OWS: Volunteerism and Taxation by AnthonyT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well, there are a number of charities that make plans. Some of them are rather large, and sometimes they embark on bold programs.

Even if you decide on a mandatory tax system, you could divide up the functions of government into ten or twenty categories and let people prioritize their spending.

Some programs would doubtless suffer, but these would be the programs the people communally chose to starve.

Again, Occupy is a volunteer-based leaderless movement with everyone chipping in as they will.

Aren't voluntary contributions and the ability to contribute to desired programs compatible with that philosophy?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 4:29 PM

I've wondered this for a long time. I think that some folk want other folk to pay for things that said other folk don't support.

People always say "there would be no defense" or "no healthcare" nonsense, plenty of people would give to those causes.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 4:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I've wondered this for a long time. I think that some folk want other folk to pay for things that said other folk don't support.

People always say "there would be no defense" or "no healthcare" nonsense, plenty of people would give to those causes.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

Hello,

I agree that some people would choose to fund these things.

However...

Even if there would not be these things, that would mean that almost everyone refused to support the notion.

And if that's the case, do you want to be the 1% imposing your will on the other 99%?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 4:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
let people prioritize their spending.

That.
Right there.

See, if you let US decide where the money goes, how are the feudal lords in charge of the military-corporate-industrial combine gonna keep the flood tide of money comin in ?

They ain't, and that's why allowing the people a say in the budget AIN'T gonna happen until we the peons MAKE them, and consider well you're talking about joe sixpack trying to apply force to the people who make and sell the war toys.

That one's tricky, yanno ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 4:46 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I agree. Very tricky.

But a laudable goal that the Tea Party faithfuls and the so-called 99% can be rallied together on.

I believe that neither group can bring the change they want to see by themselves. Any kind of social revolution on the scale needed requires that those two types of people find at least one thing they can agree on.

I think they could agree on this thing. I think this thing could change the world.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 2, 2011 7:28 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Even if you decide on a mandatory tax system, you could divide up the functions of government into ten or twenty categories and let people prioritize their spending.

Yes to this.

I would not fund a war. I would fund diplomatic talks. Schools. Transportation. Rehabilitation programs over prisons for about 95% of offenders. I would (and do) fund the arts - music programs, museums, art galleries, etc. I would not fund the TSA or Homeland Security, the BATFE, ICE, FBI, NSA, or the CIA. I would fund the ACLU.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2011 4:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The problem with this proposition is that we are still a very small portion of the population. Lots of people wave and give us thumbs up, but they don't step up themselves. We are the ones who feel strongly enoughto become active.

I'm pretty surprised you don't realize that if you left it up to everyone what they would pay and for what, where taxes are concerned, the vast majority of people would pay no taxes at all. It's as simple as that.

Also, if it accomplishes nothing, this movement will stall. It's in its infancy; for many, many people, there's a burnout time. How long do you think it would take for people to burn out on voluntarily paying taxes? Or feel the government isn't doing what THEY want, so by damn, they won't pay taxes? Or any number of other reasons to not pay.

Considering the fact that the vast majority of charities I know live hand-to-mouth from one year to the next and do as much advertising and begging as they can afford to, and are suffering pretty badly now, I can't imagine how anyone could actually believe a voluntary tax system would work. JMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2011 5:17 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

The issue of taxation isn't really the problem here. If there's even going to be a govt, then the functions of that govt need to be funded. The founders understood this. The problem arises when more and more of the money raised via taxation goes to frivolous or improper things, that which fall outside of the proper function of govt.

Well intentions aside, there are a long list of things we're paying for which the federal govt has no business dabbling in. And spare me the " two unnecessary wars", mantra. This goes back LONG before Iraq / Afghanistan. The 'era of big govt ' is ,and has been, alive and well. It needs to go away, or this country will cease to exist. Period.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2011 5:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Don't fall over, but "excellently said, Raptor". I agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2011 6:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Even if you decide on a mandatory tax system, you could divide up the functions of government into ten or twenty categories and let people prioritize their spending."

Hello,

Somehow the both of you failed to notice this, or at least to acknowledge it.

This would address the "Government spending my money on things I don't support" issue as well as the "people must be taxed against their will" issue.

(Aka the 1% must force the 99% to pay taxes, or else they wouldn't pay any, issue.)

So, what of allowing people to prioritize government spending on their tax forms? What possible objection could there be to that?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2011 7:25 AM

I agree with all of this. I think that in addition to deciding what branch of money your money goes to, you should get some say in how that money is spent and by whom. We have appointees in positions now that represent radical political or social points of view. What if I want my money spent on Health and Human Services, but I don't in the least trust Sebelius and Holdren to spend it?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 3, 2011 7:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Perhaps you advocate that some positions which are currently appointed should instead be elected positions.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 4, 2011 10:00 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I don't think the pay-what-you-want system would work in real life, maybe in a nice fantasy novel but not in reality because, lets face it, how many of us have lots of money "to spare"? Some would go ahead and pay what they've always paid out of habbit or a feeling of responsability, but as time went by less and less people would do that because we are lazy creatures.

The idea of choosing what you fund is slightly better and would be fun to discuss further. I still don't really see it as viable currently, or soon for that matter, but it is intriguing.

I totally agree with Raptor's last post. He and I might disagree on what the government shouldn't be spending money on, but we'd agree on some of it at least.

If we did have that choose where your money goes system we could have a set tax fee that everyone pays, income adjusted etc. but you could choose which categories you wanted your money to go to. Or if you thought all of them were important then you could choose all of them, and you could choose freshly each year in case your priorities changed recently.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 2:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Why is voluntary cooperation seen as an adequade philosophy for the organization, but not for society at large?]

In my view, the tax issue has never been about "Can we continue to function if govt functions were entirely voluntary?" Despite the miracle that Rap and Niki agree we couldn't function, this mantra is simply propaganda, as you so adeptly have pointed out. Volunteerism works. Period. Whatever is TRULY important enough to the collective will survive. The rest is natural selection.

The tax issue, at the root of it all, has always been about the POWER TO FORCE people to perform their moral obligations. It is about dues to live in society, each person's "fair share." The tax issue is about, "Can we continue to function if the govt no longer represents a consensus of the ideals for which each citizen should be, MUST BE, morally and financially responsible?"

Occupy is about making rich people pay. The idea that we might have public education paid for only those who WANT to public education, that a bunch of rich people who can afford to send their kids to private schools can become even more selfish and not help pay their fair share to the lower rungs of society, that is absolutely intolerable to them. Allowing them to opt out of this is unthinkable.

Similarly, the Tea Party (as it stands today), is indignant that the idea that stupid, selfish, unpatriotic America-haters might neglect the military that made this country great and defends its freedom. It is our fair share and our dues and our moral obligation to support this institution that sacrifices so much for us. Allowing them to opt out of this is unthinkable.

It's not about society functioning. We'll function just fine without public education and the military. Differently, but fine.

It's about moral obligation. We need to force stupid and selfish people to do their duty.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 3:04 AM

Anthony

Maybe, but sometimes the people want different things. What if some people want to fight abortion and others want to fund planned parenthood? You could say do that outside govt., but then you should have to ask why people would pay taxes then. The people shouldn't be forced to pay for what the govt. wants done.

CTS,

Not sure you have the Tea Party's number there.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 7:28 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with Riona:

Quote:
I don't think the pay-what-you-want system would work in real life, maybe in a nice fantasy novel but not in reality

I fully agree. Actually, for a whole bunch of reasons, not those enumerated here.

I would also ask; if a country would "get by" just fine without public education, why does history show the exact opposite, in every country where education is improved? I know the immediate visceral response will be "because it's indoctrination", but I would respectfully ask that, if it's possible, people think beyond that, to the fact that language, math, and many other things are improved by education and make for a better, "healthier" country, whether indoctrination is part of the process or not. When education wasn't provided for the public, people weren't educated--hell, they still aren't in many, many countries, and every one of those countries is poverty-stricken in the extreme, as far as I know. Society won't just "step up" and provide things like this, it has never in the history of man done so, so why one would even consider that it would NOW is beyond me, I'm afraid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 8:43 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I read an interesting article about a year or so ago. It was written by a person who works in the movie industry as some lower-paid minion who, nevertheless, had to hobnob with the wealthy. When he had little, he despised the rich for their selfishness, acquisitiveness, inhumanity towards others, and lack of generosity. Then he came into a fair chunk or money, maybe a million or two, by some fluke of inheritance. And he wrote about his experience, of how he could feel his attitude changing, from generous and open to defensive, and suspicious of all the claims he thought people would make on it.

It was an interesting first-person account of how having more money than most changed him into the kind of person he despised.

So would people 'volunteer' taxes if they had a choice about where to spend them? Well, the most of us don't have that much spare to go around. And the rich? If this guy's account of the people he knew and the person he became are any indication, they would not step up either.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 9:44 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I disagree with the take on the Tea Party, since Ron Paul, the man who got the ball rolling on that, was advocating massive reductions in military spending and an end to foreign adventurism. This is doubtless one of the reasons the GOP felt compelled to 'invest' in the movement.

So, anyway, if the Occupiers can't get behind anything more coherent than 'Make the 1% pay for more stuff' then I fear the movement will be holding itself back.

To me, a positive change would not involve making the 1% pay more as a matter of principle, but rather to empower the 99% as a matter of principle.

When I see that our local representation of the 99% is reticent to give the 99% freedom to choose, I wonder just who they are representing. I feel left out of their 99% when I get this sort of response. I'll tell you right now, increasing taxes on the wealthy will not change the power dynamic in this country. But giving individuals the right to decide how their tax money is spent will turn the power dynamic on its head.

I fear that the great power of Occupy (and their could-be partners, the Tea Party) will be utterly squandered if they don't embrace some truly revolutionary ideas that actually grant more power to the people.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Society won't just "step up" and provide things like this, it has never in the history of man done so,...

Never?

I see the following examples as "society" providing free education.

https://www.wikipedia.org/
http://www.khanacademy.org/

Or google "free educational resources." Some are public to be sure, but a lot of it is private. Many of them started with the homeschooling movement.

If we didn't have free public education, these resources would grow to pick up the slack. Charities would spring up to give scholarships to indigent children, just like they give food now.

People are not uncompassionate. With all the money YOU save from taxes, for example, you could donate to the schools of your choice towards scholarships.

And I would bet those schools would budget better (cause their income isn't as secure) and be less inefficient and more effective (to attract more students).

Yes, in my view, we would get by just fine.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I disagree with the take on the Tea Party, since Ron Paul, the man who got the ball rolling on that, was advocating massive reductions in military spending and an end to foreign adventurism.

I qualified the Tea Party to be "as it stands today" for this very reason. The current Tea Party is nothing like the original Tea Party. Look at the voting records of members of the Tea Party caucus on Capitol Hill. Voted for large military spending and expansion and aggression.

Every. Single. Time.

Until I see Tea Party protesters denouncing the Tea Party Caucus, I stand by my characterization of the Tea Party, as it stands today.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 10:06 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
I would also ask; if a country would "get by" just fine without public education, why does history show the exact opposite, in every country where education is improved? ...When education wasn't provided for the public, people weren't educated--hell, they still aren't in many, many countries, and every one of those countries is poverty-stricken in the extreme, as far as I know.

A high literacy rate and high rate of school attendance (and PUBLIC SCHOOLS!) is a relatively recent invention. In Post-Roman to Renaissance times, the wealthiest nations in the world had peasants and only 1% of the population was literate.

Wealth has never been about applying or bettering oneself via an education. Wealth has always been about inheritance. At the same time, an educated population does not eliminate all poverty. And when education sometimes costs a lifetime to pay off, well, at this point I don't see much difference between manorialism and debt slavery.

Essentially you're comparing technological development of those nations, not particularly the effect of public education, and you're comparing it to developed nations, which is pretty much apples and oranges. Even in developing nations, kids go to school. Systematic exploitation and social turmoil means it doesn't do much good, and sometimes just makes kids easy prey.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 10:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I disagree with the take on the Tea Party, since Ron Paul, the man who got the ball rolling on that, was advocating massive reductions in military spending and an end to foreign adventurism.
I qualified the Tea Party to be "as it stands today" for this very reason. The current Tea Party is nothing like the original Tea Party. Look at the voting records of members of the Tea Party caucus on Capitol Hill. Voted for large military spending and expansion and aggression.

Every. Single. Time.

Until I see Tea Party protesters denouncing the Tea Party Caucus, I stand by my characterization of the Tea Party, as it stands today.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

Hello,

I think an appeal to some of the original values of the Tea Party would get you the Tea Party supporters, whom you want. Those individuals who were lured to the movement under its original principles. In essence, you'd capture the same motivated people who started the movement in the first place, and who made all those V from Vendetta videos and rEVOLution signs. So when I say the Tea Party should join with Occupy, I don't mean the puppeteers, but the puppets.

Puppets whose strings can only be cut with remarkable ideas. Ron Paul isn't leading them away like he should. But it wasn't Ron Paul's charisma that brought them in the first place. It was his ideas.

Posit a good idea, and you'll snare them back again.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 1:48 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The issue of taxation isn't really the problem here. If there's even going to be a govt, then the functions of that govt need to be funded. The founders understood this. The problem arises when more and more of the money raised via taxation goes to frivolous or improper things, that which fall outside of the proper function of govt.

Well intentions aside, there are a long list of things we're paying for which the federal govt has no business dabbling in. And spare me the " two unnecessary wars", mantra. This goes back LONG before Iraq / Afghanistan. The 'era of big govt ' is ,and has been, alive and well. It needs to go away, or this country will cease to exist. Period.

Indeed. Ronald Reagan, that paragon of "small government conservatism", more than doubled the size of the federal government and nearly tripled the size of our national debt. It has indeed been going on for a long time.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 5, 2011 7:11 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I'm rollin' with Niki on education, there _must be a public education option, period, on that point I will not move. If parents want to send their kids to private schools that is their choice, but there needs to be education available for all, and it needs to be available in a format that is applicable to each child. Is our system perfect now? No its not, there is a lot of improvement that could be made, evidenced by how elementary school is structured with average little girls in mind and average little boys are stuck sitting still for way too long and then penalized because that is a challenge for them. That's just an example of something that needs work in the public education system, but what we have is definitely better than nothing.

I know that CTS and Byte and Frem are all into Sudbury, which for some children is a great model, but that wouldn't have been a good model for me growing up, the more choices we have the better. Getting rid of public education would remove a big choice so I don't understand why CTS agrees with the idea, herself saying she's all about choices and all.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 3:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

So why does the idea of volunteer taxation (the ability of people to voluntarily pay more taxes as opposed to being forced to pay more taxes) receive scoffing condemnation?

Because it doesn't seem to work very well.

There's a program in place now to accept voluntary contributions to reduce the public debt. It's been in place for quite a while. The most they ever got in a year was around $3.27 million.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

I wondered in an earlier thread why Warren Buffet et. al. didn't contribute to that, if they wanted to pay more towards supporting the government.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 3:40 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Maybe because that program is only to reduce the public debt. Not to contribute more to general revenue.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 4:34 AM

Geezer,

Muggers also don't get a lot of voluntary contributions, unless you're including wallets. Folks don't like to hand over *extra* cash.

According to Ron Paul and the tax freedom folks, the actual text of the Internal Revenue Code refers to the money you send in taxes as a "voluntary contribution." Try not volunteering and see what happens.

But by that logic, last year folks voluntarily gave $2.627 trillion to Obama. Of course, Obama spent $3.729 trillion mostly to his friends, and he also gave $8 trillion to Geitner's friends in NY.

So I guess I disagree. Seems to me there's a whole lot of voluntary contribution going on. Looked like damn near $15 trillion of it.

Meanwhile, folks who worked earned a total of somewhere around $4 trillion. And people say the economy is in trouble.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 7:05 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
According to Ron Paul and the tax freedom folks, the actual text of the Internal Revenue Code refers to the money you send in taxes as a "voluntary contribution." Try not volunteering and see what happens.

Yep. One of the classic frivolous tax arguments.

Quote:
Some taxpayers assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary. Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s opinion in Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 176 (1960), is often quoted for the proposition that "[o]ur system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint."

The Law: The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications, refers to our system of allowing taxpayers initially to determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government determine tax for them from the outset. The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in sections 6011(a), 6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0%2C%2Cid=159932%2C00.html#_Toc2841
93999

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Getting rid of public education would remove a big choice so I don't understand why CTS agrees with the idea, herself saying she's all about choices and all.

Public schools can simply become private schools. You would still have the choice to go to the same school. The only change would be that each child would have to pay tuition to the school they wish to attend.

It is not much different than every person would have to pay to eat at the restaurant they wish. There are no "public restaurants," despite the fact that food is a necessity for survival, much more so than education.

I love choices yes, but some choices infringe upon the rights of other people. Some farmers might want to have the choice of slavery, but on principle, we agree that slavery should not be a choice. For me, taxation is not a choice. I don't want my money going to fund public schools where children are being imprisoned any more than going to fund wars when children are being murdered. But I don't really have a choice in that.

I should. I should be able to say, I don't want to pay for public schools or wars with my money.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 8:47 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Without public schools that poor would have even less opportunity to advance, not to mention that it is law in the US that children attend receive and education.

You have the right to say you don't want your money going to those things. You have the right to vote for canidates that support that view, or run for office yourself.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 6, 2011 4:06 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Hopefully the tax system in Peru is more to your liking CTS. How are private funders going to be persuaded to fund education tuition for all the poorer kids out there, not to mention that private schools often won't take kids with disabilities because they cost more to educate, so where does that put me? Ignorant in my house that's where. My parents could only teach me some of the things I needed to know, I learnt much more at school than they could teach me at home, plus being around all those kids all day every day was crucial to my social development, being kept home would have been a disaster for me emotionally and socially, I already have enough problems thank you very much. I can't support your system period.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 8:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
So, anyway, if the Occupiers can't get behind anything more coherent than 'Make the 1% pay for more stuff' then I fear the movement will be holding itself back.

To me, a positive change would not involve making the 1% pay more as a matter of principle, but rather to empower the 99% as a matter of principle.

When I see that our local representation of the 99% is reticent to give the 99% freedom to choose, I wonder just who they are representing. I feel left out of their 99% when I get this sort of response.

That kinda shows me just how effective our enemies are. They've got more than just you convinced we're a "spoiled" bunch of whatevers who are only interested in "robbing" the 1% to feather our own nests.

Apparently you've not noticed that there are so MANY other things in the mix, and most of them ARE about the lack of power of the 99%, not about the lack of money. I don't think they went about it right, and it should have been "Occupy the government" or somesuch, but what you said IS what it's about. Lack of representation; power being bought and abused; lobbyists, etc. being allowed to decide for the people (which means they always decide things which enhance the wealth and power gap), and so much, much more. Money is power, which is maybe why the original target was Wall Street, but it's as much about the power gap as anything else. Certainly things like the exhorbidant breaks the ultra-wealthy get from Congress and the government, loopholes, how the tax rate has changed to give them massively more wealth, etc., etc., are the original focus and serve to get people's attention. But money is power, so making it about the wealth gap is a way to wake people up to all the POWER gaps our government has created and enhanced.

The basic message is "What we have isn't working. We need to change that", in all aspects of government and big business and banking.

I guess as long as you listen to the MSM and take in the propaganda they've been fed, people will never get beyond seeing OWS as about money. They're winning, in that respect.

When it comes to voluntary contributions; CTS, I'm afraid you're seeing things which would not be and not taking into account the history of the world. Education increases productivity and better living conditions, and always has. Your link to whatever Wikipedia article didn't come through, and the second one is about one school, best I can make out. It's not in the nature of people to provide education for all, and never has been. GOVERNMENTS recognize the improvements education makes, which is why they provide it. PEOPLE don't; people provide education for the wealthy, which is why the wealthy have the power and everyone else ends up working for them (not to mention that they end up with the power). Just look at history; has ANY country shown that individuals have produced enough education for all? I don't see it. When a government comes along which recognizes the gains education for everyone brings, yes. But individuals, providing their own funds to educate those who can't afford it? Examples would be good, because history points exactly the opposite direction.

Quote:
A country's economy becomes more productive as the proportion of educated workers increases, since educated workers are able to more efficiently carry out tasks that require literacy and critical thinking. Better-educated workers tend to be more productive than less educated ones http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/education-training-a
dvantages.asp#ixzz1fs7kknM4]

I think Byte has it right that history shows
Quote:
A high literacy rate and high rate of school attendance (and PUBLIC SCHOOLS!) is a relatively recent invention. In Post-Roman to Renaissance times, the wealthiest nations in the world had peasants and only 1% of the population was literate.
While providing education to the public isn't working perfectly, for me it's a better system than the way it used to be. In essence, Nick's got it where education is concerned:
Quote:
Without public schools that poor would have even less opportunity to advance
I know some of us here think that's just dandy. I don't.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether a society would provide education via private financing. I don't think they would, except for the elites, and I don't think that works in a society's best interests. I agree with what Riona wrote, it's a more concise and eloquent explanation of that aspect than I could write.

And Geezer's got the very bottom line when it comes to voluntary contributions: "Because it doesn't seem to work very well." If those among us who have lots and lots of money voluntarily contribute so little (thanks for the figures, Geezer), it kinda shows how those with LESS would (or would be able to) contribute.

Thank you for the point in your last post, too, Riona. Social education is important, too, I found that out for myself. Four years in an international school in Afghanistan had me return with an education level a grade above those here, but with social development a year BEHIND. I'd been around kids from all over the world, but the language barrier making social interaction less (since all classes were taught only in French and English, but the students didn't all share the same language outside school), so I came home less adept at social interaction with the kids here at home. Given we lived in compounds separate from one another, most of the interaction we got was at school or among other American kids one at a time, we were denied the more casual society kids get in school. Yes, our WORLD VIEW was wider from dealing with other cultures, but our ability to function within our OWN society was less.

The education system needs major overhaul, as well as so many other things in this country. Education for all is one of the focuses of Occupy, too, not just distribution of wealth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 11:30 AM

CTS,

Of course you pay for the school already, since taxes come from somewhere.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 11:56 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"That kinda shows me just how effective our enemies are. They've got more than just you convinced we're a "spoiled" bunch of whatevers who are only interested in "robbing" the 1% to feather our own nests."

" I guess as long as you listen to the MSM and take in the propaganda they've been fed, people will never get beyond seeing OWS as about money. They're winning, in that respect."

Hello Niki,

First of all, I never described OWS as 'spoiled' so I'm not sure why that quote was used in response to my message.

If you are blaming your 'enemies' for misperceptions in public opinion, you may be blaming the wrong group. I'm not sure you can blame Main Stream Media, either. Most of my information about the Occupy movement comes from you. When I see something in MSM, I come here to ask about it.

I recently proposed ideas that would give the 99% the power to make decisions for themselves.

The response I got was illuminating. It wasn't that the response was negative. It was WHY the idea was refused.

Apparently, we can't trust most people to make sound funding decisions on behalf of government.

The 99% can't be trusted to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Most of them will choose to pay no taxes and let the country fall into decay.

And if that's true, we've already lost.

I found that position to be astonishing.

This isn't propaganda from MSM or your enemies. This is what you, a OWS member, think.

My alternative was to maintain mandatory taxes but give people direct control over where their dollars go.

And the response I got includes nervousness about giving people that much control over the system.

I feel left out of the 99% because I don't think the 99% is particularly interested in giving me more control over my destiny.

That's not an MSM feeling, or enemy propaganda. That's what I'm feeling from what I read right here and now.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 11:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

That's another reason I've kinda held back...

Comes to it, a lotta these folk don't wanna cut the leash, they just wanna change which hand is holding it, usually to their own.

I don't see that makin any damn difference to us poor bastards on the other end, though.

Oh, and Re: Education - why not both ?
Sudbury model AND Conventional - even in the same building you could do it, the original vo-tech programs (sadly, always the first victim of budget cuts) were kinda run on that model, and an astounding success despite being axed at any opportunity - just guide the students into whichever environment works best for them, is all.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Without public schools that poor would have even less opportunity to advance, not to mention that it is law in the US that children attend receive and education.

Set up "school vouchers" then, to work like educational food stamps.

Quote:
You have the right to say you don't want your money going to those things. You have the right to vote for canidates that support that view, or run for office yourself.

I also have the right to propose new additional methods beyond voting or running for office. Why must those two be the only way to have my say?

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I can't support your system period.

That's fine, Rion.

If you want one thing, and I want another, we can negotiate. That is what community and society is all about, negotiation to create a new proposal that is palatable for all parties.

If we got rid of the Dept of Education, on the condition that the govt hand out school vouchers for indigent and disabled children, I wouldn't object. I think that is a fair compromise. We'd still save bundles of money.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Education increases productivity and better living conditions, and always has.

We agree on this.

Quote:
Your link to whatever Wikipedia article didn't come through, and the second one is about one school, best I can make out.

My link WAS to wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is a free, private educational resource that society has provided. The Khan Academy is a free, private educational resource that society as provided. They were counterpoints to your assertion that society NEVER provides free private, education.

Quote:
It's not in the nature of people to provide education for all, and never has been...Just look at history; has ANY country shown that individuals have produced enough education for all?

You're very concerned about the concept of "all."

Public education doesn't provide education for "all" either. It is supposed to, but in reality, we have countless public school graduates who are functionally illiterate in reading, math, and science. Meaning, the institutions you think are providing education for "all" are really providing education for "some" and warehousing the rest of the "all."

This happens everywhere in public schools all over the world.

Public schools are prisons for many children. The only thing public schools guaranteed to do for "all" is physically hold them in one place for certain hours of the day.

Now I will tell you what I think pertains to ALL.

1. ALL people have an innate desire to learn. Humans really hate being bored. They have a natural hunger for learning as they do for food.

2. Don't imprison human beings or restrict them from learning. They ALL will gravitate towards private educational resources and seek to learn.

3. When they do, society should support and guide their learning. If Kid A gravitates towards a conventional private school, but can't afford it, we give private scholarships. If Kid B gravitates towards apprenticing from a professional artist, we provide vouchers for art supplies, and maybe some compensation for the artist's time. I believe this model will result in true education for ALL, because the learners get a choice in how they spend their time and what they get to learn.

Quote:
I know some of us here think that's just dandy. I don't.

NOBODY here thinks it is just dandy for poor people not to be educated. Nobody, Niki. Some of us simply don't assume, like you do, public schools is the ONLY way for poor people to be educated.

Quote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether a society would provide education via private financing.

I used to be social worker in a previous life. I have lots of experience working with both public assistance and private charity. The experience convinced me to become libertarian, because I saw first hand how badly the public system worked and how much better (not perfect, but better) the private system did. Before that, I was a bleeding heart, die-hard liberal Democrat. I was just like you, Niki, believe it or not. I didn't lose my compassion; I lost my faith in the public system.

So yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Quote:
If those among us who have lots and lots of money voluntarily contribute so little (thanks for the figures, Geezer), it kinda shows how those with LESS would (or would be able to) contribute.

I believe this assumption is faulty.

Rich people are always more tight-fisted than poor people. That is how they GOT rich. In my many international travels, I have always been impressed at how much more giving the poor are to other poor. One, they know what it feels like and have more sympathy/empathy. Two, they are not paranoid and suspicious of being robbed by "fakers," because they don't have much worth robbing. I am sure there are other reasons they give as well, but those are the top two that come to my mind.

So I agree we wouldn't get any help from the elite rich. But we don't get any help from them now (tax breaks for the rich, remember?), so we can just go ahead and count them out in ALL systems. We're talking mostly about middle and lower upper-class contributions to the poor. They do give, and they would have MORE money to give if they weren't paying taxes.

I think it comes down to perceived human nature. I have more faith in people than you do. If middle class people suddenly got a 30% increase in income because they no longer have to pay taxes what would they do with that money? I suspect you think they would buy bigger houses and bigger TV or whatnot. I think they might do that the first year, but after the novelty of extra disposable income wears off, most of them would give happily to help the less fortunate.

On ONE condition: that the institutions they are giving to actually are honorable. Right now, a lot of people don't give because they don't trust the charities anymore than they trust govt. So many regular folks choose to give to small, locally operated charities rather than the large, anonymous, incorporated charities, despite NOT getting a tax break for it.

Coming back around to the point of this post, yes, people are capable of getting things done voluntarily. They don't have to be forced to educate "all."

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 12:38 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I totally agree that students and families need choices, everyone learns differently and so there should be various choices available to students and their families as to how the learning should occur. I do believe in a basic standard of knowledge that kids should have when finished with school, but the way its being done now has some serious flaws. So Frem's last post and I like each other.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2011 8:23 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Why not have a public education system where there are different types of schools available, such as the one I am hoping to send my son.

http://www.sherbrooke.vic.edu.au/

Fully funded alternative education.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 2:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Why not have a public education system where there are different types of schools available, such as the one I am hoping to send my son.

http://www.sherbrooke.vic.edu.au/

Fully funded alternative education.

That would be an improvement. That would make public education approach what it is supposed to be doing.

But the root issue in this debate is not school choice as much as it is taxation.

The question is, can we provide the same menu of different types of schools, and still be able to teach the overwhelming majority of children regardless of socioeconomic status, WITHOUT taxation?

I say yes. You and Niki say no. That's all.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 9:55 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

My apologies, Anthony, I haven't paid much attention to this thread since I was last here, and just saw your response. I will attempt to address your points.

I think my remark about "spoiled" some from hearing it so much, both on TV and by the righties here. It's the usual, and I don't think it was aimed at you specifically by me. I'm not going to go back through the entire thread, or others, to find out where you got the idea that I think

Quote:
Apparently, we can't trust most people to make sound funding decisions on behalf of government.

The only thing I saw discussed here was education and funding it, and I don't believe it's a matter of "most people", I think it's more a matter of the people who are most motivated. The majority of people, in my opinion, go about their own lives, and it's only when something affects them personally (if they even notice it does) that they object.

I do not believe funding things via individual choice would work. Given my believe that most people go about their own lives, and what I've seen around me when it comes to education funding, I don't think enough people would voluntarily contribute to education in sufficient number to guarantee it for all. History has shown, to me, that those who can afford it provide it and the rest go without. The enhances the class system's continuance. Most of those who don't have children wouldn't contribute, despite the fact that a better educated populace benefits the entire society. Most people would look to their own needs and spend their money on what they consider priorities. Taxes at least guarantee that the funding is spread across everyone.

I have a problem with it in another way. Done locally, those who are motivated to pursue their own agenda would be the ones who would decide what is taught and where. This already results in areas where, for example, the religious right determines the curriculum, or the racist decide which schools get the most funding, etc. It's not that the majority of people can't make good decisions, it's that, in my opinion, the majority can be misled by the minority and most of the majority don't pay attention. Having a national government, faulty tho' it may be, better determines SOME equality in education and goes a ways toward ensuring that localities don't MIS-educate the children in their community. Yes, there are many, many flaws in having the government involved in this, but to me it's like the old saying of "the worst form of government, aside from all the others".

I feel the same thing would hold for local financing of just about everything. People would contribute according to their priorities, which would cause infrastructure, in my opinion. Corporations won't pay to build bridges or roads, and tho' perhaps localities would impose taxes to fix some things, I don't believe they'd be far sighted enough to fund project which would be of benefit to the community in future. That's just my opinion. Having a centralized authority which oversees the training of people to do the work (which otherwise would have to be undertaken by each community, and what do those people do when NOT working on infrastructure?), having the materials, coordinating the efforts, etc., seems to me the better way. Obviously it's not working nearly as well as it should, pork projects, etc., but I think it would actually be worse if it were left to individual communities. Again, it's not that I think the majority of people couldn't make good decisions, it's more that I'm looking at how and what individuals would choose to fund, and that those motivated enough would end up making the decisions.

There is also the problem that people can be swayed to believe what is not true. Believing that they would work toward smaller, HEALTHIER government, many were convinced to elect legislators who promised to do that. Instead, those legislators, once elected, used their power in ways which ENLARGED the government when it comes to social agendas, and have done things which have not been for the good of the people, eliminating jobs rather than creating them and breaking up unions which have made life better for millions (not to mention brought about laws which protect workers, and given that unions, too, have many faults and need to be fixed). The people were lied to and are now being screwed left and right; luckily enough have stood up and undone some of these things, and will hopefully do more in future. But it's been a very expensive exercise of individual rights, and no, I don't trust people to pay attention, be savvy about what candidates promise as opposed to what their record shows their real agenda is. So, bad as it is, I think collective decision making is better than individual in that respect. It's too easy to manipulate people into accepting things against their own best interests, with all the good intentions in the world.

I realize that this is putting things mostly in terms of localities making decisions, not statewide government, which is I believe more what you're in favor of, so let's just say it's my belief that in many ways, a nationwide government would have a better shot at it.

Quote:
The 99% can't be trusted to behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Most of them will choose to pay no taxes and let the country fall into decay.

I never said that, as far as I'm aware, and I don't believe it. Again, in this thread we were debating education, and I don't think "fiscally responsible" is what I was indicating; I'm of the opinion that, again, people do what impacts them personally unless something or someone makes them do otherwise. We have a system where supposedly we elect people who will take responsibility for deciding where to allocate money. Obviously that's not working, but I think it has worked better (in some ways) in the past, and could be made to work better, rather than just handing control over to individual localities.

The fact that individuals don't make fiscally-responsible decisions is all around us, to a degree. While many people have been hurt by the collusion of government and business and shipping of jobs overseas, many have also been manipulated into doing things which left them vulnerable to having their lives impacted and/or losing their homes. The overuse of credit cards has become a huge problem, because people's desire to "own" things has been manipulated by advertising, as well as the credit-card companies' efforts to hide the real effects of borrowing.

Your idea of mandatory taxes but individual direct control is something I'm not wholly against, to a degree. I believe there are some things which are better handled by a centralized government, such as protection of the country and safety nets for the weaker among us. If by individual control you mean INDIVIDUALS, my arguments against that are above. If you mean control by each state, that leaves those who live in those states open to things like Jim Crow laws, and enough major differences from state to state which I think wouldn't benefit the populace. Differences such as one state having "papers please" laws and another not is an example, and laws from state to state are different enough to cause problems as it is. To increase that so that the states make ALL decisions as to where taxes go isn't a good idea, in my opinion.

I think our major disagreement is that I get the opinion you think each person should decide for themselves and that you are against a national tax, period. I realize in some instances you have argued for the state to make the decisions, but your emphatic dislike of perhaps just the majority of taxes has come to feel over time like you want to do away with ALL taxation, so that's the impression I keep getting and what I respond to.\

The other problem is that Occupy is young and as yet unformed; it is a protest AGAINST the wrongs government has perpetrated, mostly because it is in collusion with businesses, which I firmly believe will make decisions which enhance their bottom line, with no thought to what it might do to people or the nation as a whole. I don't know what the answer is, perhaps nobody does, but I do feel that the situation as it stands now isn't working. I believe that if corporations didn't have as much power as they do to influence the government, it would be a vast improvement, and that's for the most part what we're advocating. Beyond that, I freely admit I don't have the answers.

I believe in democracy; I think the system of electing officials who supposedly work for all our best interests is a good idea, I just think it has gone off track. Perhaps it's not possible to get back on track, despite anyone's efforts, and we need to change the entire system. But then you run into the possibility that what replaces it is worse, as we all know, so I'm more in favor of fixing what we've got. The chaos that would ensue from completely changing the system isn't attractive to me, especially given the potential for the outcome being worse. If it's the only way, so be it, but I hope it's not.

I'm not against capitalism, know that. I squirm at the signs that say "Imagine a world without capitalism", etc., but as they represent one person's opinion and they're entitled to that opinion, I choose signs that reflect MY opinions. If actions were proposed which would result in eliminating capitalism, I would fight them. But I think capitalism has gained FAR too great a hold on the decisions our federal government makes and that MOST of our representatives don't represent us any more. I'm stuck with the problem that mine DO, so I can't protest against them or try to change them, which leaves me helpless to affect what other legislators do which definitely doesn't reflect the good of the nation.

I don't have the answers. I don't think Occupy has the answers either. I don't know if we'll be effective in any way at all, but it's the first thing to come along that I feel has a CHANCE, so I'll support it. Only time will tell.

All I know at this point is that the situation has been manipulated in such a way that corporations have too much freedom to do what they want, which will always be to enhance their profits without regard to anything else. Through the efforts of those in the government who bought and paid for by the wealthy and corporations, the income gap has become untenable and is harmful to our entire country. Occupy is trying to effect change, and as long as they're going in what I consider the right direction, I will support them. If they support anarchy, I will have to decide whether I will support a radical change to the system we have now and am willing to chance the consequences. That's up to me, and up to every individual. Right now I would like to see steps taken to pull the reins in on corporations and eliminate the special rights the wealthy have been given which the rest of us have not.

Also there is the fact that my own beliefs are in the process of being formed in this situation. I may well not put things as clearly as I want, and I may well not have looked at all the possibilities or looked closely enough to make the right decision. But I assure you I don't believe what you think I do.

Quote:
I don't think the 99% is particularly interested in giving me more control over my destiny

And yet that is precisely what the Occupy movement DOES want to do, which is why I think I've either not been clear, or you've misunderstood my position. The Occupy movement DOES want to give individuals more control over their destiny, tho' how we/they go about it isn't yet formed. Certainly we/they want LESS power in the hands of those who are now wielding it, but what would be envisioned to replace it hasn't yet formed, in my belief. Wouldn't it be better to be part of a movement seeking change, and help form it, than to stand back and not participate at all because of what you think it proposes in the short time it's been around? We ARE the 99%, if we choose to be; otherwise the old saying is true: "Apathy is consent".

This is, of course, terribly long, as usual for me. But I'm trying to get a handle on being clear about the issues you raised, so there it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 9:56 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

In response to CTS and others:

Frem,

Quote:
a lotta these folk don't wanna cut the leash, they just wanna change which hand is holding it, usually to their own.

That is exactly what Occupy is trying NOT to do, by not having leaders and doing everything by consensus. I don't know where it will go, but the leash is exactly what we're TRYING to "cut" by encouraging everyone to speak and by trying to educate people about the things they either haven't paid attention to or don't know. Occupy K Street was about just that; how many millions of people have never even HEARD of K Street who might have an opinion on it once they know? The whole idea is to NOT have a "leash", but to form ideas by individual ideas, then implement them by a consensus. Consensus is supposed to be 100%, and some groups hold to that, but most of us recognize that consensus isn't possible, so we decided on what percentage we will consider it to be. If there is not consensus, we listen, amend, and try to form something more than just the majority can agree on. That's only a "leash" insofar as MOST of those involved choose it to be. It's not just 51-49, it's got to be a much larger percentage than that, as we practice it now.

CTS: : School vouchers exist; their result so far seems to be that those who use them create schools which others cannot afford, and the taxes don't go to education for all. I realize there are flaws in the current educational system, I guess you could say it ATTEMPTS to provide education for "all", but is far from perfect. If we did vouchers for EVERYONE, I think it's a great idea; but vouchers as an option to public education isn't working. How do you propose achieving it? Personally, I don't think eliminating the Dept. of Education is necessary, but reworking it certainly would be.

Quote:
I also have the right to propose new additional methods beyond voting or running for office. Why must those two be the only way to have my say?

Certainly you have the right to suggest anything at all. I don't think the two methods proposed ARE the only way; that's part of what Occupy is about. Myriad voices speaking up--which begins with people speaking out and gaining the attention of others, then HOPEFULLY continues on to people suggesting different ideas which might be considered by all.

I think I understand about your link now; you were offering Wikipedia ITSELF, not linking to a specific article. Wikipedia is great, but there'd have to be oversight, given anyone can edit it how they choose. Then you get into the problem of who oversees it, how much power they have, etc. I would dearly love to see Wikipedia as a new "encyclopedia", if handled properly, because it could encompass multiple opinions on things, not just one, which would not only given children differing viewpoints, but would hopefully help teach them how to learn, by reading and making up their own mind which is the most viable answer. It would also have to be financed, if you've noticed the recent pleas for money, and the funding would have to somehow be independent. How about taxes funding it--then you have to figure out who oversees it, of course.

We have a misunderstanding.

Quote:
Some of us simply don't assume, like you do, public schools is the ONLY way for poor people to be educated.

That's not what I assume at all. I'm defending public education because the only existing forms of education are public, private, and vouchers for those who want them. Vouchers for ALL, funded by all, is a great idea in my opinion, but it doesn't exist, so among those three options, I choose public--while FULLY aware that it's not working very well at present.

Quote:
I lost my faith in the public system

I have too, if I've not made that clear. I just see those three alternatives as the only ones available at this time, and no, I don't believe private funding would be the best answer; I just don't think it would work.

By the way, I LOVE your #3; if it were possible to implement it, I'd go for it in a minute, especially given you added

Quote:
society should support and guide their learning

Unlike you, I don't believe everyone would gravitate toward education. I see too many things which make me believe otherwise. But if education were mandatory, then there was the choice of options, I'd be all for it! I'd rather see it funded by taxation, which I think would lessen the possibility of the rich getting the best schools, but when it comes to choice, I'm all for it. It has its problems, an example of which is the kind of schools fundies would turn out, but with oversight--INDEPENDENT oversight, however that might be achieved (!), and with the rights of the child to decide what he wishes to focus on, I think it would be great. I also think it would be damned hard to achieve. It's' not that I think public education is the answer, I just think that, if we improved it, it's the most VIABLE ansewer.

I don't believe rich people are rich because they're tight fisted. Many of them got that way because of inheritance, many by luck, by inventiveness, or by manipulating the system. Yes, you have more faith in people than I do; I don't think that even after the first thrill of spending wore off, all or even the majority would contribute what they pay in taxes now. And certainly mistrust would be part of it. But I think people would contribute to what is in their own best interests, not the community's, and those with no children, or whose children are grown and gone, etc., would be less motivated to contribute to education than those with children. Contrasting what one family with five children to house and clothe COULD or would contribute to education voluntarily with those who wouldn't or couldn't contribute leads me to believe what I believe.

Quote:
If you want one thing, and I want another, we can negotiate. That is what community and society is all about, negotiation to create a new proposal that is palatable for all parties.

That's what's missing at this time in our country. Negotiation in good faith to reach a compromise. Without that, we truly ARE lost, and that's where we are now, with our present two-party system where one party has determined from the outset of this administration to block everything with the intent of getting rid of the administration above everything else.

That Sherbrooke school is fantastic, but I can't find anywhere it says how they're funded. If it's a private school, the same argument applies as to any private school.

Sorry this is so long--again--but some of this was addressed to me specifically, so I wanted to try and answer fully and clearly. This is the only way I know to do so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 12:12 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Why not have a public education system where there are different types of schools available, such as the one I am hoping to send my son.

http://www.sherbrooke.vic.edu.au/

Fully funded alternative education.
That would be an improvement. That would make public education approach what it is supposed to be doing.

But the root issue in this debate is not school choice as much as it is taxation.

The question is, can we provide the same menu of different types of schools, and still be able to teach the overwhelming majority of children regardless of socioeconomic status, WITHOUT taxation?

I say yes. You and Niki say no. That's all.

I do say yes. I believe taxation is important and that government have a role to play in the provision of services and development of infrastructure. I don't believe in voluntary taxation. I don't think your system would work.

My response re the school was really just to demonstrate for those who think public education = mind control that it doesn't have to be that way. You can build a better public education system, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 12:21 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sherbrooke is government funded. You pay as much in educational costs as a standard high school.

Interestingly enough, the government here also partially funds a lot of private schools. Initially it was meant to help smaller independant schools like steiner stream ones, and religious schools meet their costs. Now it also includes very wealthy private schools and are used to fund the second swimming pool, or the transition camp in the wilderness, while the public system struggles to provide basics for students. And guess what, now it is political suicide to suggest removing that funding because the wealthy who send their children to those schools have so much political clout.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 2:14 PM

FREMDFIRMA

As I said - some things I honestly do not mind payin taxes for, education is one of em.

Imma hafta look into that one Magons, it looks damn skippy, it does.

As for negotiation, well yeah I do distrust OWS, but perhaps I mistrust them LESS than the established powers - that whole benefit of the doubt thing yanno...
But even negotiation, I believe that without a requirement for unanimous consent you're asking for trouble, cause EVERY time that circle shrinks, and shrinks, and shrinks, till you got 1% oppressing the 99% all over again, just a DIFFERENT 1%...

So why set the bar at buying time ?
We CAN do better, we SHOULD do better.

Credit to OWS for tryin, but they still ain't convinced me.

That said - I hope you are finding it uplifting and enlightening, Niki - a cynical old bastard like me CAN still hold out hope even so, and I hope you understand where I am comin from on stayin out of it for now.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2011 3:36 PM