From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:00:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Oct2083027@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>Parts of this are not really aimed at Mr Wilson.
Thank you

>Really, I sypport choice as an idea; however, the inability of 80-90%
>of the a.p.l crowd to foresee any problems with the system and to
>refuse to deal with the practical matters really turns me off.

What makes you think that 80-90% don't forsee any problems?  No program
is without problems.  Is is just that we are convinced that the problems
are less (much less) than the problems with the current system.
BTW, the only problem you have brought up so far has been lack of
competition in rural and inner city areas, and I believe that I have
responded adequately.

>Again, there is a difference between "questioning vouchers" and "being
>an evil statist defending the evil heretical system."  If you can't
>see this, then put me in your kill file and pray to Ayn Rand for my
>soul, okay?  If you can see this, then engage the questions.

Well we have asked what problems you have with a voucher program.  We have
also asked you why you seem to be opposing such a system.  So far, given
your lack of response, it is human nature to assume the worst.  For
a libertarian, being a statist is the worst.

Boy you really do seem to have a problem with Rand don't you.

>Well, 1) I didn't say they did, the other poster did and I just took
>the assertion and ran with it and 2) PR is free market at work, so I'm
>not sure what that has to do with anything.

Well, 1) I am categorically dening the first posters assertion.  So please
don't use it when you talk about subjects I bring up.  2) There are PR
facts and there are real facts.  So far the NEA has had the PR field all
to itself, we are working on that.  There is nothing wrong with PR as long
as you don't get taken in by it.

>I dunno.  How many auto workers are?

And look where unionization has gotten the auto worker.  I wonder what 
shape our schools would be in if Japanese schools started exporting
students. :^)

>I did not!  I just said that our choices may not improve the system.
>We could force the current school system to improve if we got together
>and did it.  We just don't.

What newspapers have you been reading.  For the last 15 years we have
been getting tough on public schools.  Teacher certification, standardized
testing, regulations out the wazoo.  We have also tried throwing money at
the problem.

"Choice" won't matter on a large scale if
>parents don't demand the service or accept the "NEA PR" or can't
>really move from the nearest school or whatever.

Some parents are beyond help, short of taking the children away from them,
there is nothing that can be done for them.
I have already pointed out why I believe the no near school argument is
a chimera.  Please state your reasons why you do not believe me to be
correct.  If you can't respond, please stop using this argument until you
can.

>This is not the same as saying someone cannot be trusted.  It's quite
>orthogonal.

You have stated that you are afraid that if given the power to choose,
many parents would make the wrong choice.  You have implied that this
might be one your problems with vouchers.

From your statement I have implied that if you are afraid that parents
would make the wrong choice that you are afraid that parents are to
stupid to be allowed to choose.

>Again.  So?  See "economic discrimination in Liberteria" thread.

That thread has not made it to this site.  Please expound upon it.

>|>Move.

>|Only works if you can afford a house in the appropriate neighborhood.

>Now apply this to the other thread.

I'm afraid I've lost you here.

>|Houses in good school districts usually carry a price premium.

>Ibid.

ditto.

>|This also seems like a drastic solution for a problem that good be solved
>|simply by allowing the students to choose their school.  Finally,
>|what do you do if you feel that the best high school and the best grade
>|school are in different districts, and you have both high school and
>|grade school aged children.

>Move when your child's age changes.

My point is that you have more than one child, if you move to help one
you will screw the other.

>You should place your kids
>appropriately. 

So you feel that kids should be spaced twelve years apart.  Also moving every
four to six years will get very expensive.

>|Do you really believe that breaking the law is the best way around a
>|beaurocratic bottle neck.

>No, but it is an option.

If you feel that breaking the law is a valid response, then I feel that is
one of the strongest arguments yet in favor of choice.

>|Any parent who won't get up a few minutes early to drive their kids to a
>|good school probably don't care enough to get the kids to the best
>|school anyway.

>You assume they have a car.  Oh and from my mother, who was working
>three jobs and couldn't pick me up after school:  %(*&*^&*&(*!

Tell your Mom that I love her too.
Your assuming that the school that you choose will not have a busing
system.  Several of the private schools where I grew up had buses.
Mostly the bigger ones of course.

>|A perfectly adequate schooling can be achieved in schools with only a few
>|students.  Wasn't too long ago that tutoring was normal.  With vouchers
>|if you don't like the current school you can start your own.

>You can do that now.

You just don't get it do you.
I'll try again then.  The presence of vouchers make it possible for more
such schools to form.  Right now we have private schools, so quite
obviously the presence of vouchers is not neccessary for the survival
of such schools.  Unfortunately, because of the cost, only the rich or
the *EXTREMELY* dedicated can afford such schools.  This leaves the
middle class and especially the poor out in the cold.  Surveys have
shown that support for choice increases dramatically with decreases in
income.  (Despite the NEA's PR.)  The poor know what a rotten deal they
are getting, because they are living it.  They want out.

>|>|They won't.  But interested students could choose to go schools that
>|>|cater to them, thereby concentrating themselves.  Teachers might try
>|>|to interest uninterested students in unorthodox ways that would not
>|>|currently be allowed.
>|>Sure.  But--within the public school context--we actually have that
>|>happening now (in Atlanta).  With Magnet schools and all that, there

>|A good start, but it doesn't go far enough.

>Of course, many think that vouchers don't either.

Please explain this, you lost me again.

>|Why should the students have to pay a fee.  Their parents have already
>|paid the school taxes to support the local schools.  The school should
>|pass the money that would have been spent on that student to the
>|school that the student chooses to go to.  (Sounds a lot like the
>|voucher system doesn't it.)

>Agreed.  Of course, in a voucher system you might still have to pay
>more.

So what.  Under the current system, if you go to a private school, you
will have to pay more.  Unfortunately, if you cannot afford private 
school you are stuck.  Under vouchers, you will no longer be stuck.

The rich will always be able to afford better schooling, vouchers will
neither enhance nor eliminate this fact.

>Here we go again.  Speaking of rational human beings bringing their
>own prejudices into play to come to the wrong conclusion.

Why do you feel it is the wrong conclusion.  (Couldn't be your prejudices
now could it? ;^)  )

It is quite rational for a voter to behave this way.  Even if individual
voters feel that the system is a crock.  They'd be fools to vote out their
own crook, unless they could get some guarantee that the other voters will
vote out their crooks.  Having the only honest representative in congress
will put your district at a distinct disadvantage.  Which by the way, is
why I support term limits.

>|(Actually this opinion of Congress is quite rational, unfortunate, but still
>|rational.)  People like the crook who steals from others to support
>|them, but the do not like the crook who steals from them to support
>|others.

>So you think people can't be trusted to do the right thing?

What makes you say that.  I trust that people will do what they feel is in
they're own best interest.  Which incidently is why I feel that vouchers
will work.

>Do you see your observation having any effect on a voucher system?

Yup, further validates it.

>Wrong.  The magnet schools sends Black folx to other Black schools.
>Can't help it in Atlanta.  This school is a school that specializs in
>Math & science.  There are others for performing arts, communication,
>etc.   You're thinking of something else.  Start over.

Nope, your the one who is wrong here.  The magnet schools were set up
to try and prevent the white students from fleeing the public
school system, and or moving to the burbs.  It was all set up as part
of the desegregation program.

BTW, under the Atlanta program, what happens when more students want
to go to a magnet school than there is room for?  You asked this
question about vouchers.  Also do you know how they select students
when there are more applicants than spaces?

Under the voucher system, the schools involved will either expand, or
imitators will pop up to satisfy the demand.  Under the Atlanta system
you are just out of luck.

>|The SUPERMARKET EFFECT(tm) is a very bad analogy.  Stores in poor areas
>|tend to be small and hence less efficient.  They also suffer from higher
>|crime rates and have to pay more in insurance.  This means that they
>|have to charge more to cover the overhead.

>I'm not talking convience stores.  I'm talking huge supermarkets.  And
>the numbers don't support the price changes.  I outta know.  I live in
>one of those neighborhoods back home.  Driving 12 miles away I can
>save a lot of money.

OK, I don't live in such neighborhoods so I can't say from experience how
big such stores are.  You have however not mentioned my other two points
about crime and insurance increasing the overhead.

I still contend that if these stores were making outrageous profits than
other chains would be climbing over each other to open outlets in these
areas.  Why do you think no new stores are opening?

>|>And I still want to know how we phase the program in.  Who gets
>|>priority for a school the first 10 years?
>|If we do it first come first serve, then we will prolong the phase in
>|period.

>Okay.

>|If we do it by price then more people will enter the market as suppliers
>|and that will shorten the phase in period.

>Expand on this.

Back to the supermarket analogy.  If other stores see somebody making a
greater than average return on their investment, being the greedy sob's
that they are, they will also want a piece of this action.
Therefore they will open up franchises in order to get some of this
action.  Under the free market higher profits equals increased competition.

>|BTW, do you honestly feel that if we can't help everybody, we shouldn't
>|help anybody?

>No, but I suspect we'll just help the people who need it least.  IF
>that's the case, then how do we help the others?  What else must be
>done?

I have explained several times how I feel that just the opposite will
occur.  Do you have anything to back up your suspicions.  If you do
please post them so that I can reassure you.

>|Why should parents worry about who attends these voluntary schools.  If a
>|student causes trouble, he should be expelled.

>Come on.  Why do we have White flight?  Whether parents should worry
>or not, I suspect they will.  Do you disagree?

We have white flight because some parents are afraid that blacks will
cause trouble and there kids will not be safe.
An advertised policy of expelling trouble makers will assuage this fear.
BTW, many times it is when people are forced to be together, when they
do not want to be, that causes tension.  Under systems of voluntary 
integration, these tensions are reduced.  I point to the magnet schools
that you brought up.

>|Why do you consider the voucher system to be more redistributionist then
>|the system we already have.  The school taxes are already being collected.

>I don't.

Then why did *you* bring it up.

Of course, this does move the property taxes
>and divide them by the population instead of keeping them in the
>neighborhoods (I think... am I wrong?).

All depends on which level of government funds the vouchers.
I'm not proposing anything here, because I haven't made up my mind yet
on which funding agency would be the most effective.

>|You don't get it do you.  There is a lot of incentive.  If the schools
>|do not shape up, they will lose all of their students.  

>There are words missing after "up" and "they".

The sentence looks complete to me.  If you think I have a hidden agenda
or some secret biases, please state what you think they are.
There is no way to argue against this kind of innuendo.

>|It takes very little
>|to start a school.  All you really need is a place to meet and some textbooks.

>Then, my point above about starting your own school in the current
>system is conceded by you?

No it is not.  This is at least the third time I have said this.
I'll try to rephrase it, maybe you will get it this time.
While it is not impossible to start private schools without vouchers, it
is difficult to do.  Vouchers provide a vastly increased supply of
potential customers.  Vouchers make it easier for alternative schools to
develop.

Remember, those parents who send their children to private schools have
to pay for schooling twice.  Once through taxes for the schooling they
do not use, and once again throught the private schools tuition.

>[... gotta go, will answer the rest later ...]

Please do.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian