From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 1 Oct 92 20:00:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Oct1105721@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

>|Spurious.  Anyone who cannot defeat this argument deserves to take it
>|seriously.

>Eh?  I couldn't parse that.  There's a conjuction or something
>missing.  In any case, the "level of customer satisfaction" and
>quality aren't necessairly dependent on one another, which is my
>point.


Now this is getting rediculous.  Just because you don't think much of the
quality of McDonalds does not mean that the majority of the people agree
with you.  If people were upset about the quality of McDonalds, they wouldn't
go back.  There are much cheaper ways to feed yourself.

>...except for supermarkets.  Why not?  One possible reason is
>that--for all intents and purposes--the supermarkets in the inner
>cities have a captive market.  The citizens can't leave because it is
>economically prohibitive.

If inner city supermarkets were charging usurious rates as you charge, then
other supermarket chains would be falling all over themselves to open
new stores in these neighborhoods.  Supermarkets in the inner city
charge more than supermarkets in other areas of town charge more
because they have expenses that are not present or at least not present
to the same degree in other areas of town.
If you can find evidence that these supermarkets are making profits
greater than those made elsewhere, then your analogy would mean
something.  Otherwise all you have managed to demonstrate is your own
lack of grasp of economics.

BTW, a local K-Mart in a poorer section of Dekalb county has recently
announce that it will close.  It has been losing money for years.
Local civic leaders are up in arms.  They are demanding the K-Mart
keep this money loser open, for the good of the community.

>As to where you get the students, I'll provide the stock Lib answer:
>"if there are no customers, then the business (by definintion) doesn't
>deserve to survive.  Such is the Free Market(tm)."

There is no free market in education.  The government has already seen
to that.  Anybody who wants to open a new school will have to compete
with a heavily subsidized state run industry.  It can be done, but it
is difficult as hell.  Get rid of the state monopoly on education, and
new schools will sprout up everywhere.

>|Vouchers only open up a market.  Just as expecting to have 50
>|restaurants in Podunk, USA is ridiculous, so is the expectation of
>|having much school choice there.  Choice is really a big win only
>|where there are population concentrations to support a diverse market.

>Of course.  But I wonder (aloud) how we reconcile the "trapped"
>customers in the middle of a crowd (the inner city and the suburbs for
>example) with the notion that it will help them.

Since you like analogies how about this one.
There are fifty people in the water, unless they are rescued they will
drown.  Now I come by in a boat.  Due to weight constraints I can only
take on 45 people.  If I follow your logic I should conclude that I
should not stop since I would be unable to save all of them.

People who choose to live in rural areas also choose to except certain
limitations, one of these being the lack of competition.  Their choice,
their problem.
We have told you before, and I will tell you again.  Because of the high
concentration of people (and therefore also children), the inner cities
will be one of the easiest places to start new schools.  They are only
trapped by your lack of imagination.

>|Note, however, that even having two or three businesses competing in a
>|market, while not exactly the best that can be hoped for, does do a
>|pretty good job of keeping up product quality, even if they can keep
>|prices somewhat higher that a true market price.  (Picture here the
>|Pepsi/Coke competetion.  They try to compete on quality, not price.)

>MMMMMhmmmm.

>Let me ask you:  hypothetically, what would you say if we kept the
>system as is, but managed to vastly improve education anyway?  Would
>you still push for the vouchers or would you not really care?  What if
>one could demonstrably show that vouchers lead to a weaker system?

If you could improve the system, that would definitely lessen the need
for an alternative system, but it wouldn't eliminate it.  I would
probably come back and say that it would have been improved even more
under a system of choice.  BTW, the experience of the last 15 to 20
years demonstrates the improbability of ever improving the current system.
If you could demonstrate that some form of voucher will lead to an
overall, permanent decrease in the quality of education, I would be willing
to listen.  But I am confident that you will not be able to do so.

>I'm asking this because I'm curious about the real motivations here
>(someone in emailed asked about the motivation for an opposition to
>choice).

OK, I'll bite.  I favor choice because I belive that it will lead to
a vastly improved system of education.
Now, why do you oppose it?

>|Why stop there?  Let's break down all the barriers!  Why the yearly
>|fee?  Isn't that discrimatory against the poor?

>As discriminatory as paying higher prices for a better product in a
>choice system.

Who said that the students would be paying a higher price.  I am comparing
this to the current system of course.  In any system, the current one
included, if one is willing to pay more of your own money you will be
able to get a better product.
Our contention is, that for the same total tax revenue, we will be able
to deliver a superior product.

>I must ask the obvious question:  given your belief in all the above,
>why do you think that this public pressure isn't brought to bear *now*
>an improve the schools, vouchers or not?  Or would you argue that our
>current fascination with the subject is exactly that?

It is being brought to bear.  Unfortunately the political power of the
entrenched beaurocracy has been able to defeat most efforts so far.
I point to the efforts of Polly Williams in Milwaukee.  She managed to
get a school choice plan approved by ballot initiative.  She then
had to go all the way to the state supreme court to get an order to
force the local school officials to comply with the initiative.

In California supporters of choice have been trying to get an initiative
on the ballot for this fall.  School authoraties responded by surrounding
petitioning locations with pickets and physically blocking people from
reaching the petitions to sign them.  Local school boards used public
funds to lobby against the initiative.  Local officials advised teachers
and other opponents to deliberately sign bogus names onto the petitions
in order to foul up the counting.  Local supporters of choice had to
go as far as to get a court order to get the school officials to stop
these acts.  Unfortunately it looks like the damage has been done.

Any poll you read shows that support for school choice is strong.
Interestingly enough, these same polls often show that it is the
minorities and the economically disadvantaged that are the strongest
supporters of school choice.

>|When the ship about to explode, sometimes it is best to leap before
>|you look.  

>Well, that's true unless you can stop the explosion by throwing the
>bomn overboard (I wonder how long we can carry this analogy?).

Actually the ship is about to sink because it was poorly designed in the
first place and has now become completely unseaworthy.

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

Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:382 alt.society.anarchy:230