From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Questions about the TEN POINT PARTY PROGRAM.
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:32:50 GMT
	<ISBELL.92Sep28232318@panther.ai.mit.edu> <60739@mimsy.umd.edu>
	<ISBELL.92Sep30094920@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<9387@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
	<ISBELL.92Oct2083027@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<9445@n
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM's message of 2 Oct 92 19:00:42 GMT

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

You're welcome.

|>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.

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.

|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
think those are the only problems I've mentioned (how do we get there
from here?  how can people be convinced to enact it in such a way that
any power that the system has isn't diluted?  how do we address the
perceptions that generated the bifurcation in the first place?  how do
we pay for transportation costs?  who sells the buildings?  etc), then
you havn't been listening.  I've saved all my articles.  If you'd like
I can mail them to you.

|>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.

Again, there is a difference between questioning claims and opposing
something.  Can we not see that?  It's not my fault you make
unwarranted jumps in logic, is it?  Human nature or not.

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

Another one.  I have a problem with people (ie you) who tell me I
can't grasp basic economics just because I dont' buy assertion after
assertion.

|>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.  

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. 

|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. 

|>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. :^)

Not the point, now is it.  Go back and read the original argument
(which deals with privatization removing the power of unions).  The
argument is not about the "goodness" of unions, its about the power of
privatization to dilute the unions (such as those in GM).  Stick to
the point.  If you don't the original assertion, fine, I don't either
(maybe I'm just too subtle).

|>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.

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

|"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.

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

|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.

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

|>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.

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

|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.

Since I never made that statement, your statement is vacuous.

|>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?  Doesn't matter, the moral
imperative of repealing the laws are more important than the
consequences.

|>|>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.

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.

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

|>Ibid.

|ditto.

above.

|>|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.

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

|>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.

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.

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?

|>|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.

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)? 

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?

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?

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?

|>|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.

Well, she says that it isn't ver nice of you to tell her she probably
doesn't care enough to get me to the best schools.  Everyone else in
my old neighborhood seem to feel the same way.  WE have a hard time
getting all our kids to school, etc and we don't appreciate the
implication that we don't care.

|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?

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.


|>|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 get quite a bit.

|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?

|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.

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

|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.

Good.

|>|>|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.

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

|>|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.

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

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

True.

|>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? ;^)  )

You concluded somethng about me (which you deleted).  I know it to be
wrong.  That's how.

|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.

Term limits deprive the voters of... choice.  Why is this good?

|>|(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.

I was being sarcastic (I am too subtle).

|>Do you see your observation having any effect on a voucher system?
|Yup, further validates it.

Hee, hee.  

|>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.

Not possible.  Atlanta is and has been for over 25 years (before the
magnet schools were implemented) >92% black.  You're thinking of the
M&M program in Decautur, GA and some of the suburbs.

Which isn't Atlanta and doesn't affect magnet schools.  Trust me, I've
studied the history of thise quite a bit.  You're thinking of
something else.  I understand your confusion, but that's exactly what
it is... confusion.

|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?

They use tests.  This makes sense (maybe) in a high school setting,
but certainly not in an elementary school setting.  

|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.

Not really *but* this is almost solely because the population of
students who can pass the test is taken from a realtively small sample
(Atlanta).  *If* this program included Metro Atlanta (and the millions
of other school systems) there might be a problem. Actually, as most
of these schools are effectively all-Black, it might not be a problem
at all (perception and all that) because if wouldn't radically effect
the number of students trying to get in from out of the Atlanta
system.

Beyond that, as demand for more specialization, etc, went up, the
school system built more schools (moving computer science magnet out
of Mays and into a new school--I forget which).

|>|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?

Because, as far as I can tell from news reports, etc. many people
honestly believe that the people in the store will be robbed and
killed (even tho' the numbers don't support it).  Also, there isn't a
huge money base there.  Only a few stores can be supported in a given
area. 

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).

|>|>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.

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

|>|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.

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.

|>|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.

Does this apply to schools?

|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.

|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.

The magnet schools that *I'm* talking about don't have this affect.
When I was there it had 1580 students, only three were White and one
was Korean.

|>|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.

Sigh.  Let's get that math thing going again.  That I think it isn't
more doesn't mean I think it is *less*.  Isn't this going to cause
problems.  And as I said immediately after:

|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?).

Which means *depending* I acknowledge that it *can* be done so as to
be more redistributive.

|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?

|>|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!

|>|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.

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

|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.

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


--
Peace.
         "It's rural America.  It's where I came from.  
          We always refer to ourselves as real America.  
          Rural America, real America, real, real, America."
                      -- Vice President Dan Quayle
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.anarchy