Thread: Someone explain this to me.

Originally Posted by ats200

I think you're confused on what exactly is meant by government vs. private business.

Government does have a use and a reason, they are what you described. Laws, enforcement, judicial, legislative, etc. All of these duties are clearly outlined in documents made long ago.

Sure, if you want to look at the specific case of the federal government of the USA instead of considering the role of a government in the philosophical sense, you may even end up with an extremely narrow understanding of something specific for over 200 years ago. But if you want to be strict purist you better give up your internet or phone service in favor of communicating through letters only.

Originally Posted by ats200

Reverting back to education which I think is a good example, of course some private sector schools would be better than others and some would be astronomically priced. But there would also be a market for good, average schools. Does everyone deserve an education? Yes. Is it currently being provided to them? No.

Last I checked there were plenty of fantastic private schools, some of my friends teach there. May be you could've spent the 50,000/year tuition to go to one of them instead of to the inferior government system and could've had different results.

I apologize, I thought we were referring to the US whose governmental basis was pretty much a revolution for the modern world. Maybe if it had stayed as it was intended instead of growing into the unstoppable monstrosity it is today, we'd be more successful as a whole. Of course it's different when you look at the concept of government in a philosophical sense, there are numerous different types that can be argued.

Do you know why there are private schools? Because public schools suck and someone wanted to change things. If there were no public schools, there would be affordable private schools and it would have a huge demand and be very profitable.

Look at the higher education industry. There are plenty of options for all ranges. Some are state schools and some are private. I could have gone to Harvard and been in debt for my entire life, a cheaper private school, maybe for an associates degree, or a state funded school for a degree far inferior to one from Harvard.

Let's face it - rich people will always have an advantage and lower and middle class people will always struggle. It's true today, it was true in the 20s, and it'll be true 50 years from now. The difference is that the government has absolutely no business in any private industry and I'd of much rather paid to go to high school and actually received some sort of benefit from my classes rather than getting it for "free" and wasting all those years. I have no problem being raised middle class, but I'll work my ass off to try to make sure my family has it a little bit better when that time comes.

Should the government be controlling our currency? No. absolutely not. The list keeps getting bigger.

Originally Posted by ats200

Do you know why there are private schools? Because public schools suck and someone wanted to change things.

Uhm, you may want to try again, perhaps after consulting with a history textbook. Private education predates public education by thousands of years.

Originally Posted by ats200

If there were no public schools, there would be affordable private schools and it would have a huge demand and be very profitable.

I don't now of any single piece of evidence that would support such assertion. At the same time you can have you hearts desire of cases historical, and contemporary, when the government has not been involved with education and they are characterized by the lack, not the availability of

Originally Posted by ats200

Look at the higher education industry. There are plenty of options for all ranges. Some are state schools and some are private. I could have gone to Harvard and been in debt for my entire life, a cheaper private school, maybe for an associates degree, or a state funded school for a degree far inferior to one from Harvard.

Indeed look at it - plenty of options, yet high quality affordable education is lacking. The only exception is the university of california system, which is government. The worst buy - the bottom tier 'for profit' institutions which are bordering with a fraud/scam.

Do you want another example - straight razors. Purely for profit driven market and guess how many people buy the likes of zee-pk and douglas cutlery?
The difference with education is that the choices of the parents affect the rest of the life of their children and we're talking huge fraction of the population.

Originally Posted by ats200

Let's face it - rich people will always have an advantage and lower and middle class people will always struggle. It's true today, it was true in the 20s, and it'll be true 50 years from now.

The free market dynamics produces huge disparities, that seem to only increase with time, so the more you're screwed the more you'll be screwed, until the society simply falls apart. In other words the equilibrium you're assuming does not exist and unless you start in the upper classes you are going to be getting worse (that's statistically, of course, which is the model for a society).

Originally Posted by ats200

I'd of much rather paid to go to high school and actually received some sort of benefit from my classes rather than getting it for "free" and wasting all those years.

Before just going with the purely ideological assumption that you'll be better off, you really want to look at the distribution of the local taxes which are the ones that fund education in most places. Chances are that you were subsidized by those in the higher income brackets, so if you simply take your (actually your parents') money that went into the education it'd only be enough to purchase worse education than what you received.


BTW nobody is forcing you to live with the government controlled currency. Where I live there are alternative currencies that the local hippies have been using for at least twenty years. I hear other places in the country have such things as well. And as of several years ago there are internet currencies as well. If the government controlled currency was such an evil you'd think that the free market would've taken care and made all the alternative local currencies expand to national.
Or people can be simply self sufficient and for the few things they are not do bartering. It's not like it's never happened before.

I can sit here and pick apart your responses too. The reality is that it's just a difference in opinion and ideology.

If it were so clear that one side were better than the other regarding anything with the government, there would be no debates, arguments, or different political parties.

I happen to believe the government should stay away, you feel they should be more involved. I'd never think differently of someone for not having the same thoughts as I do but we all know topics like these are pointless because we're not going to sway opinions. Something big has to happen before people change their minds and until it does, there will be opposing viewpoints. For example, no one is going to argue that cigarettes aren't bad for you anymore.

Originally Posted by ats200

I happen to believe the government should stay away, you feel they should be more involved.

This is incorrect. What I think is that there are things the government ought to be more involved in than it is now, and others where it ought to be less involved in or not at all. And those are not fixed once and for all by an ideology or historical fact, but have change over time as is needed for the better function of the society. I'd call that more a matter of worldview, not an opinion.

Originally Posted by gugi

...And those are not fixed once and for all by an ideology or historical fact, but have change over time as is needed for the better function of the society.

The problem is that in reality, the government only grows. I might agree with your position if I ever saw government actually remove itself from anything. I hear about new laws all the time but never about repealing them. For the last 40+ years at least, government has only increased it's intervention...its meddling...in markets and society.

Further, assuming your position is correct, and the federal government should "change over time", there is a process for that, the amendment process. I find it unconscionable that we have so long ignored the law of the land.

I'd call that more a matter of worldview, not an opinion.

Pardon my candor, but that sounds really arrogant.

Originally Posted by eflatminor

Further, assuming your position is correct, and the federal government should "change over time", there is a process for that, the amendment process. I find it unconscionable that we have so long ignored the law of the land.

Hey, don't blame me, this isn't my country and I don't have any part in how it's run. I say if you don't like what your politicians do, elect better ones. And if you can't do that, may be the way the founding fathers set it up isn't all that great after all.

Uhm, it's dangerous to extrapolate without having any knowledge of the pertinent facts. I live in USA and pay taxes that support the USA government. Not being an american for years I've paid more than the americans, without getting the benefits that they do because that's what the law is. So, I'd fall under that taxation without representation thing, which I'm perfectly fine with it, as it's my own choice.
But yeah, I'd argue that I've put more skin in the game than most (and knowing the income and tax distributions in this country, this is also a factually true statement).