Predictions for Obama admin

[Chucktown PE]

While not part of the US Constitution, it is a recognized right of the UN, which the US is a part of. From Wikipedia:
Right to education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The right to education is recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 14.

The realisation of the right to education on a national level may be achieved through compulsory education, or more specifically free compulsory primary education, as stated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The right to education may also include the right to freedom of education.

Compulsory, now there's a good ******* word. That is government speak for putting a gun to your head so you'll do what they think you should do. By the way, I was born in a country where the supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. As far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, we haven't ammended that to include the UN ********.

 

[chaosiscash]

If something needs to be invented, it will be invented and that has happened throughout the history of mankind.

I agree with that statement, but I also think that for certain specific things, its completely reasonable for that inventor to be the "government". Just because there is no "for-profit" need for something doesn't mean its not needed. The Manhatten Project comes to mind as an example. I'm sure that some would say that it was a complete waste of money, but there are (were) thousands of american servicemen that would of had to invade Japan that would disagree, not to mention Cold War workers and servicemen.

 

[Chucktown PE]

^ I agree with that from the military standpoint. In fact, our constitution has provisions for the use of military force. It would be foolish to say that our military could "provide for the common defense" were they still using muskets and 13lb cannons. In that case, the military must ask the free market to provide it with a product, whether it be ammunition or a bomber. In this case however, there is competition. In most cases, the military asks multiple private enterprises to compete. But, for someone to say that a windmill or a solar panel, etc. wouldn't have been invented were it not for the government is assinine.

 

[benbo]

You are passionate in your defense of government...I'll give you that. Tell me, did we need the government to invent cars for us? People were happily living their lives with horses and buggies and bicycles at the time. There really wasn't demand for cars, but they were invented anyway and the rest is history. Same deal with trains.
The fact of the matter is that government IS a corporation. It's just the most inefficient corporation in the world because it has a captive customer base and no competition. There is no motivation for the government to find a better or cheaper way to do something...if it costs too much, they'll either take more money from us or create it out of thin air. If you take away that ability, then it forces the government/corporation to become efficient.

Here's a, perhaps, less drastic analogy for you. Say the government were to provide their services a la carte. Everybody pays a base tax that covers things that cannot be broken out (national defense, welfare, etc.). But if you own a car, you pay a little bit more for access to the roads. If you have a child in public education, you pay more taxes. This way, competition would cause the public schools to either get better or shut down completely. If you can afford the extra taxes for public education, then you may be able to afford private education. If private offers better quality, then public will cease to exist. And before I hear about how unfair this is to poor people, please show me the Article or Amendment in the Constitution that says "A persons right to an education shall not be infringed.".

Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate because whenever I bring up a point you don't like you just refuse to address it. I'll refer back to an old post you made (it exists, don't make me go back and find it) where you made some ridiculous statement about how there was no government during the revolutionaty war and the militias just all stepped up and funded the effort. There was a continental congress and they had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay and had to borrow othe money just like we do today. You didn't like it so you just skipped it. Care to answer that now?

I repeat, you have no basis in reality that anything you say up here will happen would actually happen. There is NO SOCIETY in the history of the world that has done what you propose. So you can just make up a bunch of stuff you think is going to happen, with zero empirical evidence. If the market is so great and all knowing, how come it never set up a system like you posit here. Please answer (although I won't hold my breath).

And I do believe in competition in schools. THe monopoly of the public education system is something I despise. But competition in schools is something that I know works from empirical evidence.

 

[benbo]

And since that system has NEVER happened anywhere, please tell me where everything you use in your everyday life came from, it certainly wasn't the government.

I wasn't talking to you. I believe I was responding to a post by someone who doesn't even believe there should be a government at all, not even for a military. That's the system I was talking about.

And of course there is a large place for private industry within a system that includes a government. But since you chose to jump in, can you tell me of the society you speak of where there was no government? Where everything was market driven? Because all of those advances were made by business but under a governmental system as well. You talk about medicines. Do you believe any company would invest huge amounts of money in a medical treatment if there were no such things as patents or copyright laws? Why waste a whole bunch of money to develop something when somebody can just rip it off after you've done all the work.

 

[FLBuff PE]

opcorn:

 

[snickerd3]

opcorn:

Mind if I join you? opcorn: opcorn:

 

[Chucktown PE]

Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate because whenever I bring up a point you don't like you just refuse to address it. I'll refer back to an old post you made (it exists, don't make me go back and find it) where you made some ridiculous statement about how there was no government during the revolutionaty war and the militias just all stepped up and funded the effort. There was a continental congress and they had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay and had to borrow othe money just like we do today. You didn't like it so you just skipped it. Care to answer that now?
I repeat, you have no basis in reality that anything you say up here will happen would actually happen. There is NO SOCIETY in the history of the world that has done what you propose. So you can just make up a bunch of stuff you think is going to happen, with zero empirical evidence. If the market is so great and all knowing, how come it never set up a system like you posit here. Please answer (although I won't hold my breath).

Sorry benbo, but I am not sure I understand the question. I'll try to answer as I understand it. wilheldp_PE was incorrect in saying that there was no government in the revolutionary war. There was a government and it lacked the power to levy taxes. The states were asked to voluntarily contribute to the war effort. Historians say that the revolutionary war was unpopular, ergo the state legislatures couldn't tax their citizens to pay for the war effort or they would have a revolt on their hands. Therefore, the states borrowed to money to contribute to the effort. As such, when the continental congress was disolved as it proved itself rather ineffective, the new Consitution included the power to levy taxes. In order to pay back the debt incurred by the states during the war, Alexander Hamilton pushed the Assumption Act through Congress, whereby the Federal Government would assume the debts of the states.

I suppose my argument is not for no government, just that the federal government's role be restricted by the enumerated powers clause of the constitution. I think the federal government's role should be restricted to protecting our lives, liberty, and property. States can handle the rest more efficiently and to the preference of its citizens. Those that live in California could have a progressive income tax, welfare, etc. while those that live in South Carolina wouldn't, meanwhile, we would all pay federal taxes for the federal government to provide those enumerated powers. That's the way this whole republic thing was intended to work.

 

[Chucktown PE]

I wasn't talking to you. I believe I was responding to a post by someone who doesn't even believe there should be a government at all, not even for a military. That's the system I was talking about.
And of course there is a large place for private industry within a system that includes a government. But since you chose to jump in, can you tell me of the society you speak of where there was no government? Where everything was market driven? Because all of those advances were made by business but under a governmental system as well. You talk about medicines. Do you believe any company would invest huge amounts of money in a medical treatment if there were no such things as patents or copyright laws? Why waste a whole bunch of money to develop something when somebody can just rip it off after you've done all the work.

Please see my previous post. I am not arguing for no government, that would be anarchy. I am arguing for a more Jeffersonian approach to the federal government.

 

[DVINNY]

Mind if I join to? opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate because whenever I bring up a point you don't like you just refuse to address it. I'll refer back to an old post you made (it exists, don't make me go back and find it) where you made some ridiculous statement about how there was no government during the revolutionaty war and the militias just all stepped up and funded the effort. There was a continental congress and they had a hell of a time getting anyone to pay and had to borrow othe money just like we do today. You didn't like it so you just skipped it. Care to answer that now?
I repeat, you have no basis in reality that anything you say up here will happen would actually happen. There is NO SOCIETY in the history of the world that has done what you propose. So you can just make up a bunch of stuff you think is going to happen, with zero empirical evidence. If the market is so great and all knowing, how come it never set up a system like you posit here. Please answer (although I won't hold my breath).

And I do believe in competition in schools. THe monopoly of the public education system is something I despise. But competition in schools is something that I know works from empirical evidence.

You are impossible to debate with because you are far too emotionally attached to the idea of the government to even consider alternative viewpoints. I have developed my ideas over several years because I used to just rail against the status quo. Back then, the response I always ran into was "if it's so bad, why don't you suggest an alternative". So, I accumulated knowledge from a variety of sources, and formed a theory of what I think would work. You are the first person that I have encountered that has used the defense of "it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory". Quite frankly, that is a very non-scientific viewpoint. May I also point out that NO SOCIETY that had a strong central government with a fiat money system or socialistic ideals has ever withstood the test of time. They all eventually collapse under their own weight because their philosophy causes them to be come larger and larger to the point where they are no longer sustainable. Best example of this is the Roman Empire. Maybe it's time to try something new because what has already been tried failed catastrophically.

You also misrepresented my statement about the Revolutionary War. I didn't say that there was no government, I said that there was no army. The citizens in the colonies got pissed off with the British government, so they declared independence. When they were attacked, they grouped together to defend themselves against the aggressors. We didn't have the biggest military in the world at the time, but we were able to defeat a large, organized army.

If you want to calm down and actually discuss this, I am willing. But if you post another tirade like the one quoted above, you won't be hearing from me on the subject again.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

 

[benbo]

You are impossible to debate with because you are far too emotionally attached to the idea of the government to even consider alternative viewpoints. I have developed my ideas over several years because I used to just rail against the status quo. Back then, the response I always ran into was "if it's so bad, why don't you suggest an alternative". So, I accumulated knowledge from a variety of sources, and formed a theory of what I think would work. You are the first person that I have encountered that has used the defense of "it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory". Quite frankly, that is a very non-scientific viewpoint. May I also point out that NO SOCIETY that had a strong central government with a fiat money system or socialistic ideals has ever withstood the test of time. They all eventually collapse under their own weight because their philosophy causes them to be come larger and larger to the point where they are no longer sustainable. Best example of this is the Roman Empire. Maybe it's time to try something new because what has already been tried failed catastrophically.
You also misrepresented my statement about the Revolutionary War. I didn't say that there was no government, I said that there was no army. The citizens in the colonies got pissed off with the British government, so they declared independence. When they were attacked, they grouped together to defend themselves against the aggressors. We didn't have the biggest military in the world at the time, but we were able to defeat a large, organized army.

If you want to calm down and actually discuss this, I am willing. But if you post another tirade like the one quoted above, you won't be hearing from me on the subject again.

Once again, you make some sort of judgement about whether I need to "calm down." I assure you I am perfectly calm. But not only that, now you have created a quote that I never said. It's a nice debating technique if you are looking to debate yourself. -

"it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory".

I don't believe it is an impossiblity or invalid theory, necessarily. However, it seems to me if the market sorts all things out in due time, at one point in the history of civilization it would have created a society like the one you theorize. What I believe is that you can assume all these things, and theories are nice, but at some point the theory has to be tested empirically for validity. Otherwise it is just a theory with no validation.

As far as what you said about the REvolution, I guess I'll have to go back and see. If all you said was that it wsan't the biggest Army, well that's true. But it was eventually organized and controlled from a central Continental Congress, which found that just relying on rich landholders to fund the effort because of "the market" didn't work out.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Once again, you make some sort of judgement about whether I need to "calm down." I assure you I am perfectly calm. But not only that, now you have created a quote that I never said. It's a nice debating technique if you are looking to debate yourself. -"it has never happened up until this point in history, therefore it is an impossibility and an invalid theory".

I don't believe it is an impossiblity or invalid theory, necessarily. However, it seems to me if the market sorts all things out in due time, at one point in the history of civilization it would have created a society like the one you theorize. What I believe is that you can assume all these things, and theories are nice, but at some point the theory has to be tested empirically for validity. Otherwise it is just a theory with no validation.

As far as what you said about the REvolution, I guess I'll have to go back and see. If all you said was that it wsan't the biggest Army, well that's true. But it was eventually organized and controlled from a central Continental Congress, which found that just relying on rich landholders to fund the effort because of "the market" didn't work out.

Good Lord. Do you ever actually answer a post? You are impossible to debate...

This did not seem like a calm statement to me. And calling my ideas ridiculous in that same paragraph is not a good way to keep my interest in a debate. That is all I'm going to say on that subject.

I apologize if my assumption of what your central argument is turned out to be inaccurate, but you kept repeating that my theory had never been tested, then saying that you didn't think it could work. Well, since it has never been tested, I cannot prove that it will work, nor can you prove that it would not work. What I have not seen is a cogent reason from you as to why you think it won't work. Hence my characterization of your argument as "it hasn't happened, therefore it won't work".

 

[roadwreck]

+1

opcorn:

 

[benbo]

You also misrepresented my statement about the Revolutionary War. I didn't say that there was no government, I said that there was no army.

Here's your statement about the Revolutionary War, from a thread called Religion and Engineers." I'm too dumb to link to it.

"National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us."

Maybe I misrepresented something, or misunderstood something. I don't know.

I also saw in that thread we've been through this ad nauseum. I'll sum up my opinion - I am for competition in things like schools, private roads, all sorts of things. I am not for a huge government. But I don't believe the profit motive will always deliver for the public good. And I also believe there are ways to use government rarely and wisely to spur innovation. I believe used wisely gvt can be like the trim on the controls. I agree it is not always (or even often) used wisely.

If that makes me a wild eyed commie, so be it. I've been called a fascist just as often.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Here's your statement about the Revolutionary War, from a thread called Religion and Engineers." I'm too dumb to link to it.
"National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us."

Maybe I misrepresented something, or misunderstood something. I don't know.

I also saw in that thread we've been through this ad nauseum. I'll sum up my opinion - I am for competition in things like schools, private roads, all sorts of things. I am not for a huge government. But I don't believe the profit motive will always deliver for the public good. And I also believe there are ways to use government rarely and wisely to spur innovation. I beleive used wisely gvt can be like the trim on the controls. I agree itis not always used wisely.

If that makes me a wild eyed commie, so be it. I've been called a fascist just as often.

Well, since we are going to press the issue...

The Continental Congress wasn't really a government. It was a group of delegates from 12 out of the 13 colonies that got together to discuss options about what to do with their British rulers. They met for a month and a half less a little less than a year before the Revolutionary War began. They didn't try to levy taxes, or set up even a provisional government. Although they did arrange for the Second Continental Congress to happen the following year.

From your second to last paragraph, it sounds like we have a lot in common. I argue from the standpoint of anarcho-capitalism because most people with which I debate start from the standpoint of huge, socialistic government. I find that when we "meet in the middle" it is usually a system of government that I would be comfortable with. The problem is that the trend I see becoming more and more prevalent is one of bigger government no matter what. Neither of the "Big Two" parties this year even mentioned the possibility of shrinking the government...they just had different plans to expand it. I find that completely unacceptable and unsustainable. This will lead us towards the same end as the Roman Empire (i.e. complete governmental and economic collapse). Then, history proves that nothing will be learned from the failure of the government, and a new one will simply take its place.

 

[MGX]

Velcro people, where would we be without velcro?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Velcro people, where would we be without velcro?

Happily using hook-and-loop tape?

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

The peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. Discuss.