in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/25/05 12:13 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so,
it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If
you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than
usual! LOL.
=====================
The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh?
Still don't have anything...

LOL. Keep playing the fool.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/25/05 12:13 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott Weiser
at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:20 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so,
it would appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and
section
of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

I'll stick with the published report, I find it credible. If
you disagree,
feel free to refute it.

You are making a total fool of yourself with this. More than
usual! LOL.
=====================
The fool that can't refute what is said has spoken, eh?
Still don't have anything...

LOL. Keep playing the fool.
=================
LOL Right! I am playing you for the fool you are. Thanks for
admitting it.

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I find it credible

Given your track record for believing in bull****, that means
nothing.

I've long since lost count of the number of times you are willing
to make a claim that you refuse to back up. Your credibility = 0.

Well, you'd like to think so, certainly...the truth, however, may be
somewhat less accommodating to you.

Prove it - I've challenged you on this stuff many times and you still
remain incapable or to scared to even attempt it.

Nah. It's up to you to refute them.

I've never heard of such a law. How do I prove something that
doesn't exist? Your claim - your burden of proof, coward.

Moreover, it's entirely likely you're lying.

Prove it.

So, does it cover hospitalization and/or surgery in a Canadian hospital?

Yes, dickhead, I've already said that it does.

Mike

On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You bull**** in a most ignorant, pedantic and
childish manner.

Prove it.

Mike

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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/25/05 4:57 PM:

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?

Haha. Sure, if you want to eliminate public schools.

A Usenet persona calling itself bearsbuddy wrote:


"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 24-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Does it insure you for hospitalization and surgery? If so, it would
appear
to be illegal under Canadian law.

Really? How about identifying the specific bill and section of the bill
that states what the law is so that we can verify?

This is the Usenet, where truth is a particularly rare commodity.

Well, from you sertainly.

It's up to you to prove me wrong if you can.

I've proved you wrong many, many times. However, it remains up
to you to prove your assertions - you make a claim, you back it up.

Or perhaps you're lying, or are merely too stupid to know what your
policy
actually covers.

I know - you don't. You've never let your ignorance prevent you from
posting bull****. I know what the policy covers, since I've had
to make claims against it in the past. You're talking bull****, as usual.

Mike

Another lie by Scottie-poo debunked:
http://www.insurance-canada.ca/consp...pplemental.php

Sorry, your link is unpersuasive. The question is whether Canadian
supplemental health insurance covers HOSPITALIZATION and SURGERY. It does
not, by law.

If you disbelieve the story I cited, blame the AP, not me. But before you do
have a look at this:

"Over the last 30 years, say critics, Canada's socialized health care system
-- known as medicare -- has destroyed what was arguably the second-best
health care system in the world, next to the U.S.

Rationing of health care by waiting is becoming increasingly common, and
there are shortages of hospital rooms and doctors. For instance, Ontario
recently conceded it needs an additional 1,000 doctors, and according to the
New York Times, 23 of Toronto's 25 hospitals had to turn away ambulances one
day in January. Finally, an official at Vancouver General Hospital estimates
that 20 percent of heart attack patients, who should be treated in 15
minutes, are waiting an hour or more for care."

Source: Editorial, "Tired of Socialized Medicine," Investor's Business
Daily, January 26, 2000.


"Twenty Myths About National Health Insurance

NCPA Policy Report #166
December 1991" *


"Countries with national health insurance make health care "free" to
patients and at the same time limit spending and access to modern medical
technology. As a result, there is widespread rationing, bureaucratic
inefficiency and a lower quality of care.

When access to modern medical technology is rationed, who receives care?
Mounting evidence suggests that the wealthy, the powerful and the
sophisticated find ways of moving to the head of the waiting lines, while
the poor, the elderly, racial minorities and rural residents wait longer.
€ Studies show that the Inuits (Eskimos) and Crees in Canada and
the Maoris in New Zealand receive less health care and have worse health
outcomes than other citizens of those countries.

€ The most recent studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a
fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half in England have refused
to treat patients over 65 years of age.

€ Studies in almost every country with national health insurance
find that low-income families often have less access to care in relation to
their need for it than higher-income families.

....

Canadian provincial governments restrict modern medical technology to
hospitals, usually in large cities, and actively discourage outpatient
surgery. Rural residents must travel to the cities for the services of most
specialists and for most surgical procedures. But considering the
inconvenience of travel and the fact that specialized services are rationed
by waiting, how often do rural residents actually get care? Consider that:
€ Total per capita spending on physicians' services among British
Columbia's 30 regional hospital districts varies by a factor of six to one,
and spending on the services of specialists varies by a factor of 12 to 1.

€ Spending varies by a factor of almost 4 to 1 for
obstetrical/gynecological (OB/GYN) services, 8 to 1 for the services of
internists and 35 to 1 for the services of psychiatrists."


Lots more interesting stuff at the source:
http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/s166/s166.html
--
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

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser in commenting on Karl Polanyi states:
==============
The flaw in this assertion is that "the market system" is somehow
"artificial" merely because it's the product of human intellect. The
market
system is entirely human and impulsive. While it is true that humans
are
fundamentally cooperative, and that they form institutions that confer
social protection, the "economic protection" argument fails because
"economics" are a part of the "market system," and the market system is
an
entirely natural and logical result of basic human instincts.
===============

Polanyi's point is that if a polity operates or claims to operate
according to the principles of the free market, then that "free market"
is not so free because, by law, it is imposed on the people.

He's wrong. Perhaps not universally, but mostly. Only socialist/communist
societies "impose" a market system on people, and the one they impose is
"We'll take everything you produce, decide how to distribute it and decide
how much, if anything, you get back."

His contention is that people are by nature, cooperative beings who seek
protection. That is their natural tendency. Thus, if you want to
"force" them out of these natural tendencies, then that's exactly what
it takes - force.

As I carefully outlined, his premise is flawed because he ignores the fact
that while human beings are cooperative *in part,* they are also selfish in
part, and it is this individual self-interest that creates "markets" as a
natural function of human society. No force is required, and market
economies naturally flow from human nature and an excess of energy
resources.


You suggest that market systems are "entirely natural and logical
result of basic human instincts.". I wonder.

Do you think the unemployed in America's rust belt or in the auto
industry would concur?

Certainly, if they took the time to analyze the issue.

Do they believe that they should be denied what
Polanyi would argue is their natural desire for protection? Surely not.

The flaw in your argument is the presumption that a desire for protection
and a "natural market instinct" are mutually exclusive. They are not. It's a
complex energy dynamic. Natural market instincts may be suppressed during
times of energy stress, but the instinct remains and will re-emerge as soon
as available energy resources begin to exceed basic energy needs.


Right now, Canada and the USA are embroiled in a cross-border trade
dispute havng to do with softwood lumber. In this particular case, the
American government has circled the wagons and done exactly what
Polanyi says people/nations naturally do -- they opted for a protective
stance as opposed to the free market stance.

That has little to do with natural instincts and everything to do with
politics and high-level economic policy. The US response to lumber dumping
by Canada is "protectionist" certainly, but it's not "instinctive." Nor is
the government "forcing" citizens out of a "natural tendency" towards
cooperation. If anything, the government is merely enforcing such natural
tendencies among *clan members.* The dynamics of
interclan/intertribal/international protectionism don't mutually exclude the
dynamics of natural markets.

Polanyi seems to believe, based on what you've posted (which isn't much)
that the natural state of human beings is socialistic egalitarianism where
each member of the clan has no individual self-interest but rather is
absolutely altruistic to the needs of the clan as a whole.

I don't see any evidence that this assertion is anywhere remotely connected
to the truth of human nature, which by observation is clearly almost
diametrically opposed to that model. Human beings are inherently selfish, as
is any organism obeying the prime biological directive of survival, and as a
rule, they only cooperate with others when it is to *their* direct physical
and social benefit to do so. So long as the clan structure and operation
provides greater benefits through group membership than being alone, the
human will seek it out and participate in it. This is the Principle of
Enlightened Self-interest.

But when the clan structure becomes harmful to the individual and his
interests, he will leave the clan and strike out on his own, or seek another
clan structure that better benefits his individual needs.

From my perspective, whether nations adopt and enforce either
protectionism or free enterprise depends on who, within that society
has the power to control the political system.

I think it's much deeper than that. However, it is true that leaders with a
strong power structure able to enforce decisions on the clan can skew the
system markedly. But that's an aberration, not the normal situation.

--
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

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 don¹t 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, don¹t 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

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/24/05 6:16 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Indeed. Therein lies the root of the problem: expedience and selfishness
over the rule of law.

I've notice you yourself don't give a damn for the "rule of law" if it
doesn't meet your needs.

Really? How so?

If it became a law that you could not have a gun, how would you feel about
that?

Evasion. What specific evidence do you have to make the claim "I've noticed
you yourself don't give a damn for the 'rule of law' if it doesn't meet your
needs"?

You have accused me of something, now either substantiate this accusation or
be branded a liar.

Brand away rick. Er, Scotty.

It's clear to me that you wouldn't give a damn about a law that contradicted
what Scotty Weiser believes to be his fundamental rights.

Based on what evidence, precisely?



If some "rule of law" says a child born into poverty should die because
they
can't get health care, then I say to hell with that rule of law and the
society that would support it.

But I've never suggested that happen. In fact, I've explicitly stated that
society should provide health care to indigent children. So, what's your
beef?

If that's your position, then what's your beef with Canadian health care?

Because it imposes costs on people unwillingly for the medical care of other
adults.

It requires selfish prigs to contribute their share.

You falsely presume that a "share" of some adult's medical problems can be
ethically and legitimately imposed on others.


Oddly enough, I've never met one Canadian who complains of unwillingly
contributing to universal health care.

The minuteness of your circle of friends is not determinative of the issue.


I am 100% comfortable with viewing health care and education as
fundamental
human rights, and I will gladly accept the "affirmative burden" that
comes
with it.

Which you are free to do. You are not free, however, to impose that
burden
on others without their consent.

In some societies it is simply something people want.

Which people? The Hutus wanted the Tutsis dead. Is that okay with you?

No, and it's not OK with me that an idiot like you has a gun either.

And yet the Tutsis would have been much better off if they'd had guns,
wouldn't they?

They'd have been better off not being shot.

Many of them weren't shot, they were hacked to death with machetes. They
were stoned to death. They were herded into pits and burned to death while
alive. They had limbs hacked off. The bellies of pregnant mothers were
sliced open and their children were hacked to pieces in front of the mothers
as they died. Women were raped wholesale before having their breasts cut off
with machetes so that they could never nurse a child again.

Do you suppose that if they had all had a gun, that the genocide in Rawanda
would have even been possible?

Or are you simply too callous and uncaring in your paranoid hoplophobia to
admit that sometimes, having a gun can be a good thing.


You don't seem to understand that not everyone views helping other
people -
by supporting fundamental rights such as access to education and
healthcare
- as a burden.

Er, no, you don't understand that the issue is not what some people think,
its the deeper, more subtle issues of "rights" and public policy that are
merely under discussion. That some people don't mind bearing the burden is
not a justification for imposing the burden on those who do.

You obviously can't have education and health care (or a fire department)
for all if selfish prigs can simply opt out.

Sure you can. Charity begins at home.

Charity cannot provide universal education and health care.

Why not?

You are already a prisoner of your selfish beliefs.

Not really. This is just a Usenet debate. You appear to be a prisoner of
your own prejudices and rhetoric.

Ah, I see, whatever you say, no matter how stupid, is just "Usenet debate"
so it doesn't count, but whatever others say in the same forum does.

What ever made you think that?

Your preceding statement.

Stupid is as stupid does.

--
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