Utopia part 2- the end of poverty, crime, hopelessness, and depression

[Erzengel]

I only see a golden frog but I'm sure it was funny.

Fixed that.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

aHaha, yes.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

No, he said ALL jobs will be gone.
That's why I brought up gynecology.

Ah...

 

[StorminNorman]

I don't want it to completely control the market. If you want to invest, then go for it.

If you start controlling prices, then you severely tamper with the market. If you set the prices below Market Equilibrium - then you will lower supply. You force companies to produce a certain supply at a low price - you start running out of companies. That is the damning effect of controlling the markets.

No it has not been proven. Remember the congressional investigation into the gas prices by Bill Clinton? did that hurt the maket? Or did gas prices go down right away because of the pressure? Your generalizing socialism, and that would be just as illogical as generalizing capitalism. I'm not a communist, I'm a socialist. I believe in promoting things when they need to be promoted.

Not all government over site is necessarily bad. In that case over site was needed because of industry inflation - there should be certain restrictions to the market on necessity items (like gas). America's can not opt out of not using gas in this day and age - so they are slaves to the corporations. However for most products on the market, government intervention is not needed.

There is a reason that the overwhelming majority of sociologists, economists, and historians are social democrats.

Most economists believe in a laissez-faire approach to the market. That is what I advocate.

No. It's motivated by profit. They are two different things. When the tobacco company gradually, secretly increased the amount of nicoting by 70% in the last 15 years were they trying to improve the lives of the people or make more profit? Is government regulation needed here?

The motive is profit, however this motivates businesses to create goods that help society. Every company is trying to find the next good that American's can not be with out. Americans can't be with out it because it makes their lives easier, companies want it because of the massive returns it will bring in.

Tobacco companies are a completely separate beast. The are in the market to kill people - basically. That being said, if a tobacco company can find a way to find a "harm-free" cigarette, then they will spend millions trying to produce it, because it will benefit society and thus generate tremendous revenue.

you are letting your idealogy control you. I don't believe what i believe because I'm liberal. I'm liberal because i believe what i believe. You oppose big government for the sake of opposing big government, whether it's good big or bad big.

No - I am following common sense. I don't want government to regulate my every day life. I don't want government telling me what my children should no. I want freedom. If that makes me oppose big government for the sake of opposing big government - fine.

What's your education, that puts you in a position to judge my plan? You haven't even heard it, yet you oppose it for the sake of opposing big government. I don't have a masters in economics or anything, but all of my predictions about the Iraq war and the economy have come true.

No, I oppose you trying to preaching us your energy plans when you don't have the education to back it up. If you had the educational experience to give credibility to your work, then I would need similar experience to adequately oppose it.

Then what's the point?

The point is that PARENTS will get to decide where there children go to school. They will not be forced to have their children go to under performing schools. The government will spend the same amount of money it already is - just with much higher returns.

And a horrible one that would divide this country and promote intolerance. people would segregate themselves education wise, by creed, color and values. Children would not be exposed to information and opportunities that they are now. Why does one child deserve more education than another child?

How would it divide this country? See, you assume the worst in parents. You assume that the majority will make decisions simply based on race and creed. I don't buy it. If a school is performing well, then parents will send their children there: that includes parents of white children, black children, asian children, gay children, etc. That promotes diversity.

Again. parents would segregate their children. It would create massive social problems over the next century. Some children would be taught by religous fanatics. When that person's gay child grows up to commit suicide because of their religous nutso parent will you claim responsiblity?

No it wouldn't. If religious fanatics produce students not able to adapt in the real world - then they will stop getting students. Despite your belifes, there is a very small percentage of people (even those evil Christians) that value their children's spirituality over education. For the majority of students, their parents will send them to the best schools available. That is why you get many students in Catholic Private Schools, even though their families are anything but.

You do not know what's it's like to be hopeless, living in despair, or how people are effected by their environement. And you do not know how the economy works. if you did, you would be in agreement with the overwhelming majority of economists and sociologists.

Again, you are hardly in a position to decree what my background is. I have lived living paycheck to paycheck having to eat 10 cent Roman Noodles for dinner because that is all we could afford until my moms check came in the next morning. I have also had times where I have lived in economically security. I see both sides and I draw my conclusions from them. My ideas do not conflict the majority of economists.

I expect an explanation as to why they are cheaper? Is it because they don't spend the money the government does on research or developing guidlines? do they not spend the money on board meetings, which regulate them anyways? Is it because of the tax cuts they get? Is it because they don't pay their teachers as much money? And they don't. Is it because of donations? In that case it's still costing the people just as much money, they are just paying for it in a different form.

No, it is because their are efficient with their money. They get the most out of their dollars. The salary of their teachers tend not to be as high, but their teachers prefer the private school environment BECAUSE of the lack of governmental over site.

With our current private schools, our government sees a school that is not performing well and decides to throw more money at it. Of course this doesn't do anything, so they keep throwing money. They refuse to actually look at what is causing the problems. There needs to be higher standards set for our schools. Commercializing schools would do this.

parents should not have a choice. I am happy to be an atheist. I would have been robbed of that had i been sent to a Christain school when I was too young to know better. I might not have been as comforting when my sister came out of the closet. imagine if she had been taught by her teachers that gays were sinners who will burn in hell. how would that have effected her?

The Parents should have all the choice - their child is their responsibility. Period. The biggest Atheist I know went to a (gasp) Christian Catholic school. Many Atheists were Christians. Some go the other way.

There are enough families, but there are also enough families who would make your other statement obsolete.

Are there any racist colleges? If there are enough families to support biggoted, hate mongering primary schools - why has their not been any colleges like that established and succeeding?

That one.

There are LAWS against promoting hate speech. If a school is breaking those laws, they will be shut down. Period. That would not change. Again though, if a school is promoting racial superiority and hatred - then they are not going to have students that perform well in college and further in society. That type of thinking does not work in our world.

I believe in Democracy, and the right to a fair trial. i am opposed to the death penalty, and chinese torture punishments, and beating children in school, which happens at private schools and chinese schools. I am very opposed to the chinese government. However they do prove that a socialist or communist government wont automatically go bankrupt. i am opposed to communism, but I'm very socialist. There is a difference.

The reason the Chinese Communist government does not go bankrupt is because of their capitalistic-based free markets.

Respectable to whom? Not everybody likes the same clothing. Your preaching bigotry here. They like their baggy pants just as much as you like your non baggy pants. It's called freedom and diversity.

Then what would your discipline plans be? Would they not infringe on what some students would consider their rights and freedoms?

I have proven that it does translate well into practice when it's done right. look at NASA, the computer revolution, or Howard Dean's social programs implemented in Vermont. he turned their state deficit into a state surplus, got teen pregnancies down, graduation rates up, protected the environment all with social programs. And he did it without raising taxes. In fact he lowered them twice. All with social programs. And he also increased his state's number of jobs by 20%. And his success by six program lowered the number of children being molested in Vermoney by 50%.

There is good socialism and bad. If somebody has a good idea it should be implemented. It's stupid to oppose it just becaus it's socialism.

NASA is not a social program, FWIW. But you are right, to oppose social problems simply because they are socialist is wrong. However most of the programs you are trying to implement are incredibly flawed and I believe inherently wrong.

I don't want everyone equal no matter what. And under this plan the motivation to succeed would be there. People don't want to sit and do nothing, but people get trapped into careers they hate because they need rent now and not later. If everyone was financially secure they would be freed to pursure goals and careers that offer fullfillment instead of money. This is why martial arts should be taught in school. to give people discipline, patience, and teach them about the rewards of hard work.

If financial security was assured, what is the motivation to work hard? The whole part of hard work is for you to be able to succeed and live the life you want. If that is automatic, then you are going to get millions of workers doing half assed work because their motivation for working is now over.

If my college was paid for and ensured - I wouldn't bother trying hard in High School. Its as simple as that.

In that day and age. yes. You fail to realize that someone else's happiness is never your misfortune. Why does his happiness bother you?

If I am paying for it, then YES their happiness is my misfortune. Where is the money to guarantee these people coming from? It has to come from taxes because the government has enough problems with debts as it is. So if you raise my taxes to pay some no-talent hack so he can live out his dream, then screw you. It is hurting innocent people.

The eventual replacement of human beings by machines is inevitable. The human worker is going to become obsolete. Eventually people will work if they want to, and not because they have to. They should have the money there to attend school as long as they want, without having to pay it back. If they want to be trained as a dancer, than the money should be there to pay for that.

As machines replace humans - humans will create new industries for humans to work.

Your idea of people not having to work for a living is delusional. People will always have to work - or else they will not have money. If no one has money, where will the government get its money? If the government has no money, who will pay the people. Its a logical fallacy.

Why? to make society a happier place to live in. That is the bottom line.

I am all for making society better, but your plan is incredibly naive and childish.

It is our responsiblity to make all of our lives better. Better lives is not a bad thing. And better lives means better parents. It is my responsbility to do what i have to to make the future better than the present.

No - my responsibly first and foremost is for myself and my family. My neighbor should never be just as important as my wife, my kid, my parents.

So I'm executing jews now huh? your being ridiculous. you really are.

I see no holocaust in your plans yet - however many of the social ideas you have do not vary that much from Adolf. You see the extremes he was willing to go to achieve his plan, what extremes are you willing to?

No it's not. This is freedom from financial burden, and opportunities that people don't have today.

This if freedom from responsibly. From hard work. You are hindering people - not helping them. If everything comes to them easy, what enjoyment is there?

I'm sorry but you come off as an idiot, with many claims that you can not explain, and way too much biased and generalization. You have no idea how the world works. Only an idiot would think that eventually this isn't going to happen. maybe not all of it, but eventually the human worker will be replaced. That much is inevitable. It's already started. Watch the science channel. All kinds of big busineesses are already investing in technology to replace their employees, and they have already begun replacing them. And the government has already begun taking their extra profit and giving it to the poor. I don't know how the world works? Everything I'm saying has already begun.

The world will never get to a point where humans are not needed. If that future becomes a reality, then human kind has created dark days for its self. Again, the market will not allow a world where humans have no way to work (and thus have no way to make money) - for that in itself would destroy the market.

Why is why the socialist party in America has done a better job of helping the economy. Consumer spending is the driving force of our economy. Not all of the rich are evil. Look at John kerry. Had he wont he presidencey, his own profits would have went down. It's called self sacrifice, and he was willing to pass those laws for the good of the country.

I don't believe the Socialist Party of America has done a better job of helping the economy. Most of the economic growth experienced in recent years can be credited to Allen Greenspan - he is certainly not socialist.


[/quote]

so the poverty rate went up just like i said huh? I already knew that from this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16077694/

[/quote]

You do realize that POPULATION has risen greatly in the last 6 years, yes? It is only natural that the number of people in all classes will go up. My Chart showed that through MOST of the Clinton administration - the poverty rate was no higher than it is now. And the highest rate of poverty increase came during an economic recession.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

holy...

 

[Spider-Bite]

If you start controlling prices, then you severely tamper with the market. If you set the prices below Market Equilibrium - then you will lower supply. You force companies to produce a certain supply at a low price - you start running out of companies. That is the damning effect of controlling the markets.




Not all government over site is necessarily bad. In that case over site was needed because of industry inflation - there should be certain restrictions to the market on necessity items (like gas). America's can not opt out of not using gas in this day and age - so they are slaves to the corporations. However for most products on the market, government intervention is not needed.



Most economists believe in a laissez-faire approach to the market. That is what I advocate.



The motive is profit, however this motivates businesses to create goods that help society. Every company is trying to find the next good that American's can not be with out. Americans can't be with out it because it makes their lives easier, companies want it because of the massive returns it will bring in.

Tobacco companies are a completely separate beast. The are in the market to kill people - basically. That being said, if a tobacco company can find a way to find a "harm-free" cigarette, then they will spend millions trying to produce it, because it will benefit society and thus generate tremendous revenue.



No - I am following common sense. I don't want government to regulate my every day life. I don't want government telling me what my children should no. I want freedom. If that makes me oppose big government for the sake of opposing big government - fine.



No, I oppose you trying to preaching us your energy plans when you don't have the education to back it up. If you had the educational experience to give credibility to your work, then I would need similar experience to adequately oppose it.



The point is that PARENTS will get to decide where there children go to school. They will not be forced to have their children go to under performing schools. The government will spend the same amount of money it already is - just with much higher returns.



How would it divide this country? See, you assume the worst in parents. You assume that the majority will make decisions simply based on race and creed. I don't buy it. If a school is performing well, then parents will send their children there: that includes parents of white children, black children, asian children, gay children, etc. That promotes diversity.



No it wouldn't. If religious fanatics produce students not able to adapt in the real world - then they will stop getting students. Despite your belifes, there is a very small percentage of people (even those evil Christians) that value their children's spirituality over education. For the majority of students, their parents will send them to the best schools available. That is why you get many students in Catholic Private Schools, even though their families are anything but.



Again, you are hardly in a position to decree what my background is. I have lived living paycheck to paycheck having to eat 10 cent Roman Noodles for dinner because that is all we could afford until my moms check came in the next morning. I have also had times where I have lived in economically security. I see both sides and I draw my conclusions from them. My ideas do not conflict the majority of economists.



No, it is because their are efficient with their money. They get the most out of their dollars. The salary of their teachers tend not to be as high, but their teachers prefer the private school environment BECAUSE of the lack of governmental over site.

With our current private schools, our government sees a school that is not performing well and decides to throw more money at it. Of course this doesn't do anything, so they keep throwing money. They refuse to actually look at what is causing the problems. There needs to be higher standards set for our schools. Commercializing schools would do this.



The Parents should have all the choice - their child is their responsibility. Period. The biggest Atheist I know went to a (gasp) Christian Catholic school. Many Atheists were Christians. Some go the other way.



Are there any racist colleges? If there are enough families to support biggoted, hate mongering primary schools - why has their not been any colleges like that established and succeeding?



There are LAWS against promoting hate speech. If a school is breaking those laws, they will be shut down. Period. That would not change. Again though, if a school is promoting racial superiority and hatred - then they are not going to have students that perform well in college and further in society. That type of thinking does not work in our world.



The reason the Chinese Communist government does not go bankrupt is because of their capitalistic-based free markets.



Then what would your discipline plans be? Would they not infringe on what some students would consider their rights and freedoms?



NASA is not a social program, FWIW. But you are right, to oppose social problems simply because they are socialist is wrong. However most of the programs you are trying to implement are incredibly flawed and I believe inherently wrong.




If financial security was assured, what is the motivation to work hard? The whole part of hard work is for you to be able to succeed and live the life you want. If that is automatic, then you are going to get millions of workers doing half assed work because their motivation for working is now over.

If my college was paid for and ensured - I wouldn't bother trying hard in High School. Its as simple as that.



If I am paying for it, then YES their happiness is my misfortune. Where is the money to guarantee these people coming from? It has to come from taxes because the government has enough problems with debts as it is. So if you raise my taxes to pay some no-talent hack so he can live out his dream, then screw you. It is hurting innocent people.



As machines replace humans - humans will create new industries for humans to work.

Your idea of people not having to work for a living is delusional. People will always have to work - or else they will not have money. If no one has money, where will the government get its money? If the government has no money, who will pay the people. Its a logical fallacy.



I am all for making society better, but your plan is incredibly naive and childish.



No - my responsibly first and foremost is for myself and my family. My neighbor should never be just as important as my wife, my kid, my parents.



I see no holocaust in your plans yet - however many of the social ideas you have do not vary that much from Adolf. You see the extremes he was willing to go to achieve his plan, what extremes are you willing to?



This if freedom from responsibly. From hard work. You are hindering people - not helping them. If everything comes to them easy, what enjoyment is there?



The world will never get to a point where humans are not needed. If that future becomes a reality, then human kind has created dark days for its self. Again, the market will not allow a world where humans have no way to work (and thus have no way to make money) - for that in itself would destroy the market.



I don't believe the Socialist Party of America has done a better job of helping the economy. Most of the economic growth experienced in recent years can be credited to Allen Greenspan - he is certainly not socialist.

so the poverty rate went up just like i said huh? I already knew that from this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16077694/

[/quote]

You do realize that POPULATION has risen greatly in the last 6 years, yes? It is only natural that the number of people in all classes will go up. My Chart showed that through MOST of the Clinton administration - the poverty rate was no higher than it is now. And the highest rate of poverty increase came during an economic recession.[/quote]


I don't have time right now to tackle all of this. I will come back later and edit this post and tear your post to ****. But your comparing me to Hitler shows that you are just saying whatever you can think of oppose me whether it has value or not. I am extremely anti-war. I don't even support the death penalty for murder, let alone being Jewish. And your trying to say that my views on how to change the world are simmillair to Hitler's. They couldn't be more opposite.

Some of what your saying though makes it clear, that you just don't understand what I am saying. Example. There is more to being helpless and hopeless than just living in poverty for a little while. And some of the problems you mentioned would be very easy to deal with, and I assumed you didn't need me to spell them out for you.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You guys, there's only 80 feet of internet left.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I don't have time right now to tackle all of this. I will come back later and edit this post and tear your post to ****.

Because you've won over everyone else so far...oh wait

But your comparing me to Hitler shows that you are just saying whatever you can think of oppose me whether it has value or not.

He did not compare you personally to Hitler, but he did compare your view of Government's role in society (as absolute) to Hitler...which is an apt comparison. He wanted to re-educate people, he wanted people essentially to be supported by the Government, he wanted massive social programs and big government among other things.

I am extremely anti-war.

We can throw anti-common sense in their as well.

I don't even support the death penalty for murder

Neither do I, yet if you suddenly think crime goes out the window in your plan you are very extremely wrong. I can hear Spider-Bite's secret police now.

let alone being Jewish.

Irony then.

And your trying to say that my views on how to change the world are simmillair to Hitler's. They couldn't be more opposite.

On gassing people, maybe not. On everything else...close to identical.

Some of what your saying though makes it clear, that you just don't understand what I am saying.

Don't understand it because you obviously thought this drivel up in an hour and then just spouting it off on a message board...

Example. There is more to being helpless and hopeless than just living in poverty for a little while. And some of the problems you mentioned would be very easy to deal with, and I assumed you didn't need me to spell them out for you.

Yeah they are very easily dealt with...work harder, apply yourself. If you seek a certain lifestyle you must provide for that lifestyle.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Because you've won over everyone else so far...oh wait

He did not compare you personally to Hitler, but he did compare your view of Government's role in society (as absolute) to Hitler...which is an apt comparison. He wanted to re-educate people, he wanted people essentially to be supported by the Government, he wanted massive social programs and big government among other things.

That's like saying that i'm like Bush because we both believe the government should pass laws. Seriously. A ridiculous comparison.

We can throw anti-common sense in their as well.

An insult for the sake of insulting.

Neither do I, yet if you suddenly think crime goes out the window in your plan you are very extremely wrong. I can hear Spider-Bite's secret police now.

I didn't say completely, but it would dramatically go down. Phychology classes aimed at preventing people from committing crimes do make people less likely to commit crimes. Martial arts also make people less likely to commit crimes. And financial prosperity also makes people less likely to commit crimes. You guys aren't really refuting my points. Your dodging them. I give examples, and the only response I get is "I don't like socialism, your idea wont work" or your bring up Hitler, even though he has nothing to do with this. Nobody can specificially tackle this. You guys sound like democrats talking about Iraq prior to the election.
Irony then.

On gassing people, maybe not. On everything else...close to identical.

I'd say that's pretty relevant. Wouldn't you? Is Hitler remembered as a peaceful anti-war man or a mass murderer? Do I want to commit mass murder? I want to co-exist and shake hands with those who are different from me. Not kill them. My views are the exact opposite of Hitler's and you know it.

According to your logic John kerry and Bush both have the same views on how to handle the world, because they both want to be President.

Don't understand it because you obviously thought this drivel up in an hour and then just spouting it off on a message board...

Yeah they are very easily dealt with...work harder, apply yourself. If you seek a certain lifestyle you must provide for that lifestyle.

Tell that to the five year old living in poverty. Does that kid need to work harder? And when that kid steps out into the world surrounded by gangs, violence, and drugs how will he grow up?

I want people to work hard, but I'm want them performing work they can take pride in and enjoy. People are living in poverty, and without government intervention that's not going to change, and that trumps anything you can say.

Take pride in your pro poverty campaign.

 

[Spider-Bite]

If you start controlling prices, then you severely tamper with the market. If you set the prices below Market Equilibrium - then you will lower supply.

I didn't say we step in and control the price of everything. If you walk into a store, the vast majority of the products on the shelves dont need any government intervention, other than health inspectors and so on.

You force companies to produce a certain supply at a low price - you start running out of companies. That is the damning effect of controlling the markets.

I'm opposed to forcing. Sometimes you can regulate standards that products have to meeet, such as mandatory gas mileage and so on. Sometimes you can use government contracts or tax breaks to promote the advancement of certain technologies. Or maybe the government can invest in embryonic stem cell research,since drug companies wont. They make too much profit off disease.
Or maybe the government did the right thing in the 80's by offering government contracts to buy lots of computers for schools, putting them on mass production and driving down the cost, so that you could afford to buy one and come argue with me.

Not all government over site is necessarily bad. In that case over site was needed because of industry inflation - there should be certain restrictions to the market on necessity items (like gas). America's can not opt out of not using gas in this day and age - so they are slaves to the corporations. However for most products on the market, government intervention is not needed.

That's what i'm saying. Sometimes it's needed and sometimes it's not. That's why the anti-socialism argument is not needed. You specifically judge each policy as an individual. When Republican politicians feed you that anti-government, it's an excuse because Corporations bribed them into doing nothing.

One of Al Gore's homes lie in a district that outlaws solar panel roofing. That's bad big government and I oppose the hell out of it.

Most economists believe in a laissez-faire approach to the market. That is what I advocate.

I don't know what that means. But I can tell you this, the overwhelming majority of Government employed economists supported kerry, and the minimum wage hike. The majority of economists in the world work for Corporations.

The motive is profit, however this motivates businesses to create goods that help society. Every company is trying to find the next good that American's can not be with out. Americans can't be with out it because it makes their lives easier, companies want it because of the massive returns it will bring in.

Look at video games. Nintendo Wii came out with a system that will get kids off their fat butts,without the help of the government. Captilism worked without government help. Profit is the driving force of technogolical innovation, but sometimes certain tweaking is required.

Look at Grand Theft Auto Vice City. The government had to step in and say "No you must be 16 to buy this game"

Tobacco companies are a completely separate beast. The are in the market to kill people - basically. That being said, if a tobacco company can find a way to find a "harm-free" cigarette, then they will spend millions trying to produce it, because it will benefit society and thus generate tremendous revenue.

Only if it's addicting.

No - I am following common sense. I don't want government to regulate my every day life. I don't want government telling me what my children should no. I want freedom.

That's fine but with exceptions. your kids have to go to school. I'm not saying you should be forced to send your kids to the local youth center.

No, I oppose you trying to preaching us your energy plans when you don't have the education to back it up. If you had the educational experience to give credibility to your work, then I would need similar experience to adequately oppose it.

Not really. That's like saying i'm in no position to believe in Evolution.

The point is that PARENTS will get to decide where there children go to school. They will not be forced to have their children go to under performing schools. The government will spend the same amount of money it already is - just with much higher returns.

that same point is the reason I oppose it. It will divide this country. Your claims about hate speech being illegal? They are already doing it in Christain schools.

How would it divide this country? See, you assume the worst in parents. You assume that the majority will make decisions simply based on race and creed. I don't buy it. If a school is performing well, then parents will send their children there: that includes parents of white children, black children, asian children, gay children, etc. That promotes diversity.

Here is why it will divide the country. Some people in America can afford nice big houses, while others live in crappy rat infested apartments. Education would follow the same path under your plan, because unfortenately, people only get what they can afford.

And a lot of parents don't want their children going to school with different kinds of people. The consumer would get what the consumer wanted.

No it wouldn't. If religious fanatics produce students not able to adapt in the real world - then they will stop getting students. Despite your belifes, there is a very small percentage of people (even those evil Christians) that value their children's spirituality over education.

I'm not saying they wont be able to find a job. I'm saying it will create mass social problems, simmilair to what they have in the middle east, because the people are too religous.

For the majority of students, their parents will send them to the best schools available.

correction. best school that is affordable.

Again, you are hardly in a position to decree what my background is. I have lived living paycheck to paycheck having to eat 10 cent Roman Noodles for dinner because that is all we could afford until my moms check came in the next morning. I have also had times where I have lived in economically security. I see both sides and I draw my conclusions from them. My ideas do not conflict the majority of economists.

Yes I have also had to eat those freaking roman noodles, or Oodles and Noodles 3 times a day for a long time. That is still not what I mean.

No, it is because their are efficient with their money. They get the most out of their dollars. The salary of their teachers tend not to be as high, but their teachers prefer the private school environment BECAUSE of the lack of governmental over site.

and how do they do this? I told you how they do this.

With our current private schools, our government sees a school that is not performing well and decides to throw more money at it.

Then get rid of the private schools. in a public school at least the voters can fire the school board attendant.

Of course this doesn't do anything, so they keep throwing money. They refuse to actually look at what is causing the problems.

The problem is obvious. The children aren't trying to do their work. Too many children come from poverish backgrounds, feeling hopeless as if the future holds nothing for them. My plan would solve that.

other times they children have no discipline. My plan would also solve that.

There needs to be higher standards set for our schools. Commercializing schools would do this.

No it wouldn't. A lot of people don't have a lot of money. Crappy cheap schools would be there for them, because those parents have no choice.

The Parents should have all the choice - their child is their responsibility. Period.

The children are all of our responblity. We have an obligation to help our fellow man and woman. My compassion for somebody isn't limited to how much DNA I share with them.

The biggest Atheist I know went to a (gasp) Christian Catholic school. Many Atheists were Christians. Some go the other way.

So what?

Are there any racist colleges?

Some would argue the negro college fund is kind of racist, and I agree. We would see more of that. People will go to a school and judge how many black or white poeple go there. That will effect their choice.

If there are enough families to support biggoted, hate mongering primary schools - why has their not been any colleges like that established and succeeding?

You have a good point, however that is different. You know why? Becaues most college professors are already liberal anyways. And a large portion of them are atheists.

There are LAWS against promoting hate speech. If a school is breaking those laws, they will be shut down.
Period. That would not change.

Change? It's already like that in Christain Schools. The bible contains a lot of hate speech.

Again though, if a school is promoting racial superiority and hatred - then they are not going to have students that perform well in college and further in society. That type of thinking does not work in our world.

Your not looking at the way society develops. I'm not talking about overnight. I'm talking about over the course of a century. It would be a gradual process of people dividing themselves, which would promote intolerance, and once that intolerance gets strong enough, there wont be enough voters to oppose hate speech in the school.

The reason the Chinese Communist government does not go bankrupt is because of their capitalistic-based free markets.

That doesn't change the fact that their a socialist country that isn't bankrupt.

Then what would your discipline plans be? Would they not infringe on what some students would consider their rights and freedoms?

introduce martial arts into the curriculum.

NASA is not a social program, FWIW.

The government spends trillions of dollars on NASA which stimulates our economy. For every dollar spent we get three dollars in economic return.

When the government spends trillions of dollars on technological innovation and educating humanity about his place in the universe, that's a governmental social program. It sure as hell ain't private enterprise.

But you are right, to oppose social problems simply because they are socialist is wrong. However most of the programs you are trying to implement are incredibly flawed and I believe inherently wrong.

But you can't tell me why. And you've only heard two of them, unless you count the minimum wage hike, that passed, or tax breaks for youth centers which already happens, or the other social programs in place that I already support. Are you opposed to Howard Dean's success by six program, even though it saved millions of children from being molested? Because I'd like that done in every state.

If financial security was assured, what is the motivation to work hard?

People get enjoyment from hard work. People will want fullfillment. maybe they will get that from spending time with their family. Maybe they will pursue a path. Maybe they'd like to spend 6 hours a week training themselves to be a piano instructor. maybe they want to help others and be a doctor. Either way. What the hell do you care? It's their life.

And by putting martial arts into the curriculum, they will learn the rewards of hard work. people will find something to do. It might not be the day they graduate. Maybe they choose something that makes them want to go to college for 10 years. Most people can't do that in today's world, but in my future you'd be able to.

The whole part of hard work is for you to be able to succeed and live the life you want. If that is automatic, then you are going to get millions of workers doing half assed work because their motivation for working is now over.

Even if they did. so what? machines would provide whatever humans don't. And not only that, but that wont happen. Martial arts does not create people like that, because it requires hard work and instills work ethic in them.

If my college was paid for and ensured - I wouldn't bother trying hard in High School. Its as simple as that.

You would if the teacher was going to sentence you to knuckle push ups in the gym after school. I know plenty of people with wealthy parents who let their children know "your college is paid for" and those students were honor students. In fact statistics show that children that come from upper middle class homes stay out of trouble with the law, and get better grades in school, and are more likely to go to college.

this is what i mean when I say you don't know how the world works. Yes you might have had it rough, but that doesn't mean you know how it works. You might know how your own life worked, but you don't sound like your very good at picturing the way all members of society are inter connected or how misery and suffering as well as happiness get passed on from one generation to the next.

If I am paying for it, then YES their happiness is my misfortune. Where is the money to guarantee these people coming from? It has to come from taxes because the government has enough problems with debts as it is. So if you raise my taxes to pay some no-talent hack so he can live out his dream, then screw you. It is hurting innocent people.

If the businesses no longer have to pay employees, than that same amount of money gets taken out in the form of taxes, and gets mailed to everybody else. The abundance of free time will drive consumer spending, and the businesses will continue to make profit, while poverty no longer exists. You would benefit just as much as the next guy.

I'm talking about 50 years from now incase you didn't notice. In today's day and age I support the Clinton tax rates.

As machines replace humans - humans will create new industries for humans to work.

Correction. They will create new industries for more machines to work.

Your idea of people not having to work for a living is delusional. People will always have to work - or else they will not have money.

Not under my plan.

If no one has money, where will the government get its money?

People will have money.

If the government has no money, who will pay the people. Its a logical fallacy.

I think you need to re-read the plan. Everybody would have money, more than they do now.

I am all for making society better, but your plan is incredibly naive and childish.

Insults are worthless. You either can't comprehend what I'm saying or you oppose change the way a conservative does.

No - my responsibly first and foremost is for myself and my family. My neighbor should never be just as important as my wife, my kid, my parents.

that selfish attitude is the very reason socialism is so often required.

I see no holocaust in your plans yet - however many of the social ideas you have do not vary that much from Adolf. You see the extremes he was willing to go to achieve his plan, what extremes are you willing to?

Ridiculous. Extremely ridiculous and you know it. Saying were the same because we both have goals is ridiculous. I'm anti-war, anti-violence, anti-killing, anti-death penalty. Hitler was the opposite. Key word "opposite" I want to live with my neighbors, not send them to extermination camps. that difference is very relevant and it makes all the difference, and you know it.

This if freedom from responsibly. From hard work. You are hindering people - not helping them. If everything comes to them easy, what enjoyment is there?

Maybe family life. You know what kind of happiness money buys? All phychologists say the same thing. Financial security and protection buys you just as much happiness as a billion dollars, because you have the financial freedom and time freedom to pursue goals, dreams, and spend time with your family. Bill Gates could retire today. Does that mean he's miserable?

My Taekwondo grandmaster had enough money to live off for the rest of his life, so you know what he did? Took the time off and helped guide children into adults in his martial arts studio. He worked hard, without pay, becuase he enjoyed helping others.

I don't believe the Socialist Party of America has done a better job of helping the economy. Most of the economic growth experienced in recent years can be credited to Allen Greenspan - he is certainly not socialist.

I will ponder and form an opinion. I don't like to unless I'm confident.

You do realize that POPULATION has risen greatly in the last 6 years, yes? It is only natural that the number of people in all classes will go up. My Chart showed that through MOST of the Clinton administration - the poverty rate was no higher than it is now. And the highest rate of poverty increase came during an economic recession.

[/QUOTE]

So why did it go down while Clinton was president?
The fact is the poverty rate makes up a larger percentage of the country today. There isn't just more of them.

Rising population is a horrible excuse.

 

[StorminNorman]

That's what i'm saying. Sometimes it's needed and sometimes it's not. That's why the anti-socialism argument is not needed. You specifically judge each policy as an individual. When Republican politicians feed you that anti-government, it's an excuse because Corporations bribed them into doing nothing.

LOL - I agree we shouldn't dismiss a certain social policy just because it is based on Socialist ideas. However the fact that you instantly dismiss Republican Politicians simply because they are Republican shows much to say about you.

One of Al Gore's homes lie in a district that outlaws solar panel roofing. That's bad big government and I oppose the hell out of it.

Is that the same home that uses something like 3 times the energy of a normal home?

I don't know what that means. But I can tell you this, the overwhelming majority of Government employed economists supported kerry, and the minimum wage hike. The majority of economists in the world work for Corporations.

Economists oppose a minimum wage hike. Give me information supporting your claims that a majority of economists support Kerry. Plus, if you don't know what laissez-faire is, chances are you shouldn't be discussing economics. It is like discussing American government, but not understand democracy.

Look at video games. Nintendo Wii came out with a system that will get kids off their fat butts,without the help of the government. Captilism worked without government help. Profit is the driving force of technogolical innovation, but sometimes certain tweaking is required.

Look at Grand Theft Auto Vice City. The government had to step in and say "No you must be 16 to buy this game"

Great...I guess we agree...

Only if it's addicting.

Naturally. I am not going to defend the tobacco industry.

That's fine but with exceptions. your kids have to go to school. I'm not saying you should be forced to send your kids to the local youth center.

Your kids have to go to school - but YOU get the choice to decide where they are taught. Again - parents rights.

Not really. That's like saying i'm in no position to believe in Evolution.

No, its not. Its like saying you are in no position to form your own theory on evolution. If you are simply endorsing an energy plan already written by a respected authority in the field, fine. Just don't start calling it "your energy plan".

that same point is the reason I oppose it. It will divide this country. Your claims about hate speech being illegal? They are already doing it in Christain schools.

It won't divide the country at all. I don't see where you are going with that at all.

Christian schools are not telling its students to go kill, hurt, etc gays. They do, however, disapprove of their lifestyle because it goes against their beliefs.

However public schools also criticize slave owners, and criticize criminal behavior. While I am not trying to compare homosexuality with either - I am saying that simply disapproving of ones actions is not hate speech.

Here is why it will divide the country. Some people in America can afford nice big houses, while others live in crappy rat infested apartments. Education would follow the same path under your plan, because unfortenately, people only get what they can afford.

You aren't getting the big picture. The government right now pays for a child to go to public schools. They do not show favoritism based on economic situation. So if a child that lives in a rat infested apartment wants to go to the best school in the county - the government would pay for it. If a rich kid wants to go to the same school - the government would pay for it. There is no discrimination involved.

And a lot of parents don't want their children going to school with different kinds of people. The consumer would get what the consumer wanted.

Again, you are assuming the worst in parents. While sure, there is a percentage of parents that want to keep their white child in a white school - the overwhelming amount of parents wants whats best for their children. If a school that is majority white starts to do better and better academically, then more minority students will start going there - because thats what THEIR parents want. If those white parents want to then sacrifice their child's education because of their own bigotry - so be it. That will not be a common occurrence however.

I'm not saying they wont be able to find a job. I'm saying it will create mass social problems, simmilair to what they have in the middle east, because the people are too religous.

But see, you think private school and for some reason instantly think Christian. You don't get it, if the school system is commercialized - then you would get many many different types of schools. There will be schools designed for artistic children, for athiest children for children that don't to do well on standardized test. Basically if there is a big enough demand for a certain type of school that money can be raised from it -- then it will be built. That is the brilliance of an open market in education.

correction. best school that is affordable.

since the government, not the family, is footing the bill - all schooling will be affordable.

and how do they do this? I told you how they do this.

Sure, and there is nothing wrong with their methods

Then get rid of the private schools. in a public school at least the voters can fire the school board attendant.

I am sorry - I mean with our Public schools, government throws money when it is not performing. Private schools HAVE to perform - or else they don't get students and thus they don't get funding. The same principal should be enforced in the public school system.

The problem is obvious. The children aren't trying to do their work. Too many children come from poverish backgrounds, feeling hopeless as if the future holds nothing for them. My plan would solve that.

Your plan would take away their incentive to work. Their future would be set, with them not having to work. I don't want that type of world.

other times they children have no discipline. My plan would also solve that.

I dont like the government doing a job of a parent.

No it wouldn't. A lot of people don't have a lot of money. Crappy cheap schools would be there for them, because those parents have no choice.

No - the parents would have all the choice. Again the government is footing the bill - not the parents.

The children are all of our responblity. We have an obligation to help our fellow man and woman. My compassion for somebody isn't limited to how much DNA I share with them.

No. Our chief responsibility is to my own child. Period. If I have to sacrifice everyone else's child for my own - God help me I do it. Is it selfish? Damn straight. You have to do what you have to do.

So what?

You are trying to say that Christian schools will brainwash children. There is an example stating otherwise.

Some would argue the negro college fund is kind of racist, and I agree. We would see more of that. People will go to a school and judge how many black or white poeple go there. That will effect their choice.

The Negro College Fund raises money with the stated goal of promoting the education of African Americans. I have no problem with that.

Again, if a parent wants to send their child to a inferior school simply because of race - fine. However that is not common behavior.

You have a good point, however that is different. You know why? Becaues most college professors are already liberal anyways. And a large portion of them are atheists.

And most teachers are not racist either. Whats your point?

Change? It's already like that in Christain Schools. The bible contains a lot of hate speech.

Your "Christianity is Evil" argument isn't really helping you.

Your not looking at the way society develops. I'm not talking about overnight. I'm talking about over the course of a century. It would be a gradual process of people dividing themselves, which would promote intolerance, and once that intolerance gets strong enough, there wont be enough voters to oppose hate speech in the school.

But there is nothing in my education plan that encourages dividing people. In fact it is just the opposite. It will take down race walls. Money is color blind.

introduce martial arts into the curriculum.

This really is a ridiculous notion. Martial Arts is not a cure all - not by any stretch. Will it help some? Sure. Most? No.

Again, not every
People get enjoyment from hard work. People will want fullfillment. maybe they will get that from spending time with their family. Maybe they will pursue a path. Maybe they'd like to spend 6 hours a week training themselves to be a piano instructor. maybe they want to help others and be a doctor. Either way. What the hell do you care? It's their life.

If people value hard work, then you wouldn't have the demand for illegal labor. If a person wants to become a doctor, great. Let them get the educational training and pass all the regulations. Just don't make me pay for it. I have no problem with people doing what they want, I just shouldn't be expected to pay for it.

And by putting martial arts into the curriculum, they will learn the rewards of hard work. people will find something to do. It might not be the day they graduate. Maybe they choose something that makes them want to go to college for 10 years. Most people can't do that in today's world, but in my future you'd be able to.

Again, your idea of Martial Arts as a cure all it laughable.

Even if they did. so what? machines would provide whatever humans don't. And not only that, but that wont happen. Martial arts does not create people like that, because it requires hard work and instills work ethic in them.

You would if the teacher was going to sentence you to knuckle push ups in the gym after school. I know plenty of people with wealthy parents who let their children know "your college is paid for" and those students were honor students. In fact statistics show that children that come from upper middle class homes stay out of trouble with the law, and get better grades in school, and are more likely to go to college.

Do this or I will hurt you! That is a great strategy to take to kids. Those people who already had their college paid for but still excelled is because they had their own motivation to do well. Maybe it is because of their ego, maybe it is because they wanted to do something in college that needed the grades. I don't know - not everyone is the same, though under your plan Martial Arts somehow would force us all to be

this is what i mean when I say you don't know how the world works. Yes you might have had it rough, but that doesn't mean you know how it works. You might know how your own life worked, but you don't sound like your very good at picturing the way all members of society are inter connected or how misery and suffering as well as happiness get passed on from one generation to the next.

I understand perfectly well. I understand that those born in a lower class have a much harder time rising than those in an upper class. However if their main incentive in life is to succeed - and they are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to do it, then they have the chance to make it. In America people have that ability. It is not your place to take that away from them.

If the businesses no longer have to pay employees, than that same amount of money gets taken out in the form of taxes, and gets mailed to everybody else. The abundance of free time will drive consumer spending, and the businesses will continue to make profit, while poverty no longer exists. You would benefit just as much as the next guy.

but how would one earn more money? If I want to buy three TV's, yet the government gives me money for two - why shouldn't I be able to try to earn enough for three?

Correction. They will create new industries for more machines to work.

The world will never become fully run by machines - period. Humans will always feel safer around fellow humans.

Not under my plan.

But your plan also treats everyone the same. If one person wants to work hard, they should be able to do so and be rewarded for it. If one person wants to do nothing, they should not be treated as well. That type of thinking is what destroys societies.

I think you need to re-read the plan. Everybody would have money, more than they do now.

So the rich will have more money? No. Everyone will have the same amount of money. That means some will be helped, others will be penalized. The very people that are penalized are the ones that help society the most (creating jobs and what not), the ones that will be helped the most are the ones that contribute least.

Insults are worthless. You either can't comprehend what I'm saying or you oppose change the way a conservative does.

I stand by my statements. They were not meant to be insults per say - they are simply how I view your plan.

that selfish attitude is the very reason socialism is so often required.

That attitude is completely human. My family is more important to me than you are. The people I love is more important to me than my own life. The people I love is more important than the entire Eastern Hemisphere. If that makes me a bad person, fine. But it also makes me human. I have no regrets for that.

Ridiculous. Extremely ridiculous and you know it. Saying were the same because we both have goals is ridiculous. I'm anti-war, anti-violence, anti-killing, anti-death penalty. Hitler was the opposite. Key word "opposite" I want to live with my neighbors, not send them to extermination camps. that difference is very relevant and it makes all the difference, and you know it.

It is an extreme, and I did mean it for shock value - however the comparison not to be made. I am not trying to say that you are pro-war, pro-violence, pro-killing etc. I am simply saying that you both have similar goals for the long run and that I question the means you are both willing to go to achieve them.

Maybe family life. You know what kind of happiness money buys? All phychologists say the same thing. Financial security and protection buys you just as much happiness as a billion dollars, because you have the financial freedom and time freedom to pursue goals, dreams, and spend time with your family. Bill Gates could retire today. Does that mean he's miserable?

My Taekwondo grandmaster had enough money to live off for the rest of his life, so you know what he did? Took the time off and helped guide children into adults in his martial arts studio. He worked hard, without pay, becuase he enjoyed helping others.

Yes - however these people had to work hard to make their money in the first place. Unless your grandmaster inherited it, then someone in his family had to work hard for it. If he was blessed like that and still went down that path - great. That is not, however, normal behavior for someone that did not have to work hard in their life to reach economic security.

So why did it go down while Clinton was president?
The fact is the poverty rate makes up a larger percentage of the country today. There isn't just more of them.

Rising population is a horrible excuse.

The poverty rate went down because of Greenspan and the economic policies passed by Clinton and the Republican Congress. The economy rose to great heights.

And then we hit a recession - its only natural the poverty rate will rise. As the economy is once again strengthening, it is only natural for poverty rates to go down. In fact that chart illustrated the fact that poverty started to descend - though by a small amount.

And the idea of Higher Population = Higher Amount of Poor People is not a horrible excuse - its basic common sense.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Change? It's already like that in Christain Schools. The bible contains a lot of hate speech.

You want to know where the Hitler comparison is coming from....

People get enjoyment from hard work.

Very few. Want to know how I know this. Go to a gym and honestly see how many people get actual results. Gyms bank on the fact, and I know this, that approximately 30% of their members won't after the first month, despite paying for a whole year. Why, well they don't work hard and or have an aversion to pain and hard work.

It's a battle to get people to work with proper motivation. Even know we need about 18 years of schooling just to get people to make the grades-hard work-work ethic connection.

People will want fullfillment.

We get fullfillment from sex, drugs, alcohol, RELIGION...not necessarily jobs that benefit society.

maybe they will get that from spending time with their family.

Which benefits society how

Maybe they will pursue a path. Maybe they'd like to spend 6 hours a week training themselves to be a piano instructor. maybe they want to help others and be a doctor. Either way. What the hell do you care? It's their life.

I care, because under your plan I am (ya'know the hard working guy who got himself through college) paying for them to jack around, watch TV and spend time with their family.

And by putting martial arts into the curriculum, they will learn the rewards of hard work.

A belt...whoopie. Here is a fun fact, over in Japan/China there were no such things as "belts". You got one belt, a white one and when you had wrestled around in the dirt for a number of years it became black.

Belts are a capitalist invention, because people require incentive to work. Our schools, which require good grades, hard work, and yes...success to pull yourself through are what are suppose to retrofit us to the notion of hard work=success. Public schools, as opposed to Private, are exceedingly bad at this since they, as SN points out, just throw money at the problem.

people will find something to do. It might not be the day they graduate. Maybe they choose something that makes them want to go to college for 10 years. Most people can't do that in today's world, but in my future you'd be able to.

Going to College for 8 years, say to be a doctor, takes a TON OF WORK and SACRIFICE. That's why few people become doctors, because it's hard. You don't get many bimbo doctors no matter how rich they are.

Even if they did. so what? machines would provide whatever humans don't. And not only that, but that wont happen. Martial arts does not create people like that, because it requires hard work and instills work ethic in them.

Only if they want to apply themselves. Throwing punches is nice and all, but it doesn't instill work ethic.

You would if the teacher was going to sentence you to knuckle push ups in the gym after school.

No, not necessarily. Furthermore making exercise both a requirement and punishment is not only laughable, it's downright dangerous. Part of the weight problem in America comes from an aversion to exercise. People see it as both painful and often as "punishment". "I ate a hamburger, so now I must go run". People who think like that, and under your plan, are indoctrinate to think of exercise as "punishment" and "complusory" are ultimately going to develop a bad attitude about it.

I know plenty of people with wealthy parents who let their children know "your college is paid for" and those students were honor students. In fact statistics show that children that come from upper middle class homes stay out of trouble with the law, and get better grades in school, and are more likely to go to college.

While that may be true, what you leave out is there is a 75% upward mobility rate in America. As Hawthorne said "families are always on rise and a fall in America". While there is a "cycle of poverty", it is remote and restricted to a very small underclass who we frankly DON'T have any good data on.

Blacks may be behind, and while I have defended some social programs for them, for me their plight is less about economics and more about justice; making sure our legal system is as racially sensitive as it can be. Their economic situation may be less than ideal, but they also fought for the freedom to work their way up fairly through the system.

If the businesses no longer have to pay employees, than that same amount of money gets taken out in the form of taxes

Taxes from what...if they don't get paid, you can hardly tax anyone

and gets mailed to everybody else.

So why the hell should I even show up to work...I'm getting my check regardless of my performance on or off the job.

The abundance of free time will drive consumer spending

Which will then cause MASSIVE inflation since you will essentially be pumping money into a market with extremely low productivity. Tons of money, but products will be scarce.

and the businesses will continue to make profit, while poverty no longer exists. You would benefit just as much as the next guy.

Not really. And I don't want to benefit just as much as the next guy, that's what YOU don't get. I want to benefit more, if not much more.

I'm talking about 50 years from now incase you didn't notice. In today's day and age I support the Clinton tax rates.

Clinton had low tax rates, especially compared to past Democrats. It was 39.6% on top earners (200,000+). GWB dropped them to 35%.

Not under my plan.

People will have money.

...They did not earn.

I think you need to re-read the plan. Everybody would have money, more than they do now.

Everyone might have money, but no one will have an incentive to get any more nor will they have incentive to work harder and produce products, create new inventions, work hard in school, etc.

that selfish attitude is the very reason socialism is so often required.

Selfishness is what drives the economy.

Ridiculous. Extremely ridiculous and you know it. Saying were the same because we both have goals is ridiculous. I'm anti-war, anti-violence, anti-killing, anti-death penalty. Hitler was the opposite. Key word "opposite"

I'm not so sure.

I want to live with my neighbors, not send them to extermination camps.

But you do want to "re-educate them" if they are Christian.

that difference is very relevant and it makes all the difference, and you know it.

Fine, so you're Big Brother. You don't necessarily want to kill anyone, just turn them into mindless drones who believe in a single lifestyle.

Maybe family life. You know what kind of happiness money buys? All phychologists say the same thing. Financial security and protection buys you just as much happiness as a billion dollars, because you have the financial freedom and time freedom to pursue goals, dreams, and spend time with your family. Bill Gates could retire today. Does that mean he's miserable?

But Bill Gates worked for his money, and started our poor, working in a garage. Money doesn't buy you happiness, just the appearance of happiness. I suspect Bill Gates is happy because he followed his dreams and succeeded in his goals. Not because he has a ton of money.

My Taekwondo grandmaster had enough money to live off for the rest of his life, so you know what he did? Took the time off and helped guide children into adults in his martial arts studio. He worked hard, without pay, becuase he enjoyed helping others.

That's a very rare individual. Not someone to base the whole of the world off of.

 

[Spider-Bite]

dear stomin norman and shadow boxing. I can't answer all of those now, because I'm going to be busy, but something I forgot to point out and something that I need to point out I will do so now.

More people spending more time witht heir family benefits society because family life makes people happy, and if more people have a successful happy life than society is happier, because more people are happier.

Pirvate schools would divide us by race, mostly because blacks and whites are financially inequal. Whites on average make twice as much as blacks do. Because of that blacks are more likely to live in poverish neighborhoods. Housing is obviously a private industry and nothing can be done about that at the moment, but if you privatize education the same thing will happen. Blacks wont be able to afford to send their children to the same schools that whites do, and that will be bad for racial relations. The biggest cure for racism is for whites and blacks to get to know each other.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Pirvate schools would divide us by race, mostly because blacks and whites are financially inequal. Whites on average make twice as much as blacks do. Because of that blacks are more likely to live in poverish neighborhoods. Housing is obviously a private industry and nothing can be done about that at the moment, but if you privatize education the same thing will happen. Blacks wont be able to afford to send their children to the same schools that whites do, and that will be bad for racial relations. The biggest cure for racism is for whites and blacks to get to know each other.

As we've both shown, the rate of integration is much better in Private Schools already. In fact it's nearly double the Public School integration rate.

 

[The Overlord]

Spider-Bite, you do realize that the word "Utopia" is a Greek word that means "place that does not exist". The very word reveals its nature, upotias are unfeasible and do not exist in the real world. In real life Dystopias are created by people who want to create Utopia (Hitler and Pol Pot geniuely believed that killing millions people was needed to create a utopian society). Really you have too trust in people. The road to hell, is paved with good intentions.

 

[StorminNorman]

Pirvate schools would divide us by race, mostly because blacks and whites are financially inequal. Whites on average make twice as much as blacks do. Because of that blacks are more likely to live in poverish neighborhoods. Housing is obviously a private industry and nothing can be done about that at the moment, but if you privatize education the same thing will happen. Blacks wont be able to afford to send their children to the same schools that whites do, and that will be bad for racial relations. The biggest cure for racism is for whites and blacks to get to know each other.

Someone still doesn't understand

Private Schools would no longer exist - all schools would be commercialized, but still paid for BY the government. Thus you would take the Private School format and simply apply it to public schools.

Its not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Spider-Bite, you do realize that the word "Utopia" is a Greek word that means "place that does not exist". The very word reveals its nature, upotias are unfeasible and do not exist in the real world. In real life Dystopias are created by people who want to create Utopia (Hitler and Pol Pot geniuely believed that killing millions people was needed to create a utopian society). Really you have too trust in people. The road to hell, is paved with good intentions.

Trust in people...oh Spider-Bite, unfortunately, is doing that. You have to be realistic. As a Political Science/Political Thought major now preparing to Graduate I can now safely say Philosophy, particularly ones like these, are nice and help improve your capacity to think and comprehend situations but ultimately they are all fundamentally flawed. It's unrealistic to think a) you have any real grasp on the Universe or can get one b) that answers will magically come to us through intense thought and c) that are mortal and imperfect state is someone altered by it. Perfection, Enlightenment, Truth are all fun words, but they all assume that humans have a divine, perfect and proveable role in the scheme of things. But we aren't perfect, divine or enlightened. We are, in many ways, glorified bacteria.

If everyone was ideal the world would be perfect, but we aren't. We are flawed and also a gateway to whatever higher species comes next. But you aren't going to weed out the inherent superiority we feel to the world...not even by force, or re-education. We shall always be more concerned with the nose on our face than the body of another.