[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
So in that case, what is the better alternative to more publicly funded education? Usually what I hear in response from republicans is “privatize,” but I without much delving further into who/how.
[/quote]
“Privatize” IS the who/what/why/how/where/when. If “privatize” is someone’s answer, he can’t go into any further detail-that’s the point of privatization. If that person expresses a desire to set up some type of facility to provide that privatized education, then he may be able to give you answers(for his facility).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
You’re making a strong declaration that “promote” is so limiting as to not include the presence of allowing an opportunity for something. [/quote]
Allowing an opportunity =/= government taking tax money and giving it to others.
Holy shit. Maybe I’m wrong but your entire body of posts in this thread come off like you honestly don’t think that life outside of government control Is possible.
[/quote]
I’m simply arguing that there are two sides to all of these arguments. You are interpreting my statements the way you want to see them, which isn’t the whole picture I’m trying to present at all. Apparently I cannot have a discussion among others here. I’ll move along now and appease to you all. And btw, I am perfectly fine with the existence and continuation of privatization across all fronts, I never once said I was against it. Again, was simply trying to pose a different perspective. No worries though, I’ll stop encroaching on YOUR freedom of speech.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
So in that case, what is the better alternative to more publicly funded education? Usually what I hear in response from republicans is “privatize,” but I without much delving further into who/how.
[/quote]
“Privatize” IS the who/what/why/how/where/when. If “privatize” is someone’s answer, he can’t go into any further detail-that’s the point of privatization. If that person expresses a desire to set up some type of facility to provide that privatized education, then he may be able to give you answers(for his facility).[/quote]
To make it more clear, “privatize” is the extraction of government involvement and public funding. I.E. no longer under government control, in theory.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
You’re making a strong declaration that “promote” is so limiting as to not include the presence of allowing an opportunity for something. [/quote]
Allowing an opportunity =/= government taking tax money and giving it to others.
Holy shit. Maybe I’m wrong but your entire body of posts in this thread come off like you honestly don’t think that life outside of government control Is possible.
[/quote]
I’m simply arguing that there are two sides to all of these arguments. You are interpreting my statements the way you want to see them, which isn’t the whole picture I’m trying to present at all. Apparently I cannot have a discussion among others here. I’ll move along now and appease to you all. And btw, I am perfectly fine with the existence and continuation of privatization across all fronts, I never once said I was against it. Again, was simply trying to pose a different perspective. No worries though, I’ll stop encroaching on YOUR freedom of speech.[/quote]
lol, so people don’t jump up and agree with you, and you have to run away?
You’re likely too sensitive to post around here anyway at this rate. It isn’tlike a single person told you to stop posting, we just called you out on your BS.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
So in that case, what is the better alternative to more publicly funded education? Usually what I hear in response from republicans is “privatize,” but I without much delving further into who/how.
[/quote]
“Privatize” IS the who/what/why/how/where/when. If “privatize” is someone’s answer, he can’t go into any further detail-that’s the point of privatization. If that person expresses a desire to set up some type of facility to provide that privatized education, then he may be able to give you answers(for his facility).[/quote]
To make it more clear, “privatize” is the extraction of government involvement and public funding. I.E. no longer under government control, in theory.[/quote]
Yes, that is correct.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
You’re making a strong declaration that “promote” is so limiting as to not include the presence of allowing an opportunity for something. [/quote]
Allowing an opportunity =/= government taking tax money and giving it to others.
Holy shit. Maybe I’m wrong but your entire body of posts in this thread come off like you honestly don’t think that life outside of government control Is possible.
[/quote]
I’m simply arguing that there are two sides to all of these arguments. You are interpreting my statements the way you want to see them, which isn’t the whole picture I’m trying to present at all. Apparently I cannot have a discussion among others here. I’ll move along now and appease to you all. And btw, I am perfectly fine with the existence and continuation of privatization across all fronts, I never once said I was against it. Again, was simply trying to pose a different perspective. No worries though, I’ll stop encroaching on YOUR freedom of speech.[/quote]
bit melodramatic … look man, engagement is one ingredient in the path to enlightenment and understanding. It seems to me that you are getting a discussion which you seem to not be able to handle? People disagree with people all the time on these boards, sometimes they get heated sometimes they don’t.
People are just pointing out legitimate flaws in your argument and picking them apart. Happens. This is how you learn to either strengthen your stance or argument through discourse and research OR, if you can not, you might have your perspective change or you’re introduced to an aspect of an issue you had yet to consider.
It’s called personal and intellectual growth. This is how it happens. Like oh so many band-aids being ripped.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Clearly, the Constitution does not directly spell out a right to the opportunity of education, nor the right to education. So you’re absolutely correct there. However, the Constitution does state: “We the People of the United States…promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
I would imagine an aspect of liberty is for Americans to have the opportunity to improve their well-being, which I would also imagine includes educating oneself. I realize that there are many ways to obtain that education, and I am of the belief that a public form of education is important to exist in a democratic society, especially where there is a large portion of the population who cannot afford privatized education as it commonly exists. [/quote]
Its PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE it. A broad definition of that clause is a recipe for enslavement. [/quote]
You’re making a strong declaration that “promote” is so limiting as to not include the presence of allowing an opportunity for something. Additionally, to correlate “provide” with enslavement so closely is a bit extreme, IMO.[/quote]
Taking money from one person and specifically giving it to another is providing the specific welfare of one individual. It is not promoting and it is not general.
Then this draws me to a question. Hear me out, if you will: if privatization is the golden answer, is there an example now, or in world history, where a society was based entirely on the lack of a government (or the like) in place which proves example of its unwavering success? I’m genuinely asking.
Is there no place for government at all? Infrastructure, regulating markets, public education. Do none of these work in their current government controlled, funded, or regulated structure?
Why can the question not be “how do we improve upon these structures or distributions” instead of merely wiping away of them entirely?
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Then this draws me to a question. Hear me out, if you will: if privatization is the golden answer, is there an example now, or in world history, where a society was based entirely on the lack of a government (or the like) in place which proves example of its unwavering success? I’m genuinely asking.
Is there no place for government at all? Infrastructure, regulating markets, public education. Do none of these work in their current government controlled, funded, or regulated structure?
Why can the question not be “how do we improve upon these structures or distributions” instead of merely wiping away of them entirely?[/quote]
Personally, I consider coercive action immoral, so that is my first reason. Non violence except in defense of self or others invalidates most of what the government does.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
However, the Constitution does state: “We the People of the United States…promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
[/quote]
I skipped over this statement, but I would like to revisit it. The Constitution does, indeed, state what you have written; however, following your last ellipsis, there is this: “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In other words, if it’s not in the Constitution, then it’s not the business of the United States.
The Constitution can be amended to accommodate anything, but it has to be amended. No federal official was given the (lawful) power to do ANYTHING not expressly permitted by the Constitution.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Then this draws me to a question. Hear me out, if you will: if privatization is the golden answer, is there an example now, or in world history, where a society was based entirely on the lack of a government (or the like) in place which proves example of its unwavering success? I’m genuinely asking.
Is there no place for government at all? Infrastructure, regulating markets, public education. Do none of these work in their current government controlled, funded, or regulated structure?
Why can the question not be “how do we improve upon these structures or distributions” instead of merely wiping away of them entirely?[/quote]
Public good vs private goods:
http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Market-Failure/Public-Goods/PRIV-V-PUB.html
This is a good start. Read the definitions and do a little bit of research regarding any terms you find confusing. Generally, “public” goods are better administered via government through taxation, things like infrastructure, courts, etc. Adam Smith’s role of government, put succinctly, comes in 3 parts:
1.It should protect society against â??the violence and invasionâ?? of other societies.
2.It should provide and â??exact administration of justiceâ?? for all citizens.
3.The Government has the duty of â??erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works which may be in highest degree advantageous to a great societyâ??, but which â??are of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals.â?? This last one addresses the “tragedy of the commons” found in public goods.
Government absolutely should promote public education for all, but the problem with this today is there seems to be a progressive agenda infused in much of public education which undermines equality of liberty, which is the philosophy upon which our great nation was founded. See transfer payments or distribution of wealth and read The Road to Serfdom if you REALLY want to understand the inherent and indivisible evils of Socialism. Slippery slopes, man, slippery slopes
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Then this draws me to a question. Hear me out, if you will: if privatization is the golden answer, is there an example now, or in world history, where a society was based entirely on the lack of a government (or the like) in place which proves example of its unwavering success? I’m genuinely asking.
Is there no place for government at all? Infrastructure, regulating markets, public education. Do none of these work in their current government controlled, funded, or regulated structure?
Why can the question not be “how do we improve upon these structures or distributions” instead of merely wiping away of them entirely?[/quote]
Don’t rush to the other extreme so quickly.
Just because we reject the notion of further government involvement, doesn’t mean we (or I specifically) want government completely out of the public education sphere or gone entirely.
It’s a matter of degree. And I’m sorry but if a school can’t get the poor neighborhoods in Chicago to get a literacy rate higher than the score to pass the CPA, I don’t think “free” college is quite the answer we need here. The people who need it most can’t even get through secondary education, lets fix that shit first.
And once that is fixed, DC can get fucked. They don’t know what my kid, or some kid in TimbucTwo MO needs ore than the residents and parents of that town.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Then this draws me to a question. Hear me out, if you will: if privatization is the golden answer, is there an example now, or in world history, where a society was based entirely on the lack of a government (or the like) in place which proves example of its unwavering success? I’m genuinely asking.
Is there no place for government at all? Infrastructure, regulating markets, public education. Do none of these work in their current government controlled, funded, or regulated structure?
Why can the question not be “how do we improve upon these structures or distributions” instead of merely wiping away of them entirely?[/quote]
My opinion might be different than others, but yes, there is a place for government at the local level. What I don’t like, is the federal government mandating we all do the same thing. If your city has bad roads, have your mayor fix it. Make the local government work for you, but don’t make Joe in New York pay for California’s roads. Apply this at the state and local level, but why does the federal government need to get involved? Federal is for national security, not filling the pothole across the street. You can apply the same logic to education.
I think there are some good standard regulations that the federal government has done, but overall the programs do not yield results. Most of the programs overreach, don’t give the benefits they claim, yet remain to get funded.
I’m also not enough of a student of history to answer your first question.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
Then this draws me to a question. Hear me out, if you will: if privatization is the golden answer, is there an example now, or in world history, where a society was based entirely on the lack of a government (or the like) in place which proves example of its unwavering success? I’m genuinely asking.
Is there no place for government at all? Infrastructure, regulating markets, public education. Do none of these work in their current government controlled, funded, or regulated structure?
Why can the question not be “how do we improve upon these structures or distributions” instead of merely wiping away of them entirely?[/quote]
The United States was a great example. Not of complete lack of government, but of limited government.
There are certain things that don’t work privately. Military being the most obvious.
The problem with your question “how do we improve upon these structures or distribution,” is that government is inherently wasteful and unproductive. Left unchecked, government will naturally grow and become more wasteful simply as a means to exist. Where a private business has to stay profitable or cease to exist, government can simply take more in the form of taxes, or print more money (both with the same effects).
Take your education example. If a private school under performs, people send their children elsewhere. The school has to either make changes or go out of business. If a public school under performs it gets a larger budget. The natural state of government is to grow under any circumstance.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
There are certain things that don’t work privately. Military being the most obvious.
[/quote]
Well, a private military can work just fine. In fact, it can work so well that it becomes public. It’s not that a privatized military can’t protect its customers; it’s that a force capable of protecting its customers will soon be asked to take for its customers. A force not capable of protecting its customers will soon be overwhelmed and conquered. Human nature’s a bitch.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]As far as Sanders , I am sure he has had many opportunities to sell out and in my opinion has not
[/quote]
This is what you “think” based on what?
[/quote]
based of the time he has spent in congress
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?
[/quote]
Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.
I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)
To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response. [/quote]
it was not an assertion , it was a statement , I said , basically “that those wealthy have become that way on the back of cheap labor” , and then you told me basically " you have friends that have created plenty of high paying jobs" and I said " yaeh that is America’s problem , too many high paying jobs " then you accused me of changing subjects , eye roll
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?
[/quote]
Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.
I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)
To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response. [/quote]
it was not an assertion , it was a statement , I said , basically “that those wealthy have become that way on the back of cheap labor” , and then you told me basically " you have friends that have created plenty of high paying jobs" and I said " yaeh that is America’s problem , too many high paying jobs " then you accused me of changing subjects , eye roll
[/quote]
let’s match job for job of jobs created that pay extremely well and those that exploit cheap labor , and let’s bet who runs out of jobs first
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?
[/quote]
Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.
I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)
To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response. [/quote]
it was not an assertion , it was a statement , I said , basically “that those wealthy have become that way on the back of cheap labor” , and then you told me basically " you have friends that have created plenty of high paying jobs" and I said " yaeh that is America’s problem , too many high paying jobs " then you accused me of changing subjects , eye roll
[/quote]
let’s match job for job of jobs created that pay extremely well and those that exploit cheap labor , and let’s bet who runs out of jobs first
[/quote]
In a voluntary society, employees exploit employers every bit as much as the other way around, and generally more so.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
let’s match job for job of jobs created that pay extremely well and those that exploit cheap labor , and let’s bet who runs out of jobs first
[/quote]
How about you match the amount of jobs destroyed by minimum wage laws, high taxes and excessive regulations to the number of people not currently participating in the workforce.