- Capitalism and Alternatives -

No, just exposing the phoniness of the 'debate'

Posted by: Samuel Day Fassbinder ( Citizens for Mustard Greens, USA ) on October 11, 1999 at 16:15:40:

In Reply to: Stepping on your turf? posted by Gee on October 11, 1999 at 13:04:36:

: : SDF: I went to a private school for six years, then I chose to go to public universities for awhile. I don't see "government monopoly," nor do I see "force".

: Anecdotal. Mr Gort has already been shown the "error" of his ways on this matter.

SDF: Wrong. Barry Stoller's word is not law. If somebody says "all children go to school because it's the law," and I am a child, and I don't go to school, then I am the exception that defeats the rule.

: : SDF: I await any substantiation of the claim that there exists something called "state preferences," independently of public opinion

: Its independent of individual thinking.

SDF: Wrong. The state is simply a group of individuals. This simply repeats the idiotic libertarian belief that once an individual becomes part of "the state" he or she loses his or her capacity to perform "individual thinking."

: And in state particularly its relatively more influenced by so called 'public servants' than by the dubious 'public opinion'

SDF: Wrong. Here is a list of government influencers, and they're private servants, serving no one but themselves.

: : SDF: How about that! The idea that libertarians could criticize anyone for being "self serving"! What a curious notion, almost as empty as "self-interest"!

: No, its an understanding of why governments grow rather than shrink. Why there is someones' career at the head of the latest welfare farce! Or did you think they were being 'selfless' with other peoples resources?

SDF: Sorry, welfare in the US has been steadily shrinking since 1980. Must be "self-interest" that causes that.

: : SDF: State-run Montessori schools are a distinct possibility, as are private schools that are worse than state-run schools, but which nevertheless thrive economically. The above proposition repeats the popular fallacy that "state ownership" and "private ownership" are terms that necessarily say something about how a school is RUN, whereas in fact they only describe WHO OWNS THE SCHOOL.

: Essentially. It does assume a seperation of ownership and control though - and thats is not what happens in actuality.

SDF: Care to discuss "actuality"? Or don't you have any statistics, ethnographic studies, or any HARD EVIDENCE for that?

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup