cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/17/84)
Foo! Our new netnews feed has been so reliable I have found many articles worth replying to. Unfortunately, things weren't set up properly and all articles posted from unmvax did not make it out of our local network. So without further ado, here is what none of you have been waiting for, my fanatical replies to news long since posted (and possibly expired): Subject: Re: Re: libertarianism VS economic reality Newsgroups: net.politics References: <2150@randvax.UUCP> <2628@ihldt.UUCP> <2173@randvax.UUCP> > Agreed, each > person should be allowed to think and state whatever views they please. > And that's about as far as you can reasonably go in extracting my political > views from the posting you quoted. To bad the SEC doesn't see things this way. If you publish a financial newsletter boy oh boy all the sudden you are regulated. What happened to freedom of the press? Subject: Re: Re: Income taxes,labor costs, and the Economy Newsgroups: net.politics References: <383@whuxl.UUCP> > How come unions are successful in getting wages that are supposedly higher > than the market would bear? Do you suppose it might have anything to do > with the monopoly power of companies which often control one-third of > their market? ... or could it have to do with closed shop laws and all sorts of protectionist legislation? > Free market advocates have to begin dealing with reality: we do *not* have > the conditions necessary to meet the efficiency assumptions of a free > market. Please remember that a key assumption for free-market efficiency > is that the market is composed of many small producers none of which > significantly affect the market. This is not true, you are building a straw man. The key assumption for free- market efficiency is that should some corp. or group of corp. try to foist unreasonably high prices on the consumer they will inspire new competition that will keep their prices in line. If there is just one company that is doing a reasonable job it would be pointless to bother competing. Of course this does not apply to just price, peoples' disatisfaction with IBM PCs and look alikes has created a market for Macs... > This condition *is* met in certain sectors > of the economy, such as agriculture where thousands of independent farmers > make up the production side of the market. But it is *not* met in such > industries as automobiles, steel, oil, etc. in which a few companies > control the domestic market. Moreover, the portion of the economy which > is controlled by the largest 500 corporations has been remorselessly > increasing for the past hundred years. It is now on the order of two thirds > of the whole economy. Don't kid youself. As long as the FED can change the value of currency IT controls the economy. What percentage of that 2/3's is tied directly to government funds? > Under conditions of oligopoly prices are constrained. > It is no surprise then, that in industries such as steel and autos that > one company is often a price leader, deciding what level of production and > pricing will maximize their profits. That level is *not* the same as > the theoretical point where supply exactly matches demand. Instead it looks > like this: > | \ / Supply > | \ / > | .\ / ___ where price is set under oligopoly > Price | . \/ ________________ where supply meets demand > | . /\ > | / \ Demand > | / \ > | / \ > ____________________ > Quantity > > By restricting production, firms with control of the market can increase > their prices (hence their marginal revenues), while also producing less. > They will (theoretically) do this to the point where their marginal > revenues are maximized. Without the forced (they are as voluntary as taxes) import quotas on foreign cars there would not be a way U.S. automakers to get away with this. If Chrysler had to face up to its poor business practices the other companies would have had to take note. > Farmers cannot do this themselves--so instead > the government does it for them by paying them *not* to grow crops > (therefore decreasing quantity, and increasing prices). Not only does the government have the enourmous payment in kind subsidies there are also regulations that prevent people from selling under cost. Every year tons of oranges are destroyed because it is illegal to sell them! > But companies > which control a substantial part of their market can do this. So far the examples that you have given are all interwined with government invention (cars by import quotas, agriculture by subsidies and U.S. government sanctioned and enforced cartels). > By doing this they also reduce employment, because more labor would have > been employed at the quantity where supply meets demand. > Before advocating a free market, please consider the assumptions necessary > for it to achieve its vaunted efficiency. Why are so many industries > controlled by only a few firms? Is it economies of scale? Sheer power? > Monopsony power of manufacturers over their suppliers? > What will you do about monopoly power? Ignore it? Close your eyes and > pretend it is only the "unions" who have any monopoly power? In the Alcoa Aluminum anti-trust suit (that was found against Alcoa) testimony to Alcoa's unfair business practices (because they were so large) involved the statement that their size allowed them to use more efficient techniques for production/distribution and thereby enabled Alcoa aluminum to undercut the price that other companies wanted to charge. QUITE THE UNFAIR PRACTICE, BEING ABLE TO MANUFACTURE AND MARKET GOODS AT A COST BELOW THE NORM. Beware, there are many people objecting to use of robots/automation for the same reason; it allows companies to sell goods for a cheaper price then those charged by companies that hire union members. If you want to see efficiency in action, get rid of the government barriers and you will be inundated with it, but don't say that we can't go turn to the marketplace because we don't have enough government regulation to protect ourselves from it. Subject: Re: re: Free education Newsgroups: net.politics References: <1170@drusd.UUCP> > >............................................... Please tell me at what > >point I incurred an obligation to pay for other people's children? > > > >Bob Stewart > > You incurred the obligation the moment some doctor who probably began his or ^^^^^^^^ > her education in a public school slapped you on the butt and introduced you > to a civilized society. So if his family doctor attended private school he would have no debt? If that is really when obligation to pay for other people's children ('s education) begins, then how did such a practice come into being? Obviously the first person who asked such a question could not have been given the answer Phil supplied. I am not asking for a history lesson, merely pointing out that there must be some other reason supplementing Phil's premise. Why doesn't someone answer the hard question: If education has to be subsidized for the poor, why don't people who can afford it pay for the education of their children? Subject: Re: Re: "Free" education - comment to Bob Stewart Newsgroups: net.politics References: <733@oliven.UUCP> <flairvax.837> <1247@dciem.UUCP> <2631@ihldt.UUCP> <1543@drutx.UUCP> > Before this country funded > education and made it mandatory that all children go to school it > was a bastion for those who could afford it. Let' not confuse the issue here: US government funding of education is a fairly recent thing (title IX and all that) and is still quite incomplete (hooray). Funding is usually done at a state and local level. Compulsory education was required long before the Feds kicked in a few $$. Remember, the issue that was originally brought up was how schools should be funded, not whether attendance should be mandatory. > M. L. King Jr. once > said that education was neccessary so that the poor and the > underprivileged could participate fully in american society. The comment has no relevance to how schools should be supported. > Free education and an educated > society benefits everyone. Do the benefits come from "free" education or from an educated society. The two are not linked. > Most public schools teach more than just academics. In most public > schools there are a mix of children with various economic, social, > racial, and religious backgrounds. Thus children will be > understanding and tolerant of others with different backgrounds. Now you are arguing that integrated education is the big win. Which is it? "Free" education or integrated education? Don't claim that these two are linked. Think about it. > Free education benefits all americans and helps those to help > themselves! You still have not shown how "free" education benefits anyone. It is interesting to see people use the word "free" for "compulsory". Double- speak awards anybody? Subject: Re: Re: Taxes vs. Freedom Newsgroups: net.politics References: <2631@ihldt.UUCP> <2632@ihldt.UUCP> <4433@tektronix.UUCP> > ONE MIGHT ALSO SAY (fill in the blanks): > > By taxing me [in large amounts, by the way] to pay for the _____________ > ________________________, the government* has adversely ________________ > ___________________________________. Ironic, no? Anyway, since this is > one of the most important _____________________________, I claim that my > ______________________ has been (substantially) _______________________. > > THEN ONE CAN SAY, SO WHAT? Someone can also say "my entire family was killed in a fire" and have some callous joker laugh in his face. Are you saying "SO WHAT, I DON'T PERSONALLY GIVE A CARE WHETHER YOU FEEL YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PROPERLY RAISE A FAMILY?" or are you saying you don't believe that is the case. Where do you draw the line? How about: "by taxing [100% by the way] to pay for manifest destiny, the government has adversely effected our ability to continue to live where we have lived for hundreds of years and are familiar with the territory. Ironic, no? Anyway, since this is one of the most important matters to our lifestyle, I claim that my race has been (substantially) deprived life and liberty." Gee, since it fits the template I guess it must not be of great import. After all if the government confiscates property for the best interest of society then noone should complain! I really think rather than make a template that allows anything from minor gripes to indictments of attempted genocide. You should have tried to rationally explain just what about his argument you didn't like. Subject: Re: Re: "Free" education Newsgroups: net.politics References: <733@oliven.UUCP> <flairvax.837> <1247@dciem.UUCP> <2631@ihldt.UUCP> <8@ucbcad.UUCP> > > HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the > > poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can, > > and only get it free if you can't afford it? This is what we > > currently do with court-appointed lawyers. My guess is that everyone > > wants a piece of the "free" pie. > > That's not far from what things are like now -- those who can afford to > tend to send their kids to private schools, and the public schools are > left with those who can't afford it. The result of this is that the > people in charge find less and less motivation for making sure that > public education is any good, and it goes downhill... > > Wayne What a great response! You never answered the question, but you did imply that somehow teaching poor people is less motivating than teaching the well-to-do. Subject: Prostitution in Amsterdam vs. Prostitution in CA Newsgroups: net.politics References: <6166@mcvax.UUCP> <270@spp2.UUCP> <127@talcott.UUCP> <6199@mcvax.UUCP> <1084@pyuxa.UUCP> <6222@mcvax.UUCP> <10@ucbcad.UUCP> > > Yes, there *is* prostitution in Amsterdam, > > like there is prostitution in many other places in Holland, Germany, the USA, > > etc. etc. That's part of Western "civilization", you know. But prostitution > > that's *tolerated* is quite something else than *legalized* prostitution, > > which is what the discussion was about. > > When there is such a huge gap between what is legal and what it > tolerated you wonder what the judicial system spends all their time > doing... > > Wayne In most places the judicial system spends all their time trying any case that comes to court. It is not the judicial section that decides who to arrest, it is the executive (for countries where there are two such branches). Most likely there is quite a bit of selective enforcement in Amsterdam. Whenever popular victimless "crimes" are made illegal, the constabulary is faced with more violations than it can process. Selective enforcement is then used to justify the existance of the laws. Of course this frequently leads to harrasment of individuals or groups that are disliked by the "peace" officers and not infrequently results in bribes either direct or indirect. A local (Albuquerque NM) example of harrasment is the case where a taxi driver who worked nights got on the bad side of one of the cops. That cop and a few of his friends met and decided to set the guy up. They called for a taxi and tried to set it up so they would get their target. They asked to be taken to a place where they could "get some action." After the taxi driver complied he was arrested. It turns out that the taxi driver wasn't the one that was the target, but he was black. The cops in question didn't go after all taxi drivers, just this one that they personally dislike. It is not clear whether they proceeded with the plan even though the dispatcher sent the wrong person because they had put so much time into the plan or whether they mistook the two drivers, owing to their same skin color. For Wayne: Take a trip down to SF and look on a few street corners downtown for "Hollywood Press." Take a look at all the ads within. Do you really think most of the advertisments are to attract people who want massages? While you are there, open up the yellow pages and look under "escort" and "massage." How blatant do the ads need to be before some hack journalists from a foreign country come over and do an expose on the legality of prostitution in California? Newsgroups: net.politics References: <710@loral.UUCP> > Hey!, I have a great idea. Fifty cents out of every dollar for the relief > effort should be distributed to the farmers about ready to go bankrupt and > the street people in all cities of this country. Now you say well thats > welfare. No matter who we give relief to its still welfare. By the way > the farmers being proud people that they are will pay it back some day. Right! I'm holding my breath to see the $6,000,000,000 of Payment in Kind subsidizes be repaid. It is "aid" for farmers that is hurting other farmers. It is unprofitable to attempt to compete with a company that has big brother interfering with the market. > Just before you give away a check to the Ethiopia relief drive find out > if there are any charity organizations for our street people or farmers > relief funds. I say when every person in america is fat and healthy and > we don't know what else to do with our money then send it over seas. > > LETS QUIT SHIT'NT ON OUR OWN PEOPLE for the sake of others! Stop and think. Ethiopia is facing a food shortage (i.e. they do not have enough food in their country). We are supplying them with food and money to buy food. Food is raised by farmers. We have a surplus of food raised/ grown by farmers. The government is not stealing food from the farmers ('cept in taxes, but that is not a special case; it's universal). Guess who gets the money for raising the food that is sent to Ethiopia. Think hard. Subject: Re: Re: Gun control Newsgroups: net.politics References: <259@decwrl.UUCP> > Don goes on to suggest handguns are useful to keep the > government in line, should government control end up in the hands > of (his example) religious fanatics, or some other anti-democratic > group. First of all, I think this is very unlikely scenario. With > all its faults, our Constitution works. Watergate proved it. > Secondly, I would think rifles (which I am not proposing be outlawed) > would be more useful in such a situation. If you want to protect > our freedom, I suggest you concentrate more on the First Amendment - > that's the one that would have to be gutted before the American > government could be perverted into a tyranny. Watergate proved what? That corruption at the highest elected position is tolerated? That some crook can get off the hook and still have large amounts of money given to him taken directly from the taxpayers? Here is a quote from the Constitution of the United States; it is Article XIII (i.e. the thirteenth amendment), Slavery Abolished: "1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." How many involuntary servants' lives were lost in Vietnam? Just what crime had they been convicted of? Oh, let me guess, the people that proposed this amendment in 1865 didn't have war on their minds when it was written so the lack of a "except in times of national emergency" clause was an oversight? Think hard now. There is no way to interpret the draft as anything but involuntary servitude. Now tell me that it is unlikely that the government can be perverted into a tyranny (Websters: 2. oppressive and unjust government). Sit back in your chair and tell me "Hey, *I* don't consider killing U.S. citizens oppressive and unjust, after all, they didn't kill me and who am I supposed to be looking out for, anyway?" > About the amendment guaranteeing the "right to bear arms"; let's > look at it in its historical context. The Founding Fathers were actually > a pretty cynical bunch (you'll notice they didn't let the common people > elect their President directly), and expected that it wouldn't be long > before their newly-created government got out of hand. Therefore, they > included in the Constitution the right to bear arms as part of an > organized militia to keep the government in check. Fortunately, the > experiment in creative government worked far better than expected > (Libertarians and Communists are free to disagree). It is interesting when people who are pro-gun-control mention the 2nd amendment they do not quote it: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ If there is enough objection to letting the people keep and bear arms, then make another amendment, similar to the one repealing prohibition, that revokes the people's right to keep and bear arms. > > In truth criminal acts will continue to go on in our world > > until we address the problem of criminal behavior, not > > something so meaningless as a neutral tool. Crime has > > actually dropped in the last few years. A new gun > > control act? Of course not. Merely a drop in the population > > most likely to commit criminal acts. Treat diseases, not symptoms. > > Robin D. Roberts > > Robin has a point here about crime prevention. However, > the "neutral tool" in question is not meaningless. It is one which > significantly increases the damage done in crime. Some crimes actually > become impractical without guns (armed bank robbery, for instance). It's > interesting to note that the "need" for handguns decreases as crime > decreases (if there's no crime, there's no need for a gun). > Something should certainly be done about the crime problem, but private > ownership of guns is no answer. I have heard of stores robbed with hammers. A large individual with a large hammer enters, says "give me your money or I will do large amounts of damage with this hammer," takes the money and drives away. You don't see things like this happening in banks, because bank security guards are allowed to have guns. Now, if you continue to allow money that is in a bank to be proteted by guns, but you don't allow money at home to be protected by guns you are unfairly influencing where someone should keep his money. Remember, it would be very hard to rob a bank without a car. I don't see anyone objecting to cars, even though more people are killed in them than at the other end of guns! It is less than interesting to note that as crime decreases then the "need" for handguns decreases, since there is no correlation between crime decreasing and handgun control. Some argue that violent crimes go down, but even that argument is tenuous. > Oh, there is one use for a handgun besides self-defense, > and that's for sport (target-shooting). This does not require private > ownership of the guns; they can be owned by and stored at the > facility at which they're used (which, needless to say, should > be reasonably secure). There's no reason for a sportsman to have > a gun at home. So with some arm waving and a quick "Watergate proved that," the specter of government going awry has been exorcized. Nobody will point to figures concerning how abuse of executive/legislative/judicial powers relates to the disarming of all U.S. citizens, because it has never happened before. Since the government never gives back rights that it takes, it is a test that is just too risky to take. There are better ways to fight handgun deaths. The first of which is LEGALIZATION OF ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES. This will allow two things of great import to happen. The police can go back to protecting the people from handgun killers, etc. and realize quite a bit more respect then they currently get. The price of many currently illegal substances will plummet, taking the money maker out of organized crimes and removing the incentive a junky has to steal 3 T.V.'s a day for his habit. In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on the judicial process. People curious about some of my views on that will have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/19/84)
>a test that is just too risky to take. There are better ways to fight >handgun deaths. The first of which is LEGALIZATION OF ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES. >This will allow two things of great import to happen. The police can go >back to protecting the people from handgun killers, etc. and realize quite >a bit more respect then they currently get. The price of many currently >illegal substances will plummet, taking the money maker out of organized >crimes and removing the incentive a junky has to steal 3 T.V.'s a day for >his habit. In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove >the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on >the judicial process. People curious about some of my views on that will >have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there. > > --Cliff [Matthews] This bit about getting rid of victimless crimes is so true and obvious that it is no surprise people in power can't see it. But the connection with handgun deaths is weird. In fact it was a weird feeling altogether, to come across this gem of great worth at the end of a couple of hundred lines of stuff with which I totally disagreed. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (12/19/84)
> > >............................................... Please tell me at what > > >point I incurred an obligation to pay for other people's children? > > > > > >Bob Stewart > > > > You incurred the obligation the moment some doctor who probably began his or > ^^^^^^^^ > > her education in a public school slapped you on the butt and introduced you > > to a civilized society. > > So if his family doctor attended private school he would have no debt? > If that is really when obligation to pay for other people's children > ('s education) begins, then how did such a practice come into being? > Obviously the first person who asked such a question could not have been > given the answer Phil supplied. I am not asking for a history lesson, merely > pointing out that there must be some other reason supplementing Phil's > premise. > Why doesn't someone answer the hard question: If education has to be > subsidized for the poor, why don't people who can afford it pay for the > education of their children? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this hard question. People who can afford it generally do pay for the education of their own children, and that of poor people also. I think that this talk of obligations to society obscures the main point, and that it that public education is definitely a positive force in society, and thus is worth having. I don't think that anybody has argued that having masses of completely uneducated illiterate poor people is better than what we have now (although considering what things are like now in the public schools, it might not be much worse). > > M. L. King Jr. once > > said that education was neccessary so that the poor and the > > underprivileged could participate fully in american society. > > The comment has no relevance to how schools should be supported. True, but the point is that they must be supported at any cost, and if it takes government money, it should be supplied. > > Free education and an educated > > society benefits everyone. > > Do the benefits come from "free" education or from an educated society. > The two are not linked. I don't think that a society would be very educated without free education. Education wasn't free in the dark ages, and look how bad off they were.. :-) > > Most public schools teach more than just academics. In most public > > schools there are a mix of children with various economic, social, > > racial, and religious backgrounds. Thus children will be > > understanding and tolerant of others with different backgrounds. > > Now you are arguing that integrated education is the big win. Which is > it? "Free" education or integrated education? Don't claim that these > two are linked. Think about it. You explain how you can get integrated education without compulsory, public education. I don't think you can... > > > HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the > > > poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can, > > > and only get it free if you can't afford it? This is what we > > > currently do with court-appointed lawyers. My guess is that everyone > > > wants a piece of the "free" pie. > > > > That's not far from what things are like now -- those who can afford to > > tend to send their kids to private schools, and the public schools are > > left with those who can't afford it. The result of this is that the > > people in charge find less and less motivation for making sure that > > public education is any good, and it goes downhill... > > > > Wayne > > What a great response! You never answered the question, but you did imply > that somehow teaching poor people is less motivating than teaching the > well-to-do. I wasn't trying to answer the question. I think that it is a good idea, but if you look at the facts you will see that it tends not to work out. Certainly teaching children in public schools is less motivating for most teachers than teaching children in private schools, because the private schools have the better students. It's too bad that things are like this, because it tends to be a self-perpetuating thing -- the worse public schools get, the more good students leave them, and they get worse. How do you think this should be dealt with? Abolish the public schools? A bad school is better than none at all... > "1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime > whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the > United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate > legislation." > > How many involuntary servants' lives were lost in Vietnam? Just what crime > had they been convicted of? Oh, let me guess, the people that proposed this > amendment in 1865 didn't have war on their minds when it was written so the > lack of a "except in times of national emergency" clause was an oversight? > Think hard now. There is no way to interpret the draft as anything but > involuntary servitude. Now tell me that it is unlikely that the government > can be perverted into a tyranny (Websters: 2. oppressive and unjust > government). War is such an obvious exception to this sort of clause that you shouldn't complain if it was left out. Take a justified war, where the country is in danger of being invaded. I doubt that you would complain about obligatory military duty in a case like this. Now consider all the situations that are of the same sort -- Russia invades Canada, for instance. Is this a clear case of justified military intervention? Things can get pretty difficult to decide sometimes. If you were in the position of the policy-makers during the Vietnam war, can you be sure that you would make the right choice between unjustified meddling and intervention where an essential interest of the US is concerned? > I have heard of stores robbed with hammers. A large individual with a large > hammer enters, says "give me your money or I will do large amounts of damage > with this hammer," takes the money and drives away. You don't see things > like this happening in banks, because bank security guards are allowed to > have guns. Now, if you continue to allow money that is in a bank to be > proteted by guns, but you don't allow money at home to be protected by guns > you are unfairly influencing where someone should keep his money. And if you don't allow people to have anti-aircraft guns, you are unfairly preventing them from keeping their money in big balloons a thousand feet above their houses. Come on... > In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove > the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on > the judicial process. People curious about some of my views on that will > have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there. Ok, I'll bite... YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND ONLY A LEGLESS FROG WOULD HAVE IDEAS LIKE YOURS. (By the way, what are they?) Wayne
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (12/19/84)
> > The first of which is LEGALIZATION OF ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES. > >This will allow two things of great import to happen. The police can go > >back to protecting the people from handgun killers, etc. and realize quite > >a bit more respect then they currently get. The price of many currently > >illegal substances will plummet, taking the money maker out of organized > >crimes and removing the incentive a junky has to steal 3 T.V.'s a day for > >his habit. > > --Cliff [Matthews] > > This bit about getting rid of victimless crimes is so true and obvious > that it is no surprise people in power can't see it. > Martin Taylor Maybe the problem is not that the people in power can't see it, but just the reverse. After all, it's been shown that congresscritters are bribeable, and SOMEBODY out there is making BIG bucks off of nearly every victimless crime law. When alcohol was illegal, people made big bucks off of that as well. If you were the head off the mafia, just how much would YOU be willing to pay out in bribes to keep marijuana illegal? Also, the people who choose to become lawmakers in this country, are, naturally enough, people who enjoy wielding power. They don't have much power over people when the things that people like to do aren't illegal. But all they have to do is to illegalize something which people enjoy, and then they are free to create organizations to fight these 'crimes', selectively enforce these laws, etc. It seems unlikely that any laws against victimless crimes will be repealed in the near future. *SIGH* Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/22/84)
> Now consider all the >situations that are of the same sort -- Russia invades Canada, for >instance. Is this a clear case of justified military intervention? >Things can get pretty difficult to decide sometimes. I HOPE that's not difficult to decide. You intervene if and only if WE ask you to, thanks. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (12/22/84)
> > Why doesn't someone answer the hard question: If education has to be > > subsidized for the poor, why don't people who can afford it pay for the > > education of their children? > > I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by this hard question. People who > can afford it generally do pay for the education of their own children, > and that of poor people also. Here is another way of phrasing the question: For a trial in the U.S. if a defendant can be shown to lack the finances to afford a lawyer, one will be appointed by the state. The parallel to schooling is straightforward. Why doesn't every person pay directly for his/her child's education and only when a person can not afford the costs should government kick in? If the answer is that poor people will get significantly poorer education, then do you oppose our current system of hiring of lawyers? (Why no, everyone knows that the courts are fair and who needs adequate legal protection, like if you hadn't committed a crime, you wouldn't be in court :-) > I think that this talk of obligations to society obscures the main point, > and that it that public education is definitely a positive force in > society, and thus is worth having. I don't think that anybody has argued > that having masses of completely uneducated illiterate poor people is > better than what we have now (although considering what things are like > now in the public schools, it might not be much worse). I guess there is a difference between the hypothetical masses of *uneducated* illiterate poor people and todays masses of (educated?) illiterate poor people? You pose a question that (improperly) assumes a consequence of my proposition above. Quite simply, the more competition that public schools have to face, the more responsive they will have to be. > > > M. L. King Jr. once > > > said that education was neccessary so that the poor and the > > > underprivileged could participate fully in american society. > > > > The comment has no relevance to how schools should be supported. > > True, but the point is that they must be supported at any cost, and > if it takes government money, it should be supplied. Great! the cost is having to rely on competition to keep the public schools in line. Of course, I don't see relying on competition a high price to pay, but either way I am glad that you agree with me. If you believe that the failings of inner city education are due to funding problems, then why is it that during the years that succesively more money was poured into public education the scores of the public students taking standard tests declined? > > > Free education and an educated > > > society benefits everyone. > > > > Do the benefits come from "free" education or from an educated society. > > The two are not linked. > > I don't think that a society would be very educated without free education. > Education wasn't free in the dark ages, and look how bad off they were.. :-) It doesn't matter what you think when there are facts that can be posted. Too bad Barbara's asleep, or I would march into my bedroom and look for the illiteracy figures for before we (i.e. the U.S.) had "free" education. Since I don't want to wake her, why don't we make a game of it: as soon as you read this message, post an article telling the net what your guess is. Then when I post the figures, we can a) laugh at how far off you were and/or b) compare that figure to last year's statistic and then argue about the meaning of the phrase "very educated" (Why am I up in the middle of the night posting to netnews? Because I have the trouble sleeping that I always have when I am preparing a case to go to court--I like to take an active part in dealing with shady business practices, like the good libertarian I try to be.) > > > Most public schools teach more than just academics. In most public > > > schools there are a mix of children with various economic, social, > > > racial, and religious backgrounds. Thus children will be > > > understanding and tolerant of others with different backgrounds. > > > > Now you are arguing that integrated education is the big win. Which is > > it? "Free" education or integrated education? Don't claim that these > > two are linked. Think about it. > > You explain how you can get integrated education without compulsory, > public education. I don't think you can... Linked was a poor word to use. I should have said that compulsory public education does not imply integrated integration nor does integrated education imply compulsory public education. In New Hampshire there are many public schools with fewer traditional minorities (I couldn't leave minority unqualified, since every male is a minority member) than I have fingers on my left hand. Are the students attending those schools necessarily receiving a substanard education? What would be the solution? flying minority students into the area from a good distance away? I attended kindergarten through third and eighth grade in schools that were racially integrated and yet were only open to children of parents who were of a particular occupation. I know that I wasn't in an uncommon position, so don't tell me that it is impossible to have racial integration without compulsory public education. I'll let you strain your synapses figuring out the profession of at least one of my parents during K-3,8. Maybe you should have asked me to explain how the country can have forced integrated education without compulsory integrated education. The answer is of course that it can't, but the question is not of much import and borders on non-sensical. > > > > HARD QUESTION #49: If what we're worried about is the education of the > > > > poor, then why don't we have a system where you pay for it if you can, > > > > and only get it free if you can't afford it? This is what we > > > > currently do with court-appointed lawyers. My guess is that everyone > > > > wants a piece of the "free" pie. > > > > > > That's not far from what things are like now -- those who can afford to > > > tend to send their kids to private schools, and the public schools are > > > left with those who can't afford it. The result of this is that the > > > people in charge find less and less motivation for making sure that > > > public education is any good, and it goes downhill... > > > > > > Wayne > > > > What a great response! You never answered the question, but you did imply > > that somehow teaching poor people is less motivating than teaching the > > well-to-do. > > I wasn't trying to answer the question. I think that it is a good idea, > but if you look at the facts you will see that it tends not to work out. > Certainly teaching children in public schools is less motivating for most > teachers than teaching children in private schools, because the private > schools have the better students. It's too bad that things are like this, > because it tends to be a self-perpetuating thing -- the worse public schools > get, the more good students leave them, and they get worse. How do you think > this should be dealt with? Abolish the public schools? A bad school is > better than none at all... Please tell me where these facts are so I can look at them. You are telling me that children of parents with money are "better students" than children of poor parents. I don't understand. My impression is that intelligence is fairly evenly distributed as long as noone handicaps an infant by excessive drinking during pregnancy, etc. To make teaching fun again there should be more expulsions of unruly students. I am sure that such a measure would do more to bring up the overall level of education of each student than any other element of integration, whether it be racial or fiscal. If Joe Thug gets expelled, he can come back later when he decides he really wants an education. There are limits to the statement "a bad school is better than none at all." Would you consider any of the day care centers that have been indicted for molesting children better than no day care center at all? I didn't think so. How about a school where 100% of the graduating student body is functionally illiterate? 97%? 93%? Where do you draw the line? What if matters are complicated by the fact that a school is so full of violence that the non- violent children are indoctrinated into a world they would not have contact with? What about when the public school decides that it is necessary to instill morals in students, but the morals disagree with yours? > > "1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime > > whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the > > United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. > > 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate > > legislation." > > > > How many involuntary servants' lives were lost in Vietnam? Just what crime > > had they been convicted of? Oh, let me guess, the people that proposed this > > amendment in 1865 didn't have war on their minds when it was written so the > > lack of a "except in times of national emergency" clause was an oversight? > > Think hard now. There is no way to interpret the draft as anything but > > involuntary servitude. Now tell me that it is unlikely that the government > > can be perverted into a tyranny (Websters: 2. oppressive and unjust > > government). > > War is such an obvious exception to this sort of clause that you shouldn't > complain if it was left out. Bullshit! The Civil War had just finished. The drafters (pardon the pun) of that amendment could easily have put in a clause for exception during war time. The Civil War was fought without a draft there was no reason at that time to believe that conscription would ever be necessary; hence both the wording and the original intent are clear; those are the points on which the Supreme Court is supposed to base its decision, not whether there are extenuating circum- stances. Extenuating circumstances are to be handled by amendments. > Take a justified war, where the country is > in danger of being invaded. I doubt that you would complain about > obligatory military duty in a case like this. Now consider all the > situations that are of the same sort -- Russia invades Canada, for > instance. Is this a clear case of justified military intervention? Bullshit! I will complain about any obligatory military duty in any country that claims to be free. The Revolutionary war was fought with volunteers. It was a war in which not only was the enemy directly present on home territory, but the enemy was firmly entrenched! The Civil war was fought without conscription and not only was the enemy directly present on home territory and firmly entrenched, but the enemy was us! What is so special about the Russians invading us? Or is it just that we already know the results of the wars that I just mentioned, yet the war with the Russians is in the future (or is it?) While a country enslaves its citizens, for any reason, that country can not call itself free. (btw, the original justification for the Vietnam war was that we *were* in danger of being attacked. Remember the domino theory? The last domino to fall was supposed to be us). > Things can get pretty difficult to decide sometimes. If you were in the > position of the policy-makers during the Vietnam war, can you be sure > that you would make the right choice between unjustified meddling and > intervention where an essential interest of the US is concerned? Yes. > > I have heard of stores robbed with hammers. A large individual with a large > > hammer enters, says "give me your money or I will do large amounts of damage > > with this hammer," takes the money and drives away. You don't see things > > like this happening in banks, because bank security guards are allowed to > > have guns. Now, if you continue to allow money that is in a bank to be > > proteted by guns, but you don't allow money at home to be protected by guns > > you are unfairly influencing where someone should keep his money. > > And if you don't allow people to have anti-aircraft guns, you are unfairly > preventing them from keeping their money in big balloons a thousand feet > above their houses. Come on... Yes Wayne, if you were to allow banks to have anti-aircraft guns and not allow the people the same right, you would be unfairly preventing private citizens from doing something that a corporation is allowed. Depending on the circum- stances there can be serious ramifications. Think hard. If you were living in an area and both you and the local bank believed that a weapon was needed to prevent your money from being stolen and the government said that you as an individual were not allowed to keep said weapon, how is that different from the government saying you must keep your money in a bank? If you claim that people should not mind keeping their money in banks then I suggest you reread your early 20th century history. > > In addition to all the reform that will be necessary to remove > > the victimless crime legislation, there should be a little work done on > > the judicial process. People curious about some of my views on that will > > have no problem prompting me into a little ranting and raving here and there. > > Ok, I'll bite... YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, AND I believe my knowledge of the judicial process is adequate. I received my only judicial blemish when I was foolish enough to not represent myself. I have represented myself both in criminal and civil court. > ONLY A LEGLESS FROG WOULD HAVE IDEAS LIKE YOURS. (By the way, what are they?) > > Wayne LEGLESS FROGS are the little guys that sell pencils outside of french restaurants. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143