Cool. Now citizens can't own property

Page 4 of 4 First ... 234
  1. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    39
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2685
    Level
    49
    Lv. Percent
    26.98%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    I'm always amazed when people start talking about giving teachers more money, or the educational system more money in general. What they should be doing is asking the government why the hell they're getting so little for the money they're already putting into the system.
    Amen to that! I'd also like to ask the government why Im getting ass-raped every payday, and why Im getting so little for the money that I put into 'the government' in general.

    BV

  2. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.43%

    Fair" is a relative term, but "fair market value" is not. It comes from appraisals by court approved real estate appraisers.

    The FMV determined by the court is usually an accurate estimation of what a home or business would sell for. The problem is that compensating people by giving them just the FMV of their home is not just, since it does not take into account moving expenses and money invested in improvements that were made to the house but that do not increase the FMV very much. I have always believed that in order to give people "just compensation" as required by the 5th Amendment, we need to give them more than just the FMV of the property confiscated.
    The fact is the person will not get near the price for the home if they sold it themselves. I know someone who recently got a divorcé and had to give half of the value of the house to her ex husband. The house was valued at 360,000. The problem is that there are houses half the size of hers that are selling for more than 400,000. If she put the house on the market she could probably get 500,000 for it. Now, lets say that someone bought her house for 500 k and a year later the town decides that for the "greater good" ( more tax revenues for the town) they want to bulldoze the area and put in a golf course, million dollar homes, and a large corporation. The town says that the "fair price" is 360,000. That leaves them with a 140,000 dollar debt. In the SJC Connecticut case someone owned around three properties and was making a money renting them out. Now that person is screwed. You want to leave what is "fair" up to judges? I sure don't. You are playing roulette with the out come. There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.
  3. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.53%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.
    Bet you the next case was a drug possession offense where the person got 30 years and had no violent history.
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    I am always amazed at the amount of time and extra money that most of the teachers I know put into educating someone else child and usually don't complain that much about it. Or the amount of extra money they have to pay to go back to add more degree because it is required of them or the amount of extra time that is put in every summer at their school because they want to have things read for the upcoming year. Or all the other extra stuff that goes into making a successful year in any grade.. but that is never brought out to the public, they are EXPECTED to do that but if you were asked to do that for your job you would be having ripping duck about it because "HEY! I don't get paid enough for that!" and don't give the crap that it is not expected because it is.. and for the most part, it is gladly suffered but at the same time we don't want to unholy amount of crap from people that think that they know what is going on... just try stepping into a classroom for one semester at a elementry, junior high, or high school level at some of the schools in any state in this union and you MIGHT get a small idea of what is happening. Does the few teachers that don't do their jobs and don't work they way they are supposed to piss me off... Hell yes but at the same time, I know not to lump things into one big stinking basket, by saying that the free market model needs to be applied.. because with education it just will not work, you will end up with a huge class of have nots and a small group of haves... and like I have said before, the tenure laws are not the problem... it is the documentation that needs to be done, any job this day and age it needs to be done... there are way to many times, I have seen other teachers bummed into the way that adminstration wants to do things and if they tenure laws were not there then they would have been let go over a stupid disagreement on how things were to do be done.. and most of the time, it is your good teachers that are going to say something.. NOT the half ass teachers... the half stepping teachers are the ones that lay low and don't say anything but at the same time, don't do anything either. Merit pay has its advantages but the thing I worry abotu is how, what do you base the pay increase on? There are so many intangibles in teaching, and before you think it, it can't be tied to standardized testing... those things are the devil, for the most part only provide a bad snapshot of the student's overall ability at a given time. Do I have the answers.. nope but I will keep looking for something and still keep railing against the system that is in place now.... CDB, I quoted you but I am not trying to single you out and I hope that you don't take any of this personally.. because it is not meant that way... I have just heard all of these arguements for so long and I know that for the most part... they are good questions but not solutions... if you want to look up some things, try looking up the success of charter schools or teaching before the tenure laws.. I have family that can tell me about the last one and they were abused more than a good teacher is now...

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    The problem is the government controls nearly the entire educational system. This is at the root of every problem, from nonaccountability when it comes to budgets, to costs that seem to be going ever upward with none of the every increasing funds ever ending up in teacher's pockets. The problem with giving teachers more money is the system that allows the bad teachers to get the same jobs and job security as the good ones is what you'd be putting that money into. It's not just the good ones who get a raise, it's all of them, which works out to a net loss in the end. But, try and tie raises to performance, who fights it first? The teachers. Try and get rid of tensure and who fights it first? The teachers. Worse, try and introduce a free market idea into the system so people will have a choice what schools and teachers they give their money to, who fights it first? The whole educational establishment. I always found it laughable the special, magical thinking people have when it comes to certain topics. The free market can drive down the price of every good and service on the market to the point where almost anyone can afford them, but somehow education and healthcasre are immune to those same market forces.

    I'm always amazed when people start talking about giving teachers more money, or the educational system more money in general. What they should be doing is asking the government why the hell they're getting so little for the money they're already putting into the system.
  5. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    972
    Rep Power
    1994
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    51.4%

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    The fact is the person will not get near the price for the home if they sold it themselves. I know someone who recently got a divorcé and had to give half of the value of the house to her ex husband. The house was valued at 360,000. The problem is that there are houses half the size of hers that are selling for more than 400,000. If she put the house on the market she could probably get 500,000 for it. Now, lets say that someone bought her house for 500 k and a year later the town decides that for the "greater good" ( more tax revenues for the town) they want to bulldoze the area and put in a golf course, million dollar homes, and a large corporation. The town says that the "fair price" is 360,000. That leaves them with a 140,000 dollar debt. In the SJC Connecticut case someone owned around three properties and was making a money renting them out. Now that person is screwed. You want to leave what is "fair" up to judges? I sure don't. You are playing roulette with the out come. There are some pretty wacky judges out there. Here for example, a transsexual held a screw driver to a child's throat and molested him. The judge gave the molester house arrest. I have no faith in the legal system.
    Hey man, as for the value of the home, you are preaching to the choir. My personal belief is that the compensation paid should be in the amount that will put the person as close as possible to the position that he or she would be in if their property had not been seized; that includes moving expenses, the fair market value of the home, considering the neighborhood and school district, compensation for improvements made that are not reflected in the fair market value, and compensation for the loss of the sentimental value of the home. However, again, the town does not say what the fair market value is. The court determines it based on what a licensed real estate appraiser appraises it for.

    As for judges, like I said before, there are good and bad in every profession.

    /karp
  6. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.53%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew D
    by saying that the free market model needs to be applied.. because with education it just will not work, you will end up with a huge class of have nots and a small group of haves... ..
    Would you rather an entire group of have nots? Could you please tell me specifically why the free market can put a state of art television within the grasp of almost everyone in this country cost-wise, but somehow magically education is 'different'? Then could you explain why a private education system wouldn't work when it did work for quite some time? The government system will not work because it is inherently flawed. You can pour the entire federal budget into it and nothing would change. All you get is rising costs for little or no return, decreasing quality of services, stagnating or decreasing pay for teachers and higher and higher taxes for everyone.

    I'll say it again, it's laughable that market forces don't apply to these 'special' things like education and health care. And then people turn around and look at the screwups and problems with the government system and blame the free market. It makes no sense. Big class or not, you can bet your ass that if their pay depended on it the administrators and teachers would find a way to teach those kids, because if they didn't they wouldn't get paid. With the government system it's the exact opposite. Failures and problems are used to justify an increased budget. It's the old perverse incentive structure and it's been shown time an again to not work.

    What's more, as more and more people turn to a 'free' public education it decreases the pool of people that private education can marketed to, which generally leads to a rise in price for that service putting out of the reach of most people. Also, because of the pervese incentives to give more money to recitfy failure and the increasing pool of people demanding a 'free' public education, you can be guaranteed that the needed tax revenue to fund the educaitonal system will skyrocket regardless of increased or decreased performance on the part of the schools.

    There's a reason why so many homes have high quality televisions, computers, cars, toys, video game systems and furniture, but a lot of the kids in those homes are getting substandard educations. Through competition, economies of scale and discovery of new more effective processes the market drives the price of those commodities down so that almost anybody can afford them. Education has not been subject to market forces for a long time, and as a result there has been no accountability for quality or cost. The result is typical. But of course, it's 'special'. There's something inherently 'special' about it that stops the normal rules of the economy from working on it. Exactly what that special characteristic is has yet to be identified though.
  7. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    CDB, if the private market is so great for education and would result in decreased cost then why does the cost of college tuition increase each year at more than twice the rate of inflation?

    There's plenty of competition between colleges to get students and to get good reputations etc. Yet they continuously increase the cost of tuition. Do you know why? Because everyone else does. i.e. they can get away with it. Because people expect it now. As a result, a smaller and smaller percentage of the populace is getting higher education. It is slowly reverting back to the time when college education was only for the richest 1% of the US population. We are already at a state where most people going to college really can't afford it and more than half drop out after the first year. Many that stay on to complete their degree go so far into debt that their parents are literally bankrupted by it.

    You do the same thing to highschools and the same thing will happen; fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a highschool education. The end result is an even dumber population.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Would you rather an entire group of have nots? Could you please tell me specifically why the free market can put a state of art television within the grasp of almost everyone in this country cost-wise, but somehow magically education is 'different'? Then could you explain why a private education system wouldn't work when it did work for quite some time? The government system will not work because it is inherently flawed. You can pour the entire federal budget into it and nothing would change. All you get is rising costs for little or no return, decreasing quality of services, stagnating or decreasing pay for teachers and higher and higher taxes for everyone.

    I'll say it again, it's laughable that market forces don't apply to these 'special' things like education and health care. And then people turn around and look at the screwups and problems with the government system and blame the free market. It makes no sense. Big class or not, you can bet your ass that if their pay depended on it the administrators and teachers would find a way to teach those kids, because if they didn't they wouldn't get paid. With the government system it's the exact opposite. Failures and problems are used to justify an increased budget. It's the old perverse incentive structure and it's been shown time an again to not work.

    What's more, as more and more people turn to a 'free' public education it decreases the pool of people that private education can marketed to, which generally leads to a rise in price for that service putting out of the reach of most people. Also, because of the pervese incentives to give more money to recitfy failure and the increasing pool of people demanding a 'free' public education, you can be guaranteed that the needed tax revenue to fund the educaitonal system will skyrocket regardless of increased or decreased performance on the part of the schools.

    There's a reason why so many homes have high quality televisions, computers, cars, toys, video game systems and furniture, but a lot of the kids in those homes are getting substandard educations. Through competition, economies of scale and discovery of new more effective processes the market drives the price of those commodities down so that almost anybody can afford them. Education has not been subject to market forces for a long time, and as a result there has been no accountability for quality or cost. The result is typical. But of course, it's 'special'. There's something inherently 'special' about it that stops the normal rules of the economy from working on it. Exactly what that special characteristic is has yet to be identified though.
  8. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    39
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2685
    Level
    49
    Lv. Percent
    26.98%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    You forgot to add what a bitch it is to get a job once you get out of school in today's job market. I know so many people with their Master's degrees and little real-world experience working the same jobs they worked during school, well after they've graduated becaue they can't find work in their field.

    College is such a load of bull****. You have to have it, but when it comes down to it there are plenty of other ways to make money. All the crap I learned in 4 years of school I seriously could have learned in a year...its such a scam.

    BV
  9. Advanced Member
    Jeff's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  180 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Age
    44
    Posts
    637
    Rep Power
    463
    Level
    20
    Lv. Percent
    80.24%

    there's nothing sweeter than an on-target political hoax!

    http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

    The Kelo decision may have a very immediate, very personal effect on one of the justices who voted for it.

    Press Release

    For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
    For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

    Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

    Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

    On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

    Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

    The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

    Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

    "This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

    Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
  10. Advanced Member
    VanillaGorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    893
    Rep Power
    588
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    15.43%

    The court determines it based on what a licensed real estate appraiser appraises it for.
    Her house was appraised by a licensed realtors and the value was 360,000. As I said before a extremely small house goes for 400,000 in the area. The real value of the house is some where around 500,000. What would happen if for some reason they wanted to seize her house? She would probably get 360,000 for it which is about 140,000 less than what she could get if she sold it on her own. So in other words with the new ruling people get screwed. Fair and greater good are relative terms. To the town it's fair to give someone less money for their house and serves the greater good to collect more tax revenue. To the public there is a different story. The scj is out of control with recent rulings of not allowing states use the death penalty in anyone under 18 and citing the option of the world in their decision. The eminent domain decision falls into the same category. There is a difference between putting in a high way that is needed and seizing property so the town can get move revenue.
  11. Elite Member
    BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    39
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2685
    Level
    49
    Lv. Percent
    26.98%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    there's nothing sweeter than an on-target political hoax!

    http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

    The Kelo decision may have a very immediate, very personal effect on one of the justices who voted for it.
    Ha! That's beautiful. I doubt it will go through, but I really hope it does.

    BV
  12. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.53%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    CDB, if the private market is so great for education and would result in decreased cost then why does the cost of college tuition increase each year at more than twice the rate of inflation?
    Well gee, about a billion government regulations to comply with adding to the cost? As I said in previous post, you can't look at the problems within a system that's subject to unending government tampering and regulation and blame the problems on the free market. Almost all schools receive public funds on some level and are tightly regulated. Another reason is it's hard to compete with public universities because their costs are defrayed among tons of taxpayers. The 'lower' cost, or more accurately the unseen cost, make public universities more appealing to people. The more that go in there, the smaller the market for private schools. The smaller and more exclusive the market, the higher the price for the service.

    Large scale government subsidies lead to productivity declines. In higher education professors are doing far less work now than they did in the sixties, and there's also been a sharp rise the amount of nonteaching staff employed at universities which adds to the cost even more. You have endless layers of administration to deal with and 'competition' in the form of public universities that's impossible to beat. So they joined them. Signficant chunks of all universities' funding come from the state with all the requisit strings attached, including the economic problems.

    There's plenty of competition between colleges to get students and to get good reputations etc. Yet they continuously increase the cost of tuition. Do you know why? Because everyone else does. i.e. they can get away with it. Because people expect it now.
    Can you please explain why no other industry has caught on to this piece of ecnomic brilliance? Oh that's right, they did already! It's called cartelization. Problem is it's only possible when the government enforces the cartel. Otherwise they fall apart from internal and external competition. If you honestly believe what you said here Null, you've got a lot more economics homework to do. You honestly think that all a bunch of industry leaders have to do is meet somewhere and decide to raise prices, and they can? Please tell me what, other than the government, can stop someone else who is not a part of the cartel from coming in and undercutting the rising prices, forcing them downward again? Such cartels and formal/informal rate hiking agreements have been tried in every industry from railroads to steel to banking, and they've always failed absent government enforcement of the cartel.

    You do the same thing to highschools and the same thing will happen; fewer and fewer people will be able to afford a highschool education. The end result is an even dumber population.
    I find that funny, because when we do the same thing with anything else the price goes down. Once more, what's that special something, that indefinable thing, the it, the stuff, that undetectable special thing that makes education immune to the same market forces that apply to every other good and service on the planet?
  13. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    510
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    8.52%

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    I find that funny, because when we do the same thing with anything else the price goes down. Once more, what's that special something, that indefinable thing, the it, the stuff, that undetectable special thing that makes education immune to the same market forces that apply to every other good and service on the planet?
    That special thing as you call it is necessity. We need to go to college today just to get a job. So, the schools have us as a captive market and can charge tuition at will. Same goes for other necessities, such as electric and natural gas, which are actually price regulated by the government. If they were not, there would be a lot more people living in the dark with no heat.

    Education is a tough problem to crack, but it does seem that our current policy of tying property taxes to school funding is flawed. Too many school districts, too much bureaucracy, and tool little attention to the actual needs of teachers and students.
  14. New Member
    Brooklyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    182
    Rep Power
    209
    Level
    12
    Lv. Percent
    38.9%

    Talking


    Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now, Justice Souter, please vacate your home, we're building a Motel 6!! LOL!!
  15. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    SWEET... now that has got to be a great one
  16. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.53%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by joecski
    That special thing as you call it is necessity. We need to go to college today just to get a job. So, the schools have us as a captive market and can charge tuition at will. Same goes for other necessities, such as electric and natural gas, which are actually price regulated by the government. If they were not, there would be a lot more people living in the dark with no heat.
    Food is a necessity, and funnily enough that industry hasn't caught on to that economic principle. Clothing is a necessity, and funnily enough they haven't caught on to that economic principle. They haven't because it's flat out wrong. Whether something is considered a necessity or not has nothing to do with the economic forces that govern it, because as I've said, absent government supression of competition, no matter how necessary something is all you need is a bunch of people who want to buy it and bunch of people who want to sell it in competition with one another. Be it power, food, heat, clothing, cars, education, whatever. There are any number of other services or goods that could be labeled necessities that are cheap and plentiful because the the economy has driven the prices down. Try again.

    I also find it funny that in this wonderful government regulated power market you seem to love, somehow in the twentieth century with amazing technology available we still have rolling blackouts and massive power outages. I know a few people nearby who are part of energy cooperatives and/or on a private grid of some sort. I don't recall them ever having to deal with a rolling blackout or an outage. Must be magic.

    Education is a tough problem to crack, but it does seem that our current policy of tying property taxes to school funding is flawed. Too many school districts, too much bureaucracy, and tool little attention to the actual needs of teachers and students.
    As long as it's publically funded that's what you'll get, because there is no accountability. No matter how it's funded, if things are screwed up it'll be used as a justification for more funding. In the private market if someone sells you a product that doesn't work or is of low value, you have the choice to go elsewhere and the seller suffers for it. That's the key difference.
  17. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    510
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    8.52%

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Food is a necessity, and funnily enough that industry hasn't caught on to that economic principle. Clothing is a necessity, and funnily enough they haven't caught on to that economic principle.
    Before I start, I thought it was a little funny to hear you say that I love anything about the government controlling anything. This would ruin my rep as a libertarian!

    OK, food and clothing are necessities, but I can buy a can of tuna fish for $1 that is as nutritious as a filet mignon for $15. I could also go to the thrift/discount store and get a pair of jeans for $5 that will keep me as warm as a pair of designer jeans for $400. While food and clothing are necessities, a person can make do with the cheapest of either and still be as well off as the person who spends top dollar.

    Apply this to education, and you get a whole new perspective. Do you think a parent who can only afford $500 year for their child's education is going to get the same education for their child as a person who is willing to spend $1500? Of course not. So, what we will end up with is a society dominated by those who have money to spend on education - and it becomes a generational problem because people can never get the education they need. In our society, education is seen as a 'level playing field' for all our children. If someone can afford a private school, that will put their child ahead. However, if you can not afford to pay for a private school, your child will still get the same education as the majority of Americans in a public school. So many segments of our society are geared towards the benefit of the wealthy and keeping the lower class poor. I would hate to see education go down this road as well.

    The beginning of this thread had to do with private companies being allowed to develop other privately owned land with the governments consent. A perfect example of bilking the common people for the benefit of the rich.
  18. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.53%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by joecski
    Before I start, I thought it was a little funny to hear you say that I love anything about the government controlling anything. This would ruin my rep as a libertarian!

    OK, food and clothing are necessities, but I can buy a can of tuna fish for $1 that is as nutritious as a filet mignon for $15. I could also go to the thrift/discount store and get a pair of jeans for $5 that will keep me as warm as a pair of designer jeans for $400. While food and clothing are necessities, a person can make do with the cheapest of either and still be as well off as the person who spends top dollar.
    Thanks for proving my point. Nothing you just said anything to do with the economics of the situation. The reason that can of tuna is so cheap is because the government isn't jacking up the price of it too much with billions of regulations on the industry. So what would you rather have with food: everyone eating tuna and only a few getting access to the steak, and diminishing quality when it comes to both over time; or having a myriad of options available to all people at all price levels, with prices driven down through competition to make all levels of food accessible to as many people as possible? The same applies to education. It doesn't matter how necessary something is. The price is determined by much more than how many people want something.

    You can't legislate economic inequalities out of existence because it's just the way the world is. What the market does is ensure that if somebody wants something, be it a tv, some food or an education, and somebody can deliver it to them at a price that makes it worth it for everyone involved, it will be delivered. It also ensures, as long as the government doesn't step in and screw things up, that the general trend in prices will be downward because of increasing efficiency, new technologies and methods, economies of scale, etc. When you put the government in the picture those things are eliminated. Inefficiency and efficiency are rewarded equally or innefficiency gets more of a reward. New technologies and methods are much slower to work their way into the system so people don't see the benefits as soon as they could, if at all. Everything that would be of benefit to those who aren't rich is wiped out. All you end up with is a system with no accountability, no profit incentive, no need to increase its productivity, political decision made for people, rather than them making decisions for themselves, etc, etc, etc.

    That, in my mind, is a much worse situation than some people not being able to afford the best of everything. A car is a necessity in modern society too, but that doesn't entitle everyone to a Lexus. Somehow the majority of us seem to get along with Hondas and Fords, even though some have access to a Lexus or even their own limos.
  19. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    510
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    8.52%

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    That, in my mind, is a much worse situation than some people not being able to afford the best of everything.
    I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I agree that a market based economy has benefits that far outweigh any centrally controlled economy. Look at China as the prime example and see how they are flourishing as a result of taking baby steps into the market. However, we are not talking about a cars, we are talking about education. If you get a Mercedes worth of education, and I get a Hyundais worth, how can I compete with you? What about if I can only afford public transportation? Marketing education in this manner would only serve to widen the gap in society between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'
    Education is not something to be bought and sold, it is a social contract we make as a citizens of this country so we can continue to grow as a nation. If the scenario you presented came into being, and people were given breaks on their property taxes (which will never happen), how would the average low income family which lives in an apartment fund their children going to school? Would their rent be reduced? Do these children not go to school? Do they go to a 'special school'? Even more thorny is the issue of measuring success in a school system with no oversight from the government. Imagine schools where every child got straight A's and none were 'left behind'. Schools would become nothing more than the commercials we see now on TV for Sylvan Learning Center. Every child with enough cash to make it to the school would be a success, regardless of achievement. You can spin anything you sell, make any numbers look good, and schools would be run by - salesmen.
  20. Registered User
    CDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Age
    38
    Posts
    4,543
    Rep Power
    2677
    Level
    47
    Lv. Percent
    20.53%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by joecski
    I think we may have to agree to disagree here. I agree that a market based economy has benefits that far outweigh any centrally controlled economy. Look at China as the prime example and see how they are flourishing as a result of taking baby steps into the market. However, we are not talking about a cars, we are talking about education. If you get a Mercedes worth of education, and I get a Hyundais worth, how can I compete with you? What about if I can only afford public transportation? Marketing education in this manner would only serve to widen the gap in society between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.'
    How does that happen with a greater variety of products/services along the whole grade of quality? You'll also notice the quality and reliability of other products and services tends to increase in the market too. The free market would close those gaps because instead of being forced to choose between a 'free' Yugo or paying for a Rolls Royce there would be a myriad of choices in between. You should also notice with cars the gap of quality between high end cars and every day drivers like Hondas has decreased, not increased. I think it was the CEO of Nissan that admitted not too long ago that the quality gap between the Infinity and Nissan brands would not justify the difference in cost in most people's eyes. Once more, economic inequalities will exist all the time no matter what. State intervention makes them worse because more and more 'poor' people, and more and more people who aren't poor but want something for 'free' start to rely on the system, taxing it beyond what it can stand, leading to higher costs. It's the nature of government interventionism that it can only make problems worse because there is no built in incentive to make them better. Quite the contrary: the worse things get, the more money gets poured into the system. This keeps happening until people flat out refuse to pay more because the hidden costs are blatantly exposed, but the demand on the system keeps increasing and eventually it collapses.

    Education is not something to be bought and sold, it is a social contract we make as a citizens of this country so we can continue to grow as a nation. If the scenario you presented came into being, and people were given breaks on their property taxes (which will never happen), how would the average low income family which lives in an apartment fund their children going to school? Would their rent be reduced? Do these children not go to school? Do they go to a 'special school'?
    You'll never know until you try. Right now it's possible to put all the lecture courses of an entire college career's worth of study on one DVD. If they want an education someone will find a way to deliver it. You can bet the ending of property taxes would take a huge burden off their shoulders. This part of the issue encompasses a whole bunch of other topics, like continual devaluation of the currency so real wages never really rise as they should, and a tax burden that's ever increasing for various other reasons, taking an ever greater chunk of people's money which could otherwise be spent on education and other good and services.

    Even more thorny is the issue of measuring success in a school system with no oversight from the government. Imagine schools where every child got straight A's and none were 'left behind'. Schools would become nothing more than the commercials we see now on TV for Sylvan Learning Center. Every child with enough cash to make it to the school would be a success, regardless of achievement. You can spin anything you sell, make any numbers look good, and schools would be run by - salesmen.
    Good. Salesmen have to keep their clients happy. If they were in education no matter how much they spun things if the kids weren't doing well out of school it wouldn't take too long to catch on. The market tends to weed out poor products and services to the point where they are not worth the price being charged. Also, why are the people involved with the government school system somehow benevolent angels while those involved in a private system would be scummy salesmen?

    I have to ask what it is about the motives of the government drones that makes them so beyond reproach, do you honestly think they're any less self interested than a saleman on the private market? Is that why teacher's unions and education administrators always oppose any and all changes to the system that would put more accountability on them, and instead simply demand more and more money even though private schools deliver a better service for a much lower cost per student? They do so even when you account for special needs such as students with mental disabilities and similar costs. The difference between the two is in the public sector they get to rape the system any which way they want with little or no accountability. Then they get to demand more money when their incompetencies and mistakes cause problems. In the private sector they can only get away with such things for only so long before people catch on and take their money elsewhere. And at least in the private sector that's an option for people.

    The key difference is in the private sector you get more choices at prices that continually go down over time, and in the public sector you get one choice with prices that continually rise over time. I know which option is better, because it's served to bring every other good and service into their lives at a reasonable price. Once more, there is nothing magical about education that makes it immune from market forces that lower the cost of every other good and service on the planet. All I see here is people offerring aesthetic reasons why people thing education should be treated special. I've yet to see one person pose one inherent characteristic about education that would make it somehow act differently than other goods and services on the market. I also refuse to believe I'm the only one who notices that whenever costs keep skyrocketing and services suck, that somewhere in the wood work, usually not too deep, is the government happily ****ing things up for everyone.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 02:19 PM
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:42 PM
  3. i just ran a cycle of trimax can i run clen now
    By bigrich954rr in forum Supplements
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 10:00 PM
  4. Now that you can make your own transdermals....
    By good_guye28 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 11:14 AM
  5. Conceptions-I've been owned and now I'm banned!
    By Conceptions in forum General Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-24-2003, 12:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in