ditto

__________________
Brandon



2008 S550
1957 Dodge D100
1967 VW Microbus 21 Window
2001 Suburban
2004 Beach cruiser bicycle
-----------------GO DUKE!-----------------

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry 1776

The opposite also follows if public education is a good. Pure capitalism is doomed to failure. I guess the libertarians don't care about the childre of the poor.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Oh, come on...You can't do any better than the "old standby" of the liberals?--"Conservatives don't care anything about the poor"...The poor, poor, poor, pathetic poor...It's not ever their fault...blah, blah, blah... I expected more originality from you there. oh, well...

I've said this countless times, and I'll say it again: Barring any mental or physical handicap that prevents one from being self-sufficient, being poor is a CHOICE...or more accurately, a result of the series of choices one makes and continues to make in life. Obviously children are a different story, but an able-bodied, able-minded adult has NO EXCUSE. The rich get richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. The poor remain poor because they keep doing the things that make them poor. I'm so sick of all the pathetic whining excuses that you always hear for someone's predicament. If you don't like your financial/social/political/whatever standing, then shut up and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! I am neither poor nor rich...I'm what most in America would consider "modestly comfortable" most of the time...and I hold no one responsible for this position, good or bad, except MYSELF.

Since you obviously know nothing about the Libertarian stance on education:

http://www.lp.org/issues/program/edu.html

If the government red tape and regulation and waste were removed, education might actually be AFFORDABLE, and effective! The more government gets involved in something, the less effective it becomes: The post office and the DMV come to mind...They are textbook examples of government buffoonery. If I need something shipped overnight and it CANNOT be late, I choose UPS or FedEx or some other PRIVATE company that actually gets it done. The LAST resource I would rely on would be the government-run post office. Profit always motivates. Competition improves service and performance. This is being proven to work in the private school sector as well. Deny it all you want--It's working.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Oops, I forget that in debates with libertarians you can't imply that people actually care about other people Sorry. I'll put it in your terms: Mike does not believe that children have a right to education. Better?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Isn't that the whole point of public K-12 education? To provide for equal opportunity, so the kid who didn't choose to be born to a disabled/alcoholic/lazy/stupid parent doesn't get unfairly penalized? So that when he/she reaches the age where society expects them to be able to actually make their own choices, they have a fighting chance at a decent, productive life? As opposed to NOT providing it, and ending up with a bunch of people who realized, at 14 or 16 or 18 or 25 that hey, maybe the reason they can't land a job is because the never went to school, learned how to use a computer, figured out math, learned how to read, etc.

I can see (even if I don't necessarily agree with) the argument for no services after age 18, and I won't deny that the public education system needs work, but I think there's a definite societal benefit to the concept of public education. Heck, the idea of equal opportunity almost demands it.

Even if you don't agree with the social argument, continued success in today's economy practically demands an educated workforce:

"The business Community has supported efforts to increase public school funding, with a focus on making sure local school districts have the flexibility to use the resources as rewards for improved performance. The business community also has been instrumental in bringing about many changes, including higher academic standards, smaller class sizes and an improved system of student testing and school accountability. The business community supports these efforts because it must ensure an educated workforce is available to meet the demands of the 21st century economy." (my emphasis added)

...from the California Chamber's 2002 Business Issues and Legislative Guide.

http://www.calchamber.com/business_issues/2002/02education.pdf

-anthony

Sorry guys, I have to bow out of this one. I (and about 35 million people in Poland ALONE) have a little too many bad memories to remain unemotional. However, from my experience:

1) In "state socialism" (what the HELL does that mean??? any socialsm is "state socialism" since the state takes care-in more ways than one-of everything. mostly by stealing anything you manage to produce) there was NO DIFFERENCE between communism and socialism. That's the reality. I could care less about theory-feel free to discuss it, but keep in mind that discussing THEORY of socioeconomic systems is like discussing art-it leaves you intelectually fulfilled, but will not change your life (read reality) one iota.

2) Ask people in Austria who pay on average 60-75% of their salaries in state taxes, how they like it (oh, sure, they get 4 weeks vacation).

3) the education has nothing to do with money. American public school teachers are one of the best paid in the developed countries but the system suks. Why?? you force the best and brightest to be dummy-down to the worst, so the worst "don't feel bad". To me the biggest incentive to study was so that I would not look stupid in front of my peers.

4) by comparison, Polish teachers were paid BELOW the salaries of untrained laborers. And yet when I came to the US, I was 3 years ahead in education. You want a simple comparison? I Poland I spent about 4-6 hours on homework a day. In the US I spent .... 15 minutes. What the hell does that have to do with money??? or if you are rich or poor? If teacher are prevented from grading or motivating students by the pseudopsychologists, how do you expect ANY results? and the diff between private and public schools at this time is that private schools actually expect students to learn and progress. You do not need to be rich to be motivated in school. Any school. BTW, I belive that this attitude in public schools (kids don't have to learn, just try) were implemented by liberals, so pls stop crying about it.

5) in the wonderful free socialist education system there were several checks and balances. For instance, after the elementary school (and if you flunked out at 17 they kicked you out of that one), you had a choice - trade school, vo-tech, or college prep (high school in the US). If you failed entry exams, instead in college you could end up digging ditches.

6) ok, you are lucky, you pased the exam and were accepted to the free (except books and other stuff, of course) college prep high school. Well, if you did not flunk out the first two semesters (15 subjects in each, any C- counts as non-passing), you still had pass the final exam summarizing the four years of study (I believe it was Polish language, History, Physics, Chemistry, Algebra, biology, and an elective).

7) Fine you passed, now you applied to college (no choice WHERE in the country). the average was 50 (yes five-zero) candidates for each available seat. What's that? you thought EVERYONE who wanted got to go to college. Well, as usual, you are wrong!. The selection process included "extra point" for "class origin". If your parents didn't finish elementary school, you got extra points. If your parents had MS degrees, you were SOL.

8) by a miracle you got in. You passed all exams, you got your degree (no BS, just MS or phd). Now you are looking for a job. OH, but in comm... ooops, sory, in SOCIALISM there is no unemployment. So, if you could find a job, there was no salary negotiations. You got what you got, usually below the salary of a trained laborer. Or, you could just go and get a job as a laborer or whatever else was available.

What if you did not get into college?, well, you could be a lackey, a secretary, or, you guessed it, a laborer.

and so forth, and so on.

I could go on, but now it's midnight, etc, etc.

Good luck discussing it, I do get a good laugh now and then, , you are so enthusiastic and naive... so cute

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Polska! Polska! Polska!

Piotr.. you reminded me with your writing when my friends who most are about a year or two younger are learning Math that you would take as a sophomore in College! and we're talking junior and senior age guys here.
Also.. my grandmother's neighbor, who is also my friend was denied entry to a university in Wroclaw the first year. She had to work (both academically and getting job) for a year before she could reapply to the university. I found out that she had high grades which in the US would be good enough for many universities, but low in the highly competitive university with low numbers of seatings.
It makes us think and also feel very fortunate that we live here where its a lot easier than many other parts of the world.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
-Sir Winston Churchill

I personally am surprised by the number of liberal people on this board. And articulate liberals as well. Mercedes typically is a symbol of wealth and wealth typically symbolizes consevatism in America. I realize many of us may not be the typical owner, but rather an enthusist. One interested in preserving, maintaining, and enjoying our cars as oppesed to leasing them and throwing them out in 2 years. Unlike the liberals on my campus that insist I be shot for driving a nearly 30 y/o great running, o-zone friendly diesel while they drive their SUV To those of you who are rational liberals, I applaud thee. I may not be one of you, but I can appreciate where you are coming from. Mmm, I'm going to go listen to some Rage Against the Machine, really loud now.


Here's to America, Freedom of Speech, and the joy of debate...

-Volkl42

__________________
'05 Ford Escape 100,000 miles
'87 560SL 92000 miles
'89 300TE 199,000 miles
'02 Audi TT 100,000 miles
'00 Ford Excursion V-10 121000 miles
'92 Mercury Capri 100000 miles
'02 BMW 325XI 60000 miles
'92 230CE 160000
'87 BMW 535SI 160,000 miles
'93 Rinker Captiva 209
5 Kids
2 Dogs
1 Wife

The libertarian view is simplistic, self centered and ignores the "public good" as having any benefit for the individual.

Why do we have the welfare state?

The institutions of modern, mass public education were expanded after the Second World War. The expansion of these services --encapsulated in the phrase "welfare state" -- was part of a historic compromise between capital, labour, other social classes and cultural groups, and the state. This compromise was meant (among other things) to reduce class conflict (a staple prior to the war) and to provide a fiscal hedge against capitalism's inevitable booms and busts. For capital, the compromise ensured the cooperation of workers and their unions; also, it provided low-end consumers with the money to purchase mass produced goods. For workers, the arrangement ensured increased wages and benefits based on an expanding economy. For the state, the gains came in the form of increased popular support from previously marginalized groups, as well as from workers, for whom the welfare state provided increased rights of social citizenship. While these rights varied from nation to nation, in general they included a commitment to full employment, guaranteed forms of income maintenance (unemployment insurance, pensions, social welfare), public health care, and expanded opportunities for publicly funded education (including post-secondary education). These same rights also promoted strategies for the inclusion of cultural minorities within a democratic civil culture. In Canada, for example, the politics of education and inclusion focused primarily on policies related to language, multiculturalism, and feminism.

But by the late 1970s, the welfare state compromise began to unravel. The unravelling occured on two fronts: economic and socio-political. On the economic front, business began complaining of declining profit margins, resulting from increased competition and public demands. On the socio-political front, the complaints of business were reinforced by corporate groups such as the Trilateral Commision, an organization made up of leading corporate executives, intellectuals, and high government officials from the US, Europe and Japan, who actively questioned the "excess of democracy" and appealed to the growing and popular resentment of the economically threatened middle class.

Business addressed the problem of declining profits in two ways. First, it began seeking out new investment opportunites abroad in order to increase capital accumulation. Thus began a process of corporations moving production to areas of cheap labour, untapped resources, and limited government regulation and taxation. Second, business used foreign expansion as a lever for demanding changes at home from both labour and the state. these demands included, among other things, lower corporate taxes, deregulation, and undermining of union contracts. Business began to pressure the state to act as a broker in arranging global foreign investment agreements (NAFTA, APEC, MAI) which serve the double purposes of facilitating business and placing brakes on welfare state programs and expenditures. Gradually, these foreign investment agreements undemined the capacity of states to act on behalf of their citizens. Legislative power shifted to the executive, while executive power shifted to the departments of finance, trade, and industry. The economic and political underpinnings of the welfare state compromise quickly began to crumble. In it's place, a new development model was implemented throughout many Western countries based on structral adjustment policies recommended by the World Bank, IMF, and OECD.

In the first decades of the unravelling, corporate taxes declined and middle class taxes and unemployment rose, while government committments to social programs remained static. It wasn't a pretty sight, but nonetheless the welfare state limped on. By the early 1990's, however, a lot of people -- particularly members of the of the disgruntled upper-middle class who felt overtaxed -- wanted the "social" part of the welfare state put down. Led by populist politicians aping forms of anti-political politics, debt hysteria encouraged attacks not only upon the welfare state, but upon the idea of government in general.

But the welfare state did not run aground on financial reefs alone. By the 1980's, the socio-political environment had changed and the welfare state faced considerable resentment from increasingly conservative middle-class males and private-sector workers, who felt their traditional advantages had been eroded by "special interest": various marginalized groups (e.g., women and visible minorities) and entrenched public-sector professionals and their clients (e.g., welfare recipients). Likewise, other conservatives, such as religious fundamentalists, disliked the increasing securlarism, pluralism, and moral relativism encouraged by modernity, of which the welfare state and the education system were a part.

These economic, political, and cultral critiques provided the popular bases for a political coalition known as the New Right. Ideologically, this coalition married neo-liberalism (or economic liberalism) and social conservativism. The New Right's first political victories were in Britain, under Margaret Thatcher in 1979, and int he US, under Ronald Reagan in 1980. Then starting in 1984, the New Right experienced a second wave of victories, beginning in New Zealand, before entering Canada through Alberta. Here, as elsewhere, focus upon education was a necessary part of these victories.

Public vs. private education is not a simple argument to be had with snippets of ancedotal evidence and "told you so" statements. Oversimplfication is part of the New Right's strategy that consists primarily of Idolotry of Ideology.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

Lemme see,
In a socialist process people should be getting the same and giving the same kinda a migration to mediocracy eh.

But as pointed out the ones doing the division of benes always seem to be high on the hog, else they are so stuffed full of blue riches that now they can provide the front and push for socialism.

On the laborer and the educated making their money I just hafta tell ya about two of my friends they are both into fixing circulatory systems:

For one when the beeper goes off or the digital leash rings its gotta go gotta go he dives deep into the symptoms arranges for procedures and many a times rushes in to fix the problem.

The second one however answers the page or mobile phone and tells em to turn off the water and some-one will be there in the morning!

They both make similar amounts of mula and live high on the hog although in different ways. As the ruskie comic used to say WHAT A COUNTRY.

Most of the socialists or communists I have come across generally turn capitalistic republicans (at times posing as feel good socialistic-democrats) as their earning power goes up. Perhaps it returns once the bedding is full of greens as are all the accounts and there is no place to put the incoming salad.

There has to be a base level of humanitarianism/socialism but after that individual efforts should be rewarded. That said we must provide for the homeless but also realize that one cannot haul them away and put them in institution for rehab when all they want is the bottle and freedom to migrate with the weather.

As the french say Vive Le Differance!

BORN TO BE WILD...

Mike, the rich get richer because they are smart enough to acquire the money of poor people. Everybody can't be rich. Call me an arrogant prick, but it seems that most Americans really aren't that bright. There is, however, a percentage that is very smart. If our society was structured in a manner where everybody was solely responsible for themselves we would have a giant lower class and a small ruling upper class. The middle class would all but dissolve.

Being "poor" isn't necessarily a predicament. For some people money truly is not the most important thing.

If your libertarian philosophy were put into play it would be as effective as communism. People would hate it, and then they would revolt.

__________________
Ben

The MBs:
1976 300D (W115) - 330K and still going (sort of)
1991 300D 2.5 Turbo - Sold at 221K
1983 280SEL - Sold at 206K
1981 300SD - Sold at 232K

Conservatives have tended to blame education for a loss of certain social values and for the rise of various social ills which are seen as detrimental to the economy. But conservatives prescribe only modest proposals for containing and minimizing the effects of the market, which have agruably created much of the instability and insecurity underlying these trends. As Arthur Schlesing, Jr. remarks:

"The unfettered market conservatives worship undermines the the values -- stability, morality, family, community, work, discipline, delayed gratification -- conservatives avow."

Conservatives continue a trend they have followed since Edmund Burke in accomodating themselves to capitalism. It is all very good to criticize selfish individualism, vapid consumerism, and an immoral culture, but unless we understand the economic underpinnings of such modern phenomena, these things will keep coming at us. In tying themselves to a defense of capitalism, conservatives fail the test of social realism.

What is needed is a postmodern socialist recognition of certain basic values common to all cultures -- respect and courtesy, social and personal responsibility, self-discipline, honesty and courage -- to be instilled by schools in a committed way. Or course, the specific content of these values must be determined through a democratic process of public debate and critical reflection. But education could play an important role in this process of democratic awakening.

Public education cannot be blamed for every blemish on the social fabric. Critics of all political stripes have gone too far in making these attacks. At the same time, teachers and administrators have gone too far since the 1970's in presenting education as the universal solution. Schools have made substantial progress in many areas. Children are becoming educated. Canadians, as a whole, are functionally literate. Our rates of post-secondary education rival any other country. Schools today are not as racist, sexist, or class-ridden as in the past, although each of these issues continues to exist in various degrees and a two-tiered system of education does seem to be emerging. Likewise, schools today are not as authoritarian as they were only a few short years ago.

But, public education's defenders cannot rest. Moreover, they most not fall into the trap of defending public education on the terrain of neo-liberal expecations: a mere investment in future jobs. Neither can the defence be based on some narrow appeal to education's capacity to instill collective morality. Public education can only be defended on it's capacity to develop human potential and democracy.

Current discussions of education pay too much attention to it's role in preparing for work -- a reflection of the neo-liberal thrust of our times. This apporach ignores the inter-relatedness of the economy, society, and public and private realms. Ultimately, an information based, high tech economy is the product of a particular kind of society: one extremely open to change and democratic in the broadest sense. Education in the larger sense means more than technically retooling the workforce, or the emergence of professional classes, or even the encouragement of a manufacturing culture in the schools and colleges to preserve a productive base. It should provide a safe space for the development of personal autonomy and social criticism. Democracy is about providing a legitimate place and opportunity for people to voice their concerns and be heard. It is also about changing the conditions in which we learn and labour and the goal of a better future for all.

Eastern Bloc socialism was mislabelled. They faced a totalitarian regime that used a form of wealth redistribution as a control method and a circumvention of democracy. I notice that unfettered capitalism has been the utter and complete solution that neo-liberals claimed it would prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall. The USSR has been broken, and the free market Russia in her place offers little more to her people. Perhaps more opportunity for escape.

Extreme positions rarely work. Marxism could not exist given human nature. The libertarian position is not dissimilar in it's positioning itself on the extemity of the continuum. Creating a civil society that operates in an orderly fashion is a compromise. None of the positions located at the extremes will work. Strife between groups will lead to eventual conflict and destabilization.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

Our beloved Mercedes Benz cars are built by people who are mostly Socialists, members of various branches of the Socialist Party in Germany.

Many newer Mercedes are being built by East Germans, some of whom were once Communists.

The Audi TT is built in Hungary.

Several years ago I went to Spain, and traveled all over Madrid. Spain has a mildly Socialist government and the Per Capita Income is a fraction of that of the US.

Yet nowhere in Spain did I see poverty as great as one sees right here in Miami, Florida.

Didn't see any fat kids, either. Not one in two weeks.

Capitalism does not have all the answers, nor does socialism. A better society can be created by combining features of both.

Pying car insurance at the gas pump comes to mind. The more fuel you buy, the more insurance you pay for, and no one is uninsured. There are zillions of illegals here in Miami, and since they can't get a Social Security card, they can't get a driver's license, either, and of course, they drive with neither a license nor insurance.

Of course, we should deport people who are here illegally or make them legal.

__________________
Semibodacious Transmogrifications a Specialty

1990 300D 2.5 Turbo sedan 171K (Rudolf)
1985 300D Turbo TD Wagon 219K (Remuda)

"Time flies like and arrow, yet fruit flies like a banana"
---Marx (Groucho)

Amazing... to watch you guys can take a complex political topic of socialism and reduce it to the subject of public education. It reminds me of the ritual we go through in the U.S. every four years when our bi-partisan political views fall on either side of whether you are pro-life or not!

However, on the subject of education I like most of what Blackmercedes had to say. The error in his thinking is where he places the responsibility for inculcating our childrens values. We must not ever depend on others, certainly not a school system, to teach such important subjects. I will send my son to school to learn mathematics, literature, language and science. I will always take responsibility for teaching him right and wrong, truth and lies, integrity and character.
How can society pass off the task of teaching values to the school system. Isn't it clear from the results of other less well funded school systems, South America comes to mind, that children can absorb knowledge at a much more advanced pace than the U.S. system recognizes? Yet, when we consider the values which will make them whole human beings, doesn't it seem that those subjects take much more time and nurture to instill?

Well, that's my $.02....let's not ignore the role of the home in the process of education! Hill I agree with you, the balance in this country is what makes it work and why it's still the best system.

__________________
Ed "Don't Benz's just feel better..."

Current wives...
2000 ML430 Skyview "The Mel"
2000 CLK430 Cab "The Cab"
85 300D Turbo "The Diesel"

Past wives...
92 300E
85 190E

"One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to
avoid starvation and to keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond
this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny, and is likely to
interfere with happiness in all kinds of ways."
Bertrand Russell

Go back and read my posts. I did not say that we should rely on the public school system as the sole provider for inculcating values. We do hold certain values in common as a society, and I fail to understand why these values cannot be reinforced in our school system.

Schools can and should be much more than the delivery mechanism for "products." Math and science are important, but so are social interaction, tolerance, and social responsibility.

I also spoke of personal responsibility, and one of these is to provide parenting to your children. Values is a part of that. When I was growing up in the public school system, I received value-based information from teachers, other students, and from the system as a whole. I then received value information from my parents, other family members, and the neighbourhood. All of this was mixed together to form what became my own personal value set, different from my parents, but similar in many ways. It's about allowing your child to become their own unique person, separate and apart from you.

Yes, the discussion wandered off socialism and onto public education. This is not uncommon, as neo-liberals would have you believe that public education is a sign that we are approaching the hell known as socalism.

A civil society is not created through idolotry of ideology. No extreme viewpoint will work. The creation of 20th century Western culture was predicated on compromise. This is what separates us from extremist nations like, well, Iraq.

The fear of "socialism" or other "liberal unfairness" is a knee-jerk reaction that is commonly espoused by individuals looking for a systemic excuse as to why things have "gone wrong" in their eyes.

The New Right agenda was created by a small number of corporate interests and skillfully written to be the play-book of the "common-sense everyday man." In truth it appeals mostly to white males that have lost their previous genetically appointed advantage which allowed them to achieve a certain level of class standing regardless of skill or effort.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif