| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future starting with infancy. No, I hold the parents accountable. But the child suffers. Then perhaps the state should take custody of the child, award custody to someone better able to raise the child, and garnish the parent's wages to pay for the child's care...after eliminating any welfare payments to the parents to stimulate them to get a job. Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school? Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity. You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. No, I don't, actually. There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who cannot access education or health care. Wrong. In this country, opportunities are abundant. There are millions uponn millions of success stories of poor people who have persevered and succeeded. That's WHY a million people a month illegally enter this country. In the Sudan, there are no opportunities for education or health care, but in North America there are opportunities everywhere. All a parent has to do is go and seek it out and resolve to be successful. America is indeed the "Land of Opportunity," but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an equal opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to strive to excel and advance. As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to squash everyone flat." You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry, uneducated, and without access to health care. Sure you can. Go to a shelter, get a meal, go find a Catholic hospital and seek medical care and go find a job to pay for your education. Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten, browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part of their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he can feed the world. How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor people should not have access to education. I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else. 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. 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. The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates might be capable of thinking. True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential, largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses. Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist propaganda and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and every one who does is universally a conservative thinker. In your fantasy world. Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL. His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently intelligent to be President of the United States. Pity we can't say the same about you. -- 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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/22/05 11:57 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: Ah. So you start holding a child accountable for their own future starting with infancy. No, I hold the parents accountable. But the child suffers. Then perhaps the state should take custody of the child, award custody to someone better able to raise the child, and garnish the parent's wages to pay for the child's care...after eliminating any welfare payments to the parents to stimulate them to get a job. Wow, for a guy who seems so freaked out about freedom, you are a bit of a control freak when it comes to other people! Am I? Or am I merely attempting to elicit some sort of reasoned argument out of you? Born to parents who could not afford to send you to school? Tough titties for you, this ain't the land of opportunity. You confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. No, I don't, actually. There is no equality of opportunity for a child born into a poor family who cannot access education or health care. Wrong. You are hopeless if you really believe that. In this country, opportunities are abundant. There are millions uponn millions of success stories of poor people who have persevered and succeeded. That's WHY a million people a month illegally enter this country. In the Sudan, there are no opportunities for education or health care, but in North America there are opportunities everywhere. All a parent has to do is go and seek it out and resolve to be successful. A child who grows up in poverty does not have equality of opportunity with a child from a wealthy family. If you think otherwise, you are insane. I'll grant you that a child of poverty may not have the same quality of opportunities available to the children of the rich, 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. 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?" America is indeed the "Land of Opportunity," but the opportunities are not all positive opportunities. You have an equal opportunity to FAIL as well as succeed. That's what causes people to strive to excel and advance. As Linda Seebach said once, "The only way to make everyone equal is to squash everyone flat." You can't have an equal opportunity to anything if you are hungry, uneducated, and without access to health care. Sure you can. Go to a shelter, get a meal, go find a Catholic hospital and seek medical care and go find a job to pay for your education. 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. 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. 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. You are living in a dreamland of selfish ignorance. Nope. I'm just not buying your "the poor are helpless victims" mentality. Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten, browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part of their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he can feed the world. How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor people should not have access to education. I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else. If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs like yourself obviously aren't going to support it. So what? If you think it's important, then YOU support it or provide it. 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. 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. The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates might be capable of thinking. True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential, largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses. Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist propaganda and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and every one who does is universally a conservative thinker. In your fantasy world. Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL. His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently intelligent to be President of the United States. You didn't really answer the question. Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer. 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? -- 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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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. Not everyone is destined for fame and fortune, and it's ridiculous to try to ensure that every child will be successful. One of the worst things we do to our children is the systematic, socialistic excision of competition from education. From soccer leagues that don't keep score to banning running races because somebody has to lose, this anti-competetive "level playing field" agenda is destroying the motivation for innovation and excellence that helps the poor become not-poor. That's a lot of what having a society is all about Scotty. Making sure that every child - regardless of family situation - can access education and healthcare is fundamental to giving kids a chance at the type of life others are simply born into. The question is how far down that road society can go without destroying itself through "leveling" everyone out. 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. 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. 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. 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. Where does a child acquire an "unswerving resolve not to be bound to poverty?" From their parents. 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. 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. 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. 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. Parents are not stimulated to encourage, assist, stimulate, enlighten, browbeat, badger, threaten and otherwise require scholarship on the part of their children if they see no future for them because the dole is all they know. Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he can feed the world. How ironic, to use the "teach him to fish" analogy while saying that poor people should not have access to education. I didn't say they shouldn't have access to education, I said that public education is a dismal failure and that nobody should *expect* a free public education as a "right" to be paid for by somebody else. If it's not a right, then it doesn't have to be provided, and selfish prigs like yourself obviously aren't going to support it. 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. 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. You think that everybody should suffer equally on that "level playing field." Unfortunately, even in your Canadian Utopia, not everybody plays on the same field or pays their "fair share." That's life. 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. 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. 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. The worst thing about a liberal arts degree is that some of the graduates might be capable of thinking. True, but sadly, almost universally, they fail to realize that potential, largely thanks to the pervasive leftist/liberal apologetics of failure and muddled thinking taught to them on most of our college campuses. Rare indeed is the student who is able to rise above the leftist propaganda and demagogary to reach a state of enlightenment and understanding, and every one who does is universally a conservative thinker. In your fantasy world. Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? LOL. His college grades were much higher than Kerry's, and slightly more than half the voting population of the country find him to be sufficiently intelligent to be President of the United States. You didn't really answer the question. Sure I did. You just didn't understand the answer. Sure I did. It was a dodge. Is George W. Bush one of your elightened right-wing graduates? Yes or no. Asked and answered. 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, flew fighter jets in the military (which I'm betting you've never done), was the governor of Texas and is now the President of the United States. I'd have to use history as the metric, as opposed to your biased and ignorant proclamations. -- 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 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent:
================ 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. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. frtzw906 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Scott demonstrates that he doesn't understand renters and rent: ================ 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. ============ And the renters pay "property" tax through their rents. Or don't you think the landlords pass their property taxes on to the renters by way of higher rents? If that doesn't happen in Boulder, your landlords must be very charitable indeed. Ah, the "indirect taxation" argument. Sorry, doesn't wash. Yes, a landlord may charge more on rent to cover his property taxes, but remember that there is only one property tax assessment per property, and the rate is the same for each class of property, no matter how many people live on it and no matter how much the owner profits from renting space. Thus, 50 renters in an apartment building split the costs of the property tax, which is based on the acreage of land, not the income from rents, and so they are, essentially, free riders on the system. They get to send their kids to public school but only have to pay a fraction of what I, for example, pay. And I don't have any kids in public school at all. A much more equitable system is to levy school taxes on those who actually use the schools, or at least find a way to levy school taxes on a per-capita basis for people residing in the community rather than placing the burden on property owners while letting non-property owners to ride essentially free. And then there's the people who have kids but pay to put them in private schools. Why should they have to pay for public schools too? Shouldn't the tax dollars collected for allegedly schooling their children follow the *children*, no matter what school they attend? -- 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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
KMAN, you've covered ALL the points. Anything Scott says now will be in
an effort to prolong a debate he long ago lost. Cheers, Wilf |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
