"Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 3/8/2011 5:49 PM, Boris Kapusta wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0

Not a hard question to answer: because I have a right to my time, and
if I exchange some of my time for something else - chickens, a bushel of
potatoes, or money - then I have a right to those things received in
exchange, and no one else has a right to any part of them. If no one
else has a right to my time, then no one has a right to any part of what
I receive in exchange for my time.

The setting for the "debate" (huh) going on in the Youtube video, and
the obvious identity of one side of it - teachers' unions - illustrate
that public schools should all be shut down immediately. Public school
teachers, particularly the unionized ones, are a criminal mob engaged in
state-protected extortion. There should be no public schools. The
government doesn't operate shoe stores or barber shops or dry cleaners,
and there is no reason they should operate schools - no good reason at
all. If we as a society are concerned that poor people don't have
enough money for shoes or haircuts or dry cleaning, the response has
never been for the government to provide those services to them;
instead, we give a little money to poor people to buy as much of those
services as they would like. The same should hold for schools. Shut
down the public schools, and provide a little money to poor people so
they may buy schooling for their children from the market.

"George Plimpton" wrote in message
...
On 3/8/2011 5:49 PM, Boris Kapusta wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0

Not a hard question to answer: because I have a right to my time, and if
I exchange some of my time for something else - chickens, a bushel of
potatoes, or money - then I have a right to those things received in
exchange, and no one else has a right to any part of them. If no one else
has a right to my time, then no one has a right to any part of what I
receive in exchange for my time.

The setting for the "debate" (huh) going on in the Youtube video, and the
obvious identity of one side of it - teachers' unions - illustrate that
public schools should all be shut down immediately. Public school
teachers, particularly the unionized ones, are a criminal mob engaged in
state-protected extortion. There should be no public schools. The
government doesn't operate shoe stores or barber shops or dry cleaners,
and there is no reason they should operate schools - no good reason at
all. If we as a society are concerned that poor people don't have enough
money for shoes or haircuts or dry cleaning, the response has never been
for the government to provide those services to them; instead, we give a
little money to poor people to buy as much of those services as they would
like. The same should hold for schools. Shut down the public schools,
and provide a little money to poor people so they may buy schooling for
their children from the market.
Absolutely.
Where, exactly, does this little money come from?

On 2/11/2012 11:39 AM, T.T. wrote:
"George wrote in message
...
On 3/8/2011 5:49 PM, Boris Kapusta wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0

Not a hard question to answer: because I have a right to my time, and if
I exchange some of my time for something else - chickens, a bushel of
potatoes, or money - then I have a right to those things received in
exchange, and no one else has a right to any part of them. If no one else
has a right to my time, then no one has a right to any part of what I
receive in exchange for my time.

The setting for the "debate" (huh) going on in the Youtube video, and the
obvious identity of one side of it - teachers' unions - illustrate that
public schools should all be shut down immediately. Public school
teachers, particularly the unionized ones, are a criminal mob engaged in
state-protected extortion. There should be no public schools. The
government doesn't operate shoe stores or barber shops or dry cleaners,
and there is no reason they should operate schools - no good reason at
all. If we as a society are concerned that poor people don't have enough
money for shoes or haircuts or dry cleaning, the response has never been
for the government to provide those services to them; instead, we give a
little money to poor people to buy as much of those services as they would
like. The same should hold for schools. Shut down the public schools,
and provide a little money to poor people so they may buy schooling for
their children from the market.
Absolutely.
Where, exactly, does this little money come from?

The same source as the big load of money currently being wasted on
crappy public schools.

"George Plimpton, a coward hiding behind an alias:

Shut
down the public schools, and provide a little money to poor people so
they may buy schooling for their children from the market.

Tax the bloated capitalists, triple teacher salaries, improve the
schools. Neocons are determined to destroy education because the
educated don't elect neocons.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2/11/2012 1:16 PM, Davoud wrote:
"George Plimpton, a coward hiding behind an alias:

Shut
down the public schools, and provide a little money to poor people so
they may buy schooling for their children from the market.

Tax the bloated capitalists,

Too much money already is taken from hard-working entrepreneurs and
managers.


triple teacher salaries,

They should all be fired. They're incompetent.


improve the
schools.

*CLOSE* the public schools.


Neocons are determined to destroy education because

Right thinking people want to get the government out of the schools
business.

George Plimpton, a coward hiding behind an alias:

Right thinking [sic] people want to get the government out of the schools [sic]
business.

Exactly. "Right-"thinking people want to get the government out of the
schools because educated people don't vote for "Right-"thinking
candidates.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2/11/2012 12:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/11/2012 11:39 AM, T.T. wrote:
"George wrote in message
...
On 3/8/2011 5:49 PM, Boris Kapusta wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0

Not a hard question to answer: because I have a right to my time, and if
I exchange some of my time for something else - chickens, a bushel of
potatoes, or money - then I have a right to those things received in
exchange, and no one else has a right to any part of them. If no one
else
has a right to my time, then no one has a right to any part of what I
receive in exchange for my time.

The setting for the "debate" (huh) going on in the Youtube video, and
the
obvious identity of one side of it - teachers' unions - illustrate that
public schools should all be shut down immediately. Public school
teachers, particularly the unionized ones, are a criminal mob engaged in
state-protected extortion. There should be no public schools. The
government doesn't operate shoe stores or barber shops or dry cleaners,
and there is no reason they should operate schools - no good reason at
all. If we as a society are concerned that poor people don't have enough
money for shoes or haircuts or dry cleaning, the response has never been
for the government to provide those services to them; instead, we give a
little money to poor people to buy as much of those services as they
would
like. The same should hold for schools. Shut down the public schools,
and provide a little money to poor people so they may buy schooling for
their children from the market.
Absolutely.
Where, exactly, does this little money come from?

The same source as the big load of money currently being wasted on
crappy public schools.

The problem with schools is not teachers...it's parents.
Until parents start teaching their kids to be good citizens,
cooperate with others and learn what's taught in schools, the system
can't improve.
You think that parents who can't control their kids are gonna be able
to allocate funds to schooling?
Private schooling with parents responsible for allocating funds
will be a disaster. We'll have the richest 20% getting an education
and the other 80% roaming the streets looking for a car to steal.
That's when they're not busy popping out more kids that won't get
an education. You think it's bad now...

Public schooling that attempts to give a baseline education to all
is an absolute necessity. You want to improve it, start working on the
parents.

The solution is to put contraceptives in the water. To have a kid, you
put down a $100K security deposit...or whatever it takes these days to
feed and educate a kid...and get a license. You just TERMINATE
unlicensed kids and their parents...immediately, with prejudice, no appeal.
The system will be all better if 50 years or so.

On 2/11/2012 4:11 PM, Davoud, a cocksucker, bleated:
George Plimpton, a coward hiding behind an alias:

Right thinking [sic] people want to get the government out of the schools [sic]
business.

Exactly. "Right-"thinking people want to get the government out of the
schools because educated people don't vote for "Right-"thinking
candidates.

Right-thinking people want to get the government out of the schools
business because there is no valid reason for the government to be
providing schools. The government doesn't own and operate shoe stores
or plumbing businesses or barber shops or a whole host - nearly all - of
businesses from which people buy goods and services. There is no reason
for them to operate schools. Schooling is just another service people
consume. The government has no valid reason to be the provider of that
service.

On Feb 12, 2:41*am, wrote:

The system will be all better if 50 years or so.

I wonder whether America can exist for remotely that long.

Human society is beset with deprivation of reward for effort. Yet the
vast majority of humans function well and productively where reward
for effort is tangible and instantaneous. Where the reward is denied,
hidden, or extended into some arbitrary future, then all reward
becomes meaningless. Trust is broken because the promise is usually
proved worthless.

Politicians cannot make a nation wealthier. They can only alter the
ratios between the share of national wealth between the top, middle
and bottom members of society. They can govern prudently, tax fairly
and invest wisely for the benefit of all. Thereby maintaining the
loyalty of the majority to the system. Crime remains low as does the
cost of maintaining security. (Scandinavia before open immigration and
the EU)

Or they can invest in weapons, wars and national security. The latter
to protect themselves from the enemies deliberately manufactured by
their global misdeeds and interference. The cost is so high that large
sections of society must pay for it in grinding poverty, a lack of
social security and health care. Only in America.

Going back to your final solution: The young have needs and desires
which are badly distorted by religious, moral and economic factors. A
rich kid has the Pill, relationships and abortion without economic
consequence. The pregnant poor are chastised and tortured for a
lifetime of misery by psychopathic morons like you. Only in America.

On 2/12/2012 11:34 AM, Chris.B wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:41 am, wrote:

The system will be all better if 50 years or so.

I wonder whether America can exist for remotely that long.

Human society is beset with deprivation of reward for effort. Yet the
vast majority of humans function well and productively where reward
for effort is tangible and instantaneous. Where the reward is denied,
hidden, or extended into some arbitrary future, then all reward
becomes meaningless. Trust is broken because the promise is usually
proved worthless.

I don't agree that the reward need be instantaneous. There are a lot of
endeavors in which one must buckle down and work hard with little or no
tangible reward today, in the hope and expectation of greater rewards in
future. Most businesses that start out small and eventually hit it big
don't pay much in the way of tangible rewards in the early going.

I think I do get your point, though. If the potential for reward
evaporates because the politicians suddenly change the rules, that will
cause the effort to evaporate as well.


Politicians cannot make a nation wealthier. They can only alter the
ratios between the share of national wealth between the top, middle
and bottom members of society. They can govern prudently, tax fairly
and invest wisely for the benefit of all. Thereby maintaining the
loyalty of the majority to the system. Crime remains low as does the
cost of maintaining security. (Scandinavia before open immigration and
the EU)

Or they can invest in weapons, wars and national security. The latter
to protect themselves from the enemies deliberately manufactured by
their global misdeeds and interference. The cost is so high that large
sections of society must pay for it in grinding poverty, a lack of
social security and health care. Only in America.

Going back to your final solution: The young have needs and desires
which are badly distorted by religious, moral and economic factors. A
rich kid has the Pill, relationships and abortion without economic
consequence. The pregnant poor are chastised and tortured for a
lifetime of misery by psychopathic morons like you. Only in America.