For my Libertarian friends

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: And if we had that private system to compete than no, Rob. Those people would not have to fund the public one. So from this I can conclude that you think it's wrong for people who send their kids to private schools to have to pay tax dollars to support public schools, right? (hoping he caught JJ in taking a libertarian position)

Damn right direction I was heading. 

I was talking to a flesh and blood person though (with boobs), so I didn't get to mention that. 

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: And if we had that private system to compete than no, Rob. Those people would not have to fund the public one. So from this I can conclude that you think it's wrong for people who send their kids to private schools to have to pay tax dollars to support public schools, right? (hoping he caught JJ in taking a libertarian position)

Its an issue I've moderated on. Well, never actually gave it a thought before. But sure, if you want to send your kids to a private school than you don't have to fund the public education system.

And you know I claim to support social rights, its only the wealthy and businesses I want to rob at gun point, and give their money to the poor in big bags with a $ on it.

JJLehto wrote: thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: And if we had that private system to compete than no, Rob. Those people would not have to fund the public one. So from this I can conclude that you think it's wrong for people who send their kids to private schools to have to pay tax dollars to support public schools, right? (hoping he caught JJ in taking a libertarian position) Its an issue I've moderated on. Well, never actually gave it a thought before. But sure, if you want to send your kids to a private school than you don't have to fund the public education system. And you know I claim to support social rights, its only the wealthy and businesses I want to rob at gun point, and give their money to the poor in big bags with a $ on it.

And are you aware that if only the people who use public schools paid for public schools, they would most likely go out of business? How do you feel about that?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Oh, I should've edited: Equality asks, why. To which I run away. OK, I need to mull this over. Never entered my mind before. I guess first, I don't see a problem with outside competition but I would not want it to be an entirely private system. It just seems to me that leaving something like your house burning down to a private company, (which after all has the primary focus of profit) seems off putting. And to answer your question, all I can think of right now is: That its a common good. This is a public safety issue. It's great you take such important care but anything can happen, and you may not be able to control a fire, or even be there to do so. But you mentioned outside competition? I could get on board. If someone wants to opt out of the public fire system and contract with a company, or nothing at all then alright. I personally would not want to. But as long as you'd leave the public option there...than fine. You may like the idea of a private fire system, but you wouldn't want to force it on me, would you? To your last question, you are forcing a public system on me. I do not agree with it, and you force me to support it. To eliminate the public system places no burden on anybody. The public system is a burden Thank you for agreeing about competition. That's a minimal step that should be implemented everywhere. Personally, I don't see why you expect the government to be any more efficient than a private company. Also why does the government stop your house from burning down? Is it some common good mentality they have? No, the individual firefighters do it to get their paycheck, i.e. profit seeking. There's a difference between a company that seeks to maximise profits and an individual who seeks to be paid to do work. Either way, fire spreads: it is in the common interest to ensure that no fire is simply left alone because one person happens not to be insured against it from the nearest company. Question, equality... would you then want to privatise the army by the same logic? That's a massive tax cost, is basically controlled by the government with minimal consultation. Yes there are, but not many. Common interest how? If my house is properly protected how is it in my interest to keep yours nice and insured? By the same logic? Not really, I think one could argue that there's some marked differences between an army and fire fighting, police would be a better analogue. No I don't support a private military, but I don't support a standing one, or a tax payer supported one.

As I said, fire spreads. I'd imagine stopping it spreading before it threatens you personally is going to reduce the risk of you being affected. Either way, I think a centralised system for dealing with fires is ultimately going to be more flexible in the case of particularly extreme situations and disasters.

Out of interest, how would you have a military without taxpayer support?

TGM: Orb wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: Oh, I should've edited: Equality asks, why. To which I run away. OK, I need to mull this over. Never entered my mind before. I guess first, I don't see a problem with outside competition but I would not want it to be an entirely private system. It just seems to me that leaving something like your house burning down to a private company, (which after all has the primary focus of profit) seems off putting. And to answer your question, all I can think of right now is: That its a common good. This is a public safety issue. It's great you take such important care but anything can happen, and you may not be able to control a fire, or even be there to do so. But you mentioned outside competition? I could get on board. If someone wants to opt out of the public fire system and contract with a company, or nothing at all then alright. I personally would not want to. But as long as you'd leave the public option there...than fine. You may like the idea of a private fire system, but you wouldn't want to force it on me, would you? To your last question, you are forcing a public system on me. I do not agree with it, and you force me to support it. To eliminate the public system places no burden on anybody. The public system is a burden Thank you for agreeing about competition. That's a minimal step that should be implemented everywhere. Personally, I don't see why you expect the government to be any more efficient than a private company. Also why does the government stop your house from burning down? Is it some common good mentality they have? No, the individual firefighters do it to get their paycheck, i.e. profit seeking. There's a difference between a company that seeks to maximise profits and an individual who seeks to be paid to do work. Either way, fire spreads: it is in the common interest to ensure that no fire is simply left alone because one person happens not to be insured against it from the nearest company. Question, equality... would you then want to privatise the army by the same logic? That's a massive tax cost, is basically controlled by the government with minimal consultation. Yes there are, but not many. Common interest how? If my house is properly protected how is it in my interest to keep yours nice and insured? By the same logic? Not really, I think one could argue that there's some marked differences between an army and fire fighting, police would be a better analogue. No I don't support a private military, but I don't support a standing one, or a tax payer supported one. As I said, fire spreads. I'd imagine stopping it spreading before it threatens you personally is going to reduce the risk of you being affected. Either way, I think a centralised system for dealing with fires is ultimately going to be more flexible in the case of particularly extreme situations and disasters. Out of interest, how would you have a military without taxpayer support?

Ah crap...Pat and Llama have got me in the corner now.
Better grab my bag of magic liberal powder and escape from here.
*empty*
Damn, used it all in November 2008.

Sweden uses an education voucher system, and they are the country I like to quote the most isn't it?
I don't know if the public system would vanish entirely. Has it yet in any country? Not that I know of.
So I guess you guys have left me no choice but to say it: If the public system dissipated then fine.

But I am a product of the publik edekation system, and I turned out fein.

JJLehto wrote: So I guess you guys have left me no choice but to say it: If the public system dissipated then fine.

Slartibartfast wrote: Guess what?  What is being proposed for this country bears no resemblance to the Swedish voucher system.

Why shouldn't people who have more educated parents and make more money get a better education? Do you expect a juicier steak than someone with rich parents or chef parents will get?

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - August 10 2010 at 08:53

Politics gets so crazy, we need more amusement!

An allegation has arisen that back in college, Rand Paul kidnapped a girl and forced her to smoke pot.
lolwut
That was the news blurb, I looked up the article that claimed this and it is great.
She claims Rand and some of his frat came, tied her up, drove away and forced her to take bong hits, that they were high, and she refused to do so. So they put her in the back seat and drove off, then said they worshiped Aqua Buddha and made her worship Aqua Buddha while blindfolded.

OK, obviously this is all BS, but at least it was intriguing! Much better than the story of Obama trying to pick up sex from a man. This woman used some real creativity! Or whoever paid her to do so I suppose.
 
Unless it really happened, in which case...maybe Rand Paul isn't so bad after all
Hey Im in college, been drunk or...something else. We do stupid stuff, I never kidnapped anyone but hey, crazy things happen when you're drunk and/or high Rand!