A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 5:21 PM:
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
but that does not mean
the opportunities do not nonetheless abound. No one has "equal opportunity"
with everyone else, rich or poor, because the major part of "opportunity"
is
the individual's willingness to seize it and make it work, in spite of
obstacles. In fact, in most cases, it is the obstacles themselves that
stimulate the drive to succeed that results in success. Many's the rich
child who's failed in business because he hasn't learned how to overcome
adversity. And many's the poor child who has succeeded beyond everyone's
wildest expectations because of a resolve to overcome adversity.
It's all about levelling the playing field.
When you "level the field," you remove all the peaks to be conquered and you
drive the opportunities to excel into the ground.
Giving a child an education and health care is not going to deprive them of
motivation to seek a better life.
It depends on how you go about it. The problem with public schools and
public health care is that they usually provide very little of either. This
is true of most government-run institutions, which is why private education
is much better.
Level playing fields are
for soccer, not life. It is the adversities we face in life that cause us to
succeed. The lower on the mountain you start, the greater the reward you
reap when you reach the summit. Helicoptering people to the top of Everest
in order to grant grandma in her wheelchair a "level playing field" devalues
the struggle of actually climbing the mountain.
LOL. There's plenty of struggle left to emerge from poverty even if you can
go to school and not have your arm fall off if you get an infection.
Do try to think a bit more deeply about the philosophical issues. As Thomas
Babington Mcaulay said of Robert Southey, "He does not seem to know what an
argument is. He never uses arguments himself. He never troubles himself to
answer the arguments of an opponent. It has never occurred to him that a man
ought to be able to give some better account of the way in which he has
arrived at his opinions than merely that it is his will and pleasure to hold
them. It has never occurred to him...that when an objection is raised, it
ought to be met with something more than 'scoundrel' or 'blockhead'."
(Thanks to Vincent Carroll of the Rocky Mountain News for bringing this
trenchant quote to my attention.)
There are a lot of Southey's in this forum, that's for sure.
As I said, my argument is not about children and their opportunities, and I
have agreed that society has an obligation to support innocent children. My
argument is against socialized medicine for adults, and I've stated that
public education frequently fails to provide an adequate education for many
children *because* it is socialized, and that private education is far more
effective because it provides the stimulus to succeed that public education
does not.
LOL. Is it possible that private education is far more effective because
those who have the means to access it have advantages that those who do not
have the means to access it are lacking?
I donąt think so. You imply that the poor are somehow less likely to have
the native intelligence to take advantage of private education. This is
demonstrably not so. There are many charitable, non-profit private schools
that provide opportunities for the poor, who frequently excel, to a far
greater degree than do children in the same community who are in the public
school system.
Yes, sure enough, put a bunch of kids living in poverty into a shabby school
with shabby teachers and drug dealers roaming the halls, and yes, they are
probably not going to go to Harvard like Little Lord Scottleroy on the other
side of the tracks.
Well, there you go agreeing with me again.
Understanding access to education and health care as fundamental human
rights helps to give those born into a poverty a chance.
But is "access" inevitably the same thing as "entitlement?"
I would be fine with the word entitlement. We are talking about children. A
society that does not believe children should be entitled to education and
health care is a society deserving of implosion.
Fine. Now, by calling it an "entitlement," you remove the offensive burden
of calling it a "right" because an "entitlement" is something that the
government can be compelled, by it's bosses, the people, to provide. The
distinction is important because the offending party in any failure to
provide an "entitlement" is the body which "entitled" people to claim the
benefit, not the individual who is compelled to do something in support of
another individual's "rights."
However, I do warn that the "do it for the children" argument is a
dangerous one indeed. I believe more is required to justify legislation than
merely "do it for the children." There needs to be some overall social
benefit that outweighs the potential negative effects of the legislation.
I should be, but I'm not suprised to find an American who believes that
there is no obvious justification for children learning to read and write
and to not have their left foot rot off because they can't get health care.
It's not what I believe that's at issue, it's how you support your
arguments. I find flaws in your arguments and exploit them. You're supposed
to use some intellectual capacity to make reasoned arguments in response.
It's called a "debate." You don't get a free pass just because you think
your point is obvious. You have to do better than that.
That gives you an equal opportunity to someone who is born into a wealthy
family, never has to know a hungry belly, has tutors, can afford any
tuition
they require, and does not have to work while studying?
It gives you adequate opportunity to succeed if you're willing to fight for
it.
A child does not understand those grand concepts Scott, especially a child
that can't read or write and their goal is to not be hungry.
It's the parent's duty to fight for their children's future.
As you seem to have recognized, that too is irrelevant to the child and not
in their control.
So, whose duty is it then?
Getting everything as a gift is not, contrary to your assertion, a
guarantee of success. In fact, in many cases, it's a guarantee of failure.
Just look at Paris Hilton if you don't believe me. Most of the great
entrepeneurs of this country weren't rich to begin with, and many of them
started out as "poor children." The difference between them and a ghetto
child is primarily an unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty.
Paris Hilton? Is she starving? What are you talking about?
Figure it out.
Why? You said it, you explain it.
No, the whole point is for you to exercise that thing on top of your neck
and figure it out yourself. I have no intention of "leveling the playing
field" for you.
Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to
poverty?"
From their parents.
And if they don't learn it from their parents?
Good question. Likely they get to dig ditches and haul garbage. What do you
suggest we do about such deficient parenting?
is all they know is poverty?
Nobody can live in North America these days and "only know poverty." Every
human being on this continent is deluged with the knowledge of prosperity
and success.
Oh, you mean just because some little kid can see rich people on TV, that
should give her the tools she needs to overcome the barriers of illiteracy
and disease?
Nope, that's not what I mean.
Geez you are dense. If they are
illiterate and sickly, you really think they can just will themselves into
Harvard and onto the presidency?
They'd better try. Many have, and many have succeeded. If you go to far in
"leveling they playing field" children will have no reason to succeed on
their own. This is not to say that that poor children do not deserve support
and encouragement towards success.
LOL. Giving a child the chance to learn to read and write and survive into
adulthoos is hardly going to far...unless you are an unbelievably selfish
prig.
See above Macaulay quote.
FYI, not every
community has a Catholic hospital around the corner.
Almost every community has a federally-funded hospital at which even the
indigent can receive emergency care. If there's not one in that community,
then perhaps it's time to move to a community that has more charitable
resources available for the poor.
Yes, the infant should pack his or her bag and crawl to the next county.
No, the parents should.
And if they don't?
I've already suggested that this might constitute child neglect and that
perhaps the state should take custody of the child. What's your plan for bad
parenting?
You are living in a
dreamland of selfish ignorance.
Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
I believe in a hand up, not a handout.
Making sure that every child can go to school and get treatment if they are
sick is not about a "poor are helpless victims" mentality. It's about giving
a child a fighting chance at a better quality of life.
I don't disagree. I'm more concerned about adults.
Oh, hell's bells, I'm with you on the problem of adult responsibility.
Well, why didn't you just say so?
Heck,
look at all the citizens that don't even exercise their basic obligations as
citizens, and let a twit like Bush get re-elected. Isn't it frightening how
few Americans bother to vote?
Not really. If they don't want to vote, I don't want them voting. They just
screw thing up for those of us who make an effort to participate.
I might even be persuaded to lean towards Jeffersonian democracy where only
landholders are allowed to vote and where you have to pass a simple test on
the issues before you can vote.
Heinlein had some interesting ideas: In order to become a "Citizen" you
first have to contribute to the society through a period of public service.
Once you do, you get to vote and you get other perks, like being allowed to
own land and businesses. If you're an adult on the dole, and haven't put in
your time, then you get a basic allotment including food, housing, clothing
and medical care, but it's not much and doesn't include any luxuries, and
you get to do the scut-work of society, working for Citizens.
The companion principle he espoused was the principle of "Coventry." This
principle says that if you cannot, or care not to participate in the society
in conformance with the mores and laws of the society, then society has a
right to exclude you from the benefits that accrue by ejecting you from the
society into a place called Coventry, where there are no laws, no rules, no
dole, no anything. You're dropped inside the wall with what you have on, and
it's up to you to survive without the assistance of the society you have
rejected.
Nevada would make a good Coventry.
I don't much care for "motor voter" registration schemes and other liberal
democrat attempts to "get out the vote" to people who don't even value the
franchise enough to take an hour to go register, much less go vote.
If you can't get off your ass to register and vote, then you deserve what
you get and I don't want to hear any whining. And I certainly don't want to
waste any time trying to convince anyone of the value of their vote. If they
don't understand it by now, they don't deserve the franchise.
So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it.
It's not possible for a society to provide education and health care to all
children if selfish prigs can opt out.
Ah, now we finally come to the real issue. Why is it "not possible" for
society to provide these benefits if everyone doesn't participate? Is this
really true? I think not. For example, my property taxes pay for schools. I
pay property taxes because I own property, therefore I support schools. But
many of Boulder's residents are renters and do not own property, and thus do
not pay any property taxes. They are not participating in supporting
schools, and yet schools exist. By your metric, they are "selfish prigs" who
have opted-out by evading property taxes.
They didn't opt out, they are apparently part of some archaic system where
the only support for education comes from property taxes.
But there's nothing preventing them from contributing voluntarily to the
school system directly...but they don't. Why is that? How is it that they
aren't being "cooperative?"
And then there's charity. A huge number of hospitals in both countries are
private Catholic hospitals funded by the Catholic church and they provide
free health care for the indigent.
Geezus, giving someone the only choice of going to a Catholic institution is
cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself.
Bigot.
There's lots of charitable foundations
and organizations, and private donors who would very likely be able to
provide necessary medical care to indigent children without the
participation of the government...at lower expense to the public.
You can't download fundamental societal responsibilities to charities, not
if you don't want a grossly fragmented and grossly unjust society.
How is that an inevitable result?
So, it is self-evidently not true that it is "not possible for a society to
provide education and health care to all children if selfish prigs can opt
out."
It is quite true. You aren't going to have universal services without
universal support.
Then we will never have universal services because there will never be
universal support. Care to be a bit more scholarly?
Moreover, your claim is simply untrue. There are lots of people who "opt
out" of paying taxes, including, interestingly, the poor themselves, and yet
society continues to provide services to them.
Clearly I am talking about those with the means to contribute.
Nothing is clear until you clarify it. But now you argue that there are some
"free riders" who must be allowed to benefit without contributing. So, why
should anyone contribute? Why shouldn't they simply arrange things so they
don't have to contribute? That's what happened in the Soviet Union, which is
why it failed.
What your claim really means is that YOU don't like the idea that other
people can "opt out" because it offends YOUR sense of fairness and
socialistic egalitarianism.
I'm not a socialist and never have been.
You certainly sound like one in your Usenet persona.
All I want is literacy and health for children so they have a chance.
No argument there. The argument is both how we achieve that goal and what to
do about non-children who want to continue to suck at the public teat long
after they've grown up.
There are nearly unlimited educational opportunities out there, even for
the
very poor, that either cost them nothing (charitable institutions) or
merely
require some nominal input to qualify. There are vocational programs
sponsored by industry specifically targeted at the disadvantaged
explicitly
to teach them a valuable skill that will be of use to the industry.
The opportunities are everywhere. All one needs to do is reach out and
grab
one.
I don't think that I child born into poverty should have such vastly
different opportunities than those afforded children born into wealth.
Then adopt a poor child and give him better opportunities.
I'd rather keep the child with their parents, and give them access to
education and health care so they can have a chance to make their own
opportunities.
Feel free to open up your wallet and adopt the whole family if you like.
That approach obviously isn't working.
Don't blame if you and your countrymen are cheapskates.
If you believe, as I do and as do
most Canadians and Americans, that education and health care are fundamental
rights, then you don't leave it up to random acts of kindness by strangers.
"Kindness" doesn't have to be random, it can, and usually is, a
manifestation of enlightened self interest.
If you want to learn to fish, go to the dock and demonstrate to a ship
captain that you are eager and willing to work hard in exchange for his
teaching you how to fish. Quid pro quo. As simple as that.
LOL. You forget, the rich people have already overfished the stock and
there's no jobs.
Then take up another line of work and do the same thing. We need ditch
diggers, trash collectors and custodians too. Not everybody can be the CEO
of Ford.
Is there a shortage of ditch diggers, trash collectors, and custodians?
Evidently, given the fact that a million illegal immigrants a month flood
into the country to take these jobs.
Would the fact that they are paid at levels and work in conditions that
would be illegal for american citizens have something to do with that?
If it's illegal then it's illegal for illegals too.
Fact is that the working conditions for illegals are not much different than
they are for anybody else in a particular job. As for pay, if illegals are
willing to work for illegally-low wages, who am I to complain? It's their
right as individuals to decide how much their labor is worth. They could
demand legal wages...except that they are illegals and thus chance being
deported if they complain. Gee, what a conundrum. I guess they ought to go
back to their own countries and find work there, at a "legal" wage in
"legal" working conditions if they are being so badly exploited.
Why don't they, do you suppose?
I'm not arguing that no one should do those jobs. I'm arguing that an infant
should not start out in life without access to the basic tools they will
need to have a chance at a quality of life that is easily available to those
born into wealth.
And yet you've not demonstrated that society is unable to provide those
benefits at private expense rather than public expense. Private operations
are *always* more efficiently and economically run than government
operations.
Yes, a private school is likely to be more efficient and more economical, in
my opinion (although public schools, particularly where interference from
governing bureaucrats is limited, can be very effective).
But the private school is not going to serve all children. It is only going
to serve the children who can afford to make the school profitable.
Why is it not going to serve all children? Could it be because it's in
direct competition with free public schools? Do you suppose that if public
schools were closed that perhaps educational entrepreneurs might see the
market potential in all that vacant school-building real estate and that
fierce competition for the facilities and the chance to make some money
might emerge?
As you admitted above, private schools are almost *always* more efficient
and economical. Thus, absent the unfair competition from free public
schools, they would flourish, and the market would keep the prices low and
the quality high, just as it always does in a free-market environment. And
where would the parents get the money to send their kids to school? Why,
from the money they no longer have to pay to wasteful public school
bureaucracies, of course!
Private enterprise free-market economics and lower taxes....what a concept.
"But wait!" you cry, "What about the really poor who don't pay taxes to
begin with and thus wouldn't realize any net gain to fund private school?"
Well, I reply, that's a problem easily handled by imposing a national sales
tax on consumer goods, (which we ought to do anyway to replace the income
tax) a portion of which is dedicated to funding education for children who
are too poor to pay for it themselves. The tax is imposed *voluntarily* on
those who choose, and have the money, to spend on luxuries (if you don't
want to pay the tax, donąt consume luxuries) and it only funds the *actual*
educational needs of *actual* low-income students. It does not fund the
bureaucratic excesses of bloated and inefficient public school systems that
care absolutely nothing about the actual academic success of an individual
student, but only care that there is a warm little ass in the seat every day
so they can get their per-diem from the state.
The fundamental difference would be that the stipend would *follow the
child,* not be allocated to a local school district. Thus, each low-income
child of school age would have allocated an amount of money to be used
solely for paying for school at a private institution. The amount would be
based on market research to determine the average cost per pupil in the
particular market. The various private schools would then *compete* with
each other to provide the best educational experience at the lowest cost so
as to both attract student dollars and provide a profit to the owners. Pure
free-market economics that would provide the best possible education for all
students, because parents would demand it or they would find another, better
school.
This system already works within the sphere of those who can afford to send
their kids to private schools, and there's no reason it won't work for all
children.
FYI, money and a name can buy a lot of things, including college grades.
Do you have any credible evidence that this is the case?
Every time he opens his mouth - even with countless expert advisors to write
his speeches and help him look less stupid - it's obvious he'd barely pass
grade eight on his own merits.
And yet he graduated from an Ivy-league college
As I said, money can buy anything if you have enough.
So, you're telling us that both Yale and Harvard are on the take? Somehow I
don't believe you. Do you have any proof of your assertion?
It doesn't hurt to
have a family name that carries weight either.
Do you have some proof that his "famiiy name" got his grades changed or
caused both Yale and Harvard to issue him undeserved degrees?
flew fighter jets in the
military (which I'm betting you've never done)
He didn't seem to do much of it either.
He did every single flight hour that was required of him by his contract
with the Air National Guard and received an honorable discharge in full
accordance with Guard policy. Do you have some credible evidence to the
contrary? NOTE: your disdain does not qualify as "credible evidence."
was the governor of Texas
and is now the President of the United States.
Yes, I'm aware.
One does not achieve either by having only an eighth-grade education.
I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and
ignorant proclamations.
I stand by my assertion that if forced to survive on his own merits, he
would have difficulty passing grade eight.
And I repeat, he has an MBA and degrees from not one, but two Ivy League
colleges. How about you, any Ivy League degrees?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser