Mr. L: To what variant of libertarianism do you subscribe?
Ian: A constitutional, integral, fiscally responsible, conservative form that entails a moderated balanced government without all the bureaucratic foolishness. More education, less regulation.
Mr. L: To what extent would you deregulate? Also, what do you mean by more education? Do you mean that people should be smarter or that the government should be more involved in education?
Ian: Of course it would be nice if people were smarter, but smartness is innate and inherent, so what I mean is yes, teachers should be better compensated for their services. Higher pay for teachers means more applicants to be teachers, the greater the number of applicants, the more competition, the more competition, the better quality of teachers, the better the teachers, the better the curriculae, the better the curriculae, the more knowledgable the students, a smarter populace does not need as much regulation, but will more or less regulate themselves. I would deregulate and restructure the tax system - ie: get rid of lots of useless taxes on real estate, automobiles, get rid of tiered taxation and make it the same for everyone.
Mr. L: Why not leave education to the private sector, ensuring adequate pay without bureaucratic dictate?
Ian: Because the private sector cannot promise that.
Mr. L: The private sector provides adequate pay to every other trained employee in every other occupation...why not education? If there is a void it will be filled. Invisible hand etc. etc.
Ian: Except capitalism is not a perfect system...it is the most adequate that we know of at present. Many people in the private sector do not receive adequate pay. If it were left to private institutions then many would first off, be unable to afford to send their children to school, and secondly some schools would pay their teachers well while others would not. By having the government standardize the pay rate no one would get the short end of the stick...and of course there would still be pay raise incentives with more education as there is now....and the benefit plans as given by the government are far more comprehensive than at private schools. Believe me my mom is a teacher and I have spoken to many teachers who love their job and do the best for themselves, their students and their families. The only irritating middle-man that interferes with the public school system getting the "best" teachers is the labor union...that is why bad teachers stay and good teachers don't make more.
Mr. L: Every qualified individual receives adequate pay. Those who are untrained will not receive adequate pay in any system which respects merit. Many parents would be unable to afford sending their children to school if education was privatized right now and nothing else done differently, but deregulation and lowered taxes, coupled with the dissolution of the near-monopoly the government currently holds would bring the cost well within the reach of families. Families pay for education right now. This guise of a free lunch is sick. How can you standardize while still have pay incentives? This seems mutually exclusive to me. You speak of the problems regarding the status quo and use them as arguments against what would be a paradigmatic shift in policy.
Ian: That statement is absolutely idealistic and therefore unrealistic. In capitalism we'd like to think people are rewarded based on merit however, in the real world people who do do do, do not necessarily reap the benefits. Often times the people who do the most do not receive the credit. Many employers also have preferences as to who they hire and promote based on friendships, family, race or even to this day, sex. Those who are untrained under the current system are not hired. However, this does not prevent them from becoming lax after tenure. When you talk about deregulation, revamping tax structure and then "dissolving" public schools you are talking about something that if proposed would be immediately rejected and protested by almost all members of congress and a majority of their constituents. It would have to be a gradual restructuring which would have to be managed and carefully planned to actually take effect. But, even if you were able to reduce taxes and burdens on business that would not mean everyone all of a sudden has tons of extra money in their pockets. It would mean that some, mostly CEOs and top execs would make a killing, and we in the middle class would get a moderate break on taxes, ie: we would get some of our hard-earned cash back, our salaries staying the same. I said nothing of free lunch. Of course we pay for public schools. That gives us all the more reason to use them. If we abandon them we disenfranchise millions of poor children and allow only the most wealthy to attend school. Then we are left with an un-balanced society similar to the European feudal system with many poor and a tiny hand full of rich. For as we know more education correlates to higher incomes. Therefore those who are left in the dark are left in the abyss of social stagnation, meaning more useless bureaucracy would be needed to prevent crime and keep the ignorant at bay. I sincerely think you need to address reality and not call for an immediate radical shift in policy. It Didn't work in Germany. It Didn't work in the former Soviet Union. We need to gradually come together and reach harmony without burning bridges with ideologic fantasies.
billabong47's Blog
Loading