From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:24:54 MDT
>From: Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
>First of all, I see Extropy Institute as having an educational
>function.
As a sustaining member I agree. ;)
>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 agree, but I don't think the current school system accomplishes
this, I see it as a bloated bureaucracy in need of major reform.
>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 if we simplify the tax structure somewhat the average
person will meet these minimum needs more easily.
I know you're being somewhat rhetorical here though, I know you
well enough to know that you do not think a bunch of fat, dumb, and
happy couch potatoes sitting in front of the T.V. is a proper
Extropian future.
How about a bunch who eat right and are out with the (2) kids on a
bike ride to the local SBC high speed internet equipped
hyperlearning center?
>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.
Because they have the "free" schools to go to.
>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?"
Actually I see the current situation differently, and school system
reform is a number 1 item on the agenda. I see others paying the
bulk of the cost for education so people have as many kids as they
want and don't really get involved with the educational system
because they incorrectly perceive it as free. Plus they get tax
deductions for having kids so why not have more, plus get an earned
income tax credit i.e financial reward for being poor and staying
poor.
I think when people have to reach into their wallets they get more
interested.
>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.
Having a friend who does tax law for a living, I know the answer,
but I'm not saying until it passes.
>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.
I favor it at any rate since it will be more egalitarian. I also
believe that once it starts hitting the advocates of more spending
the rate will be much lower than I'm paying now. But as long as
it's fair I don't mind either way.
>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.
Under the current tax structure I am against increases in social
programs.
I reserve the right to bitch long and loud against an unjust
system, and my voluntary cooperation is directly proportional to
the justice of a system.
As I stated I do believe in some social programs, and while I do
think private solutions are better than most government solutions,
if the people decide they want more in an improved system fine,
they will be paying for them for a change.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:14 MST