What a travisty

[Figment]

Yes let's have the private sector run schools cost efficiently with 500 children to one teacher, with 20 year old school books and a curriculum created by an independent entity with a corporate agenda where you can buy advertisement time into the curriculum for your religion, candy, games and political preferences. Oh and of course you will be charged more or not need to attend at all, because that is freedom in a free market.

No public oversight should be used cause it takes away your freedom and all that...

[therandomone]

Originally Posted by Figment

Yes let's have the private sector run schools cost efficiently with 500 children to one teacher, with 20 year old school books and a curriculum created by an independent entity with a corporate agenda where you can buy advertisement time into the curriculum for your religion, candy, games and political preferences. Oh and of course you will be charged more or not need to attend at all, because that is freedom in a free market.

No public oversight should be used cause it takes away your freedom and all that...

I completely agree with what you're getting at here,plus I always love a bit of sarcasm. And while we disagree in one thread, we have the same position on this one. Unfortunately, there are parts of this that hit pretty close to public school home. I dont know if you even live in the states or if you do/did if you then lived in one that had the "moment of silence" law in it? That was basically buying prayer time in school. But while it does have its problems here and there, privatizing everything is an absolute shit idea.

[n2q0_matrix]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Or, you know, have a nuanced middle ground position where you recognize that there are positions between anarchy and slavery, and some limitations and controls on society benefit all.



So you think murderers should not be put in prison, because you think there should be no prisons. Gotcha.

The funny thing about being owned is that there is no middle ground.

Yes, murderers should be locked away. They have forfeited their Rights by infringing another's. This is already done by private entities. How we determine guilt can be verified by a third party system similar to the current justice system. Doesn't NEED to be by the government. In a competitive market it would be less likely to be as corrupted or gamed. Granted, these solutions need to be created, thought through, experimented with, and tested. We are not there, but should start moving that direction, not just throw our hands up and say "this is just the way it is" and deal with it.

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

oh I see, by "Individual Rights" you actually mean "The right to freeload".

Not at all. Individual Rights do not grant you anything from anyone else or a system, nor do they get to take anything from you. Individual Responsibility is what will determine how one's life progresses.

If I am an asshole and don't work well with others, then I probably won't do well when I am in need. The concept has a built in "get along" motivation, as no one HAS to take care of you.

[Vash02]

In a competitive market it would be less likely to be as corrupted or gamed.

ahahahahahahahahaa
good one.

[n2q0_matrix]

Originally Posted by Vecha

Show me some credible sources that says private education is outperforming public schools. And I don't mean by just 1 or 2% points...I mean enough to get us out of 27th(or whatever it is) in math.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/co...chools_jsc.pdf

[n2q0_matrix]

Originally Posted by Figment

Yes let's have the private sector run schools cost efficiently with 500 children to one teacher, with 20 year old school books and a curriculum created by an independent entity with a corporate agenda where you can buy advertisement time into the curriculum for your religion, candy, games and political preferences. Oh and of course you will be charged more or not need to attend at all, because that is freedom in a free market.

No public oversight should be used cause it takes away your freedom and all that...

The oversight should be done by those with skin in the game...parents, or their hired agents that specialize in education analysis. There are lots of was to skin this cat, without just taking what the government allots us and claims is good.

The thing about the private sector or free market is that customers tend to get what they want, or the company goes out of business. So as a parent I would choose a school for my child that has a demonstrable track record and small class size. If my child was not doing well, I would find out why and if it was the school I would take them out and find another that would serve my child better. Try doing that in public school...well, if they finally let you. There is a mother in prison for putting down a different address so her kid could go to a better school. The government frowns on lying, choice too. She is actually in prison for that. Seriously...this is acceptable?

I started college at 15 and finished HS in 3 years. You should have heard the arguments from one of the high-schools I went to and their "logic" as to why I couldn't do what I wanted to, which was graduate early. One of them didn't want to honor my work done in college as equivalent to the "mandated" curriculum. It wasn't until I said to the Principal "You keep saying that I cannot do this, so show me the rule that says that.", that they said they could and would. It is funny how they were not interested in what was best for me, but rather what was easiest for them. This was a very nice high school in an affluent part of Orange County, CA. The crap high school I previously went to in Riverside, CA was very helpful in getting me started on that track.

[n2q0_matrix]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Apologies for the laughter but this £ € $ can make a report say anything you want. People get paid lots of money to spout off "smart" sounding bullshit. We are fucking baking in NYC, but you know they still debating whether the ozone layer is fucked up. Humans are idiots.

Well then, if analysis is insufficient for you, lets just look at history.

When the government takes over a sector of industry, when has it gotten better? Let's use cars.

The near free market gives you....well let's be honest there is tons of regulation in this area that is not cost effective and creates pollution. Yes, regulation makes pollution legal whereas enforcing property rights would not.

So yeah, we have Ford, Mercedes, BWM, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Porsche, etc....

Government Made: Trabant
http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...658030,00.html


Government Healthcare: Veteran's Affairs
There are several members of my family that have served and been mangled by war. You should see how awesome the government run VA is. And we are all about to get it soon enough.

Government Retirement: Social Security.
It is bankrupt and a ponzi scheme. I will never see a dime of what I pay into this.

Government Housing: The Projects ring a bell?
The housing bubble that burst in recent years. Trace back the cause, you have the government intervention into that market at the heart of the issue.

Space: NASA has done some amazing things. Why is it that SpaceX and Scaled Composites are doing it so well and so inexpensively? Why is NASA so bloated and not able to do the same things with such a huge budget and a 50 year head start? In fact, NASA's previous position was that only governments had any business being in space, not citizens or the private sector.


Shoot, the government is even outsourcing military now. Look at all of those private contractors in the conflict zones.


What does the government do that is better than what a free market can do?


Almost left out currency. Yes, they have fucked that up to.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

TROLOL

You can't argue that point I am guessing. Gotta roll with the TROLOLOL?

[Vecha]

Originally Posted by n2q0_matrix

Well then, if analysis is insufficient for you, lets just look at history.

When the government takes over a sector of industry, when has it gotten better? .



Government Healthcare: Veteran's Affairs
There are several members of my family that have served and been mangled by war. You should see how awesome the government run VA is. And we are all about to get it soon enough.

I have family in the VA. They are doing fine. I had Tricare. It was beter than BCBS that I am on now. So there. Anecdotal versus Anecdotal.

Government Retirement: Social Security.
It is bankrupt and a ponzi scheme. I will never see a dime of what I pay into this. You are repeating what Conservatives want you to say. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06...t-not-so-fast/ Here I can show something bias too.

Government Housing: The Projects ring a bell?
The housing bubble that burst in recent years. Trace back the cause, you have the government intervention into that market at the heart of the issue. And others believe the cause was due to banks dishing out loans to people who shouldn't have gotten said loans.

Look. I'm not for total government take over. I am in a middle ground that believes there should be a mix.

Extremes on both sides are not the answer.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by n2q0_matrix

The oversight should be done by those with skin in the game...parents,

You mean the previous Products from Private Schools?

Yes, clearly they have an objective insight.

or their hired agents that specialize in education analysis.

By what standards? Government standards? Community standards? ISN'T THAT INFRINGING ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM?

Two can play that cookie.

There are lots of was to skin this cat, without just taking what the government allots us and claims is good.

Nobody claims it's good, everything needs quality control.

The thing about the private sector or free market is that customers tend to get what they want, or the company goes out of business.

Or the customers think they get what they want as long as they're kept unaware of them paying too much, getting a flawed product. I mean, imagine if companies created goods that could be life threatening. That would never happen, right? Wouldn't it? Who needs any organizations or laws as standards? And who sets those things?


Wait what? Government laws? No no no. The people. And what do they elec... wait elect... let me think... Oh yeah. The government represents the people through elections in a (proportional representative) democracy.

So as a parent I would choose a school for my child that has a demonstrable track record and small class size. If my child was not doing well, I would find out why and if it was the school I would take them out and find another that would serve my child better. Try doing that in public school...well, if they finally let you. There is a mother in prison for putting down a different address so her kid could go to a better school. The government frowns on lying, choice too. She is actually in prison for that. Seriously...this is acceptable?

Uhm... Public schools don't need to have forced entry, which means there can be choices made there too between what school to send to without going all the way to private schools.

I started college at 15 and finished HS in 3 years. You should have heard the arguments from one of the high-schools I went to and their "logic" as to why I couldn't do what I wanted to, which was graduate early. One of them didn't want to honor my work done in college as equivalent to the "mandated" curriculum. It wasn't until I said to the Principal "You keep saying that I cannot do this, so show me the rule that says that.", that they said they could and would. It is funny how they were not interested in what was best for me, but rather what was easiest for them. This was a very nice high school in an affluent part of Orange County, CA. The crap high school I previously went to in Riverside, CA was very helpful in getting me started on that track.

Ah, personal experience with bad apples making you biased to systems as a whole. See, critique is one thing, claiming the system should be smited out of spite is another!

But I'm sure there are NO LAZY PEOPLE who'd do a half arsed job in corporate run schools though! And I'm sure all the private ran koran schools (madrassas) in Indonesia create perfect model *cough*shariaabidingandxenophobic*cough* citizens too and there's no little point of critique one could make about working outside of a government approved system.

Suuuuure.

[n2q0_matrix]

Originally Posted by Figment

You mean the previous Products from Private Schools?

Yes, clearly they have an objective insight.



By what standards? Government standards? Community standards? ISN'T THAT INFRINGING ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM?

Two can play that cookie.



Nobody claims it's good, everything needs quality control.



Or the customers think they get what they want as long as they're kept unaware of them paying too much, getting a flawed product. I mean, imagine if companies created goods that could be life threatening. That would never happen, right? Wouldn't it? Who needs any organizations or laws as standards? And who sets those things?


Wait what? Government laws? No no no. The people. And what do they elec... wait elect... let me think... Oh yeah. The government represents the people through elections in a (proportional representative) democracy.



Uhm... Public schools don't need to have forced entry, which means there can be choices made there too between what school to send to without going all the way to private schools.



Ah, personal experience with bad apples making you biased to systems as a whole. See, critique is one thing, claiming the system should be smited out of spite is another!

But I'm sure there are NO LAZY PEOPLE who'd do a half arsed job in corporate run schools though! And I'm sure all the private ran koran schools (madrassas) in Indonesia create perfect model *cough*shariaabidingandxenophobic*cough* citizens too and there's no little point of critique one could make about working outside of a government approved system.

Suuuuure.

At least their would be freedom of choice instead of forced compliance. This is the core difference and brings us full circle. Individual Rights and Individual Liberty, one allows for it, the other does not.

The free market has bad implementations and products and services, of course, I never said anything to suggest otherwise. It just allows for those to fail and be replaced by something better. A market self regulates. It also does a better job of weeding out the bad.

Yes, I did have bad personal experiences in school, I also had really good ones. I understand the difference and that it is not black and white all or none. I advocate for freedom to choose, not to be forced.

as for...

Originally Posted by Figment

You mean the previous Products from Private Schools?

Yes, clearly they have an objective insight.

By what standards? Government standards? Community standards? ISN'T THAT INFRINGING ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM?

Analysis to give information to the parent by those they feel are better able to review the effectiveness. Kinda like we use rating in various system today that are not done by the government, voluntarily. This is not enforcement, so I don't think you understood my original point. There is no infringing taking place with what I described.

To say it explicitly, because I have not done so yet.

Thank you all for debating nicely and directly. I appreciate it. One of the cool things about the PS community here. Lots of smart and decent people.

[Figment]

That's all well and good, but freedom to choose can also be done within a public system.

Freedom only gets you so far as your choices go. Freedom to choose between (bad) products is freedom, but not by definition better. There's no guarantee that private schools perform better. They might, or they might cut costs on everything to optimise the money they get out of schoolfunds (they would if they would have little competition and there's a minimum amount of children you need to even be able to run a school - meaning it's not like you'll have fifty choices).

So one problem with schools is that they are geographically bound to an area and therefore you don't have a lot of competition. There won't be 20 schools in the same community to pick from and a school's capacity is limited. So eventually those private schools will say "Stop. We got enough children, go find somewhere else." And if schools would be "competing" then the biggest school would have the lowest cost, have the best allowances for teachers and then you get whole different problems and might run others "out of business" due to being too costly.

See, if for instance a school had bad results, then they might lose entrants, lose money for the next year and thus have to cut on costs, might have to even resort to firing teachers or getting cheaper (worse) ones and end up being even less competitive. Competition between schools is one thing, thinking of schools as a free market where schools are companies that are allowed to go bankrupt is an entire other! The 'product' of a school is people! You can't play with people's lifes as were they commodities. That's unethical.


Whether or not it sounds socialist to provide everyone with good schooling, it does form the basis for creating chances in life. Chances to "live that American dream". Good schooling, government funding or otherwise, is exceptionally important to get ahead in life. Not just as individuals, but as companies and nations. And IMO that's worth quite a bit of tax payer's money. Personally, I see a public system as an investment in the economy. Even if people don't think they see direct benefits out of it because they have no children to be educated or something, there's still the products they buy, their own education they had, the housing they live and work in, the roads and bridges they drive on, the healthcare provided, etc. All of that wasn't possible without decent schooling. And decent schooling is impossible to provide to all without decent funding and enforcing that everyone has a chance to be taught.



Either way, it can become far too expensive for a lot of people to enter if private sectors would be allowed to run all schools. And what if private schools decide it is not interesting to build schools in small communities because there's no growth potential and no money to be made? Those people should just let those communities die?

In a fully private sector of education, a lot of people would have less, and a lot won't have any choice. And since less people would pay for a public system, those people have to even pay more than they would under a pure public system, just to even get access to the crappier public system. Meanwhile the quality of those public systems would diminish as the headhunting would ensure good quality teachers move to private schools. Private schools would reject people from certain social backgrounds and that'd be their... "freedom" to do, giving these people less chance to move ahead in society.

The thing is that private schools can monopolise areas and regulate entry themselves too, so no, it doesn't solve any issues. Maybe it'd solve some of yours, but is it a good solution for everyone? No.


Then there's what is being taught at these schools. There's a good chance that people who fund these private schools get a say in the curriculum. I exagerated a bit before, but there's a very good chance that religious groups create private schools where they ban proper education like good teaching on evolution.

The local parents won't know, or they will even be stimulated by their church to send their children there. Creating nice cattle for the local baptist church? Maybe a scientology school/church?


Eh... Freedom to get indoctrinated is relative. Especially if your parents pick the school for you.


So basically what it comes down to as the better solution, IMO anyway, is creating a bit more choice within the current school system you have if it's under some sort of district policy rule where you have to enter within a certain bunch of schools. But most importantly, make sure that there are standards that have to be attained and can be verified, while those standards are set by a direct representation of people (with a check of secularity and independence based on law, could be constitutional or a school law, don't really care which, as long as it's not biased to any group).

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by Warborn

If you don't want to pay taxes, it's actually very easy. Just stop doing any business within society. Find some nice national park or some other vast area of wilderness and live off of the land. If you stop participating in society, and your obligation to society ends.

It's impossible. Unless you are illegal. If you are born with a doctro present, you are put into the system.
It is impossible to own any land in any part of the country without paying a property tax.

So, no, you cant withdraw from society. Ask a southerner what happens if you try to withdraw from this country.

Originally Posted by Vecha

Show me some credible sources that says private education is outperforming public schools. And I don't mean by just 1 or 2% points...I mean enough to get us out of 27th(or whatever it is) in math.

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard...es/2006461.asp

Google....5 seconds.

[Warborn]

As I said, find some place very secluded and take no part in society and, I guess it needs saying, don't tell your friends where you're going. Have no phone, no address, no employment, no water or electricity. You'd be able to avoid paying taxes because you'd essentially no longer exist. You'd also die fairly quickly unless you have a lot of experience surviving in the wilderness, and you'd die of some illness before you're 50 anyway most likely. But you wouldn't have to pay taxes!

[ItsTheSheppy]

I don't usually come right out and agree with Warborn, as he tends to be of the party who, while being of relatively the same opinion as me on many political points, takes it to realms of kookiness I don't normally strive to, but I have to back him up here.

If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to. You can fashion a boat for yourself and take to the sea, living off the bounty of the ocean until you find some unclaimed island. There are numerous accounts of people living long, full lives on their own when stranded on islands. In fact, if you read some of the firsthand accounts, you'll find that many of them, aside from the loneliness, noted a marked improvement in their health. (One guy even ended up getting rid of his shoes, and found that he could run at a sprint through thick jungle; the pads of his feet became so tough).

Or you could wander into the wilderness, naked and possessing nothing, and fashion your own shelter, clothes, hunting weapons, and live off the land. It's 100% doable and there are people who make a hobby out of doing very much that; just returning to the wild for a little while; you can just make that your life. There are many places in the world where you would have ample privacy. You could just disappear.

you choose not to, because that would be inconvenient. I'm with ya; I wouldn't want to either. so I pay taxes, because I like cars, and roads, and police and such. I choose these things.

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I don't usually come right out and agree with Warborn, as he tends to be of the party who, while being of relatively the same opinion as me on many political points, takes it to realms of kookiness I don't normally strive to, but I have to back him up here.

If you don't want to pay taxes, you don't have to. You can fashion a boat for yourself and take to the sea, living off the bounty of the ocean until you find some unclaimed island. There are numerous accounts of people living long, full lives on their own when stranded on islands. In fact, if you read some of the firsthand accounts, you'll find that many of them, aside from the loneliness, noted a marked improvement in their health. (One guy even ended up getting rid of his shoes, and found that he could run at a sprint through thick jungle; the pads of his feet became so tough).

Or you could wander into the wilderness, naked and possessing nothing, and fashion your own shelter, clothes, hunting weapons, and live off the land. It's 100% doable and there are people who make a hobby out of doing very much that; just returning to the wild for a little while; you can just make that your life. There are many places in the world where you would have ample privacy. You could just disappear.

you choose not to, because that would be inconvenient. I'm with ya; I wouldn't want to either. so I pay taxes, because I like cars, and roads, and police and such. I choose these things.

And if caught, you'd be arrested for trespassing, squatting and a myriad of other things. Also...A person doesnt have to do that, I can still purchase private goods from private individuals. But in your version, if I purchase something from some guy in a private transaction between me and him, some guy in washington needs to know about it and charge me for it.

So again, nice try, but no, you cant just unplug from society. 100, 200 years ago, sure. If a person was able to purchase a boat capable of traveling the seas in search of an unchartered island, then they arent too worried about surviving on their own.

But that is besides the whole point of our Constitutional Scholar, Harvard Law professor evidently doesnt even know what a Tax is....after all he repeatedly chastised us unwashed masses for thinking it was a tax. But since the SCOTUS decided it was illegal as a penalty, but legal as a tax...well...how about that...it's a tax afterall, but our esteemed president is either A) too stupid to hve known that....even when pointed out to him or B) an even bigger liar than Bush.

oh, and on the other side of the live by yourself argument, you can always pack up and move to mother russia, china, cuba, North Korea, or any of the other socialist paradises you dream of making america into....it aint hard moving to those countries....it's leaving that a killer.