Libertarians Unite

[formerly known as hf]

any selective process is a process of discrimination of some form.

a selective process on basis of academic achivement is discriminatory against those with poor levels of academic achievement

what you mean is that you see it as an unacceptable form of discrimination?

[Racetyme]

I mean I see it as descrimination based on race or ethnicity.

[Stan]

It is a racial bias...but you don't see why? I can't say I'm completely for Affirmative Action, especially in the job market, but in schools and such I think it is a good thing.

Unfortunately, we sometimes have to pay for the past. I think there's a segment of the American population that could benefit from advantages getting into college. Some people don't think it's fair to pay for the sin of the past generations, but....

Think about this. Everyone is willing to accept an inheritance from a past generation. Likewise, we sometimes need to pay for the mistakes of the past generation.

There has to be something done to break the cycle of things in the inner city. Do you know the statistics on single parent families and the rate at young black children's fathers are going to prison? The rates are high.

There may be a better way to segment the population for who gets the "extra point", but AA is the system that's been adopted by our government. Perhaps if the advantage was given to children of single parent homes, or to children of fathers in prison, or something else it would be better, I agree.

But, I think we need to do something to break the cycle. (Wow, a conservative said that.)

[Racetyme]

How about the kids break the cycle. I don't care how poverty stricken you are, you can always work hard enough to get out. Do it yourself, my father certainly did. He lived in a boxcar for two years as a child, and attended Stanford.

[formerly known as hf]

you can work your way - but you can also buy your way

rich kids get support because of the extra finance

there's nothing wrong with society supporting those who can't support themselves.

why is it fair that kids without that financial support should go without the extra help?

What's wrong with society evening-out the discrepancies between the rich and the poor?

[Racetyme]

Because it means that those who are rich have to give up what they have earned. Simply there, I cannot see eye to eye with liberals. Why is it fair to take my money, and give it to someone else? In some cases they do need it, and they are trying by themselves to work their way out. In other's they use my hard earned money to smoke crack. In either case, who is the government to demand that they are more entitled to my money than me? If I choose to help out Jim, the man holding down two jobs, with a wife and kids, scrabbling to pay the bills, so be it, it is my choice. I see nothing wrong with that at all, in fact I hope to be a bit of a philanthropist, if ever I get rich. However, how can I be forced to give up what I have earned? If I am going to be levelled with everyone else, I am just going to sit around all day masturbating, I'm sure as hell not going to try to accomplish anything. I want to recieve something for my work.

[AoM]

Ah... fiscal issues... here's where I start leaning to the right... (yay centrists!)

I like the idea of keeping what you earn. I do think that the government should help out its lower class, however, the welfare system in the Unites States is grossly abused and in dire need of reform.

Right now, we're giving people fish, and feeding them for a day. If we taught people to fish, we could feed them for a lifetime. The government needs to find a way to create more domestic jobs and increase the quality of education in the public school system. More jobs and a smarter generation of lower class kids will eventually lead to an improved quality of life for those kids when they grow up, likely due to their own merit.

I am against the idea that people should be able to live off of welfare alone for the rest of their lives. We need to drastically increase the motivation for these people to re-enter working society.

[Stan]

I agree, like giving them a chance to go to college if they apply.

And I doubt there are many crack smokers applying for a position at the college of your choice. If they are, they'll probably need more than the 1 point you're talking about.

[formerly known as hf]

I agree, like giving them a chance to go to college if they apply.

Here here...

It's as much about opportunity as it is financing.

I understand the 'I want to keep my hard earned money' thing... But, it's just short sighted to think that the only reason the people on welfare are on welfare is because they are addicts / lazy.

Some people can not get jobs because they are disabled (including 'invisible' disabilities such as learning disorders)
Some people are unemployed because of the shift in global industry - manufacturing jobs have been largely removed from western countries. The guy who used to work in the tyre factory has no chance in the service industry.
It is not that there aren't enough jobs - just that the types of jobs have changed - and it is asking a lot of people to somehow learn all the new skills that the new jobs required they do want to try, they do try - there are, in the UK as I'm sure there is in the US, many programs financed by the government to give these people the skills they need (IT etc.) to compete for employment under the new (international) division of labour.

Luck you (and me) for having been brought up in a rich family where the service industry, computers etc. are a normal thing.
What about the kids brought into a family that knows nothing else but the mine, or the automobile factory? What about those people that know nothing beyond the steel works they've spent their whole lives working in?

Maybe we should send those people to third world cities where they can find the jobs they've lost, and work in the same jobs for 1/10th of the wage?

[formerly known as hf]

I like the idea of keeping what you earn.

The government needs to find a way to create more domestic jobs and increase the quality of education in the public school system.

These two lines, to me, seem to contradict each other.
How is a government supposed to compete, globally, to attract investment (jobs) wihtout fudning from taxes?
How is a school system going to improve if there are no taxes to fund the improvement?
We live in a capital-cenrtric world, there's no escaping or denying that, anything needs money, needs capital investment. That's not to say that things can, and do improve without money - but that is by far the exception, and isn't easy.

We need to drastically increase the motivation for these people to re-enter working society.

Here again I disagree - I feel that the whole concept of blaming someone's unemployment on that person is a lie and an untruth strung out by the rich and privileged.

I can never imagine that kind of senetnce coming from someone who has ever been unemployed or ever had any problem looking for work.

I won't deny that there are spongers - the 'crack addicts' if you will who live of the dole.
This is by far the exception than the genral case.

Job seeking is full time work, with no reward. It is very easy to become disheartened, and downright depressed, to spend so many days, weeks, months, years, looking for work, and being refused.

The (UK) economy is slowing - people are unable to spend the money on new staff. I've eexperienced this personally - a few years ago I could call a temping agency and get an office job that week. Now I have to start looking and asking about a month or two before I want to start working...

I can only imagine how difficult it must be for someone who doesn't have the skills I do. To say it's about 'finding the motivation' is a load of poo - even those with the motivation - even those who do learn new skills - even those who do spend months looking for work - there just aren't the jobs for them to go into...

Because it means that those who are rich have to give up what they have earned. Simply there, I cannot see eye to eye with liberals. Why is it fair to take my money, and give it to someone else? ... who is the government to demand that they are more entitled to my money than me?

Has it never occured to you what might happen if one day unemployment benifit was halted, state provided housing was made private, state provided halth care was cancelled?
You would have millions of homeless, impoverished, sick people. Apart from the simple fact that having millions of homeless, impoverished sick people, including children, is just not a nice thing; Do you think those people would re-elect a government that does that?

[AoM]

I like the idea of keeping what you earn.

The government needs to find a way to create more domestic jobs and increase the quality of education in the public school system.

These two lines, to me, seem to contradict each other.
How is a government supposed to compete, globally, to attract investment (jobs) wihtout fudning from taxes?
How is a school system going to improve if there are no taxes to fund the improvement?
We live in a capital-cenrtric world, there's no escaping or denying that, anything needs money, needs capital investment. That's not to say that things can, and do improve without money - but that is by far the exception, and isn't easy.

Did I say no taxes? No. There will always be taxes. It is how you spend the taxes that is important. There are a lot of frivolous and frankly inneffective cash sinks in the US government. I don't care how good one's intentions are, if you're not getting the job done, there has to be reform.

Right now with the Bush Whitehouse, spending has gone overboard... it's hard to comprehend how a Republican President is ignoring the deficit. Our economy is going to poo because of overabundant spending.

Schools systems will improve if we reform government spending on it and use the money to support a long-term fix. Don't just build a catapult and lob money at the problem, think about how you want to fix it. Raising the minimum salary for public school teachers would be a start. You get quality teachers and you'll start to get quality students.

We need to drastically increase the motivation for these people to re-enter working society.

Here again I disagree - I feel that the whole concept of blaming someone's unemployment on that person is a lie and an untruth strung out by the rich and privileged.

I can never imagine that kind of senetnce coming from someone who has ever been unemployed or ever had any problem looking for work.

I won't deny that there are spongers - the 'crack addicts' if you will who live of the dole.
This is by far the exception than the genral case.

Job seeking is full time work, with no reward. It is very easy to become disheartened, and downright depressed, to spend so many days, weeks, months, years, looking for work, and being refused.

First of all, I have been unemployed. I do know that it sucks and the US economy is slower than the UK. But if you'll reread my points, I'm suggesting that the government needs to create more jobs at home, and stop sending jobs overseas. More job opportunity directly addresses this problem that you are bringing up with my arguement. Again, smarter spending improves the economy, which lowers the unemployment rate. The US government needs to start respecting the deficit. (I'm sorry I don't know enough about the UK economy to speak with any authority on it.)

In America, sadly, I think there are more spongers than welfare advocates would like to believe. It's not just the 'crack addicts,' it's also things like single mothers who keep on having children because the check from the government gets bigger and if they actually did find work they'd be earning less money than if they just stayed on welfare. It's a fact that statistically the largest families (children-wise) are the people who can least afford to raise them right. This has a ripple effect across the board... putting more strain on school systems, the job market 20 years down the road, and certainly increases crime.. which leads to more government spending that could have been avoided in the first place.

It's about systems thinking. Attack the problem at its source, don't be satisfied in throwing money to people who won't use it to get themselves out of the situation that they're in. True, we can't totally blame the unemployed, but the system is responsible for helping them get back into a symbiotic relationship with society, not making it easier for them to become permanent cash sinks.

[The (UK) economy is slowing - people are unable to spend the money on new staff. I've eexperienced this personally - a few years ago I could call a temping agency and get an office job that week. Now I have to start looking and asking about a month or two before I want to start working...

I can only imagine how difficult it must be for someone who doesn't have the skills I do. To say it's about 'finding the motivation' is a load of poo - even those with the motivation - even those who do learn new skills - even those who do spend months looking for work - there just aren't the jobs for them to go into...

The motivation that I'm talking about is monetary motivation. People won't look for jobs if it's not monetarily convenient for them to search. The people who are already searching for jobs and ways to get off of welfare are not the problem.

I'm not for destroying welfare. It's a good idea at heart. But expanding it without reform is not only a bad idea, it's downright dangerous.

]Because it means that those who are rich have to give up what they have earned. Simply there, I cannot see eye to eye with liberals. Why is it fair to take my money, and give it to someone else? ... who is the government to demand that they are more entitled to my money than me?

Has it never occured to you what might happen if one day unemployment benifit was halted, state provided housing was made private, state provided halth care was cancelled?
You would have millions of homeless, impoverished, sick people. Apart from the simple fact that having millions of homeless, impoverished sick people, including children, is just not a nice thing; Do you think those people would re-elect a government that does that?

There wouldn't be an election... there'd be a state of anarchy well before that.

[Racetyme]

I think you guys are taking this wrong. I am not saying that people with disabilities, etc. should be denied support. However, the 15 year old mother of four, should perhaps get her shit together. I recognize that some taxes cannot be gotten rid of, even the most capitalist country needs a military, a public school system, and, unless it has some very established corporations, a public road system and a system of public works, such as dams. However, I definitely don't think we should be paying the inner city mother of 8, who was never raped. It is most definitely her fault she couldn't keep her legs closed.

[Stan]

I hear what your saying. I'm talking strictly about college entrance which was your original post. I'm not talking about welfare in general. I see many problems there.

We're probably a lot closer on this issue than you think.

[Racetyme]

Of course we are. Your average joe republican and I am average joe libertarian. We tend to have similair thoughts on taxes and economics, with the exception of certain recent republican administrations.

[formerly known as hf]

I definitely don't think we should be paying the inner city mother of 8, who was never raped. It is most definitely her fault she couldn't keep her legs closed.

So the 15 year old mother who wasn't raped, but who has an abusive father, and has left her psycholgically scarred, who was unable to say no to her idiot boyfriend, who then left her, much like her father left her mother.
She should just have got her shit together?

You have a very short sighted view on teenage pregnancies. Virtually all studies have shown that teenage mothers have some kind of emotional problem - often linked to family background. abusive fathers is by far the most common one.

The last thing teenage pregnancy is about is lack of 'keeping legs closed' or being silly and not bothering with contraception - that's a story spun by the right wing religious groups.