Either the state would be setting standards that schools still had to meet, or washing its hands of the idea, yet still paying for it.
Parents would choose the standards by choosing the schools, just like individuals choose standards for other goods or services, by buying what meets their needs and not buying what doesn't.
Vouchers would give every parent, rich or poor, religious or anti-religious, the opportunity and the freedom to choose a school that teaches lessons according to their personal needs.
I am not saying these judgments I am making should be enforced because I alone think them. I'm willing to hold it to a vote.
The standard retort to this are:
- Two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner. - 5 men and 3 women vote on whether the women should have sex with the men - My personal idea is that the US should levy a tax on Norway. Norway is rich and the US wants the money. Allow everyone in both countries to vote in one big election. The US has twice the population of Norway, and the US gets all the money, so we'll win for sure. We have a big military and nukes, so when Norway loses, they'll be forced to pay the tax. It's a simple solution to any budget/tax problem, and it costs us nothing.
Can you see anything wrong with any of these things? (Hint: most people see what's wrong right away.)
YOU are the ones saying that it should not be voted on, that anyone should be able to do anything they want if it is physically possible.
Yes, I'm absolutely saying that people should make their own choices about what they do rather than asking everyone in town for permission. That's a free society. Civilization happens when you prevent/punish violence and behaviors that lead to violence (like theft or reckless acts like drunk driving). Otherwise, people should be free.
I'm saying that isn't how civilization works. We have a system for deciding things together so that we can all live in harmony. It should not be skirted, it should be used and enforced once a decision is made, because that is the only way we have to protect people from being screwed over. The more we come to a consensus, the more civilized society is. Your needs do not trump mine, so let's not say "you can or cannot do this" until it has been put to a proper vote and decided fairly.
You are describing a cult.
Taxi regulations are also in place for a reason.
To give a small number of people control, so they can overcharge the public and use part of the profit to reward government elites. And to provide paychecks to regulators, so some people with the right connections don't have to do productive work.
Unregulated, there were too many cars, and there was no control. The streets were clogged, people were getting ripped off.
Invisible bogeymen roamed the streets, casting an intangible gloom over everything. Children had bad dreams. Parrots stopped talking in complete sentences and the nightly screeching of the neighborhood's feral cats took on a tone of resigned sadness.
How can anyone voluntarily living in a democratic country NOT believe in a fair vote?
People should mind their own business. Giving people a ride in your car is not some extraordinary problem that requires police involvement.
You know what, sometimes in life people have things done to them that they don't want for the sake of others. For example, I can't walk into a restaurant and start spitting into every one's food. It's called civilization.
Civilization is about arresting someone who spits in other people's food. Civilization is NOT about arresting someone for ordering extra mayo on their sandwich because you think mayo is yucky.
Arresting someone for bullying the innocent is NOT the same as using the police to bully innocent people. Stop bullying innocent people.
$50 a day easily pays for food and rent and other expenses by itself. Add the average monthly social security check ($1180) to that and you get more than $2000/month take home pay. That's not wealth, but it's not poverty either.
I think its inhumane.
You should have more respect for people who work. They could be sitting at home doing nothing, collecting a check for helping no one. Instead they're helping people get where they need to go, and they're paying their own way in the process. Working helps your fellow man -- that's why he's glad to pay you for your work. It's good. (It's especially good when you compare it to being an entitled asshole spongeing off the labor of everyone else.)
What if they don't want their account turned off? Someone's going to have to be arrested sometime if you want people to be forced to obey your rules rather than allowing them to make their own choices about their own lives.
Or you could just learn to mind your own business, and then no one needs to get arrested, and people can work or not as they wish.
Because we must all understand that we need government micromanagement of everything everyone does, all the time, or else one of the bogeymen will victimize someone. It's people like you who make us all vulnerable to devastating predation by bogeymen.
When hurting people is called justice and not hurting people is called injustice, a good person should side with not hurting people, regardless of the label and any surrounding storytelling. Because hurting people is evil.
Furthermore, there's a certain word you will want to use when encouraging people to hate each other. Hatred makes people want to hurt their enemies. But people don't like to think of themselves as evil. And intending to harm others seems evil to people (because it is). So you need a way to make it good to hurt people rather than evil.
Fortunately for you, there's a ready-made concept that solves your problem perfectly: justice. You can hurt whomever you wish and still call yourself a hero simply by declaring it justice. There's nothing quite like justice to quiet the nagging voices of morals and ethics.
Because dividing people is one of the routes to power. Here's the plan:
1. Find a population of people who are doing adequately. Not perfectly, but they're getting by.
2. Divide them into 2 groups. Encourage one group to hate the other. Hatred between the groups can be based on - Fictional stories - True stories of bad things that happened to people who died a very long time ago - Envy - Minor problems hyped up into a major drama - Entitlement mentality - Or something else. It's not hard. People hating each other is built into human nature.
3. Lead (or "organize") one of the groups against the other. Viola! You're the leader, you have power. Now you can use your power to demand payments -- which you'll get to keep a large part of.
That's what "organizers" do. They're fighting for you!
That's why employees must be categorized by ethnicity.
The problem with this search is that government is too big and too unaccountable to be allowed that capability. Governments and law enforcement agencies routinely act unjustly. They use violence and threats needlessly, acting as bullies rather than public servants. And they are almost never punished when they commit crimes.
If governments showed humility and served the public, maybe you'd consider letting them search something occasionally. But that sort of government seems like an impossible fantasy these days. So no. Not until they prove they can be trusted -- which unfortunately means probably never.
Without the regulations, the only people who'd have known about the Chipotle e-coli outbreak would have been Chipotle.
Regulation doesn't exist to preserve shareholder value.
So the regulation worked to inform people. Good.
I think people would have found out anyway, but a rational person understands there's no way to know what would happen in an alternate future. Maybe a lot more people would have gotten sick in a lot more locations and, when people finally did hear about it, the company would have lost $10 Billion, or $12 Billion and would now be facing hundreds of lawsuits.
The point is: hurting customers is bad for business. There's a big incentive to not hurt customers. It's easier and more lucertive to sell stuff to people when you you don't hurt them.
Yes. Surrender to government micromanagement of everything. Otherwise the corporate bogeyman will get you.
Can we agree that there's an important role for regulation and also agree that there's no incentive for GM and Google to kill their customers -- that hurting customers, even accidentally, is a huge negative for a company?
Look at the e-coli outbreak at Chipotle for an example. Some people got sick and they lost $7 Billion in value -- 30+% of the company's value. Does anyone actually think fear of government regulatory agencies is a bigger problem for them than losing 30% of their company's value in 3 months?
Do you have some problem with bringing the accused to court and if found guilty punishing them? Why do you believe criminals shouldn't be punished?
Why should money change hands? Why should someone who has earned nothing and done nothing of value for anyone get a big payday? How did punishing the guilty turn into rewarding lawyers and grievance activists?
Yes. But that's not "freedom", it's something else. Perhaps the EFF should rename itself to the Electronic Ethics Police if they're going to change roles to enforcing an ethical code on others using governments and courts.
If companies are actively engaged in suppressing free speech and harming people that are expressing themselves in ways that don't promote violence online then they damn well should be making those companies pay a high price for their unethical behavior.
Using government courts to selectively enforce someone's personal code of ethics on others seems like the opposite of Freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor kids will go to poor schools in poor districts, middle class kids will go to good schools in good districts. It's segregation by income.
Which is exactly like the non-voucher system we have now. Poor children live in poor areas served poorly by poor schools.
With vouchers to pay the bills, poor parents can get together and open a new school right next to the old one, so everyone has a choice.
Either the state would be setting standards that schools still had to meet, or washing its hands of the idea, yet still paying for it.
Parents would choose the standards by choosing the schools, just like individuals choose standards for other goods or services, by buying what meets their needs and not buying what doesn't.
Vouchers would give every parent, rich or poor, religious or anti-religious, the opportunity and the freedom to choose a school that teaches lessons according to their personal needs.
are beholden to politics. Don't like it? Get the government out of schools.
I am not saying these judgments I am making should be enforced because I alone think them. I'm willing to hold it to a vote.
The standard retort to this are:
- Two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner.
- 5 men and 3 women vote on whether the women should have sex with the men
- My personal idea is that the US should levy a tax on Norway. Norway is rich and the US wants the money. Allow everyone in both countries to vote in one big election. The US has twice the population of Norway, and the US gets all the money, so we'll win for sure. We have a big military and nukes, so when Norway loses, they'll be forced to pay the tax. It's a simple solution to any budget/tax problem, and it costs us nothing.
Can you see anything wrong with any of these things? (Hint: most people see what's wrong right away.)
YOU are the ones saying that it should not be voted on, that anyone should be able to do anything they want if it is physically possible.
Yes, I'm absolutely saying that people should make their own choices about what they do rather than asking everyone in town for permission. That's a free society. Civilization happens when you prevent/punish violence and behaviors that lead to violence (like theft or reckless acts like drunk driving). Otherwise, people should be free.
I'm saying that isn't how civilization works. We have a system for deciding things together so that we can all live in harmony. It should not be skirted, it should be used and enforced once a decision is made, because that is the only way we have to protect people from being screwed over. The more we come to a consensus, the more civilized society is. Your needs do not trump mine, so let's not say "you can or cannot do this" until it has been put to a proper vote and decided fairly.
You are describing a cult.
Taxi regulations are also in place for a reason.
To give a small number of people control, so they can overcharge the public and use part of the profit to reward government elites. And to provide paychecks to regulators, so some people with the right connections don't have to do productive work.
Unregulated, there were too many cars, and there was no control. The streets were clogged, people were getting ripped off.
Invisible bogeymen roamed the streets, casting an intangible gloom over everything. Children had bad dreams. Parrots stopped talking in complete sentences and the nightly screeching of the neighborhood's feral cats took on a tone of resigned sadness.
How can anyone voluntarily living in a democratic country NOT believe in a fair vote?
People should mind their own business. Giving people a ride in your car is not some extraordinary problem that requires police involvement.
You know what, sometimes in life people have things done to them that they don't want for the sake of others. For example, I can't walk into a restaurant and start spitting into every one's food. It's called civilization.
Civilization is about arresting someone who spits in other people's food. Civilization is NOT about arresting someone for ordering extra mayo on their sandwich because you think mayo is yucky.
Arresting someone for bullying the innocent is NOT the same as using the police to bully innocent people. Stop bullying innocent people.
$50 a day easily pays for food and rent and other expenses by itself. Add the average monthly social security check ($1180) to that and you get more than $2000/month take home pay. That's not wealth, but it's not poverty either.
I think its inhumane.
You should have more respect for people who work. They could be sitting at home doing nothing, collecting a check for helping no one. Instead they're helping people get where they need to go, and they're paying their own way in the process. Working helps your fellow man -- that's why he's glad to pay you for your work. It's good. (It's especially good when you compare it to being an entitled asshole spongeing off the labor of everyone else.)
What if they don't want their account turned off? Someone's going to have to be arrested sometime if you want people to be forced to obey your rules rather than allowing them to make their own choices about their own lives.
Or you could just learn to mind your own business, and then no one needs to get arrested, and people can work or not as they wish.
Because we must all understand that we need government micromanagement of everything everyone does, all the time, or else one of the bogeymen will victimize someone. It's people like you who make us all vulnerable to devastating predation by bogeymen.
Because arresting someone who works 12 hours instead of 10 prevents victimization? What if they work 14 hours? Chop off a hand?
Why not just mind your own business instead?
When hurting people is called justice and not hurting people is called injustice, a good person should side with not hurting people, regardless of the label and any surrounding storytelling. Because hurting people is evil.
Furthermore, there's a certain word you will want to use when encouraging people to hate each other. Hatred makes people want to hurt their enemies. But people don't like to think of themselves as evil. And intending to harm others seems evil to people (because it is). So you need a way to make it good to hurt people rather than evil.
Fortunately for you, there's a ready-made concept that solves your problem perfectly: justice. You can hurt whomever you wish and still call yourself a hero simply by declaring it justice. There's nothing quite like justice to quiet the nagging voices of morals and ethics.
Because dividing people is one of the routes to power. Here's the plan:
1. Find a population of people who are doing adequately. Not perfectly, but they're getting by.
2. Divide them into 2 groups. Encourage one group to hate the other. Hatred between the groups can be based on
- Fictional stories
- True stories of bad things that happened to people who died a very long time ago
- Envy
- Minor problems hyped up into a major drama
- Entitlement mentality
- Or something else. It's not hard. People hating each other is built into human nature.
3. Lead (or "organize") one of the groups against the other. Viola! You're the leader, you have power. Now you can use your power to demand payments -- which you'll get to keep a large part of.
That's what "organizers" do. They're fighting for you!
That's why employees must be categorized by ethnicity.
If I don't like what you offer, I move next door. And of course I take my taxes and my jobs with me.
Like free people might do?
And then what? Keep troops in the region for the next hundred years to deal with ISIS/Al Queda 3.0 and 4.0 and 5.0?
Which country is going to do that? We've learned from Bush/Obama that the American people don't have what it takes to do this.
The problem with this search is that government is too big and too unaccountable to be allowed that capability. Governments and law enforcement agencies routinely act unjustly. They use violence and threats needlessly, acting as bullies rather than public servants. And they are almost never punished when they commit crimes.
If governments showed humility and served the public, maybe you'd consider letting them search something occasionally. But that sort of government seems like an impossible fantasy these days. So no. Not until they prove they can be trusted -- which unfortunately means probably never.
That number will be cut in half anyway if you look at the trend.
Without the regulations, the only people who'd have known about the Chipotle e-coli outbreak would have been Chipotle.
Regulation doesn't exist to preserve shareholder value.
So the regulation worked to inform people. Good.
I think people would have found out anyway, but a rational person understands there's no way to know what would happen in an alternate future. Maybe a lot more people would have gotten sick in a lot more locations and, when people finally did hear about it, the company would have lost $10 Billion, or $12 Billion and would now be facing hundreds of lawsuits.
The point is: hurting customers is bad for business. There's a big incentive to not hurt customers. It's easier and more lucertive to sell stuff to people when you you don't hurt them.
It's also the argument used against the drug war. But that's enough ad hominems. I don't think punishing people is freedom.
Yes. Surrender to government micromanagement of everything. Otherwise the corporate bogeyman will get you.
Can we agree that there's an important role for regulation and also agree that there's no incentive for GM and Google to kill their customers -- that hurting customers, even accidentally, is a huge negative for a company?
Look at the e-coli outbreak at Chipotle for an example. Some people got sick and they lost $7 Billion in value -- 30+% of the company's value. Does anyone actually think fear of government regulatory agencies is a bigger problem for them than losing 30% of their company's value in 3 months?
Let's make rational choices.
Do you have some problem with bringing the accused to court and if found guilty punishing them? Why do you believe criminals shouldn't be punished?
Why should money change hands? Why should someone who has earned nothing and done nothing of value for anyone get a big payday? How did punishing the guilty turn into rewarding lawyers and grievance activists?
Yes. But that's not "freedom", it's something else. Perhaps the EFF should rename itself to the Electronic Ethics Police if they're going to change roles to enforcing an ethical code on others using governments and courts.
If companies are actively engaged in suppressing free speech and harming people that are expressing themselves in ways that don't promote violence online then they damn well should be making those companies pay a high price for their unethical behavior.
Using government courts to selectively enforce someone's personal code of ethics on others seems like the opposite of Freedom.
People who buy and sell electronics do.
But why is it the EFF's concern? Shouldn't the EFF be arguing against court actions that encumber data equipment sales?
Are they for electronic freedom, or are they just another leftist grievance profiteer?