Quote:
Originally Posted by VTXDave  The Department of Education was created during the Carter Administration. Since then, our scholastic standing as compared to the rest of the world has not improved and in many studies, actually declined. Has it really helped improve education? Before the Dept. of Education, protocol was left up the the state. I grew up and went to school under a state run system and I feel, at 48, that I received a far better education than what our children have while under the Dept. of Education umbrella. It's another federal money pit. |
Just because a system is not working does not mean that you should set it adrift. I believe that - given the absolute importance of setting high education standards for the future of our nation - there should be federally administered standards at the very least. There is no principle that says that state-run education would be any cheaper at all. In addition, the creation of 50 systems and 50 standards makes standardization and protocol a ridiculous proposition. I mean, shouldn't it be a priority of our NATION to have smart citizens?
The post by Seamaiden further confirms the goal I originally proposed: if he is a true Libertarian, he doesn't want education in the hands of the states either! He wants it in the hands of the citizens! Do you really think that will lead to a smarter country? Yeah, right. Seriously... if you want to compare our nation to others, saying that our primary system is bad (which it is), the main difference between us and them is not a delocalized approach to education. Quite the opposite, in fact. The biggest difference is the priority in FUNDING. The Department of Education has continually been cut under Reagan and GW, with more on the way. You can't do shit without money, and when you have the right continually pulling money out of the public sector, of course they're going to jump in and say it doesn't work when the tank runs dry. Do you have ANY IDEA what teachers get paid here compared to other countries? Jack shit, just jack shit.
The latest attempts to privatize education through the voucher system have just been the latest rework of dismantling the system through privatization, a recurring theme of the republican party. Yes, I believe in competition, but i also believe that some things should remain in the public sector. Any time you have a program whose specific goal is to help citizens - health care and education being good examples - if you put a corporation in charge of it, you will inherently compromise the primary goal with that of profit. Look at our prison system! It is a perfect example of what happens when the customer (the government) is interested in the bottom line, and the consumer has little/no choice in the product they are delivered or a feedback mechanism that affects the private industries' bottom lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTXDave He believes that they should be left up to the States. Tell me Ceestyle...Do you think it was a good thing that the government raided and took children from their parents at the Polygamist compound in Texas? You imply, IMO, that government should not interfere w/ sexual preference. How about polygamy? How about grown men having sex w/ 15-16 year old girls? Every culture draws lines in what is acceptable, does it not? |
Of course I think that was what should have happened. My point is only that you can't advocate complete personal liberty and not be for gay rights and reproductive rights. That's buffet-style libertarianism, to use a common christian metaphor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamaiden It is a common misunderstanding of non-Libertarians that all Libs want to dismantle government completely. We are not anarchists. Not all of us are so extreme or naive as to believe that everything should be privatized. First and foremost, we value the Constitution. We value individual rights over the rights of the state, essentially the state should have no rights.
Believe it or not, public works (trash pick-up, police, education, charity) can fit within the Libertarian paradigm. The rub is that it expects the decisions to be made on a more local level, thus giving individuals more control over what happens in their "neighborhood".
And speaking of trash pick-up specifically, personally, I would like it if there were more competition. We still have to pay for our garbage service, and in some counties are REQUIRED to pay for it no matter WHAT, even if there's no trash to pick up. How is it good for me and my community that we are forced to do business with one company that the county has given the franchise to, and who can decide what they want to charge with absolutely zero competition???
How is it good for me that I can't make a contract with another company downcountry who charges LESS THAN HALF what the local upcountry disposal company charges?
It's not good for me, it's good for them and it's good for the county. The same county who wastes our taxpayer dollars renting buildings to house departments that were housed just fine in buildings they already owned but weren't quite so pretty and new.
FUCK, this shit is getting me fucking PISSED OFF.  |
Well, obviously your trash system is retarded. I think that this attitude is that centrally organized = bureaucracy and inefficiency. No-bid contracts or lack of choice are not inherent in a large system. In that case, central oversight could mean as little as a common set of standards to adhere to. Or it could mean a system that's in the public sector, but with accountability to the end user: you. Think about this scenario: you garbage is on an open-bid contract system. You've got company A who underbids every other service - probably only one or two others - significantly. So much so that they cannot properly administer your trash service, and they spill shit all over the place, miss pickups, etc. You complain and you complain, but your locality loves the deal they're getting, have a five-year contract, and will do anything to continue saving that money. It's another example of the same deal: the end user of the product is not responsible for the choice of service.