A question on the Libertarian Party and Taxation

xpanda · Jan 20, 2004

If we were today to strip our respective governments of all current programs and other areas where they spend our tax dollars, and to eliminate taxes all together -- in other words, start from scratch -- what services would you expect to be provided? It seems to me that many here have a 'I don't use it so why should I pay for it' attitude, which is all well and good for certain things, but should be vehemently protested in others.

Take, for example, education. I am floored that there is a discussion of privatising the education system, as though there is no correlation between education and the standard of living, except to concede that the richest should have access to the best education (which they already do anyway.) If the principle issue here is simply curriculum as dictated by the government, then this is a different issue entirely ... but to suggest that it is somehow not in your best interest to live in a society where the majority of citizens have the capacity to read, write, and add is abominable.

While I expect the reaction to that last sentence to include something about the nation's literacy rate, which is fair enough, I still cannot fathom that the 'best solution' is to scrap public education altogether rather than, say, withdraw a few billion from the overinflated defense budget to improve the quality of schools.

Which takes me to my main point -- is the issue that the government takes taxes from us at all, or is the problem here the allocation of these resources?

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

Who is saying that you have to get rid of public education entirley? If it cost 12K a year to educate a student per year,then give the family that 12k and let them shop for the school of their choice...the people you talk about don't pay taxes anyway.Let the private schools compete for the dollar in the form of quality of education and curriculum...The only one against this is Ted Kennedy and the teachers unions...I mean why is it the party of free choice is against choice of education??
Let private schools prove their marketability by putting out a quality product? ie: 18 year olds that can read a road sign.

lander · Jan 20, 2004

Patriot,
In an abreviated paraphrased bit of your post on the last page you hit on "social programs are not fiscally responsible". Oddly enough, I agree to a degree (we can't just leave citizens with nothing as some people truly, truly need government benefits - disabled, insane, etc ..), but how can you justify the US Government spending $804,000,000,000 (billion, http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm ) in military expenses?

The current military budget, $459B is 26x's that of any other nation.

That is the epitomy of irresponsible spending, on top of the obvious framework of a hostile nation like ourselves.

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

Lander...because we are the worlds military...because of socialist countries can't afford their own...and don't you dare say they don't count on us for that or you'll be lying,,,,Uncle Moramar wouldn't be handing over his wmd's if it wasn't for a little muscle.

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

Lander you should really move to Cuba and cut some sugar cane for Uncle Fiedel...He'll show you hostile.
You sound more and more like the writngs of Lee Osawld...I ain't shittin ya.

xpanda · Jan 20, 2004

Patriot:

Okay, this next diatribe will undoubtedly offend you, so I apologize in advance.

First, no, you don't need to spend gazillions of dollars on defense spending. In the first place, the role that the US has adopted as the 'world's military' as you put it is generally unwelcome and unnecessary. It is this level of moral self-righteousness that your government (and it's citizens, obviously, if many of you believe it as well) has used as justification for blatantly irresponsible spending on wars that don't exist, on causes that are fabricated, and on the propganda campaigns that are necessary to ensure their survival.

Your Constitution requires that your government spend resources on defense ... can you concede that the bulk of the military spending is actually on offense instead? We can argue about Saddam, for example, being a threat to your country til we're blue in the face, but the truth remains that not once did he attack your country ... it follows, then, that the war was offensive not defensive. Given your stance on government spending for unnecessary programs, you should be pissed at this fact.

The United States is only the world's policeman, democracy advocate, peacekeeper, etc. because it has appointed itself as such. You could have just as easily turned out to be the leader in education or something more noble had a different decision been made 100 years ago.

I think it is a common belief (misconception) around here that military might equals 'the greatest country in the world.' I can pretty much assure you that you're the only ones who feel that way. When others look to your country as a place to move to, it is economic prosperity, freedom to do as one pleases, etc that make your country attractive. Having a $500 billion military is rarely an attractive quality. In fact, generally, the opposite is true.

angusr · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
There is a difference between "not for profit" and "public sector." It is a common error to assume that just because someone does not want his money stolen and spent on things he otherwise would not have spent it, that that person is "above" charity. Many things can be quite well managed on a collective basis, on a non-profit basis, even in the capacity of a communistic endeavour, _when those involved have a vested interest in its success_. There's nothing in the world wrong with such enterprises and in fact I wish them all the success they can muster. It is when it comes down to me being forced to support such things against my will that my ire is raised, and despite its relatively noble intentions that is the bottom line of virtually all government everywhere in the modern world: forcing one group to do things they ordinarily would not, for the benefit of others.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with a lot of this but ammend your last sentence to read, "...for the benefit of others and themselves." If you feel that you shouldn't be forced to support education, health care, the military, and basic public infrastructure with your taxes that's fine - I just thank God that you don't really have much choice.

If society was organized around small communities then this "no coercion by government" idea could kind of work. You reach a consensus within the community about how a hospital/school/road will be operated and funded. The people who use the service are the same people that fund it directly and oversee its operation. Everything is hearts and flowers. But in the real world of big cities and states people won't want to fund or support a project if they don't see a very personal benefit to themselves. People with no children (like me) should still pay education tax because we benefit from living in an educated society. People who don't drive a car (me again) should still pay tax to pave roads because, again, I receive an indirect benefit in that goods and services can be moved around easily resulting in what I suspect is a net economic benefit to society.

In your reply to some guy's post you said something to the effect of "what's wrong if they are racist or bigoted?", by which I'm guessing you were implying, why is it your concern whether they are racist or not, and why should you be able to dictate the value system they choose to teach to their children? Well I've got one for you and sincerely look forward to your reply.....what's wrong with government coercion? Why do you feel you have a right not to be forced by government to support things against your will, and where did this right come from?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>That said, Rawls is a tool and if you consider _A Thoery of Justice_ to be any guideline on political economy, you too are an hopeless tool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First it was just girls at the bars and now everybody's calling me this....I don't get it...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Out of curiosity, have you ever read Friedrich Hayek's _The Road to Serfdom_ or Ludwig von Mises' _Human Action_? Both are excellent and highly-recommended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't read either book Phaedrus but I only read things that already fit within the tight boundaries of my current political ideology

Are they still worthwhile for me to check out?

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

You know something X..there are a lot more educated,smarter people on this board than myself...I just don't know how you can think that by disarming or neuturing the military.That you can some how make the bad people go away...Its just like gun control I don't know of any bank robbers who say..oopps I can't rob a bank today I haven't registered my gun...Normal somewhat adjusted people like ourselves think that way but its not the reality with some people or countries or cults or religions or rock bands.
When the UN has a problem its always American men,blood and machines that are asked to do the dirty work.
As primitve as it may sound bad guys respect strength...It the natural order of things same as in the animal world.

lander · Jan 20, 2004

Patriot,
I think you misinterpereted by point - I'm not saying that we should disband the military, but 26 X's the cost of any other milirary is outrageous ...

certainly we could have the greatest military and adequetely defend ourselves with half or a quarter of that ludacris amount of money that is used on defense. Sure, there is a lot of spending reform that needs to be done, but I'm saying let's start with the worst.

Do you agree? or do you think the current budget of $459B is necessary?

xpanda · Jan 20, 2004

Ditto on Lander's thoughts.

Patriot, the only way one can agree with you 100% is to agree first and foremost that a. America is in danger (ie the 'bad guy' is 'out there' and not 'in here') and b. arming yourselves to the tits

is the answer.

If you don't agree with these two conditions, then $500 billion dollars must seem like an awful waste of money.

Your Constitution guarantees the defense of your nation against threats from abroad ... it does not guarantee the US the right to spread democracy/police/might around the world which is what the bulk of your military spending goes to. I can fully appreciate your big vs small government agenda, but you should hold your administration to conditions which at the very least require them to be consistent.

If Medicare causes you grief, then tell me why the 2003 defense budget does not also?

Phaedrus · Jan 20, 2004

posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If we were today to strip our respective governments of all current programs and other areas where they spend our tax dollars, and to eliminate taxes all together -- in other words, start from scratch -- what services would you expect to be provided? It seems to me that many here have a 'I don't use it so why should I pay for it' attitude, which is all well and good for certain things, but should be vehemently protested in others.

Take, for example, education. I am floored that there is a discussion of privatising the education system, as though there is no correlation between education and the standard of living, except to concede that the richest should have access to the best education (which they already do anyway.) If the principle issue here is simply curriculum as dictated by the government, then this is a different issue entirely ... but to suggest that it is somehow not in your best interest to live in a society where the majority of citizens have the capacity to read, write, and add is abominable.

While I expect the reaction to that last sentence to include something about the nation's literacy rate, which is fair enough, I still cannot fathom that the 'best solution' is to scrap public education altogether rather than, say, withdraw a few billion from the overinflated defense budget to improve the quality of schools.

Which takes me to my main point -- is the issue that the government takes taxes from us at all, or is the problem here the allocation of these resources?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hard to argue against the benefits of education, but "school" and "education" are not necessarily commonly-linked terms, especially when it comes to public schools in the United States. Parents who cannot be troubled to educate their children, either through home schooling or private tutelage, probably should not have children. But the state inadvertantly encourages rampant breeding by making unfulfillable promises that children's education, safety, health etc. will not be a problem for prospective parents, and therefore these crucial considerations seldom go into the planning process when having children.

As far as being "floored" by the suggestion that government education be scrapped, I can only say that I am floored that a system which is such a demonstrable, consistent, long-term failure as the the government educational system in the U.S. is considered worthy of an endless string of chances and funding.

My son is home-schooled and private tutored. In the area where he lives the average expenditure per student is just over $ 8,000.00 per year. My ex-wife and I spend not even half that on educational-related expenses for him, yet he is far advanced past other children in equivalent grades in the public system. He also has a functioning social network of friends, so the common arguments against home-schooling regarding social isolation and ostracism do not hold any water for me. There is the tired argument that not everyone can afford less than $ 4,000.00 per year to educate a child, but frankly if having a well-developed child is not important enough to you to dig that up (less than the payment on a new car, not too much more than a pair of smoking parents spend on cigarettes, less than a lot of things on which people piss their money away, including gambling) then maybe you aren't fit to be a parent. Just a thought.

posted by lander:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The current military budget, $459B is 26x's that of any other nation.

That is the epitomy of irresponsible spending, on top of the obvious framework of a hostile nation like ourselves.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bear in mind, while our military is indeed g****ly overinflated and in need of a massive downscale (as in, 80% or so) the U.S. spends well over a trillion dollars a year on assorted welfare programs, and that's just the money that can be easily tracked in the federal budget. Most people making the argument that "we spend x onthe military, which is enough to feed all the little children in Ethniklashistan for ten years" never have anything to say about the massive, buregeoning amount of money pissed down a hole on social betterment bullshit that doesn't work. (I understand that's not the argument you're making, but thought I'd point out that little irony.)

posted by Angus Ontario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I would agree with a lot of this but ammend your last sentence to read, "...for the benefit of others and themselves." If you feel that you shouldn't be forced to support education, health care, the military, and basic public infrastructure with your taxes that's fine - I just thank God that you don't really have much choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course I have a choice. I haven't filed taxes in years, and take great pains to avoid sales, property, excise, etc. taxes wherever possible. I've been known to pay a higher price on an item via mail order (after shipping) than I would otherwise have spent locally, just to avoid payign sales tax.

But out of curiosity, if I were a shackled slave as you wish for me to be, why would you be so thankful to your God for this?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
If society was organized around small communities then this "no coercion by government" idea could kind of work. You reach a consensus within the community about how a hospital/school/road will be operated and funded. The people who use the service are the same people that fund it directly and oversee its operation. Everything is hearts and flowers. But in the real world of big cities and states people won't want to fund or support a project if they don't see a very personal benefit to themselves.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, exactly, and nor should they be forced to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
People with no children (like me) should still pay education tax because we benefit from living in an educated society.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please see any documented history of the American educational system to help you understand that no benefit to society is being bestowed on the people by said system. As I said above, to equate "school" and "education" in the context of the American educational system is naive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
People who don't drive a car (me again) should still pay tax to pave roads because, again, I receive an indirect benefit in that goods and services can be moved around easily resulting in what I suspect is a net economic benefit to society.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An interesting point of view for someone who advocates the benefit of education, since you clearly know little if anything about the Department of Transportation, the absolute king of pork-barrel government waste. Your masters love you.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
In your reply to some guy's post you said something to the effect of "what's wrong if they are racist or bigoted?", by which I'm guessing you were implying, why is it your concern whether they are racist or not, and why should you be able to dictate the value system they choose to teach to their children? Well I've got one for you and sincerely look forward to your reply.....what's wrong with government coercion? Why do you feel you have a right not to be forced by government to support things against your will, and where did this right come from?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rights exist as a natural state of man. They are not granted by any state or society, only recognised and respected to varying degrees by same. The government is not a tool for rule, as you seem to mistakenly believe. It is a servant, a means of expedience for the people. But as President Washington said, "Government is not reason: It is not eloquence, it is Force, like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." You apparently believe differently, but faith seldom trumps reality in the long term.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Haven't read either book Phaedrus but I only read things that already fit within the tight boundaries of my current political ideology Are they still worthwhile for me to check out?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume from the winkie thing that this comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. In this thread alone I have cited two works that are generally in diametric opposition to my political ideology, and expressed admiration for one of them. I suspect that if one of us suffers from a closed-minded view of the world, it would be the one who feels compelled to pay for things he does not use, does not think that people should be free from coercion, etc.

That said, yes, definately in the case of the work by Hayek.

Phaedrus

PatPatriot · Jan 20, 2004

Hey P...does the state require you to have your child take a standards test of some sort??
If they do do they try to make suggestions as far as in any area where they think the child may be lacking?...just curious

angusr · Jan 20, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
Of course I have a choice. I haven't filed taxes in years, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

very ballsy guy, but what if the IRS comes calling?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But out of curiosity, if I were a shackled slave as you wish for me to be, why would you be so thankful to your God for this?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cut the melodrama . . . there is inter-dependence in any society, we have responsibilities and duties to the other members of our community.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Please see any documented history of the American educational system to help you understand that no benefit to society is being bestowed on the people by said system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you dispute that you derive some benefit from the fact that the country you live in is largely literate?
Do you dispute that not every family is either financially able or qualified to educate their own children?
There should be no dispute on these points, and therefore no dispute about the need for some kind of public education.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Rights exist as a natural state of man. They are not granted by any state or society, only recognised and respected to varying degrees by same. The government is not a tool for rule, as you seem to mistakenly believe. It is a servant, a means of expedience for the people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we all have our own gods Phaedrus and if you want to believe in some notion of inalienable natural rights I have no more a problem with it than I do with someone who believes the creation myth of Genesis - but it seems to me that the real state of nature has more to do with violence, domination, and the struggle to survive than human rights. I don't view society as just a collection of individuals but rather as a community - a larger whole. What allows communities to survive is cooperation and, yes, a bit of ass-kicking once in a while to keep some of its members in line (coercion, I guess). The best we can hope for is to have a say in how our community is organized, and some mechanism of preventing the permanent consolidation of power in the hands of too few individuals....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I assume from the winkie thing that this comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. In this thread alone I have cited two works that are generally in diametric opposition to my political ideology, and expressed admiration for one of them. I suspect that if one of us suffers from a closed-minded view of the world, it would be the one who feels compelled to pay for things he does not use, does not think that people should be free from coercion, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Phaedrus guy, you took that one right on the nose, but it was intended as a self-deprecating comment rather than a shot at you... no hard feelings pal.

[This message was edited by Angus Ontario on January 20, 2004 at 10:31 PM.]

Phaedrus · Jan 20, 2004

posted by Angus Ontario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
posted by Phaedrus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I haven't filed taxes in years ...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

very ballsy guy, but what if the IRS comes calling?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should differentiate between "filing" and "paying." Of course the IRS has come calling, once so far. Ugly. Expensive. Haven't filed since and don't intend to. Taxation is theft. Only a very small number of truly stupid people (sorry) pay taxes because they feel a patriotic urge to do so. Give an average person a chance to get even $ 100.00 shaved off of his bill (or added to his refund) and he'll jump. Ultimately, the only reason the vast majority of people who pay taxes do so is because they are either afraid of the consequences or have never stopped to consider just what an hideous, immoral thing it is.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Cut the melodrama . . . there is inter-dependence in any society, we have responsibilities and duties to the other members of our community.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No we don't. Not even a little. Who's melodramatic?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do you dispute that you derive some benefit from the fact that the country you live in is largely literate?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my previous post in this thread I clearly say that an educated society is a better one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do you dispute that not every family is either financially able or qualified to educate their own children?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have no business having children. Why should I pay for the children they were too stupid to plan?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
There should be no dispute on these points, and therefore no dispute about the need for some kind of public education.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no dispute. Stupid, immoral pieces of shit want me to pay for other people's mistakes and luxuries. I refuse. Every once in a while the government shows up and takes away my things. I don't fight back, because the potential ramifications of a shootout with a dozen or so federal agents (for example, my death) outweigh the small amount of money and prizes with which they abscond.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Well we all have our own gods Phaedrus and if you want to believe in some notion of inalienable natural rights
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is an empirically observable fact that man has three basic rights -- life, liberty and property. It is without one or more of these three rights that man (or more precisely, society) perishes. It is only when these rights are respected by the government and the society in general that society flourishes.

The only context in which a man is not in need of rights is in a non-social environment, such as can be found on an otherwise deserted island. And as you mention above, in small doses all kinds of measures can be made to work -- even socialistic and communistic ones. But a society which does not respect the basic rights of its citizens is one that is not going to have a very good run. History shows this, no matter how much spin is placed on it by the apologists for the state.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
... but it seems to me that the real state of nature has more to do with violence, domination, and the struggle to survive than human rights.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry that you think so little of your fellow man. As far as I can tell, the assorted and sundry governments of the world have far outstripped even the most sociopathic, homicidal anarchist's wildest dreams with regards to violence, domination and murder, and for that matter in the realm of abrogation of the human rights you doubt exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I don't view society as a just collection of individuals but rather as a community - a larger whole. What allows communities to survive is cooperation and, yes, a bit of ass-kicking once in a while to keep some of its members in line (coercion, I guess). The best we can hope for is to have a say in how our community is organized, and some mechanism of preventing the permanent consolidation of power in the hands of too few individuals....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's pretty much the definition of society. Punishment for crimes is not coercion; the expansion of the definition of crime to include anything deemed inacceptable by 51% of the population (or the 10% who vote!) or that makes it difficult for the state to have its way, is.

Libertarians have this relatively concise explanation of this idea on their site somewhere; you might visit it and search for "Non-Agression Principle." It's more eloquently and thoroughly stated there than I could reiterate. The NAP is the basic standard to whic hthe Libertarians subject all criminal laws -- if the crime involved does not violate that NAP, then it is not truly a crime and the law needs to go bye-bye (this would include all "victimless crimes," most crimes against the state, failure to file form 501(b), etc.)

Phaedrus

xpanda · Jan 21, 2004

Quickly, on the subject of education: not having been raised through your public education system, and, also having been raised by parents who taught me to read, etc., when I was three years old, I cannot particularly comment on the reliability of your schools. Now, I do have several friends who are teachers, and it is a common concern among them that not nearly enough parents spend time worrying about their children's academic efforts ... certainly, the more the government does to push these kids along, or to test their aptitudes, the more parents come to rely on the school system as a babysitter.

The fault for this issue can be found in issues likely related to the success of the feminist movement, in as much as they can be blamed on the education system itself. You can correctly assume that I won't apologise for feminism, but will point the finger at a lack of time and energy (or concern?) on the part of parents, especially single mothers, as compared to the June Cleaver days. I abhorr parents who do not put their child's education at the top of the list of priorities, but I also abhorr any notion that education would be better served if scrapped, rather than re-addressed.

Phaedrus, do you specifically take issue with today's curriculum, testing or is it simply a matter of another institution paid for with taxes?

Phaedrus · Jan 21, 2004

posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I do have several friends who are teachers, and it is a common concern among them that not nearly enough parents spend time worrying about their children's academic efforts ... certainly, the more the government does to push these kids along, or to test their aptitudes, the more parents come to rely on the school system as a babysitter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is the real problem -- the school system in America is little more than a design to attempt to keep kids off the streets until they are eighteen. And it doesn't always manage that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
The fault for this issue can be found in issues likely related to the success of the feminist movement, in as much as they can be blamed on the education system itself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a lot of factors involved. Chief among them is the irresponsibility of people who have kids but do not want to raise them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
I abhorr parents who do not put their child's education at the top of the list of priorities, but I also abhorr any notion that education would be better served if scrapped, rather than re-addressed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what point would the system have finally "failed enough" for you to think it needs scrapping? It is without a doubt our most-tweaked social program, and the greatest failure among them. Over and above the fact that I, personally, do not feel that it is a proper function of the state to educate children, I might be marginally less vehemently opposed to it if it was not such a consistent failure, which gets more and more expensive each year with less and less results.

Any private sector business of any kind, no matter how badly you needed their particular good or service, that produced less and less and of worse and worse quality for a steadily-increasing price, then attempted to bar you from seeking other options, would be torn down to the foundations by protesters in about six or seven minutes. A century into the futile attempt at state education, it still just keeps on doing the same as always -- yet it's not in need of scrapping, it's in need of more money, more work, more planning, more studies, etc. It baffles me that anyone (let alone the patently obvious fact that the great majority of Americans) can still support this system.

Phaedrus

xpanda · Jan 21, 2004

All good points on ideology, and it's rather difficult for me to argue with you as, stated earlier, I am not remotely familiar with your school system and its (alleged) shortcomings.

On ideology, then: I do feel that it is the proper function of the state to educate children (assuming that 'education' is indeed the end result) as I can see no benefit to living in a society where we run the risk of an uneducated citizenry, in whole or in part. (Even a flawed education system is better than no education system at all.) Where you believe that it is only the function of government to protect your right to life, liberty, and property, I would argue that education is indeed a function of liberty.

You may be correct (and I'm inclined to think you are) that better education could be had through the private sector, and I believe that there is a rise in its availability and demand in the US, as there is in Canada as well. However, if your concern is that unfit people are breeding rampantly since the school system indirectly encourages them to have children, consider this: in my experience it is the uneducated who (more frequently) have children as teenagers, or before they are financially prepared ... the educated, those prepared for their individual futures, tend to be more cautious. This in mind, both of our arguments hold equal weight: you protest the school system as a reward for these decisions, I protest its ineffectivenness as an inevitable cause of these decisions.

But then, isn't this where the (true) Socialist and the (true) Capitalist tend to always part company?

Jointpleasure · Jan 21, 2004

xpanda,
There is no question that our welfare system encourages children to have children.

xpanda · Jan 21, 2004

JP: by 'welfare system' I assume you mean such things as food stamps and the like ... and I wholeheartedly agree. Welfare has long been the state's way of pretending to be taking care of a problem (poverty) to appease the leftists, while never really solving the problem (opportunity) thus appeasing the rightists.

Education, in my opinion, is the single-biggest determinant of socio-economic status, and should be given top priority by all levels of government in all regions equally.

To analogise (is that a word?) ... throwing bags of rice and flour at impoverished countries such as Ethiopia are all well and good, but these solutions last only as long as the bags of rice and flour. Instead, provide irrigation systems (probably for less money at the end of the day) and you can provide a foundation for agriculture and self-sufficiency.

Phaedrus: whatever it is that makes your home-schooled, private-schooled son a better student come SAT-time, can these tools not be implemented in the public system?

Jointpleasure · Jan 21, 2004

Math, physics, chemistry, and the like are sciences that are universal. I not so concerned about who is going to teach my child HOW to read but more concern about WHAT he'll read while learning to read. In history class is he going to be taught with books influenced by James Carville regarding things like Clintons impeachment? Is some half limp teacher going to impress on him that being gay is just fine? Things like that xpanda, get my blood pressure elevated.

That being said, I'd hate to be a teacher.

Let me and my kids choose where they go to school, and stop taxing me on the school he isn't using and things will run much smoother for all.