Have any political ads changed your mind?

[Augustus]

And I noticed that you've quietly ignored my response to your idiotic comments about self determination and personal responsibility being somewhere close to absolute prevention of personal injury.

Far from it.
What I said was that personal responsibility and self determination were as close as you get to a guarentee of prevention of personal injury as you can get. I hardly see how you can have a problem with that statement. But if you do then by all means please explain it.

The example you made about getting run over by a drunk driver doesnt conflict with my original statement so I didnt reply to it.

So you have accused me of ignoring you, and I inturn point out that you have side stepped me -

A better question would be, is it properly the role of the Goverment to provide [universal] health care? And if the answer to that question is yes then, where do Goverment's responsibilities end and the private citizen's begin?

[Durandal]

No, universal healthcare, like every government program, benefits those who recieve the funds from it, not everyone in the public. Or does the fact that government spending is a zero sum system escape you?

And this is part of your social contract. Do you really think that there are people out there who benefit from every single government program, as opposed to different people benefiting from different ones? It's simply impossible to please everyone, despite what your idiotic, right-wing extremist libertarian ideals tell you.

Actually, yes it is. Just ask any adult with no children. Its also as inefficent as hell, as any fair look at the American Education system will tell you. In my opinion, we would be better off reducing taxes, abolishing public education, and having privately run "liscenced" (to prevent "nutcase" cirraculum) schools.

The public education system's current woes were non-existent in the 1950's and 60's, when American public education had a heavy emphasis on math and science. The current problems are not inherent to public education, but are results of the failure of the system to adjust to changing society. Either way, the solution is not to just privatize the whole shebang. When people have a right to something, the government is under an obligation to provide it, whether you like it or not.

Of course it can. Do you think that this is just?

Yes. Those parents made that decision fully aware of the implications. My parents made that decision, and I even had to pay my own tuition my senior year. Do I expect the state to give me 4 years' worth of tuition money back? Nope.

In most State's the property tax, which is there specifically to pay for public schooling, is done at the the county, not the state level. As a result, it is not "pooled" into the general county funding and would be much easier to repel. Regardless, the nity grity of public school taxation is unimportant- I doubt that any public offical that abolished public schooling, while retaining the taxes that support it, would be elected to another term.

So you're going to completely ignore what I just told you? There is no "education tax," hence no one is being forced to pay for it directly. The government simply chooses to divert tax money to public education. If public education went away tomorrow, a reduction in taxes may not necessarily follow.

Which is exactly the point, it's inheritently unjust.

So you say. But that's too bad. It's part of the social contract. You give up certain things in exchange for others.

[Durandal]

Far from it.
What I said was that personal responsibility and self determination were as close as you get to a guarentee of prevention of personal injury as you can get. I hardly see how you can have a problem with that statement. But if you do then by all means please explain it.

And you have yet to qualify that statement. You simply state it as though it's obvious. Well it isn't. There is no absolute prevention of injury, nor is there anything even remotely close to it, because we simply cannot control every event around us.

The example you made about getting run over by a drunk driver doesnt conflict with my original statement so I didnt reply to it.

Explain how it does not. Personal responsibility will not help you control the uncontrollable.

So you have accused me of ignoring you, and I inturn point out that you have side stepped me

A better question would be, is it properly the role of the Goverment to provide [universal] health care? And if the answer to that question is yes then, where do Goverment's responsibilities end and the private citizen's begin?

That's not the question we're concerned with. We're concerned with whether or not paying taxes is slavery. So I saw no reason to address it.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And this is part of your social contract. Do you really think that there are people out there who benefit from every single government program, as opposed to different people benefiting from different ones? It's simply impossible to please everyone, despite what your idiotic, right-wing extremist libertarian ideals tell you.

My "idiotic" ideals tell me that its not the job of the government to please everyone, it tells me that its job is to defend our lives and liberty. It's our job to work to "please" ourselves.

The public education system's current woes were non-existent in the 1950's and 60's, when American public education had a heavy emphasis on math and science. The current problems are not inherent to public education, but are results of the failure of the system to adjust to changing society. Either way, the solution is not to just privatize the whole shebang.

Given the current situation it certainly is a good solution. Regardless, even if it was doing its "job" the fact remains that your still taxing those who have no children to pay for the education of those who do. My position is that in a just soceity one pays for the services one desires.

When people have a right to something, the government is under an obligation to provide it, whether you like it or not.

There is no such thing as a "right" to something provided by another person. Please state where such a "right" comes from.

In addition, the rights stated in the Bill of Rights are all rights which limit the power of the government. In fact, the Constitution specifically states the powers and responsibilites of the Federal government- and I don't see national healthcare anywhere in it.

So you're going to completely ignore what I just told you? There is no "education tax," hence no one is being forced to pay for it directly. The government simply chooses to divert tax money to public education. If public education went away tomorrow, a reduction in taxes may not necessarily follow.

A point which is irrelevent to the question of whether:

1. Public education is a legitimate funtion of the state.
2. Taxes SHOULD be reduced following the privitization of education.

[Zaia]

Blkbrry, what were the chances you were going to vote for Kerry before you saw the ad about healthcare?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Blkbrry, what were the chances you were going to vote for Kerry before you saw the ad about healthcare?

Hmm.... I was still thinking actually, but if I had to put it in numbers I would say about 50/50. George Bush's religious fanaticism, and his support of the Patriot Act, means that he will not recieve my vote. Basically it was down to Kerry, a 3rd party canidate, or simply not voting.

[Keevan_Colton]

Same as with police, fire and education...along with the military, roads and various other stuff...

False analogy- things such as the police and military are part of the very purpose of government, namely to protect our lives and liberty.

[Durandal]

And this is part of your social contract. Do you really think that theMy "idiotic" ideals tell me that its not the job of the government to please everyone, it tells me that its job is to defend our lives and liberty. It's our job to work to "please" ourselves.

Since when do healthcare and education fall under the "pleasure" classification?

Given the current situation it certainly is a good solution. Regardless, even if it was doing its "job" the fact remains that your still taxing those who have no children to pay for the education of those who do. My position is that in a just soceity one pays for the services one desires.

That is not our society. That is unconstrained capitalism, which will fuck anyone who isn't a large corporation up the ass. Here, the government regulates the market and provides certain services because private corporations have no obligation to respect certain civil rights; their only obligations are to the bottom line.

There is no such thing as a "right" to something provided by another person. Please state where such a "right" comes from.

See the right to an attorney.

In addition, the rights stated in the Bill of Rights are all rights which limit the power of the government. In fact, the Constitution specifically states the powers and responsibilites of the Federal government- and I don't see national healthcare anywhere in it.

You yourself stated that the government's mandate is to protect the lives of its citizens.

A point which is irrelevent to the question of whether:

1. Public education is a legitimate funtion of the state.

And you argue, with nothing but your ideal that the government has only two jobs (to protect lives and liberty), that it is not. Please support this assertion. Public education is a service which is beneficial to many people. It gives children the tools they need to become productive citizens (literacy and other basic skills).

Just because you don't benefit from it doesn't mean that others don't. Part of living in a society like ours is learning that each citizen isn't an island unto himself.

2. Taxes SHOULD be reduced following the privitization of education.

Which, again, they do not necessarily have to be.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Actually, yes it is. Just ask any adult with no children. Its also as inefficent as hell, as any fair look at the American Education system will tell you. In my opinion, we would be better off reducing taxes, abolishing public education, and having privately run "liscenced" (to prevent "nutcase" cirraculum) schools.

You do know many schools do not get the funding they need right? You do know that other schools DO get funding, yet they waste it on bullshit stuff. That is why it is inefficient.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

And you argue, with nothing but your ideal that the government has only two jobs (to protect lives and liberty), that it is not. Please support this assertion. Public education is a service which is beneficial to many people. It gives children the tools they need to become productive citizens (literacy and other basic skills).

Just because you don't benefit from it doesn't mean that others don't. Part of living in a society like ours is learning that each citizen isn't an island unto himself.

Without public education, many people would never go to school because private schools are expensive. This means the average popluation would be even more stupid.

[muse]

Unless you live on your own little island where you grow your own food, make your own tools, build your own house and everything in it, school your own kids, and are fully self-sufficient and run everything on the fucking island yourself, you have no right to bitch about how paying fucking "unneeded" taxes is fucking slavery. Newsflash idiot, everything in your fucking life, the water you drink, the road & sidewalk in front of your home, was all paid for by taxes, your home was probably government subsidized, as is a lot of the food you eat. As for the myth of government healthcare sucking up trillions of dollars and raising your taxes by 20% or whatever, that's fucking bullshit. In Canada our government run healthcare system costs only 1/3 as much per person as your privately run US system.

Fixed muse's posting error.
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Rampant AI

[SirNitram]

And you argue, with nothing but your ideal that the government has only two jobs (to protect lives and liberty), that it is not. Please support this assertion. Public education is a service which is beneficial to many people. It gives children the tools they need to become productive citizens (literacy and other basic skills).

Just because you don't benefit from it doesn't mean that others don't. Part of living in a society like ours is learning that each citizen isn't an island unto himself.

Without public education, many people would never go to school because private schools are expensive. This means the average popluation would be even more stupid.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the entire motivation. Stupid people with a smart elite would be great.. For those wealthy enough for a quality education.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Since when do healthcare and education fall under the "pleasure" classification?

Are you being deliberatly deceptive, or are you just fucking stupid? The question you just asked is completely unrelated to the post you quoted. Carefully reread your original post and my response to see why....

Regardless, to answer your question; healthcare and education are services just like any others. I repeat- your breeding does not entitle you to my hard earned bread.

That is not our society.

Oh, what a wonderful way to silence any criticism or suggestion of the soceity you live in; just dismiss it by saying that is not our soceity!

That is unconstrained capitalism, which will fuck anyone who isn't a large corporation up the ass. Here, the government regulates the market and provides certain services because private corporations have no obligation to respect certain civil rights; their only obligations are to the bottom line.

Bullshit, a privatized education system would just be another regulated industy, it dosen't require "unconstrained" capitalism to work.

See the right to an attorney.

Which is provided when the state is trying to convict you of a crime. This dosen't strengthen your case, its an example protecting the rights of citizens by limiting the power of the state.

You yourself stated that the government's mandate is to protect the lives of its citizens.

From other people and nations dumbass. Not from the consequences of jamming 10 Big Macs down your throat daily.

And you argue, with nothing but your ideal that the government has only two jobs (to protect lives and liberty), that it is not. Please support this assertion.

I believe that Thomas Jefferson had something to say on that.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Public education is a service which is beneficial to many people. It gives children the tools they need to become productive citizens (literacy and other basic skills).

Education in general provides these benefits- its not the monopoly of public education. In fact, public education in this country is a failure; privatizing education would allow competition between schools and would lower the costs overall costs of education.

Just because you don't benefit from it doesn't mean that others don't. Part of living in a society like ours is learning that each citizen isn't an island unto himself.

Division of labor and the nanny state are two distinct concepts; don't get them confused.

Which, again, they do not necessarily have to be.

You fucking retard- THIS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. It is IRRELEVANT to the question of what SHOULD BE done.

[Joe]

I believe that Thomas Jefferson had something to say on that.

Not to take sides in this shitfest, but it's funny that you bring up Thomas Jefferson as he was a strong supporter of public education. Founding the University of Virginia is an achievement he listed on his tombstone along with religious freedom and authoring the Declaration of Independence.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Not to take sides in this shitfest, but it's funny that you bring up Thomas Jefferson as he was a strong supporter of public education.

Yes- but he did not consider it a "right". He considered education important, as is shown on his tombstone; at the time public education was the only means of allowing everyone to get an education. That is not the case now.

[RedImperator]

The state doesn't necessarily have to provide education--but any system that doesn't provide for EVERY child to have access to at least a basic minimum education, regardless of his parents' ability to pay is intolerable in a modern, post-industrial society. The public school system we have now is badly broken, and if you've got a plausible alternative, by all means, let's hear it. But from where I'm standing, the only way I can see to ensure that it's provided is through the state. The profit motive is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't work for extremely long term investments that might not even have a direct payoff (educating a poor kid who can't pay a dime towards his tuition for 13 years).

[Darth Wong]

Nope, and I stand by my position.

You realise that one accident or unforseen illness can if not ruin your whole life, hobble you financially for the rest of it, then?

Yes, I do realize that- and I worry about it any time I hop in the car or cut the lawn. However, I do not have the right to compel or coerce someone into providing it to me for free, to state otherwise is to state that slavery is a legitmate principle.

Why not? Leaving aside that idiotic "slavery" red-herring, this is a classic example of your debating style in this thread; you simply state your conclusion as a fact, and then use that "fact" to support your conclusion. Classic circular reasoning. WHY does society not have the right to compel individuals to pay for services which are available for all and for which there is a societal benefit?

What school of ethics do you subscribe to? I would very much like to know what ethical scheme you follow, or whether you have one at all besides self-interest.

[SirNitram]

Education in general provides these benefits- its not the monopoly of public education. In fact, public education in this country is a failure; privatizing education would allow competition between schools and would lower the costs overall costs of education.

Don't claims generally require more evidence than 'The invisible hand of the Free Market will make everything peachy keen!'?

[Darth Wong]

Not to take sides in this shitfest, but it's funny that you bring up Thomas Jefferson as he was a strong supporter of public education.

Yes- but he did not consider it a "right". He considered education important, as is shown on his tombstone; at the time public education was the only means of allowing everyone to get an education. That is not the case now.

The correlation between strong public education and economic prosperity among industrialized capitalist nations is well-established. If you have a better system, you'd better have a damned good proof that it will work better, or it would be simply insane to switch to it and thus risk long-term disaster for your nation. So far I haven't seen jack shit except for your personal assertion that it's a better idea and that people will make it work via magic.

[Frank Hipper]

Yes- but he did not consider it a "right". He considered education important, as is shown on his tombstone; at the time public education was the only means of allowing everyone to get an education. That is not the case now.

Care to explain how "everyone" can get an education in a system other than the one that exists now?
Particularly in a lassez faire system like you espouse?

[Darth Wong]

Yes- but he did not consider it a "right". He considered education important, as is shown on his tombstone; at the time public education was the only means of allowing everyone to get an education. That is not the case now.

Care to explain how "everyone" can get an education in a system other than the one that exists now?
Particularly in a lassez faire system like you espouse?

When he says "allowing everyone to get an education", he means "everyone who can pay for it". Interestingly enough, this is the same kind of system found in most third-world nations, where the elites have education and the poor people don't.

[RedImperator]

You realise that one accident or unforseen illness can if not ruin your whole life, hobble you financially for the rest of it, then?

Yes, I do realize that- and I worry about it any time I hop in the car or cut the lawn. However, I do not have the right to compel or coerce someone into providing it to me for free, to state otherwise is to state that slavery is a legitmate principle.

Why not? Leaving aside that idiotic "slavery" red-herring, this is a classic example of your debating style in this thread; you simply state your conclusion as a fact, and then use that "fact" to support your conclusion. Classic circular reasoning. WHY does society not have the right to compel individuals to pay for services which are available for all and for which there is a societal benefit?

This is a nitpick mostly, but it's the STATE compelling everyone to pay for the benefit of society. The two aren't interchangeable. Society could ensure everyone can afford health care by, say, compelling doctors to take on poor patients for free through ethics or religion, without the state lifting a finger. The distinction matters, in my opinion, because in the modern West, there are lots of societal pressures, but the state is the only element of society which can legitimately employ force to compel individuals to comply.

[aerius]

Education in general provides these benefits- its not the monopoly of public education. In fact, public education in this country is a failure; privatizing education would allow competition between schools and would lower the costs overall costs of education.

Are you fucking out of your mind? What kind of drugs are you fucking snorting? Tell me then, why is it that public education in Canada costs roughly $2000/year/person in taxpayer dollars, while it costs at least 4 times as much to send your kid to a private school for a year? How's privatization lowering the costs again?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The state doesn't necessarily have to provide education--but any system that doesn't provide for EVERY child to have access to at least a basic minimum education, regardless of his parents' ability to pay is intolerable in a modern, post-industrial society. The public school system we have now is badly broken, and if you've got a plausible alternative, by all means, let's hear it. But from where I'm standing, the only way I can see to ensure that it's provided is through the state. The profit motive is a beautiful thing, but it doesn't work for extremely long term investments that might not even have a direct payoff (educating a poor kid who can't pay a dime towards his tuition for 13 years).

I've given some thought to it from time to time- my idea is to privatize education. Allow any company that wants to start a school a lisence- at the end of the year test the students in reading, writing, math, and science. If the average isn't passing- then the liscense is revoked. In addition, make it easier for anyone with a relevent degree, say in engineering or physics for example, to get a teacher's liscense. Competition and the "breaking" of the teacher's union will drasticly reduce waste and the overall costs of education. For those who are still too poor to afford education, and for poor orphans, there could be an option to claim an "impoverished" status- the child in question is sent to boarding school of your choice, until you claim "non-impoverished" status, which is paid for by tax deductable contributions (which would go above and beyond the "deductable limit" and be counted double in terms of the deduction- in other words it will still be deducted even if your paying the alternative mimimum tax and if you donated $100 then the deduction you recieved would be worth $200).

Its just a rough idea at this point, but its better then the current system.

[RedImperator]

That's not a terrible idea on the whole, especially the part about clearing out some of the bullshit red tape you have to go through to become a teacher in the first place, but I still think you need some sort of public safety net to make sure everyone goes. Even if it's government scholarships to attend a liscensed private school.