Governator cutting education funds!!

[Kuya]

They wouldn't be siphoned off as they would only be redeemable at educational institutions, much like you can't use food stamps to buy non-food.

Welcome to Puerto Rico.

[archibaldcrane]

Guys, I really don't think the whole "one student with two vouchers" thing is an issue here. I think that school vouchers are stupid, a thinly-veiled attempt by well-off parents who send their kids to private school anyway to get the government to pick up some of the tab under the guise of helping poor students from the ghettos have a "chance at a better life". I think they are bullshit.

However, the "black market voucher vendors" aren't the problem with school vouchers.

[Plow]

Guys, I really don't think the whole "one student with two vouchers" thing is an issue here. I think that school vouchers are stupid, a thinly-veiled attempt by well-off parents who send their kids to private school anyway to get the government to pick up some of the tab under the guise of helping poor students from the ghettos have a "chance at a better life". I think they are bullshit.

However, the "black market voucher vendors" aren't the problem with school vouchers.

Not "the" problem, but that is a major issue.


Really it's not just the rich guys, I know people that aren't too well off that support vouchers, it's just honestly for the most part really not giving a shit about what happens to the lowest of the low. There's just no denying that putting a school in the ghetto is not a profitable venture and will not happen.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Maybe the government would have to step in special cases. I can't see how keeping a monopoly is a good thing though.

Edit: In a documentary by John Stossel on our public education system there was an 18 year old that struggled with 1st grade reading. 72 hours later after attending the Sylvan Learning Center (those profit motivated rat bastards) he was reading two grades higher. Consumers seem to be better of when the providers of goods and services are driven by the profit motive where survival requires a constant effort to get and keep customers.

[archibaldcrane]

However, the "black market voucher vendors" aren't the problem with school vouchers.

Not "the" problem, but that is a major issue.

Again, vouchers are implemented in many cities in America, including a city I lived in for two years. I've never heard of this problem. Can you cite any instances of this?

[Plow]

Maybe the government would have to step in special cases. I can't see how keeping a monopoly is a good thing though.

Edit: In a documentary by John Stossel on our public education system there was an 18 year old that struggled with 1st grade reading. 72 hours later after attending the Sylvan Learning Center (those profit motivated rat bastards) he was reading two grades higher. Consumers seem to be better of when the providers of goods and services are driven by the profit motive where survival requires a constant effort to get and keep customers.

I never said private education givers were bad, just that you'd have to be a fool to believe that educating the poor is profitable for the schools.

However, the "black market voucher vendors" aren't the problem with school vouchers.

Not "the" problem, but that is a major issue.

Again, vouchers are implemented in many cities in America, including a city I lived in for two years. I've never heard of this problem. Can you cite any instances of this?

Yeah go down to 32nd and vine and... you're kidding right?

[Beckwin]

I read ethics of liberty, and what he said was that self-ownership is an inalienable right and therefore cannot be contracted out since contracting is based on those rights. Contracting itself, is not an inalienable human right, lol. At least I never read rothband saying that. Would be a pretty stupid thing to say.

But it's said the right to contract is derived from inalienable rights. If you truly own your person, then why are you not free to do as you will with it? As long as an individual's own intent can be proved, selling yourself into slavery should be fine when you make property the
measure of all things.

No, it's just roth saying any of those are acceptable, and Friedman is stealing the concept from marx's labor theory of value. However, unlike marx, friedman makes it clear that he takes "overhead" expenses, machinery etc, into account when calculating the labor value.

I'm saying that a bunch of independent contractors in insanely inefficient for a large variety of production/business, and that employment leads to "infringements" in anarcho-capitalist terms (becoming contradictory). that was leading into the next part (which you didn't get, but I elaborate further below).

I don't understand what you are saying here.

I'm saying that employment becomes compulsory in any capitalist society because you require capital to continue existing. You have to produce income whether you want to or not, so there is inherent infringement on an individual, which again goes against the central idea that you don't have to do anything you don't want to. Go ahead and point out that it's your right to choose to starve to death, but that's simply nonsensical for the sane population- generating income is compulsory.

Well there are a few logical flaws in your reasoning, and i'll tell you why. Don't hesitate to correct me if I misunderstood what you are saying.

The entire social structure is based on the idea that nobody can assert special privileges or powers over any other person, unless that person somehow violated your rights. So there will be different procedures regarding persons who violated your rights, versus procedures for people who, say for example, play their music very loudly at night and cause you to miss sleep and thus reduced your income somehow.

To understand how this will work, you gotta know what it's going to look like in practice.. First of all, everyone will want to contract into some type of protection agency for obvious reasons. Let's call them dispute agencies.

You agree to abide by certain rules, and in return you get services like protection, ability to resolve disputes, have them keep credit scores, etc. Business's, banks, lawyers, etc will only want to deal with people who contracted into a reputable agency for obvious reasons.

Bolded part sounds like a mob arrangement. But ok, I'll follow your proposal. The last sentence, however, is up for much debate- take current examples: people know that Wal-Mart has a bad reputation for how it treats it's employees, and people know that gas-guzzlers aren't good for the environment and don't help our dependence on foreign oil, not to mention already steep gas prices. Say what you will about the government's influence on the oil and auto industries, but Wal-Mart is still stands very firmly as an example of there being more to a company's success than their reputation.

If you choose not to join an agency, you'll be socially castrated from the better parts of society. You won't be able to get any fair loans, can't submit a complaint, etc. Not to mention that you'll be pretty much "free game" to sharks, thugs, since you are on your own.

So, in essence, you're basically forced to join an agency- no one following basic human instinct of self-preservation or basic capitalist desire to win property and privilege will go without a protection agency. This is a contradiction, guartz. Don't play it off as "well you can choose to just not get it lolz!"- the only reason you wouldn't get it is if you can't afford it, much like healthcare today.

If however, you crime isn't a simple dispute over a missed payment or something, and you like raped somebody, or murdered somebody. Then that person, or that person's agency have legal claim on your ass, since you violated somebody's rights, you don't get any for yourself. Unless of course, you are absolved from guilt.

When friedman, or roth, or nozick talk about justice, they are talking about scenarios like this. Where organization isn't in question, but the application of it is.

And what about your representation, as the accused? who is the third party who mediates between your legal/protection agency and the accuser's? Do you now start to see why entirely 3rd party justice begs for misrepresentation, corruption, etc? Not to mention that it doesn't seem to account for much in the way of preventative action and certainly makes no provision for those who can't speak/pay for themselves- what happens when a defense agency-less person is accused of an infraction?

Also, you are suggesting that mega-rich people will be able to sustain their own agencies? lol. And i'm the 12 jewish banker conspiracy theorists, right?

Ok but in seriousness, it will be VERY hard to stay rich if you bribe entire cities, considering that most wealth accumulation now comes from government interference/protection/use of force or intellectual property rights. Neither of those will exist, in anarchist society.

And here we are looking at another contradiction. Criticism of anarcho-capitalism says that a new governing agency would simply form as defense agencies grow larger and eventually form cartels. AC's say that wouldn't happen due to free-market conditions (which is extremely hard to back up in my view, larger businesses are extremely profitable and generally more efficient, enabling lower prices which only snowballs domination in a free market), and that the big agency criticism is a circular argument in which there'd need to be a counter big agency. So let's assume, for a moment, that agencies magically never get 'too large' to be a threat to the anarchy:

exactly what stops someone like Bill Gates from being able to sustain his own moderately sized defense agency? nothing, really, not to mention the greater likelihood of companies hiring/funding them instead- a 100 million a year is very doable for the bigger ones.

Now let's get back to assuming that defense agencies don't stay small. Let's say that a very successful business decides to branch out and form it's own defense agency. We'll say it's a power company because everyone needs power (omg compulsory!). So this power company is very successful and their defense agency becomes powerful as well. They eventually push out competing power and defense agencies in the area and achieve a monopoly. There's no strong government to oppose them, and they are the utility and defense. An entire metropolis and the surrounding region comes under their control. You have a giant company town, with all the 'little people' living in the slums, forced to bend to the will of the company. Tell me, guartz...

What is that metropolis's name?
http://www.ex.org/2.3/images/ff7_1.gif

What is that company's name?
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff7/...a/shinlogo.jpg

What is that defense agency's name?
http://images.google.com/url?q=http:...5tOGF8shEX61HA

[archibaldcrane]

However, the "black market voucher vendors" aren't the problem with school vouchers.

Not "the" problem, but that is a major issue.

Again, vouchers are implemented in many cities in America, including a city I lived in for two years. I've never heard of this problem. Can you cite any instances of this?

Yeah go down to 32nd and vine and... you're kidding right?

So, this is a problem, but you have never heard of it happening? Or you are just so tapped into the underground school voucher market that no newspaper reporter has ever infiltrated and don't want this special info that only you are privy to to get out, but you're talking about it anyway?

Articles. References. Things that prove you aren't talking out of your ass. Do you have them? This is me calling bullshit on you.

[Beckwin]

also about the home-school qualification requirement: do vouchers in CA apply to home schooling? because that'd be a big fucking problem if there was no accreditation requirement for home educators.

[CMMeast]

Now let's get back to assuming that defense agencies don't stay small. Let's say that a very successful business decides to branch out and form it's own defense agency. We'll say it's a power company because everyone needs power (omg compulsory!). So this power company is very successful and their defense agency becomes powerful as well. They eventually push out competing power and defense agencies in the area and achieve a monopoly. There's no strong government to oppose them, and they are the utility and defense. An entire metropolis and the surrounding region comes under their control. You have a giant company town, with all the 'little people' living in the slums, forced to bend to the will of the company. Tell me, guartz...

What is that metropolis's name?
http://www.ex.org/2.3/images/ff7_1.gif

What is that company's name?
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/ff/ff7/...a/shinlogo.jpg

What is that defense agency's name?
http://images.google.com/url?q=http:...5tOGF8shEX61HA

Absolute win.

On the original topic, education being cut in the budget is nothing new. UC tuition has increased from 6.1k in 2005-06 to 8.7k 2007-2008, not to mention the 60% increase in tuition since 2001-02 to 05-06. The rise in tuition rate far outpaces inflation, and let's not even compare it to the average wage.

In spite of the idiots up in Sacramento, the California higher education system (public) is still the best in the nation. For how long, who knows...

[Demosthenes11]

again, don't blame arnie, blame gray davis
I don't know why this is hard to understand.

Man A fucks california.
Man A is removed.
Man B is elected.
Man B cuts programs to fix problems from man A.
Man B is the antichrist

[Correction]

again, don't blame arnie, blame gray davis
I don't know why this is hard to understand.

Man A fucks california.
Man A is removed.
Man B is elected.
Man B cuts programs to fix problems from man A.
Man B is the antichrist

People still blame Nixon for the Vietnam War.

And the man before Davis wasn't exactly a champion of the common student, either. Pete Wilson was an absolute cock-up.

[BIGSTIC]

also about the home-school qualification requirement: do vouchers in CA apply to home schooling? because that'd be a big fucking problem if there was no accreditation requirement for home educators.

Well I will be the first to say "I never GRADUATED a state accredited high school".

Yep was Homeschooled from 1st-12th. Graduated back in 97 went on to get a degree from a state college and am living a pretty damn good life. But yeah my mom made us take the IOWA standardized test(pretty sure that is what it was called) every year. It was 2, 8 hour days of testing preformed by a certified tester. And later on I had to take the SAT and ACT. But honestly I am not 100% as to weather that was a rquirement by the state. Trust me I have met ALOT of poorly educated Homeschooled kids.

BUT I am also the first to say I am not gonna home school my kids. 90% of the kids I met at conventions have absolutely no clue as to what is happening in the real world and that is sad. My parents pulled me and my sisters out of the public schools not because of any religious or political reasons. They just thought they could do a better job. And if you ask them now they are against vouchers. They never asked for anything and my dad even got invited to help select the citys math/science textbooks. I am excited to take my kid to the first day of school. I am excited to get involved in his education. Hell some day I would love to sit on a school board. I feel the best education you can give your child is the one that you are involved in.

[CMMeast]

again, don't blame arnie, blame gray davis
I don't know why this is hard to understand.

Man A fucks california.
Man A is removed.
Man B is elected.
Man B cuts programs to fix problems from man A.
Man B is the antichrist

Why cut education though? There are many more programs that could be cut or pared down instead of our education budget. Arnold vowed to spend more money on education and even go as far to freeze tuition increase but in the end he just ended up fucking a lot of people over.

In reality, our problems started at the end of the first net bubble when the state never figured out a way to keep our college system well funded.

[Plow]

However, the "black market voucher vendors" aren't the problem with school vouchers.

Not "the" problem, but that is a major issue.

Again, vouchers are implemented in many cities in America, including a city I lived in for two years. I've never heard of this problem. Can you cite any instances of this?

Yeah go down to 32nd and vine and... you're kidding right?

So, this is a problem, but you have never heard of it happening? Or you are just so tapped into the underground school voucher market that no newspaper reporter has ever infiltrated and don't want this special info that only you are privy to to get out, but you're talking about it anyway?

Articles. References. Things that prove you aren't talking out of your ass. Do you have them? This is me calling bullshit on you.

Dude think about what you're saying. It's like saying since there weren't newspaper articles in the 1800's about people being cokeheads, no one was.

You're right, I don't know for a fact instances where it has happened recently, but I do know that were it instituted as a national system, people would find a way, and you'd have to be stupid not to see that.


I'm sorry, I'm not going to go search the internet for links to prove a hypothetical in an argument about something that's just not going to happen anyway.

[guartz]

But it's said the right to contract is derived from inalienable rights. If you truly own your person, then why are you not free to do as you will with it? As long as an individual's own intent can be proved, selling yourself into slavery should be fine when you make property the
measure of all things.

it's based on/in inalienable rights. What you are saying is a complete misrepresentation of the idea presented both in wiki and what roth actually said. I can't tell you why you don't understand this. Do you know what "inalienable" means? How about "rights"?



I'm saying that a bunch of independent contractors in insanely inefficient for a large variety of production/business, and that employment leads to "infringements" in anarcho-capitalist terms (becoming contradictory). that was leading into the next part (which you didn't get, but I elaborate further below).

All of that is just your opinion. Who exactly said that organization won't happen? Why is contracting for employment an infringement in anarcho-capitalist terms? (whatever that means)


i'm saying that employment becomes compulsory in any capitalist society because you require capital to continue existing. You have to produce income whether you want to or not, so there is inherent infringement on an individual, which again goes against the central idea that you don't have to do anything you don't want to. Go ahead and point out that it's your right to choose to starve to death, but that's simply nonsensical for the sane population- generating income is compulsory.


Until we have technology where with a push of a button we can create resources, this dilemma will persist in any form of society. Even in welfare states you are required to work if able. Life just sucks that way, huh? Are you suggesting that forcing people to provide for others with free lunch is a better way? What exactly are you saying, that because people still have to work to get by, there is some sort of infringement on NATURAL LAW??!
This is exactly what roth meant by natural occurrence. Also read my sig, hehe.

Bolded part sounds like a mob arrangement. But ok, I'll follow your proposal. The last sentence, however, is up for much debate- take current examples: people know that Wal-Mart has a bad reputation for how it treats it's employees, and people know that gas-guzzlers aren't good for the environment and don't help our dependence on foreign oil, not to mention already steep gas prices. Say what you will about the government's influence on the oil and auto industries, but Wal-Mart is still stands very firmly as an example of there being more to a company's success than their reputation.

yeah, current examples of wal-mart and gas-guzzlers, and bill gates are all based on state power. For example, wal-mart gets huge government subsidies and drives competition out of business.

If you choose not to join an agency, you'll be socially castrated from the better parts of society. You won't be able to get any fair loans, can't submit a complaint, etc. Not to mention that you'll be pretty much "free game" to sharks, thugs, since you are on your own.

So, in essence, you're basically forced to join an agency- no one following basic human instinct of self-preservation or basic capitalist desire to win property and privilege will go without a protection agency. This is a contradiction, guartz. Don't play it off as "well you can choose to just not get it lolz!"- the only reason you wouldn't get it is if you can't afford it, much like healthcare today.


the distinction is that those agencies are subject to market forces. Do you want me to explain what that means? It's rather a lengthy subject, i'd prefer if you learn the implications of that distinction yourself, to be honest.

And what about your representation, as the accused? who is the third party who mediates between your legal/protection agency and the accuser's? Do you now start to see why entirely 3rd party justice begs for misrepresentation, corruption, etc? Not to mention that it doesn't seem to account for much in the way of preventative action and certainly makes no provision for those who can't speak/pay for themselves- what happens when a defense agency-less person is accused of an infraction?

Your assuming a lot of things here. Like the majority of people will be in complete poverty, or there will be a huge discrepancy between wealth. Or that agencies will be completely incompetent, or that lawyers will never exist, or that insurance or charity will not be readily available, or that a agency-less person is forever stuck that way, or he won't be able to defend himself. So yeah, if all these things are true, then yea, sounds like a bad system, don't it?

And here we are looking at another contradiction. Criticism of anarcho-capitalism says that a new governing agency would simply form as defense agencies grow larger and eventually form cartels. AC's say that wouldn't happen due to free-market conditions (which is extremely hard to back up in my view, larger businesses are extremely profitable and generally more efficient, enabling lower prices which only snowballs domination in a free market), and that the big agency criticism is a circular argument in which there'd need to be a counter big agency.


monopoly is extremely unlikely in a true free market system. I don't think it ever happened without government helping in one way or another.

So let's assume, for a moment, that agencies magically never get 'too large' to be a threat to the anarchy:
exactly what stops someone like Bill Gates from being able to sustain his own moderately sized defense agency? nothing, really, not to mention the greater likelihood of companies hiring/funding them instead- a 100 million a year is very doable for the bigger ones.


same theme, magical large corporation going against market forces and accumulating overwhelming wealth when the odds are severely against them the bigger they get. I'll cite the wiki you are quoting;

"Anarcho-capitalists dismiss this claim, citing the power of market competition as a check on monopoly, the defensive nature of private security, and the level of offensive force that is required to prevent competition. Moreover, the anarcho-capitalists further counter this claim by arguing that it only creates a circular and contradicting argument, in which it implicitly advocates a monopoly on force to stop a monopoly on force from arising."


Now let's get back to assuming that defense agencies don't stay small. Let's say that a very successful business decides to branch out and form it's own defense agency. We'll say it's a power company because everyone needs power (omg compulsory!). So this power company is very successful and their defense agency becomes powerful as well. They eventually push out competing power and defense agencies in the area and achieve a monopoly. There's no strong government to oppose them, and they are the utility and defense. An entire metropolis and the surrounding region comes under their control. You have a giant company town, with all the 'little people' living in the slums, forced to bend to the will of the company. Tell me, guartz...

lol, k

honestly I wonder if guartz even thoroughly reads the stuff he professes to support. he's rare to ever give in-depth explanation and instead just throws links at people. if you can't explain it yourself, how and why do you argue it so fervently? it's kind of a cop-out to play some intellectual high ground sneering "go read this and this link, simpleton", but hilarious when it backfires.

Ah but it's completely cool for you to criticize something you virtually know nothing of? Heh, beckwin, your hypocrisy and ff7 references are epic lols.

[Beckwin]

guartz, you can try to talk condescending all you want, but convince me somehow that a free(er) market would somehow magically stop businesses from getting too big. I'm not gonna believe in the Invisible Hand anymore readily than I'll believe in Zombie Jesus. Talk some theory rather than again saying "uh go read this thing I read once". The FF7 thing was just an easy reference and attempt to inject some humor into this, but really, explain why something remotely similar to that would never ever happen in a a-c environment.

Are you familiar with Robber Barons? They earned their name in a time of much less government regulation of economy (hell, a good chunk of it before the Fed, FTC, both World Wars, FDR, etc). The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) was the initial response to them.

Wal-Mart subsidizing mainly occurs because they're so (disgustingly) successful- it's guaranteed economic activity for a locality. Make no mistake though, Wal-Marts business plan would do well in any capitalist environment- force out competitors by above all keeping your prices the lowest; achieve those low prices by keeping your labor base in low company standing and going big in terms of bulk/product moved. And for all the subsidies walmart receives, small business has their own set of government benefits- not to say it washes out, but you can't exclusively blame the US government for making walmart into the world's largest corporation... that's a bit conspiracy theory-esque.

Microsoft is a company I'd like to see your take on. Government contracts maybe? But in that scenario the government is just a customer, and plenty of government purchases don't have the same crossover success in the civilian and business market.

[Beckwin]

it's based on/in inalienable rights. What you are saying is a complete misrepresentation of the idea presented both in wiki and what roth actually said. I can't tell you why you don't understand this. Do you know what "inalienable" means? How about "rights"?

Let's try this: a-c theory says you own your person; it's an inalienable right. correct? ownership implies property. a-c theory says you have the right to contract your property. correct? but a-c also says you can't contract your person, even though its your property. that's a contradiction in a-c terms, for which they must make a special case, but in a logical sense it simply means that human beings are not property in the way that inanimate objects or currency are.

The great pitfall of a-c is rendering everything in terms of property. gross oversimplification and blind faith in a free market being overwhelmingly benevolent and fair.

Until we have technology where with a push of a button we can create resources, this dilemma will persist in any form of society. Even in welfare states you are required to work if able. Life just sucks that way, huh? Are you suggesting that forcing people to provide for others with free lunch is a better way? What exactly are you saying, that because people still have to work to get by, there is some sort of infringement on NATURAL LAW??!
This is exactly what roth meant by natural occurrence.

If being forced into labor is so natural for a society to perpetuate, then why is a-c so against every other possibility to be forced in order for a society to perpetuate? If you have to work anyway no matter what the system of government (or lack thereof), why is it so bad to pay a democratically elected and accountable government to render defense, health, education, infrastructure services rather than "choosing to" (re: absolutely must) pay private entities whose overarching goal is to make the most money they can off of you? If you're gonna go on about government robbery, I'll gladly go on about corporate greed and robbery.

I'm sure you'll respond with "government is robbery, and uh, read up on market forces" but really, explain what would cause a capitalist entity to NOT try and make the most money possible? We'll both have examples and counterexamples about the failings of private industry and government alike, but that does not help your original assertion back on page 2 or w/e that a-c is better than anything we have right now.

Your assuming a lot of things here. Like the majority of people will be in complete poverty, or there will be a huge discrepancy between wealth. Or that agencies will be completely incompetent, or that lawyers will never exist, or that insurance or charity will not be readily available, or that a agency-less person is forever stuck that way, or he won't be able to defend himself. So yeah, if all these things are true, then yea, sounds like a bad system, don't it?

There will always be people in poverty in a capitalist system. Do you really want to argue that?

Explain how wealth distribution would significantly improve if the US gov't immediate both ended taxation and took its hands off economic matters.

Explain how the poor afford lawyers, or how defendant's rights are represented in these private courts and legal systems. You explained it basically as some hybrid insurance claim/bounty hunter situation.

[guartz]

Beckwin, to be fair, I don't like condescending tone either. So if we are in agreement, I won't do it again if you stop as well.

As far as AC with regards to monopoly, just look at it through a historical perspective, if you don't want to believe the economists. Governments have always had influence on the markets, either total like mercantilism with government actively protecting monopolies, as per your example of Robber barons or simple regulation with state-capitalism where it still has monopoly on violence, law and currency etc.

But to fully understand it, you have to understand the underlying and subtle theme of anarchy, that is, instead of trying to dominate man with force and violence in order to have a stable society, anarchy attempts to use man's own nature and create an environment where a system of rewards, incentives and punishments are naturally occurring. Ultimately leading to a free and stable society through rigorous use of knowledge about human nature, sound logic and reasoning. The market ( a representation of human wants and needs) is the perfect tool. Therefore, AC opposes any unnatural interference to the market.

It's the abandonment of violence in favor of reason and adaptation of preferred behavior with natural incentives. The idea is close to 100 years old, but this philosophy still in it's infancy. There are a lot of complications, but almost all human problems can be solved without commanding force.


Nothing like that will ever come about in my lifetime, or even my children's children lifetime. So it's not like i'm gonna stop paying taxes. But you can still incorporate these ideas in your personal life. Like for example, good parents don't bully their children to get preferred behavior.


oh and state power = intellectual property rights = microsoft = monopoly.

I mean, what exactly is intellectual property? Somebody can "own" an idea? a concept?
wtf?

[archibaldcrane]

I mean, what exactly is intellectual property? Somebody can "own" an idea? a concept?

Noone owns an idea, they own it's expression. Ideas aren't protected by law, only manifestations of them. The removal of protections for intellectual property rights will significantly stifle advances in technology. The market won't provide incentive to write new software if it can immediately be ripped off without consequence.