my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

[Cavernio]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Devonin: From my understanding, there're bartending courses, and then courses you need to take in order to serve alcohol, and they are 2 different courses. I wasn't talking about a bartending course, where you learn how to mix drinks.

I just gave an example of your straw manning, when you said schools provoke violence. Violence is possible in any social situation, and since we live in a society, we're going to have that possibility anywhere. If you want to be a part of most organized things, (which also allow tremendous opportunity through that organization), you're going to have to be a part of some sort of social group.
Furthermore, your poor example of violence is only good if you are forcing people to go to school, which, is NOT true, hence my other statement. They don't have to do that, they can be home schooled or self-taught.

Many people would say no one knows what's best for them. These people include the world's Hitlers and Stalins. Why draw the line at any one age? People make bad decisions at every age. That doesn't justify restricting freedom.

Another instance of straw manning. You're comparing the public school system to Hitler. There's nothing inherently wrong in saying what's best for yourself and others. There's nothing wrong with the public school system because you're not forcing people to use it. Yes, I know that by having it at all, you're restricting other choices people have, (do you think that's coersion?) but restriction, on some level, will happen no matter what. For instance, Coodles would be more restricted if there weren't a public education system for him. I will restate again that people who like to hire someone with a piece of paper is not a product of the government.

To paint an idea in a poor light is perfectly valid, (making it a straw man), insomuch that it may be true. It doesn't, however, address any merits the problem might have, or include how often worst case scenarios occur versus better ones.

As far as the farmers who don't make money and then shut down, I don't really see that as a problem. Well, I sorta do, but not one which the US can rectify. Solving that would require no one to have a government of any type whatsoever, which is a silly idea, since you'd have to make people not organize their own groups and make their own currency, or hierachy, even when they'd want to.

[Chrissi]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking your behavior, which meets the exact criteria necessary to be described as lazy and dishonest. If someone says "I don't care about the truth if it comes from a radically different perspective because understanding that perspective would be too much work", that fits the description.



Really? I guess you missed all the, you know, arguments I made which you have failed to address.



Yes you have. You claimed not to be interested in the truth, which is the epitome of dishonesty.

If you continue directly attacking me, I have no choice but to be dismissive. I can't argue with someone who repeatedly tries to put me down. Yes, I do understand that you made some arguments and some points. No, I am not going to address them until you learn to argue in a civilized way.

And I don't see how saying that I don't want to argue about whether an educated society is a good thing is dishonest. I just don't want to argue it. Hey, look at all the billions of people in the world that aren't arguing it either. I just happened to say that I don't want to. It would take too much effort and come to no conclusion, IMO. But if you want to give me reasons why an educated society is a BAD thing, I'll consider them.

With less strawman, please.

[lord_carbo]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Chrissi: Stop attacking me.
Kilroy: I'm not attacking you, lol.
Chrissi: WEEELLLL if you refuse to stop attacking me, I'm out.

With less strawman, please.

P.S. ILY Chrissi <3

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

I just gave an example of your straw manning, when you said schools provoke violence.

This is an example of an argument. It is also not my argument. Hence if anyone here is straw manning it is you

Violence is possible in any social situation, and since we live in a society, we're going to have that possibility anywhere.

Already addressed. See previous post.

Furthermore, your poor example of violence is only good if you are forcing people to go to school, which, is NOT true, hence my other statement. They don't have to do that, they can be home schooled or self-taught.

I'm not sure how things work in Canada, but in the US in order to home school a child a parent has to jump over a number of prohibitive hurdles. Dropping out to teach oneself prior to the age of 16 is an impossibility. At least without jumping over even more significant hurdles.

Another instance of straw manning. You're comparing the public school system to Hitler.

You don't understand what a straw man is. A straw man is for all intents and purposes a misrepresentation of the argument of another. What you named is an example of an argument I have made. Ironically, it is yet another argument which you have misrepresented, making you guilty of the fallacy.

This is how the argument proceeded

Chrissi:

1. It is the opinion of some that youth do not not what is best for them (Assumption, explicitly stated)
2. It is possible for there to be a good outside of what is valued by any given subject (Assumption, implicitly stated)
3. Youth should be made to do what is best for them (1,2)

Me:

1. It is the opinion of some that almost no one knows what is best for them and that they should be made to do what is (supposedly) best for them (Assumption, explicitly stated)
2. Among these people are Hitler and Stalin (Assumption, explicitly stated)
3. The actions of Hitler and Stalin are undesirable (Assumption, implicitly stated)
4. The opinion that no one knows what is best for them can serve as at least partial justification for undesirable coercion (1,2,3)

There's nothing inherently wrong in saying what's best for yourself and others.

Well, there's probably nothing wrong with saying much of anything. However there are tremendous technical difficulties in determining what is best for others. How would you propose we do this?

There's nothing wrong with the public school system because you're not forcing people to use it. Yes, I know that by having it at all, you're restricting other choices people have, (do you think that's coersion?) but restriction, on some level, will happen no matter what. For instance, Coodles would be more restricted if there weren't a public education system for him. I will restate again that people who like to hire someone with a piece of paper is not a product of the government.

Ah yes, I am familiar with this one. However, there is an important distinction here going neglected. Restriction is properly an action which diminishes a person's opportunity or field of action. However, the lack of public education system is simply a failure to provide additional opportunity or room within field of action.

To the objection that this seems like an arbitrary designation of positive and negative, the statement can be rephrased as follows: Restriction is legitimate to the extent it maximally prevents infringement on person or legitimate property, and (perhaps this next part I'm adding will prove more contentious) was desired by the person(s) or property owner(s) who represent the primary victims. In other words, restriction should be considered legitimate only insofar as it prevents as much harm to the person who would be harmed by lack of restriction as possible, while doing as little harm to the individual who would be doing the primary act of harming as possible.

The financing of public education is an infringement upon property. Certain instances of individuals in public schools are examples of violation of person.

To paint an idea in a poor light is perfectly valid, (making it a straw man), insomuch that it may be true. It doesn't, however, address any merits the problem might have, or include how often worst case scenarios occur versus better ones.

This comes across as gibberish to me. How is a valid argument a straw man? You clearly don't understand what a straw man is.

What does a quantitative examination stand to teach us? What do you even mean by "merits the problem might have"?

As far as the farmers who don't make money and then shut down, I don't really see that as a problem. Well, I sorta do, but not one which the US can rectify. Solving that would require no one to have a government of any type whatsoever, which is a silly idea, since you'd have to make people not organize their own groups and make their own currency, or hierachy, even when they'd want to.

That wouldn't be a requirement. Government or other forms of organization are permissible to the extent they do not contain elements of coercion, or contain as few as possible. The problem is simply that I cannot readily think of any Government which meets this criteria.

Also, the problem of the farmers is simple; allow immigrant labor and allow the farmers to pay less than minimum wage. You don't even need to get rid of minimum wage, since we're just talking about the farmer's problems. There would of course be possible problems with this approach though. The market is messed up enough that there are almost guaranteed to be dramatic costs to almost any significant reform. There are a fair number of psychological components involved in this in addition to the mechanics of the market.

[Cavernio]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

An argument cannot be stated by you and not be your own unless you state at that time that it's not. If you didn't mean that getting hurt in school is an act of forcing people to get hurt, then you shouldn't strongly imply that it is.

About Hitler thinking what was best for others, I understand everything the exact same way as I did before. The school system is NOT acting like Hitler as it lacks many other things for it to become so. That Hitler thought was was best for people is NOT the only thing that caused him to be Hitler. Your argument is basically an aside to the discussion about the school system.
It is very annoying for someone to complain and say that something can be bad if it takes bad route when that something has not come close to going down that bad route. It's NOT THE ISSUE, and furthermore, if it were to become as bad as Hitler was, it would be rejected.

The way you re-word 'restriction' doesn't change my views on the benefit of public schooling whatsoever, as I see public schooling benefitting the poorer people who would otherwise not have the resources (be it money, a library, time, smart parents, etc.). Poor people aren't taxed in Canada at least. (income tax that is.) It also hardly harms the richer people since, again, there is the option to go to public school if they don't like the public one or get homeschooled, and the richer you ARE, the less that amount of money means to you. That's key, for me. (Plus, most people will probably be happy to be a part of something which can break the catch22 of poverty.) Public schooling fits the criteria of being least restrictive like a glove, IMO.
About age restrictions to what a person can or can't do, that's another issue which can be dealt with separately without stopping public schooling. (As an aside, not all age restrictions about what a person can do come from government either...people don't just not hire kids because the government tells them not to.) No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My gibberish makes sense to me, and I don't feel like re-stating things. It's about the issue I have with you comparing public schooling to Hitler, which I'm already addressing elsewhere anyways.

About the farmer issue, it only happens because there's a difference in values of things across markets. Immigrant laborerers are happy with being paid less than minimum wage because they send their money back to Meixco where it's worth much much more, and as such, they're being paid over minimum wage. This isn't about coercion, this is about what happens when you've got more than 1 market.
Besides which, like I'll say again, I don't see it as a problem that that farmer can't operate. (Errrm, part of me does, but because it's indicative that we're only allowing for factory farming, which, depending on what you're farming, shouldn't be allowed the way it's being done for environmental reasons.)

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

An argument cannot be stated by you and not be your own unless you state at that time that it's not.

...what? How does this help your argument that I was straw manning?

If you didn't mean that getting hurt in school is an act of forcing people to get hurt, then you shouldn't strongly imply that it is.

Well I'm not quite sure this sentence has all the necessary nouns in it to demonstrate understanding of my argument, but I also don't see the relevance of your oh-so-daring daring argument "people should say what they mean". I did say what I meant.

About Hitler thinking what was best for others, I understand everything the exact same way as I did before. The school system is NOT acting like Hitler as it lacks many other things for it to become so. That Hitler thought was was best for people is NOT the only thing that caused him to be Hitler. Your argument is basically an aside to the discussion about the school system.

Of course there were other things that caused Hitler to be Hitler. I actually flat out stated that in my last post, if nowhere else. It is not necessary for the school system to meet every last criteria that Hitler met. This would be impossible anyways. It is only necessary for the following things to hold.

1. The act of putting children in school is sometimes against their will
2. This act is supposedly justified by the argument that children are people who do not know what is best for them
3. The act of Federalizing property and establishing a police state is largely against the will of one's citizens.
4. The act of Federalizing property and establishing a police state is supposedly justified by the argument that one's citizens are people who do not know what is best for them.

It is very annoying for someone to complain and say that something can be bad if it takes bad route when that something has not come close to going down that bad route. It's NOT THE ISSUE, and furthermore, if it were to become as bad as Hitler was, it would be rejected.

Specific actions that occur within the context of the school system are equivalent in character to specific actions undertaken by Hitler. As in, now, at this very moment. It is not a requirement for the school system to order the execution of 6 million Jews for the argument to be valid. It is not a requirement of the school system to invade Poland for the argument to be valid. Not only do you not understand the argument, it doesn't seem you understand the mechanics of argument itself.

The way you re-word 'restriction' doesn't change my views on the benefit of public schooling whatsoever, as I see public schooling benefitting the poorer people who would otherwise not have the resources (be it money, a library, time, smart parents, etc.).

oh, ok. The way you casually state something in complete opposition to what the main argument of this thread is; the argument stated in the title no less; without addressing any opposing argument, for among other things the belief that an argument is simply a "re-wording"...

Yeah, that doesn't change my beliefs. Maybe you should learn how critical discussion is supposed to work before attempting it.

Poor people aren't taxed in Canada at least. (income tax that is.)

How is poor defined? In the United States, people who earn something like less than $10,000 dollars a year are considered below the poverty line. However this creates an odd effect. People often choose to remain below the poverty line in order to avoid paying income tax and to receive welfare benefits because it is actually a detriment for them to earn more money.

It also hardly harms the richer people since, again, there is the option to go to public school if they don't like the public one or get homeschooled, and the richer you ARE, the less that amount of money means to you. That's key, for me.

They don't have the option to do something other than school. This could be construed as harm. Also, relative utility value of money simply indicates we must phrase harm in relative terms, not that harm does not occur.

(Plus, most people will probably be happy to be a part of something which can break the catch22 of poverty.)

Then they would likely be at least partially mistaken about the effectiveness of the education system in this regard. See two places above. Alternatively, see the entire rest of the thread.

It's undeniable that some people will use the current education system to make a better life for themselves. It isn't undeniable that they couldn't have benefited equally well or better from an alternative arrangement, or that other people would have had better lives than they currently do because the current education system had a detrimental effect on them.

Public schooling fits the criteria of being least restrictive like a glove, IMO.
About age restrictions to what a person can or can't do, that's another issue which can be dealt with separately without stopping public schooling. (As an aside, not all age restrictions about what a person can do come from government either...people don't just not hire kids because the government tells them not to.) No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are a lot of babies in bathwater at the moment and some of them are drowning. Also, in order to continue using the contextualization you are using, you need to provide an argument against my "re-wording".

My gibberish makes sense to me, and I don't feel like re-stating things.

Then chances are I won't understand you. Saying you don't feel like re-stating things means saying you don't feel like actually having an argument.

About the farmer issue, it only happens because there's a difference in values of things across markets. Immigrant laborerers are happy with being paid less than minimum wage because they send their money back to Meixco where it's worth much much more, and as such, they're being paid over minimum wage. This isn't about coercion, this is about what happens when you've got more than 1 market.

I wouldn't say it only happens because of that, although that does heighten the motivation. Recent studies have shown fewer immigrants are sending money back home.

Another thing. You are confusing two different things. The motivation for immigrants to come work is certainly not coercive. At least not on its own terms. It might be the result of coercion in the sense that market intervention, both from the Mexican government and internationally, created conditions which made immigration the most advantageous action to take.

What is coercive is anti-immigration policies. It is coercive because the government has no claim to the land, labor, or property of (most) others. Specifically farmers.

Besides which, like I'll say again, I don't see it as a problem that that farmer can't operate. (Errrm, part of me does, but because it's indicative that we're only allowing for factory farming, which, depending on what you're farming, shouldn't be allowed the way it's being done for environmental reasons.)

I never said anything about factory farming. This is barely even relevant. You would need to provide a more thorough argument for why factory farming is wrong, but considering you haven't addressed anything else yet I'm worried that trying to do so would just lead us further into the territory of nowhere.

[Cavernio]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Congratulations, you've become the single most infuriating person I've ever discussed anything with.
I have addressed the issue with your re-wording of 'restriction', which, hard for you to believe, is the same definition of the wording which I saw beforehand. I'm not saying things are perfect the way they are, I'm saying I think they're better than what they would be.

In order for you to convince me of a change which would be better, you'd have to describe in detail how having no public school system would be better than having one. I know already some of how it could be, from things we've discussed before, so I'd rather you not tell them to me again. What I DO want you to address for me, (and me specifically, since this is the issue I have with getting rid of social programs, like public education) is how we can break the cycle of poverty. I'm aware that obviously what we have isn't perfect, (before you mentioned them in your past few posts btw...It seems I'm not as ignorant as you think I am.)
I'm also not concerned with people who choose, for themselves, from an equal starting ground, a life of poverty. I'm talking about the issue of people being born poor who are as a result, almost doomed to be poor without social programs.

Here's a scenario how things could work without government, and yet get large projects funded. Well, without government, there's nothing to stop organizations which aren't government from helping out people. But there's no way they'd be as effective. The only way they could be is if EVERYONE contributed something, which isn't going to happen. Not only that, you'd have 1000's of different organizations, all running different things, yet all of which would benefit from being centrally organized. They could share resources. I suppose you could have a government-like organization which centrally runs all types of social programs, where it's not mandatory for people to put money into. But clearly, since people aren't heartless monsters, everyone who has anything to contribute will contribute something for some cause. Now there's also the issue of running around and collecting all this money. Can you imagine the phonecalls you'd get and the people knocking at the door for donations? That'd be almost an infringement of people's rights. You could simply put everything neatly into 1 bundle, where people fill out something each year for donations. Say one year, some famous person died of cancer, and suddenly everyone's putting money into fights against cancer, and some 90% of all donations collected were for cancer. (Since the place is 1 organization, because people realized they could do more with less, as we already saw, this is known data which would otherwise never be known.) But that's so much more money than the organization's ever gotten for cancer, so they've got tons of funds left over. Turns out that every other group is hurting for money because of this, and so to everyone in the organization, it makes sense to put at least some of this cancer money towards these other areas. So far, nothing that I've said has been questionable ethically, except for this. But lets say everyone who donated (so practically everyone) knew that 90% of the funds were actually towards cancer, and they knew how much money all the other organizations wanted afterwards, and knew the proposed projects and current ones, and people were given a chance to change where their money could go. You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best. However, in practice, that'd be impossible. Not everyone 1) would be able to know everything and 2) would be able to put that much time and effort into determining what exactly they should put their money into, because it depends on what everyone else puts their money into!
This problem can be fixed by having a few people whose job it is to determine the need of the organizations who want money, and by knowing how much money they'll get. Maybe these people won't do a good job, but they'd certainly want to. Keep in mind that in order for this to happen, you'd have to agree with the previous things I've said, and you'd have to want things to be well-organized.
This sounds like a government to me. The major difference so far is that it's run on donations versus mandatory taxes. And that's where the 2nd questionable thing is. Why should someone who makes more money HAVE to donate more? Say they didn't. People would know that. Word would get around, and they'd probably think poorly of them. In fact, if some rich person never donated anything at all to the organizations, people could get pissed and might try and harm them. And whatever law enforcement existed might not a give a **** and let people kick the crap out the person anyways. (Unless they were so rich as to pay their own guards, and then now you've basically got the set up for a dictator.)

Or you could get people who don't want anything to do with government, because they think they ideas bad from the start, because they're looking at it backwards, and then you just end up with a bunch of pockets of organizations and people who refuse to function as a whole together, where opportunity is being passed by.

Or you could end up with corruption in government over time, and end up with something like a dictatorship. Or a single rich person could be benevolent, smart, and start a non-corrupt government.

How does government become corrupt? In my mind, when people start doing things for reasons other than to help others, and when you stop including the wishes of others in the way things are run.

That you argue specific points about how things are done poorly right now is practically irrelevant about getting rid of public schools completely. That you put peoples individual rights to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others is fine, however, government is not impeding this more than not having one, since we know that not having one would not allow for the the same opportunity as exists with one. Did Hitler see that and try and make use of central organization? Probably. Does that matter? No.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

Congratulations, you've become the single most infuriating person I've ever discussed anything with.

That's your own damn problem.

I have addressed the issue with your re-wording of 'restriction', which, hard for you to believe, is the same definition of the wording which I saw beforehand.

I don't know what this means. Are you claiming that my most recent argument about the character of various types of "restriction" was identical to my previous argument? Even if this were true, which it most certainly isn't, you still never addressed the first argument. You literally said "your argument doesn't change my opinion" and then promptly followed it up with nothing.

I'm not saying things are perfect the way they are, I'm saying I think they're better than what they would be.

Then you need to address the arguments presented in favor of a voucher system and in favor of a free market education system, by Friedman and Rothbard respectively.

In order for you to convince me of a change which would be better, you'd have to describe in detail how having no public school system would be better than having one. I know already some of how it could be, from things we've discussed before, so I'd rather you not tell them to me again.

It doesn't seem to me like you've learned much of anything from our conversations. How am I supposed to know where to draw the line on my explanations? More importantly, since you've clearly misunderstood or failed to understand large sections of my previous arguments and understanding of them is necessary for understanding what I'm saying now, what you are asking for is incoherent.

What I DO want you to address for me, (and me specifically, since this is the issue I have with getting rid of social programs, like public education) is how we can break the cycle of poverty.

Ok.

Here's a scenario how things could work without government, and yet get large projects funded. Well, without government, there's nothing to stop organizations which aren't government from helping out people. But there's no way they'd be as effective.

What evidence do you have they wouldn't be as effective?

The only way they could be is if EVERYONE contributed something, which isn't going to happen.

What evidence do you have that contribution from all parties necessarily correlates with the most effective possible aid? What evidence do you have that all parties contribute to current government programs?

Not only that, you'd have 1000's of different organizations

Evidence?

all running different things

Evidence?

yet all of which would benefit from being centrally organized.

Evidence?

This last part doesn't even make an ounce of sense in light of the previous two segments of the sentence. That's right, you've created a sentence which is logically inconsistent with itself. Here's how.

If every organization is running something different, something truly different, then central organization if it is even beneficial at all will be only marginally so. I mean seriously, let's look at some possible combinations of diverse private organizations.

We could combine the tobacco lobby with the Students for a Democratic Society.

We could combine Focus on the Family with the AARP.

We could combine PFLAG with the Peace Corps.

These are problematic enough. What about flat out contradictions that would be generated by complete centralization though? What about, say, combining Focus on the Family with PFLAG?

They could share resources.

All resources of value are finite, and only a limited number could be used more efficiently by sharing. Carpooling might be an example. It increases the efficiency of time spent driving, and it increases the utility of gasoline, among other things. On the other hand it is unlikely that, say, a sandwich could be put to better use by sharing it with 6 other people. Or a pair of pants.

More importantly though, there is nothing preventing sharing of resources on the free market. In fact in typical incoherency critics of the free market often attack this as something which causes trends towards "monopoly", while simultaneously advocating government centralization. I'm most certainly not going to give you the benefit of the doubt in this area.

Show me the following:

*Sharing would never occur on the free market
or
*Sharing would occur less on the free market, with losses in utility incurred here greater than gains in utility incurred elsewhere.
and
*The government can consistently be expected to create an ideal amount of sharing, without incurring losses of utility elsewhere greater than the gains in utility from sharing.

Now there's also the issue of running around and collecting all this money. Can you imagine the phonecalls you'd get and the people knocking at the door for donations?

Can you imagine alternative arrangements for charity? Apparently not, despite the fact many exist now.

That'd be almost an infringement of people's rights.

What the hell is an almost? It either is or it isn't. In this case, it isn't.

You could simply put everything neatly into 1 bundle, where people fill out something each year for donations.

If this proved to be the most efficient process for charity, that would likely happen. To the extent that charities would be willing and able to cooperate with each other anyways.

(Since the place is 1 organization, because people realized they could do more with less, as we already saw, this is known data which would otherwise never be known.)

What does this mean?

Say one year, some famous person died of cancer, and suddenly everyone's putting money into fights against cancer, and some 90% of all donations collected were for cancer. But that's so much more money than the organization's ever gotten for cancer, so they've got tons of funds left over.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. Does the cure for cancer have a clearly visible price tag on it?

If an organization dedicated to fighting cancer makes more money, they will probably use it to buy things that will help fight cancer. Lab equipment, perhaps. Maybe enticements for scientists. If they make an astronomical amount of money they might choose to pay for Scholarships for top students to study Biology and Chemistry. There are always more things to spend money on. Maybe they put it in a bank and use the interest to pay for more things in the future. Worst case scenario they turn out to be a ****ty charity and just pocket large portions of money, at which point they're taken to court for fraud or at least the bad publicity they get prevents further donations to them.

Turns out that every other group is hurting for money because of this, and so to everyone in the organization, it makes sense to put at least some of this cancer money towards these other areas.

"hurting for money" in what sense? If the organization is permitted to transfer money in accordance with the terms under which it was donated, they should be allowed to do so. I'm not even sure what the supposed problem here is.

So far, nothing that I've said has been questionable ethically, except for this.

The hypothetical scenario you have created is poorly defined and unrealistic. I could question it on these grounds alone if I wanted to, but out of morbid curiosity I'd like to hear you explain what exactly is the moral problem here?

But lets say everyone who donated (so practically everyone) knew that 90% of the funds were actually towards cancer, and they knew how much money all the other organizations wanted afterwards, and knew the proposed projects and current ones, and people were given a chance to change where their money could go. You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best.

You'll always get a distribution of funds across the areas people think are best in a free market. At least in the sense that any transaction will be what the individuals making it valued most highly. Individuals external to the transactions may complain, but in general they aren't relevant.

However, in practice, that'd be impossible.

You are now criticizing what is almost certainly the most well established principle in economics. Just thought you might want to know that, even if you don't care or if you are incapable of doing anything with the information, which seems likely.

Not everyone 1) would be able to know everything and 2) would be able to put that much time and effort into determining what exactly they should put their money into, because it depends on what everyone else puts their money into!

We're now getting into the economics of information dynamics, something I am not intensely familiar with. Even so, I'm not sure what the relevance of 1 is, and I'm not sure 2 is completely accurate. 2 is accurate if people value all charitable causes equally, or at least in some proportion, and want to donate their particular units of income in a fashion relative to other donations. This is reminiscent of a number of problems in game theory. The main issue is that I'm not sure how applicable it is.

This problem can be fixed by having a few people whose job it is to determine the need of the organizations who want money, and by knowing how much money they'll get. Maybe these people won't do a good job, but they'd certainly want to. Keep in mind that in order for this to happen, you'd have to agree with the previous things I've said, and you'd have to want things to be well-organized.

I wouldn't have to agree with all or even most of the things you said. The problem I have at this point is you strictly equating what is effectively a third party accountant with government.

This sounds like a government to me.

It isn't.

The major difference so far is that it's run on donations versus mandatory taxes.

This is an enormous difference.

And that's where the 2nd questionable thing is. Why should someone who makes more money HAVE to donate more?

They shouldn't. Rather, they shouldn't be forced to do so. Certain ethicists argue a moral obligation to this type of donation.

Say they didn't. People would know that. Word would get around, and they'd probably think poorly of them. In fact, if some rich person never donated anything at all to the organizations, people could get pissed and might try and harm them. And whatever law enforcement existed might not a give a **** and let people kick the crap out the person anyways.

How is this especially different from the current situation? Charity exists today. Selfish Rich people exist today. Law enforcement exists today.

(Unless they were so rich as to pay their own guards, and then now you've basically got the set up for a dictator.)

Explain.

Or you could get people who don't want anything to do with government, because they think they ideas bad from the start, because they're looking at it backwards, and then you just end up with a bunch of pockets of organizations and people who refuse to function as a whole together, where opportunity is being passed by.

Looking at what backwards? What constitutes "backwards"? What opportunity is being passed by? Why are people not allowed to pass by opportunity? Why does lack of government imply a breakdown of society?

How does government become corrupt? In my mind, when people start doing things for reasons other than to help others, and when you stop including the wishes of others in the way things are run.

This is part of it. However by necessity all governments will ignore the wishes of some individuals. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. There are several problems with assuming this statement is completely accurate.

*Plenty of actions are taken for reasons other than to help others in every readily conceivable government. Retributive punishment for example.
*Plenty of actions taken in the name of helping others will not do so, and will actually lead to harm.
*The wishes of others are often the direct cause of corruption, or of harm to others

lastly

*Corruption is a very nebulous concept. What constitutes corruption? Corruption will inevitably be characterized as any government action the speaker isn't fond of, which ultimately reveals yet again the incoherency of government itself. Government shows us conflicts of interest more clearly than anything else in existence, because it embodies them. It is the subjective nature of value which prevents Government from meeting the demands of its subjects, and it is the subjective nature of value which turns Government, as the monopoly of the legitimate use of force, necessarily into a tool of oppression.

That you argue specific points about how things are done poorly right now is practically irrelevant about getting rid of public schools completely.

It is very relevant. It is relevant because there are alternatives.

That you put peoples individual rights to do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others is fine, however, government is not impeding this more than not having one, since we know that not having one would not allow for the the same opportunity as exists with one.

Hey wow this goes back to the argument you didn't address. Imagine that.

Did Hitler see that and try and make use of central organization? Probably. Does that matter? No.

I stated the form of my comparison clearly, with numbered premises leading to conclusions. If you think the argument is wrong or irrelevent, go find the presentation of the argument, introduce new premises as necessary, and demonstrate that to be the case.

[lord_carbo]

Re: my views on how the american goverment traps lower class citizens.

But lets say everyone who donated (so practically everyone) knew that 90% of the funds were actually towards cancer, and they knew how much money all the other organizations wanted afterwards, and knew the proposed projects and current ones, and people were given a chance to change where their money could go. You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best. However, in practice, that'd be impossible. Not everyone 1) would be able to know everything and 2) would be able to put that much time and effort into determining what exactly they should put their money into, because it depends on what everyone else puts their money into!

Econ 101?!

"You'd eventually get a good distribution of the funds across the areas that people thought would be best." ... that happens no matter what. It's called self-interest.