television and Cinema have far too much Sex and Violence
Yes
and should be Censored
No.
People have the right and ability not to consume that media which they find offensive. Because one person finds a thing troublesome, is no right to prevent another from accessing that thing. Both media and weapons (firearms) fall under this principle. If you don't like one of these, don't get it. Don't try to prevent others from getting it.
Maybe? I'm not a legal expert in general or in this specific case. However, it seems the experts don't agree with you in most cases?
You don't have to be an expert to read the 10th amendment.
Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why does "between states" have to mean travel? Are bank transfers between states "travel".
Travel was an example given by the dictionary. Travel between states, is interstate travel. Commerce between states, is interstate commerce.
Again, not a legal expert, but it seems to me the "intent" of the government was to raise wheat prices.
The intent is irrelevant. The man did not break any law that was within the authority of the Federal government to enforce.
This guy wanted cheap wheat (regardless of the reason) so he "cheated".
The guy exercised his right to feed his family, by the sweat of his (and no one else's) brow.
The government push the boundary of the laws to achieve it's goal.
The ends justify the means? :)
What is the purpose of setting forth a law, if the government may break that law, at whim?
I'm trying to understand if your arguing legal technicalities or if you really think he was not cheating the "intent" of what the government was trying to do.
Common sense:
A man has a right to grow as much food, on his own land, for his own consumption, as he wishes.
The intent of the government cap on production, was to force him to buy wheat on the market, to raise the price of wheat, at a time when people were starving, because they could not afford bread.
The government had no jurisdiction, either to force him to buy anything (engage in commerce), or to prevent him from growing food for his own consumption.
--------------------------------
What is the mechanism that destines human "interference" to make things worse when governing, but in every other case better? There must be one in your mind?
When have I mentioned interference, other than by government?
What sort of interference (not by government) in other cases?
Government is the only entity which can "interfere", because government has a monopoly on the initiation of force and coercion.
Government interference hurts:
in the monetary system:
http://www.youtube.com/
in the labor market:
http://www.youtube.com/
in business, through regulations
http://www.youtube.com/
I can get more detailed, but these are good summaries.
-------
- You feel that you and everyone you love will "land" on the winning side of the equation because nothing in life is chance.
Not necessarily. I believe that it is irrelevant where you "land", so long as you are at liberty to improve your position, and that there is much less chance for anyone to "land" in a bad place, because a society that is more free, is more prosperous. There is more wealth, and a higher standard of living.
Let's take verbal abuse out of the picture for more troubled people
how?
to what extent?
Didn't answer my questions.
Called me stupid.
Called logic foul.
I'm traumatized. Whatever I do now, is your fault. I hope you're happy.
He was cheating the "intent" of the governmental efforts to raise wheat prices.
Doesn't matter. a cobb county sheriff can't arrest you for a crime in another county. A TN court can't try you for violation of an IL crime. It is outside their jurisdiction. The Federal government has no jurisdiction to outlaw activities which occur purely within the boundaries of a single state. That power is reserves to the state government, by the 10th amendment.
- Technically, this was interstate commerce because it was all states where they were trying to get the price of wheat up.
Interstate: Adjective
Existing or carried on between states : "interstate travel".
commerce: Noun
The activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale.
The man was neither buying, nor selling. Indeed, the government's case rested upon the fact that he was not buying or selling.
The man's activities were completely contained within his state of residence, not between his state and another state.
The government claimed the authority to regulate his growing of wheat, under a clause in ART1 SEC 8 of the Constitution.
*"The Congress shall have Power ...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States.."
Among the states, not within the states.
What if nothing was done, how many would be dead? How much higher might poverty be?
The trend , for decades, was that poverty was falling, as efficiency of resource use, climbed (because of capitalism). They decided to have a "war on poverty" and the decline stopped. That's pretty conclusive.
"It would have been worse", is not an argument, unless you give evidence that it would actually have been worse. it is a gratuitous assertion. I could just as easily say that If I hadn't shot that puppy, he could have grown up to maul children. The logic is the same.
as far as the drug war, what would have happened, is irrelevant. The Federal government claims authority to put a blanket prohibition on "drugs" with "interstate commerce" as the justification. Wickard v. Filburn, and a couple of other bad cases allow them to do it. The government violated one man's rights, and uses that as a precedent to violate the rights of other men.
-----------------------
I don't reject the idea that there are other perhaps better ways we could run society, I simply have not heard convincing arguments that there is anything better.
No one should "run" society. Society should run itself, through the individual, voluntary interactions of the individuals within that society. Not through coerced adherence to the will of the majority.
Just skimming the wikipedia, it seems like the government had a case. The point was to drive up wheat prices and he was growing his own so he did not have to pay the inflated price. He was cheating, regardless of his intention to sell it or not.
The federal government had no jurisdiction, without MAJOR stretching of logic for the commerce clause to include ANYTHING that ANYONE does. He was not engaging in commerce, nor did he act across state lines.
where the government did the right thing.
Again, disagreement on rights, and if it is ok to sacrifice the rights of one, in favor of another.
The government acted where it had no jurisdiction. This set a precedent where more action by government , where it has no jurisdiction, was considered legal. It is the definition of the slippery slope. It is the justification for the drug war (alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment). The latest try was forcing commerce with Obamacare, under the same clause, with the same rationale. Gladly, it failed , under that aegis, but not (in the SCOTUS opinion) under the taxing power.
Fair enough. Now what if it's your child starving to death in the worst depravity....
Appeal to emotion. Irrelevant in a logical discussion.
It's very easy to have a steely, logical view on the world as long as you have convinced yourself that you won't end up on the wrong side of the equation.
It's very easy to say "we must sacrifice" as long as you are never the one who has to sacrifice anything you value.
You do realize that it's partially just "luck" that your not that starving child right?
This is the big fallacy. It is not "luck". This is why I don't use the phrase "less fortunate". It is a scam. It is whether you wish to do what it takes (and the thing you do that others value) to succeed, that greatly determines your success, not luck.
Luck is the cop-out of the lazy and the rally-cry of the looter.
Society is not an emotionless thing? Are you saying that when you build a society, you should ignore emotion?
Using your premise, yes. But I disagree that we "build" society. Society grows from the actions of the individuals within that society.
Every single human action is in part driven driven by human emotion.
True, which is why we should keep as much emotion as possible OUT of government.
I think it would be hard to prove that welfare programs caused greater poverty than if we had done nothing. Maybe you can?
http://www.economicsjunkie.com/
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/07/23/
(took <5 minutes on Google)
Maybe if we did nothing a large portion of people in poverty would have died off (social Darwinism) and poverty would have gone down as a result. Is that success?
This assumes that people will just sit and starve, instead of attempting to find some productive activity to support their life.
"Social darwinism" implies that the competition is for existing wealth, instead of competing to create new wealth.
Even if you could prove scientifically that the program was "not that great" then by definition you must have also discovered what it did wrong so why not fix it instead of throw it out?
The intervention is the problem.
Lets say it's proven that, all things being equal, generous unemployment befits cause unemployment to rise by 30%. Lets also assume that some unemployment benefit is beneficial (statistically) in preventing an otherwise productive person from falling in to poverty or resorting to crime (helps 1% say). So the societal cost benefit may not be worth it. All you have to do is adjust the program until unemployed only goes up by 1% but preventing poverty and crime in the target group goes up to 30%. Now you have a working program. Why not learn and improve instead of start over?
This is the "scientism" of economics. It tries to apply only equations to economics, ignoring the incentives of the people acting within the economy, and the possible unintended consequences of interfering in the economy.
There is nothing "inherently wrong" with medicare or social security, ...
...aside from the fact that it violates the property rights of some, to fund a ponzi scheme that marginally benefits others, to a lesser degree than if the money had stayed in the economy, instead of going to the government.
This also ignores the fact that money taken out of the economy, in the form of taxes to pay for unemployment benefits, causes more unemployment (broken window fallacy). leave the money in the economy, there is less unemployment and less need for benefits.
This also implies that the government is the only way to help people from starving to death. It is not.
"Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State — then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion — then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State."--Bastiat, The Law
You really should read some of the arguments (rationalizations) made by the statists in "Atlas Shrugged".
It is a good book, if you ignore the BDSM/rape-fantasy fetish Rand apparently had.
LOL, aside from the fact that much of the school system is set up to tacitly promote socialism, this is an excellent point.
It is just one more way to redistribute wealth from someone who earned it, to someone who did not earn it, and to whom the owner would not have given it. It is the equivalent of robbing a man, just before he dies.
Why should it matter? These were secret experiments years ago, but yes, from the government.
Because the government was assaulting these people, by detaining them and using their bodies to their own ends. Calling them "logs" was not "bullying" them. You are pointing out the psychological effects (on an individual) of namecalling a perceived enemy, not the effects of that namecalling on the one called a name. I'm sure that being called a "log" did not cause the victims of medical slavery to feel bad about themselves. It was just a psychological "salve" for the agents of the oppressors.
..when thousands die from it..
No one has died from verbal "bullying". They died from the various lethal methods they used to end their own lives.
But what caused it?
Bob's inability to cope with life.
It doesn't have to be a criminal act to be devastatingly bad.
But did I "bully" or "cause the death of" the person involved, by raising prices?
What about cases where a couple breaks up? If the "powerful psychological anguish" of the breakup, is so great to one, is the other half of the couple guilty of bullying?
How is it non-threat when people commit suicide from the powerful psychological anguish?
"Threat" must be the promise (implicit or explicit) of direct physical harm.
Let's take the case of the nutjobs that kill abortionists. The fact that unborn babies are killed by the millions per year causes "powerful psychological anguish" to this person. He snaps, and kills a local doctor.
Now, was it a murder? One person killed another.
Or was it a suicide? The Dr. caused psychological anguish to another who acted to end the life of the Dr., thus the Dr. caused his own death.
On "bullying":
I'm for all private schools, with codes of conduct, which allow for "bullies" (verbal or physical) to be thrown out.
Equality is freedom in the long run. Tyranny by majority ensures that a non egalitarian society with freedom for a few exists. If everyone has equal opportunities, more people will have freedom from oppression.
We have to agree on the definition of some terms here.
Freedom is the right to have liberty to act to achieve one's ends, using one's own talents, skills resources and abilities, while respecting the equal right of others to do likewise. It is a right to choose, not a right to resources.
Oppression is the violation of the right to freedom, to any degree.
Equality is just treatment under the law, by government, with no consideration to any sub-group of population to which the individual may belong.
However, only true equality and freedom can be achieved in a perfect world. In a balance, equality is better than freedom.
Better by what standard?
I don't care if it's not assaulting them, it's damaging them to an extent, which makes them prone to further abuse and suicide.
Our "feelings" on the matter are irrelevant. It is not assault (unless it is a direct threat of assault) and should not be actionable as such (but in many cases, is).
The real assault was when they tested poisons on them and let many die.
"They", as representatives of government?
You can't use your 'getting over it' to refute others who couldn't, and committed suicide.
I'm not refuting the fact that people committed suicide. I'm refuting the relevance of the fact that people committed suicide.
It is logic, when clearly verbal abuse has affected the lives, and has taken the lives of many.
No. It is emotion, but I will address this argument.
Calling someone a name is not the same as physically assaulting someone. A suicide is not a murder.
How you react to a situation is your choice. If you were to call bob a poopyhead, and he got mad and slit some random person's throat, did you (or your verbal "abuse") kill that person? No, Bob did. If he got mad and committed suicide, did you kill Bob? No, he killed himself.
"Affecting the life" of someone is not the same thing as committing a criminal act against that person. If I own a store, and I raise the price of someone's favorite comfort food, to a level where they can no longer afford it, I have negatively affected them. If they decide that life is not worth living, because they can't afford cheezy-poofs, I am not responsible.
On bullying, what action would you take against verbal, non-threat, "bullying"?
the government also has a valid interest in regulating some behaviors of individuals which are explicitly linked to self-harm
Only for the mentally incompetent, if at all.
which is passed on as a cost to society more generally. The medical expenses resulting from the choices of individuals to smoke while knowing the consequences of doing so are passed on to other people in society who make the more responsible decision not to smoke.
Idea: remove the regulations that allow those medical expenses to be passed on. Force people who engage in the foolish behavior to suffer the consequences of that behavior and not be able to use the force of government to pass some of the cost onto others.
This is why those who advocate equality over freedom (liberty) may use it to justify any injustice. It is an ambiguous word. They can change the implied meaning, and if you fight it, they say you are "against equality", and only a monster can be against equality.
"No, giving them a label lowers down their dignity as a human...This same affect would happen when the child becomes labelled whatever."
So does calling someone a racial epithet, but calling someone a racial epithet is not "assaulting" someone, nor is it valid justification for assaulting someone.
I presume the government also prevented the "logs" from leaving. Unjustly imprisoning someone is assaulting them.
Come to understand that everyone is not you. People react to bullying differently to others.
Agreed.
What are you advocating?
Is the suicide of countless children not enough?
This is an appeal to emotion, not logic. What are you advocating?
I'm advocating an end to mandatory attendance at public schools, to allow people who do not wish to be there, to leave.
It leaves them prone to assault.
How?
Because others see weakness and will attack?
If another attacks, I believe that a person has a right to defend himself, using as much force as necessary.
Take this case:
If more people stood up and defended themselves like this, there would be fewer bullies.
Don't say "so" to verbal abuse, people have killed themselves over words on the internet.
I am well aware that people have killed themselves because someone hurt their feelings. This was foolish. I was ridiculed for being smart, socially awkward and a "nerd" all through school. You know what I did? I got over it. I pitied the people who were stupid enough to denigrate achievement.
In my opinion, the bully is not "assaulting" anyone by calling them names. The state is assaulting the child by not allowing him the liberty to remove himself from an institution/situation where another is causing him to feel uncomfortable by calling him names.
LOL, then you guys were doing what reventonrage and I were doing, arguing against one another, on the same side of an argument. :P
So, what you're saying is the Hellno is the "heir of the dog" (muttley)? ;)
I think this branch has a misunderstanding, because of the ambiguous word "regulate". It may seem to mean regulation on the front end (approved list) or regulation on the back end (only when harm has been proven).
I weigh in on the back end, if and only if significant harm has been proven and if the child wants the name changed.
Do you not know how bullying works?
Yes. I was a victim.
People at first tease him verbally, then he gains a reputation among everyone...Name calling can be hurtful, and makes them feel hated by everyone.
so?
If the verbal teasing is opinion, then there is no assault or theft.
Another's opinion of you is none of your business, nor are they obligated to show you kindness (or even civility). You get over it.
If it is "fact" that may be proven false, then it is libel, which is the equivalent of "damaging the value" of that person's reputation. This is actionable under property rights.
What that child may do in defense may make it worse.
Such as?
Is a person justified in physically assaulting another, or damaging property merely because he was offended, or has his feelings hurt?
Is any of this justification for the government to restrict the parent's right to name their child?
Bullying from having an odd name implies possible assault, as well.
How so? Especially if the intent of the odd name was not malicious? Let's say that the parent is a fan of "Howdy Doody" and names his daughter "Doody". Is he bullying?
What does that say about people whose last name is "Doody"?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0233145/
IMHO, the term "bullying" is very nebulous. When I was in school, I was physically assaulted, repeatedly, over a period of years. That is "bullying".
I do not understand how someone can consider "name calling" (as opposed to threatening physical violence) as bullying. Especially in the case of "bullying" on social media. Block them, or report them for violation of terms of use. If you can't remove yourself from the area where you are being called names, then whoever is preventing you from that is assaulting you.
"People have the RIGHT to not feel traumatized, bullied and offended, "
No one has a right not to be offended. You only have a right not to be assaulted, or stolen from. In a free society, with free speech, you are almost guaranteed to be offended by something someone says.
I'm not sure where the line is, but yes: One man should be "murdered" to save the lives of X people. I'm not sure where X is though.
What if that man were your brother? Or your son? Or your father? Or you?
This statement solidifies the fact that we are too far apart on this issue to agree. I believe an individual's life belongs to him, and no one else. You do not.
Another angle on this experiment is what kind of person would not press the button to save X people?
What sort of person would not want to be tortured for the rest of his years to save X people?
Whether or not he would is irrelevant. We are exploring whether he has the right to choose.
Here is another experiment: Your family is about to be very slowly lowered in to a pit of lava. You can save them by picking some random person from a local prison to throw in to the lava instead. No one will ever know the choice you made or what happened to the random person. What do you do?
Random prison guy dies.
1)This is a loaded question.
2)It is an appeal to emotion in the premise of the experiment, not ex post facto, in the examination of the answer. It is the equivalent of the politician's "for the children" argument.
3)It is also a "what would you do?" question, not a "what do you have the right to do?" question.
4)The potential sacrificed "other" is presented as a criminal. What if it were a random orphan? :)
Wouldn't you be a "terrible mass murder" for not pressing that button by choice? Perhaps by definition, the reluctant scientist deserves "capitol punishment" anyway?
No.
Crime by failing to act only belongs in the realm of morality, in the form of "sins of omission", not in the realm of justice. It is unjust for one to deprive another of life, liberty or property unless that person has acted to harm another. Refusing to help, is not the same as "acting to harm", unless refusing to allow homeless people to live in your house, is the same as stealing a house from them.
But in a democratic society, any member of society and or their families can become the "slave"..
We live in a republican society, with democratically elected representatives, and the protection of rights from the will of the masses, unless put into the law by changing the constitution, NOT a "democratic society".
and it's that understanding that makes the masses not do things that they are not willing to have done to themselves. For example when the masses decide to tax billionaires at 90%, they do so knowing that if they were to become billionaires, they would only be able to keep $100,000,000 per year.....and they are OK with that.
That is the equivalent of an infertile couple being willing to allow child sacrifice. "It is fine for others to sacrifice, as long as it isn't me."
This also implies that what one person earns belongs to the masses, to distribute as they see fit. The individual owns the product of his labor.
I actually don't have test anxiety for exams. My anxiety is in real life testing (stressful) situations. I start spring session in a couple of weeks. No tests, but anxiety, nonetheless. :D Good luck on yours.
LOL, i think i got tangled up. I have no problem with a child choosing to learn about creationism or "intelligent design" in school, as a theory. We may actually be on the same side of this argument. :D
No, he has test anxiety. In real world situations, which require intelligence and reason, he does well. One size does not fit all in most things, including education.
We do need some way to determine the effectiveness of the education that taxpayers pay for. I suggest having several methods, including standardized testing, and throwing out the lowest performance of the student, averaging the rest. This would give a better score, and reduce the effects of anxiety associated with certain types of testing.
The pillars of society require X dollars whether you "feel" you can contribute at the moment or not.
I think that much of our disagreement is in what constitutes the "pillars of society" and how much they should cost. The US had an agreement (the constitution) and some continue to stretch the boundaries of that agreement, beyond the stated limits of those who set those boundaries.
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. --Jefferson"
They also set out a way to legitimately expand or contract the boundaries of what government can do, that being the amendment process. But much of the programs and policies you advocate rely on an interpretation of the constitution that flies in the face of the "common sense" you keep citing.
Wickard vs. Filburn is a very good example. It is the rationale for most of the use, by the government, to interfere in states' affairs, under the aegis of "interstate commerce". In this case, the federal government fined a man for growing wheat to feed his chickens. He did not sell the wheat and he grew it on his own land, which was all in one state.
Without looking it up, can you guess the stretch of logic that the government had to go through to prove that this man's actions (growing his own food) fell under interstate commerce? Their reasoning is absolutely sound for many who believe that the good of the group should supersede the rights of the individual (progressives) and that the ends justify whatever means are necessary to achieve those ends.
Now, keep in mind that this is the same time that administration was destroying food and food animals, and limiting food production while Americans were starving in the streets, because food was not available, or too expensive to buy.
Lets say you make your society and there is not enough charity to prevent the worst of the worst from happening to people? What happens to those people?
Someone voluntarily supports them, or they die.
I don't think you have answered any of my questions along the way about how you would feel when you or your loved ones are "crushed" financially, emotionally and physically when, through no fault of your own, you fail to compete at a high enough level in the free market?
It really sucks. But my feelings or needs have no bearing on the rights of others.
I have not answered because it is an appeal to emotion, not logic.
It is the same argument used to implement LBJ's "Great Society" that was supposed to eliminate poverty. The effect of the program was greater poverty.
"Most people" (all people) have a right to provide these things for the specified people, themselves. No one stops another from feeding the hungry (except the government, sometimes), offering to educate another's child, or support disabled people.
By what right do they say "Because I wish for these people to be supported, You must support them." ?
To the extent that people feel the rights of the group are balanced against the rights of the individual.
Ok, let's do a thought experiment.
Half of the population of the world is dying of a plague. There is a scientist who has a method, that only he can perform, which will save all those people. if he refuses or stops, once started, the people will die.
If that method includes killing the scientist, does the group have a right to force him to do it?
What if it involves the torture of the scientist for the rest of his long life?
What if they only have to imprison him for the rest of his life?
What if they only have to force him to work 12 hour days, 7 days /week for the rest of his life?
What about 8 hours/day?
What about 2 hours/day?
What if he only had to press a button, once?
Does he have the right to refuse all together?
At what point does the imposition of the will of the masses, upon the individual become slavery?
ANY such imposition is slavery. The "balance" you are talking about is just the degree of slavery you wish to allow in your society.
Whether or not he would voluntarily do these things is irrelevant. We are exploring his right to choose.
------------------------------------
"A man asks a woman if she would be willing to sleep with him if he pays her an exorbitant sum. She replies affirmatively. He then names a paltry amount and asks if she would still be willing to sleep with him for the revised fee. The woman is greatly offended and replies as follows:
She: What kind of woman do you think I am?
He: We’ve already established that. Now we’re just haggling over the price."
I would argue that there are no sufficient reasons to suggest that education is necessarily an economic good or should be analysed as an economic good.
Any scarce resource, which is traded, is an economic good. Unless educators want to start working for free, and all the other resources that go to educating people start appearing out of thin air, it will be an economic good.
Even if I were to agree with your statement (and I don't), the outcome of one's education is not determined by what type of education one receives or who the education provider/s is/are. It is very much a determinate of the individual student's attitude and what he/she chooses to, ultimately, make out of their education. All the parents and government can do is to help them make informed choices. But to be able to make informed choices, one must necessarily have sufficient choices in the first place. Sufficient in terms of appropriate scope and depth of education. And I would argue that creationism is appropriate, when doing studies in comparative religion and theology. One might not agree with theological concepts, theories or arguments, but that does not mean that one should not study them or that one should not have the choice to study them.
This is a good argument.
I stand by my statement that the parent wants the child to succeed, and that the state wants the state to succeed. This will have a great effect on the range of choices that are offered to the child.
Why should you have a legal right to choose their own education? I'm afraid you'll run the risk of going down a very slippery slope because at what level do you think a child has the right to choose what they study?
The child choosing, as opposed to the parent, choosing, or the child as opposed to anyone else?
parent: to the extent that the educational choices mirror both the future material interests (the child can succeed in the world) and the child's moral education (which the state is not, and should not be responsible for).
anyone, other than the child: The same reason that we do not allow minors to enter into contracts, or (most of the time) charge them with adult crimes. They are not (legally) mature enough to be held responsible for their own decisions.
Furthermore, if it is in the child's own self interest, shouldn't the child be the the ultimate decision maker? In a free market economic model, that is always the case in a specific market.
If they were culpable, yes.
And are parents the best choice of the child's proxy in all cases? Or does it stop when the parents have no further personal and emotional interest in the child? And then what? Will you make the child's education entirely arbitrary?
Whoever is responsible (may be held legally liable) for the child's actions; whoever is the child's legal guardian (including himself, if emancipated) is the best choice. They have the most interest in the success of the child.
On what basis do make these claims?
Name one policy any government has ever put into place which did not have the effect of strengthening the government's position (power) in relation to those which it governs.
There are many parents who will make great sacrifices, up to and including risking their lives with no other reward than to guarantee the welfare of their children. There are very few 3rd parties who will do so.
Are you assuming that I think a child needs a proxy in terms of choosing what subjects they study in schools?
Yes, I am.
What subjects do you imagine would be taught, if you were to allow suggestions and a vote among the students of a typical grammar school? A typical High school? :)
aside: Kudos on your writing. The writing style and the structure of arguments are excellent.
What is a "group right"?
Does a group right supersede an individual, natural right (life, liberty, property, and the protection of these)?
To what extent?
True, "Those who steal from Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul."
You keep using the idea of "individual right" as if it has no common sense limit.
The only limit is the rights of another.
"My right to swing my fist, ends where your nose begins."
Is there any case in a society (baby dumped on the street, mentally ill person with no family, old senial person with no family, stopping a rape or murder, etc) that you think individuals should be required to "help" another member of that society?
Required? No. That is where compassion, charity, and basic human decency come in (moral obligation, not legal). You have a right to be as unfeeling an ass as you choose, just don't expect that others will go out of their way to help you, or to treat you with anything but contempt.
Would I help, if I could? Yes. Should anyone have the authority to compel another to do so? no. Bearing that in mind, I do believe that each has a right to protect the rights of others, just as they have a right to protect their own rights. I cannot justify this, logically, but it just seems right, morally.
another aside, requiring no answer:
I'm reading Atlas Shrugged again. The first chapters, where the businessmen were meeting in the bar, reminded me of some of your posts. Just an observation. :)
So your argument is that they are so powerful, ANY weapons we have will be useless against them so we should not have weapons?
Yes, the government should be VERY afraid of the citizenry.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Jefferson
Even a rough approximation of a free market could be a proof of concept. Heck, What's left of the free market is still supporting the massive statist apparatus in the US. :)
Should those poor children be given the same "good" education as their neighbors or not?
What about allocating resources equally, on a per student basis?
For example: (small numbers, easy math)
for example, allocate $10 per student
school A has 100 students
school B has 50 students
A gets $1000
B gets $500
that's fair, right?
Individual students, yes, but whats a good example of something that works good for one school but not another?
I cannot find the information, but there was an all-black high school (in harlem I think) before desegregation, that consistently turned out high achieving college students and eventual graduates. When the school was forced to integrate (admit whites), the quality of education dropped significantly. Desegregation did not work for this school.
As a complete aside...
debate here: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
MrPrime said: Yeah, I was thinking about that as well (I'm a software engineer). The problem is the "game" has to be very complex. As soon as the society "failed" the "looser" would say "It's because the game does not have X". This will go on forever... "It failed because the game did not have X, Y, X....." Maybe you can come up with the minimal number of "things" a free market game would have to have to be realistic. I'm thinking resources, businesses, entrepreneurs, laborers, insurance, some sort of contract and arbitration system, property, etc...
Some initial ideas:
Maybe a production system based on something like "doodle god" where you combine certain resources to create secondary resources, tertiary resources, etc. Add a timed element, and you have a higher order structure of production. (LOL, Having farmville farms compete at the farmers market would do this, with pricing for better equipment based upon the demand (auction?))
Allow for fiat currencies by having a resource that is useless as anything but a medium of exchange, and may be produced by elected "government" in the same way that the US does, or more simply, just by "creating" it.
One way that the "winning" society could be judged, is by considering the relative wealth of each of the societies as a whole, and the relative wealth of the poorest members (lowest 20%?) of each of the societies. The better the poorest in society are doing, the better the society, right?
Humans would be acting in this experiment. It would be an interactive simulation. Like a MUSH.
Which government are you going to defend against which the U.S. government cannot defend against.
Potentially, the U.S. Government. That's what the 2nd amendment is for. It guarantees the ability to enforce all the other rights. Government should be afraid of the people, not people afraid of the government.
So the question should be:
"Should it be mandatory that non medically necessary birth control be covered by insurance?"
(we should strive to make our debates less ambiguous) :)
My son is extremely bright and a good worker. He does HORRIBLY on tests. Standardized tests are a tool, but should not be the only tool.
Look at the right side of the debate. Under "debate creator" the name of the spammer appears. Go to their profile. On the right side there is a link to report the user. I suggest we all use this liberally for every spammer we encounter. >:)
Look at what happened when the Koch Brothers decided they wanted to be "education experts" in the Wake County schools system.
Nothing about them wanting to be "education experts". they promoted a system that would "eliminate class, and subsequently race, as a factor for student school assignments".
If someone were to use race, or income, as a criteria for barring access to a public resource, the policy would be called discriminatory, and rightly so. Any policy which uses race, or income as a determining factor, is discriminatory , by definition. No government has the authority to implement discriminatory policies, under the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause.
How is preventing a government from implementing discriminatory policies bad?
The school board was elected democratically, right?
We should get some experts to study what the "good" schools are doing and do that everywhere ;)
What works for one school (or student) doesn't work for all schools or students. :/
---------------------------
As a complete aside, I'm thinking of a couple of debates and/or a possible experiment in economics. I would like to see two experiments set up, one with a more statist society, and one with a more libertarian society. We have equal numbers of people participate in each.The libertarians set up the rules and limits of government in the libertarian society, the statists, likewise, for their society. The twist is, the libertarians participate in the statist society, and vice versa. Each side tries to "break" the other's society, following the rules, set down by the other side. :)
I may actually put this up as a debate and see if anyone has an idea as to how to implement it online.
Seems like they presented facts about nature?
There are people who literally have both sex equipment. This is not a "normal" thing, it is a condition. Equating it with fish who change sex due to environmental pressures, is intellectually dishonest. It is the equivalent of saying that since some animals must subdue their mates before mating, it is a natural state of affairs for people to rape.
But that's not even my point. They used a bullying program to promote a "gay is normal" agenda. This is promotion of a particular morality. If you allow the active promotion of a particular morality, you run the risk of allowing a morality to be promoted, with which you disagree.
The program was supposed to be anti-bullying. Bullying is about violation of rights. The theme should be "if you bully, you will be punished, because people have a right to be free from bullying". It should not be "anything another person does (or is) is normal, and should be understood and embraced as normal". There is a difference.
I consider homosexuality to be wrong, and I teach my kids that it is wrong. I also teach them that to actively bully anyone for any reason is wrong. People have a right to do whatever they are comfortable doing, as long as they hurt no one else. Homosexuality (if there is harm) only harms the participants.
I don't see the harm, but the list of benefits is quite long.
What benefits are there to potentially undermining the moral teaching of parents? I see much harm.
I have an idea. Make voting mandatory, but have "none of the above"(NOTA) on each ballot. If NOTA gets a plurality, then those candidates are ineligible for office until next term (including incumbents, who must vacate the office) and a new election, with new candidates must be held, until someone who is worth a crap (gets a plurality or majority) runs. This would be the equivalent of a confidence vote, instead of an "I'm better than the challenger" vote, for incumbents, making it difficult to be a career politician.
I have a friend who is very religious and also homeschools her kids. She Teaches both "intelligent design" and evolution as theories.
Some "experts" in iceland have decided what they can name their children, to "prevent embarrassment".
"Like a handful of other countries, including Germany and Denmark, Iceland has official rules about what a baby can be named. In a country comfortable with a firm state role, most people don't question the Personal Names Register, a list of 1,712 male names and 1,853 female names that fit Icelandic grammar and pronunciation rules and that officials maintain will protect children from embarrassment. Parents can take from the list or apply to a special committee that has the power to say yea or nay."
Oh, I just found this. "Experts" brought in for anti-bullying training for school kids.
"Please note: this class teaching moment was brought to you under the "it's not ok to bully." They decided to teach students that it's ok for boys to be girls and girls to be boys.
The nice thing about the public school system is when a good new common sense method is discovered or agreed upon, it can be implemented quickly and everywhere.
But there is also little to stop bad policy from being implemented, and little way to test the effects of a policy before it is implemented.
Assuming all your ideas are good ones (the experts agree) the only reason I can think of that they are not implemented is because of lack of money. We need more money in education, not less.
I have less faith in the opinions of experts than you do. Additionally, the budget for public education has risen dramatically since the early 70s with little to show for it.
"They are wiling to sacrifice some of their own individual wealth and some of someone else's individual wealth to preserve that group right." Absolutely. Keep in mind that the middle class majority feels much more pain paying 15% than the wealthy does when paying 30% so the feedback mechanism to keep taxes low is pushing down on the majority very hard.
Saying that another isn't burdened by a policy, is all well and good, IF you are not one of those others. People are people, and have equal rights to keep the property they earn. Need, or relative wealth is irrelevant. The only proper role of government is to protect rights. Additionally, the most productive individuals pay more absolutely, even if the percentage of tax is the same. What is the rationale that says that they must pay both absolutely more, and more of a percentage? What of justice?
Keep in mind that the individual has already produced more wealth for society's use, than he has accumulated (Say's Law)
"Only a small percentage of the population sees taxes as involuntary.
And a great proportion of the people who do not see it as involuntary, do not pay net taxes.
Secondly, coercion is not by definition a bad thing.
Yes, it is.
Almost any action humans make in a society is because of coercion if varying degrees.
Name a coercive action one takes, that is not directly related to government grant of special privilege.
Seems like NOT a lot of work to make sure your kids are going to be able compete with the rest of the kids in society.
Who is one person to judge, for another, what amount of jumping through hoops is "not a lot".
I could as easily say that those who recieve welfare should have to do 4 hours of job training per day, have to pass a drug test, and be barred from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes, even with their own money. I don't see that as "too much work" to receive free support, but I daresay you might disagree.
The point is that the parent should have say, not the state. But notice the language 'equivalent" not "to the same level". It can be used to impose particular ideas and curriculum.
What about this one?
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/
Homeschoolers and private school students tend to do no worse, and more often do better than their publilc school counterparts, even students from the same households where one was able to get into a private charter school, by random draw.
but they failed miserably at basic math reading and writing.
citation?
I (literally) have no good way of finding a good mechanic in the market we have.
The best will, generally, be the most successful. He will get the most word of mouth advertizing, and the most repeat business.
How does one shop for schools? You cant just move kids around until you find the best one?
Why not? if there are more in your area (not shut out by monopoly) then you wouldn't even have to change address. It is better than HAVING to move, because the government tells you that your kid HAS to go to this school if you live where you do.
I would much rather have a group of experts just tell me which auto mechanic or butcher or school was the best.
Just because you wish not to have to do research, does not give you the right to restrict the choices of others who would rather do the research themselves. With schools, supporting the education monopoly is doing just that.
You have to rely on experts or "consensus" from the community (basically a group of experts).
Who decides that an expert is an expert?
What makes the "consensus" of people who have not "put their money where their mouth is" better than those who have risked their own resources in the search for good advice?
Democracy is a form of free market. They do choose the best class designer (as good as any other form of choosing) as far as I can tell.
No, because the choosing in a democracy is done by risking the resources of others, not yourself. If I had access to your money, It would be much easier for me to choose to gamble it away, than if I only had access to my own.
I don't know many public schools that don't recognize and tread ADD. Hey are forced to by law.
What is the treatment?
What is the effect on the individual child?
What is the effect on the rest of the class?
What is the cost? (note: cost is related to the effect on the other students, taking resources away from them, in favor of the ADD child. More sacrificing the interests of some students for the sake of others?)
However, there are many private schools who don't have to and wont accept students with ADD ("Billy is too frigidity for our school.").
I will take your word for it, but I'm sure there are some who would like to harness the ADD potential. If harnessed correctly, ADD can be used to drive students to very high achievements in fields in which the student is interested. Having a high achieving student as an alumnus is a good selling point for a private school.
Outside of school.
I'm fine with this. Schools should concentrate on the "3 'R's", and leave sensitivity training, Watermelon environmentalism and sex ed (beyond the biology), to the parents.
