User talk:Cracker/Sandbox
| RemBeau | TomMoore |
Exchange One
|
Tom -- You've said a lot i'd like to respond to, so i hope you are still in the game. I doubt there are many Libts (of the non-teen variety) that "favor the elimination of public schools". What most of us favor is some freemarket competition to them, and let parents choose. I don't anticipate that public schools would go out of business, and i expect the competition would improve them. There would always be some parents, for good reasons, that would divert their taxes to the public schools -- why shouldn't they? My apologies to the Brits for my American terminology (public vs private), i wouldn't want this to be seen as a Yanks-only discussion. Freemarket education would work everywhere. I know there are plenty of objections to school choice as i see it, and i would like to hear them, with a chance to respond. As to examples of govt bloat, i could propose and you could dispose -- we'd likely not select the same ones, so that route seems fruitless. But since we are on the topic of public schools, there is a good reason why they are so over-priced: employee bloat. They make up the largest chunk of the budget (just ask Human) and yet try dividing that chunk of money by the number of teachers, and the teachers (and you) will wonder why they aren't paid more, much more. One likely answer other than just inefficiency would be the number of non-teaching personnel in public schools -- probably top-heavy. (Human -- NB: if you divide but screw up, i promise not to go tit for tat.) Here is my approach to reducing govt bloat: set constraints on the amount govt could spend, THEN let Dems and Pubs haggle over where best to spend our money. You could hope they'd not put pork-barrel spending above essential services, but don't count on it. Some of them might put their own interests above the citizenry. (I'm just saying, it could happen.) Your slogan (fiat justitia ruat coelum) is surely Latin, and i've seen that one before, but all i've figured out so far is that the judge drives a cool Fiat ... i don't have a clue about ruat. |
Thank you for responding. "There would always be some parents, for good reasons, that would divert their taxes to the public schools -- why shouldn't they?" Please make sure I have this right: in your proposal, any citizen would be able to choose whether or not to pay taxes to public schools? I.e., it would essentially make them voluntary? "But since we are on the topic of public schools" Naturally, if there is "bloat" to the public school system it should be removed. Conservatives, liberals, and apparently libertarians all agree on this and the pejorative "bloat." I'm not certain what is particularly libertarian about this, unfortunately, so it is not helpful in this discussion. "...set constraints on the amount govt could spend, THEN let Dems and Pubs haggle over where best to spend our money." That seems a little short-sighted. I think you will agree if you think about it a bit more. To have a committee of some kind guess how much money will be needed in a fiscal year before the representatives can begin to assess where money is needed is essentially asking for a gross estimate of what the needs of the country might be every year - without even knowing those needs. I would suggest that this would just result in hundreds of special appropriations and no hope of government financial stability. My motto is (roughly) "let justice be done, though the heavens fall." Would you mind providing some specifics of libertarian policies beyond the one you have above. Even the one you gave seems unworkable and personal rather than representative of general libertarian policies, actually.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 08:49, 19 August 2008 (EDT) |
Exchange Two
|
No, that's not right. Where to divert shares of education taxes is the part that should be voluntary -- i don't think i addressed the method of taxation, nor have i suggested that paying those taxes should be voluntary. But i gotta go; i will respond to your other points when i can. -- RemBeau 09:09, 19 August 2008 (EDT) You have said that all those (Cons, Libs, and Libts) agree there is bloat in the school budget, but what they likely WOULDN'T agree on is how to fix the problem. I can't speak for Cons or Libs, but Libts would say let the freemarket do its job. As a Liberal, you might be surprised at the role competiton plays in making enterprises (that includes school systems) more effective and efficient, which also often results in employees (teachers, in this case) being happier at their job. That means better educated kids AND some tax relief for the community. There IS "no hope of government financial stability", and it'll get worse if we don't limit them somehow. They are absolutely addicted to spending and power; they go hand in hand. If we can't pressure them to resist spending increases, we should at LEAST limit govt taxes, which would call their bluff as to caring about deficit spending; that should apply some pressure on spending increases. The major govt players have to work under the restraints of reality at some point, and the reality is, if they don't pull back on spending, their pyramid scheme will collapse. Don't know when, or even how bad it'll be, but it WILL happen. |
"...let the freemarket do its job" What does that mean, please? Again, it sounds very nice, but it is not specific. I am trying to get some specific libertatian policies, and "remove bloat in schools by letting the free market do its job" doesn't fit the bill. "There IS "no hope of government financial stability" I disagree. Contrast the eight past years in America with the eight ones previous to it. Conservative deregulation and over-reliance on the "free market" led to a massive mortgage crisis, worsened by the government's wild instability as it threw good money after bad. "we should at LEAST limit govt taxes" What does that mean, please? Are you reiterating your idea about guessing the total money the government will need for the year before needs are known? If so, please make sure to respond to my earlier criticism first, since it still appears to me to be impossibly short-sighted. I have to say that this discussion is certainly reinforcing one view of libertarians I have had: they have many vague proposals but no practical solutions. "Solve it with the free market" is an idea, not a plan. Are there any libertarian practical policies?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:53, 19 August 2008 (EDT) |