Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JBA on October 22, 2003, 09:29:20 AM
-
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031015.shtml
Vouchers and votes
Thomas Sowell (archive)
October 15, 2003
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."
If you stop and think about it, if the Democrats allow the Republicans to pass a bill that will make vouchers available all across America, that could create a huge political problem for the Democrats at the next election and for years thereafter.
First of all, vouchers would alienate one of the Democrats' biggest financial contributors, the teachers' unions. These unions also supply much manpower and phone banks to get out the votes on election nights. Losing their support would be a huge loss.
Then there is the support of blacks, who are the group that votes most dependably and most overwhelmingly for Democrats. But what if a Republican-sponsored bill creates vouchers that allow black children to escape the terrible schools that so many attend?
Since voucher schools will not have to accept hoodlums, they will tend to be safer places, even if the education they offer is no better. But studies have already indicated that there are better educational results as well.
Not all black parents will send their children to private schools with their vouchers and not all those that do will vote Republican at the next election. But once it becomes apparent that vouchers offer some escape from the worst schools, word is going to spread. Moreover, Republicans can point out that Democrats fought against vouchers, tooth and nail, for years.
This does not mean that most blacks would vote Republican. Chances are the Democrats would continue to win a majority of the black votes for some time to come. But, in a country as evenly divided politically as America is today, Democrats could be ruined if their current 90 percent of the black vote erodes to 75 percent. Democrats are already in trouble among white voters, so they need every black vote they can get to offset that.
In short, giving the Republicans a victory on vouchers could mean giving them many victories in future elections, where the difference between winning and losing is a few percentage points. That includes elections for President of the United States.
Whatever the shortcomings of politicians, they can count votes. Sometimes that is all they can do or want to do.
What about the future of a whole generation of young blacks? Not even the Congressional Black Caucus puts that ahead of maintaining political support from the teachers' unions.
Here and there isolated individuals within the Democratic Party have apparently let concern for the future of the next generation of blacks cause them to back off from their opposition to vouchers. The mayor of Washington, D.C., is one of these. So is Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.
One of the tragedies of the public schools is that they have become so enmeshed in bureaucratic rules and constrained by court decisions that they can do little to prevent a handful of classroom clowns and hoodlums from making it virtually impossible to educate other students in many ghetto schools.
Nor can public schools get rid of even a grossly incompetent teacher without administrative and legal processes that can drag on forever and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Public schools are also trapped in rigid hiring rules that keep out highly qualified people who have not suffered through enough mind-numbing education courses to be called "certified."
Private schools, and to some extent charter schools, escape these rigidities. Teachers' unions and others in the education establishment say that it is "unfair" that public schools have to compete with other institutions that do not have these and other bureaucratic and legal handicaps.
Fairness applies to people. Institutions are just means to an end -- serving people. If other institutions can get the job done better, then that is the way to go. Maybe vouchers and charter schools can give teachers' unions incentives to try to free the public schools from their handicaps, instead of trying to impose the same handicaps on other schools, in the name of "fairness."
The greatest unfairness today is denying a decent education to poor children, for whom that is often their only way out of poverty.
-
So I get no response from you Clintonian democrat coolade drinkers.
I thought you were the party of the oppressed and minorities.
Way don't you call your legislatures and demand the relief the minorities students deserve.
O that’s right you need the special interest money to flow for re-election campaigns at the expense of 18% of the population.
And then you can have the issue to blam Repulicans, for not helping the Black population, because you know we're all "racist."
That way you might win the White House so you can pack the courts with leftist judges to pass laws the voters would never vote for.
-
deaf ears my friend. They're too busy hating Bush to care about what's right for the country.....
-
You're right, it's all about securing votes at any price.
It'd be fine by me if they gave vouchers only to those in areas with under performing schools. Everyone benefits even if we bring only some out of the quagmire of government dependence. Once proven successful beyond refute it should then be extended to all.
-
Originally posted by JBA
So I get no response from you Clintonian democrat coolade drinkers.
Patience, Grasshopper, patience.
-
another good and accurate article JBA
-
I have trouble with the entire premise of this article. Last I checked, we parents of school aged children far outnumber the teachers.
I've also been doing some searching and I've found cases of Democrats that support vouchers. Likewise, I've found Republicans that do not.
The entire article is perfect for this BBS. Listen to a staement. Hypothesize on the reasons for the statement, and then ask everyone to argue with the hypothesis. It seems rather disjointed.
-
Yeah, I'll believe that Democrats pander to their campaign contributors.
But... Republicans are oblivious to politics, and are only interested in the welfare of poor minority children....? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.
I suspect the Black vote, and the Catholic and Christian Right votes, as well as the contributions of those who see privatized primary education as a fantastic business opportunity, might influence the Republican view of vouchers. Then, there's the sheer joy of antigovernmentism and union busting....
-
Not enough discussion on this subject.
-
I never, ever want my tax dollars going to any religious school. I will not pay to educate others that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong & going to hell. How many conservative Christians would willingly fund a school teaching Satanism?
Also, I don't want tax dollars going to private schools while public schools remain under-funded & teachers' salaries far too low.
Furthermore, how would you answer someone who says, "I resent paying my tax dollars to send kids to a private school that I can't afford to send my own kids to. And I'm not eligible for vouchers!"
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
I never, ever want my tax dollars going to any religious school. I will not pay to educate others that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong & going to hell. How many conservative Christians would willingly fund a school teaching Satanism? MRPLUTO
Your not paying for it I am, I'm just asking not to be taxed on that money.
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Also, I don't want tax dollars going to private schools while public schools remain under-funded & teachers' salaries far too low. MRPLUTO
Too late, I already send my kids to a private school, and I use my own money. Tax dollars and my money are the same thing up to 10.5 percent of last years income. I simply wish to choose how my little portion of those 'tax dollars' are spent.
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Furthermore, how would you answer someone who says, "I resent paying my tax dollars to send kids to a private school that I can't afford to send my own kids to. And I'm not eligible for vouchers!"
MRPLUTO
I would say I'm not spending any of your tax dollars, I'm spending some of mine. Sounds to me like the money I pay in to the federal tax system becomes someone elses to use as they see fit once it leaves my hand, and if I attempt in any way to use any of that money myself I am a callous SOB who doesn't feel sorry for the less fortunate.
This is simply a way for parents to have more choice in the education of their children. Vouchers will enable some of those less fortunate souls who can't afford private school tuition a chance to give their kids a better education in a place where religion is not a crime.
We all knew when this started it would be a long and lengthy battle to get this legislation through the system. Like it or not it will eventually happen. That's the thing about the majority in this country, we always get our way. :aok
-
gonna do my best to keep my grand daughter out of public schools. The socialists will punish me tho. Their idea of equality is that everyone suffers.
lazs
-
Sandman_SBM: I have trouble with the entire premise of this article. Last I checked, we parents of school aged children far outnumber the teachers.
The author - a first rank black economist schoolar (who's got his professorship before the Civil Rights Movement even started) - is one of the top intellects in this country and an utmost authority on the subject. Just check his list of books on economics, culture, race relations and politics. I own over half a dozen of them.
The special intersts groups always have disproportionate share of political influence because their political interests are concentrated while the public political interest is diffused.
Sugar growers's livelihood depends on trade protection, so they collect millions and lobby hard. That's why sugar in US costs four time as much as the world price. But since every household only loses a few dollars a month for it, it is not worth your time and money to form a lobby and be politically active - you would lose even if you won.
Same with teachers and any other special interest group.
Knowledge and Decisions, a winner of the 1980 Law and Economics Center Prize, was heralded as a "landmark work" and selected for this prize "because of its cogent contribution to our understanding of the differences between the market process and the process of government."
You see - it's only your unfamilarity with the must-know intellectual that made you accuse Tomas Sowel of presenting a "disjointed hypothesis". Of course it's not a compehencibe coverage of a subject. It's a tiny article. He has several big books on the subject. You want details and proofs rather than "hypothesizing"? Why don't you read a few of them.
"Knowledge and Decisions"
"Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One"
"Late-Talking Children"
"The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late"
"The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy"
"A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles"
"Inside American Education"
"Race and Economics"
"Civil Rights : Rhetoric or Reality"
"The Economics and Politics of Race"
"Markets and Minorities"
"Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study"
"Black Education: Myths and Tragedies"
44 books on Amazon, publications in scientific journals, also countless articles and essays published in the media.
miko
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Also, I don't want tax dollars going to private schools while public schools remain under-funded & teachers' salaries far too low.
MRPLUTO
WRONG.
The US spent $750 Billion last year alone on students/schools from k-college. That’s an average cost of 10,540 per student.
Don't tell me schools are under funded. That’s Democrat demagoguery.
I might agree salaries are to low, but hay work 52 weeks, 2040 hours a year, like the rest of us, then I might vote for a raise. But as long as they have 2 months off and every frigging holiday conceived then they get what they work for.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Sandman_SBM: I have trouble with the entire premise of this article. Last I checked, we parents of school aged children far outnumber the teachers.
The author - a first rank black economist schoolar (who's got his professorship before the Civil Rights Movement even started) - is one of the top intellects in this country and an utmost authority on the subject. Just check his list of books on economics, culture, race relations and politics. I own over half a dozen of them.
Knowledge and Decisions, a winner of the 1980 Law and Economics Center Prize, was heralded as a "landmark work" and selected for this prize "because of its cogent contribution to our understanding of the differences between the market process and the process of government."
You see - it's only your unfamilarity with the must-know intellectual that made you accuse Tomas Sowel of presenting a "disjointed hypothesis". Of course it's not a compehencibe coverage of a subject. It's a tiny article. He has several big books on the subject. You want details and proofs rather than "hypothesizing"? Why don't you read a few of them.
"Knowledge and Decisions"
"Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One"
"Late-Talking Children"
"The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late"
"The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy"
"A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles"
"Inside American Education"
"Race and Economics"
"Civil Rights : Rhetoric or Reality"
"The Economics and Politics of Race"
"Markets and Minorities"
"Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study"
"Black Education: Myths and Tragedies"
44 books on Amazon, publications in scientific journals, also countless articles and essays published in the media.
miko
Miko,
I only site the best.:)
-
JBA: That’s an average cost of 10,540 per student.
Don't tell me schools are under funded. That’s Democrat demagoguery.
To put those numbers into prospective, $10-11,000 is a cost per student in abysmal New York and Washington schools.
At the same time private for-profit schools charge 6-8,000 per year tuition. They teach well, charge less and they turn profit!
Though I do have to add a great insight - that I've got from another Thomas Sowell's article.
When my child goes to school at age 5, he will be able to read fluently and know arithmetics. If the school administers tests, he will increase total average and that would reflect beneficially on the school - even tho the school may have nothing to do with it.
So the private schools may not be as much better in teaching than public school as some believe.
It's just the patents of the children in those schools may be doing their jobs.
miko
-
Sowell may have credentials coming out of his wazoo... this doesn't change the fact that there are Democrats that support vouchers.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sowell may have credentials coming out of his wazoo... this doesn't change the fact that there are Democrats that support vouchers.
I think you're missing the point here. It is the Democrats that are opposed to and blocking vouchers.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you're missing the point here. It is the Democrats that are opposed to and blocking vouchers.
That's exactly my point. There are indeed Democrats that support vouchers and some Republicans that don't.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
That's exactly my point. There are indeed Democrats that support vouchers and some Republicans that don't.
They are relatively few. To cite them would seem to be a diversionary tatic to me.
-
So, if we privatize education, only people with children in school will have to pay for it?
Sign me up!
-
>>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."
So this question was given to every Democrat and every Democrat replied the same?
Why not name names... who was interviewed?
Sounds like more Rethorical BS to me.
Since the Republicans control congress, the Executive, and most of the Judicial branches of the government..
heck... why don't you Republicans just out law Democrats... call them enemy combatants and be done with it.... throw them all in prison... like those two Australians down in Cuba.
After all Liberals do no good for this country... they hate America. and they support terrorists...
This country doesn't need two parties... one party is good enough.
Pass a law and get done with it.... already.
-
Originally posted by popeye
So, if we privatize education, only people with children in school will have to pay for it?
Sign me up!
Did you go to public school? Soon as you pay us back for your education. ;)
-
Most of my primary education was done by the good Sisters of St. Joseph, paid for entirely by my mother, without the benefit of government welfare, er....vouchers.
Maybe she should collect retroactive vouchers....
-
poooopeyyyye, I am your mother. ;)
Of course you will benefit from the education you are paying for for others. Your taxes should indeed go down however. Based on the numbers I've seen posted here, private schools will cost us much less than government run schools.
-
Great. Can I have the car keys?
-
AKIron: Of course you will benefit from the education you are paying for for others.
You think that spending money on:
- keeping the uneducatable children in school - and out of workforce;
- destroying the chances of educatable children that are bottled up with hopeless ones under control of inept (monopoly, remember) teachers;
really outweights his loss of money to taxes?
Let's hear it.
miko
-
Yeah, let's get those hopeless children into the workforce where they can do us some good.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
AKIron: Of course you will benefit from the education you are paying for for others.
You think that spending money on:
- keeping the uneducatable children in school - and out of workforce;
- destroying the chances of educatable children that are bottled up with hopeless ones under control of inept (monopoly, remember) teachers;
really outweights his loss of money to taxes?
Let's hear it.
miko
Where did you ever get the idea that I wanted to allow disruption in private schools? That is what you're assuming right? That I think kids with behavior problems should be forced on private schools? You assume too much. Private schools must be allowed to enforce discipline however they see fit.
One thing is for certain, I don't want it left up to you to decide as to who is uneducatable. Nor do I want the responsibility.
-
AKIron: That I think kids with behavior problems should be forced on private schools? You assume too much. Private schools must be allowed to enforce discipline however they see fit.
Nothing to do with public or private schools. If the price of a product is artificially kept below the market price - to zero in this case, it's going to be overused and underutilised. Sure, in private schools the education would be better for those who can absorb it. Here I am in agreement with you.
The uneducatable will still go to some schools, since the education is free for them. Either public or some scummy private schools will provide them with room for a day in return for the money from the government. How does that benefit a person who foots the bill?
One thing is for certain, I don't want it left up to you to decide as to who is uneducatable.
Why not? It's my money, after all. Why shouldn't I be able to decide who gets it? I would not presume to deny you the right to dispose of your money.
Even forgetting the charity - where a giver has much greater control over the teaching process than he does over the public school.
If a child is educatable and going to earn a lot of money due to extra education, then his education is a valuable capital. I've seen the numbers how much the extra education is worth - quite a lot. Why wouldn't a profit-seeking investor be eager to finance such an education in return for some share in profit? If I can buy a piece of machinery for the kid to work on and make money for both of us, why couldn't I buy him tutoring? That would of course be possible if legislature made such deals legal, since there is a considerable risk involved.
Would you agree if some stranger paid for the education of your bright child so that if he lands a good job, he pays off the full sum, no interest and say 5% of his earnings above the median salary?
We would see much more education happening and of better quality in this country if people were allowed to profit from it - like we've see the explosion of industry, technology and wealth once people were freed from madieval rules and allowed to profit from those.
Nor do I want the responsibility.
Of course you do. You vote for the laws that make it legal for armed goons to come in and take my property (and kidnap/maim/kill me if I resist) in order to fund your egalitarian fantasies the way you see fit.
You are just acting like a typical liberal liar. You have control over me due to your vote and you are not shy a bit about exercising it, whatever denials you care to print.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
One thing is for certain, I don't want it left up to you to decide as to who is uneducatable.
Why not? It's my money, after all. Why shouldn't I be able to decide who gets it? I would not presume to deny you the right to dispose of your money.
Because you aren't qualified to make the determination and neither am I. In fact, there are very few alive that aren't educatable, at least to some extent. The only ones not educatable being those in a coma or from California. ;)
In any society there is going to be a certain amount of socialism. It is unavoidable and necessary. It is the nature of society. How we implement it is our choice and within certain boundaries you do have the right to say how your public money is spent. To deny anyone an opportunity for an education in our society is not within your rights nor would I choose for it to be so.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
>>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."
So this question was given to every Democrat and every Democrat replied the same?
Why not name names... who was interviewed?
Sounds like more Rethorical BS to me.
Since the Republicans control congress, the Executive, and most of the Judicial branches of the government..
heck... why don't you Republicans just out law Democrats... call them enemy combatants and be done with it.... throw them all in prison... like those two Australians down in Cuba.
After all Liberals do no good for this country... they hate America. and they support terrorists...
This country doesn't need two parties... one party is good enough.
Pass a law and get done with it.... already.
Now there is an idea...you're first Nexus...off to Cuba ya go!:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Now there is an idea...you're first Nexus...off to Cuba ya go!:)
If only I were a Democrat.... yah Cuba... Carribean... clear blue/green waters... tropical fruits... exotic women...
Latin music...
No Republicans!
Hablo Espaniol?
I'm there.. .give me the ticket!
-
AKIron: Because you aren't qualified to make the determination and neither am I. In fact, there are very few alive that aren't educatable, at least to some extent.
Setting the issue of coercion aside, a test at the end of each grade tells you which student mastered the curriculum. At some point every human hits his personal wall in education. Beyong that it does not make sense to waste resources.
Better to offer such child a vocational traning and let him work.
In any society there is going to be a certain amount of socialism. It is unavoidable and necessary.
Yes, because you have your vote backed by armed goons and spineless Supreme Court. I could live quite well without your socialism. Also, you are quite wrong that socialism can be present in a "certain amount". I've done quite a study of it. The socialism may be either retreating or increasing. There is no stable "middle way" possible. Every government intervention causes need for more government intervention to deal with the consequences and so on intill total ggovernmental control over production and distribution.
It is the nature of society.
No, just the nature of tyrany to always expand.
How we implement it is our choice and within certain boundaries you do have the right to say how your public money is spent.
What a hyppocritical statement. Yes, I have the right to say how my public money is spent, thank you very much for allowing me... I have no influence over how your public money is spent. Once I am in the minority, my vote does not count.
To deny anyone an opportunity for an education in our society is not within your rights nor would I choose for it to be so.
Why do I owe anyone an opportunity for an education at the expence of my property, becides your arbitrary choice backed by violence, that is?
I mean, hundred fifty years ago little tyrants like you would insist that I had an obligation not to teach the black slaves to read under thepenalty of punishment. Now another bunch came to power and claims that I have an obligation to teach those who cannot and do not express interest.
Could you possibly leave us alone?
P.S. It's not that I begruge the money. I - and Sowell - actually know that we would have better education if the government did not administer it - more students better educated at less cost.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
In any society there is going to be a certain amount of socialism. It is unavoidable and necessary.
Yes, because you have your vote backed by armed goons and spineless Supreme Court. I could live quite well without your socialism. Also, you are quite wrong that socialism can be present in a "certain amount". I've done quite a study of it. The socialism may be either retreating or increasing. There is no stable "middle way" possible. Every government intervention causes need for more government intervention to deal with the consequences and so on intill total ggovernmental control over production and distribution.
No one is stopping you. There must be an island somewhere you can live all alone. However, if you drive on OUR roads or drink OUR processed water or use OUR public sewer system then you most certainly are dependent upon socialism.
-
AKIron: However, if you drive on OUR roads or drink OUR processed water or use OUR public sewer system then you most certainly are dependent upon socialism.
B.S. Those things like roads are "yours" because you stole/extorted the property/money from the like of me who actually create the wealth and foot the bill.
And of course it is illegal to offer competition to "your" public utility services, so I have to drink "your" water. And because I have to buy "your" water, I have to pay triple per gallon for the public sewer system that I DON'T use. You see - if I use water to wash my car or water my garden, it still is counted as if it goes into the sewer. Nice, isn't it. Why even provide the service if you can just charge for it under threat. Just like your schools - high cost, no education...
Why don't you just admit it - might makes right. You have might on your side and so do whatever your ilk wants. I have no problem living with that. I even know how it will end, if not exactly looking forward to living through the experience.
miko
-
Only stupid people learn on their own mistakes. The smart ones learn on other people's mistakes.
Just study some history and look around what kind of successes the socialism/communism/,,, ism has brought to this world.
-
miko,
Do you pay for internet access by the minute, or a flat fee? Just curious....
-
Originally posted by miko2d
AKIron: However, if you drive on OUR roads or drink OUR processed water or use OUR public sewer system then you most certainly are dependent upon socialism.
B.S. Those things like roads are "yours" because you stole/extorted the property/money from the like of me who actually create the wealth and foot the bill.
And of course it is illegal to offer competition to "your" public utility services, so I have to drink "your" water. And because I have to buy "your" water, I have to pay triple per gallon for the public sewer system that I DON'T use. You see - if I use water to wash my car or water my garden, it still is counted as if it goes into the sewer. Nice, isn't it. Why even provide the service if you can just charge for it under threat. Just like your schools - high cost, no education...
Why don't you just admit it - might makes right. You have might on your side and so do whatever your ilk wants. I have no problem living with that. I even know how it will end, if not exactly looking forward to living through the experience.
miko
I pay taxes too miko and have probably done so much longer than you, for about 36 years now. You're being just silly if you can't see the need to share certain things including the cost of providing for those that can't provide for themselves.
Right also makes might.
-
popeye: miko, Do you pay for internet access by the minute, or a flat fee? Just curious....
$50/month for a DSL line which is a business expense.
AKIron: I pay taxes too miko and have probably done so much longer than you, for about 36 years now.
First, I could have paid as much in 14 years as you did in 36.
Second, your government has been spending much more than you were paying in taxes - witness the huge debt for which I am responcible now, so I would be paying taxes to cover expences even for those 22 years that I was not here.
But that is hardly relevant. I do not believe that anything I do gives me a right to dictate how you should live.
You're being just silly if you can't see the need to share certain things including the cost of providing for those that can't provide for themselves.
You are distorting the truth. I do see the need to help those who need help. I am not arguing against morality here.
What I do not see is the need for me to be forced to help people you chose in ways that you choose.
Even less do I see the need for me to finance your utopean schemes that are ruinous to the very same people you are claiming to be helping - as Thomas Sowell explains in his many works.
You are being silly if you can't see that your socialist ways will destroy those people in the same ways and for the same reason as they did people of other countries afflicted with socialism.
miko
-
Miko wishes to leave the Leviathan-led world and return to man's natural state. Good luck!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You are being silly if you can't see that your socialist ways will destroy those people in the same ways and for the same reason as they did people of other countries afflicted with socialism.
miko
Indeed I would be. However, I'm not a socialist. Though I do recognize that here in the US we practice a bit of socialism, much more than I would like.
To have a balanced and prosperous society based on individual freedom and responsibility requires diligent examination and adjustment of our government.
What society in which the rich ruled unmercilessly and ungivingly hasn't fallen?
-
where is the evidence that the U.S. is unmerciful and ungiving? I would suggest that the oppossite is true. I had read once that the U.S. contributes more per capita to charity than any other nation.
What does that have to do with vouchers in any case?
Dump all the socialism and we will all have enough to send our children to school.... good schools... not the government crap we have now.
lazs
-
"Why are you so opposed to vouchers?"
The reply: "We aren't going to give you guys a victory."
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.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
where is the evidence that the U.S. is unmerciful and ungiving? I would suggest that the oppossite is true. I had read once that the U.S. contributes more per capita to charity than any other nation.
What does that have to do with vouchers in any case?
Dump all the socialism and we will all have enough to send our children to school.... good schools... not the government crap we have now.
lazs
I wasn't implying it is lazs. I was only trying to point out to miko that a certain amount of socialism is necessary in a society like ours. Just gotta keep it to a minimum.
Free public education paid for with taxes is socialistic. Not everyone pays the same but everyone gets the education. I'm not against that. I'm against pouring more and more money into a failing system when there are other proven alternatives.
-
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 (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031015.shtml)
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
-
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.
-
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 ****?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Or maybe you're just full of ****?
Just as much as you are and everyone else here on this board.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:mad: 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
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Give me one that is used anywhere. How do you enforce compliance from parents if they do not comply voluntarily?
Here's one...
http://www.nais.org/admission/parents/
here's a website dedicated to this subject.
http://www.familyeducation.com/article/1,1120,23-16631,00.html
Private schools have some good ideas. That doesn't mean we should abandon public schools like voucher proponents would suggest we do.
I believing it's less expensive to fix the system... than it is to abandon it.
Compelling parents to participate can be as simple as threatening them with fines.
And this is a reasonable solution and there is already presidence to compelling parents in this manner.
For example recent child abandonment/endangerment laws, now require parents to pick up and drop off children under certain ages (I think it is around 8 years old) - rather then allow them to walk to and from school alone.