Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[Kuciwalker]

gribbler, you completely misunderstand the justification for public schools.

1) the wealth redistributed is earmarked FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN, not the parents; because of the agency problem (parents cannot always be trusted to act fully in the interests of the child) the redistributed wealth must be earmarked towards something that benefits the child. Paternalism (I know what you want better than you know what you want) does not enter into it, except in that we don't give the money directly to the children.

2) for separate reasons, we have a (mostly) state-run primary education system because we think that the state is better than the market at providing education services. Contrast this with e.g. Medicare, where we redistribute money but let the market provide actual medical services.

[Al B. Sure!]

I understand their position because they're trying to have like a set axiom to apply in all cases to facilitate their views on social policy. But people really are ****ing stupid. Consistency be damned when dealing with stupid people.

[David Floyd]

2) for separate reasons, we have a (mostly) state-run primary education system because we think that the state is better than the market at providing education services. Contrast this with e.g. Medicare, where we redistribute money but let the market provide actual medical services.

Ironic, then, given the huge underperformance problem in public schools, measured against the fact that despite it's problems, mos Medicare recipients oppose any sort of Medicare reform. Perhaps the market really is better at providing solutions...

[Al B. Sure!]

There is also the distinction between state-run and state-funded. Few would argue against state-funded education but state-run is an issue (see vouchers).

[David Floyd]

I'm not sure education in general is a good argument to make in favor of government run or funded ANYTHING. For all the federal money we've spent on education in the last 40 years, we would have been at least as well off taking the money to Vegas and playing no limit craps whilst drinking Crown and Cokes all night. And we would have been equally well off if we stacked the money together and lit it on fire.

[Kuciwalker]

I understand their position because they're trying to have like a set axiom to apply in all cases to facilitate their views on social policy. But people really are ****ing stupid. Consistency be damned when dealing with stupid people.

What proportion of the voters do you think are stupid? If it's a significant fraction, doesn't that seriously call into question whether the government knows any better than they do how to spend money on them?

[Kuciwalker]

There is also the distinction between state-run and state-funded. Few would argue against state-funded education but state-run is an issue (see vouchers).

Yes, that was precisely the distinction I drew in my post..

[Jon Miller]

Actually, the government in the US is specifically setup to put distance between the desires of the masses and the elite that govern them...

JM

[Heraclitus]

If you have a better way to promote human welfare than the rich giving away their stuff, let's hear it. The whole point in having taxes and a government is to deal with the fact that people care a lot more about themselves than others and tend to base their decisions on that.

Government is a sedentary bandit.

I meant this in the kindest way possible. He is much better for the farmer than more mobile one, you see the mobile one can take everything and just move on to the next village. A sedentary bandit needs to let the farmers keep something else he starves too. He also has to prevent mobile bandits from stealing from his farmers.

He's also useful for avoiding tragedy of the commons situations in some circumstances.

Which, the people in Lesotho or the homeless? I don't actually have a responsibility for either. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of saying we need to redistribute to the poor but then giving your money to people who are in the top 50% of everyone in the world in terms of income.

Well it makes sense for the ethnocentric though I think JM wouldn't like that rationale.

What makes favoring your own countrymen more repugnant than, say, favoring your own family members over strangers?

Didn't I advocate that argument some time ago in another context?

What makes favoring your own race over others more repugnant than favoring your family members over strangers?

Ah I see KH caught that.

What makes favoring your own species over others more repugnant......... tsk tsk....

My argument for liking humans more than nonsentient or hypothetical sentient nonhuman beings is: Because.

That's it.

There is no real argument against that, no more than there can be a real argument one can use with a paper-clip maximizer about why liking paper-clips and turning all the matter in the lightcone into paper-clips isn't really a good idea. I mean sure you can hack the paper-clip maximizer and have it value other things, just like you could convince me in any number of ways to stop favouring humans over nonhumans.

But that means you are simply spreading your value set. Let me than ask the question, why do you prefer others have share your value set? Because it facilitates arranging matter around so that it fits your values better?

Well why do you like that? I guess the answer is: Because.


Another line of reasoning could base itself on moral realism but I don't think KH would like that.

If and when we meet intelligent aliens we'll talk.

Define intelligent.

[Hauldren Collider]

Actually, the government in the US is specifically setup to put distance between the desires of the masses and the elite that govern them...

JM

...but that has been chipped away over the decades. We now have a complete excess of democracy, what with things like elected Attorneys General, referendums, recalls, and ballot initiatives (although this is mainly at the state level). Also, C-SPAN has made it so that our congressmen can no longer talk to each other, only to the television.

[Jon Miller]

...but that has been chipped away over the decades. We now have a complete excess of democracy, what with things like elected Attorney Generals, referendums, recalls, and ballot initiatives (although this is mainly at the state level). Also, C-SPAN has made it so that our congressmen can no longer talk to each other, only to the television.

I agree actually.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, **** C-SPAN. It turns our whole government into the least entertaining theater act in history. And the excess of democracy reduces voter turnout, handing control of the government over to the hands of the self-interested few. In the cases where it doesn't, it breaks down the barriers that prevent the majority from exploiting the minority (see elected judges).

[Heraclitus]

Because they are all people, and their welfare thus carries equal intrinsic weight with me.

Define people.

[Heraclitus]

Because they are all people, and their welfare thus carries equal intrinsic weight with me.

The "Why do you care about X that is defined by something as arbitrary as Y?" argument also works for people.

Its actually great fun debating transhumanists or philosophers on this, since they do a neat little trick at this point.

They define people as group of beings or objects they care about.
And then justify caring for every single being or object that they care about by a fancy rewording of "Z is people too!"

[Hauldren Collider]

Define people.

homo sapiens