Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Minimum wage and massive corporations would not exist in a free market capitalist society.

Why not?  


Minimum wage?  Probably wouldn't.  But how are massive corporations going to be split up?  And if raising the minimum wage is going to cause greater inflation... what about all the money spent on trips to las vegas for high ranking employees and severance packages to FAILED CEO's, and of course money spent on lobbying.  


I mean they give CEO's millions of dollars in severance pay, basically saying "Good job failing, here's more money than most of our employees will see in their lifetimes.  I'm really glad you almost bankrupted us you massive [BAD WORD REMOVED]"

Quote:Why not?  


Minimum wage?  Probably wouldn't.  But how are massive corporations going to be split up?  And if raising the minimum wage is going to cause greater inflation... what about all the money spent on trips to las vegas for high ranking employees and severance packages to FAILED CEO's, and of course money spent on lobbying.  


I mean they give CEO's millions of dollars in severance pay, basically saying "Good job failing, here's more money than most of our employees will see in their lifetimes.  I'm really glad you almost bankrupted us you massive [BAD WORD REMOVED]"

 

What we have today is a corporation between the mega and often multinational corporations and government. They wouldn't exist in a true free market system because they would be forced to play by the same rules as their competition essential preventing the modern day monopolies we have.

 

In a true free market system you have more business owners and less employee's.

Quote:What we have today is a corporation between the mega and often multinational corporations and government. They wouldn't exist in a true free market system because they would be forced to play by the same rules as their competition essential preventing the modern day monopolies we have.

 

In a true free market system you have more business owners and less employee's.

Not at all, this is how start ups work.... Start something, make something small but great. Get bought out by larger company. Rinse repeat with the larger companies either crushing competition under their weight or just buying them out with a nice payday. Many more people will take the payday rather than keep the business going. Now imagine there is nothing stopping them from going all out in crushing competition because you take away the regulations. Either way the end result is the same. LESS competition and less businesses. Less employers, more employees, no minimum wage and overall wages go down. Due to demand of jobs being so high. 

Quote:What we have today is a corporation between the mega and often multinational corporations and government. They wouldn't exist in a true free market system because they would be forced to play by the same rules as their competition essential preventing the modern day monopolies we have.

 

In a true free market system you have more business owners and less employee's.

A couple of years ago, I would have been inclined to agree with you.

 

But you're either suggesting one of two things:


#1. An extremely limited government who only passes laws.  In which case good luck getting corporations giving up the protections they have now.  Corporations can buy politicians, and they often do.  From both parties.  Now we could put restrictions on campaign finance, but good luck getting that to pass.  republicans will (and have) argued that it's intruding on first amendment rights.  


#2. Absence of government altogether (the Anarho-Mises Libertarians, which you don't seem to be in line with), in which case there's not much to stop Wal-Mart from starting their own government because in the absence of power, will be those seeking power with promises of safety and in some cases liberty.  A world that could very well end up in much worse shape that we have even now.

 

I think Corporations are here to stay.  I'm not sure we can even achieve the idealized free market that you envision.  There's too much money involved.  And even if you replace all the politicians, the new ones would be as The Who so eloquently put it "Meet the New Boss, same as the old boss"

Quote:A couple of years ago, I would have been inclined to agree with you.

 

But you're either suggesting one of two things:


#1. An extremely limited government who only passes laws.  In which case good luck getting corporations giving up the protections they have now.  Corporations can buy politicians, and they often do.  From both parties.  Now we could put restrictions on campaign finance, but good luck getting that to pass.  republicans will (and have) argued that it's intruding on first amendment rights.  


#2. Absence of government altogether (the Anarho-Mises Libertarians, which you don't seem to be in line with), in which case there's not much to stop Wal-Mart from starting their own government because in the absence of power, will be those seeking power with promises of safety and in some cases liberty.  A world that could very well end up in much worse shape that we have even now.

 

I think Corporations are here to stay.  I'm not sure we can even achieve the idealized free market that you envision.  There's too much money involved.  And even if you replace all the politicians, the new ones would be as The Who so eloquently put it "Meet the New Boss, same as the old boss"

 

Oh don't get me wrong there's no way to change course this far down the road. I'm just saying we can't blame the mess on "free market capitalism" because we abandoned that a long time ago.

Quote:Oh don't get me wrong there's no way to change course this far down the road. I'm just saying we can't blame the mess on "free market capitalism" because we abandoned that a long time ago.

Those company store paychecks and monopolies were the good old days? Come on man. Stop ignoring the major problems with the free market I keep bringing up. 

Quote:Its not so much the concept of the state school system, I think that's great and a true benefit to our society. Its the government financing of post-secondary education where it gets sticky. Frankly, if you give away community college like the President proposed then all you do is further deflate the value of a high school diploma. When everyone can get an Associates Degree for free then it simply becomes the new high school diploma. The same goes for the rest of the degrees, when too many people acquire the credential then the credential is naturally devalued, especially when so many who shouldn't be anywhere near college matriculate and graduate. Access to college is great, but everyone shouldn't got to college and cost is one of the ways to weed those folks out.

 

There's many things that should restrict advancement in life through education. Cost should not be one of them.

Quote:There's many things that should restrict advancement in life through education. Cost should not be one of them.

 

Every person in the USA is given a free high school education. What they do after that we shouldn't be on the hook for.

Quote:Every person in the USA is given a free high school education. What they do after that we shouldn't be on the hook for.

Heck, why do we even provide high school? Why not stop at say 4th grade? What happened to your "big picture" view of the world? 

 

An educated populace is the greatest resource a country can have.  

Quote:Heck, why do we even provide high school? Why not stop at say 4th grade? What happened to your "big picture" view of the world?


An educated populace is the greatest resource a country can have.

Agreed which is why education needs to be privatized make it accountable when institutions fail. When we subsidies an industry we take away the natural incentive for that industry to produce the best products/services.

Quote:Agreed which is why education needs to be privatized make it accountable when institutions fail. When we subsidies an industry we take away the natural incentive for that industry to produce the best products/services.

Bull honky. The solution is not to privatize everything. Education should not be left up to the free market and beholden to share holders. You know what happens? Same thing that happens with privatized Healthcare. If you cant afford it you don't get to go to school. This is 2015 not the middle ages where only the rich got education. 

Quote:Agreed which is why education needs to be privatized make it accountable when institutions fail. When we subsidies an industry we take away the natural incentive for that industry to produce the best products/services.

 

Privatize education?


And what... end up with for-profit schools, like we have for-profit colleges?  No thanks.  Now THAT is class warfare.

Quote:Bull honky. The solution is not to privatize everything. Education should not be left up to the free market and beholden to share holders. You know what happens? Same thing that happens with privatized Healthcare. If you cant afford it you don't get to go to school. This is 2015 not the middle ages where only the rich got education. 

 

 

Quote:Privatize education?


And what... end up with for-profit schools, like we have for-profit colleges?  No thanks.  Now THAT is class warfare.

 

I know it's radical but just take a step back and think about it. What initiative does the education system have today to make sure they're providing the best service? Sure some within the education system don't need a reason, it's a noble cause and work a thankless job to provide a better future, but you'd agree that's not across the board. If a school is failing do they have to worry about closing down? losing students to better schools? I'd argue schools would be 100% more efficient if ran by private institutions. 

 

You can even still have public funding for education if you fear only the rich getting an education, that's not even the angle I'm coming from. But if you gave the parents for example something like the voucher program, and said ok you pick the school your kids are going to attend. At the very LEAST you're now giving schools an incentive to produce better educated students, competition breads improvement.

 

There's plenty of places this has been implemented on small scales, vouchers and scholarships for poor kids in districts with horrible schools. You want to talk about helping the poor, give the kids a chance at a decent education instead of damning them to go to the same horrible schools located in the poverty districts. We wonder why poverty is such a constant cycle, I'd argue it has plenty to do with making families prisoners of their own communities.

Quote:I know it's radical but just take a step back and think about it. What initiative does the education system have today to make sure they're providing the best service? Sure some within the education system don't need a reason, it's a noble cause and work a thankless job to provide a better future, but you'd agree that's not across the board. If a school is failing do they have to worry about closing down? losing students to better schools? I'd argue schools would be 100% more efficient if ran by private institutions. 

 

Are you kidding?  You'd have schools pop up that spend more on marketing than they do on teachers, or anything else.  And those would be the majority of the schools, because they would be the most profitable.  Profit makes for a poor incentive for providing a good education, because they don't have to provide a quality education in order to make a profit.  All they have to do is get enrollment numbers high, and keep costs low.   This includes teacher salaries, who would be even less motivated to take the jobs let alone do well in them. 


Here's a hint:  Businesses don't care about providing quality products and services.  They only care about profit and keeping costs low.  So long as they can make money, that's all that matters.  They'll provide the lowest quality possible that allows them to still make a profit. And when you can use marketing to make your services look better than they are -- you're able to reduce quality of service even more.

And vouchers don't really work.  They sound like a good idea.  "School choice."  The problem is that parents choose schools more based on beliefs, than they do on anything else.  

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/03/29/vouch...milwaukee/


 

Quote:The Milwaukee voucher schools have never outperformed the public schools on state tests: See here and here. The only dispute about test scores is whether voucher students are doing the same or worse than their peers in public schools.

 

Accountability? Read here about some very low-performing schools in Milwaukee that have never been held accountable. One of them opened in 2001. Over the past 11 years, it has collected $46.8 million but its students perform worse than those in the public schools. Some choice.

Quote:I know it's radical but just take a step back and think about it. What initiative does the education system have today to make sure they're providing the best service? Sure some within the education system don't need a reason, it's a noble cause and work a thankless job to provide a better future, but you'd agree that's not across the board. If a school is failing do they have to worry about closing down? losing students to better schools? I'd argue schools would be 100% more efficient if ran by private institutions. 

 

You can even still have public funding for education if you fear only the rich getting an education, that's not even the angle I'm coming from. But if you gave the parents for example something like the voucher program, and said ok you pick the school your kids are going to attend. At the very LEAST you're now giving schools an incentive to produce better educated students, competition breads improvement.

 

There's plenty of places this has been implemented on small scales, vouchers and scholarships for poor kids in districts with horrible schools. You want to talk about helping the poor, give the kids a chance at a decent education instead of damning them to go to the same horrible schools located in the poverty districts. We wonder why poverty is such a constant cycle, I'd argue it has plenty to do with making families prisoners of their own communities.

You cannot fix the problem with privatizing everything. You also ignored the comparison to privatized medicine, which I think, is a fair one.

 

The free market is not perfect you just idolize it so refuse to see it's flaws. It tends towards monopolies and only a care for profits because that's the end game of free market capitalism. If regulated it can work but you want no regulations. You cannot put education in the hands of the rich which is what happens anytime privatization occurs.

 

If you privatize school, you will see the rise of rich schools and poor schools. One gets good teachers and one gets poor teachers. How does that even remotely help class warfare or poor neighborhoods? It would be the exact same thing now only with CEO's of school getting rich off something as important and needed as education?

I think this sums it up very well I lifted it from Voices of Liberty: http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/l...edium=post

 


Policy: Removing Government from Education
The Benefits:

• Standards will increase massively

Schools and staff won’t have guaranteed funding and wages, so they’ll be forced to deliver results for their customers (students and parents). If they don’t, they will lose customers to the competition, and could, ultimately, go out of business.

• Content will be aligned with the marketplace

Instead of teaching children a syllabus dictated by the whims of government bureaucrats, they will be taught by private sector educators who are more in tune with the trends and demands of the marketplace – and more able to adapt and change the syllabus accordingly. This means children will be equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to get ahead in the real world.

• It will open the door to huge innovation.

Education is a market with a never-ending supply of customers, and one where technology can make the costs of educating these customers very cheap. Under a state system however, there is no incentive or possibility for entrepreneurs and tech innovators to enter the market. But in a free market they will jump at the opportunity to enter it and disrupt it – the way they are doing to so many other industries. The innovation arms race that ensues will lead to one clear winner: the customer, who will receive a state-of-the-art education that constantly gets better and better as time goes on.

• Prices will tumble

The pressure on schools to deliver results or go out of business, along with fierce competition and massive innovation, will push the costs of education right down. Most will be able to afford it, and for those who genuinely can’t, charities and non-profits can fill the void. But it’s not too hard to imagine a future where a child can get a world-class education for the price of a cable subscription.

And there are many more benefits of the libertarian approach to education.

But education is just one of many areas in our society that libertarianism can transform. The key is letting people know about them in the right way – or if you prefer – the most effective way.

Today, that most effective way is by focusing on the benefits. The average Joe wants to know “What’s In It For Me?” So let’s tell him. Let’s make him see just how superior our product is to the alternatives on the market. Let’s be damn good salespeople for the libertarian cause.

Quote:I think this sums it up very well I lifted it from Voices of Liberty: http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/l...edium=post

 

Policy: Removing Government from Education
The Benefits:

• Standards will increase massively

Schools and staff won’t have guaranteed funding and wages, so they’ll be forced to deliver results for their customers (students and parents). If they don’t, they will lose customers to the competition, and could, ultimately, go out of business.

• Content will be aligned with the marketplace

Instead of teaching children a syllabus dictated by the whims of government bureaucrats, they will be taught by private sector educators who are more in tune with the trends and demands of the marketplace – and more able to adapt and change the syllabus accordingly. This means children will be equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to get ahead in the real world.

• It will open the door to huge innovation.

Education is a market with a never-ending supply of customers, and one where technology can make the costs of educating these customers very cheap. Under a state system however, there is no incentive or possibility for entrepreneurs and tech innovators to enter the market. But in a free market they will jump at the opportunity to enter it and disrupt it – the way they are doing to so many other industries. The innovation arms race that ensues will lead to one clear winner: the customer, who will receive a state-of-the-art education that constantly gets better and better as time goes on.

• Prices will tumble

The pressure on schools to deliver results or go out of business, along with fierce competition and massive innovation, will push the costs of education right down. Most will be able to afford it, and for those who genuinely can’t, charities and non-profits can fill the void. But it’s not too hard to imagine a future where a child can get a world-class education for the price of a cable subscription.

And there are many more benefits of the libertarian approach to education.

But education is just one of many areas in our society that libertarianism can transform. The key is letting people know about them in the right way – or if you prefer – the most effective way.

Today, that most effective way is by focusing on the benefits. The average Joe wants to know “What’s In It For Me?” So let’s tell him. Let’s make him see just how superior our product is to the alternatives on the market. Let’s be damn good salespeople for the libertarian cause.

Content will be aligned with political and religious beliefs. And you know it will be. Education cannot be allowed to be driven by either of those two things.

 

Libertarian policy is like socialism. It works on paper but does not work in practice. 

Quote:I think this sums it up very well I lifted it from Voices of Liberty: http://www.voicesofliberty.com/article/l...edium=post

 

Policy: Removing Government from Education
The Benefits:

• Standards will increase massively

Schools and staff won’t have guaranteed funding and wages, so they’ll be forced to deliver results for their customers (students and parents). If they don’t, they will lose customers to the competition, and could, ultimately, go out of business.


• Content will be aligned with the marketplace

Instead of teaching children a syllabus dictated by the whims of government bureaucrats, they will be taught by private sector educators who are more in tune with the trends and demands of the marketplace – and more able to adapt and change the syllabus accordingly. This means children will be equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to get ahead in the real world.


• It will open the door to huge innovation.

Education is a market with a never-ending supply of customers, and one where technology can make the costs of educating these customers very cheap. Under a state system however, there is no incentive or possibility for entrepreneurs and tech innovators to enter the market. But in a free market they will jump at the opportunity to enter it and disrupt it – the way they are doing to so many other industries. The innovation arms race that ensues will lead to one clear winner: the customer, who will receive a state-of-the-art education that constantly gets better and better as time goes on.


• Prices will tumble

The pressure on schools to deliver results or go out of business, along with fierce competition and massive innovation, will push the costs of education right down. Most will be able to afford it, and for those who genuinely can’t, charities and non-profits can fill the void. But it’s not too hard to imagine a future where a child can get a world-class education for the price of a cable subscription.


And there are many more benefits of the libertarian approach to education.


But education is just one of many areas in our society that libertarianism can transform. The key is letting people know about them in the right way – or if you prefer – the most effective way.

Today, that most effective way is by focusing on the benefits. The average Joe wants to know “What’s In It For Me?” So let’s tell him. Let’s make him see just how superior our product is to the alternatives on the market. Let’s be damn good salespeople for the libertarian cause.

 

 

And you'll have almost nobody wanting to go into the teaching profession.  The pay is poor as is.  When the safety of your job is on the line based on if the parents like what you're doing or not, it handcuffs teachers to the parents.  Why on earth would ANYONE want to be a teacher when job security is tied to the whims of parents?  The benefits are only to parents who want to control the education system so that their kids learn only what they want them to learn.



This is not a good thing at all.  Content should NOT be determined by the marketplace.  Otherwise you'd still have schools that don't teach evolution.  We'd be even further behind the rest of the world by politicizing the educational system.  The marketplace shouldn't determine content of teaching.  Ever.  



So you want Robots to take the jobs of teachers?  That sounds great for you to save money, not so much for the teachers who are working, and even less so for your children.  Teachers aren't babysitters, and if you think they are then I think you're sending your kids to the wrong school.  Robots can't do the same things that teachers can.  They can't analyze how a student learns, or what motivates them.  All a robot can do is spout information.  A teacher doesn't simply regurgitate information.  


And quality of teachers will go down, because nobody is going to want to be a teacher.  I guess since you'll all have robots, that's all fine and good.  The robots will be even worse, as explained above.  A robot can't adapt to your child.  Teaching isn't simply the regurgitation of information. 


It all comes at the cost of the students.  Cutting costs sound great for parents, but only for those parents who don't really care about the quality of education their kids get.  Because they care more about costs than quality, and that's exactly why for-profit schools will continue to be profitable.  Because parents would choose schools based on political beliefs and cost savings.  All at the expense of their child.


 

Quote:Every person in the USA is given a free high school education. What they do after that we shouldn't be on the hook for.

 

Free high school education, in most of the US, is a joke. I'm talking, from my experience, students in the 10th and 11th grade who can barely read an English text book. Our schools "job" shouldn't be to pass as many students as they can, even if they didn't deserve it.

 

From elementary to high school to collegiate level...it is our standards that we need to raise...not the cost.

Quote:And you'll have almost nobody wanting to go into the teaching profession.  The pay is poor as is.  When the safety of your job is on the line based on if the parents like what you're doing or not, it handcuffs teachers to the parents.  Why on earth would ANYONE want to be a teacher when job security is tied to the whims of parents?  The benefits are only to parents who want to control the education system so that their kids learn only what they want them to learn.



This is not a good thing at all.  Content should NOT be determined by the marketplace.  Otherwise you'd still have schools that don't teach evolution.  We'd be even further behind the rest of the world by politicizing the educational system.  The marketplace shouldn't determine content of teaching.  Ever.  



So you want Robots to take the jobs of teachers?  That sounds great for you to save money, not so much for the teachers who are working, and even less so for your children.  Teachers aren't babysitters, and if you think they are then I think you're sending your kids to the wrong school.  Robots can't do the same things that teachers can.  They can't analyze how a student learns, or what motivates them.  All a robot can do is spout information.  A teacher doesn't simply regurgitate information.  


And quality of teachers will go down, because nobody is going to want to be a teacher.  I guess since you'll all have robots, that's all fine and good.  The robots will be even worse, as explained above.  A robot can't adapt to your child.  Teaching isn't simply the regurgitation of information. 


It all comes at the cost of the students.  Cutting costs sound great for parents, but only for those parents who don't really care about the quality of education their kids get.  Because they care more about costs than quality, and that's exactly why for-profit schools will continue to be profitable.  Because parents would choose schools based on political beliefs and cost savings.  All at the expense of their child.


 

 

Of course people would still want to get into education, has privatizing college made professors harder to find? 

 

You cite evolution as an example so I'll explore this specific topic more. There's plenty of other theory's and variations of evolution what's wrong with creating a system where parents can choose? For example creationist would seek out creation schools, evolutionist would seek out evolutionary schools, why is that bad, neither of them are settled sciences. Let's say down the road to stay consistent the theory of creationism becomes so discredited the schools that continue to teach it would close because few if any parents are going to support sending their child to an institution teaching discredited curriculum. Just like if a school was teach faulty mathematics or using frustrating techniques like common core parents would chose schools teaching solid fundamentals and using better techniques. You seem to place more trust in government to dictate what should be taught and how it should be taught. I'd argue teacher AND parents would be better off in a system designed to give both parties more power, instead the alternative is state ran schools that are failing at historic levels, the system is broken.

 

Where's the robots coming from? Innovation can mean using technology like tablets or better computers. Imagine publishing industry competing to make the best presented and understandable curriculum for students to use. No one is talking about replacing teachers with robots, that's a straw man argument. 

 

It all comes down to shifting from an enviroment built on state funding which provides no incentive to improve the methods used, to a system that demands improvement.