Quote:
Originally Posted by Space_Coyote
Contrary to many libertarians, I support state-sponsored optional education through high school (many of the fringe guys want it entirely privatized), which if done properly can definitely help the poor advance their children's future.
|
I'd tangle with you over the "optional" part, but hey, at least we're closer than most.
Quote:
|
I oppose federal educational spending however, as it is patently unconstitutional. Your "day care" type proposal could be folded into the educational system, perhaps expanding it to include pre-k (some districts offer this, some don't), and expanding after-school activities by paying teachers extra if they double as a coach or club sponsor.
|
I don't recall any sort of item in the Constitution that prohibits it....not that I've memorized it or anything. My think is more about the ability of the Feds to establish consistent standards, so that nobody is allowed to get away with substandard. I can't really imagine a situation where the Feds are actually "providing" the education, though. Guiding & regulation is what's needed.
But, again, that's way off the topic.
Quote:
|
Health care should always remain the responsibility of the individual (save children under the age of majority) because otherwise it risks a government-style fitness regimin, food laws, assigned doctors, and horrible inefficiency.
|
I think people confuse responsibility for provision. I see the gov't as more or less an insurer, taking private insurance accountants out of the equation. Like with eduaction, I can't envision these big, dour, soulless hospital complexes staffed with Federally-employed drone-doctors. We've GOT the infrastructure, it just needs some direction and tweaking to work better. Doctors should feel comfortable making decisions without having to play the insurance coverage game, and it shouldn't be up to some accountant to decide if you live or die. I want to put into the doctors hands again. If you need a CT scan, then dammit, you get one.
But that's again, off this topic.
Quote:
|
I can however support health care for children whose parents are demonstrably unable to pay for care (meaning, W-2's, paystubs, or other type of evidence required). Hell, if we're going to take care of violent prisoners, surely we can take care of children whose only crime was being born poor. Once you're an adult though, take care of yourself.
|
And people do, generally. Perhaps in the case of conditions arising from poor decisionmaking, like smoking, hospitals should be able to have a surcharge or something. But, I am still very keen in the idea of eliminating the insurance industry, and having the people (society) insure themselves.
The emphasis, meaning what should be free for all, is
preventative care. Any doctor would tell you that if people came in just twice a year, they'd catch all sorts of things and save millions of lives AND dollars. Even just lots of "free" checkup clinics would be an amazing boon to society, and very pennywise.
Quote:
|
Naturally you pay more in taxes as your income goes up, but I propose a flat RATE of taxation that makes every individual a legal equal. We're compromising, but you're not going to get me to budge on the salary cap issue, it already pisses me off enough when my favorite sports collectives can't load the bench with all-stars.
|
Kidding about the salary cap thing.
Still, I am intrigued by the idea of tying things to the national average. Rather than reliance on "trickle down" theories, which simply don't work well in the real world, the idea of incentivizing could be more effective: If you're a big time CEO, in order to increase your pay or lessen your taxes, you actually create the jobs or whatever to increase the average. Something like that...I'm no economist, obviously.
Flat-tax idea are fine too, except for that tricky "tipping point" problem (make just one more dollar and you pay...)
Quote:
How's this:
Simplify the tax code. No more write-offs, no more exemptions, no more credits. After "x" amount of money in income ("x" can be anything we need necessary via legislation) the remaining income is taxed "y" percent (preferably, "y" would be no greater than 10%). Stiffen penalties for tax evasion and pass legislation that treats companies like Ford (who take advantage of our tax system while making inferior trucks in Mexico) like foreign companies, complete with all manner of duties and excises that would be imposed on any other foreign company. I'd rather do away with all duties and tariffs, but if we're going to have them, why should "American" companies get around them just because their corporate HQ is here?
|
I like that. (And, we're getting away from expenditure arguments and back onto taxation)
If it proves that the gov's would get just as much or even more under that system, I'd embrace it. Especially getting tough with corps, who get away with murder.
Quote:
|
That's fine, my ideology permits me to tolerate your confusion (joke) so long as you do not violate my rights.
|
Confusion is kind of my trademark. I send up a lot of trial balloons.
Regarding rights, I tend to think the usage of that term is somewhat too broad,and the attendant responsibilities too often go ignored.
Quote:
|
Oh but we can. Following the Constitution strictly and encouraging greater voter interest (not turnout, interest, ie substantive understanding of issues) can yield greater control of government. Since you clearly want more control over the government, let me ask you; is a tiger easier to handle as a cub, or when it is 500lbs of mean? Apply that principle to government, and I'll see you at the next Libertarian ice cream social.
|
It all depends how autocratic you want to be, my friend. The Constitution's a great guideline, no doubt, but it ain't the be-all/end-all of existence. I'm certainly more open to change and reform than moston here.
Quote:
|
And yet remarkably nobody has been stabbed, don't you love the free exchange of ideas? I doubt you and I will ever vote together given the sharp differences in perception of reality (positive v. negative rights and such), but we're making progress. In this respect we have outperformed many a sitting of the federal legislature. Cheers.
|
Oh, it's all good in the hood. And, learning has occurred. It's not good to surround oneself wth yes-men, it's good to hear the criticisms and other views.
Quote:
|
Poverty is relative, so it can't be "cured" or whatever word we use so long as human beings are born unequal (height, strength, health, etc). In Somalia, a rich man is eating every day and might have electricity, here we would see his standard of living as far worse than some hobos. Even if we provided housing, medical, food, water, and clothing to the poor, they'd still be "poor" because they didn't have a car, or the nicest clothes, or enough leisure time. Thus, poverty cannot be eliminated (better word than "cure") regardless of our actions because as society advances, even in entirely communist or egalitarian societies, there will be haves and have-nots.
|
Indeed no "egalitarian" experiement has ever truly lasted. If the elimination of poverty isn;t really attainble, at least we can work on making sure people aren't starving. Noblesse oblige....
Quote:
|
I've always had a problem with income taxes in general because they tax the right to live. What I mean by that is you NEED money to pay for rent, food, clothing, and transportation, and you work to get that money. To tax such money would literally be to tax life, which as a libertarian you can imagine I find very offensive.
|
No arguments here.
Quote:
|
Thus yes, a minimum level of income should be left untaxed (again, number to be determined by SIMPLE legislation), so long as no benefits are paid to the taxpayer like food stamps or housing assistance(since the whole purpose of not taxing them would be so that THEY could buy food and pay for shelter). That's really what irritates me about the current system; the poor are allowed to "double dip" via nontaxation AND welfare benefits while the rest of us pay taxes and still have to pay for expenses. One or the other, but not both.
|
Not sure how I feel about that, and we mightbe coming at to from differnt perspectives. I think I have some moral issues with a strict "sink or swim" paradigm, and food stamps are a far better idea than open-ended monetary asisstance. in my mind.
Quote:
|
And I'd rather err on the side of legal equality. That's where we differ, and I think that's where each of us becomes intractable. I had planned to finish my post from earlier, but I think we're starting to understand each other (plus I'm about to fall into a cheesesteak-induced coma, lunch was nice). Still, if you want any of the points you made earlier addressed, let me know and I'll be sure to address them appropriately. I'll say that this discussion has been very civil and coherent, a welcome change from that which usually occurs on this board (and we're all guilty of it). I thank you for that sir, you've renewed my faith in polite discussion.
|
Anytime. Been good discussion.