[ale] Palladium/MS: ideas for retaliation - WAY, WAY, WAY OTnow!!!

[Charles Marcus]

>>> The kid who is _not_ educated today has a great chance
>>> of becoming the asshole who burglarizes your home, or
>>> shoots you for the $50 you just pulled from the ATM.

>> Lets see - I wonder where these 'assholes' are coming from
>> now?  You guessed it - *PUBLIC SCHOOLS*.

> I have friends who are lawyers in the criminal justice
> system. They are public defenders. The vast majority of
> the repeat offenders didn't complete 12 grade.

Yes, they dropped out because *the system does not work*.  Or are you
seriously suggesting that if they had stayed in school, in a system that lets
kids graduate high-school without being able to read and/or write, that they
would have turned out any differently??

> The crimes they commit are of a one-on-one personal nature,
> i.e. theft, murder, rape, etc. Yes, they went to public school.
> If the schools had been better, maybe these people would have
> been doing something usefull instead of the crime they committed.

And if they had been raised by parents that taught them right from wrong,
maybe...

The problem is not the schools - its the lack of *accountability* that is
taught to children from the earliest age (parents abdicate their
responsibility to educate) all the way through their life (it's not his fault,
he was abused as a child - its not his fault, he is poor - its not his fault,
he's got ADD).  I really don't think I would be able to refrain from punching
someone in the face if they tried to tell me I couldn't discipline my child.

> The private school criminal, however, is much more insidious.
> They commit crimes against large numbers of people. They get
> business and accounting degrees and embezzle pension funds,
> they pull stunts like at Enron, they make the decisions that
> lead to the layoffs of thousands of people. They head
> organizations that make poisonous byproducts and ship the
> sludge to South America to dump it there instead of cleaning
> up the mess. They make the decisions to purchase known,
> inferior industrial hardware to save $100 on a $2000 valve,
> which fails in use later causing a cyanide plant in Bophal,
> India to explode and kill 11,000 people with the toxic cloud.
> I could go on with this line for months on end. Hitler went
> to a private school.

Thanks for proving my point! ;)

This simply proves that private schools do a *much* better job at
*educating* - but they don't *neccessarily* do a very good job at teching
*morals* or *ethics*.  That depends on the school itself.

It would be interesting to see the statistics on children who are brought up
in private *Christian* schools.

>>> I would gladly pay double my tax rate on my home to better
>>> fund the education system of Dekalb  county. I absolutely
>>> seethe at the discussions from people who want to cut
>>> taxes and in the next breath bitch and moan about "how
>>> hard it is to get good help these days".

>> Sorry, Jim, you are making the same mistake many other
>> make.  Think about it.  If throwing money or raising taxes
>> were the answer to the problem, everyone would be Einsteins.
>> The simple fact is, the more government controls our schools,
>> the *worse* they have gotten.  And the more taxes are raised
>> and spent on schools, the *worse* they have gotten.  The
>> *answer*, my friend, is to go back to what works.  *Private*,
>> *community* schools.

> You missed the point of this paragraph. Unlike so many others,
> I see the merit in having a well funded educational system.

Well, since public fools routinely spend more per student than the private
schools churning out the brilliant criminals, that should make it obvious to
you that we *do* have a 'well-funded educational system' - it just doesn't
*work*.

>> Home-schooled children *consistently* score higher on all
>> of the government tests, and consistently win national
>> spelling bees, etc.  And I guarantee you, a child who is
>> home-schooled costs the mother/father paying for it *much*
>> less than they would if they had gone to the public fool
>> system.

> The cost of a home schooling process is vastly higher than
> what is spent on a per child basis in _any_ school system,
> public or private. One parent stays home from work to be
> teacher.

You look at this as a cost.  I look at this as *the way it is supposed to be*.
If you are going to have children, it is your *responsibility* to educate
them, and that includes teaching them responsibility and accountability.  I
consider the act of sending them off to government indoctrination centers an
*abdication* of this *sacred obligation*.  If you don't wanna be responsible
for your children, *don't have any*.

The actual cost of materials is much lower, and much of these (books, etc) can
be reused by your other children as they grow up.

There are some *excellent* CBT courses available now, and even some on-line
ones.

Of course, the way it used to, and *should* work, is parents in a
neighborhood/community get together, fund the building of a school building,
then advertise for and hire a teacher (or two) to teach their children.  This
way, the parents are in *direct* control,

I am sorry, there is no way that you will ever get me to agree that sending
children to government indoctrination centers is a good thing.

> At a national teacher pay average of $30k for a 2 kid
> classroom, that $15k per year on staffing alone. The
> ENTIRE amount spent per kid in Dekalb county is a
> whopping $1600/year.

Yes - times 30 (the average classroom size) = $48,000 per
classroom.  Multiply this times 4 classes per day (I actually think there are
more, especially for grades 4-12), but this comes out to $192,000/yr.  Don't
know about you, but I could pay a teacher $75,000/yr, and still have $117,000
left over for materials, which equates to just under $1,000 per student for
materials.  This would buy a very good education, since many of the materials
could be reused and/or shared - *if* it was privately administered.

> That is the annual school budget divided by the number of
> students. I would be shocked if a school system that could
> afford a 2:1 student:teacher ratio didn't perform off the
> charts.

No argument here...

>>> I would gladly suffer a tripling of my property taxes
>>> if it was used to hire people who had a college degree
>>> in something other than education to replace those who
>>> took the easy route and majored in education.

>> Since I am in complete agreement with the supreme Court
>> of the United States, and believe that the taking from
>> one to give to another is nonetheless *theft*, regardless
>> if it is called 'taxation', I cannot disagree with this
>> more.

> I always get a sarcastic giggle out of this argument. It
> brings out the philosophy of the nature and purpose of
> government.

There is only one purpose - to protect private property Rights,
including-but-not-limited-to, the Rights to Life, Liberty and Property.

> Since a disproportionate number of elected decision makers
> were educated by a private school, they have a very
> particular viewpoint on society as a whole. And like most
> people, they tend to make decisions that favor the
> elevation of their personal power base.

Which is why they should not only be bound by the chains of the Constitution,
but abuses of power should be dealt with extremely harshly - including the
death penalty, in some cases (just as there was the death penalty for debasing
our coin - until about ten years before they actually debased it, where they
changed the penalty to a paltry ten years and $10,000 fine).

> The process of taxation is often seemingly unfair.

It is not just unfair - it is theft, pure and simple.  There is no other way
to describe the taking of someones private property by force.

> I know that some of federal tax money has built roads in
> California.  If I go there I can drive on them.\

Roads are paid for by a use (*voluntary*) tax - aka the gas tax.  I don't have
a problem with a use tax, because it is more properly termed a *fee*.

> I know that some of federal tax money has gone to give a
> $240 per month check to someone who is too mentally ill
> to hold a job.

And if there was no confiscatory taxation, there would be *plenty* of charity
to handle truly charitable cases.

> I know that some of my state tax money has gone to
> subsidize peanut farming advertising in south Georgia.
> I happen to like peanuts.

Then by all means, feel free to give them your money - just keep your !@#$%
gun out of my face trying to force me to give them mine.

> Taxes are how governments get the income to provide the
> services that the population demands of them. It's the
> population making the demands that I am having the
> biggest problem with. Very little thought is given
> to long range benefits of society as a whole. Or so
> it seems.

I agree - and there would be no problem, if people were forced to do the
*truly* fair thing, and go out and *fund-raise* for their pet causes.  This
way, only the causes that both were appealing to enough and were
*well-administered* would be funded - no guns-in-my-face necessary.

> I personally think that we should be spending 3-5%
> of GNP on pure and applied research focused on how to
> get vast numbers of people of this little orbiting
> rock and surviving elsewhere.

So, again, feel free to start a fund-raising mission.  If enough people share
your desire, you'll be able to get the ball rolling.  If not, then you'll have
to either fund it yourself or keep dreaming about it.  Again, just don't stick
your gun in my face and demand that *I* fund it.

> So you should have to pay the full cost for your
> Internet connection?

Absolutely.  If it is too high, I won't have one.  Simple.

> You don't want the cost of the development of that
> technology and infrastructure spread out over the
> entire population?

I can see a company setting up a fund, taking donations (like, maybe, selling
stock??), then giving discounts to those who were visionary enough and willing
to take the risk *voluntarily*.  Otherwise, no, I do not want your gun stuck
in my face demanding I fund something, whether you think it is for my own
good, or the good of 'society', or not.

> As the research to develop the Internet has cost in
> the billions and fewer than 50 million Americans
> actively use it, are you sure that the direct use
> cost model is something you are truly willing to swallow.

Yep.  If the development of the internet had been a purely civilian activity,
it probably would have happened a lot slower, but so what?  At least I would
not have had any guns stuck in my face, demanding that I pay for something I
may not want to pay for.

> You mean to tell me that you aren't happy that the
> unconnected 50% of the population is subsidizing your
> Internet access?

If it was up to me, they would not be, but it isn't.

> Remember, governments are not a bunch of machines. They
> are people that sit there and make those decisions.

They are 'people' that are too lazy to get a real job doing productive work,
rather than sapping the productivity of the people they are attempting to
'govern'.  I govern myself, thank you.  I would *never* work for the
government.  I would rather go into the mountains and live off the land as a
hermit.

> We do elect, in a twisted way, those decision makers.

I don't.  I refuse to sanction their actions.

>> I agree - but it is *because* of government controls
>> and the 'publicly funded' nature of them now.

> It was due entirely to the lack of funding for schools
> that a shortage of teachers was recognized.

Repeat after me: There is no funding shortage - only funds mis-management (or
outright theft).

<snip>

> We are now having children taught by products of the
> first declination wave of teachers. It is a vicious
> cycle with no good end or solution.

Sure there is.  Simply have the people who are closest to the issue take
responsibility - the *parents*.

>>> In this country, we pay the lowest percentage of our
>>> per capita income to taxes than any other industrialized
>>> country.

>> So?? Just because other people live as slaves in their
>> countries, are you saying that we should too??

> So the normal vacation time of 4 weeks in England, or the
> 35 hour work week in France is slavery?

Sorry - in my haste, I confused issues...

Let me re-state:

So?? Just because other people live in socialist and communist copuntries, we
should too??

> Both of those countries still have a higher percentage of
> non-working mothers than we do. It is required for both
> parents to work here to make ends meet in any reasonable
> manner. And what the other countries provide to their
> citizens for the tax money is a list of services that far
> exceed ours. Kids that can actually think, as opposed to
> regurgitate "facts", and a health care system (of sorts)
> are two things I don't see here.

Give me a break.  I know a few people who have had experiences with their
'health-care' systems - non-existant MRI's, waiting weeks or months to see a
Doctor, if ever.  Yeah, thats what we want, alright.

Their services may exceed ours, and their quality of services is probably
shit, but that is beside the point.  Government is not, nor was it ever
supposed to be about 'services'.  Again, the *only* legitimate purpose of
government is to Protect our Rights.  Thats IT.  The rest should be up to us
to figure out for ourselves, unmolested in our person and proerty.

Charles


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.