I feel like I am being pigeonholed into the radical anti-government libertarian label. I am the moderate libertarian, a kinder gentler libertarian with good jaw bones.
I know there are some who think we should abolish the public school system. I completely disagree. While many private schools seem to do a better job of educating students, I know a lot of that also has to do with the fact that kids with well to do parents are going to have less issues at home and more support. Furthermore, I see the value in an imperfect education being much preferred over no education, which is what would happen with no public schooling. I am dismayed at the GOVERNMENTS cutting of funds in Kansas.
I again am not necessarily a proponent of privatization. I donât think I have ever said that. I canât think of a current government program that I would for sure privatize. For sure I disagree with the way our judicial system is run, from the private prisons to overworked public defenders. Private businesses do well when they make things or provide services to people such as fixing your plumbing or cutting your grass.
Not sure why you mention literacy rates - that isnât supporting your argument for government sponsored schools, but again, I am 100% for state funded education.
I agree with all of that. ETA - I am not a free range capitalist, because we have seen time and again it needs limits to prevent fraud and abuse.
For clarity I meant it also as an international comparison. In America where people are constantly talking about government doing a bad job, public schools are suffering. In Scandinavia where people actually seem to largely think governments are doing a great job, public schools are extremely good.
Iâm just generally arguing with the âgovernments suckâ position. I think governments actually do things pretty well, and the idea that they donât seems to end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy put out there by people who are finding ways to benefit from government doing badly. I didnât think you were for abandoning public education or getting rid of public roads or sewers (because you donât strike me as a raving idiot). I just wanted to stick up a bit for âthe government.â
I think the truth is that the things Government has to do are big, complex, expensive, and often unpopular. Doesnât make them not necessary. And adding a profit motive will always make things worse.
Look at Britainâs ludicrous railways. A whole series of little private monopolies, subsidized at least as much as the public system they replaced, just with added shareholders creaming off profit.
This is what I hate. Governments selling monopolies. Where I live there is a government monopoly on selling liquor (though the LCBO - the Liquor Control Board or Ontario). I think itâs just plain stupid and infantilizing and that stores should just be able to sell liquor. But when people talk about ending that monopoly they talk about âprivatizingâ the LCBO. Like we should keep liquor sales a monopoly but just have a private business own that monopoly and profit off of it. Itâs totally insane. Why not sell a monopoly on baking bread to some big corporation, I bet you could get a billion or two for that. How about a monopoly on manufacturing screws?
Eliminate the monopoly and allow private enterprise to sell liquor would be fine, the government running the only liquor selling business is town seems stupid but isnât disastrous. But when the government and a big private business get together itâs stomach-turning.
Rail fares have been rising above inflation for more than a decade as successive governments attempted to shift more of the cost of the railways from taxpayer to passengers. The latest annual fare rise, which took effect over the weekend, increased regulated fares by 1.1%. Although the government has pledged to freeze fares in real terms, ticket prices have been pegged to the Retail Prices Index. That means they have now been increased well above the more usual measure of inflation, CPI, which is currently zero.
Thanks, Iâm not surprised, but itâs good to have confirmation via another example of the truism that privatization ends up costing ordinary people more in the long run.
Oh, I agree. But without a Constitutional amendment, there really isnât much that can be done specifically to unify voter rights across the states. I mean the Roberts Court has already come out in support of the statesâ position.
I believe that the only other way to change this is via DHS, and we know how much we all dislike the DHS. I, for one, wouldnât want them to validate my right to vote based upon some arbitrary list. And forget using Social Security Administration to implement a national I.D. The crazies hate them.
They have a whole playbook - complain about taxes and push to privatize, privatize by handing the asset to the highest campaign donor, then let the private owners charge rents/rates massively higher than what was being paid into taxes for a service now run by people who care only about their profits. The crony-capitalists libertarians love doing this in TX. Perry handed off hundreds of miles of roads the state had already built to donors to âmaintainâ as toll roads. Itâs toxic.
To clarify, if something is common sense to privatize, then why is the governement directly involved in it? Maybe that program or services isnât needed. I canât think of a good example right now. I guess health care would be one thing. Government assistance is one thing, the government being a provider is another.
Conversely, we have privatized things that in my mind made no sense to privatize. Prison is the big one.
I WANT to too, but they just keep screwing things up. I really wish we could simplify and revise a lot of our laws. The tax laws are a mess. The drug laws are a mess. When I am calling for less government, I mean less government fucking over the many marginalized factions that many on BB claim to support.
Focus. Fix it. And then if you can keep that goldfish alive for awhile, we can talk about getting a puppy.
Earned income tax credit, social security disabilty benefits, Head Start, Early Head Start, Violence Against Women Act, Americorps, Clean Water Act, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medicare, Mediaid, ban on DDT, ban on PCBs, ban on leaded gasoline, ban on CFCs, Emancipation Proclamation, beat NAZIs, Brady law, highways, Consumer Product Safety Commission, student loans, Family and Medical Leave Act, federal home loans, food labels, GI Bill, Meals on Wheels, Mine Safety and Health Administration, national parks, National Crime Information Center, school lunches, Sesame Street, cured polio, went to moon âŚ
Well, the health card is potentially worth tens of thousands of dollars, so I understand why theyâre a little more careful with those.
Still, when we had to get a replacement health card for my 4 year old, the proof of residence conversation really was:
âDoes he have a driverâs license?â
âHeâs four,â
âOh⌠credit card statement?
âHeâs four,â
âOh⌠does he have a utility bill in his name?â
âStill four.â
Ontario Age of Majority card?â
âUm, four?â
âRight⌠School report card?â
âGetting warmer, but not yet.â
âBank statement?â
âColderâŚâ
Iâll give the clerk points for thoroughness - she really did go through all 37 allowable proof of residence. She wasnât going to let the ever-so-slight possibility that my four year old might have a veteranâs benefit addressed to his home address without at least asking.
However, once exhausted, she did consent to bring in her supervisor who started the list again, but gave up in the face of ridiculousness, used some managerial override she had, and accepted the wealth of documents I did have, all without requiring a certificate notarized by three retired prime ministers and head of the Church of England.
How many people is it ethical to disenfranchise in order to prevent a single fraudulent vote?
Personally, I lean towards about 1 in 10. i.e. it is ten times worse to disenfranchise a single legitimate voter than to allow a single fraudulent vote.
Almost every measure Iâve seen runs, by my guess, between 100-to-1 to a more realistic 10,000-to-1.
At that range, I have to start asking supporters, what ethical principle central to this country wouldnât you sacrifice in order to tilt the odds in your favor?
I donât get this. I think itâs because Iâm not american. But how do you prevent people double voting, if you donât cross check their identity with their ID, and cross them out at the voterâs list?
If photo ID is not a valid way to prevent voter fraud, which is it?
Oliver seems to be pointing out that the channels and institutions to getting photo ID are the ones that are fucked, but the notion that a voter should be properly accounted for doesnât seem that crazy. What am I missing here?
