I'm glad discussions on policy are happening across the country. I had more than a little concern that policy would fall off the radar after the elections and during the holiday season. Fortunately, I have observed everything from concerns over the fate of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to quite a lot of discussion on taxation. Taxation is especially important to me.
I am an advocate for a fully voluntary society, free of governmental compulsion wherever possible. For instance, I support a completely draft-free, voluntary military. Those who want to serve and possibly go to war are free to do so. Those who do not wish to take on the possibility of fighting a war they might oppose are free to sit on the sidelines. I like US policy on military service.
I hold the ability to withhold participation in accordance with one's conscience as the hallmark of freedom. The more a government allows you to choose to sit on the sidelines, the freer the society.
I oppose the use of force to achieve political goals. To use the same example's flipside, I oppose impressment into military service. Aside from the practical considerations of the effectiveness of troops made to fight against their will, there is the more important consideration of the will of the individual citizen. Is this person merely a subject? A pawn to be used at the discretion of another human being?
No. Not in a truly free society.
The question of taxation can be a vexing one. I'm not an anarchist. I do believe that there are a good number of a society's functions that are best managed collectively, and I do believe that these need to be paid for. At the same time, I hold that most of the functions of most of the governments in the United States (whether federal, state, or local) are outside of the parameters of those best managed collectively.
For the person who believes completely that all of the things your taxes pay for a justified and correct, keep on paying those taxes and wear that grin.
But, if you oppose having to pay for those things you do not believe in, shouldn't you get to opt out? Must you be forced to pay, even though your conscience and your best judgment tell you the funding should be withheld?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
I am an advocate for a fully voluntary society, free of governmental compulsion wherever possible. For instance, I support a completely draft-free, voluntary military. Those who want to serve and possibly go to war are free to do so. Those who do not wish to take on the possibility of fighting a war they might oppose are free to sit on the sidelines. I like US policy on military service.
This sounds fine at face value, but it doesn't take much rationalization to see that it wouldn't work, Mike. Using your opt-out philosophy, that you advocate later in your post, about opting out of paying for things you don't approve of, it would be a certainty that those who would then volunteer to do military service would be doing so with far more substandard equipment and armor than they currently have. There apparently isn't enough money NOW to equip our troops overseas with the appropriate armor. Imagine millions, or 10's of millions of Americans opting out of sending their tax dollars to the military. I shudder to think of the consequences.
I hold the ability to withhold participation in accordance with one's conscience as the hallmark of freedom. The more a government allows you to choose to sit on the sidelines, the freer the society.
Another thing that sounds good at face value. Let's say big government goes against your conscience, Mike. Clearly it does. I'm NOT advocating big government, but am playing devil's advocate to your ideology here. So you have the option to withhold taxes and you do so. As with millions of other Americans, you withhold everything. Now your house is burning. I don't suppose it would be against your conscience to allow firefighters to put out the fire would it? Who's going to pay their salary?
Do you realize, do you even comprehend the nightmare of paperwork that would be involved to sort out who pays for what? X million Americans don't want to pay for sex education. X million Americans don't want to pay for Planned Parenthood. X million Americans don't want to pay for the restoration of religious historical buildings. X million Americans don't want to pay for the preservation of green frogs. The list is infinite. Can you propose a solution that would not take millions of dollars in labor, supplies, effort and resources to redirect what would be the largest 'sorting of data' in history? Of course, you have to propose a solution that is absolutely free, because everybody's going to opt-out of paying for it.
The question of taxation can be a vexing one. I'm not an anarchist. I do believe that there are a good number of a society's functions that are best managed collectively, and I do believe that these need to be paid for. At the same time, I hold that most of the functions of most of the governments in the United States (whether federal, state, or local) are outside of the parameters of those best managed collectively.
Give me 5 examples that are best managed collectively. Give me 5 examples that fall outside of the parameters you describe. I will probably agree with you on a few. Then explain to me, how it is that you OR I have the justification for 'moral judgment' to decide which falls in which parameter?
But, if you oppose having to pay for those things you do not believe in, shouldn't you get to opt out? Must you be forced to pay, even though your conscience and your best judgment tell you the funding should be withheld?
A society, in seeking to better itself, decides collectively what methods it wants to support to better itself. Nobody knows more than I, Mike, what it is like to fall outside of that decision. You always speak in vagary. Speak specifics. What is it, that you don't want to pay for? Abortions? How much would that save you in taxes yearly, Mike? 10 dollars? Or is it welfare and social security? Give specifics as to how you come to your ideology about what part, what specific parts, of the Institutions of American Democracy goes against your conscience, please.
In today's political climate, we are told that those who wish to keep all of their income rather than to surrender it to taxation are greedy.
You want to keep ALL your income? Yet you acknowledge that there are aspects of government that are necessary? And you have no problem utilizing the resources of the government for your own gain, and in your specific case, Mike, YOUR CAREER IN POLITICS, without wanting to put anything in it? Yes, that is greedy.
I cannot help but think of slaves, who are denied any measure of the fruits of their labor while another man appropriates that wealth.
Neither can I. That is a consequences of allowing a free market to run itself. You told me earlier, on another thread, that you could not give me an example of the 'utopia' you seek, because it has never existed. The reason, Mike, it has never existed is because when you allow the free market to control itself, unchecked, oppression and tyranny have ALWAYS resulted. Without exception. You, yourself, conceded this fact and yet you still strive for it.
Conservatism promotes (and so does liberalism, misguidedly) the idea that liberalism is about activist government where conservatism is not. This is absurd. It is unrelated to the history of conservative government. Conservatism promotes activist government that acts in the interests of the aristocracy. This has been true for thousands of years. What is distinctive about liberalism is not that it promotes activist government but that it promotes government that acts in the interests of the majority. Democratic government, however, is not simply majoritarian. It is, rather, one institutional expression of a democratic type of culture that is still very much in the process of being invented.
For one thing, Mike, you need to quit using the word "government" in a way that does not distinguish between legitimate democracy and totalitarianism.
What about the middle class family that suffers a 50% appropriation at the hands of the government?
Government can go too far. We need checks and balances in place that prevent that. To use the example on the other thread, that got this conversation started between you and I; it is the conservatives who will not work to better the situation, while the progressives in government want very much to solve the problem to help the middle class. Should this scenario you quote here, bother you to no end, you need to go to conservative and ask them why they are stalling on the issue.
To those who would use force to achieve their political goals- I'm talking about Progressives and Socialists especially here, but also the vast majority of Democrats and a slim majority of Republicans- answer me this: What makes slavery wrong? What principle makes it abhorrent?
Mike, I don't know what to say to a person who finds the principles of Democracy akin to slavery.
Clarification for those on 'The Left': This means, when you use the body to earn money, you earned it, it's your money. By the way, the mind is part of the body.
Clarification for you, Mike. A business is not part of your mind. Microsoft is not part of Bill Gate's mind. There are not thousands of people living in his brain. It is an entity for commerce. Why do Libertarians feel the need to individualize a business? To give it soul and the rights of a human being? This is where your ideology hits a brick wall.
Let me ask you this, Mike, picture a worst case scenario for me. Let's say there were no anti-trust laws, no rules on business whatsoever. It was as free as you want it to be. Microsoft had the ability to crush Apple, Linux, Unix and everything else with impunity. Microsoft then had a 100% monopoly. Monopolies have happened before, they are not subject to 'creative outside innovation', they can squash such under the heel of their boot with ease. Technology is stifled. Meanwhile, because everybody needs computers, Bill Gates income hits several trillion dollars. The fees for software go through the roof, business, banks, etc. either have to raise prices to accommodate or go back to pen and paper. This affects the economy drastically, putting people out of work, the entire economy is impacted. Meanwhile, his salary now is close to 10 trillion dollars. Is there ANY point where you say 'too much?' or do you say this cannot happen, even though history has shown us time and time again that it does happen?
A person making 40,000 a year, having to pay 50% in taxes is horrible. That gives them only 20k left to live on. A person who makes 600 million a year, having to pay 50% in taxes is left with 300 million. Where is the hardship, Mike? They could only buy 5 mansions instead of 6? I am all for a person being rewarded for their hard work but common sense tells us that a CEO who makes 1,000 times his employees is NOT 1,000 times smarter or works 1,000 times harder. There is a dividing line there, there is a balance, with too much oppression from the government on one end, and too much oppression from individuals/corporations at the other end of the spectrum. We need to work together to find that middle pivot point. Progressivism (liberalism) is the only ideology that seeks that.
"Those seeking profits," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government.”
2 - Eric Berlin
Steve S. brings up a number of good points. If I may, I'd like to present a few theoretical questions, and see how they play against your (Mike) stated beliefs:
- It's 1940. Germany has run over and occupied most of Europe. The Luftwaffe is turning London into Swiss Cheese.
You said you oppose war.
* Do you fight back? Sue for peace and lose all freedoms?
* Do you draft all of the servicemen and resources your need?
* Would you modify your position for cases of dire emergency?
- You gain the right, as a US citizen, to pay as much or as little of your taxes as you see fit, depending on your belief system.
* If you choose not to pay taxes for transportation costs, do you lose the right to use highways, bridges, city streets, and on and on?
* If you choose not to pay taxes for public safety, do you lose the right to call the police when your home is burglarized (or worse)?
* And on and on.
I'm not judging your positions, Mike. I'm just curious to see how you might match your belief system to the real world.
I'm glad to join this discussion at any rate...
Eric Berlin
Dumpster Bust: Miracles from Mind Trash
http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com
3 - Mike Kole
Whew. There's a lot to respond to. I hope you'll both cut me some slack and some time on it.
Re: Utopia and the free market. Steve, name one situation in the world where there has been actual laissez faire capitalism. The only one I would venture is the United States around the Industrial Revolution. Just give me one.
Re: Wars and the real world. One's participation in war should be evaluated, like anything else in life. Me? I would have rushed to fight in WW2 against the Japanese; if I was English or Polish, against Hitler; etc. There are nearly endless cases for war that I can accept, most of those come in defense of country. I would *not* have rushed to enlist in VietNam or in this Iraqi war. I wouldn't have joined Hitler's army if I were German. Etc. Obviously, that latter would have been a dicey proposition. I probably would have fled the country.
Re: Usage. I'm in favor of the basics. Remember, I said that I am not an anarchist. I am in favor of collective management of infrastructure, safety forces, and defense. I'll be paying for these very happily. It is interesting to me that whenever I initiate a discussion on taxation anywhere, invariably someone goes straight for the elimination of the police, which I NEVER would be in favor of. I know my position is very radical compared to most, but in the real world, I'll be damn satisfied with a 10% reduction in spending.
Re: 5 areas best managed by government. Defense. Safety forces. Storm and santiary sewers. Roads. The arts. Just kidding. The courts.
Re: 5 areas best left to private management. Sports arenas. Gambling. Industry. Farming. The arts. Little galls me as much as socialized football.
Re: opt-out paperwork nightmare. Is it a nightmare for you to shop at stores? There are millions of shops across the US that sell myriad products. They all do their own bookkeeping. An impossible task? Of course not. If the things that were governmentally managed shifted to the private sector, they would become businesses just like retail. On the whole, I beleive that those services would see vastly improved distribution in the same way that there were lines in the Soviet Union for bread and toilet paper, which is laughable here in the US where the marketplace manages these things.
4 - Mike Kole
Steve- there are many things I am happy to negotiate on. That government is force is one thing that I am not willing to negotiate.
Force is the one thing that makes many people comply with payment. Sure, many people gladly pay and have no qualms. Great. If it were not for the use of force, or at least the threat of force (imprisonment, fines, garnishment of wages, stripping of professional licenses, etc.), I wouldn't be paying nearly as much as I do. I'd chip in what I think is my fair share. 50% is way more than my fair share.
The difference between government and Wal-Mart is that the latter has never threatened me with imprisonment, fines, garnishment of wages, stripping of professional licenses, etc. My government has.
5 - RJ
I received a harsh real-world lesson in taxation just the other day.
I was looking at my annual bonus check, and the federal government took damn near 40% of it. 40%!
I'm no big-shot CEO. I'm no multi-millionaire. I'm just some college kid who manages to work full-time while going to school full-time.
And 40% of my bonus is *POOF* gone!
And yet 48% of the American people voted for the "I'm going to raise taxes" candidate just 6 weeks ago.
Scary...
6 - bhw
He wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class. He was going to repeal the tax cuts that affected the wealthy.
But the other half of the country voted for the guy that wants to keep cutting taxes while waging a war [whose cost not only keep increasing but have no end in sight] and increasing government programs. Borrow, borrow, borrow from the future. That's what those people voted for.
Go figure.
7 - Steve S
Re: Utopia and the free market. Steve, name one situation in the world where there has been actual laissez faire capitalism. The only one I would venture is the United States around the Industrial Revolution. Just give me one..
Mike, Laissez-faire capitalism around the Industrial Revolution was a conservative pro-business ideology that attacked a middle class. A "laissez-faire" policy is not a hands-off goverment. It is simply pro-business policy, as with large subsidies for businesses to produce the railroads in the United States or the common use of tariffs by Republican presidents during that period. In this context, laissez-faire rhetoric was used to justify denial of similar subsidies to the poor and working classes. I've already gone over this with you. Laissez-faire philosophy, throughout human history, has not been lack of government intervention. It has simply been pro-business government to support an aristocracy, and the denial and oppression of a middle class.
And let's not forget the workers who toiled in the hot sun for hours on end, driving the spikes into the rails to create those railroads. Should we discuss them? Here's a reminder, Mike, they weren't part of an emerging middle class.
Re: 5 areas best left to private management. Sports arenas. Gambling. Industry. Farming. The arts. Little galls me as much as socialized football.
What's interesting is that all 5 of those are some form of business/commerce/industry.
Re: opt-out paperwork nightmare. Is it a nightmare for you to shop at stores? There are millions of shops across the US that sell myriad products. They all do their own bookkeeping. An impossible task? Of course not. If the things that were governmentally managed shifted to the private sector, they would become businesses just like retail.
So you are suggesting that each taxpayer fill out his own forms as to where his money goes and personally keeps track of it? Or are you suggesting that a private enterprise/business handle the distribution of tax dollars? Perhaps we can see if Pat Robertson or the Heritage Foundation would like the responsibility? No thanks, Mike.
On the whole, I beleive that those services would see vastly improved distribution in the same way that there were lines in the Soviet Union for bread and toilet paper, which is laughable here in the US where the marketplace manages these things.
I don't know what it's like where you shop, and I CERTAINLY do NOT want to imply that shopping here in America is like the bread lines of the Soviet Union, BUT should I want to go get toilet paper here in this town of 400k, I pretty much need to go to Wal-Mart or Albertsons or some other national/multi-national chain, since they have driven all the mom and pop shops out of business. And having to deal with the traffic jams to get into the parking lot, to have to navigate through the behemoths waddling their carts through the aisles, and stand in the checkout line which rarely contains less than 15 people in line (because 80% of the checkout lanes are closed), and then navigate through the traffic jams to get out of the parking lot can very well take 2+ hours out of my day to get one single item. This forces us to have to go shopping for bulk and not for a single item. Yes, this is better than the lines of Soviet Union which took days, but IT'S HARDLY SOMETHING TO PRAISE. And now that stores like Albertson's are no longer employing cashiers that much but allow you to check out your own items electronically and bag it yourself, not only does this put more people on the unemployment line, but the lines move sooooo much slower since the average American is not skilled at the profession. They don't know what to do when the machine beeps 'error, error'. Shopping at big business is as bad as trying to get customer support on the phone from big business, and daily you are left with less and less alternatives.
Steve- there are many things I am happy to negotiate on. That government is force is one thing that I am not willing to negotiate.
Taxation is a requirement. I do not deny that. Taxation is necessary for a government to function. I do not deny that. All I am saying is that in EVERY example in world history where it was left to the marketplace to run itself, tyranny, oppression and the creation of aristocracies have ALWAYS resulted, which is no different than the totalitarianism that you fear from the government. It's just a different set of rulers. I still say, Mike, the answer is in working together to find that pivot point in the middle. There are no absolutes in a democracy.
The difference between government and Wal-Mart is that the latter has never threatened me with imprisonment, fines, garnishment of wages, stripping of professional licenses, etc. My government has.
Wal-Mart intimidates their workers to be anti-union, they harass their employees to accept substandard wages, thereby requiring most workers to supplement their income with subsidies from the government, which, guess what, Mike, the taxpayer picks up. What you do not pay the employee through salaries in the store, you end up paying for as a taxpayer anyway.
Where we differ Mike, is that with you it is always an extreme. Either an extreme government or absolutely no government (in business) which history has shown us, always leads to the same extreme but from the other end of the spectrum. Just as tyrannical. Just different rulers. The answer is in the middle. Compromise. Should you be unable to compromise, then you will most likely not be part of the solution.
RJ says:
And yet 48% of the American people voted for the "I'm going to raise taxes" candidate just 6 weeks ago.
Must be nice to work for a company, that in this economy can even give out a bonus holiday check. John Kerry was not going to raise taxes, he was going to roll back the tax cuts for those who make over 200,000 per year.
8 - Big Time Patriot
"The difference between government and Wal-Mart is that the latter has never threatened me with imprisonment, fines, garnishment of wages, stripping of professional licenses, etc. My government has."
Haven't you ever signed an employee agreement? Try reading them sometimes. Wal-Mart habitually threatens legal action for crossing their policies. Many companies demand your pee before you can work for them. The government has never demanded my pee, some companies I've applied for have. I myself don't see freedom as a strong point in a Corporation dominated society. But hey, if you don't want to work you are perfectly free.
9 - Big Time Patriot
"I was looking at my annual bonus check, and the federal government took damn near 40% of it. 40%!"
Uh, sorry, the government only borrowed the 40%, it's called withholding, your actual taxes will be determined later. Bonuses are often taxed artificially high because they calculate the withholding as if it was your average paycheck. If your yearly income puts you in the 40% bracket, than your bonus will be taxed accordingly. If your annual income puts you in the 30% bracket you will recieve 10% of your withholding back.
10 - Temple Stark
Psst. RJ. If you're a college kid not earning much - you'll get that 40 percent back in your income tax refund.
Just so you know.
More generally, Taxation without representation. It wasn't the taxation our Founding Fathers objected to - it was that none of it was helping where they lived.
11 - RJ
"should I want to go get toilet paper here in this town of 400k, I pretty much need to go to Wal-Mart or Albertsons or some other national/multi-national chain, since they have driven all the mom and pop shops out of business."
NOT TRUE!
Those "mom and pop shops" are still in business. The reason you don't buy your TP there is because it is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE to do so.
Which is why Wal-Mart has been so successful in the first place: They are CHEAP!
12 - RJ
"The government has never demanded my pee"
Try applying for a federal/state job sometime...
13 - RJ
"Psst. RJ. If you're a college kid not earning much - you'll get that 40 percent back in your income tax refund."
I've already calculated my refund. I'll get a portion of it back, less than half.
I never said I "don't make much"... :-/
14 - Steve S
Actually, RJ, I don't buy my tp at Wal-Mart. We don't go to WM, for the precise reasons I mentioned, it becomes a half-day event. I buy it at Albertsons, a national chain, because there isn't a mom and pop shop in my town that sells groceries. It's not much better than WM, but the only other real alternative. Of course there's Safeway, etc. but same principle. I'm not against big business entirely, but there can be no disputing that the bigger the business gets, the more ineffective the service. I do prefer the smaller shops.
Since you are convinced otherwise (about the shops in my hometown), if you will kindly give me their address, I will spend a few cents more to patronize them.
15 - RJ
You mentioned TP, and nothing else. Gas stations sell TP, and they are often family-owned.
If you want a small-chain, how about an "organic" store? Or do you mean to tell me that in a town of 400,000 people, there is not a single one of those near you?
I live in a town of 80,000 and there are multiple stores of that type near me...
16 - Mike Kole
Steve- Well, yes, when waxing philosophical, I do often take the extreme, but I don't just do so when it's convenient. You'll see what I mean later in this response.
There is a difference between waxing philosophical- which is what this post was- and making policy recommendations.
In a policy recommendation, I would never propose to reduce spending by more than 10%. The public would never stand for any more, because they cannot fathom radical change as anything but negatively disruptive. To suggest an immediate end to property taxes is to be branded a lunatic. But you can recommend a 10% reduction and still look downright reasonable, which, when I'm making a policy recommendation, I really need to maintain.
I believe that the philosophical level is the correct place for extremism. It sets a kind of negotiation point. Of course, when policy comes, compromise follows, and you end up somewhere in the middle. But if you fail to start at the philosophical level at the extreme, you end up giving away too much of what you hope to gain over the course of the compromise.
Beyond that, I like to think in extremes. They make for excellent points of reference. Slavery is an absolute, so it's easy to chart and to categorize. Complete freedom is likewise. We have neither, of course. I want people to look at what we have, as best anyone can tell, and to evaluate which we are closer to.
That might be an uncomfortable exercise if you conclude that we are closer to servitude than freedom in some areas of life.
Also, most people hold some extremist, absolutist views in some areas of life, and accept this as okay. I have an interest in tapping into that and asking questions like:
Why is it ok to have absolute personal freedom, to associate with whomever you like, and at the same time not ok to have absolute personal freedom to keep your income?
Why is it ok to dictate to people that some of their income must be managed by others, and at the same time not ok to dictate to people that their love interests must be managed by others?
Some of the same people who insist that government must be in my wallet would gladly die to keep the same government out of my bedroom.
If I should accept that 50% of my income is mine, shouldn't you in turn accept that 50% of your personal life is yours?
See the disconnect I'm trying to illustrate? What I see is a philosophical chasm wide enough to drive a galaxy through.
17 - Steve S
You mentioned TP, and nothing else. Gas stations sell TP, and they are often family-owned.
This conversation has taken a turn from taxes to shopping habits. Mike had brought up the bread/toilet paper lines of the Soviet Union which is how tp got brought up. I had mentioned that I buy everything in bulk, I don't have time for purchasing single items, now there's occasion where it's unavoidable, but as a practice I buy in bulk, 2 weeks to a months worth of everything. I make my own bread, grow my own spices, etc. I'd grow my own produce too, but we live in the salad capital of the world, there are little markets all along the roadside that sell produce dirt cheap, I shop at those. No big retailer will sell you bananas at 10 cents a pound or 5 pounds of onions for 75 cents. The quality is much better than a retailer too, because the product didn't have to go through the whole distribution chain.
As for mom and pop shops, the only ones that are here are not ones that negotiate in English, and they are on the rougher side of town. Our hispanic friends tell us it is in our own best interest to avoid the areas so we do. We live in the suburbs and all that is out here is corporate run stuff. The only reason those mom and pop shops seem to survive is due to an ethnic culture....what's the word I'm looking for...bond? support?
18 - Al Barger
Ah BHW, this is cute: "He [John Kerry] wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class." You really believe that, don't you? As if this pinko Democrat wouldn't be jacking everyone in the country for every nickel he could gouge.
Again, the usual disclaimer: Do NOT interpret this as a defense of Republicans, nor W. They're marginally better at best.
19 - Steve S
Beyond that, I like to think in extremes. They make for excellent points of reference.
The left gets torn apart for doing that. Comparing Bush to Hitler, Michael Moore's tactics, etc. It doesn't gain us any ground, and I can see why, it makes it hard to relate to what you are saying as well.
Why is it ok to have absolute personal freedom, to associate with whomever you like, and at the same time not ok to have absolute personal freedom to keep your income?
I can't answer for society, Mike, you will get a myriad of answers to this, and I think it would be interesting if more people responded. It would make for a good discussion/debate. As for me personally, the same answer is going to apply to most of your questions here. I do not equate the value of money with my relationships. My family is priceless, there is no monetary equivalent.
I do not want to live in the woods having to fend for myself, although we do far more than most people (making alot of our own food, etc.) but we are in the suburbs not remote. I want to be a part of society and I realize with that comes obligations, responsibilities. If I was unable to help support that society monetarily, then it would be my obligation to do so with labor, intellectual capability or in whatever other way possible. It's just my responsibility to society, to make this world a better place for us all. That's how I feel and the kind of world I want to be a part of. I want to be a part of society and that involves giving in some way. If I wanted to make no contribution to society, that, I suppose would be my right, but then it would also be my obligation to remove myself from that society and not benefit from it in any way, or partake in it in any way either.
Why is it ok to dictate to people that some of their income must be managed by others, and at the same time not ok to dictate to people that their love interests must be managed by others?
Again, Mike, I cannot correlate income with love.
If I should accept that 50% of my income is mine, shouldn't you in turn accept that 50% of your personal life is yours?
If you equate your income with your personal life, then I guess for you, it would be that way. My love is part of my humanity, it is part of the core of my being. My income is due to work that I did to provide for myself and to fulfill my obligation to society. I just cannot correlate them, sorry.
See the disconnect I'm trying to illustrate? What I see is a philosophical chasm wide enough to drive a galaxy through.
No, Mike, I'm trying but I cannot see it. This isn't even comparing apples and oranges. This is comparing human nature, humanity itself with a paper clip or something. They just aren't even remotely comparable to me. Sorry.
20 - Mike Kole
We owe an obligation, and that's how you feel. So, what about those of us who feel differently? We're just supposed to go along with how you feel, because you feel it?
So much for diversity of thought, huh Steve.
21 - Steve S
We owe an obligation, and that's how you feel.
That is how I feel. If you look at all cultures, except the most oppressive and tyrannical, that is a common theme. If you look at the cultures of Africa, for thousands of years, there is a community feel. The whole tribe raises the children, not just the parents. If you look at the slowly, but more and more rapidly, changing current governments of Europe, Australia, Japan, even to a large degree China, there is a sense of contribution. Since you prefer to see in extremes, you will probably see the extreme of socialism, but I should point out that I am always and forever advocating that pivot point in the middle, which Progressivism is the only ideology to seek. A community feel, an obligation to your fellow man is very much the teachings of Jesus. The 'It Takes a Village' ideology of Hillary Clinton falls in this category. It is an ideology that has been strived for, throughout the history of man, where we all work together to make our lives better. Two people can plow a field faster, more efficiently and more productively than one. Both people win. It's a basic principle and the cornerstone of Progressivism and Democracy. Nobody should be forced to help plow the field, but they should not expect to enjoy in the fruits of the labor either.
So, what about those of us who feel differently?
Voice your opinion, promote your ideals, it's a free society, try to convince people of your way, and let the chips fall where they may. I will continue to espouse the ideals of a society where humanity works together and where compassion reigns.
We're just supposed to go along with how you feel, because you feel it?
No, Mike. It's a democratic society, we go along with what the majority decides, not me. That is why right now, with the assaults on the middle class, we are teetering on the verge of an aristocracy, which we will probably achieve in the next 4 years, thanks to the reelection of Conservatism and the continued attacks on welfare, Social Security, educational grants, and with programs like NCLB, which are designed to stifle the education of the poor.
We all have our ideals, I have mine, you have yours, conservatives have theirs, we continue to promote our ideals, either by adamantly promoting the truisms like I am doing, or by taking over the airwaves and promoting falsehood and rhetoric like conservatives, or by becoming politically active such as yourself. In a democracy, whichever the majority votes for will win. We will see how it goes, and may the better ideology wi... er, persevere.
22 - andy marsh
and with programs like NCLB, which are designed to stifle the education of the poor.
How is allowing a parent to pull a kid out of a failed school stifling education of the poor?
23 - Steve S
Andy, I think you are confusing No Child Left Behind with faith-based school vouchers?
The only common thread between the two is that they, in one way or another, seek to limit the amount of funding into the public (free) school system.
Districts and schools that fail to make AYP-and that will be virtually all of them - are subject to increasingly severe, and unworkable, sanctions. Their staffs can be fired, their kids sent to another district, the district abolished. Using the original formulation, the White House's own calculations revealed that had NCLB been in place for a few years, about 90% of the schools in North Carolina and Texas would have been labeled "failing schools." These are states that have been singled out in recent years for their progress on a variety of tests. If they can't meet the standards, what hope is there for the rest? None--that's the purpose of the law.
24 - andy marsh
This is from the NCLB web site.
No child should be trapped in an underperforming school. Under No Child Left Behind, students who attend Title I schools that do not make adequate yearly progress, as defined by states, for two consecutive years have the option of transferring to a higher-performing public school or a charter school within their district.
That says nothing about private schools or vouchers or anything. And it also says defined by states.
I have 2 daughters, one graduated last year and one is in her 2nd year of HS. I tell you right now that some administrators and teachers DESERVE to be fired!
Because of organizations like the NEA teachers have never been held to ANY standard! Now at least there is a bench mark.
I spent most of my life in private school. Yeah, I was lucky. I spent my last 2 years in a public HS and I had already learned everything they were teaching 2 years earlier. Public schools have pretty much always sucked when it comes to quality education.
Administrators make deep into 6 figures and for what? Hiring incapable teachers, promoting BS curricula. They take money away from students and teachers and for the most part perform no useful function other than buffer between the community and teachers that suck! Good teachers rarely have issues with parents, it's the bad ones that need saving!
Lastly, I'll say this. If there was a voucher system in this country MOST public schools would die. You know why? Because something that diseased is incurable and should be put to death!
25 - Steve S
Andy, we're teaching children, we're not teaching schools. You know, for the school to be making progress doesn't tell us enough about what the individual children are doing. I'll just give you an example, let's take a school in a major city, it has 40 or 50 national merit scholars every year. It's a school of the first order no matter how you measure it. But when you disaggregate the data, you find out that the Hispanic students in the school are not doing well. So they are, in effect, left behind. You won't know this until you disaggregate the data, past the average.
The public disenchantment with American schooling is profound. And many people are looking for alternative solutions, whether they're charter schools or vouchers or something else. I believe in the public schools. And I believe those public schools can be made effective if they are not judged with the wrong assessment tools, and they're given assessment tools that help them do a better job. I want to see our public schools persist. Free education is a requirement towards a middle class and the ability of the poor to better themselves. A middle class is a requirement for a Democracy. I think you have to start focusing on a different way of measuring their performance.
We have to create tests that really do reflect how well teachers have been teaching. Those kinds of tests will allow public education to survive. The kind of tests that we're using now is setting up public educators for absolute failure. Currently, in only 14 of our 50 states are teachers required to take a course in educational testing. And I think in only a couple of states are administrators required to take a course in educational testing. As a consequence, most educators know very little more about testing than what they remember when they were students themselves. Unfortunately, the public knows less about tests than even educators do. And that's really unfortunate, because tests are becoming such a significant criterion by which to judge the quality of schooling.
The biggest flaw with NCLB is this:
There was a time when teachers worried chiefly about the extent to which they could educate knowledge and skills to youngsters. Now, that situation has been altered, because they're being held accountable to produce high scores on tests. As a consequence, the preoccupation with raising test scores has become dominant throughout most parts of the country. Many teachers will tell you instances where they or their colleagues have to devote inordinate amounts of attention simply to raising test scores. The preoccupation now is with test-score raising, not necessary with teaching kids the things that children ought to be learning.
Now let's go back to what you put in bold. Should a school fail, the parent has an option of transferring the student to a higher performing public or charter school in the same district. By the Administration's own analysis, over 90% of public schools in a state will fail. So the parent then has not the option, but the obligation to move the child out of the failing public school and put the child in a charter school. Because odds are, there will be no higher performing public school in the district. Charter schools are not free. This is the destruction of the free educational system.
Should the public school system be as bad as you perceive it to be, then it needs an overhaul, not a death knell. I do support working to improve the public education system, I do not support destroying free education. That destroys Democracy.
MOST public schools would die. You know why? Because something that diseased is incurable and should be put to death!
This is precisely the conservative ideology. Public education cannot be fixed. Free education cannot be fixed. So education should only go to those who can afford it. And while we are at it, let's do away with Social Security and Welfare, which give the poor in this country the chance to better themselves. Education and entitlement should only go to the aristocrats. It's a shame that more people do not see what is happening with this country.