Governor Ignores ACLU, Signs Anti-Immigration Bill

[Fletch]

Given the rising problems of the current world health crisis, reaching pandemic levels, I would advise against ending public heath care entirely.

The problem with abolishing public education, unfortunately results in larger problems later. There is already a profound "brain drain" within this country, not of only basic and higher learning academics, but of effective management by result. This doesn't even address the serious threats of and to government and law, from the progressive dogma introduced into learning institutions.

Our country, our way of life, desperately depend upon both for its very survival.

I respectfully disagree, but the reasons are too lengthy to get into on this thread and topic.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Given the rising problems of the current world health crisis, reaching pandemic levels, I would advise against ending public heath care entirely.

The problem with abolishing public education, unfortunately results in larger problems later. There is already a profound "brain drain" within this country, not of only basic and higher learning academics, but of effective management by result. This doesn't even address the serious threats of and to government and law, from the progressive dogma introduced into learning institutions.

Our country, our way of life, desperately depend upon both for its very survival.

I politely disagree. Some of the greatest achievements in history were done prior to public eduction. The public education system as we know it did not come around until 1840, and even then secondary education was not prevelent until the 1920s.

Compulsory attendance to secondary school become common in the 1950s.

Public education is a very recent development in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure it has made the public any smarter either. They can read, write, and do arithmatic for the most part, but critical thinking, the arts, and creativity have all gone by the wayside because of it, and are even derided in some cultures here in America.

Public health care in the United States has only been in existance since the 1960s and the human race managed to thrive prior to that through plague and famine all across the world.

History would say that public education and health care are not necessitities, but luxuries at the best, and a tool of tyranny at the worst.

 

[Fletch]

I politely disagree. Some of the greatest achievements in history were done prior to public eduction. The public education system as we know it did not come around until 1840, and even then secondary education was not prevelent until the 1920s.

Compulsory attendance to secondary school become common in the 1950s.

Public education is a very recent development in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure it has made the public any smarter either. They can read, write, and do arithmatic for the most part, but critical thinking, the arts, and creativity have all gone by the wayside because of it, and are even derided in some cultures here in America.

Public health care in the United States has only been in existance since the 1960s and the human race managed to thrive prior to that through plague and famine all across the world.

History would say that public education and health care are not necessitities, but luxuries at the best, and a tool of tyranny at the worst.

If education and health care are vitally important enough to be managed by government rather than the market, surely food and shelter must be even more important, since they are higher on the list of existential needs. By this logic, we should close all the restaurants and grocery stores and allow government to seize all of our houses, so that we can be fed and housed by the government, because clearly the market cannot get the job done.

 

[Thumper]

If education and health care are vitally important enough to be managed by government rather than the market, surely food and shelter must be even more important, since they are higher on the list of existential needs. By this logic, we should close all the restaurants and grocery stores and allow government to seize all of our houses, so that we can be fed and housed by the government, because clearly the market cannot get the job done.

I just have to ask,ARE YOU NUTS?I know i am but i am real.

 

[Fletch]

I just have to ask,ARE YOU NUTS?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[Expat]

If education and health care are vitally important enough to be managed by government rather than the market, surely food and shelter must be even more important, since they are higher on the list of existential needs. By this logic, we should close all the restaurants and grocery stores and allow government to seize all of our houses, so that we can be fed and housed by the government, because clearly the market cannot get the job done.

I have argued this ever since the health care argument became based upon "everyone has a right to health care" as well. Once we start making all of these demands on other people's time and treasure to provide for other people's rights there is no end to it.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

That statement certainly should ring true to public health, particularly today when travel itself is the vector that transmits the lethal biohazard capable of virtually wiping out mankind.

Public health policies, in one fashion or another, have been in place for centuries. Persons from foreign or alien ports were not permitted to depart their sailing ship, until inspected by officials charged with biological containment.

None of this would change in a free market for these services. As I attempted to illustrate above, anything which is truly necessary can and will be provided by the market. People will pay for things they consider essential. Government funding is not a prerequisite to anything we need -- we need food to avoid starvation, and the market provides this just fine, in many different varieties and levels of quality. Arguing that only government can provide contagion control is the same as arguing that only government can provide food, and with the same results: lower quality, less responsiveness, and higher cost.

Public education, contrarily, I see the point of a number of posters. Particularly that public education has failed society. However, I believe that abandoning education to be a mistake as well.

Abandoning education is a mistake. Abandoning public education is not, for the same reasons listed above.

There always have been apathetic parents, but somehow, the degree of apathy appears worse.

You have the effect confused with the cause. The reason people are apathetic is because government has undertaken to raise their children for them. What happens in the poorest countries, where the only way to go to school is to pay for it? Parents bust their humps to earn enough money to send their kids to school. Without a falsely benevolent State promising the world to them, parents are forced to care for their own kids, and by and large, they do the best they can for them.

In this country, we were far more well-educated before government schools came along, and for the same reason. My favorite example of this was in a history book I read, where the author stated that the average voter in the early 1800's had a strong and informed opinion on Central Banking. Nowadays, the average voter doesn't even know what it is, despite billions of dollars being poured down the rathole of public education. When government undertakes to provide any service and fund it with tax dollars, the result is necessarily lower quality, higher cost, and less involvement from the final customer.

I know that there are those who believe both to be outside of the purview of government, and a theft of tax money. Perhaps the time has come to privately funding both, but I'm at a loss how this would be accomplished.

That's the great thing... you don't have to know. You don't have to know how all of the parts of your Quarter Pounder with Cheese came to be in the same place. The bread was made somewhere, the meat somewhere else, the pickles and onions probably grown miles apart from each other and from you, and the cheese came from yet another place. You don't have to design a system whereby all of these parts appear as if by magic on your tray. All you have to do is plunk down your cash and eat your burger.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

Any change in world health circumstances, including a plague, would inherently change the free market.

The free market adapts faster than government to changing conditions. See internet, the.

How about protection against war and invasion?

What about them? Any product or service which is deemed essential can and will be provided by the market. Security is no different.

People will also steal and kill for things they consider essential.

Or ask the government to do it for them.

Does private industry have the authority to quarantine a person with typhoid? Should it? What of due process if one disputes their infection?

In a free market, the power of quarantine lies in property rights.

And those without the necessary means to obtain an education, receives theirs how?

The same way people without the necessary means to obtain food receive theirs now: through charity.

Children also go without an education too. That, and a wrong education. One only is required to look to Afghanistan after the Soviets departed.

Mark 14:7 -- "The poor will always be with you"

3000 years of government have not changed this. A rational review of the effects of Johnson's Great Society reveals that if anything, government increases their numbers. Indeed, it's a fundamental economic law that whatever you subsidize, you get more of. Poverty is no exception.

You're comparing the people of that time period, where not thinking and being informed would very often results in death, to the apathy and laziness of people today. Governmental intrusion resulting in the creation of the nanny state, as you described above, caused such.

Which is why I can't fathom why you would defend the continuation of that intrusion.

Agreed, but the free market cannot rationally provide every service.

Sure it can, and not only that, but it must. Government does not introduce rationality, it introduces violence. When government undertakes to provide a service with wealth forcibly extracted -- at gunpoint if necessary -- the result is invariably a net reduction in wealth. The free market carries the burden of government, not the other way around.

This is true, however, this is part of the problem that we face. Many blindly accept solutions to later realize that the cure may be worse than disease.

This precisely summarizes my attitude toward government "solutions" for any problem. Government is the brute force method of solving problems. Brute force is an easy fix, but it is never the right one unless the problem itself is brute force having been already initiated.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

So why not endorse anarchy?

Anarchy is a very broad term these days, so it depends on what kind of anarchy we're talking about. I am not a fan of what we generally call government, which is a territorial monopoly on the initiation of force. However there are other forms of government, and other sources of law, that I am perfectly happy to live with. I would probably be one of the chief advocates for enforcement of such laws as those stemming from the foundational principles of property rights and individual freedom.

Indeed, in every argument of law or morality on this board, if you want to understand my viewpoint, all you have to do is start from the idea that property rights are the source of all other rights, and any "right" which cannot be traced back to property rights is invalid. I believe this should be the starting point for all law, but it is oxymoronic to expect an entity to enforce such laws when that same entity breaks these laws with impunity.

A society with laws based on property rights may or may not look like "anarchy" to the average outside observer, but to the socialist-anarchist or the nihilist-anarchist, it looks every bit as "repressive" and "legalistic" as what we have in place today. Government (again, colloquial "government") is not the source of law and order; and the absence of government does not necessarily imply that chaos must ensue. America's greatest mistake was in creating a republican democracy (or democratic republic) with checks and balances and the whole nine yards, then deciding that we were "done". We can go further in pursuit of human freedom, but the nation is presently in the business of destroying freedom instead, and I think that needs to change.

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[Fletch]

I will stand by my argument, that among other things, some government is required for a society mutually dependent upon each other for its welfare. The free market is not, nor can it be the answer to every instance of society's ills and advancement. Humankind requires some degree of vision and leadership, and without such, falters.

And I will stand by mine; that the free market is its own form of government... a leaderless and visionless form, perhaps, but government nonetheless, with its roots appropriately established in property rights. Beyond that point of disagreement, which is admittedly quite significant, I don't find a lot in your position that upsets me.

 

[rambone]

The only legitimate purpose of government is protection of our rights.

The introduction of the idea of government as providence for our wants and needs was the key step toward the devolution of Liberty.

 

[JBusch8899]

.