Political thread for Laurel

[Sandia]

There are things we all do that are intentionally self-defeating and frustrating, and we know this, but we do it anyway. One of those things I do is engage in political "discussion" on the net. Invariably, these "discussions" end up as less-than-insightful name-calling fests where people are arguing with an imaginary ideological enemy rather than the real live complex person on the thread. I usually end up pissed off, and I walk away...only to get sucked back in weeks later.

You pick the issue. I'll take the other side.
Anything you want.

FYI - I'm liberal-libertarian, but I can argue any side.

 

[Pyper]

Sandia, stop trying to make Laurel fall off the wagon.

 

[Laurel]

Brave man!

Privatization of jails, schools, roads, and other public works. I'm against it.

(This thread will either die or become a shitstorm within 10 posts. hehe)

 

[Spinaroonie]

I would've said

"The Holocost: Bad thing"

Try to make them defend that

 

[Laurel]

Sandia, stop trying to make Laurel fall off the wagon.

Isn't he evil? He's trying to take over the Gen Board, you know.

 

[Pyper]

Isn't he evil? He's trying to take over the Gen Board, you know.

Yeah, but he's really cute. He posted his pic once for about two seconds and I drooled. Too bad Mz Christa got him in the auction.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[*bratcat*]

Re: Brave man!

 

[Sandia]

Awright: First Topic - Privatization.

That's a tough one, Laurel, but I think I'm up to it.

The case for privatization.
First of all, you agree don't you, that the private sector is more efficient than the government? Or should I say, Do you agree?

I mean, you've been to the DMV, right?

Secondly, competition improves productivity. So if there's more competition, people will work harder, there'll be improvements in technology, and consumers will get more and better service for less money....

Your turn.

 

[Sandia]

I'll post on the subjects of whether I'm evil, whether I lust over lesbians, whether I'm trying to take over the GB, and whether I get a hard on at the thought of pyper drool another time...

 

[DeityMun]

Heh... you want a debate/discussion? I'm a Republican Conservative (I know... believe it or not), so I'm sure we have a few points of disagreement. Try... the death penalty, for example.


And I am for privatization.

 

[Laurel]

He also appears to lust over lesbians. Just ask Never.

Another one? What IS it with men and their attraction to the unattainable?

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[Nora]

I am not sure. I think it has to do with the ageold concept of the hunter and the hunted.

Too bad they don't realize it's the hunter and the uninterested.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[Laurel]

The case for privatization.
First of all, you agree don't you, that the private sector is more efficient than the government? Or should I say, Do you agree?

I mean, you've been to the DMV, right?

No, I don't believe that. the private sector is not a homogenous united whole - it's made up of zillions of businesses of varying quality. Look at Enron. Look at all the small businesses iin your neighborhood that come and go.

Some businesses are more efficient - others are terrible.

Secondly, competition improves productivity. So if there's more competition, people will work harder, there'll be improvements in technology, and consumers will get more and better service for less money....

Your turn.

The goal of business is to turn a profit.

The goal of government is to provide services to benefit the country as a whole.

There are things in society that increase the productivity of society as a whole yet do not turn a profit in and of themselves. Prisons are an example of this. We need them. However, when they are run as for-profit ventures, the results are abominable, as shown in recent years.

Roads are another. Roads enable commerce, and thus make money indirectly. However, the toll expressway up in Orange County had to ask for a bailout from the government recently because it couldn't turn a profit. Duh.

Schools are the big example. There's an assumption that private schools are naturally of a higher quality than public schools. Again, some are, and some are not. While public schools are held to standards and accountable to us as taxpayers, private schools are not. They can choose to teach whatever they please...and not teach whatever they please.

Don't get me started on school vouchers, aka a way to funnel Federal money into churches.

 

[DeityMun]

Don't get me started on school vouchers, aka a way to funnel Federal money into churches.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[Laurel]

Your schools are run a whole lot different than they are up here then. We pay taxes to cover public schools even though our kids go to private schools. The private schools get a small percentage of their funds from the government but not all. In order to even receive the piddly amount that they do, each private school must pass an examination of everything to do with the classes, teachers, budgets, etc. every year.

See, that's what the voucher proponents don't understand. You can't just allow any dumbass to set up a school and receive federal funds...so every private school who wanted the voucher money will end up having to adhere to standards of what they teach. Basically, it'll be expanding the school system, rather than putting the money into fixing the current one.

 

[Sandia]

No, I don't believe that. the private sector is not a homogenous united whole - it's made up of zillions of businesses of varying quality. Look at Enron. Look at all the small businesses iin your neighborhood that come and go.

All right, I'll give you that. But isn't that the beauty of the private sector? That the ones that "go" leave the more efficient ones behind?

Isn't McDonald's run better than the IRS?

The goal of business is to turn a profit.

The goal of government is to provide services to benefit the country as a whole.

That's true. But the point of privatization is to change the goal from "benefiting the country" to making a profit. The theory is that people work harder when they work for themselves - their own interests - than when they're not.

Prisons are an example of this. We need them. However, when they are run as for-profit ventures, the results are abominable, as shown in recent years.

See, this is where it gets tough...

Here in Texas, there's a for-profit prison that has recently had a spat of sex-scandals. And while I believe (I actually have no evidence one way or another) that private schools are generally better than public ones... you may be right about the reason (that private schools get to choose their student body).

There's a massive for-profit private effort, called "Edison," I think, that's tried to do what the private schools are doing now - take everybody - and they're struggling.

Of course, public prisons are not exactly shining lights to the world, either. And there's plenty of bad public schools.

Vouchers: aren't they just a way to give poor families the same option that rich ones have - to send their kids to better schools?

 

[Saint Peter]

Our republican gov (Colorado) loves private (Christian) schools so he has all the schools tested to see if they suck or not. And who would have guessed that the inner city schools dont do as well as the rich suburbs. Fuckin A. Now fair is fair so we also test the private schools. One small, tiny weenie difference is the pirvate schools dont have any challenged students because they don't belong with all the smart religious kids. Lordy, look how high our private schools test. It PROVES that private schools are better.

Fix the public schools. Pay the teachers a decent wage. Bring text books and computers up to date. Vouchers dont solve problems but cause even worse ones.

 

[Sandia]

Too bad they don't realize it's the hunter and the uninterested.

LOL!

 

[Laurel]

All right, I'll give you that. But isn't that the beauty of the private sector? That the ones that "go" leave the more efficient ones behind?

Isn't McDonald's run better than the IRS?

Is McDonald's The Best fast food, or is the company that managed to squeeze out the competitors the most effectively?

I heart capitalism, but I also know people are greedy and immoral. Capitalism only works when competition is allowed. That's why government needs to intervene - to make sure that the system functions as healthily and as effectively as possible.

That's true. But the point of privatization is to change the goal from "benefiting the country" to making a profit. The theory is that people work harder when they work for themselves - their own interests - than when they're not.

I think the problems in government entities stem from poor management and oversight, not from their focus.

Here in Texas, there's a for-profit prison that has recently had a spat of sex-scandals. And while I believe (I actually have no evidence one way or another) that private schools are generally better than public ones... you may be right about the reason (that private schools get to choose their student body).

Of course.

There's a massive for-profit private effort, called "Edison," I think, that's tried to do what the private schools are doing now - take everybody - and they're struggling.

Of course, public prisons are not exactly shining lights to the world, either. And there's plenty of bad public schools.

Vouchers: aren't they just a way to give poor families the same option that rich ones have - to send their kids to better schools?

No, because I don't believe that all private schools are better than all public ones. And even so, vouchers don't cover the entire cost.

Privatization of schools would mean either adding thousands of unregulated schools to the public dole, or putting in place layers of bureacracy to make sure all these private schools meet certain criteria. It would be, in effect, and expansion of the public school system. It would be costly and ineffective.

Why is it even being considred? Because churches and other powerful groups want a piece of the government pie.

Put the money into fixing our current public schools, rather than into lining the pockets of churches and private business.

 

[DeityMun]

I heart capitalism, but I also know people are greedy and immoral. Capitalism only works when competition is allowed. That's why government needs to intervene - to make sure that the system functions as healthily and as effectively as possible.

Are you implying that the gov't is neither greedy, nor immoral?

 

[Dougy]

Are you implying that the gov't is neither greedy, nor immoral?

Not the point at all. Sure, the government is filled with people that are incredibly enamoured with increasing their own wealth and fame, but the basic role of government is at least theoretically to provide a service to its citizens. This is not a primary concern of private business...maybe to give the appearance of providing a service, but really it is to sell that service and keep the investors happy.