From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: misc.education
Subject: Government Accountability
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:44:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.8VaViB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Don Pettengill writes:
>Jim Bowery writes:
>>Since government has outlawed ownership of people, government has taken 
>>upon itself the responsibility of improving human capital -- ie: 
education.
>
>By the above logic then, should government also be responsible for
>improving the human gene pool - ie selectively breeding us?
 
Right now, our government policies are de facto selecting for 
sexually deceptive and generally criminal behavior in males.
 
The reality of government influence on population genetics is both 
profound and vociferously denied by those whose limbic systems
believe their kin-groups are benefiting from this influence.
 
One of the best ways to ensure power is abused with immunity is to 
deny that it exists.  Right now the limbicly charged portion of
the population is running amok trying to make sure that government
doesn't stop its genoicde against law-abiding males as reflected in 
the plummetting reproductive rates of that subpopulation compared
with the increasing reproductive success for deceptive/criminal males.  
 
They do this by suppressing dispassionate discussion of sociobiology.
 
Is that what you want to do?  What is your genetic background?
(I'm Scotch/Dutch and all my ancestors were in the New World prior
 to the Revolutionary War.)
 
As to a selective breeding program:
 
I think it has been fairly well established by now that central 
planning is generally a bad idea and that therefore a selective 
breeding program would be a bad idea.  Let me know if you disagree.
 
The fact of the matter is the laws of the land and their enforcement
have a profound effect on population genetics.
 
MOST Libertarians (there are a few that have grown up), unlike the 
anarchists who are more honest, pretend that a government can exist 
without such influences pervading our lives.  The anarchists want 
to eliminate the government so they and their friends can do whatever 
they want:  Selectively breed, enslave, sterilize, cannibalize, etc.
 
Which are you?
 
>Your simple statement above fails precisely because it can be used to
>justify absolutely anything a government wants to do. 
 
My statement doesn't say anything about justifying actions -- it only
defines areas of authority and accountability.  You might have
authority and accountability for delivering a pizza to someone's
home, but that fact in itself doesn't justify bashing the door down,
and taking an axe to the customer so you can get the pizza to them
and extract payment for the pizza.
 
>So you cannot
>answer why, for example, government wants responsibility for educating
 
No. I'm not saying that the government "wants" responsibility for
educating all children.  I'm saying that we have, by using government
power to prohibit ownership of people, taken certain functions of slavery 
out of the realm of the market and therefore we are left with the, 
admittedly very messy, problem of "socialism" in fulfilling those functions. 
 
Its really tough to make socialism work no matter what aspect of
society you apply it in.  That's why it is important to discuss means
like "market synthesis" whereby socialism can take advantage of market
optimizations.
 
>all children - 
>but not feeding them. Illogical, wouldn't you say, given
>that starvation is a lot more immediate than flunking high school?
 
Yes, such a statement is quite illogical.  Who would say such a 
stupid thing?
 
The government has an even more profound responsibility to support 
the family since the family is the best social substitute for the
market functions of slavery.  One of the main things I hoped would
happen with the voucher proposal I posted was that families would
be paid to educate their own children.
 
When it comes to adults, capitalism prevails.  When it comes
to children, socialism prevails.  Now if you look at the history
of the definition of "socialism" you will find all kinds of strange
definitions -- I'm using it in it's most general sense:
 
Those functions of society not fulfilled by the market.
 
There are all kinds of social institutions:  The family, religion,
charities, etc.
 
My statement about the link between slavery and education allows
the government to fulfill its responsibility by eliminating 
property taxes so that people have more money to buy their own
educational services and to give to charities that educate the
poor, etc.  What my statement does NOT allow the government to
do is absolve itself of the responsibility for its interference
in the marketplace:  ie:  prohibiting ownership of people.
If the lase faire approach is the best way of fulfilling that
responsibility, then so be it.  
 
Look, 
 
If you want to debate whether slavery should be legalized or
not, then lets do it.  I don't want to waste time dealing with
your red herrings just because you're afraid to get down to brass 
tacks.
 
I've got no emotional problem considering slavery as an option.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: misc.education