Public schools are bad and should not exist.

Page 5 of 5 [ 79 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 Nov 2012, 11:10 pm

1000Knives wrote:

Rhinox wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Rhinox wrote:

The Government has a huge incentive to perform well. It's own existence is tied to the people it serves. If we are truly underserved or die out, so too does the government. It is in its own best interest to function well.
Private business is run with an eye to profit, nothing more. If it is better on a pay sheet to let me die in the street, a private business would, without question. With government, however, it is in their best interest I stay alive and healthy so I can generate tax revenue.

For a private firm, every day is Judgement Day. For a government election day is Judgement Day. In between election you have to put up with whatever sh*t the government is dropping on your head. With a private firm, you simply stop doing business with them. If enough people do this, they will either clean up their act or go out of business.

ruveyn

You have a very charitable view of business. One can only imagine why.

You seem to enjoy throwing out single examples to prove a point, allow me to do the same. Bank of America. No one likes doing business with them. Dave Ramsey frequently villifies them on his program. I have yet to hear a single person happy with the service provided and yet they're a multi billion dollar business.

No, corporations have no judgement day so long as they have cash reserves.

I can choose to put my money in another bank. There's thousands of them. I can't as easily choose the government.

but when the bank doesnt rely entirely on external capital then it can to an extent disregard accountability to its customers.
modern banks often function both as investment and regular banks and this gives them immense power on the market, far beyond that of individuals.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Nov 2012, 11:12 pm

Oodain wrote:

You are overlooking Credit Unions. It is a place to save and they can grant loans to consumers on a limited basis.

ruveyn

1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

30 Nov 2012, 11:15 pm

Oodain wrote:

1000Knives wrote:

Rhinox wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Rhinox wrote:

I can choose to put my money in another bank. There's thousands of them. I can't as easily choose the government.

...But less power than, oh, the government?

If I want I can not put any money in any bank at all. I still gotta follow the government's laws or they'll imprison me.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 Nov 2012, 11:30 pm

you are however free to leave most countries and find another more to your liking should changing the political system be too hard to accomplish.

in essence that is similar to the market forces that drive finance, unfortunately gaining residence in another country has never been harder.

but to say that government is implicitly too powerfull is close to a fallacy,
a government is as powerfull as the people makes it, it is essentially just a collection of individuals, the real danger comes in the shape of political isolation from the people.
it can look almost caste like, with career politicians that have never done or aspired to do anything else and for whom the actual issues is somewhat removed from their daily lives, the solution is easy but unpopular.
make it impossible to live off of being a politician, if you want that sort of power and influence then that in itself should be the reward.

in reality they should be compensated to an extent, but that extent shouldnt be large enough for any luxury, give them the same as welfare recipients, then we would need to either have more involvment form the general populace or at least force politicians to function in the society they create.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Dec 2012, 10:43 am

Oodain wrote:

but to say that government is implicitly too powerfull is close to a fallacy,
a government is as powerfull as the people makes .

You are assuming an operative democracy. Many political systems in the world today are NOT democratic in their operation. Their are oligarchies and tyrannies and the desires of the public they govern (or misgovern) are not consulted.

ruveyn

abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

01 Dec 2012, 11:35 am

ruveyn wrote:

abacacus wrote:

So go somewhere where there is no income tax.

No one is gonna try holding you back.

In effect one should go where he is abused the least. I have a fantasy. Suppose the productive class of the U.S. is plundered and the Irish Republic adapts a policy of laissez faire toward business innovators taxing them hardly at all. Then the productive folks of the U.S. will emigrate to the Irish Republic. Where would that leave the U.S.

What I am suggesting is a slightly skewed version of what happens in -Atlas Shrugged- where all the first rate innovator disappear and live in a hidden are of Colorado. The country falls apart.

There is a substantial risk that the Equalizers and the Redistributors will go one step to far and strangle the goose that lays the golden eggs. At which point the goose flies away (or dies). In either case the country is left to wreck and ruin.

ruveyn

Your fantasy is just that:

A fantasy.

Go look at reality. If that was going to happen, it would have. It's not like there isn't the opportunity to do so, especially for the rich. Wake up, ruveyn. You're wrong.

_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

01 Dec 2012, 1:45 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Oodain wrote:

but to say that government is implicitly too powerfull is close to a fallacy,
a government is as powerfull as the people makes .

which i adressed in the entire second part of my post,

that however still says nothing about the inherent properties of government, only that there are some that are bad.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Dec 2012, 2:04 pm

Oodain wrote:

that however still says nothing about the inherent properties of government, only that there are some that are bad.

And the worst of them tend to be totalitarian. That is the choice of their leaders, not the people as a whole.

ruveyn

adb
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

01 Dec 2012, 3:00 pm

visagrunt wrote:

You might get away with that disingenuous claim once. But having been confronted with the facts, maintaining a position predicated on an inaccuracy is dishonest. You can no longer claim honest mistake one the mistake has been presented to you.

It wasn't a mistake. You are arguing from the perspective of law using authority of law. I can appreciate that perspective, but I don't share it.

Quote:

However, I will grant you the accuracy of, "taking my property without my consent." That is an absolutely fair statement. And so long as you drop the pretence that this is the equivalent of theft or stealing, then we can agree.

You are nitpicking terminology. We won't agree on this because I don't tie the term "theft" to legality. From the online dictionaries I just poked around on, it looks like we both have reasonable standing in our arguments. Maybe I should use "stealing" since it has less of a legal binding.

Quote:

Finally, allow me to be clear that I have never suggested that the law or the government are moral forces. The law is amoral, and the principles of equity exist to moderate the law where fairness requires. Similarly, government exists for the purpose of maintaining peace and promoting general well being. But morality is not a basis upon which government can or should act.

The law is most certainly not amoral.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

03 Dec 2012, 1:08 pm

adb wrote:

It wasn't a mistake. You are arguing from the perspective of law using authority of law. I can appreciate that perspective, but I don't share it.

But since "theft," is a legal term, how else can one intelligently argue other than from a perspective of law?

Quote:

And that's your mistake. If you can find me an authority that defines theft without touching on matters of law, then by all means present it. But since, "property," is also a legal term, I suspect that you are going to fail in that effort.

Property only belongs to you because the law says that it does. The moment that the law says that you no longer have an enforcable interest in the subject matter, it is no longer your property. If someone else has a superior interest, then that is legally enforcable. "Taking your property without consent," it may well be. But, "theft," it is not.

Quote:

The law is most certainly not amoral.

In what jurisdiction? Nowhere--ever--has the law been a moral instrument. It has, from time to time, cloaked itself in morality--but that does not change its fundamental nature.

Indeed, the entire practice of equity arose in England and Wales precisely because the law did not recognize issues of morality, fairness and justice.

_________________
--James

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

03 Dec 2012, 2:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

[

Because you are a republifan.

Moi??? Mais non. I have not been a republican since 1964. I have been an independent since. The last Republican I could possibly vote for was Barry Goldwater and he went down in flames.

I vote for many folks but hardly ever for pinko stinko commie loving redistributionist egalitarians of the Democrat abomination.

ruveyn

Hint: The f in republifan was not a typo.

_________________
.

thewhitrbbit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,124

03 Dec 2012, 3:19 pm

Quote:

Not really. The government has taxing power, it can print money, if it disarms its citizens it can prevent revolution.

Quote:

You seem to enjoy throwing out single examples to prove a point, allow me to do the same. Bank of America. No one likes doing business with them. Dave Ramsey frequently villifies them on his program. I have yet to hear a single person happy with the service provided and yet they're a multi billion dollar business.

Quite simply, this is people's laziness. I no longer bank with Bank of America. There are many banks who want my business (I am not rich by far) and offer me better perks than BOA. They offer them to everyone, yet people continue to bank with BOA and complain to the government. The American consumer doesn't realize how much power the dollar has. How many leftists do you see shopping in Walmart while complaining about outsourcing and the decline of American labor standards?

Now for the original topic.

I would like to see many things change with public education. Half of it is a pre-prison program run by ignorant children and parents who refuse to do anything to punish said ignorant children.

Educational standards are dubious at best at times. We dumb things down, we don't challenge, we spend so much time helping the dumb kids (not those with disabilities, but those lazy, dumb kids) get to the minimum the smart kids loose out.

We don't encourage real critical thinking, children are indoctrinated that they respond to things exactly as they are taught, not applying actual critical thinking skills.

Hell, I had that some school in Boston is teaching that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism against the benevolent brittish.

RushKing
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,340
Location: Minnesota, United States

06 Dec 2012, 1:17 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFRT9JKGPcI[/youtube]

Last edited by RushKing on 06 Dec 2012, 1:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

06 Dec 2012, 1:23 am

thewhitrbbit wrote:

Hell, I had that some school in Boston is teaching that the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism against the benevolent brittish.

If you use the definitions in the USA PATRIOT Act, it was.

DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

06 Dec 2012, 1:44 am

RushKing wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U[/youtube]

This is a good video aside from the "cultural identity" stuff at the beginning.

At the rate things are going, all the cultures of the world will fuse together into a global culture by the end of this century. I see no reason to prevent this.

_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/

Page 5 of 5 [ 79 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Jump to:

Public schools are bad and should not exist. Post Reply New Topic

Public schools are bad and should not exist.