Run schools off "user fees"

[tyr_13]

1. Yes. City and State governments commonly put road construction and mainenance contracts out to bid.

And yet they DON'T let contractors pick which roads to maintain, which to build, and where to build them.

2. Possibly. Since competitive markets are generally more productive per unit cost and since violence is a bad, not a good, a near-monopoly in violence is a benefit to society. Still, if, for example, some judge ordered a city to provide round the clock police protection to some individual and if that individual offered to relieve the city of its obligation for some amount less than the cost to the city of the police department's resources and then to hire a private protective service, I don't see why taxpayers or their agents would object. The police union might, though.

Ah yes, the evils of unions (better known as the right to free association). I notice that you had to come up with a convoluted example to support it, it still has the hole that what was actually being bought was security and not police work, and thus doesn't apply to the question.

3. Like Blackwater, you mean? Or like the ship builders and aerospace manufacturers who supply the Navy and Air Force?

No, I mean in a fashion like you propose for schools obviously. Keep in mind that not only did you take out the context of the question, your examples are STILL supposed to have government regulation and oversight. Navy contractors don't get to use unproven construction methods etc.

4. Depends on what's regulated. Government employees are contractors to the government. The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is mostly a difference in who's responsible for tax paperwork. It's easier to shift to other suppliers if the government uses independent contractors. The government may apply stronger legal oversight of direct employees and may write more detailed job specifications. Coalitions of insiders (the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, for example) may sabotage such oversight, with the result that parents more effectively represent taxpayers' interests. Consider regulatory capture. Consider the tragedy of the commons and compare the performance of the regulated commons to the private wildlife preserve or the private woodland.

Really pushing your unproven economic theories as evidence again? All systems have failings obviously and no one is claiming government regulation is perfect. I kindly direct you to consider the history of textile manufacture, meat production and packing, coal mining and transport,... this list goes on.

5. I wrote: "2. The US spends more, per pupil-year, that every industrial democracy except Switzerland and gets a wretched result. "What resources are required to bring a child to __x__ level of reading comprehension, mathematical and scientific literacy, and vocational readiness?" is an empirical question which only an experiment can answer with any degree of accuracy. A State-monopoly system is an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design." This does not mean that these other industrial democracies restrict parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to schools operated by government employees. Some do and some do not. In general, competitive markets work better than State-monopoly providers of goods and services.

Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez
"Organization and Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings"
Comparative Education, Vol. 36 #1, 2000, Feb., pg. 16

That's a long way of repeating yourself without adding the the discussion.

 

[leftysergeant]

Still, if, for example, some judge ordered a city to provide round the clock police protection to some individual and if that individual offered to relieve the city of its obligation for some amount less than the cost to the city of the police department's resources and then to hire a private protective service, I don't see why taxpayers or their agents would object. The police union might, though.

Everybody with common sense would object to somew rich dirtbag becoming a law unto himself on his own domain.

Coalitions of insiders (the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, for example) may sabotage such oversight, with the result that parents more effectively represent taxpayers' interests. Consider regulatory capture. Consider the tragedy of the commons and compare the performance of the regulated commons to the private wildlife preserve or the private woodland.

Remove your weapon completely from your waistband before you pull the trigger, dude. You're getting blood on the floor.

Fishing companies were supposed to have the good sense not to destroy fisheries. Get current so that you don't look so ignorant.

Private woodlands are usually a monoculture and useless to biodiversity.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And yet they DON'T let contractors pick which roads to maintain, which to build, and where to build them¹.
Ah yes, the evils of unions (better known as the right to free association)². I notice that you had to come up with a convoluted example to support it, it still has the hole that what was actually being bought was security and not police work, and thus doesn't apply to the question³.No, I mean in a fashion like you propose for schools obviously. Keep in mind that not only did you take out the context of the question, your examples are STILL supposed to have government regulation and oversight. Navy contractors don't get to use unproven construction methods etc⁴.Really pushing your unproven economic theories as evidence again⁵? All systems have failings obviously and no one is claiming government regulation is perfect. I kindly direct you to consider the history of textile manufacture, meat production and packing, coal mining and transport,... this list goes on. That's a long way of repeating yourself without adding the the discussion⁶.

1. We could dispute details here, in that obviously contractors do choose the contracts on which they bid. More relevant, policies that give parents the power to direct the taxpayers' education subsidy to their preferred institution do not give to parents the power to select schools for other people's children.
2. Laws which compel employees to join a union (Union shop) undermine "free association". Laws which compel employees to subsidize a union they do not join (agency shop) undermine "free association". Laws which compel taxpayers to subsidize contracts negotiated by public sector unions undermine "free association". Incentives are so different for unions in the public sector that it's almost a pun to call public sector unions "unions". Again, though, we're disputing details here.
3. This is not a detail. "Security" and "police work" name a large class of activities that both government employees and private sector organizations perform. It's easy to find cases where one substitutes for the other, where people do exactly as you suggested: "Do you apply it (i.e., contracting out) to police?" Citizen's arrest, mall cops, private bodyguards and private investigators, etc.
4. "Oversight", yes.
(Malcolm): "Dunno what you mean by my 'method' or my 'system'.
(Tyr): "Vouchers with governmental regulations hands off. You can't play ignorant of what you yourself are saying."
I have written here before "the State cannot subsidize education without a definition of 'education'." A tuition voucher policy implies official recognition of some accreditation agency. An education tax credit policy implies a definition of "education". I will take any expansion of parent control I can get. My preference would be repeal of tax subsidies to the education industry altogether, along with repeal of compulsory attendance laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and most occupational licensure, with entry into licensed professions by exam (no school transcript allowed). Far short of that, I prefer a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting (your legislature mandates that school districts must hire parents on personal service contracts to provide for their children's education if the parents apply for the contract).
5. Dunno what you mean by "proof". The tragedy of the commons is an iterated, multi-party prisoner's dilemma with memory. Stock textbook material. So also is regulatory capture stock textbook material.
6. If you say so.

 

[leftysergeant]

1. We could dispute details here, in that obviously contractors do choose the contracts on which they bid. More relevant, policies that give parents the power to direct the taxpayers' education subsidy to their preferred institution do not give to parents the power to select schools for other people's children.

It gives them the power to destroy public schools by removing their funding. And don't evern try to tell me that a school just as good will be there to take the kids whose parents can't send them to Saint Elsewhere's Academy for Yuppie Larvae. There would be no profit motive.

2. Laws which compel employees to join a union (Union shop) undermine "free association". Laws which compel employees to subsidize a union they do not join (agency shop) undermine "free association". Laws which compel taxpayers to subsidize contracts negotiated by public sector unions undermine "free association". Incentives are so different for unions in the public sector that it's almost a pun to call public sector unions "unions". Again, though, we're disputing details here.

The unions are all that stand between working people and the sweatshops that existed before the First Great Republican Depression. If the employees do not want a union, they can vote to decertify it.
3. This is not a detail. "Security" and "police work" name a large class of activities that both government employees and private sector organizations perform. It's easy to find cases where one substitutes for the other, where people do exactly as you suggested: "Do you apply it (i.e., contracting out) to police?" Citizen's arrest, mall cops, private bodyguards and private investigators, etc.[/QUOTE]Those can only be applied to the immediate area of the individual. It does not relieve the responsibility of the citizen so protected to provide for the common defense against criminal activity and mass disorder.

I have written here before "the State cannot subsidize education without a definition of 'education'." A tuition voucher policy implies official recognition of some accreditation agency. An education tax credit policy implies a definition of "education". I will take any expansion of parent control I can get. My preference would be repeal of tax subsidies to the education industry altogether, along with repeal of compulsory attendance laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and most occupational licensure, with entry into licensed professions by exam (no school transcript allowed).

In other words, take away the chance to get a normal liberal education, balanced with science, history and the arts and force the poor kids into a career path which satisfies the needs of the investor class. Welcome to the Third World.

Far short of that, I prefer a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting (your legislature mandates that school districts must hire parents on personal service contracts to provide for their children's education if the parents apply for the contract).

Works just fine if the typical parent has the education to do it. Most don't. You clearly haven't.

5. Dunno what you mean by "proof". The tragedy of the commons is an iterated, multi-party prisoner's dilemma with memory. Stock textbook material. So also is regulatory capture stock textbook material.

Anarcho-capitalist twaddle. The tragedy of the commons is that it has been given over to the greedy class, to the harm of all.

 

[tyr_13]

1. We could dispute details here, in that obviously contractors do choose the contracts on which they bid. More relevant, policies that give parents the power to direct the taxpayers' education subsidy to their preferred institution do not give to parents the power to select schools for other people's children.

Yes it does. It gives those who can in money on top of their voucher the power to determine what short of schooling gets implemented because those are the people market forces cater to for profit. Thus they decided the choices available for everyone.

Road construction firms don't have to bid, and that changes nothing about them getting to decide how, where, and what roads get built. That's not arguing a detail, that's calling out an non-sequiter.

2. Laws which compel employees to join a union (Union shop) undermine "free association". Laws which compel employees to subsidize a union they do not join (agency shop) undermine "free association". Laws which compel taxpayers to subsidize contracts negotiated by public sector unions undermine "free association". Incentives are so different for unions in the public sector that it's almost a pun to call public sector unions "unions". Again, though, we're disputing details here.

No we aren't arguing details, you're going off on red-herrings. Private schools can't have unions? Public sector unions are not fundamentally different from private sector unions. The things you criticize here are not addressed by your proposed system.

3. This is not a detail. "Security" and "police work" name a large class of activities that both government employees and private sector organizations perform. It's easy to find cases where one substitutes for the other, where people do exactly as you suggested: "Do you apply it (i.e., contracting out) to police?" Citizen's arrest, mall cops, private bodyguards and private investigators, etc.

And churches are governments by that reasoning. But moreover, no you are not applying the same reasoning because in ALL those examples you still have actual police having the police power supplemented sometimes in specific tasks by private business in exactly the same way as public schools operate now. You don't have vouchers for private police and market forces or even tax breaks for those employing private security, detectives, or the public instead of public police. All that and none of those are private police.

4. "Oversight", yes.
(Malcolm): "Dunno what you mean by my 'method' or my 'system'.
(Tyr): "Vouchers with governmental regulations hands off. You can't play ignorant of what you yourself are saying."
I have written here before "the State cannot subsidize education without a definition of 'education'." A tuition voucher policy implies official recognition of some accreditation agency. An education tax credit policy implies a definition of "education". I will take any expansion of parent control I can get. My preference would be repeal of tax subsidies to the education industry altogether, along with repeal of compulsory attendance laws, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and most occupational licensure, with entry into licensed professions by exam (no school transcript allowed). Far short of that, I prefer a policy I call Parent Performance Contracting (your legislature mandates that school districts must hire parents on personal service contracts to provide for their children's education if the parents apply for the contract).

Yeah, parents already have a lot of control over education, but your level of control I oppose. We've had this conversation before and my summery stands. In effect you'd have hands off regulation. You have the horrible situation we had to crawl out of in the past.

5. Dunno what you mean by "proof". The tragedy of the commons is an iterated, multi-party prisoner's dilemma with memory. Stock textbook material. So also is regulatory capture stock textbook material.

Doesn't address my criticisms.

6. If you say so.

I said so because it accurately describes a lot of your wall'o text.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "...policies that give parents the power to direct the taxpayers' education subsidy to their preferred institution do not give to parents the power to select schools for other people's children."
(tyr_13): "Yes it does. It gives those who can in money on top of their voucher the power to determine what short of schooling gets implemented because those are the people market forces cater to for profit. Thus they decided the choices available for everyone.".
Has this happened with Food Stamps? Do investment bankers determine the nutritional choices for welders and carpenters? "Market forces" are more likely to address niche markets than will an age-graded, centrally-prescribed curriculum in a State-monopoly school system.

(tyr_13): "Road construction firms don't have to bid¹, and that changes nothing about them getting to decide how, where, and what roads get built. That's not arguing a detail, that's calling out an non-sequiter²".
1. Around here, the law most definitely requires that the State Department of Transportation and Counties put construction contracts out to bid.
2. Look, Tyr wrote: "Malcolm, do you apply that reasoning to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and I observed that governments often put road construction and maintenance out to bid. More closely related to funding through user fees (the original topic, here) is the fact that governments fund a lot of roadwork through gasoline taxes and vehicle weight taxes, precisely because user fees are more "fair".

(tyr_13): "No we aren't arguing details, you're going off on red-herrings. Private schools can't have unions¹? Public sector unions are not fundamentally different from private sector unions². The things you criticize here are not addressed by your proposed system³."
1,2. We entered this sideline after I observed that private security makes sense from a taxpayers' point of view in some situations. Governments occasionally engage private security firms. I observed that the police union might object. That's how unions entered this immediate discussion. Isn't it clear that unions (which are private 501-c(5) corporations) have a direct financial incentive to maintain a monopoly position in the provision of labor services? Of course, private schools could (legally) have unions. Usually they don't. There's a systematic reason for that (topic for a later day, I suggest). We will just have to agree to disagree about the differences between public sector and private sector unions.
3. Which "proposed system"?

(Malcolm): "'Security' and 'police work' name a large class of activities that both government employees and private sector organizations perform. It's easy to find cases where one substitutes for the other, where people do exactly as you suggested: 'Do you apply it (i.e., contracting out) to police?' Citizen's arrest, mall cops, private bodyguards and private investigators, etc."
tyr_13): "And churches are governments by that reasoning."
Huh? No more so than coffee is tea. They are close substitutes. When the price of coffee goes up, people drink more tea and less coffee.

(tyr_13): "But moreover, no you are not applying the same reasoning because in ALL those examples you still have actual police having the police power supplemented sometimes in specific tasks by private business in exactly the same way as public schools operate now. You don't have vouchers for private police and market forces or even tax breaks for those employing private security, detectives, or the public instead of public police. All that and none of those are private police."
I don't see how any of this contradicts the observaton that people (including governments) support security services other than those provided by government employees, generally through user fees and occasionally as cheaper alternatives to services provided by government employees.

(tyr_13): "Yeah, parents already have a lot of control over education, but your level of control I oppose. We've had this conversation before and my summery stands. In effect you'd have hands off regulation. You have the horrible situation we had to crawl out of in the past."
"Horrible" relative to what? Seems to me, goods and services have, in general, improved as governments installed legal environments which protected property rights and enhanced consumer choice through markets.
Don Bordeaux...

Why is it that so many people, upon noticing – or imagining that they notice – a “social” problem, immediately jump to the conclusion that deploying government-directed force is the best way to “solve” that problem? Such an attitude reveals an astonishing (1) lack of historical knowledge; (2) confidence in both the integrity and ability of political officials; and – most tellingly – (3) reality that the coercion-happy adult has an imagination no more refined than that of a six-year old.

(tyr_13): "...do you apply that reasoning to ...regulatory agencies?"
(Malcolm): "Depends on what's regulated. Government employees are contractors to the government. The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is mostly a difference in who's responsible for tax paperwork. It's easier to shift to other suppliers if the government uses independent contractors. The government may apply stronger legal oversight of direct employees and may write more detailed job specifications. Coalitions of insiders (the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, for example) may sabotage such oversight, with the result that parents more effectively represent taxpayers' interests. Consider regulatory capture. Consider the tragedy of the commons and compare the performance of the regulated commons to the private wildlife preserve or the private woodland."
Tyr_13: "Really pushing your unproven economic theories as evidence again."
(Malcolm): "Dunno what you mean by 'proof'. The tragedy of the commons is an iterated, multi-party prisoner's dilemma with memory. Stock textbook material. So also is regulatory capture stock textbook material."
(tyr_13): "Doesn't address my criticisms."
I did not see any criticism beyond the assertion "unproven". If you want evidence that this is stock textbook material, here, for regulatory capture.

 

[tyr_13]

Do you have trouble with the quote functions or do you think your method is easier to read? I'm not trying to be snarky, but do you not get how the html tags work? If I open a tag with {quote} I can end the tag with {/quote} and that encases the words between them in the quote box, substituting '[' and ']' for '{' and '}'.

It makes things look like this.

Now back to the discussion.

(Malcolm): "...policies that give parents the power to direct the taxpayers' education subsidy to their preferred institution do not give to parents the power to select schools for other people's children."
(tyr_13): "Yes it does. It gives those who can in money on top of their voucher the power to determine what short of schooling gets implemented because those are the people market forces cater to for profit. Thus they decided the choices available for everyone.".
Has this happened with Food Stamps? Do investment bankers determine the nutritional choices for welders and carpenters? "Market forces" are more likely to address niche markets than will an age-graded, centrally-prescribed curriculum in a State-monopoly school system.

Not everyone is on food stamps, and food production and sales are a fundamentally different market from education, road building, and police. Again, for someone who espouses free market solutions, you seem to ignore free market nuances. The saturation and consumption levels are different, the start up and running costs are different, the creating research and marketing are different, the products don't have a lot in common.

The state doesn't have an education monopoly by the way. The closest system to the one you describe is our nation's college and university system. Notice that people generally have to move to colleges.

(tyr_13): "Road construction firms don't have to bid¹, and that changes nothing about them getting to decide how, where, and what roads get built. That's not arguing a detail, that's calling out an non-sequiter²".
1. Around here, the law most definitely requires that the State Department of Transportation and Counties put construction contracts out to bid.
2. Look, Tyr wrote: "Malcolm, do you apply that reasoning to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and I observed that governments often put road construction and maintenance out to bid. More closely related to funding through user fees (the original topic, here) is the fact that governments fund a lot of roadwork through gasoline taxes and vehicle weight taxes, precisely because user fees are more "fair".

That's not what I meant. I was directly addressing the point you brought up that any give company doesn't have to put in a bid if they don't want to build the road and pointing out that it is in no way the same as giving control over road construction to those companies any more than not forcing teachers to teach gives them control over education.

And some roads are toll roads, user fee, but no gas taxes are not the same as the user fees discussed here. Your tax money on gas goes to roads other than the ones you drive on. Besides the point, they aren't funded solely through those taxes either.

(tyr_13): "No we aren't arguing details, you're going off on red-herrings. Private schools can't have unions¹? Public sector unions are not fundamentally different from private sector unions². The things you criticize here are not addressed by your proposed system³."
1,2. We entered this sideline after I observed that private security makes sense from a taxpayers' point of view in some situations. Governments occasionally engage private security firms. I observed that the police union might object. That's how unions entered this immediate discussion. Isn't it clear that unions (which are private 501-c(5) corporations) have a direct financial incentive to maintain a monopoly position in the provision of labor services? Of course, private schools could (legally) have unions. Usually they don't. There's a systematic reason for that (topic for a later day, I suggest). We will just have to agree to disagree about the differences between public sector and private sector unions.

We don't have to disagree at all. How are the college teacher unions fundamentally different from high school unions? You want to hand wave holes in your reasoning as disagreements, but that isn't a matter of opinion.

3. Which "proposed system"?

You cannot claim ignorance of your own ideas.

(Malcolm): "'Security' and 'police work' name a large class of activities that both government employees and private sector organizations perform. It's easy to find cases where one substitutes for the other, where people do exactly as you suggested: 'Do you apply it (i.e., contracting out) to police?' Citizen's arrest, mall cops, private bodyguards and private investigators, etc."
tyr_13): "And churches are governments by that reasoning."
Huh? No more so than coffee is tea. They are close substitutes. When the price of coffee goes up, people drink more tea and less coffee.

(tyr_13): "But moreover, no you are not applying the same reasoning because in ALL those examples you still have actual police having the police power supplemented sometimes in specific tasks by private business in exactly the same way as public schools operate now. You don't have vouchers for private police and market forces or even tax breaks for those employing private security, detectives, or the public instead of public police. All that and none of those are private police."
I don't see how any of this contradicts the observaton that people (including governments) support security services other than those provided by government employees, generally through user fees and occasionally as cheaper alternatives to services provided by government employees.

Because that observation isn't the point. Supplementing some tasks that police perform with private security isn't the same as having a private police force.

(tyr_13): "Yeah, parents already have a lot of control over education, but your level of control I oppose. We've had this conversation before and my summery stands. In effect you'd have hands off regulation. You have the horrible situation we had to crawl out of in the past."
"Horrible" relative to what? Seems to me, goods and services have, in general, improved as governments installed legal environments which protected property rights and enhanced consumer choice through markets.
Don Bordeaux...

You claim not to be a libertarian. Really?

(tyr_13): "...do you apply that reasoning to ...regulatory agencies?"
(Malcolm): "Depends on what's regulated. Government employees are contractors to the government. The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is mostly a difference in who's responsible for tax paperwork. It's easier to shift to other suppliers if the government uses independent contractors. The government may apply stronger legal oversight of direct employees and may write more detailed job specifications. Coalitions of insiders (the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, for example) may sabotage such oversight, with the result that parents more effectively represent taxpayers' interests. Consider regulatory capture. Consider the tragedy of the commons and compare the performance of the regulated commons to the private wildlife preserve or the private woodland."
Tyr_13: "Really pushing your unproven economic theories as evidence again."
(Malcolm): "Dunno what you mean by 'proof'. The tragedy of the commons is an iterated, multi-party prisoner's dilemma with memory. Stock textbook material. So also is regulatory capture stock textbook material."
(tyr_13): "Doesn't address my criticisms."
I did not see any criticism beyond the assertion "unproven". If you want evidence that this is stock textbook material, here, for regulatory capture.

So again, not applicable and unproven.

 

[leftysergeant]

You claim not to be a libertarian. Really?

This twaddle looks more ancap than libertarian. Kind of like libertarian on crack.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not everyone is on food stamps, and food production and sales are a fundamentally different market from education, road building, and police. Again, for someone who espouses free market solutions, you seem to ignore free market nuances¹. The saturation and consumption levels are different, the start up and running costs are different, the creating research and marketing are different, the products don't have a lot in common².The state doesn't have an education monopoly by the way³...
That's not what I meant. I was directly addressing the point you brought up that any give company doesn't have to put in a bid if they don't want to build the road and pointing out that it is in no way the same as giving control over road construction to those companies any more than not forcing teachers to teach gives them control over education⁴...
And some roads are toll roads, user fee, but no gas taxes are not the same as the user fees discussed here⁵. Your tax money on gas goes to roads other than the ones you drive on⁶. Besides the point, they aren't funded solely through those taxes either...
We don't have to disagree at all. How are the college teacher unions fundamentally different from high school unions? You want to hand wave holes in your reasoning as disagreements, but that isn't a matter of opinion⁷...
You cannot claim ignorance of your own ideas⁸...
Because that observation isn't the point. Supplementing some tasks that police perform with private security isn't the same as having a private police force⁹...
You claim not to be a libertarian. Really?¹⁰...
So again, not applicable and unproven¹¹.

1, 2. tyr_13 introduced the question of markets for other services into this discussion. I demonstrate that they exist and often make sense. Now tyr claims that differences make a difference. If that is so, why did tyr introduce the topic of markets for other public services?
3. In many US States, government employees occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly.
4, 5, 6. The question was: "...do you apply that reasoning (funding schools through user fees) to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and the answer is a qualified "yes". These services do not benefit from performance by public employees and they do benefit from funding through user fees (vehicle weight taxes and gas taxes).
7. Dunno 'bout "fundamentally". The University of Hawaii Faculty Assembly is an NEA subsidiary. The biggest difference between K-12 and post-secondary schooling is that the State (government, generally) does not compel attendance at post-secondary schools. The federal government subsidizes college attendance through vouchers and grants that students may apply toward tuition at independent or Church-operated universities (user fees, basically). Most US States restrict students' use of the taxpayers' post-secondary education subsidy to schools operated by government employees.
8. I do not know which policy tyr intends by "your proposed system".
9. Please explain. What services do city and State police provide that cannot be provided by independent contractors? Further, we were talking of user fees. Governments routinely assess user fees for police services (e.g., protection at privately-sponsored events at public venues).
10. My libertarian friends do not call me a libertarian. I agree with the usual libertarian positions on drugs (legalize heroin), prostitution (ditto), minimum wage legislation (repeal it), freedom of association and freedom of contract (repeal anti-discrimination laws), and agree that regulation often imposes inordinate costs. I believe that libertarians overgeneralize to policy arenas where the standard libertarian analysis has only a sketchy application (environmental policy, immigration policy, foreign policy).
11. Again, depends on what you call "proof". "Regulatory capture" is well-supported. The tragedy of the commons is a well-supported, classic "market failure" (where title to resources is hard to enforce).

 

[leftysergeant]

3. In many US States, government employees occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly.

Balderdash. Private schools can still operate. It is not neccessary for the population as a whole that they exist. It is neccessary that free schooling be available to all so that those born into poverty have a chance to rise above it, and the wealthy owe society the cost of training the people who create wealth for them.

9. Please explain. What services do city and State police provide that cannot be provided by independent contractors? Further, we were talking of user fees. Governments routinely assess user fees for police services (e.g., protection at privately-sponsored events at public venues).

Private police suck. Black Water and all of the copy-cats should be liquidated. You would find, in the end, that police services would protect the rich better than the poor. They tend, actually, to merely keep the poor away from the rich and keep the poor from rising up against oppressive exploitation. Think copper mines in the 19th century.

11. Again, depends on what you call "proof". "Regulatory capture" is well-supported. The tragedy of the commons is a well-supported, classic "market failure" (where title to resources is hard to enforce).

Utter twaddle. The free market cannot be counted on to preserve biodiversity and access to vital services or essential infrastructure.

 

[tyr_13]

1, 2. tyr_13 introduced the question of markets for other services into this discussion. I demonstrate that they exist and often make sense. Now tyr claims that differences make a difference. If that is so, why did tyr introduce the topic of markets for other public services?

If you're going to address me, address me. Talking to the gallery as if I'm not worth addressing is about as useful a strategy as making your posts hard to read. I brought it up, along with asking you to support why, firstly because I honestly didn't think you'd support private police and the like, and secondly to discuss the why of how those fields are different. I did not envision you dodging by ignoring why free market forces might work well for some things, but not for others, by denying that free market forces don't work with some things.

3. In many US States, government employees occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly.

That's an odd definition of monopoly. So a private school could open, but doesn't giving people only one choice, which in effect is a monopoly, but again, your solution doesn't fix this.

4, 5, 6. The question was: "...do you apply that reasoning (funding schools through user fees) to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and the answer is a qualified "yes". These services do not benefit from performance by public employees and they do benefit from funding through user fees (vehicle weight taxes and gas taxes).

Well that's both wrong and dodging the context.

7. Dunno 'bout "fundamentally". The University of Hawaii Faculty Assembly is an NEA subsidiary. The biggest difference between K-12 and post-secondary schooling is that the State (government, generally) does not compel attendance at post-secondary schools. The federal government subsidizes college attendance through vouchers and grants that students may apply toward tuition at independent or Church-operated universities (user fees, basically). Most US States restrict students' use of the taxpayers' post-secondary education subsidy to schools operated by government employees.

And look, it still has the problems you dislike of K-12, and it has limitations that I've been pointing out which would be more problematic at the K-12 level than they are at college level!

8. I do not know which policy tyr intends by "your proposed system".

The one you listed.

9. Please explain. What services do city and State police provide that cannot be provided by independent contractors? Further, we were talking of user fees. Governments routinely assess user fees for police services (e.g., protection at privately-sponsored events at public venues).

User fees for some extra services is not the same as say, police investigating a murder. Do you think that murder investigations should be done by user fees? Do you think that private investigators would be as honest with the evidence? Of course you do, and that's the where you're wrong. Again, private security is not the same as police work. A dog is not a horse no matter how many times you point out that they both have four legs and tails.

10. My libertarian friends do not call me a libertarian. I agree with the usual libertarian positions on drugs (legalize heroin), prostitution (ditto), minimum wage legislation (repeal it), freedom of association and freedom of contract (repeal anti-discrimination laws), and agree that regulation often imposes inordinate costs. I believe that libertarians overgeneralize to policy arenas where the standard libertarian analysis has only a sketchy application (environmental policy, immigration policy, foreign policy).

It's just hard to find someone who wants child labor laws and the like repealed and them to not be a libertarian even if they aren't a Libertarian.

11. Again, depends on what you call "proof". "Regulatory capture" is well-supported. The tragedy of the commons is a well-supported, classic "market failure" (where title to resources is hard to enforce).

The applications you are using is an odd from of Public Choice Theory taken to an almost absurd level. Believe it or not, some people other than you have heard of it and disagree for reasons other than they don't know what it says.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(tyr_13): "If you're going to address me, address me. Talking to the gallery as if I'm not worth addressing is about as useful a strategy as making your posts hard to read."
Here's JREF Forum rule 12: “ 'Address the argument, not the arguer.' Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer."

(tyr_13): "I brought it up, along with asking you to support why, firstly because I honestly didn't think you'd support private police and the like, and secondly to discuss the why of how those fields are different. I did not envision you dodging by ignoring why free market forces might work well for some things, but not for others, by denying that free market forces don't work with some things."
Ummm:...
(Malcolm): "...libertarians overgeneralize to policy arenas where the standard libertarian analysis has only a sketchy application (environmental policy, immigration policy, foreign policy)."
(Malcolm): "Depends on what's regulated. Government employees are contractors to the government. The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is mostly a difference in who's responsible for tax paperwork. It's easier to shift to other suppliers if the government uses independent contractors. The government may apply stronger legal oversight of direct employees and may write more detailed job specifications. Coalitions of insiders (the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, for example) may sabotage such oversight, with the result that parents more effectively represent taxpayers' interests. Consider regulatory capture. Consider the tragedy of the commons and compare the performance of the regulated commons to the private wildlife preserve or the private woodland."
Seems to me, I clearly acknowledged a role for the State in some cases.

(Malcolm): "3. In many US States, government employees occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly."
(tyr_13): "That's an odd definition of monopoly. So a private school could open, but doesn't giving people only one choice, which in effect is a monopoly, but again, your solution doesn't fix this."
Engrish, prease?
Across the US, State and local governments have adopted policiess which give to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. The cartel's school system qualifies as a monopoly.

(Malcolm): "4, 5, 6. The question was: "...do you apply that reasoning (funding schools through user fees) to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and the answer is a qualified "yes". These services do not benefit from performance by public employees and they do benefit from funding through user fees (vehicle weight taxes and gas taxes)."
(tyr_13): "Well that's both wrong and dodging the context."
Generally, the US Department of Transportation, and State and local governments hire private contractors to construct roads. Often, road maintenance also is put out to bid. User fees (in the form of fuel taxes and vehicle weight taxes) support these projects. What's "wrong" or evasive?

(tyr_13): "And look, it still has the problems you dislike of K-12, and it has limitations that I've been pointing out which would be more problematic at the K-12 level than they are at college level!"
To vague to address.

(Malcolm): "8. I do not know which policy tyr intends by 'your proposed system'."
(tyr_13): "The one you listed."
Please link and quote this list. It's a simple question: what list? Which method? Which system?
We've been here before:
(tyr_13): "...people in your system still don't get to choose everything their children learn... in your method you'd get to teach about Christ as Lord, creationism, how the left is always wrong, and how Ann Rand was a visionary profit. Plus then you could keep out the darkies. You know, the real goals."
(Malcolm): "Dunno what you mean by my 'method' or my 'system'. I have argued that overall education system performance (measured by standardized test scores or lifetime earnings or incarceration rates) will relate directly (scores, income) or inversely (incarceration) to the degree of parent control."
(tyr): "Vouchers with governmental regulations hands off. You can't play ignorant of what you yourself are saying."
(Malcolm): "I have argued that overall education system performance (measured by standardized test scores or lifetime earnings or incarceration rates) will relate directly (scores, income) or inversely (incarceration) to the degree of parent control."
(tyr): " That's a gross oversimplification of your own argument."
Tyr has all the bases covered. It's "gross oversimplification" if I omit steps in the argument, it's "your wall'o text" if I supply the steps.
In most US States, school district policies and State statutes or case law restrict most parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Abundant evidence supports the following generalizations:
1. As institutions displace individual parents in educationsl decision-making, overall system performance falls, and
2. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

In general, at any given level of tax support, any expansion of parent control, in any dimension, will enhance overall system performance. Some policy options exclude others, and different policy options offer different advantages and disadvantages. We could discuss the relative merits of virtual schools within the government system, tuition vouchers, and education tax credits, if participants to this discussion refrained from imputing malign intent to other participants to this discussion.

(Strawman deleted)

(tyr_13): "It's just hard to find someone who wants child labor laws and the like repealed and them to not be a libertarian even if they aren't a Libertarian."
Ecce homo. The libertarians I know support gay marriage, open immigration, and reproductive freedom. Their "no role for the government" reflex leads them astray in foreign policy and environmental protection, seems to me.

(tyr_13): "The applications you are using is an odd from of Public Choice Theory taken to an almost absurd level. Believe it or not, some people other than you have heard of it and disagree for reasons other than they don't know what it says.
Maybe. Care to demonstrate?

I recommend Richard Posner's "The Law and Economics Movement" (American Economic Review) and Jack Hirschliefer's "Anarchy and its Breakdown" (Journal of Political Economy) for an abstract discussion of the question we've been considering above: when can markets function effectively?

 

[leftysergeant]

Malcom, it is getting harder to respond to your rants because of the wall of text format you use. You have actually combined several subjects into one here.

You delusion that private industry could better mangae the commons deserves its own thread.

Child labor laws should probably be seaparated out as well, unless your seeming obsessive hatred for school is actually a cover for wanting to reduce the children of the poor to serfdom.

 

[tyr_13]

(tyr_13): "If you're going to address me, address me. Talking to the gallery as if I'm not worth addressing is about as useful a strategy as making your posts hard to read."
Here's JREF Forum rule 12: “ 'Address the argument, not the arguer.' Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer."

If that's really your understanding of rule 12, then I suggest you report my posts in this thread, including this one, because of my use of 'you' when addressing you in order to address your argument.

(tyr_13): "I brought it up, along with asking you to support why, firstly because I honestly didn't think you'd support private police and the like, and secondly to discuss the why of how those fields are different. I did not envision you dodging by ignoring why free market forces might work well for some things, but not for others, by denying that free market forces don't work with some things."
Ummm:...
(Malcolm): "...libertarians overgeneralize to policy arenas where the standard libertarian analysis has only a sketchy application (environmental policy, immigration policy, foreign policy)."
(Malcolm): "Depends on what's regulated. Government employees are contractors to the government. The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is mostly a difference in who's responsible for tax paperwork. It's easier to shift to other suppliers if the government uses independent contractors. The government may apply stronger legal oversight of direct employees and may write more detailed job specifications. Coalitions of insiders (the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel, for example) may sabotage such oversight, with the result that parents more effectively represent taxpayers' interests. Consider regulatory capture. Consider the tragedy of the commons and compare the performance of the regulated commons to the private wildlife preserve or the private woodland."
Seems to me, I clearly acknowledged a role for the State in some cases.

Just not for police, military, schools, etc.

(Malcolm): "3. In many US States, government employees occupy an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. They qualify as a monopoly."
(tyr_13): "That's an odd definition of monopoly. So a private school could open, but doesn't giving people only one choice, which in effect is a monopoly, but again, your solution doesn't fix this."
Engrish, prease?
Across the US, State and local governments have adopted policiess which give to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. The cartel's school system qualifies as a monopoly.

No it doesn't. That's simply incorrect and a huge network of Catholic schools proves it. And you're attacking unions here, not public schools, so it's a red herring as well as being incorrect.

(Malcolm): "4, 5, 6. The question was: "...do you apply that reasoning (funding schools through user fees) to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and the answer is a qualified "yes". These services do not benefit from performance by public employees and they do benefit from funding through user fees (vehicle weight taxes and gas taxes)."
(tyr_13): "Well that's both wrong and dodging the context."
Generally, the US Department of Transportation, and State and local governments hire private contractors to construct roads. Often, road maintenance also is put out to bid. User fees (in the form of fuel taxes and vehicle weight taxes) support these projects. What's "wrong" or evasive?

You aren't even trying to address the objects I laid out before. Why do you not want private companies in control of those choices and not simply bidding on already selected choices? None of those are paid for only in user fees, and one of the reasons I used multiple examples is that some of them can supplement with types of user fees that don't work as well with schools. People benefit from roads, even ones that they don't use directly, and people also benefit from a high level of education for most of the population even if they don't interact directly with them.

(tyr_13): "And look, it still has the problems you dislike of K-12, and it has limitations that I've been pointing out which would be more problematic at the K-12 level than they are at college level!"
To vague to address.

You mean you have trouble following your arguments too?

(Malcolm): "8. I do not know which policy tyr intends by 'your proposed system'."
(tyr_13): "The one you listed."
Please link and quote this list. It's a simple question: what list? Which method? Which system?

You again claim ignorance of your own position. So the wall o text inaccessible posting is actually a defense mechanism? Pieces of your position against public schools, for private schools, for greatly reduced regulation for schools and what they teach, against unions, against child labor laws, against compulsory education, against minimum wage, and more gobbledygook is spread across more than half your posts in this thread. I'm not linking to your last ten posts in this thread, just scroll up. And someone who refuses to use the quote function isn't going to get me to go hunting back through your argumentum ad verbosium to quote him directly. It's bad enough I went through this mash a first time.

We've been here before:
(tyr_13): "...people in your system still don't get to choose everything their children learn... in your method you'd get to teach about Christ as Lord, creationism, how the left is always wrong, and how Ann Rand was a visionary profit. Plus then you could keep out the darkies. You know, the real goals."
(Malcolm): "Dunno what you mean by my 'method' or my 'system'. I have argued that overall education system performance (measured by standardized test scores or lifetime earnings or incarceration rates) will relate directly (scores, income) or inversely (incarceration) to the degree of parent control."
(tyr): "Vouchers with governmental regulations hands off. You can't play ignorant of what you yourself are saying."
(Malcolm): "I have argued that overall education system performance (measured by standardized test scores or lifetime earnings or incarceration rates) will relate directly (scores, income) or inversely (incarceration) to the degree of parent control."
(tyr): " That's a gross oversimplification of your own argument."
Tyr has all the bases covered. It's "gross oversimplification" if I omit steps in the argument, it's "your wall'o text" if I supply the steps.
In most US States, school district policies and State statutes or case law restrict most parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Abundant evidence supports the following generalizations:
1. As institutions displace individual parents in educationsl decision-making, overall system performance falls, and
2. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

It seems you're trying to make yourself hard to understand.

In general, at any given level of tax support, any expansion of parent control, in any dimension, will enhance overall system performance. Some policy options exclude others, and different policy options offer different advantages and disadvantages. We could discuss the relative merits of virtual schools within the government system, tuition vouchers, and education tax credits, if participants to this discussion refrained from imputing malign intent to other participants to this discussion.

(Strawman deleted)

Probably not. You've tried in other threads, but it just turns into you repeatedly linking to economic theory, cherry picking a couple of studies, and hand waving objections. Going off against child labor laws and unions doesn't help. Most people give up because of how inaccessible the discourse becomes. That leaves only a couple of people even bothering to try to read through your posts until even we give up trying to have a discussion with such deliberate obfuscation, blatant dodging, and disingenuous context removal.

(tyr_13): "It's just hard to find someone who wants child labor laws and the like repealed and them to not be a libertarian even if they aren't a Libertarian."
Ecce homo. The libertarians I know support gay marriage, open immigration, and reproductive freedom. Their "no role for the government" reflex leads them astray in foreign policy and environmental protection, seems to me.

Sorry for the derail.

(tyr_13): "The applications you are using is an odd from of Public Choice Theory taken to an almost absurd level. Believe it or not, some people other than you have heard of it and disagree for reasons other than they don't know what it says.
Maybe. Care to demonstrate?

I recommend Richard Posner's "The Law and Economics Movement" (American Economic Review) and Jack Hirschliefer's "Anarchy and its Breakdown" (Journal of Political Economy) for an abstract discussion of the question we've been considering above: when can markets function effectively?

I'm not keen on your recommendations. I have one for you though, Amartya Sen.

Even public education functions as a market, despite your claims of monopoly, and again, it's a misapplication to claim that your claims from above, would be making it a market where there isn't one.

Trying to understand what you're saying is exhausting.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(tyr_13): "I brought it up, along with asking you to support why, firstly because I honestly didn't think you'd support private police and the like, and secondly to discuss the why of how those fields are different. I did not envision you dodging by ignoring why free market forces might work well for some things, but not for others, by denying that free market forces don't work with some things."
Ummm:...(rebuttal deleted)
Seems to me, I clearly acknowledged a role for the State in some cases.

Just not for police, military, schools, etc¹.

Across the US, State and local governments have adopted policiess which give to the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel an exclusive position in receipt of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy. The cartel's school system qualifies as a monopoly.

No it doesn't. That's simply incorrect and a huge network of Catholic schools proves it². And you're attacking unions here, not public schools, so it's a red herring as well as being incorrect³.

(Malcolm): "4, 5, 6. The question was: (tyr): "...do you apply that reasoning (funding schools through user fees) to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not?", and the answer is a qualified "yes". These services do not benefit from performance by public employees and they do benefit from funding through user fees (vehicle weight taxes and gas taxes)."
(tyr_13): "Well that's both wrong and dodging the context."
Generally, the US Department of Transportation, and State and local governments hire private contractors to construct roads. Often, road maintenance also is put out to bid. User fees (in the form of fuel taxes and vehicle weight taxes) support these projects. What's "wrong" or evasive?

You aren't even trying to address the objects I laid out before. Why do you not want private companies in control of those choices and not simply bidding on already selected choices?⁴None of those are paid for only⁵ in user fees, and one of the reasons I used multiple examples is that some of them can supplement with types of user fees that don't work as well with schools. People benefit from roads, even ones that they don't use directly, and people also benefit from a high level of education for most of the population even if they don't interact directly with them⁶.

How are the college teacher unions fundamentally different from high school unions? You want to hand wave holes in your reasoning as disagreements, but that isn't a matter of opinion.

Dunno 'bout "fundamentally". The University of Hawaii Faculty Assembly is an NEA subsidiary. The biggest difference between K-12 and post-secondary schooling is that the State (government, generally) does not compel attendance at post-secondary schools. The federal government subsidizes college attendance through vouchers and grants that students may apply toward tuition at independent or Church-operated universities (user fees, basically). Most US States restrict students' use of the taxpayers' post-secondary education subsidy to schools operated by government employees.

And look, it still has the problems you dislike of K-12, and it has limitations that I've been pointing out which would be more problematic at the K-12 level than they are at college level!

To vague to address.

You mean you have trouble following your arguments too?⁷

(Malcolm): "8. I do not know which policy tyr intends by 'your proposed system'."
(tyr_13): "The one you listed."
Please link and quote this list. It's a simple question: what list? Which method? Which system?

You again claim ignorance of your own position⁸...

In most US States, school district policies and State statutes or case law restrict most parents' options for the use of the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy to schools operated by dues-paying members of the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel. Abundant evidence supports the following generalizations:
1. As institutions displace individual parents in educationsl decision-making, overall system performance falls, and
2. Political control of school harms most the children of the least politically adept parents.

It seems you're trying to make yourself hard to understand.⁹

In general, at any given level of tax support, any expansion of parent control, in any dimension, will enhance overall system performance. Some policy options exclude others, and different policy options offer different advantages and disadvantages. We could discuss the relative merits of virtual schools within the government system, tuition vouchers, and education tax credits, if participants to this discussion refrained from imputing malign intent to other participants to this discussion.

Probably not. You've tried in other threads, but it just turns into you repeatedly linking to economic theory, cherry picking a couple of studies, and hand waving objections¹⁰.

Going off against child labor laws and unions doesn't help. Most people give up because of how inaccessible the discourse becomes. That leaves only a couple of people even bothering to try to read through your posts until even we give up trying to have a discussion with such deliberate obfuscation, blatant dodging, and disingenuous context removal.¹¹
I'm not keen on your recommendations. I have one for you though, Amartya Sen.¹².

Even public education functions as a market, despite your claims of monopoly, and again, it's a misapplication to claim that your claims from above, would be making it a market where there isn't one.¹³Trying to understand what you're saying is exhausting.

1. Try "Just not for police, military, baked goods, etc." One of these is not like the others.
We discussed when user fees might support services that State (government, generally) agencies currently provide. I recommend the Brookings study Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services. In earlier school-related and healthcare-related discussions I posed the following questions:
i) From State control or subsidy of which industries does society as a whole benefit? You may imagine either a dichotomous classification: A=[x:x is an unlikely candidate for State control (or subsidy)} and B={x:x is a likely candidate for State control (or subsidization)} or a continuun
(Highly unlikely) -1______.______+1 (highly likely)
ii) What features of an industry determine its classification or position on the continuum?
In various forms, we keep returning to this issue. When do user fees make sense for police (security) services? Never? Obviously not, as private contractors in fact make a living supplying security services. We agree that a State presence in the extortion business (e.g., fines for pollution and speeding, incarceration for auto theft) can make a positive contribution to social welfare. That is not in dispute. When do user fees make sense in the provision of other goods and sevices, in general? Discuss this in abstract or by example and we might extract some principles that relate to the education industry.
2. The NEA/AFT/AFSCME is the sole supplier of pre-college education services to taxpayers' agents in many US States. States have legislated this monopoly position. That other institutions supply education services to other buyers does not disqualify the cartel's school system as a monopoly supplier to the State. Milton Friedman called the US "public" school system a monopoly.
3. I was not attacking unions. Unions arose when I alluded to their interest in opposing contracting-out various functions that police might perform. Similarly, the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel opposes vouchers. This is standard interest-group politics.
4. "Control" was not the issue. We discussed funding various providers of goods and services through user fees. We will return to this below.
5. "Only" is a new qualification. Why so all-or-nothing?
6. We agree (mostly) that people benefit from the education of their fellow citizens. We do not agree that the education industry is an obvious candidate for State operation. People benefit from provision of adequate nutririon to their fellow citizens. Is this an argument for State-operated grocery stores? Collectivization of agriculture in Ukraine and China produced mass starvation.
7. "It", "it", "they", "be more problematic". The abstract pronouns and passive voice make this paragraph unclear. I answered the question: "how are college faculty unions different from K-12 teacher unions?" How 'bout a response without insults?
8. A description of the current system, a discussion of considerations which shape system performance, and a discussion of policy options do not qualify as a "method", a "proposal" or a "system", seems to me. I do not support

Vouchers with governmental regulations hands off. You can't play ignorant of what you yourself are saying.

I have observed elsewhere that the State cannot support education or schooling financially without a definition of "education" or "schooling".
9. What's unclear? I can describe the education industry from my point of view and discuss policy options. I cannot understand this view or these options for other people. As Mayor Ed Koch said to some reporter: "I can explain it to you. I cannot understand it for you". Furthermore, if my position is so unclear, how does tyr infer my "method", or "system" or "proposal"?
10. "Probably not" what? Have a civil discussion? Or "probably not" enhanced parent control enhances system performance?
11. Minimum wage laws and child labor laws relate directly to our discussion (on-the-job training is education). I did not "go off" on unions. I mentioned the obvious point that the police union might object to a city policy of contracting out some security services. Is that so implausible? Obfuscation? Seems to me I've been clear and direct, to the point that tyr claimed "gross simplification". "Dodging"? Again, I answered the questions (user fees, K12 unions versus faculty unions, etc.). "Disingenuous content removal"
a) "Disingenuous" is the gone-to-college way to call someone "liar". Let's keep it civil, m'kay?
b) "Context removal"? I include far more context than anyone else, to the point that tyr complained of my "wall o' text", remember?
12. Not keen, huh? Telescopes? We doan' need no stinkin' telescopes. Point to an article by Sen and I might read it. Where has he endorsed a State-monopoly education industry?
13. Maybe, depending on how one uses these words. The public school system is not a competitive market. There is one supplier (the cartel) and one buyer (the school district). If we quit arguing over the meaning of words and address the issue of how to generate better performance for any given level of subsidy, then we can have a sensible discussion. Maybe.

 

[tyr_13]

Wow, I'm not trying to get through all that footnoting. I'll try to address your concerns and criticisms in a less confusing manner.

Providing a whole lot of different context for a question or subject rather the context it was originally presented in is still taking something out of context, and context removal. For example, you said,

1. Maybe it's like asserting that people should only pay for the movie tickets that they use, the cars they drive, or the groceries that they eat. One advantage of market pricing over the command economy is that market pricing creates incentives for both buyers and sellers to avoid waste of resources. Lots of societies have worked that way. If the twentieth century taught us anything, it's that command economies do not work.

Which is where the only part comes from by the way, you. To which I replied,

Malcolm, do you apply that reasoning to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not? Do you apply it to police? Do you apply it to the military? Do you apply it to regulatory agencies?

You then go on to apply slightly related different reasoning to those examples. You say private investigators and security is kind of like user fees for police, even though it isn't and especially in light of the context of the question of asking people to only pay for the services they use. Moreover, if you want to apply the reasoning and context you replaced and used for your private security example back to schools, then no change is needed because tutors do what you want and are analogous to private security in that context. To be completely clear, in your second line of reasoning, private security is to police, as tutors are to public schools.

In the context of roads, your original reasoning we'd only ask people to pay for the roads they use. However, even with the majority of 'user fees' besides toll roads, you aren't only paying for the roads you use, but all roads. That private construction firms then build these roads is a red herring for the original context.

Calling unions cartels is going off on them.

Being disingenuous is not the same thing as lying.

Saying that you're 'just presenting options' and the benefits of those options, but not advocating, is one example of being disingenuous. It's closely related to JAQing off. You're clearly advocating for a free market system different from the current methods, no matter if you don't want to call it that. It's like saying, 'I'm not advocating violence, all I'm saying is that if you beat in that guys head with a baseball bat, then candy will fall out.'

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'll try to address your concerns and criticisms in a less confusing manner¹.
Providing a whole lot of different context for a question or subject rather the context it was originally presented in is still taking something out of context, and context removal². For example, you said,

Maybe it's like asserting that people should only pay for the movie tickets that they use, the cars they drive, or the groceries that they eat. One advantage of market pricing over the command economy is that market pricing creates incentives for both buyers and sellers to avoid waste of resources. Lots of societies have worked that way. If the twentieth century taught us anything, it's that command economies do not work.

Which is where the only part comes from by the way, you.³To which I replied,

Malcolm, do you apply that reasoning to road construction and maintenance? Why or why not? Do you apply it to police? Do you apply it to the military? Do you apply it to regulatory agencies?

You then go on to apply slightly related different reasoning to those examples⁴. You say private investigators and security is kind of like user fees for police, even though it isn't and especially in light of the context of the question of asking people to only pay for the services they use. Moreover, if you want to apply the reasoning and context you replaced and used for your private security example back to schools, then no change is needed because tutors do what you want and are analogous to private security in that context. To be completely clear, in your second line of reasoning, private security is to police, as tutors are to public schools. ⁵In the context of roads, your original reasoning we'd only ask people to pay for the roads they use. However, even with the majority of 'user fees' besides toll roads, you aren't only paying for the roads you use, but all roads. That private construction firms then build these roads is a red herring for the original context.⁶Calling unions cartels is going off on them⁷.
Being disingenuous is not the same thing as lying⁸.
Saying that you're 'just presenting options' and the benefits of those options, but not advocating, is one example of being disingenuous. It's closely related to JAQing off⁹. You're clearly advocating for a free market system different from the current methods, no matter if you don't want to call it that. It's like saying, 'I'm not advocating violence, all I'm saying is that if you beat in that guys head with a baseball bat, then candy will fall out.'¹⁰

1. "Less confusing" would be refreshing.
2. I directly quote more of the preceeding discussion ("context") more often than most participants to this discussion.
3. Any user fee supports the entire institution that delivered the good or service. If I "only" pay for the groceries I eat, I support all kinds services I do not use. There is no contradiction, problem, or paradox here, as tyr implies with "Your tax money on gas goes to roads other than the ones you drive on."
4. tyr:

...one of the reasons I used multiple examples is that some of them can supplement with types of user fees that don't work as well with schools. People benefit from roads, even ones that they don't use directly...

tyr:

Not everyone is on food stamps, and food production and sales are a fundamentally different market from education, road building, and police. Again, for someone who espouses free market solutions, you seem to ignore free market nuances. The saturation and consumption levels are different, the start up and running costs are different, the creating research and marketing are different, the products don't have a lot in common.

Sure. Let's discuss how the differences in markets for various goods and services make a difference to the arguments for or against user fees and customer control in general and parent control in the education industry in particular. Can we have this discussion without insults?
5. 100% agreement. Tutors are analogous to private security services. I suggest that the State could (legally, if not yet, within the limits of political possibility) empower parents with the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy and turn them loose in a competitive market for education services. Unless this policy includes the repeal of the entire welfare entitlement system, this implies some regulation, including a default option ("the public school system") for children of parents who fail to provide for their children's education.
6. See #3.
7. GM is not a cartel. American Motors is not a cartel, Ford is not a cartel, Chrysler is not a cartel. Together, in the era before free trade, they formed a cartel. Harvard is not a cartel. Yale is not a cartel. Princeton is not a cartel. Together, with the accreditation agencies, they (and other exclusive colleges and universities) form a cartel. The NEA is not a cartel. The AFT is not a cartel. The AFSCME is not a cartel. The NEA/FT/AFSCME cartel is a cartel.
8. Here's Merriam Webster online: "lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating". Deception, in a word. In another word, "lying".
9. Let's keep it civil,
10. Competitive markets deliver higher quality at lower cost, per unit, than tax-subsidized State-monopoly enterprises. Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy give control to the people who know individual children best and who are most reliably concerned for their welfare. Numerous possible paths lead from the current US State-monopoly structure to a more competitive market in education services.

 

[leftysergeant]

You then go on to apply slightly related different reasoning to those examples. You say private investigators and security is kind of like user fees for police, even though it isn't and especially in light of the context of the question of asking people to only pay for the services they use. Moreover, if you want to apply the reasoning and context you replaced and used for your private security example back to schools, then no change is needed because tutors do what you want and are analogous to private security in that context. To be completely clear, in your second line of reasoning, private security is to police, as tutors are to public schools.

This is an option which has always existed for everyone, to some degree. But it fails to meet one of Malcom's end, which is to destroy unions and re-instate child labor as a norm in civilized nations, rather than just an aborhent practice in Third World countries.

 

[leftysergeant]

Sure. Let's discuss how the differences in markets for various goods and services make a difference to the arguments for or against user fees and customer control in general and parent control in the education industry in particular. Can we have this discussion without insults?

You need to develop a thicker skin. Pointing out that your twaddle has long been discredited is not an insult. In the sense of an ad hominem. If we point out that your position on the need to return more "parental control" to the system shows that you do not understand how a "school board" works, it is not the same as saying that you are a ranting sociopath. That you may percieve it as such is your problem, not ours.

5. 100% agreement. Tutors are analogous to private security services. I suggest that the State could (legally, if not yet, within the limits of political possibility) empower parents with the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy and turn them loose in a competitive market for education services. Unless this policy includes the repeal of the entire welfare entitlement system, this implies some regulation, including a default option ("the public school system") for children of parents who fail to provide for their children's education.

You and I both know that this would, in the end, destroy public schools as we know them. Which, apparently, is okay with you as long as it destroys teachers' unions as well.

7. GM is not a cartel. American Motors is not a cartel, Ford is not a cartel, Chrysler is not a cartel. Together, in the era before free trade, they formed a cartel. Harvard is not a cartel. Yale is not a cartel. Princeton is not a cartel. Together, with the accreditation agencies, they (and other exclusive colleges and universities) form a cartel. The NEA is not a cartel. The AFT is not a cartel. The AFSCME is not a cartel. The NEA/FT/AFSCME cartel is a cartel.

Your obsession with unions is really not a healthy thing. Maybe this whole thread should go off into Conspiuracy Theories with the rest of the tin-foiler prattle.

10. Competitive markets deliver higher quality at lower cost, per unit, than tax-subsidized State-monopoly enterprises. Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy give control to the people who know individual children best and who are most reliably concerned for their welfare. Numerous possible paths lead from the current US State-monopoly structure to a more competitive market in education services.

ENRON

Don't need to say any more to show that you have diddly.

 

[tyr_13]

1. "Less confusing" would be refreshing.
2. I directly quote more of the preceeding discussion ("context") more often than most participants to this discussion.

And then proceed to respond in ways that take the context of the quoted section away are replace it with another one. That you include the last post doesn't negate this, but it does make it easier to spot.

3. Any user fee supports the entire institution that delivered the good or service. If I "only" pay for the groceries I eat, I support all kinds services I do not use. There is no contradiction, problem, or paradox here, as tyr implies with "Your tax money on gas goes to roads other than the ones you drive on."

Only if you define 'support' broadly enough. In that case all money spent, including by the state on public education, supports all sorts of services.

4. tyr: tyr: Sure. Let's discuss how the differences in markets for various goods and services make a difference to the arguments for or against user fees and customer control in general and parent control in the education industry in particular. Can we have this discussion without insults?

What insults would those be? I've labeled and accused you of doing more than a few things, but I don't recall actually insulting you.

5. 100% agreement. Tutors are analogous to private security services. I suggest that the State could (legally, if not yet, within the limits of political possibility) empower parents with the taxpayers' K-12 education subsidy and turn them loose in a competitive market for education services. Unless this policy includes the repeal of the entire welfare entitlement system, this implies some regulation, including a default option ("the public school system") for children of parents who fail to provide for their children's education.

So the reasoning you applied originally does not apply to the police. Now why not? And as we've discussed before, the 'default option' is what is in place now, your proposal would simply transfer funding from them to some alt schooling, and describing not being able to afford these out priced 'options' as failing is insulting. I'm not sure if I've mentioned that last one in text before though.

6. See #3.
7. GM is not a cartel. American Motors is not a cartel, Ford is not a cartel, Chrysler is not a cartel. Together, in the era before free trade, they formed a cartel. Harvard is not a cartel. Yale is not a cartel. Princeton is not a cartel. Together, with the accreditation agencies, they (and other exclusive colleges and universities) form a cartel. The NEA is not a cartel. The AFT is not a cartel. The AFSCME is not a cartel. The NEA/FT/AFSCME cartel is a cartel.

A cartel is an explicit agreement between competing producers and manufacturers.

8. Here's Merriam Webster online: "lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : calculating". Deception, in a word. In another word, "lying".

No, not lying. Do you not understand the distinction? Lying would certainly be disingenuous, but one need not lie to be disingenuous.

9. Let's keep it civil,

Oh for crying out loud. JAQing off is a debate technique in which someone claims to be 'just asking questions' in order to avoid having to avoid any holes in their argument or address attacks against it by making it appear that they aren't making any claims. It's a cowardly and commonly used tactic by conspiracy nuts who lack the intellectual fortitude to form a cohesive argument and defend it. Someone claiming to be 'just presenting options', while at the same time obviously endorsing those options by hand waving criticisms and highlighting benefits (the candy in my example), would be being disingenuous.

10. Competitive markets deliver higher quality at lower cost, per unit, than tax-subsidized State-monopoly enterprises.

Not always and not with every enterprise. Again, I go back to the police example. Do you want private security to investigate rapes and murders? Would a private police force employed by Penn State be the best way to investigate Sanduski?

What about for the many enterprises where the most directly cost effective measure is to simply not provide the good. I assume that's why you want child labor and minimum wage laws repealed. The example I always come back to for that is the 'cost saving' privatization of water systems which lead to poor communities simply having no water. Education and mail are other good examples.

Policies which give to individual parents the power to determine which institution, if any, shall receive the taxpayers' age 6-18 education subsidy give control to the people who know individual children best and who are most reliably concerned for their welfare. Numerous possible paths lead from the current US State-monopoly structure to a more competitive market in education services.

You still don't seem to understand how much leeway school boards and parents actually have within the current system. You keep saying demonstrably false things like 'US State-monopoly' as if that proves your point.

I can actually see parts of your proposed system, and you are proposing one, working though carefully worded regulation, but the end result still ends up looking basically what we have now. And it still isn't funded by user fees.