Vouchers and votes

[miko2d]

midnight Target: no names, no nothing. Why do conservatives feel the need to create stories like this. Did they ask some guy off the street who claimed to be a democrat?
 Funny how you can get upset over something that is all make believe.

Vouchers and votes

During a recent visit to Washington, I was told by a high official there that he had posed this question to Democrats: "Why are you so opposed to vouchers?"
 The reply: "We aren't going to give you guys a victory."

 We are talking about the foremost american economist, intellectual and public figure. The black guy was born in North Carolina and grew up in Harlem, did not finish high school, who served his county as a Marine in the Korean War.
 He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University (1958), he went on to receive his master's in economics from Columbia University (1959) and a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago (1968).
 Check the years - no Affirmative Action then! And that's just a start of his multi-faceted scientific, civic, writing and journalistic career.

 If the guy does not want to name the democrat who uttered those words, he may have a good reason. Like the fact that the person who said them - or an official who passed them on to him - might have expected his words would not be reported to the press along with the name.

 If you are not inclined to trust Sowell, fine. But there is no surprise that many people who do know him do trust him.
 
 miko

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by JBA
[url]Moreover, Republicans can point out that Democrats fought against vouchers, tooth and nail, for years.

I betcha this is true, and is a good example of how petty Republicans are.

Originally posted by JBA
[url]Democrats could be ruined if their current 90 percent of the black vote erodes to 75 percent.

And Blacks are what, only 17% of the American population?
Why are there so few minorities in the Republican party?
Are affluent blacks and black business owners so ignorant that they don't see how the Republican party would do them good?
Or maybe they smell the stinch of hidden racism lurking in the right wing... next to the rebel flag and the KKK sheets.

Originally posted by JBA
[url]The greatest unfairness today is denying a decent education to poor children, for whom that is often their only way out of poverty.

Schools are locally run, by the country and states. Schools in affluent neighborhoods tend to have better facilities, better teachers, and smarter students.

Why do students do better in these environments?

Is it just money?

Or could it be that parental involvement has more to do with education than teachers, money, and the school system?

Perhaps the emphasis shouldn't be let our school systems baby sit our kids... but that parents should be involved with their children's education... and making parents accountable to knowing what's their children are learning.

School Vouchers is an example of "Whitie" wanting to take his money and go live with the other "Whities" because the neighborhood has gotten a little too AA colorful.

let's take for example... Asian Americans... Parent don't speak a lick of English and run a family restaurant or laundry... yet their kids are A+ students in inner city schools?

Why is that? It's because their parents insist on their children doing well in school, and they know that education will allow their children to have more opportunities.

It's not the school system... it's the individual and their culture.

Licoln was self taught... as well as many other great Americans and Entrepeneurs in history.

Education starts and ends at home... not in the school room.

Change the culture by making parents responsible for their children's education.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
Why are there so few minorities in the Republican party?
Are affluent blacks and black business owners so ignorant that they don't see how the Republican party would do them good?
Or maybe they smell the stinch of hidden racism lurking in the right wing... next to the rebel flag and the KKK sheets.

Or maybe you're just full of ****?

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by AKIron
Or maybe you're just full of ****?

Just as much as you are and everyone else here on this board.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
Just as much as you are and everyone else here on this board.

I guess that's up to everyone to decide for themself.

[miko2d]

AKIron: Indeed I would be. However, I'm not a socialist.

 If you are going to use your private terminology, I certainly would not be able to refute you. But in my world the coercive governmental transefr and redistribition of wealth and interference with production is Socialism.

What society in which the rich ruled unmercilessly and ungivingly hasn't fallen?

 List any society which has fallen (not to foreign invasion) and I will explain to you how it was socialist policies that caused it.

 What do you mean by "rich ruled"? Used coercive power of the government to direct disposition of wealth? Than the problem is the same - the government having power abuse and coerce people. I can assure you that in most cases the people who you refer to were not rich to start with - they were strong (having violence or majority vote at their disposal). They got rich by having control of the government.

 Huge fortunes amassed by US "robber barons" could not have been made without help from the government - which unconstitutionally assumed the right to take some people's property and give it to the others, presumably for "public benefit". In reality those who managed to buy the politicians just used the power of the government to defeat their competitors who would have had provided better value to teh customers in a free market - non-coercively.

 In a free society every penny that a rich man has is obtained by him by providing someone with a good/service that the other part values more than that penny.
 A rich man in a free state has no power of coercion - he can only offer you a deal or regect your deal. A man/grpup of men can only make you do something if they gains control of the government and if the government is vested with such power to coerce.

 There is an inevitable historical principle that scoundrels rise to control any democratic government and that other scoundrels buy the influence of the government to promote their goals through coerson, rather than through competing in the free market.
 The problem is not the human nature - just the power itself gathered in one place to be inevitably abused.

 miko

[miko2d]

DmdNexus: And Blacks are what, only 17% of the American population?

 13% but the population is split so equally that a fraction of one percent counts.

Why are there so few minorities in the Republican party?

 Propaganda. They were persuaded that the party that stood for slavery and against equal rights (Dixiecrats, remember) suddenly changed overnight.

Are affluent blacks and black business owners so ignorant that they don't see how the Republican party would do them good?

 How many "affluent blacks and black business owners", not to mention black scientists do you know? All that I know are republicans or libertarians. Tomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, Walter Williams - most noted economists, Larry Elder, etc. Quite a lot of upper class blacks realise how harmfull Affirmative Action is to their people.

Schools are locally run, by the country and states.

 BS. Federal government has a lot of control over it and getting more - in exchange for money it collects as taxes and gives back. What do you think the most recent Bush's legislations were but the further federalisation of education? Why did the federal court ordered a county to collect taxes and maintain a public education system when it decided to abandon it altogether? Doesn't only a Congress have the power to collect taxes, not the court?

 Schools in affluent neighborhoods tend to have better facilities, better teachers, and smarter students.

Why do students do better in these environments?


Change the culture by making parents responsible for their children's education.

 How would you do that? Take away their children? They will make new ones. Sterilise them like we did 50,000 in the 1920s-30s? Hitler have those practices a bad name...

 miko

[AKIron]

Originally posted by miko2d
List any society which has fallen (not to foreign invasion) and I will explain to you how it was socialist policies that caused it.
 

This will be like arguing which came first, the chicken or the egg? Two revolutons immediately come to mind. The French and the Russian. Which of those two governments, had they not been more benevolent, would have suffered the fate they did?

I'll agree that human nature is most definitely a factor in the corruption of government. However, no people, including one completely free of government, is immune from abuse and corruption. To imagine otherwise is just that, imaginary.

[AKIron]

Just so I understand you miko:

"In a free society every penny that a rich man has is obtained by him by providing someone with a good/service that the other part values more than that penny."


So, are you advocating there be no government "interference"?

The man you mentioned may have spent years perfecting a widget which everyone wants but now that the idea is revealed  is easily reproduced. Should the government not interfere with anyone that would reproduce this widget and sell it at a lower cost?

Or maybe you want some government interference so long as it benefits you?

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by AKIron
I'll agree that human nature is most definitely a factor in the corruption of government. However, no people, including one completely free of government, is immune from abuse and corruption. To imagine otherwise is just that, imaginary.

This is a good point.  If he hasn't already, I'd suggest that Miko read the Federalist Papers, particularly No. 10.  I'm curious as to Miko's conceptualization of a perfect government system (or a lack of one).  How would Miko manage the sort of factionalism recognized by Madison?  By controlling its causes?  Or moderating its effects?

-- Todd/Leviathn

[miko2d]

AKIron: So, are you advocating there be no government "interference"?

 No interference in economics - production and distribution of property.
 In fact, I welcome much more government "interference" in protection of persons and property and enforcement of contracts than it currently does.
 
The man you mentioned may have spent years perfecting a widget which everyone wants but now that the idea is revealed  is easily reproduced. Should the government not interfere with anyone that would reproduce this widget and sell it at a lower cost?

 This is an extremely complicated philosophical question. I can't even express how complicated. I've read several books written by people who are admitted geniuses - defending either side. There is merit to both but I would not bother you with details.

 The question is reduced to whether there is such thing as intellectual property and what kind. If the intellectual property is recognised, then sure - it is afforded the same protection as any other property.

 There are quite a lot of issues regarding details of property that the government - even in a free state - would have to decide on arbitrarily (by voting) or according to prevailing customs.

 If intellectual property is regarded as property, how long should it be afforded protection? Do you think the society would have benefitted if such property was protected forever? Imagine a current owner of a patent for electricity suddenly not extending the licensing agrrement for the next year.
 It was decided - quite arbitrarily - that an intellectual property must be protected for a certain term (which was recently post-facto tinkered with by your favorite government to the great detriment of our society). That is very unlike the physical property - which you do not lose after 15 years.

 How about what level of invasion constitutes violation? Like how much risk or noise or smoke or what kind of pollutants can someone produce and introduce into your property before it is considered a violation?

 Or a question how to finance such a free government?

 Free state government would be anything but simplistic and if you care to pose distinct, intelligent questions I would be happy to explain how each issue could be resolved - or why it could not possibly be resolved, whether free state or socialist one.

 After all, the root of all problems we experience is not the evil human nature or exploitation but the natural scarcity of the resources. So the only way to really help society as well as every single individual is to increase the production - through accumulation of productive capital which is the only way to increase productivity of labor.
 That was not an accident that the humankind lived in the same squalid conditions for millenia untill free market was given a chance and drastically changed the societies where it was briefly allowed to operate. And that every society that goes back away from private property and free market reverts back to squalor.

 Care to open another thread where you could post questions for a serious discussion of the fine points?


Or maybe you want some government interference so long as it benefits you?

 If you understood the above posted, you must realise now that trying to guess what kind of intervention is likely to hurt or benefit me is impossible for you. Which is why I would rather not have anyone empowered to make that decision and act on it.


Dead Man Flying: I'm curious as to Miko's conceptualization of a perfect government system (or a lack of one).

 Regrettably, I did not yet get to the comprehensive study of anarcho-capitalism, so for now I can get you a version I subscribe to that is closest to the position of minarchists - minimal - but strong - state proponents.

 Minimal - or "night watchman" state. The government is empowered to protect persons and property of the citizens - which includes protection from fraud and enforcement of contracts.

 The government does not interfere with religion, economy, monetary system, trade, immigration, social engineering, social security, education, research, etc.

 Since it is imposible to use the government power of coercion as an instrument of personal profit - for the lack of such power, the scoundrels would have no reasons to vie for it and the crooks wil have no reason to buy government influence.

 So we would have military establishment, justice system and probably some law enforcement to handle and coordinate cases that local law enforcement institution cannot handle.

 My preferred way of financing such government is by charging a small fee for every contract - a set fraction of it's value - paid by one or both sides of the contract.
 It will be like sales tax where a fee would entitle you for protection if the seller violates his obligation or a product proved defective. If you want to trust him, you skip the fee but then you would have no legal recourse in case he reneges.
 That's just one scheme.
 Hopefully that and voluntary donations would cover the expences - since the government would be so small.

 Of course on the local levels people would be free to enter into any contracts and agreements, form local governments, etc. - as long as nobody is forced to join or do anything against his will.

 It seems that such a society cannot function because it misses a lot of features that the modern government provides, but I would be happy to explain:

-  how all those features would be taken care off by the private market - and better than the current government does;
- how many of those issues would not even exist because they are result of the government intervention;

 - how most of those principles were successfully implemented at one time or another throughout history.

 miko

[AKIron]

"After all, the root of all problems we experience is not the evil human nature or exploitation but the natural scarcity of the resources. So the only way to really help society as well as every single individual is to increase the production - through accumulation of productive capital which is the only way to increase productivity of labor."


And that's where we disagree. Not regarding the "free market" which I do agree is beneficial but rather that it can completely compensate for the "scarcity of the resources".  I'll just call your "evil human nature" greed and say that it is one of the biggest reasons we need government, not lack of resources.

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by miko2d
Federal government has a lot of control over it and getting more

The Federal governement does not run the local schools, even if it accepts federal money. The ferederal government does not elect school boards - the local governement or in some cases the people do.

If a school chooses to accept federal money then there are strings and rules attacted to that money. In most cases the money is designed for a specific purpose not to be put into the general coffers of the shool district. That's the way all Federal works - regardless if it's schools, road repair, housing.... etc.

If a school chooses not to accept federal money.. then the school is with out a doubt 100% locally run.

Originally posted by miko2d
 How would you do that? Take away their children? They will make new ones. Sterilise them like we did 50,000 in the 1920s-30s? Hitler have those practices a bad name...

These are your absurb ideas... not mine.

There are schools that are making Parents responsible.

In fact, a lot of private schools MAKE parents responsible contractually as condition of accepting their children into the school. Because some private schools are so prestigous they have to turn students away. If the parents don't participate the children are expelled - that's private school for you!

One way to make parents responsible is to make them show up for Teacher/Parent conferences (evenings).

Make parents participate in school activites once or twice a semester - yes most parents have to work. A parent can take off work for a few hours one or two days with in a 4 month period. Especially if it's for the benefit of their children.

I don't have a complete list... there's more ideas than what I've presented.

[mietla]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
There are schools that are making Parents responsible.

In fact, a lot of private schools MAKE parents responsible contractually as condition of accepting their children into the school. Because some private schools are so prestigous they have to turn students away. If the parents don't participate the children are expelled - that's private school for you!

One way to make parents responsible is to make them show up for Teacher/Parent conferences (evenings).

Make parents participate in school activites once or twice a semester - yes most parents have to work. A parent can take off work for a few hours one or two days with in a 4 month period. Especially if it's for the benefit of their children.

I don't have a complete list... there's more ideas than what I've presented.

You di not anser the question.

Those parent who send kids to private schools do not have to be forced to participate. By definition, they do care about their kids education if they are willing to pay substantial money for it.

My kids were always in private school, and both my wife and I have always participated in the things you've mentioned. In addition of course to participation in their (very extensive) homework and generally in their lives.


Miko's question is how do you force those parents who do not give a flying doughnut about their kids.

[miko2d]

AKIron: And that's where we disagree. Not regarding the "free market" which I do agree is beneficial but rather that it can completely compensate for the "scarcity of the resources".

 I never said that. There will always be a scarcity of resources as long as we are living in this world rather than in heaven - maybe even then.

 The free market is the system most beneficial towards increae of productivity and improvement of human's lot.

I'll just call your "evil human nature" greed and say that it is one of the biggest reasons we need government, not lack of resources.

 Come on, the government is the force that prevented any increase in productivity/production. We had governments for at least 7,000 years. The only brief periods where human welfare notably and rapidly increased were the cases where private property and free market existed. Then the government arosed and destroyed the civilisation that gave them birth.

 The increase of production and accumulation of capital are possibel due to market relations. Government start with "helping" those existing relations, then aquire more power to improve them and redistribute wealth and end up destroying those relations and the civilisation falls. Every time without exceptions. Well, maybe except Bisantium 11 centuries intil turks got them - where government influence was kept without increase and there was no interference whatsoever with the monetary system.


DmdNexus: These are your absurb ideas... not mine.

 Don' BS me or pretend to be stupid and ignorant of your own country's history or current reality.

 As if I came up with those! You know very well that taking children away from parents is how US and state governments "make parents responcibe" if the bureaucrats decide they are not feeding, guarding, keeping or raising them properly. Happens all the time now.

 As for the 50,000 people that US government coercively sterilised because it thought them unworthy of having children - that was definitely not my idea but that of americans living here at that time. It may not be your idea but may have been your grandparents' - if they were in this country and could vote in 1920s.

 So both those ideas are not mine and both were or are supported by the majority of the americans and democratically enforced on the rest of us.

 
There are schools that are making Parents responsible.

 Pray, tell me how? Is public school system allowed to deny education to the students when their parents misbehave?

I don't have a complete list... there's more ideas than what I've presented.

 Give me one that is used anywhere. How do you enforce compliance from parents if they do not comply voluntarily?

 miko