AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

View Poll Results: Who runs industry and services better?
Government in almost all cases. 2 4.88%
Government generally runs things better, but private has many merits as well. 8 19.51%
Private runs things better, but government has many merits as well. 23 56.10%
Private in almost all cases. 8 19.51%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-23, 16:29   Link #61
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
So what? There will be frauds. Live with it. Pure market economy is not eutopia.
Yes, there'll always be fraud. It's my position there'll be more of them, and that they'll be harder to tell apart from the honest men, if nothing is done to punish them.

Quote:
There are many orgs out there that are willing to do it, privately funded, mostly by those consumers who don't trust the government. But that doesn't matter.

The bottom line is if you want better products you must:
a)pay more
b)wait until technology is advanced enough to meet your present standard.
c)buy from other companies who happen to have better products.

With the government's style of inspection, ALL of us have only option A. If you want to do A, why must I also do that? I'm happy with my cheap pills since that's all I can afford.
Bad medical care is bad for the society as a whole. It means the diseases are more widespread and more serious, thus diminishing general productivity.

Quote:
By extensive research I mean setting a lab, hiring researchers ect.... They don't have the time to do that for a flu pill if there is no urgent need.
If it's a new molecule with unknown effects, they'd better take the time.

Quote:
Doctors have their network of peers; at such, they will consult many before giving you the advice.
Since none of said peers is better informed, what's the point? Besides wasting the time of not one but several doctors?

Quote:
But that is not a 100% guarantee, neither do those claimed by the government.
Solution A is imperfect. Solution B is imperfect. Therefore, neither A nor B work better than the other. Is that how you reason?

Quote:
If you insist on a "perfect pill," PAY MORE. Besides, those with crappy products will be out of the competition anyway.
Or survive by preying on the poor. It'll drive the price of good medicine up since only the rich will end up buying it.

Quote:
The only cases where those bad businesses survive is by means of government's protection. Again, how can a government have the ability to do such thing?
Plenty of "bad businesses" without government protection. Go to your nearest clothing store and see how many of their products were made in China...


Quote:
That is not an good incentive.
Yeah, sure. Everyone wants to go to prison.

Quote:
That is the incentive to make sure price skyrocket.
Pricier doesn't mean safer.

Quote:
Again, if you want to pay for overpriced stuffs, why must I follow? I don't object the government intention to make sure everything safe, but the way they do it is questionable since if they implement a simple laws, everyone must follow regardless of the specific situation. How can a law satisfy hundred of millions of people? Talk about impossibility.
"Don't make products that'll kill the consumers".

Quote:
"If?" Well, there is also nothing to gain by performing those tests in an economical manner, let alone crafting a realistic solution. Budget cut? Don't make me laugh. All they need to do is to talk about how the world would end should they got fired.
And they'll be believed because...? If they don't want to have their budget cut, one of the first things they have to do is use that budget. Another will be to produce results of some kind. It's not like they're acting without oversight, either.

Quote:
Yes. But why should anyone would want to sell poison?
I don't know. Why did the Chinese poison their own babies not so long ago?

Quote:
Too much movies? And if some maniac really wants to do that, he'll do that anyway. The damage will be done. Those in the pharmaceutical industry would also make sure those maniacs could not enter the competition.. It's not because they care for us; it's because it's profitable to maintain a good name.
I'm not talking about purposely packaging rat poison as aspirin. I'm talking about, for example, skipping the steps that make sure that a new headache medicine won't kill 1/1000 patient.

Quote:
The market has no vision whatsoever. It reacts naturally to changes in the playground. The way it reacts always corresponds to the most baisc law of this universe, aka Supply and Demand. For example, any attempt to keep overpriced stuffs at a high price ought to fail eventually.
The market is notorious for letting fear get the better of it. And "Supply and Demand" can't work properly without good information. You want to put way too much power into the hands of the marketing guys.

Quote:
In other words, even if I elect a mule to office, everything would be fine? Yeah, as long as that mule doesn't tamper with anything.
Not what I said. What I said was, despite its occasional failings, government provides a much needed long-term vision.

Quote:
My definition of fraud is pretty simple: stealing money by any means. Why does the FED qualify? It's kinda obvious. Because it can print money. Every dollar I work hard for can simply be created out of thin air by a PDF file. In other words, I work to a piece of paper that someday may worth more than the value printed on it. Everytime the FED prints money my buying power decreases. What matter in a currency is not its printed values, but it's its buying power.

For example: imagine this simple situation. You have 100$, and you are the only person who have $100 in a country. Now what would I do to steal that from you?
a) mug
b) scam
Nah, I'm not that low All I need to do is to print out another 1000000000000$ and distribute it to everyone. Now your initial 100$ worths next to nothing. Maybe you can sell the 100$ note for some food....

Inflation steals from us more than anything.
Where's the line between marketing and fraud?


Quote:
This is kinda awkward but...:
An absence of government oversight isn't going to make the "elite fraudsters" disappear. It's just going to drown them in the mass of common fraudsters who'll get away with dealing much more damage on society.


Quote:
It's obvious that you are......
In my country, I'm a card carrying righty. I believe in law and order, think we spend too much on aids, and favor free enterprise. I just don't believe said enterprises should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 22:29   Link #62
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Yes, there'll always be fraud. It's my position there'll be more of them, and that they'll be harder to tell apart from the honest men, if nothing is done to punish them.
They will be punished. But the government will not be allowed to change the way the market work. Get it straight. Too hard to achieve? Try harder. Overall, the citizens pay for that service (by tax).

You fail to respond to my simple metaphor:

Imagine frauders are viruses. The internet is the market. We are the PC users. Governments are security providers.

Now why should the security providers have the right to dictate what the users, who pay them, can access on the net?
Quote:
Bad medical care is bad for the society as a whole. It means the diseases are more widespread and more serious, thus diminishing general productivity.
Again, the motive is out of the discussion here. The real question is "at what cost?" and "is it the best possible method to achieve that goal?"

So far, the answers from the government are:
_At whatever cost.
_The best possible (maybe) from a outright monopoly, a kind of monopoly by birth who never has any competition.

Quote:
If it's a new molecule with unknown effects, they'd better take the time.


Since none of said peers is better informed, what's the point? Besides wasting the time of not one but several doctors?
Don't be ridiculous. I hate to say this because it's against my code, but those statements make me think I'm trying to response to an extreme leftist.

Quote:
Solution A is imperfect. Solution B is imperfect. Therefore, neither A nor B work better than the other. Is that how you reason?
Yes. But through competition at least I can choose among those imperfects who in return get my money for their service. The other who want my money should come up with a more appealing product next time.

Quote:
Or survive by preying on the poor. It'll drive the price of good medicine up since only the rich will end up buying it.
You get what you pay. No hard feeling but that is how things should work in the worst of human's morality.

Between a system that could work in ANY condition whose performance improves as the condition get better VS a system that ONLY works in the top tier conditions whose performance becomes exponentially costly as those conditions deviate from their ideal standard.

Which do you choose? I will choose the 1st.
Quote:
Plenty of "bad businesses" without government protection. Go to your nearest clothing store and see how many of their products were made in China...
Again we get what you pay.

Quote:
Yeah, sure. Everyone wants to go to prison.
Yeah, sure because no one wants to go to jail means there will be little corruption! (look at China)

Quote:
Pricier doesn't mean safer.
True. But at least there will be some greedy companies out there trying to grab my money, they'd better persuade my to spend it.

Quote:
"Don't make products that'll kill the consumers".
No one has an incentive to do that. Again, if one wants to kill, he will kill and there is nothing you can do about it.

Quote:
And they'll be believed because...? If they don't want to have their budget cut, one of the first things they have to do is use that budget. Another will be to produce results of some kind. It's not like they're acting without oversight, either.
Spend baby, spend!

Quote:
I don't know. Why did the Chinese poison their own babies not so long ago?
Who poisoned who? That's the beauty generalization.

Quote:
I'm not talking about purposely packaging rat poison as aspirin. I'm talking about, for example, skipping the steps that make sure that a new headache medicine won't kill 1/1000 patient.
There is nothing to you can do about it. The business who commits that will eventually go bankrupt due to lawsuits.

Besides, I never say we don't need inspection. I argue that inspection is itself a marketable goods not a right.Just like education is not a right, and healthcare is not a right either.

Quote:
The market is notorious for letting fear get the better of it. And "Supply and Demand" can't work properly without good information. You want to put way too much power into the hands of the marketing guys.
It's an egg and chicken argument. I have no comment on that. Since it's really hard to determine if it's the government who gives too much money for the banks or the banks who use those free money irresponsibly. If you ask me, I blame the government for printing money first. The banks are also at faults but they are not the roots.

One more point, those on the floors who like to gamble should accept the price of failure. Since when did the idea of 'too big to fail' prevail? The market is sadly not transparent. Whether it can overcome that weakness itself will not be discussed here. However, those who invest are aware of that fact.

Quote:
Not what I said. What I said was, despite its occasional failings, government provides a much needed long-term vision.
Long-term vision is needed but we are not 100% sure that whose long-term vision are better. The government or entreprenuers? You can point out cases where a dictatorship did help guiding a country (Singapore for example) through hard time. But I can also point out even more cases where the government' long term goals lead the country to nowhere.

Yes, I am talking about gambling here. But at least, one of two offers more alternatives.

Quote:
Where's the line between marketing and fraud?
What exactly do you mean? That quote anwsered you why I think the FED is a fraud.

Quote:
An absence of government oversight isn't going to make the "elite fraudsters" disappear. It's just going to drown them in the mass of common fraudsters who'll get away with dealing much more damage on society.
Nothing will make them magically vanish. Again, I explain all my opinion in that crackpot theory of mine, the one you seem to ignore.
Quote:
In my country, I'm a card carrying righty. I believe in law and order, think we spend too much on aids, and favor free enterprise. I just don't believe said enterprises should be allowed to do whatever they want.
You favor free enterprises yet you do not trust them. Again, please elaborate on "whatever they want" and why "they" want to do such. I love it when people used to have the belief of how bad Rockefeller was. It made me chuckle.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 22:59   Link #63
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Imagine frauders are viruses. The internet is the market. We are the PC users. Governments are security providers.

Now why should the security providers have the right to dictate what the users, who pay them, can access on the net?
As far as I'm concerned, malware distribution is illegal in any civilized country.

(BTW, your analogy is flawed. The government is not doing things to actively prevent you from getting scammed, the government is punishing those who scam other people).
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 23:11   Link #64
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
As far as I'm concerned, malware distribution is illegal in any civilized country.

(BTW, your analogy is flawed. The government is not doing things to actively prevent you from getting scammed, the government is punishing those who scam other people).
I said viruses were frauders not the one who wrote those viruses.

Anyway, the end of both practice is to prevent scamming. Punishing is just one of many means. If one just punishes but not gives a rat about whether scamming decreases or not, he should not be in that position.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-23, 23:43   Link #65
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
I said viruses were frauders not the one who wrote those viruses.
Then how does your analogy make any sense? Since when are viruses sentient beings?

I'm at a loss as to how you can equate fraud to a set of binary instructions and live with yourself.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 00:37   Link #66
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
There is a reason why it's called a metaphor. If I take into account every single characteristic of frauders, then the need for such anology vanishes. Since when do "sentient beings" have anything to do with what being discussed here? Do I also have to take into account that frauders also have mothers, fathers, grandfathers, children ect... to take care of? Do I also have to take into account whether they're foreigners?

Both a frauder and a virus cause damages. Both the government and the security providers, since they recieve our money, must prevent those damages; hence, the ground for my metaphor.

But seriously, this nitpicking is getting nowhere. You either answer my question or not. How about answering it first then bashing it later?
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 04:09   Link #67
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Since when do "sentient beings" have anything to do with what being discussed here?
Since we're talking about human beings and taking responsibility for their actions.

Quote:
Both a frauder and a virus cause damages.
Yes, but you fail to take into account that the reason why viruses cause damage is because someone distributes them. The virus isn't responsible for anything (you can't put a program on trial)--the person distributing it is. Who could be compared to someone committing fraud, and the comparison would be quite valid--but when you do that, you'll realize that what "The Government" is doing is not preventing people from accessing certain websites, but punishing those who distribute malware.

The same happens with fraud. You can get scammed--of course you can, no one will stop you. But those who do that are perfectly susceptible of being punished--which is the way "The Government" (which is actually, you know, the people) has to prevent these sorts of things.

Quote:
But seriously, this nitpicking is getting nowhere. You either answer my question or not. How about answering it first then bashing it later?
If you're shortsighted enough not to realize that the way you formulate your analogies has a lot to do with the clearness of your own ideas...
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 08:44   Link #68
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Since we're talking about human beings and taking responsibility for their actions.

Yes, but you fail to take into account that the reason why viruses cause damage is because someone distributes them.
They causes damage. And ye, try to put into trial the jerks from Russia, China or some other god-forsaken place. It'll cause tons of $$ just to get them, some more junk of $$ for extradiction in case the local government not cooperating and while you're busy doing all of that hundreds new hackers come forth, better hackers. But too bad all of our resources have been focused on tracking them down rather than developing meaningful measures.

Look, I have different view of law and order from you. I favor what works, not what sounds or looks best. Justice or whatsoever, if they bring about a good enviroment for citizens, they will be welcomed. Otherwise, bye. That is how things work in reality.


Quote:
The same happens with fraud. You can get scammed--of course you can, no one will stop you. But those who do that are perfectly susceptible of being punished--which is the way "The Government" (which is actually, you know, the people) has to prevent these sorts of things.
Nah, if the government does thing right, crime within a certain limits will mostly be prevented, that is if the government is competent. There are 3 possible scenarios:
_The government is utter trash. In this case, giving them more power would not solve anything.
_The government works it best, however, there are shady areas where, with the current tools it has, the government does not guarantee 100% safety. Thus, the best thing to do is to warn their citizens participating in those areas with their own risks.
_ Someone deliberately ignores those warnings and get himself scammed.Well, he deserves it. End of. Resources are sadly limited while needs are immerse. Why wasting resources on those morons?
Quote:
If you're shortsighted enough not to realize that the way you formulate your analogies has a lot to do with the clearness of your own ideas...
Not really. If you don't like it because it conflicts with your belief, then within a limit of an anology, there are always things for you to complain about. Then I'll be forced to use something similarly complicated, all of which would be pointless.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 09:58   Link #69
ato
Oups...
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
iLney, may I summarize your opinions so that debaters don't have to face the "wall of text" symptom in trying to meet your arguments:
  • Taxation is inherently bad and should be abolished
  • Government should not be allowed to regulate the activities of private
    enterprises
  • No form of subsidies should be handed out from the government

Is this correct?

If so, please humor me by answering the following questions:
  • Should government itself be abolished?
    If it should be kept:
    • What kind of services should it render?
    • How should it finance those services?
ato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 10:57   Link #70
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
They causes damage. And ye, try to put into trial the jerks from Russia, China or some other god-forsaken place. It'll cause tons of $$ just to get them, some more junk of $$ for extradiction in case the local government not cooperating and while you're busy doing all of that hundreds new hackers come forth, better hackers. But too bad all of our resources have been focused on tracking them down rather than developing meaningful measures.
So... people should be able to get away with cracking servers and distributing malware simply because they're hard to trace?

How about we move your analogy once more and focus on, say, armed groups recurrently assaulting trade transports, stealing the goods and killing the transporters? Should the government also not move a single finger simply because pursuing these armed groups would be "too much of a waste of resources"?

Can I go to your house and kill your family now? I'm sure you won't mind, since after all you would be just being an idiot.

Quote:
Look, I have different view of law and order from you.
A view were "law and order" is non-existent, you mean.

Quote:
I favor what works, not what sounds or looks best.
The idea of justice is that things work better that way, you know. If everyone does good in a fair environment, then things work good.

If only a few do good and the rest die, then I wouldn't call it "working".

Quote:
Justice or whatsoever, if they bring about a good enviroment for citizens, they will be welcomed. Otherwise, bye. That is how things work in reality.
Are you insane?
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:37   Link #71
jsieczkar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
The role of government in a free society should be: To keep the peace by arresting, prosecuting, and punishing People who initiate force against peaceful, law-abiding people and their property; To provide a judiciary that enables people to resolve disputes among one another; and To protect the nation from invasion or attack. Government manipulation of the economy creates an entrenched privileged class. All individuals have the right to dispose of the fruits of their labor as they see fit and that government has no right to take such wealth. The vast majority of the services that the government handles could be better handled by private groups.

Government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest should be abolished. Any effort to forge an alliance between government and business under the guise of “industrial policy" should be stopped. These actions result in an increase in consumer cost in the long run. Giving money to one organization for any reason allows for them to operate on an unfair trade balance among it's competitors. Which intern will drive those competitors out of business.
jsieczkar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 11:43   Link #72
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest should be abolished.
So, pray tell me, how are poor people supposed to "get out of the loop" of poverty? If you force them to pay for education, there's no way they (and their children, and their children's children) can ever hope to ascend in the social structure.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 12:26   Link #73
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
So, pray tell me, how are poor people supposed to "get out of the loop" of poverty? If you force them to pay for education, there's no way they (and their children, and their children's children) can ever hope to ascend in the social structure.
Tell me, why should other people indirectly pay for other people's education against their will? Do you have a better solution than more tax?

Forcing them to pay their own way is better than forcing others to do it for them.

"Getting out of the loop" is the problem of those who want to get out. It is up to them to find a way to raise themselves. This is a right all of us must have. The government (and other people) doesn't have anything to do with it. However, if you insist that other people must help them, there must be a give-and-take because we all know that unless a government owns a really profitable enterprise, there's no such thing as free lunch. The "subsidy money" will ultimately come from the unwilling taxpayer if there's no external revenue stream. Therefore, if a government uses tax money, taxpayers must be duly compensated for it.


Loans are a nice start.

Last edited by Thingle; 2008-11-24 at 12:36.
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 12:39   Link #74
jsieczkar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
So, pray tell me, how are poor people supposed to "get out of the loop" of poverty? If you force them to pay for education, there's no way they (and their children, and their children's children) can ever hope to ascend in the social structure.
I'm talking on the Federal level, not the local level, I should have been clearer. At the federal level spending money on education is a waste. The needs of an intercity schools is not the same as a suburban school and neither is the same as a rural school. The ability to manage the schools should be left up to the local communities so that they can best tailor programs to their needs.

In addition tossing money at the schools will not fix any problems. As long as you have parents that don't care, girls who think that it is cool to get knocked up, the ability to make more money selling drugs, and administrators as well as communities that put more impotence on sports then books nothing will change. As long as society continue to not hold people responsible for their actions and provides a safety net for everyone, the poverty cycle will continue.
jsieczkar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 12:45   Link #75
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
@Liberals

Tell me, what do we get for sending (un)deserving poor kids to school with our tax money?
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 12:48   Link #76
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by yezhanquan View Post
Aye, economics: science or art? probably a bit of both.
Economics is the dismal science.


Well, modern capitalistic economies, at the very least, are fairly dismal. Human greed is assumed, and cynically harnessed to serve the social good.

Fairly early on, economists were already aware that — if left to their own devices — no private enterprise would ever bother to waste precious capital on public goods such as roads, sewers, schools and hospitals.

Hence the need for governments to provide such infrastructure for social development and, ironically, to better serve private enterprise.

I shan't dwell on the more recent arguments between iLney and other posters. They are fairly tiresome. But I'd like to reiterate a point that I think ashesatdusk made somewhere: In the end, it doesn't matter which side of the balance you stand on, so long as the economic system you support promotes and sustains meritocracy.

Singapore's authoritarian form of economic development would not have worked if not for the people who managed the system. We enjoyed a phenomenal stroke of luck when we got the kinds of people we did to run the government at that point in history (1960s through to 1980s), or things could have turned out very differently.

That said, the model has changed, and it's not entirely certain whether the government intervention of the past will still work in the future. In the past, things were easier to control. Singapore only needed to play catch-up to Japan and the West. Back then, all we needed to do was to copy and learn from the best.

Today, though, we have a situation where there's too much government control stifling many budding attempts to create new businesses — precisely the kind of economic activity needed for success in a "flat" global economy. The present government continues to insist that "father knows best", even as Temasek Holdings continues to bleed millions of taxpayer dollars from losing investments in failed American banks and a dubious Australian child-care institution.

So, really, it's a mix. Just be pragmatic. Sometimes, government intervention is needed. At other times, government needs to know when to step back and let nature take its course.

Of course, it's all easier said than done. That's why economics is such a dismal science.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 12:55   Link #77
Thingle
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Imperial Manila, Philippines
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Economics is the dismal science.



Hence the need for governments to provide such infrastructure for social development and, ironically, to better serve private enterprise.
You have a point. Those are a few instances where public spending is acceptable, because the public gets back what they spent (roads, trains etc)..
Thingle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 12:56   Link #78
jsieczkar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Economics is the dismal science.
They do say that economists were put on the planet to make weather men look good.
jsieczkar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 13:05   Link #79
Reckoner
Bittersweet Distractor
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsieczkar View Post
I'm talking on the Federal level, not the local level, I should have been clearer. At the federal level spending money on education is a waste. The needs of an intercity schools is not the same as a suburban school and neither is the same as a rural school. The ability to manage the schools should be left up to the local communities so that they can best tailor programs to their needs.
Not every country is like America and has Federalism... The UK runs under a unitary system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thingle View Post
@Liberals

Tell me, what do we get for sending (un)deserving poor kids to school with our tax money?
Well in my viewpoint, there is no one who is undeserving of education. However, I believe this also relates to a viewpoint of individualism v. collectivism, but there is another thread for that in this forum. You need a good balance of "the good of everyone" and the "good for one self" in society. As we can see in the current economic times (Specifically America), the latter seems to have forgotten about the former.
Reckoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-24, 13:19   Link #80
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 57
People who don't like sharing the load on education often seem to be just fine with building more jails.. until the bill arrives (which is bigger...).

Pure libertarianism (which is what some of the youngsters here are advocating) lasts for about 10 seconds before Warlord A comes and rapes your family, takes your food -- and may leave you just enough so he can do it again next harvest. But its a siren song of rugged individualism that continues to fool newbies and lets the robber barons continue to rape the majority...
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:08.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.