HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

What is your most "radical" opinion regarding politics?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2012, 04:43 AM
  #301
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 16,129
vCash: 500
Might be worth keeping in mind that bullying is harmful to the bully as well- not the best skills to reinforce if we want our kids to live decent happy and productive lives.

Back to the op's question--> I'm all for legalizing pot, prostitution and gambling if we could use the tax revenue strictly for public education. Kinki Friedman had a version he called "slots for tots"

I'd also be for instituting a draft in the united states, but include programs like the peace corps and city year as well as other domestic volunteer opportunities. It would help bind the nation together (socio-geographically and socioeconomicly) and would help support all kinds of social welfare projects. If they ran it for all Americans from 18 to 21 kids would enter college later, more mature and with a grater sense of Purpose for themselves and for the needs of the country. Maybe then the first years of college wouldn't just be a social/independent living experiment.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:15 PM
  #302
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Obviously everyone is not aware of everything. Cancer is nothing new either so let's just stop talking about it, everyone's heard of it already so what's the point right? Kids do not have the intellectual depth or world experience to know how common bullying is, or how to properly deal with, it and I'm sure a lot of parents are unaware that their kid is being bullied. I don't see the problem in making people aware. Your last sentence is just something I think is ridiculous and not even worth replying to. Completely irrelevant from raising awareness.
It is because we are masking the issue by only bringing awareness. Cancer is a different animal. You raise money and fundraise and such for a cure and there is at least the CHANCE that this money does something constructive.

We can ask Amanda Todd if awareness does anything, but she's dead. Kids aren't as stupid as we think they are. They won't bully the other kids right in front of our face. Maybe your parents told you not to swear, and maybe you didn't - in front of them. But when you weren't around them? Different story, same with bullying.

It is going to happen. I prefer that parents get involved with their kids and seek the parents of the tormentor and deal with it. In my opinion this is the best medicine. But the rest of the time you can't be a helicopter parent. Your kid eventually has to walk to school by himself, play on the playground, play sports, etc. We are being naive if we think kids aren't going to be cruel.

I liken the bullying "awareness" to abstinence only education. It is nice on the surface and everyone can feel good about it. But in reality, kids are going to try sex and maybe even more so because their parents tell them not to. Therefore it is important to teach them about protection should they choose this avenue. It is the same with bullying. In the real world it is going to happen and you have to at least educate your kid when you aren't around at how to handle it. When we live in a perfect world when no one is unkind to each other this won't be a problem. But we do and if you want your kid to be any kind of independant young adult you should teach them early how to handle the meanness early.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 10:28 PM
  #303
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
So there's no chance that something constructive can come from raising money and awareness to reduce bullying?

Another Big Phil facepalm moment.

Ilkka Sinisalo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2012, 11:45 PM
  #304
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
I have so many views that could be considered radical/extreme I wouldn't even know where to begin. Haha.

I would like to see the Department of Education eliminated, and I think the government shouldn't issue student loans at all.

I also think the Government shouldn't issue marriage licenses to anyone.

The "War On Drugs" is an abject failure that should be ended immediately. The DEA, ATF, CIA, FBI, DOHS can all go with it.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 12:15 AM
  #305
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
I have so many views that could be considered radical/extreme I wouldn't even know where to begin. Haha.

I would like to see the Department of Education eliminated, and I think the government shouldn't issue student loans at all.

I also think the Government shouldn't issue marriage licenses to anyone.

The "War On Drugs" is an abject failure that should be ended immediately. The DEA, ATF, CIA, FBI, DOHS can all go with it.
This one has always eaten at me.

What are the practical reasons for wanting to eliminate the DoE?

That it's not defined in the Constitution simply isn't enough for me.

Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 01:20 AM
  #306
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
This one has always eaten at me.

What are the practical reasons for wanting to eliminate the DoE?

That it's not defined in the Constitution simply isn't enough for me.
Too often we judge agencies/programs/policies by their intentions, not their results.

How effective has the DOE been in achieving its stated goals? Has it improved education?

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 01:41 AM
  #307
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 10,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
Too often we judge agencies/programs/policies by their intentions, not their results.

How effective has the DOE been in achieving its stated goals? Has it improved education?
Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to reform it than to eliminate it?

bluesfan94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 07:19 AM
  #308
Johnny LaRue
Registered User
 
Johnny LaRue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Kudamatsu-shi, Japan
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,837
vCash: 500
I want to get most of the drug related felons out of the prisons. Legalizing marijuana as a political opinion hasn't been extreme for decades now, but that is part one of my little scheme.

I support giving heroin addicts free heroin for as long as they want so long as the addicts get a doctor's prescription and acquire and use the heroin in special clinics.

I want to look at changing the way we fight the war on other drugs, like cocaine as well.

With all the prison space we open up, I want to start locking up shop-lifters and graffiti artists and the like. They piss me off.

Johnny LaRue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:37 AM
  #309
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dat mitten
Country: United States
Posts: 15,612
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It is because we are masking the issue by only bringing awareness. Cancer is a different animal. You raise money and fundraise and such for a cure and there is at least the CHANCE that this money does something constructive.

We can ask Amanda Todd if awareness does anything, but she's dead. Kids aren't as stupid as we think they are. They won't bully the other kids right in front of our face. Maybe your parents told you not to swear, and maybe you didn't - in front of them. But when you weren't around them? Different story, same with bullying.

It is going to happen. I prefer that parents get involved with their kids and seek the parents of the tormentor and deal with it. In my opinion this is the best medicine. But the rest of the time you can't be a helicopter parent. Your kid eventually has to walk to school by himself, play on the playground, play sports, etc. We are being naive if we think kids aren't going to be cruel.

I liken the bullying "awareness" to abstinence only education. It is nice on the surface and everyone can feel good about it. But in reality, kids are going to try sex and maybe even more so because their parents tell them not to. Therefore it is important to teach them about protection should they choose this avenue. It is the same with bullying. In the real world it is going to happen and you have to at least educate your kid when you aren't around at how to handle it. When we live in a perfect world when no one is unkind to each other this won't be a problem. But we do and if you want your kid to be any kind of independant young adult you should teach them early how to handle the meanness early.
Raising awareness is a way to try to make sure something does not happen again. It is not claimed by anyone that raising awareness is some sort of time machine, problem fixer. How can a problem that people may or not be aware of be fixed without raising awareness? It's like you're just trying to argue. Amanda Todd is dead, so it's too late to do anything about it, but what can we do? Raise awareness.

Quote:
It is going to happen. I prefer that parents get involved with their kids and seek the parents of the tormentor and deal with it.
Raising awareness in no way precludes anything like this. The thing you seem to be ignoring is that you can raise awareness of a problem and also solve it. It's not an and/or situation.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:39 AM
  #310
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dat mitten
Country: United States
Posts: 15,612
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
This one has always eaten at me.

What are the practical reasons for wanting to eliminate the DoE?

That it's not defined in the Constitution simply isn't enough for me.
it sort of is in the Constitution though. The government is supposed to promote the general welfare of the people.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:50 AM
  #311
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 37,646
vCash: 500
Here's one of mine: I would get rid of the current primary system for choosing candidates for the two main US political parties. Right now the parties are essentially having their fields of potential candidates culled by a bunch of old people in New Hampshire and corn farmers in Iowa. But I don't want to go to a more democratic process, such as having all primaries on the same day, or random or, or anything like that. I actually want to go in the opposite direction, and have the candidates decided by party elites/insiders/delegates at the conventions. States could still hold show primaries/caucuses in order to gauge candidate support, and the parties would still have to take electability into account; if they choose an unpalatable nominee, they are going to get crushed in the general.

As a part of this, I'd move the conventions back by quite a bit, and make them a lot longer. Instead of being back-scratching coronation-fests that are just as much about trashing the other party's candidate, they could be legitimately suspenseful events. For instance, Jeb Bush or whoever could get up in front of the convention, announce "I present myself as a candidate for our party's nominee for the presidency", then deliver a 1 hour speech outlining his vision and credentials. Others could do the same, and there could be cameras all over the convention floor covering the action and side discussions. The media could interview major players as it progresses to get a sense of the deals and king-making. Votes would be done by ballot and deals/alliances would be announced on the convention floor as the nomination process progresses. It would be pure old-fashioned smoke-filled-room politics, instead of the mock-democratic process in place now. Political junkies would eat it up, people with actual credentials would be deciding the nominees rather than the most extreme voting elements of the parties (as is the case in the current system), and the convention process would become meaningful and dramatic.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 10:33 AM
  #312
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue View Post
I want to get most of the drug related felons out of the prisons. Legalizing marijuana as a political opinion hasn't been extreme for decades now, but that is part one of my little scheme.

I support giving heroin addicts free heroin for as long as they want so long as the addicts get a doctor's prescription and acquire and use the heroin in special clinics.

I want to look at changing the way we fight the war on other drugs, like cocaine as well.

With all the prison space we open up, I want to start locking up shop-lifters and graffiti artists and the like. They piss me off.

Doppler Drift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:27 AM
  #313
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
Here's one of mine: I would get rid of the current primary system for choosing candidates for the two main US political parties. Right now the parties are essentially having their fields of potential candidates culled by a bunch of old people in New Hampshire and corn farmers in Iowa. But I don't want to go to a more democratic process, such as having all primaries on the same day, or random or, or anything like that. I actually want to go in the opposite direction, and have the candidates decided by party elites/insiders/delegates at the conventions. States could still hold show primaries/caucuses in order to gauge candidate support, and the parties would still have to take electability into account; if they choose an unpalatable nominee, they are going to get crushed in the general.

As a part of this, I'd move the conventions back by quite a bit, and make them a lot longer. Instead of being back-scratching coronation-fests that are just as much about trashing the other party's candidate, they could be legitimately suspenseful events. For instance, Jeb Bush or whoever could get up in front of the convention, announce "I present myself as a candidate for our party's nominee for the presidency", then deliver a 1 hour speech outlining his vision and credentials. Others could do the same, and there could be cameras all over the convention floor covering the action and side discussions. The media could interview major players as it progresses to get a sense of the deals and king-making. Votes would be done by ballot and deals/alliances would be announced on the convention floor as the nomination process progresses. It would be pure old-fashioned smoke-filled-room politics, instead of the mock-democratic process in place now. Political junkies would eat it up, people with actual credentials would be deciding the nominees rather than the most extreme voting elements of the parties (as is the case in the current system), and the convention process would become meaningful and dramatic.
It sounds like the pope election episode from the TV show, Borgia.

All of the cardinals get locked in a room to elect the new Pope, and even though it's obviously not supposed to happen, there's still a ton of backroom wheeling and dealing going on that eventually allows Rodrigo Borgia (who ends up sacrificing most of his property) to get elected.

I'm not saying that's what would happen with your idea, but it definitely reminded me of it.


Last edited by Sevanston: 11-23-2012 at 11:36 AM.
Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 11:34 AM
  #314
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
Too often we judge agencies/programs/policies by their intentions, not their results.

How effective has the DOE been in achieving its stated goals? Has it improved education?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesfan94 View Post
Wouldn't it make more sense, then, to reform it than to eliminate it?
Bingo.

I don't trust anyone to get education 100% correct, but the body I trust to come the closest is the federal government. Anything less and you're probably looking at a McDonald's-esque franchising of the school system, or else states enforcing horribly skewed versions of controversial subjects like science and history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
it sort of is in the Constitution though. The government is supposed to promote the general welfare of the people.
Yes and no.

Most arguments I've heard for abolishing the DoE revolve around cost-cutting and/or states' rights. Specifically they rely on the Tenth Amendment, that if a power isn't explicitly granted to the federal government and its not prohibited from the states' governments, then it is the latter's responsibility and not the former's.


Last edited by Sevanston: 11-23-2012 at 11:41 AM.
Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 02:28 PM
  #315
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
I don't trust anyone to get education 100% correct, but the body I trust to come the closest is the federal government. Anything less and you're probably looking at a McDonald's-esque franchising of the school system, or else states enforcing horribly skewed versions of controversial subjects like science and history.
I think it's fallacy that you can prevent people from having "skewed" views on topics. People will learn what they choose to, and parents have more impact than schools.

Has the DOE over the past 30 years prevented kids from learning these "skewed" views that you find so reprehensible?

State run, or private schools, shouldn't be able FORCE views on anyone, but we already have federal laws against that. You don't need a 80 billion dollar a year bureaucracy for that. In a free society, you have to be tolerant of other people's views, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Centralizing/standardizing education means less variety and innovation. Thanks to the DoE setting "standards," schools are teaching kids how to take a test.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 02:36 PM
  #316
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,432
vCash: 50
All schools should be privatized and the government should provide school vouchers so kids can send their kids to the school they choose.

Tim Calhoun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 03:18 PM
  #317
Sevanston
Moderator
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
I think it's fallacy that you can prevent people from having "skewed" views on topics. People will learn what they choose to, and parents have more impact than schools.

Has the DOE over the past 30 years prevented kids from learning these "skewed" views that you find so reprehensible?
Like I said, I don't trust anyone to get education 100% correct. Not the DoE, state governments, or private organizations. Education will always be influenced by the perspectives of everyone involved, and there are just too many variables there to eliminate bias entirely.

But the ones I trust to come the closest are the DoE, because they're the ones who are bound to country-wide standards. Private schools answer only to themselves, so there will be good and bad. State schools answer to their voting bodies, and as we've known throughout the history of representative government, voting bodies can be impulsive and irrational. You can work to negate this bias by involving more voters, more representatives, and more advisors from all around the country, and that's precisely what the DoE does.

Quote:
State run, or private schools, shouldn't be able FORCE views on anyone, but we already have federal laws against that. You don't need a 80 billion dollar a year bureaucracy for that. In a free society, you have to be tolerant of other people's views, no matter how much you disagree with them.

Centralizing/standardizing education means less variety and innovation. Thanks to the DoE setting "standards," schools are teaching kids how to take a test.
It's the DoE that actually enforces those laws.

If you're talking about removing the DoE, you're also talking about removing the funding it provides for public schools all over the country. Suburban schools probably won't be affected, but inner-city and rural schools that are already suffering from budget problems will only get worse. Bureaucracy or not, those schools need money, and the funding they get from their local governments, which mostly comes from regional property taxes isn't enough for most of them. As a percentage of GDP, the US is currently ranked 37th in spending per student worldwide. Removing federal funding provided by the DoE won't help that.

You talk about having a centralized education system, when the US has one of the least centralized systems in the Western world. Unlike most countries (including the ones that do best in educational metrics) the DoE does not accredit schools. Quality assurance and accreditation is done entirely through DoE-recognized private accrediting agencies.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that education quality in the US is subpar, because most media outlets do a new story about it maybe once a week. My question with abolishing the DoE has always been, if things are already subpar, how will removing the DoE make them better?

Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-23-2012, 08:16 PM
  #318
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dat mitten
Country: United States
Posts: 15,612
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevanston View Post
Bingo.

I don't trust anyone to get education 100% correct, but the body I trust to come the closest is the federal government. Anything less and you're probably looking at a McDonald's-esque franchising of the school system, or else states enforcing horribly skewed versions of controversial subjects like science and history.



Yes and no.

Most arguments I've heard for abolishing the DoE revolve around cost-cutting and/or states' rights. Specifically they rely on the Tenth Amendment, that if a power isn't explicitly granted to the federal government and its not prohibited from the states' governments, then it is the latter's responsibility and not the former's.
Cost cutting I understand, but I don't think state-rights has an argument. Once someone tries to frame their opposition as a constitutional issue, I know they're talking out of their ass and have no case.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 02:32 AM
  #319
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,088
vCash: 500
You know what? I propose limiting terms to ALL government officials. Not just the president.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 02:42 AM
  #320
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
All schools should be privatized and the government should provide school vouchers so kids can send their kids to the school they choose.
The most radical part of that is wanting kids to have kids.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 02:48 AM
  #321
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 19,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
All schools should be privatized and the government should provide school vouchers so kids can send their kids to the school they choose.
There is a lot wrong with this; how would the kids get to school? Are they going to pay for buses? What happens if they all want to send their kids to one school? Are you going to cap the schools? Who gets to fire the teachers?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 03:32 AM
  #322
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 11,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
There is a lot wrong with this; how would the kids get to school? Are they going to pay for buses? What happens if they all want to send their kids to one school? Are you going to cap the schools? Who gets to fire the teachers?
Answers:

How would the kids get to school?
-The free market will get the kids to school.

Are they going to pay for buses?
-No, the free market will fund the buses.

What happens if they all want to send their kids to one school?
-The free market will properly allocate children to schools so as to prevent overcrowding.

Are you going to cap the schools?
-The free market will either eliminate the need for a cap, or will determine what the cap should be.

Who gets to fire the teachers?
-The free market, obviously.

Ilkka Sinisalo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 12:07 PM
  #323
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
So there's no chance that something constructive can come from raising money and awareness to reduce bullying?

Another Big Phil facepalm moment.
Sure, why don't you just tell everyone out there what exactly it has accomplished. I'll be waiting. Are kids nicer nowadays than before? I don't think so. You are basically saying that awareness can help and it can't, it is window dressing that sweeps the real problem under the rug. If you think our society is more tolerant than it used to be than you haven't been on the internet very long. We are as intolerant and mean as we have ever been so unles you think we can change human nature then we are doing nothing essentially. Far better to not only help your child and be involved but to also teach them and prepare them for the times when you aren't going to be around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Raising awareness is a way to try to make sure something does not happen again. It is not claimed by anyone that raising awareness is some sort of time machine, problem fixer. How can a problem that people may or not be aware of be fixed without raising awareness? It's like you're just trying to argue. Amanda Todd is dead, so it's too late to do anything about it, but what can we do? Raise awareness.

Raising awareness in no way precludes anything like this. The thing you seem to be ignoring is that you can raise awareness of a problem and also solve it. It's not an and/or situation.
If you believe the media you'd get the idea that bullying is a new issue. It has always been there.

But I will ask, what have all of these rallies and such done? Do the mean kids stop bullying the weak because their school arranged an anti-bullying assembly? No, they'll wait for the next day and do what they do. These awareness rallies do not get to the root of the issue, they just coddle children and shelter them from the real world.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:45 PM
  #324
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,432
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
There is a lot wrong with this; how would the kids get to school? Are they going to pay for buses? What happens if they all want to send their kids to one school? Are you going to cap the schools? Who gets to fire the teachers?
Why are these not problems in the current private school system?

Students are driven by their parents, carpool, or the school organizes a bus route system (like the school I went to as a kid). The school decides who enrolls at ther school, just like in any school or university (entrance exams?).

This isn't even a radical idea. It's been tried to some extent in several countries to some success.

Tim Calhoun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-24-2012, 01:46 PM
  #325
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,432
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Answers:

How would the kids get to school?
-The free market will get the kids to school.

Are they going to pay for buses?
-No, the free market will fund the buses.

What happens if they all want to send their kids to one school?
-The free market will properly allocate children to schools so as to prevent overcrowding.

Are you going to cap the schools?
-The free market will either eliminate the need for a cap, or will determine what the cap should be.

Who gets to fire the teachers?
-The free market, obviously.
I think you missed the part where I mentioned school vouchers, so this isn't a free market at all. Great contribution, though.

Tim Calhoun is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.