From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:49:50 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <ISBELL.92Oct4103250@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

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

>Easy.  I ask questions and people just say "free market."  I ask who
>will it help the most?  the least?  how do we move in the short term?
>who pays?  I get "free market."  That isn't an answer.

I have given you my answers to all of these, Why don't you tell me what
you think of my answers and we can go from there.  Don't bring in what
other people have told you, or what you believe other people have said.
You are not talking to them, you are talking to me.

>|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.

>How so?  I think that's a very big problems, don't you (given that
>this competition is the central driving engine for quality in these
>arguments, right)?
And you haven't really answered it.  And if you

If you do not think my answers are adequate, please say why.
I have answered these questions both here and elsewhere.

>think those are the only problems I've mentioned (how do we get there
>from here?  

I don't think this is a problem.  Besides I have already answered this
question.  If you do not like my answer please tell me why.  Then I
can tell you why you are wrong.

how can people be convinced to enact it in such a way that
>any power that the system has isn't diluted?

The only way I can see that the power could be diluted would be if the
legislature were to pass stupid laws that take the choice away from
people.  I don't know of anyway to prevent that from happening.
BTW, stupid laws are still a problem no matter what system you propose.

how do we address the
>perceptions that generated the bifurcation in the first place?

You've lost me again.  Are you talking about having good schools and
bad schools, or are you talking about public vs. private schools.
Under a voucher system, public vs. private would be an irrelevant
question.  Under a voucher system, if the students (or their parents)
feel that a school is bad, they can leave.  Not a luxury they enjoy 
under the current system.
Perhaps you are concerned about the racial polarization.  Until we
can invent a better class of human, no school system will be able
to handle this problem.  The current one has done poorly, and may
have even made the problem worse.

how do
>we pay for transportation costs?

Reasonable transportation costs can be built into the vouchers.  

>who sells the buildings?

What buildings?  Are you talking about the buildings that house the
current public schools.  Since those buildings are owned by the city,
I would assume that it would be up to the city to sell them.
(Idea off of the top of my head.  They could possibly keep them and
rent them to a private school).

If you still feel that my answers are inadequate, please tell me why.
Just to say that they are inadequate and to go on is a cheap shot.

>|Well, 1) I am categorically dening the first posters assertion.  So please
>|don't use it when you talk about subjects I bring up.  

>Well, poster #1 asserts A, I respond to A, you respond to me and then
>say don't hold you to poster #1.  Well, I didn't, I was responding to
>him. 

Then why were you answering my post if you were talking to poster #1.  That
guy bailed out awhile ago.  Anything he said has been irrelevant for awhile
now.

>|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.

>Now you're holding me to the poster's first assertion.  Try to do me
>the favor you wish me to do for you.  I beleive you make my point for
>me. 

How am I holding you to the first posters assertions.  Poster #1 stated
that the teacher's unions (I don't think he mentioned NEA directly?)
had a great deal of public good will.  You replied that if they had a
great deal of public good will they must be doing something right.

At this point someone else jumped in and said that it wasn't the union
but rather the individual teachers that had the good will.

Then you and I got into a discussion about PR and the market place.
I have never said or implied that you accept the first posters assertion.
Unless you feel the crack about being taken in by PR applies to you.

>If you don't the original assertion, fine, I don't either
>(maybe I'm just too subtle).

Since you never contradicted the original assertion, I guess you are to
subtle for me.

>|>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.

>So you think it's better now than 15 years ago?

Whoa. Where did you read that?  We have been doing all those things for
15 years and schools have been getting worse.  I through those factoids
in to disprove your contention that we could improve the current system if
we wanted to.  We have been trying and it hasn't worked.

>|Some parents are beyond help, short of taking the children away from them,
>|there is nothing that can be done for them.

>So how will vouchers deal with this?  Can it?  Can anything be done at
>all?

For those students vouchers will not help.  So what.
Should we not try vouchers because it will not help all of the students.
BTW, under vouchers, they won't be any worse off either.

>If schools are too far and cost money to get to, the poorest will
>lose.  That's pretty simple.

Why do you feel the schools will be too far?  Why do feel they will cost
too much money to get to.  I have already posted my replies to these
questions.  If you feel my responses are inadequate, please tell me
why.  Ignoring my answers does not get either of us anywhere.

>|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.

>I never "stated" that.  You are confusing me with a straw man.

You started this with the McDonalds analogy.  I should have said implied
not stated, my apologies.  (Now where did I put that wet noodle.)

>|>Again.  So?  See "economic discrimination in Liberteria" thread.
>|That thread has not made it to this site.  Please expound upon it.

>The idea is simple (you may be able to read it in t.p.theory).  All
>anti-discrimination laws should be repealed.  Counter: this pushes
>folks out of the economic game.  Well they can build their own
>businesses and banks.  Counter:  since the banks and businesses
>discriminate, whence the capital?

So you believe that all banks and businesses discriminate.  All you need
is one.

>The other thread is the Economic Discrimination in Liberteria thread.
>The arguments against moving, paying a higher price advanced here are
>the same ones that were argued against by Libs in that thread.

I've never seen that thread, so I can't argue it.

>|>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.

>I've made this point before.  I must keep all these quotes around when
>the anti-discrimination laws argument comes up again.

How does anti-discrimination apply here.  You have two kids who are of ages
that put them in different schools.  The best schools for each are in 
different school districts.  I brought this up when you said to move to
be in the best district.

>Well, you aren't Perry Metzger, but I've been told more times than I
>care to count that poor parents shouldn't have kids if they can't
>afford to send them to school.  If you can't afford to move where the
>good schools are, then don't have kids.

With vouchers you wouldn't have to move.

>Would you disagree with this argument?  Was that you who said that
>about people who choose to live in rura areas or was that someone
>else?

It was me.  I feel some sympathy with the statement.  I do get tired of
supporting other peoples lifestyle choices with my tax dollars.
But I depart from the extremest libertarians in that I feel that since
these school age rugrats are already present we have to deal with them.
A good education is the best way to make sure that they will be able to
take care of themselves when they grow up.  I believe that a voucher
system will create the best schools to provide this education.
But then, isn't that what this whole thread is about.

>|>|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.

>I listed options.  I did not make value judgements about them.  See,
>when people ask me questions, I try to lay out some of the options.
>I can evaluate them, if you wish.

I felt that all of your options sucked.  Which is why I have been trying
to get a new option put on the table.  Vouchers.

>Perhaps you can return the favor: for the transition period to choice,
>what are, say, 5-10 realistic options for dealing with the a flood of
>people moving in?  Which are best?  Will people who are displaced
>stand for it?  Who gets displaced (helped/hurt the most)? 

I'll leave admission policies to the individual schools.  I am not 
arrogant enough to assume that I have the right to dictate such
policies.  Given that there are already thousands of private schools
out there, I assume that there will be thousands of policies.  I personally
favor allowing the kids who are already in those schools to stay there
and to fill all new openings based on the schools preferred admissions
policy.  

Excuse me for reading between the lines again.  You seem to be saying
that you are waiting for a detailed plan of both how vouchers will
work, and how we are to get there.

There will never be such a plan.  The whole idea behind vouchers is to throw
out top down designing.

>Beyond that:  what are the best ways to pay for vouchers?  Currently,
>property taxes and other forms for local tax base revenue are used (at
>least in many states) which leads to disparity across near local
>areas.  Do we adovacate putting all the monies in one pot and divide
>it per capita over larger areas (redistributin of wealth)?  Keep it
>the same as now?  Are there other options?  What are the drawbacks of
>each?  Who benefits the most?  Who loses the most?  Which has the best
>chance of making it by the citizens?  Which is least likely?

Why does the funding for vouchers have to be any different than the funding
for public schools.  Whatever each state and local district decides is up
to them and the local voters not to me.
I assume that vouchers will start off using the same source of money that
current public schooling uses.  You can certainly argue that property
taxes to fund schools are not perfect.  But the same problems exist whether
we keep our current state monopoly or change to vouchers.  I consider
funding to be irrelevant to this discussion.

>Where does choice work the best?  When choice moves between, say,
>suburbs, will it work better than when it moves between suburbs and
>the Inner City(tm)?  Worse?  The same?  Are cultural differences
>(preceived and real) a factor in this?

I believe that choice will work best in areas where there are high
concentrations of students.  Cultural problems will have to be worked
out by individual schools and communities.  No two communities, or
suburbs and inner cities.  Therefore no two solutions will be the
same.  I don't believe that I am intelligent to tell other people how
to lead their lives, so I don't.

>Where have voucher/choice programs been enacted?  What are the
>results?  What sort of resistence did it face?  Was this a
>suburb-to-subrub magnet program (in effect)?  Was it an
>inner-city(tm)-to-inner-city(tm) magnet program?  How was it paid for?

Milwaukee is the only one that I am aware of, and it just started this
year.  I believe it was only included Milwaukee city schools, but it
could have also included private.  I am not sure.

>|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.

>Who pays?  Will the vouchers cover it?

Why not?  Since the public schools no longer have to provide busing, that
money is availabe.  So are the buses for that matter.

>I never assumed anything.  You said:  "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."  I answered that.
>No mention of buses any where.

If busses are available, then the parents ability to drive is irrelevant.
That is why I brought up buses.


>|I'll try again then.  The presence of vouchers make it possible for more
>|such schools to form.  

>Which does not refute the claim that it can't be done now.  It's
>difficult, but so what?

To quote you.  Arghhhhh.  The difficulty is inversely proportional to how
many schools will form.  The more difficult it is the fewer schools will
form.  The easier it is the more that will form.
The presence of vouchers removes the singl larges impedement to the
formation of alternative schools.  MONEY.

>|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.  

>Hmmmmm.  What would you do if it became clear that only the rich (or
>the *EXTREMELY* dedicated) ar really helped by a voucher system?
>Given the small problem of the lack of competition in rural and inner
>city areas, this remains a possibility.

I have already answered this several times.  Are you going to tell me
what you do not like about my answers, or are you going to just keep
asking the question?

>Do you have backup plans?  In a worst case scenario, does the govt
>have a role?  Charity?  What?

Why do you believe we need back up plans?  I will state that I do not
believe any are necessary.  Tell me why YOU think they are and I will
tell you why you are wrong.

I believe that if the current school systems can improve themselves to 
the point that they can compete, they should be allowed to.

If various charities want to start schools, more power to them.
These same charities can also make donations to schools to allow those
schools to do more with the same level of voucher.

There will always be schools that charge more than the basic voucher.
Just as there are now private schools for those who can afford more.
If charities want to set up scholarships to make up the difference to
allow students to go to these (I presume) better schools.
If charities wanted to any of this I have neither the desire nor the
right to stop them.

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

>|Please explain this, you lost me again.

>A side issue.  I was pointing out that the end goal for many is
>complete privatization of the schools.  It was a closing statment.

I guess I am still confused.  It seems to me that privatization is one of
the things that have been discussed as an instead to vouchers.  Once
vouchers are in place, privatization is irrelevant.

>|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.

>...unless the vouchers don't cover the cost (possibility in the short
>term certainly).

Schools that set their rates too high will go out of business because they
have no students.  If the local school district or the local politicians
set the level of the vouchers too low, then there will be no alternative
schools for the students to go to.  No business man willing operates at
a loss.  If the level of the vouchers does not cover the expenses in
operating a basic service, then no one will offer the service.
I personally favor dividing up the total amount spent on education and
dividing it by the number of students.  Then give each student a voucher
for that amount.

>|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?

>Of course, this is what happened.  Kroger built its Citi-Center there
>and drove out everyone else (partly true--it brought along many small
>businesses inside the store--it displaced some too, so I'm unclear on
>the net positive gain although I'm sure it's there).

>|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.

>Hmmmmmm.  Other options?  What would stop this from happening?

Outside of government interference, nothing that I am aware of.
If you know of something enlighten me, and we can debate it.

>|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.

>Because it happens in practice.  Take the supermarket example.  Poor
>folx do pay more.  Placing a school in a high crime area (vandalism,
>increased security) should raise costs and thereby keep school-makers
>out.

Ok, I would not be adverse to upping the vouchers in areas where real
problems could be demonstrated.  Another possibility is that the
schools could drop several of their extra-curricular activities and
use that money to beef up security.

>|We have white flight because some parents are afraid that blacks will
>|cause trouble and there kids will not be safe.

>Does this apply to schools?

No more or less than in any other context.

>|An advertised policy of expelling trouble makers will assuage this fear.

>I doubt it.  A billion studies show that Middle Class Whites are
>resistant to Black doctors moving in (because they associate the skin
>color--not the eco-class--to color) as well as lower class Blacks.  I
>suspect they'll resist the inital foray.

Make that some middle class whites and I will agree with you.  Without
that qualifier, your statement is as racist as anything you rail 
against.

This is a problem, but I don't see how it will affect vouchers.
As I see it, the problem with segregated scholls has always been that the
white power structure would spend more on the white schools than on the
black ones.  This would not happen under vouchers, since each student
would bring his or her funding with them.

>|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.

>What are your thoughts on the matter.  Which is most redistributive.
>Which has the biggest effect?

Obviously, the larger the geographic area from which you draw your funding,
the more distributionist it is going to be.  If we could assure that the
only thing coming from the feds would be the money, I would not be adverse
to kicking the funding up that high.  Unfortunately, the feds have a
very poor track record in terms of keeping their hands off.  If there is
going to be control and regulations that come with the money, I want the
source to be as local as possible so that I can have a chance to have
my voice heard.

>|>|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.

>No.  I am talking about proof or argument, as opposed to assertion.
>There be no innuendo there!

LOusy businesses go out of business.  The statement is so obvious that
I felt no need to waste bandwidth defending it.

>I'll see you in the Eco-Discrimination thread.

Where is it, I've never seen it.

>Will vouchers be set up so that people with no kids still pay taxes?

Probably, but then again they do now.

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.libertarian:442 alt.society.anarchy:271