From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 11:16:47 MDT
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 10:46 am, Brian D Williams wrote:
>
>> From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>
> We agree completely here.
Cool.
> We begin to disagree here, I don't agree at all with the common
> myth that it is somehow to my benefit to pay the bulk of the costs
> for other peoples children to be educated. Although I do hope/plan
> to assist children of friends/family with their education when the
> time comes.
First of all, I see Extropy Institute as having an educational
function. Spreading memes about science, technology and the future is
good. I have similar feelings toward basic math and science being
taught to the next generation. I think the biggest factor that
determines whether we get into space, implement nanotechnology, and
greatly extend my lifespan is directly proportional to the quality and
quantity of education received by the next generation. If they mostly
graduate as science-illiterate boobs, then the human race is doomed. If
they have a large proportion of scientists and logical, rational,
intelligent thinkers, then a whole new era of progress will begin. I
see no charity in my educational goals. I really am trying to steer the
direction of the next generation toward the scientific future I desire.
> I can see limited funding for some safety nets, but disagree with
> the Socialistic Insecurity and Medicant examples. Since neither is
> likely to be around when it's my turn, I am again funding someone
> else's safety net (read as insufficient/bad planning) and also have
> to fund a personnal safety net in case the public net fails.
OK. I will concede that these are not good examples or don't work
well. But I do believe in some minimal safety net. I really believe
that my safety in my own home is directly proportional to the number of
starving people within walking distance of my home. If they are
desperate for food (or drugs or whatever), and they can get to my house
and back in the course of a dark night, then this creates a threatening
environment for me. If they are fat, dumb and happy in front of their
TV set with minimal food and entertainment (bread and circuses), then I
feel much safer. Again, charity has little to do with my motives. I
simply want to improve the neighborhood where I live, and improve the
quality of my life.
> I think we can simplify this process a great deal. Greatly reduce
> the amount of tax money used for education and let the parents pay
> the bulk of the cost for example.
In theory, this would be great. I agree wholeheartedly with this
concept. However, in reality, it seems to fail. We have this now.
Anybody can see that their children are failing in school and pay for a
decent education to replace it. This doesn't happen. The poor are
unable (or unwilling) to do this. They don't know or don't care, but in
any case they simply aren't getting a good education for their kids. So
the question I perceive is not answered by your proposed solution. I
think we are past the point of "Who pays for the children's education?"
We now must ask, "if the parents fail to pay for their children's
education, do we want to enact an emergency alternative, or do we just
let the next generation grow up ignorant and opposed to science?"
> Set a flat rate for taxes, and have everyone pay, then if people
> want more social services, everyone pays. As the system is
> currently run those who favor these increases are not the ones
> paying the bills.
I would prefer a flat tax. I believe this would lighten the burden on
poorer people and increase the tax paid by rich people. I keep seeing
that statistic that 5% of the richest people pay half the taxes. But
since that 5% earns more than half the money, I think a flat tax would
make them pay more than half the taxes. What is funny about the flat
tax proposal is that the rich think it will lighten their burden, while
the poor likewise think it will lighten their burden.
Everybody who claims to be for a flat tax is really for their own taxes
to go down while everyone else's taxes goes up. When examples are
worked out and a flat tax is proposed that increases taxes, everybody
who would receive an increased tax is suddenly against it. So to be
clear and consistent, we need to specify if we are for a flat tax even
if it costs more, or if we really are only for it as a form of tax-cut,
and against it if it would cost more. In the latter case, most people
don't really care or support a flat tax.
> Once we have a much more egalitarian system, we can talk about new
> social programs like health insurance.
Although this makes sense as a rule, it might not fit well in real
life. You seem to be saying that you won't cooperate with a system
until it is totally fair. There will always be some flaws in every
system which some will use as an excuse not to cooperate. I agree with
the part about fixing the system, but I see this an unrelated to the
issue of whether social programs are required or not. It seems to be
wheeling-and-dealing politics or blackmail to say I won't support this
program, until we change this other program I want changed. People,
even on this list, seem to link ideas and then argue for one point when
their real goal is another. Arguing for flat-tax when their goal is
really less tax, would be one example. Arguing against labeling because
they really want less government would be another example. Likewise,
here, arguing against specific social programs because other programs
are run poorly is an indirect expression of one's goal. If we take this
pessimistic viewpoint to its logical conclusion, everybody should be
against all programs because they all tend to get run poorly. In any
case, we need to be clear if we are against the goal of a program,
against its implementation, or merely against giving the government more
power whereas we really would totally support the exact same program if
it were run by a private enterprise.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:14 MST