Suppose, for a moment, that the Heritage Foundation were to put out a press release attacking the liberal view that even children whose parents could afford to send them to private school should be entitled to free government-run education.
They’d have a point: many American families with middle-class incomes do send their kids to school at public expense, so taxpayers without school-age children subsidize families that do. And the effect is to displace the private sector: if public schools weren’t available, many families would pay for private schools instead.
So let’s end this un-American system and make education what it should be - a matter of individual responsibility and private enterprise. Oh, and we shouldn’t have any government mandates that force children to get educated, either. As a Republican presidential candidate might say, the future of America’s education system lies in free-market solutions, not socialist models.
O.K., in case you’re wondering, I haven’t lost my mind, I’m drawing an analogy. The real Heritage press release, titled “The Middle-Class Welfare Kid Next Door,” is an attack on proposals to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Such an expansion, says Heritage, will “displace private insurance with government-sponsored health care coverage.”
And Rudy Giuliani’s call for “free-market solutions, not socialist models” was about health care, not education.
But thinking about how we’d react if they said the same things about education helps dispel the fog of obfuscation right-wingers use to obscure the true nature of their position on children’s health.
The truth is that there’s no difference in principle between saying that every American child is entitled to an education and saying that every American child is entitled to adequate health care. It’s just a matter of historical accident that we think of access to free K-12 education as a basic right, but consider having the government pay children’s medical bills “welfare,” with all the negative connotations that go with that term.
And conservative opposition to giving every child in this country access to health care is, in a fundamental sense, un-American.
Here’s what I mean: The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life. Even conservatives usually claim to believe that. For example, N. Gregory Mankiw, the former chairman of the Bush Council of Economic Advisers, contrasts the position of liberals, who he says believe in equality of outcomes, with that of conservatives, who he says believe that the goal of policy should be “to give everyone the same shot and not be surprised or concerned when outcomes differ wildly.”
But a child who doesn’t receive adequate health care, like a child who doesn’t receive an adequate education, doesn’t have the same shot - he or she doesn’t have the same chances in life as children who get both these things.
And insurance is crucial to receiving adequate health care. President Bush may think that lacking insurance is no problem - “I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” - but the reality is that the nine million children in America who don’t have health insurance often have unmet medical or dental needs, don’t have a regular place for medical care, and frequently have to delay care because of cost.
Now, the public understands the importance of health insurance, even if Mr. Bush doesn’t. According to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an amazing 94 percent of the public regards the fact that many children in America lack health insurance as either a “serious” or a “very serious” problem.
So how can conservatives defend the indefensible, and oppose giving children the health care they need? By trying the old welfare queen in her Cadillac strategy (albeit without the racial innuendo that made it so effective when Reagan used it). That is, to divert public sympathy from people who really need help, they’re trying to change the subject to the supposedly undeserving recipients of government aid. Hence the emphasis on the evils of “middle-class welfare.”
Proponents of an expansion of children’s health care have, as they should, responded to this strategy with facts and figures. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that S-chip expansion would, in fact, primarily benefit those who need it most: the great majority of children receiving coverage under an expanded program would otherwise have been uninsured.
But the more fundamental response should be, so what?
We offer free education, and don’t worry about middle-class families getting benefits they don’t need, because that’s the only way to ensure that every child gets an education - and giving every child a fair chance is the American way. And we should guarantee health care to every child, for the same reason.
Paul Krugman is Professor of Economics at Princeton University and a regular New York Times columnist. His most recent book is The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century.
© 2007 The New York Times
Right on.
The ruling elites of this country are out to destroy the Middle Class!
But unfortunately, Mr. Krugman, your reducio-ad-absurdum argument likening opposition to public health care to a hypothetical absurd proposal to abolish public education fails. Such an absurdity already exists! There is already is a growing contingent here in southwestern Pennsylvania who believe that public education is “socialistic” and should be eliminated.
They even have yard signs stating their refusal to pay their school taxes because they don’t have any children in school.
The oh-so USAn selfishness-and-irresponsbility-as-an-ethic will surely lead to it’s demise - hopefully sooner rather than later.
The entire future of the U.S. is completely bound up in having a healthy, well educated population. Educated people in poor health or poor people who are well educated, neither proposition is a good example of what the U.S. is all about. I will pay taxes any day for the benefit of children over paying taxes to annihilate complete countries. It is rational, reasonable and common sense.
Our elites are middle class, rich maybe, but that’s no contradiction. They sure as hell aren’t aristocrats except in their wildest of dreams as they weren’t born into any real nobility as is the case in some European countries. They are at best a pseudo nobility and nobility in their messed up minds only. Having said that, I’m in no way a water carrier for any nobility, but we need to deal with what really exists in this country, and it’s evil, pretentious, phony, turn ethics on its head types of the rich and
super rich, who are still really only middle class, as they aren’t and never will be nobility in the least. Actually though the gap between rich and poor is much greater than in other industrialized countries as Common Dreams has pointed out time and again. We’re a nation which worships the green back dollar, at least sub consciously, while consciously in our minds we’re saying no we hate a class oriented society. We live in a world of lying and denying the very essence of our society. A few of us eventually see this, but we have all had the effects of the brainwashing of our wrong headed, right wing biased eductional system and media throughout our lives with all its fairy tales about Horatio Alger BS and how “wonderful and decent” Uncle Sam has always been, but it’s a damn lie, and let’s deal with that.
Paul Foot, the late and great Englishman said it very well about capitalism, “It’s not a few rotten apples. The whole barrel is rotten.”
PJD,
Who paid for their kids to go to school? A classic case of I don’t want to pay for what somebody else paid for me. it’s plain selfishness. I am from western PA and I am embarrassed of those people and of you.
I find it an interesting hysterical (historical) footnote that while we have been propagandized to fight against anything even hinting at communism or socialism the first two sustainable English colonies in America (PLymouth, MA & Jamestown, VA) were ‘commonwealths’.
I believe it is time to revive this concept on a nationwide basis instead of just in these two states…both still called ‘commonwealths’ by the way. We have a shared responsibility to protect & defend our country, so why shouldn’t we have shared benefits?
On the education analogy, people used to be bright enough to understand that it is a benefit to the nation as a whole and to themselves individually if children get an education. But hey, it’s not my country. Knock yourself out with your $300 tax rebate. Enjoy.
krugman’s heart is in the right place, but he misses a few things: 1) somebody pays, always. property taxes for local schools, etc. still, by any rational economic analysis, it is cheaper to provide free health care for everyone (of course children) than not to. cheaper for society as a whole that is, not cheaper for the rich people heritage foundation types work for. 2) surely krugman knows what a charter school is? privatization is creeping into the public school system, too. right wingers underfund services they don’t like, say ’see gov’t doesn’t work’ and then privatize it. they even do this w/their favs like the military & prisons (they just don’t underfund them)
Why should I pay for other people’s health care? Or education? Or protection from criminals? Or roads that I never use? Or to defend parts of the country I don’t live in from would-be invaders? I don’t care about them! I care only about me! ME! I’m a 100% Patriot who loves America and hates Americans, especially the nonwhite ones. I’m just out here alone in the woods with my independent power supply, homespun clothes, gun collection and rugged individualism.
You know, it’s fun playing right-wing nut. The scary part is that’s where so many Republicans are mentally if not in reality.
“I am from western PA and I am embarrassed of those people and of you.”
I think you misunderstood me - I was writing critically of these “libertarian” kooks. I believe in free, universal, uniform-high-quality education from K through, if qualified, PhD.
I believe the people with the yard signs either don’t have kids, send them to private schools, or home-schooled them.
As far as Pennsylvania, the biggest probelm here in Allegheny county is its incredible patchwork of tiny, RE-tax funded schools districts leading to unconscionable inequality between rich and poor areas. Everywhere else I’ve lived, the county runs all the schools so funding gets equally distributed between rich and poor neighborhoods.
“…both [Virginia and Mass.] still called ‘commonwealths’ by the way.”
The other two commonwealths are Pennsylvania and Kentucky.
When I was last in California, the right wing foremen at the quarry I was visiting (to investigate a fatal accident), were mocking the political viewpoints of the nearby “peoples republic of Santa Cruz”. One of them then said mockingly “yeah the commonwealth of Santa Cruz”. I then replied “I live in Pennsylvania - and Kentucky and Virginia before that - They’re all commonwealths too!”
I got no response except the typical dumb USAn stare of incomprehension…
“Here’s what I mean: The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life.”
And there’s the rub - what the “great majority” believes and what’s true: that less than 2 percent of the poor and middle class will ever rise above the income level they were born into. Why? Because the “free market” is the most rigged game of all, and we’re only permitted to watch. From a distance.
What middle class?
Oh, that dwindling number of wage slaves whose buying power has decreased 10-15% over the last 15-20 years.
Interesting - in my area, the minimum income required for a family of four to break even is in the $35000 range while Bush and the GOP have kept the definition of poverty for a family of four at $20000.
20 - 25 years ago a head of household could support a wife and 2 children in their own dwelling(probably renting) and have a car making only minimum wage. Not very fancy anything but doable.
Think about it. The richest country on eath cannot take care of its own.
jdpst44 and PJD,
what ever happened to sen Santorum’s kids getting special ed or something like that paid by local school ? Did they stop now that he is back in town ?
curmudgeon99:
i don’t know
i just don’t know
how america is the richest in the world!!
have live in most areas of america
and in a couple of places in europe
just don’t know
how american wealth
is calculated
to make it number 1
ken
It’s definitely not ‘quality of life’ for the average wage-slave.
It has the best health care - but only forr those rich enough to afford it. If this is not true, why is it cheaper(including airfare) to go to foreign countries to get top-notch treatment on procedures.
The whole concept of “middle class welfare” is flawed. Implicit in the concept of “welfare” is that the benefits are going to those who are unable to contribute to those benefits. Thus the outrage we are supposed to feel at these welfare queen thieves taking our hard-earned money while not paying any taxes themselves. But the middle class pays a huge portion, if not most, of the taxes in this country. And the burden is constantly rising as the super rich get greater and greater tax cuts. How is it welfare to actually get something for the money we dump into the federal coffers?
My brother has a very good friend who lives in Switzerland. Both he and his wife are well paid professionals, and at that time we spoke with them had no children. Of course, they were paying fairly high taxes, certainly by our standards. She had a PhD in something like math, which she obtained at tax payers expense. We asked them why they didn’t mind paying so much into taxes for education when they had no children. His response was that it was good for society, and ultimately good for them. People with better educations get better jobs, and pay back more into the system, which makes their retirement better. I was struck by their ability to grasp the larger picture, that it ultimately makes their life better too. Somehow, Americans can’t seem to grasp that concept, certainly not conservatives. Everyone also gets basic healthcare in Switzerland. They pay extra for premium benefits. They both love the way their system works, despite the fact they’re paying relatively high taxes.
Its not entirely a matter of historical ‘accident’ that we have public education in this country. That is one of the great steps forward that was taken in the movement towards democracy in this nation by earlier generations. Earlier generations recognized that democracy and a republic can only exist and function if there is an educated population. At the time, there was no such thing as ‘public education’ as far as I know. That’s an invention of American citizens who knew it was a fundamental step that democracy requires.
Of course, today’s corporate leaders likewise recognize that a democracy requires and education public. Thus the slow destruction of public education over the last forty years and the mind-numbing stuff that passes for entertainment these days.
Interseting comment Paul. Most are not aware, the state of Pennsylvania is not a state, never has been. Pennsylvania is a Commonwealth.
Paul Krugman makes a good argument but limits it too much. Why stop with health insurance? Auto, property, and life insurance ought not to be something that generates profit because (as Michael Moore so accurately points out) the only way a for profit insurance enterprise can make money is either by raising rates or find new and more inventive ways to deny claims.
The purpose of all insurance is to protect the insured from catastrophic loss and the purpose of business is to make ever increasing profits for share-holders. These are mutually cotradictory goals. Make all insurance governemnt-run and keep profit out of the enterprise.
“The great majority of Americans believe that everyone is entitled to a chance to make the most of his or her life.”
We sure do. But only some of us figure that this means we’re entitled to have someone else carrying us on their back.
We need a free market solution for the military instead our communist model of a military for the whole country. Let those who are rich enough, and want to invade other countries, pay for the military themselves.
We already have universal health care. Poor people simply go to the ER once their easily treatable health problems ($400 treatment) become difficult crisis problems ($40,000 treatment). The hospital sends them a huge bill, they go bankrupt and pay a small fraction of it, and everyone who has health insurance makes up the difference. What’s all the whining about?
(A few poor people get some form of govt care. People who vote often (older Americans) get the royal treatment - free govt health care.)
Mtn Goat, did you go to school K-12? If you did, didn’t your community pay for it? So you are prepared to accept community effort, just not provide for it, right?
In my country, private schools, with a few exceptions, are primarily known to be for those dumb rich kids who are too stupid to make it in a public high school, where standards are high. And that’s the way it should be.
I can’t understand why every public school in America isn’t paid exactly the same amount per pupil or teacher, no matter how rich the school district is.
I am sure that this eternal perpetuation of “rich communities feed rich schools and poor communities just remain poor” must be violating some priciple of the US Constitution. And the state or the federal government have to cough up a lot of money anyway - for the prisons, where those so consicously left behind tend to end up at some stage.
Chip, you are as wrong as you can be. Wake up to the fact that we live under the rich white man’s rule, and he decides and we pay the price in blood, lives, taxes, deaths, poor health, and all the rest to make sure he can sit on his booty and take all we produced for him to live like a king and tell us to go to hell as long as he has the scum bag politicians in his back pocket. The rich and super rich are ones getting the damn free ride just as they have been for more than five hundred years going back over to England and some of the rest of Europe, where they had their own version of the rich white man’s affirmative action program but didn’t ever have the honesty to call it that.
God forbid a poor white kid from the Appalachias becomes the next Steve Jobs.
God forbid a poor black kid from NOLA becomes the next president of the United States.
God forbid a poor hispanic girl from East LA finds a cure for AIDS.
That’s why there’s so much opposition from the right regarding the idea of universal free education.
Under capitalism everything is targeted to become an industry. They have a firm grip on health care, and they want education. No Child Left Behind punishes public schools in impoverished communities for failing in what is assumed to be a level playing field. “School choice” is the euphemism that applies only to those families with the financial capital and social capital to exercise any choice.
Capitalism has no friends; it only has interests. They will privatize the public schools, then the water, then outer space, and then your momma.
CoMark—the public educational system was created, not for the benefit of democracy (although that should be the essential reason), but rather to meet the DEMANDS OF EXPANDING INDUSTRIALIZATION. The workforce needed the 3 R’s (reading, riting, rithmatic) to operate the functions of machines and business. In addition, schools were structured to simulate the workday of future employees: the length of the schoolday, the hierarchy of the classroom, competition for grades, the worker ethos, the learning by rote, graduating students with just-enough-knowledge to fit on the assembly lines, etc.
These clever industrial barrons were quite pleased to have the government foot the bill—hmmm I guess they’re still getting corporate welfare handeouts today.
Hence, the intentional decline of education parallels the demise of the
industrial sector over the last 40 years. The corporations have no use for an educated worker anymore, and in fact, are dependent on dumbing down the workforce in order to justify bringing down wages. It is, as it always has been, about business.
BRAITHWA & PAVROVIAN DOG: Excellent points!
“I can’t understand why every public school in America isn’t paid exactly the same amount per pupil or teacher, no matter how rich the school district is.”
I can’t understand why anyone would even think this is a good idea. Why shouldn’t people be allowed to choose to pay their teachers more than somewhere else?
“I am sure that this eternal perpetuation of “rich communities feed rich schools and poor communities just remain poor” must be violating some priciple of the US Constitution.”
Not at all. The founders were not socialists. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are all derived from *negative* rights, not positive ones. Hence the equality of rights is the equal right to have govt stay out of your life and buisness, it is not any guarantee of equal outcomes or equal payments via govt edict.
“Mtn Goat, did you go to school K-12? If you did, didn’t your community pay for it? So you are prepared to accept community effort, just not provide for it, right?”
Accept it? Where I grew up in Penn, it was a crime not to send your kids to school, and taxes helped insure we were not able to afford private ones. So yes, my family accepted it…if being forced by law to accept it counts…. which it does not.
Health care is not schooling and in spite of Krugmans shot at logic, *neither* should be state functions. The fact that one is and the other is not does not mean both should be, it indicates one is as it should be, and one is not…and that one should be changed. Krugmans logic is applied in the wrong direction.
“The corporations have no use for an educated worker anymore, and in fact, are dependent on dumbing down the workforce in order to justify bringing down wages.”
Then how is it I and my compatriots in engineering have steadily increasing wages and jobs everywhere that want us? How does this square with your statement? I am continually authorized to spend more on new hires fresh out of school. This doesn’t square with your statements either.
It may be that degrees in womens studies or comparative lit or ‘communications’ lead to incredible opportunities as a barista or waiter, I am not saying these fields do not also require intelligence, but choosing a field with no market value is not the same as claiming corporations intentionally want stupid employees.
I don’t know where you work, but mine certainly does not and neither do any of our competitors.
Spicegal–I liked your observation about your relative in Switzerland that noted people there did not seem to resent their fairly high taxes as long as they had top notch education and health facilities. As you said, they realized if most all of their people had a rewarding life, then it made it better for them also. Our right wingers in USA seem to feel they will be happy in a country that most are struggling along with little of anything. Don`t get me wrong, we have to keep a close watch on extravagant expenditures in schools aas the tax burden is getting pretty high. However I would rather see my taxes go for education and healthcare for all than for protecting the fortunes of the rich and demolishing other countries. Of course,
our kids and grandkids are going to be charged with paying off the enormous war debt that the “conservatives” seem to believe is a great endeavor. Sure hope the Chinese don`t want their money back anytime soon or we will all find out what really high taxes are.
I don’t see you sweating forcing your kids to pay off the SSec debt you will saddle them with.
When an article and its commentary get MtnGoat’s goat, then you know it’s onto something. He or she (I imagine it’s a white male born with class privilege) seems to dream of a world in which no government exists, with the possible exception of the military, police, and prison-industrial-complex. And even those entities can be and are being privatized. Education and health care happen to be human rights, and the struggle to claim them as such will not be intimidated by your libertarian logic.
Who wants to intimidate you? Not I. You’re the one who uses the tools of intimidation, and demands that they be used to serve your purposes to begin with. You won’t find me threatening you into paying for what I want you to support, and you won’t find me supporting people doing so, and you won’t find me arguing to put you in jail for it either.
The shoe is on the other foot, your ‘rights’ as described *depend* on intimidation and law and jails, and you support the use of all these tools to get your way. Don’t even bother trying to claim that shoe isn’t yours.
Yawn. I’m going to bed. Democracy will prevail. It’s not “my” purposes; it’s the interests of the people.
Sure. they’re not your purposes, you just want them without it being you wanting them. Good work attempting to divest yourself of responsibility for what you support by hiding in the herd.
I’m sorry, you may be unaware of this…but what you want is still YOU wanting it, and you still own responsibility for that regardless of how many agree with you,and when YOU vet methods that use threats to get your way, yes, YOUR way, you’re responsible for doing so.
It’s very noble you dress up what you want as being ‘for the people’, but it’s still you wanting it, still you judging what is ‘for the people’, and still you backing those actions…so yes, it’s you wanting things for your own reasons.
MtnGoat- Social security that our kids have payed into can come back to them by not having to take their parents into their own homes to live out their last years, possibly making a bad situation for everyone. In the case of better-off people, some of the payments may still be available for childrens use for college expenses, etc. Bush, of course, would rather privatize that along with everything else which would leave everyone involved in a state of confusion and would end the program. Can we come and live with you kids since we have nothing to eat, wear, or live in?
what? they’ll pay even *more* to have someone else take care of their parents for them, and further because of the demographic bulge of boomers retiring, each kid is going to have to pay for an increasing number of retirees.
Their payroll taxes are going to go up to pay into a system which will have *fewer* people to pay for them when they are that age, than they had to pay for when they were young.
Shifting who cares for their parents does not shift who pays for it. They do either way, and in the SSec case, they will pay for even more people than just their own parents. They will never see the amount they pay in for themselves when their time comes. They are on the unfortunate side of a big pyramid payment scheme.
MtnGoat—I am very happy for you and your good fortunes which you are enjoying, courtesy of your engineering degree. I would advise you to look across the Pacific Ocean:
it won’t be long before engineering will be as common as working at Walmart—let’s see, 5% of approx 2 billion Chinese and Indian= 100 million highly intelligent engineers who will do your job at a great savings to the company that employs you. Connect the dots and look at the BIG picture, please. I see that you bought into the biggest lies: the american dream, the very rigged “free” market, etc. Go get a little Marx under your belt…and try to get past the “commie” label, just long enough to digest some very serious, profound, analytical thinking.
To spicegal…
I am Swiss, and I don’t see the taxes as that high especially with what you get for them, a functioning, safe, clean, system. All Swiss are required to pay for health insurance with rates set by the state by Canton and there are problems because rates are not related to costs, there BUT those who can’t afford it are helped. My health insurance runns me about $2500 (but if you have a family of five with each paying this, it can add up) a year. What makes Switzerland work (and remember it is about the size of Massachusetts) is that if the citizens don’t like a law that was passed, they gather signatures and then everyone votes on it. If they want the law passed, gather signatures and everyone votes on it. It seems like if it is Sunday there’s a votation. I won’t say it is perfect, Switzerland has problems like everyone else, but since I chose to become a citizen rather than be born there, I have found it the best country I have seen and I have lived in several.
Mtn Goat - Take your self-serving Libertarian views and move on. You’re not helping here. Maybe all you self-impressed, self-made, self-sufficient types should set up shop in some remote part of the world, each put up you own flag, and fight it out to see who can last the longest on their own.
Mt. goat
That you would support the SAVAGE, RACIST, INEQUALITIES in children’s educational opportunities - assigning the poor to continued poverty - is positively VILE.
And before you go on about with any Horatio Alger stories, you should know that economic mobility from modest meands in “socialist” Europe (there aren’t any really poor people there) is much greater than in the US. So, even this ugly-USAn bragging point is a big fat lie.
Go troll somewhere else.
Poet,
I don’t agree that insurance should be “government run”. Government insurance is too often structured to bail out serial risk-takers; a great example is the Federal flood insurance plan. On the other hand, for-profit insurance is incentivised exactly as you describe: such corporations MUST become the enemy of their insured clients; the BOD and officers are legally bound to maximize return to shareholders. However, there is a middle way that ensures that insurance (pun?) is fairly managed: mutual companies with engaged policy-holders.
Unfortunately it’s true that many formerly mutual insurers have de-mutualized in the past thirty years, usually to the enormous fiscal benefit of the then-officers of the company. The way to prevent that is to change the incorporation statutes such that any retained earnings and the proceeds from the payment for a privatization must be paid in entirety to policy holders of some historical and current period. The capital structure of the company going forward must be entirely replaced by the would-be owners. More to the point, though, the officers of a mutual company must be forbidden from working in the insurance industry in any capacity for a period of five years after agreeing to a privatization.
Mt Goat - If you want to see a end-stage of your model of atomistic individualism where the concept of society itself is rejected, let me suggest Colombia, El Salvbador, or post-Sandinista Nicaragua. The only possible stable end-state of such a system is the rapid accumulation of the pnation’s wealth in a tiny minority of feauding rich poeple, and misery and slavery for everyone else.
“it won’t be long before engineering will be as common as working at Walmart—let’s see, 5% of approx 2 billion Chinese and Indian= 100 million highly intelligent engineers who will do your job at a great savings to the company that employs you. Connect the dots and look at the BIG picture, please. I see that you bought into the biggest lies: the american dream, the very rigged “free” market, etc”
We already deal with these folks and their excellent abilities. We build on their minds and abilities using our minds and abilities. We outsource whatever widget design we can and pay our engineers to design higher level devices which use the inexpensive widgets we pay them to design.
The idea that there is some limitation because of competition is simply false. I know this because we leverage their design resources *continually* in order to do designs at an even higher level. To use an abstraction as an example, you are fixated on who designs hammers, when I’m telling you we use those hammers to build buildings because now we don’t need to design the hammers.
You’re the one who is not looking at the big picture. Everywhere we pay these engineers there is an influx of capital that raises their living standards, bit by bit. Before my time, the US and other nations used design and production houses in Japan and Taiwan for example. Their standard of living increased and inexpensive services moved to Thailand, the Phillipines, and other SE asian nations.
Now their standard of livin is rising and as they leverage what they have learned for themselves, the inexpensive design work now goes to India and China. You got that part right….but you ignored the migration of capital that places these jobs in India and China.
These wage differentials are not permanent, the ‘race to the bottom’ stuff is hogwash, nations *want* capital because it increases their development capital. There is no ‘race to the bottom’, there is a slow increase in general living standards in all these nations. Eventually there will be no place where labor is substantially cheaper and then all will use their skills to compete on the same level.
Marx’s ideas are not self consistent and contain numerous logical flaws and value judgements pasted in as fact. Marx has done more to damage to humanity and his ideas have caused more misery and death than anyone in the last thousand years, other then Muhammed.
“Mtn Goat - Take your self-serving Libertarian views and move on.You’re not helping here.”
I recognize that all some want is an echo chamber here instead of being challenged. Too bad. Others here manage to put up cogent arguments and to do so, learn to flesh out their own ideas and explore their basis while learning about other ways of looking at things.
You can recreate the echo chamber you seek my merely ignoring my posts. Of course, that require conscious action and self control on your part. That may be a tall order. We’ll see.
“Maybe all you self-impressed, self-made, self-sufficient types should set up shop in some remote part of the world, each put up you own flag, and fight it out to see who can last the longest on their own.”
I’m neither self made, self impressed, or self sufficient. No one is. We all interact and need to for everyone’s benefit. The problem is, you have an inherent difficulty in understanding the idea of *true* cooperation. It requires no threats and few laws. All it takes is people who respect each other.
The idea that not interfering with others lives requires living on an island is the detritus of a seriously limited worldview. All it requires is this…the refusal to decide one’s own views are better than those of someone else to the degree you’ll force yours on them.
That’s it. No need for a desert island. Merely treat those around you as being as smart and valuable as you are, and as owning the right to follow their own hearts and minds. I know this one is a tall order.
“And before you go on about with any Horatio Alger stories, you should know that economic mobility from modest meands in “socialist” Europe (there aren’t any really poor people there)’
That’s why the UK for example *still* has headlines concerning the poverty rate in the UK.
“Mt Goat - If you want to see a end-stage of your model of atomistic individualism where the concept of society itself is rejected, let me suggest Colombia, El Salvbador, or post-Sandinista Nicaragua.”
Who rejects society? Not I. I reject your conception of it, and don’t bother telling us your view of society is the only valid one.
Not one of those places you mention has the conditions that would make them models for examination. You need to stop using your own misinterpretations of ideas as the basis for your judgements of said ideas. It will lead to better judgements.
I would like to declare MTNGOAT the smartest person alive. All his points are not only well written but so valid as well.
If you want him to stop debating here then stop responding to him.
PJD sorry about that. You have good points. Western PA education is very unfair. One district has to close down (Duquesne) while another school district (Mt. Lebanon) throws their extra books away. (A friend I know substituting there saw this happen.)
I’d like to reject the nomination for the smartest person alive, I’m merely average like most others. I appreciate the kudos though.
Hey - This started out as a discussion about education and who should pay for it. And it’s not a new discussion.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to include the “right to a free education” (paid for by taxpayers) in the Bill of Rights, but he lost that one. And remember that of all his accomplishments he was proudest of his founding of the U. of VA, then free, and he also started some free schools in VA after he “retired”.
Notice that on his tombstone he wanted only “Founder of the University of Virginia” and nothing else (except his dates, of course).
If only he had won that debate about the Bill of Rights we wouldn’t still be debating this now.
MTNGOAT,
If the ‘invisible hand’ is such a great concept then why, under this pro-business/anti-government administration, have the ranks of the unemployed, impoverished, uninsured risen so much over the past six years? I do believe you need to look at the bigger picture. In the wealthiest nation in the world we have increasing poverty, and one out of twenty-five children under 18 are homeless. Something is very skewed here.
I won’t go so far as to call you un-American, because of a limited discourse, but some of your ideas seem elitist, selfish, and contrary to EVERY American raising their standard of living. Real purchasing power in this country has fallen because of outsourcing, failure to raise the minimum wage for ten years, poor education, stifled upward mobility, huge medical expenses out of line with the quality of care, and illegal immigration.
Corporations don’t mind this because it raises their bottom line, and assures the top one percent of the population gets more of their share of the dividends the workers slave for (especially the top 1/10 of one percent who now make more money than the bottom 50%). Isn’t it time we spread the wealth around a bit more fairly, so that the rising tide floats ALL boats and not just the yachts?
One way to do this is through education, but increasingly the bottom portion of the population are excluded due to increased educational costs. By your thinking only those who have money already are the ones ENTITLED to an education, so they can make more money, and only those who can afford health care are the ones ENTITLED to it. Don’t you realize that if America (and Americans) are to truly do well in this world we must look out for each other? Sometimes this might mean paying more than the next guy. Often this means progressive taxation rather than regressive.
I’ve never understood the greed associated with the wealthy, who use more services so should have to pay more, pissing & moaning about having to pay their taxes. What’s the big deal? Let 90% percent of the people in this country make a million dollars a year and they would gladly be willing to pay 80% of it in taxes. If a person can’t live a great life on $4,000 a week they are out of touch with reality, poor managers of their income, just plain greedy, or maybe all three.
“If the ‘invisible hand’ is such a great concept then why, under this pro-business/anti-government administration, have the ranks of the unemployed, impoverished, uninsured risen so much over the past six years?”
I’m not sure we live in the same universe. Unemployment remains at near record lows, our ‘impoverished’ are some of the wealthiest people on the planet compared to real poverty, and the ‘uninsured’ has never been a promise of capitalism to fix.
Doubly so when the market is not actually free to cater to them, for one thing because of market interference which drives up costs, such as mandatory inclusions in care, and the other reason, selling to low income people would be attacked as ‘exploiting’ them.
“I do believe you need to look at the bigger picture. In the wealthiest nation in the world we have increasing poverty, and one out of twenty-five children under 18 are homeless. Something is very skewed here.”
I think you need to examine the basis for the picture you’d like me to look at. Since I do not view other people’s property, lives, or resources as my tools…I do not consider anyone’s wealth in looking at problems.
Wether we are the wealthiest or the poorest makes no difference, free citizens make choices that will result in vastly different outcomes, and the ‘invisible hand’ has not ever been held to satisfy socialist style metrics. There is no claim everyone will be served to someone elses satisfaction.
“I won’t go so far as to call you un-American, because of a limited discourse, but some of your ideas seem elitist, selfish, and contrary to EVERY American raising their standard of living.”
I reject the claim of elitism, because I do not hold that I am any smarter, or better, than anyone else, or that my ideas are ones they should serve under penalty of law because I know better than they do.
As for selfish, that is true because every person on earth uses their own minds to derive their own ideas and beliefs, and uses those ideas as a basis for action on what they believe to the true. I am selfish because every single person on earth is.
I am not against every single person raising their standard of living. Nothing I have said can be construed as opposing everyone raising their standard of living. However, what I say can be directly construed as using some people to raise the living standards of others, using laws as threats unless they do so. I do not oppose your ends, I oppose your tools.
“Isn’t it time we spread the wealth around a bit more fairly, so that the rising tide floats ALL boats and not just the yachts?”
So far poster and authors on this website have been batting .000 on explanations why I should ignore that trade is a two way street.
Trade *does* spread the wealth, because wealth is not just money, and every single person trading their money away already agrees that what they get for it is worth what they gave away for it.
This fixation on the idea that ‘wealth’ is only money, which ignores 50% of the substance of every trade, irrevocably destroys every argument based on this innately flawed idea.
“One way to do this is through education, but increasingly the bottom portion of the population are excluded due to increased educational costs. By your thinking only those who have money already are the ones ENTITLED to an education, so they can make more money, and only those who can afford health care are the ones ENTITLED to it.”
No one is ‘entitled’ to *anything* which is provided by someone elses property or labor taken from them under threat. What you are entitled to is the ability to trade, if you have something to trade. What you are doing is explaining why some have the right to expect others to support them on the basis that their rights will be taken if they do not. This is a form of slavery.
“Don’t you realize that if America (and Americans) are to truly do well in this world we must look out for each other?”
Of course I do. I merely disagree with your methods of looking out for Betty by making Sam pay for her or else he goes to jail or has his property seized. That is the action of tyrants. People are not placed here to serve the ideals of their fellows or face jail.
“I’ve never understood the greed associated with the wealthy, who use more services so should have to pay more, pissing & moaning about having to pay their taxes.”
What ‘more services’ do they use?
“What’s the big deal? Let 90% percent of the people in this country make a million dollars a year and they would gladly be willing to pay 80% of it in taxes. If a person can’t live a great life on $4,000 a week they are out of touch with reality, poor managers of their income, just plain greedy, or maybe all three.”
I agree. But I will still never agree to help anyone threaten others into living under this worldview simply because I agree with it.
Other people are not mine to direct because I don’t like how they live or what they do with their money. I may not like their lifestyles and I certainly may think they are wasting their money..but their lives are not mine to use or direct.
Hey, Mtn. Goat! Still at it! Damn, I’m impressed. I suppose if I were a masochist, I’d be on National Review’s blog night and day. In a way, I agree with your vision of a peaceful and prosperous anarchy. But I’m more of the anarcho-syndicalist variety. There will be no peace in this world as long as human exploits human. The long historical chain of exploitation through slavery, feudalism, colonialism, and neo-colonial global capitalism must be broken.
I gotta hand it to you–you’ve got stamina. I’m all for the battle of ideas–that’s what democracy is all about.
I agree there will be no peace until human stops exploiting human. This is why I refuse to back the ultimate tool of exploitation…the use of govt power to exploit people, no matter who they are, rich or poor.
Take a look at your chain of exploitation and you find that every link in it is forged by the idea that some people have the right to direct the actions of others by force. Slavery, feudalism, colonialism, neo-colonial capitalism.
The use of force against others poisons the well irretrievably. It allows thinking of other people as tools or inferiors who must be directed for their own good. Look at how many arguments for the use of force here rest on how other people aren’t smart enough or moral enough or good enough to do what various posters are sure is right.
Every one of these people is arguing to place their own ideals and ends over those of the people they think should be subjected to their will by law.
In every case they are supporting treating other people as if the poster’s judgement is superior in such a way that it should trump another human’s rights to pursue their own goals and values.
When challenged, a significant number will attempt to hide moral responsibility for what they support by hiding in the herd, “it’s not me it’s others who support this too”. that may be the case, but it doesn’t end their own moral responsibility for doing so as well. It seems they are perfectly comfortable for blaming other people who *also* act with groups for their own choices, but they themselves will dodge this by hiding in the herd..thus effectively denying their own minds and choices and blaming it on someone else.
I appreciate your willingness to debate marxymark, and your statement that you somewhat agree is heartening, it appears you have some idea of the basis for my arguments, even if you don’t buy them completely. At least you appear willing to read them and consider them from a logical application of ideas. Other folks here appear to want nothing more than an echo chamber.
I often disagree with mtn goat, but I agree with his ideas that people need to be respectful of each other and of ideas.
I also agree that there is little point in preaching to the choir.If we can’t overcome mtn goat’s rather gentle-personly dissent, we will have that revolution I’ve heard calls for amongst ourselves. If we can’t persuade mtn goat of our postition, what is our hope of persuading the Rabid Right of the strength of our arguments?
I appreciate that Bobita.
I’ll tell you straight out you have a long row to hoe in order to convince me of the morality of placing my ideas and values ahead of someone elses by law, is not a violation of their right to be themselves and act based on their own minds and values.
In the interim I’m glad to see there are reasonable people here even if we disagree.
I’m with you on some points, mtn goat, I believe people shouldn’t be made to do things by law and force, but because they believe it is right.
I hope their ideas will be similar to mine, but I am aware that frequently they won’t be.I find people often just get in a written shouting match when they find themselves with differing perspectives instead of trying to be persuasive, and this agressive stance suggests we still aren’t all that civilised in many cases, although we are usually civil on CD, I was thinking more of the comments boards of my local daily paper.
wcdevins said: “Mtn Goat - Take your self-serving Libertarian views and move on. You’re not helping here.”
True. Common Dreams is a site for the “Progressive Community” - it says so right at the the top. The intent is “to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America’s future.” This site was not intended as a soapbox for Ann Randian Libertarians or “I got mine, get your own” conservatives. Libertarians, conservatives, and liberals/progressives have different visions. This is a site for progressive vision.
Prior to the addition of responses after articles, and then the infiltration by Libertarian and conservative trolls, that is what this site was. I’d like to see it get back to that: a place for progressives to trade ideas, not debate those with a different vision.
Mtn Goat says: “You can recreate the echo chamber you seek my merely ignoring my posts.”
Finally, Mtn Goat gives useful advice folks. Take it. Ignore his posts and use the time to read something useful for progressives.
jdpst44 added: “If you want him to stop debating here then stop responding to him.”
Yes, please, let’s have ideas or useful information here, not political debates with those philosophically opposed to progressive philosophy.
“Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens’ organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions.”
Got that?: progressive visions. Not regressive visions.
Mtn Goat is attacking, not helping. All he is doing is taking up valuable space. There are plenty of forums on the internet for political debates. By filling up this site with lengthy responses, Mtn Goat is burying progressive thought under an avalanche of wordy attacks. He stealing attention and time away from creative progressive thought. If you want this sight to “promote progressive visions” ignore Mtn Goat and trolls like him.
wcdevins said: “Mtn Goat - Take your self-serving Libertarian views and move on. You’re not helping here.”
True. Common Dreams is a site for the “Progressive Community” - it says so right at the the top. The intent is “to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America’s future.” This site was not intended as a soapbox for Ann Randian Libertarians or “I got mine, get your own” conservatives. Libertarians, conservatives, and liberals/progressives have different visions. This is a site for progressive vision.
Prior to the addition of responses after articles, and then the infiltration by Libertarian and conservative trolls, that is what this site was. I’d like to see it get back to that: a place for progressives to trade ideas, not debate those with a different vision.
Mtn Goat says: “You can recreate the echo chamber you seek my merely ignoring my posts.”
Finally, Mtn Goat gives useful advice folks. Take it. Ignore his posts and use the time to read something useful for progressives.
jdpst44 added: “If you want him to stop debating here then stop responding to him.”
Yes, please, let’s have ideas or useful information here, not political debates with those philosophically opposed to progressive philosophy.
“Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens’ organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions.”
Got that?: progressive visions. Not regressive visions.
Mtn Goat is attacking, not helping. All he is doing is taking up valuable space. There are plenty of forums on the internet for political debates. By filling up this site with lengthy responses, Mtn Goat is burying progressive thought under an avalanche of wordy attacks. He stealing attention and time away from creative progressive thought. If you want this sight to “promote progressive visions” ignore Mtn Goat and trolls like him.
Thankyou Advocate for clearing the air and returning our focus. I’m a bit intrigued by MTNGoat, though, and just have a couple questions if you don’t mind.
First, why do you feel so threatened? Who is forcing you to do something that would not benefit you as well as others?
Second, I noticed you mentioned the items of slavery, feudalism, colonialism, neo-colonial capitalism, but you left out religion, the supreme control measure throughout human history. What is your ‘take’ on that issue?
Third, you seem to have some of the Grover Norquist bent in your writing/philosophy. You know, “Shrink government to the size you can drown it in the bathtub”. Doesn’t it make sense that in as complex a society as ours as the economy & population grow the government should grow almost accordingly? Notice I said ‘almost’ because at some point governments should offer a ROI (return on investment) by learning to become more efficient. Sadly, though, this hasn’t proven to be the case, likely due to the greed factor I mentioned earlier.
Finally, if the present system displeases you so much (and I’m not real happy with it either) what manner of social organization would you suggest that would be fair & do the greatest good for the largest number of people?
“I’m not sure we live in the same universe. Unemployment remains at near record lows,”
This is a misleading statement. People only stay on the unemployment records while they are receiving unemployment benefits. Once they stop receiving unemployment benefits they go off the records and are no longer counted as unemployed.
“Wether we are the wealthiest or the poorest makes no difference, free citizens make choices that will result in vastly different outcomes, and the ‘invisible hand’ has not ever been held to satisfy socialist style metrics.”
Misleading statement. this assumes that all people are treated fairly and equal and have the same opportunity. Racism, sexism, religous intolerance and handicaps do come into play. I’m sure that its hard for a blind man to have the same opportunities as a non-blind person. Or try living your life as a black man in the rural south.
Sorry folks. I just hate when people think that everyone is treated equal in our society. And I hate that if someone has money then they are automatically considered smarter or more blessed. And I really hate that people think that rich people work the hardest. What a fallacy.
I am a progressive.
Capitalism is systematic selfishness.
It’s designed for people to try to maximize their own personal profit at the expense of everyone and everything else. Capitalists brag about collateral benefits and don’t worry about collateral damage.
There is a simple solution to Libertarians — don’t trade with them. I don’t. I simply ignore them and go spend my valuable time with someone else, dealings with whom are more beneficial to whatever I want to achieve regarding the world. It’s the Free Market, after all.
As Goat said, the Invisible Hand wasn’t put in there to solve issues according to “Socialist metrics”, and capitalism is not there to create a better world according to the way we understand it — they produce a world according to what I can only characterize as Darwinist metrics. Some Libertarians do pay lip service to the idea that their ideology would result in a genuinely better world even for those not able to fend for themselves, but considering the corresponding economic ideology (and the occasional vitriolic bursts about “parasites” and what have you) that is hard to believe. After all, it’s never going to be competitive enough in a fully competitive environment not to seek to maximize profit. Try not to, and you’re outcompeted… that’s the whole point. And to question the outcome is logically wrong, because after all, you’re not really supposed to care about the outcome. The rationalization of nihilism is quite remarkable.
It’s perfectly within people’s freedom even from the Libertarian perspective to be only co-operative within a setting where they genuinely know some things are taken out of competition. That’s how I try to live my life, and if some Libertarian starves in the process, I honestly don’t care. Libertarians have managed to at least educate me to lose my general concern for others when it comes to _one_ group of people
Children are everybody’s future. Who wants their offspring to be or to be raised by the ignorant and ill? Unschooled leaders and contagious neighbors will do no one any good.
Personal greed can never lead to wisdom.
Not only children deserve the basics of health. In this Great Morass that is the American Society we all contribute to America’s Glorious and Painful Evolution. Why would you mark Children as More Human and More Deserving than Adults? THis is the sort of attitude I am familiar with personally that Childhood is a special priveledged Halcyon Time which is supposed to sustain us in the Dreary Life forced on us when we’re Adults.
Do you not take pleasure in Life as an Adult? Is it in some way Not Worth-While for you? if so for you you need to seek counseling on your Priorities.
I don’t mean to be abusive but is childhood the only pecious time in life?
I understand well. -This is how you were raised. But if you step back and take a look at your life and the lives of our fellows , You will see an idealique beauty that childhood is only the promise. Even if it’s only a life of service , it is beautiful and precious. such precious lives deserve all the health-care we need regardless of our station in Life.
Thankyou for your attention. The shortest path to World Health is World Peace
PaulMagillSmith
“First, why do you feel so threatened? Who is forcing you to do something that would not benefit you as well as others?”
Shouldn’t people feel threatened by being threatened? Every single law on the books is a threat. For some actions this is appropriate, for others it is not. Where the threats are used to take our rights, they are not. Where the threats are used to protect our rights, they are.
Since I defend only the negative rights formulation of rights, any law which acts against these is a fundamentally unjust threat.
“Second, I noticed you mentioned the items of slavery, feudalism, colonialism, neo-colonial capitalism, but you left out religion, the supreme control measure throughout human history. What is your ‘take’ on that issue?”
It depends on what the religion is backed by, the same as any of the other ideas I mentioned. When the religion is backed by State power and used to violate people’s rights, it is just as bad as colonialism or slavery. The reality here is that in every single case, the root problem is that all these systems devolve back to forms of slavery, and religion, where backed by State power, is no different. Good catch by the way, I’d not mentioned that one.
“Third, you seem to have some of the Grover Norquist bent in your writing/philosophy. You know, “Shrink government to the size you can drown it in the bathtub”. Doesn’t it make sense that in as complex a society as ours as the economy & population grow the government should grow almost accordingly?”
Yes, certainly. But not all govt action is the same. It certainly makes sense to grow law related to contracts and rights protection as new ideas and products mean new interactions between rights and people and the need for law to reflect these changes. On the other hand, nothing ever gets so modern and complex that human rights should be taken. (Of course here I speak again of negative rights).
“Notice I said ‘almost’ because at some point governments should offer a ROI (return on investment) by learning to become more efficient. Sadly, though, this hasn’t proven to be the case, likely due to the greed factor I mentioned earlier.”
I tend to eschew evil causes for most human outcomes, and this is another. I place blame for this on a few things, all inherent to governance. One, a lack of incentive…when it’s not your own money or your company’s budget and you have a direct pipeline to more because the customer cannot simply refuse to pay, spending and waste is simply not a top concern.
Two, budgeting should be zero based and redone every so often from the ground up, rather than simply being based on prior spending, which leads to the tendency to spend it all because if you don’t, your budget may get cut next year.
Three, the very basis of govt is insufficient to be efficient compared to individuals and private buisness. A limited number of people with guaranteed cash flow cannot hope to stay as efficient as the choices and systems developed by hundreds of millions of people, each working their own specific problem with their own specific goals.
It doesn’t matter how smart or well intentioned the people in govt are, nothing can match the parallel efforts of far, far more people all acting to solve their own problems using their own values as a guide.
“Finally, if the present system displeases you so much (and I’m not real happy with it either) what manner of social organization would you suggest that would be fair & do the greatest good for the largest number of people?”
Granted no one is ever really happy with any given system. And I presume you are not one of the know nothings here with the bogus arguments about ‘unproven’ ideas, an innately flawed principle for analyzing ideas since it has the intrinsic flaw of being unable to explain how anything new would ever happen.
Finally, grant me that every system has flaws and predators and that no system is ever perfect, which is appears you are willing to accept.
In that case, then of course the system I think is the most just for the greatest number is the system I argue here daily….limited (in power, not necessarily size) govt, and extremely strong protections of negative rights.
If you examine my arguments you see that the legal violations of people’s rights throughout history is alway via govt. When atrocities occur, it is govt that commits them or permits them, or buisness doing so…again using govt power. Without this tool the abuse of people is by definition *illegal*.
We have a chance to break this cycle by choosing to let go of the tool that ultimately causes the harm…sanctioned use of force against people who have done nothing to take someone elses rights.
Look at how it works here. On a board where people argue against turning people into ‘others’…you see it all the time. Those other people are stupid. Those other people are greedy. Those other people are mean. Those other people don’t care.
Now that the basis has been established, it’s time to use govt against them. To take their rights by law, to threaten them into doing what the *observer* wants. To literally force the replacement of the person’s judgements with the observers judgement..WHO CLAIMS TO BE BETTER AND SUPERIOR, typically, because ‘they care’ or are ‘aware’. To the degree that their will should supplant that of people they don’t even know, doing things for reasons they cannot even know.
The entire argument is fraught with unknowable assumptions and yet it is used to back threatening people with jail, depriving them of liberty, removing them from their families, wasting their irreplacable time here on this earth because someone else doesn’t approve.
The use of State power for non negative rights violations is like the Ring. It’s seductive. It seems you can do so much good…as seen by the observer. And yet the choice to do so creates the need to do more and the willingness to use it more, and it cascades from there as each use justifies the next.
So this…retain a voting republic as we have now. Immensely strengthen negative rights protections and remove power from the state to impose them, now NO corporation, or anyone else, can *legally* interfere with any citizen. Continue to expand legislation protecting these rights as new ideas and technologies arise that create new interactions. Radically Isn’t this the protection so many desire here?
Well, I’ve been rambling a bit but you kinda asked for it. Any details I’ll be happy to flesh out. Thanks for being open minded enough to ask the questions in the first place.
I don’t know Who’s Crazier, mt git, me or you.
Negative Rights- What’s that? Satanism?