Re: [IAC#RG] Fwd: A POLICY TO IMPROVE THE STANDARDS IN GOVERNMENT OWNED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ?

1) Everyone (not only lefties, which I am not) wants to control
education. The "righties" do it by providing sub-standard education -
eg. all those George Washtington (Carver) schools which keep their
blacks in place.

2) I can't think of a single libertarian government in the world
offhand, (and certainly not one which has a mercenary army) so you are
entitled to enjoy your pipe dream. [[Think ROBOCOP - Omnicon]]

3) Your next paras are pure socialism, and a very outdated version of
it. In today's socialism there in no concept of "welfare". If
EVERYTHING is run by the State AND everyone has equal opportunity and
access, then everyone gets the same "quality" and "quantity" of goods
and services PROVIDED there are no "shortages" (a capitalist concept).

For eg. (and I'm sure 99% of our list would agree - no more laal
battis, LBZ bungalows, and so on). Why must I staying outside LBZ
[Lutyen Bungalow Zone] as a private citizen pay Rs. 8 per unit of
electricity and suffer 6 hour power from my monopoly PRIVATE
electricity supplier, when Ms. Sonia Gandhi or Mr. Narendra Modi get
24 hour power at Rs. 4 per unit from a monopoly PUBLIC electricity
supplier as privileged persons. How does your capitalist model explain
this ? The socialist model says that Rs. 4 is the real cost of power
and the Private DISCOMS are ripping off their consumers by virtue of
their monopoly (the ultimate goal of capitalism is creation of
monopolies and elimination of "inefficient" competition).

Sarbajit

On 6/6/14, Supratim Basu <xsupratim@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Sarbajit, for your replies.
>
> In counter:
>
> 1. An assumption made on the basis of past encounters with socialists. : )
> Being able to control education is a key objective of the lefties.
>
> 2. I would be happy to discuss cogent proposals for how the army and
> defence of the nation can be privatised - libertarian advocates have always
> held that both internal (police) and external (army) security can be better
> obtained through private agencies.
>
> But, why either or? Why should we not get the govt out of schools and
> health care as well - the last 70 years have clearly shown that the govt is
> incompetent and more importantly has a lack of incentives to run schools
> and health care properly. Throwing more money at the problem will not
> provide a solution. Until you can tackle the incentives in the system, the
> system can not be reformed.
>
> We need a national insurance scheme, which pays for calamities that can
> bankrupt the poor - for example, a medical emergency or crop failure. Since
> the insurable pool will be so large and diverse, the premiums would be
> quite low - and further, if even this is unaffordable by a family that is
> poor, it will be paid for by the taxpayers a part of the social
> minimum/security to be paid to the poorest of all.
>
> There is no reason for the state to then run inefficient, corrupt and
> inadequate welfare schemes. And, all welfare schemes will become corrupt
> and inefficient - because of the incentives structure.
>
>
> 3. Sure. I passed from the local state board, too, although not from a
> state run school.
>
> However, in this case, the exception does not prove the rule - for every
> person who has done well, despite studying at a govt school, how many
> students and families have the state run school system failed??
>
> And, the sniff test is this: are you willing to send your children or your
> grand children to the local municipal school to study? If not, why are you
> forcing them on the poorer, less well to do fellow citizens of this
> country?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> S
>
>