Freedom Infringing Freedom
- Thread starter Otther
- Start date
-
- Tags
- freedom infringing
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
shanek said:
You keep on saying the government is biggest polluter, how do you back this up?
That is completely ridiculous. Safety features exist because they keep the owners and operators safe. Headlights? Easier for other cars to see you, you to see things around you. Seatbelts? Keeps you from being ejected from the car during an accident. Airbags? Supplemental restraint/prevents some head damage. Antilock brakes, head-rests, crumple zones, etc- every safety feature has a real, physical purpose. Assuaging your fears isn't one of them. So no, "peace of mind" still doesn't count.shanek said:
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
shanek said:
You may find it crystal clear, but you can't deny that others don't share the same interpretation you do. That makes it debatable.
This doesn't eliminate the pollution. You're only claiming that the pollution would be less under a private company than the federal goverment - perhaps that's true, but even if it is, it's clear that changing the ownership of the industry would not eliminate the pollution. Thus, the libertarian 'solution' of stopping the government from polluting doesn't carry much weight with me. It isn't a solution at all.
Future value of the land is a theoretical concern used in arguments like this. It's not a practical concern that actually influences decisions in companies. I've worked for large corporations and seen first hand how they deal with pollution and the potential costs. Their concerns about pollution are primarily remaining within what the law allows in order to avoid potential fines and lawsuits for damages. Some employees do care about the issue and try to influence the company to do what's best for the environment regardless of costs and legal obligations. But the future value of the land a factory is built on isn't on the list of concerns. I've never heard it discussed in meetings regarding pollution, it's costs and how to deal with it. Have you?
Beth Clarkson said:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." How many ways can you possibly interpret that?
I'm not claiming it will. Also government intrusion obviously isn't eliminating it, either, so what's your point?
Uh, no, it isn't. The value of the company's assets is a very real and practical concern with corporations.
This is absolutely untrue and you only show your ignorance of how companies work by saying this. Your personal anecdote notwithstanding, you have shown no genuine knownedge of corproations or how they work.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
shanek said:
My apologies. From your previous posts, I thought you were claiming that libertarians would stop a great deal of pollution by stopping the government from polluting. My opinion is that this would only change ownership, not stop pollution. Apparently, we agree.
Yes, company's assets are a very real and practical concern with corporations. But the resale value of the land a factory is located on is not a big concern for a working factory. It doesn't (at least not in my experience) impact decisions made regarding the day-to-day operations of the plant.
You criticize my knowledge of corporations and how they work, but I notice that you give no example of experiences, either your own or anyone elses, that are different from mine. Hence, I will continue to base my opinion on my own experiences and my personal experience is that corporations do not rank the impact of pollution on the value of the land as a priority in their decisions on dealing with pollution. Other factors, such as potential fines or lawsuits, and the costs of proper disposal methods hugely overshadow that concern. Thus, as a justification for the argument that corporate employees would be more concerned about pollution than government employees, it doesn't hold water.
You have provided no sources to substantiate your claim that private schools give superior educations. Private school students scored higher on the NAEP:2000 tests (National Center for Education Statistics), but not significantly so. Since private schools can be restrictive about who they admit and more parents of private school students have higher educational attainments themselves, if the education itself was superior, there would be a more substantial achievement. The educational level of parents is the most closely linked varaible to a child's performance, regardless of type of schooling.shanek said:
If every parent of every child could afford the cost of education this wouldn't be a problem. The cost of each special needs kid alone is $16,000+. Let's imagine private schools can drastically cut the expense of special needs kids, for all levels of disability. How much? Will it only cost $10,000 a year? Maybe cut it in half for the low low price of $6,000? How many parents can afford that for 12 years?
The poverty rate for children under 18 in 2003 was 17.6% (Census Bureau). Those children won't be getting educated except through charity. With average private school tuition of $4,689 in 2002 (National Center for Education Statistics), low and middle income families will hurt too. Currently only 13.1% of all charitable giving in the US goes towards education(Giving USA Foundation). Of that, almost 75% is towards higher education (Council for Aid to Education). When over 35% of charity in the US going to religious organizations, we have no reason to believe people would start donating in greater amounts to education.
Unlike you, I don't have faith in the market that there would be schooling for all students.
Beth Clarkson said:
A great deal, yes, I think so. But "eliminate" or "stop" pollution means that it's gone entirely, or at least what little is left is of such a negligible amount we may as well not consider it. I don't think that's the case.
Do you see any harm coming out of the Libertarian solution, compared to the problem we have now?
It's not resale value; it's asset value. A company can spend $20,000 to landscape the property and increase its value by $30,000. That's a net profit of $10,000. That's exactly why they do that.
You want a real-world example? How about Love Canal? Look at how well Occidental handled it, and all the problems the government caused once they got their hands on the property.
kimiko said:
"Significantly so" is subjective, unless you mean the difference is statistically insignificant. Do you? And can you show the figures that lead you to that conclusion?
Besides, you do acknowledge that they are at least as good as the government schools, so the point that people are getting the same benefit out of children educated in private schools as they are public still stands.
Irrelevant to the point. Your claim was that all people, even the ones without children, benefit from children being educated in the public schools. Again, they benefit at least as much out of private schools, so why shouldn't the parents get that portion of their tax money back? Why should those parents be forced to pay for school twice while everyone else only has to pay once?
Again, I'm a parent of a special needs child and I can tell you that this is patently false. Besides, wouldn't more parents be able to afford a private school education if they got their education tax refunded?
is completely bogus. Check out this thread.
shanek said:
Personally I have no issue, in theory, with refunding the portion of property taxes that supports the public school system to those who are paying for a private school education for their kids.
You keep saying that it doesn't cost $16,000 per year to educate *your* special needs child. The statistics aren't based upon your kid, they are based upon all kids who fit into the category known as "special needs". It is an average.
Would *more* parents be able to afford private schools if their taxes for the public system were refunded? Of course. As I said, I don't object to doing this. More does not equal all however so public schools are still going to need to be adequately funded.
username said:
No problem. That comment was directed at kimiko.
That's not what kimiko said. The exact claim was: "The cost of each special needs kid alone is $16,000+." (emphases mine) In other words, if you have a special needs child, you're going to pay at least $16,000 a year more. Balderdash.
shanek said:
Well that might be what was said, but I don't think that is what was meant.
Look at it this way. Is it at all reasonable to assume that each and every special needs child costs exactly $16,000.00 each year to educate? Of course not. One child, in one state might require $25,463.19 and another child with different needs in another state might require $9,546.02.
I think Kimiko could have communicated more precisely, but I also think you could interpret more charitably
It is an average from the NEA. Kimiko presented those numbers from the NEA previously so s/he probably assumed you would understand the context.
RPG Advocate
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 281
Regarding "special needs", we need to know a few things.
First, how do those NEA statistics operationally define "special needs"? I hope they don't use state classifications, because my personal experience leads me to believe that the classification system in at least one state (Ohio) is subjective. I have both Asperger's Syndrome and a vision loss, and the state refused to classify me as special needs so I could get services for my major social skills deficits. Their response to my parents was "He's working above grade level in every subject. A special needs classification is not justified". It seems at least in Ohio, this classification is biased toward those with intellectual deficits and catastrophic medical conditions. Of course, these are just the types that would inflate the cost figure the most, leading to the high average quoted.
Second, are all types of support services (public and private) being considered? The government is so wasteful that I don't trust that they are allowing private companies to provide on-site support services, despite the fact that the cost might be lower and the results superior.
Third, are the uneducable being cut off? By "uneducable", I mean people who fall into one of two categories:
1. "Developmentally Handicapped" persons (IQ < 80)
We throw an outrageous amount of money at the intellectually disadantaged (>90% of the Federal education budget, according to The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life), yet these people are basically untrainable, as evidenced by their inability to master basic concepts. If we insist on having a public education system, we should turn these untrainables loose, in order to free up funds for the average and gifted students who can actually profit from them.
2. Dangerous Persons
Unbelievably, some people who commit violent crimes against other students or school personnel aren't permanently expelled from school (though this is changing in the wake of Zero Tolerance policies) . Anyone who commits a violent crime has demonstrated that they don't want an education. Thus, we shouldn't give them one.
If these two groups aren't being removed, then the figures are invalid, as far as I'm concerned.
First, how do those NEA statistics operationally define "special needs"? I hope they don't use state classifications, because my personal experience leads me to believe that the classification system in at least one state (Ohio) is subjective. I have both Asperger's Syndrome and a vision loss, and the state refused to classify me as special needs so I could get services for my major social skills deficits. Their response to my parents was "He's working above grade level in every subject. A special needs classification is not justified". It seems at least in Ohio, this classification is biased toward those with intellectual deficits and catastrophic medical conditions. Of course, these are just the types that would inflate the cost figure the most, leading to the high average quoted.
Second, are all types of support services (public and private) being considered? The government is so wasteful that I don't trust that they are allowing private companies to provide on-site support services, despite the fact that the cost might be lower and the results superior.
Third, are the uneducable being cut off? By "uneducable", I mean people who fall into one of two categories:
1. "Developmentally Handicapped" persons (IQ < 80)
We throw an outrageous amount of money at the intellectually disadantaged (>90% of the Federal education budget, according to The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life), yet these people are basically untrainable, as evidenced by their inability to master basic concepts. If we insist on having a public education system, we should turn these untrainables loose, in order to free up funds for the average and gifted students who can actually profit from them.
2. Dangerous Persons
Unbelievably, some people who commit violent crimes against other students or school personnel aren't permanently expelled from school (though this is changing in the wake of Zero Tolerance policies) . Anyone who commits a violent crime has demonstrated that they don't want an education. Thus, we shouldn't give them one.
If these two groups aren't being removed, then the figures are invalid, as far as I'm concerned.
username said:
Perhaps; it is up to kimiko to clarify if that is the case.
$16,000+ is what was said. Note the plus sign. Meaning, $16,000 at a minimum.
I think Kimiko could have communicated more precisely, but I also think you could interpret more charitably
Every time I try that, I end up in a flame war. It's a lot less stressful to go with what people say and let them clarify if that isn't the case.
Uh, she didn't cite the NEA for that number. She didn't cite anything for it. She cited the Census Bureau, the National Center for Education Statistics, Giving USA, and the Council for Aid to Education on other stats, but nothing linking any of those to her "$16,000+" figure.
By the way, let's examine the math a little more closely here:
First of all, let's ignore the bogus poverty values as they're placed artificially high to allow the government to hand out more boondoggles. The percentage of children in poverty by any criteria that really matters is much lower. The average of $4,689 will be too high, because lower income families will not be very likely to put their children into high-dollar schools. Giving USA reported $241 billion given in charity in 2003, so 13.1% of that is about $31.6 billion, and 25% of this is for lower education, making the total about $7.9 billion.
Now, Giving USA has consistently found that people give the same proportion of their take-home pay regardless of how that fluctuates; over half of the National Income is taken in taxes, most of which Libertarians would eliminate. So that additional income would mean over $15 billion would be given to charities funding lower education. Even if we consider the too-high average, this would pay for the entire tuition of 3.1 million American children. But not all of them would need the entire tuition covered. Someone working full-time basically needs $2.34/hr of their pay devoted to the child's education.
Now, let's consider two parents with a child. The Census Bureau in 2003 calculated the poverty level for this type of family at $14,810, or $7.40/hr full-time. (The National Center for Children in Poverty says that most children in low-income families have at least one parent who works full-time, year-round.) Subtract the $2.34 above and you get $5.06/hr, comparable to the modern Minimum Wage. So they could pay for the average private school and still live on Minimum Wage, which would go a lot further now that they don't have to pay taxes. So a lot of people paying at the poverty level could afford even the average private school, much more so one of the cheaper ones.
Families below the poverty line, of course, would need more charitable help. But we've got $15 billion to put to it now. If a family at the poverty level can pay for the education themselves, then we can probably assume that the average poor family can pay for half of the tuition. So now, our $15 billion can educate 6.2 million children instead of just 3.1.
And all of this is with figures for a too-high poverty rate and a too-high tuition value. Reduce those to more sane values and you'll see that there should be plenty of money to cover everyone.
kimiko said:
First of all, let's ignore the bogus poverty values as they're placed artificially high to allow the government to hand out more boondoggles. The percentage of children in poverty by any criteria that really matters is much lower. The average of $4,689 will be too high, because lower income families will not be very likely to put their children into high-dollar schools. Giving USA reported $241 billion given in charity in 2003, so 13.1% of that is about $31.6 billion, and 25% of this is for lower education, making the total about $7.9 billion.
Now, Giving USA has consistently found that people give the same proportion of their take-home pay regardless of how that fluctuates; over half of the National Income is taken in taxes, most of which Libertarians would eliminate. So that additional income would mean over $15 billion would be given to charities funding lower education. Even if we consider the too-high average, this would pay for the entire tuition of 3.1 million American children. But not all of them would need the entire tuition covered. Someone working full-time basically needs $2.34/hr of their pay devoted to the child's education.
Now, let's consider two parents with a child. The Census Bureau in 2003 calculated the poverty level for this type of family at $14,810, or $7.40/hr full-time. (The National Center for Children in Poverty says that most children in low-income families have at least one parent who works full-time, year-round.) Subtract the $2.34 above and you get $5.06/hr, comparable to the modern Minimum Wage. So they could pay for the average private school and still live on Minimum Wage, which would go a lot further now that they don't have to pay taxes. So a lot of people paying at the poverty level could afford even the average private school, much more so one of the cheaper ones.
Families below the poverty line, of course, would need more charitable help. But we've got $15 billion to put to it now. If a family at the poverty level can pay for the education themselves, then we can probably assume that the average poor family can pay for half of the tuition. So now, our $15 billion can educate 6.2 million children instead of just 3.1.
And all of this is with figures for a too-high poverty rate and a too-high tuition value. Reduce those to more sane values and you'll see that there should be plenty of money to cover everyone.
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
Harm? Not especially, I just don't see it as a solution to the problem. Hence, my opinion that the Libertarians don't have a reasonable way to deal with the problem of pollution. In fact, in a more general way, I don't think the Libertarians have much in the way of solutions to any of the problems that arise from the use of resources shared by the general public, the air we breathe and the water we drink being the most obvious of those shared resources.shanek said:
I'm sorry, but Love Canal happened well before I had any interest in such matters and I'm not familiar with much about it other then the name and the fact that the area was no longer fit to live in and all the residents had to move. I don't know what the company did nor how the government responded.
Beth
Beth Clarkson said:
Okay, then consider this:
Any solution, upon implementation will do one of three things:
1) It'll make things better
2) It'll make things worse
3) It won't do a blasted thing
You've just acknowledged that the Libertarian solution won't make things worse. Therefore, if the Libertarian solution implmented, the two possibilities are:
1) It'll make things better
2) It won't do a blasted thing
As long as it won't make things worse, what harm can come from trying it? Why oppose it when you yourself acknowledge it won't be any worse than the current syustem?
Here's a good article on the subject:
http://reason.com/8102/fe.ez.the.shtml
Beth
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,598
shanek said:
First of all, I haven't opposed it. I just don't support it. Are you of the 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' school of politics? Or do you allow people to be uncertain about such ideas without considering them opponents?
Second of all, I've said that I don't know that it would cause harm in regards to pollution. To me, that's different from saying that I know that it won't make things worse. It might, I just don't know. Thus, I don't base my opinion on the idea that it wouldn't be any worse, only that it isn't obviously worse to me.
Further, there are other issues than pollution. That's just the only one we've been discussing. The decision to get the government out of all different industries that you feel it doesn't belong in has a great many other aspects to consider. I don't feel that the argument that it would reduce pollution is a valid point of consideration in making that decision.
Finally, my point was that while I like the libertarian philosophy in many ways, I feel it has a major flaw in that it doesn't adequately address the problems inherent in shared resources, such as pollution. Nothing you've written has done anything but confirm my opinion in that regard.
Beth Clarkson said:
No; I just don't understand why someone would stay with a woefully inefficient system that sucks tax money out of the economy instead of trying a system that she herself admits would be no less efficient, may even work better, and, if nothing else, would greatly reduce taxes leaving that money in the hands of those who made it to stimulate the economy.
But I'm funny that way...
What you actually said was, "Harm? Not especially," meaning that if there is any harm it would most likely be negligible.
But pollution was brought up (I don't remember by whom, and I don't feel like reviewing the thread right now) as one specific reason why we shouldn't implement Libertarianism. So that's what we're discussing.
Perhaps if you stated explicitly what you believe those inherent problems to be?