How Do You Spell That?

Roads: let users of the roads pay tolls. If I don't use the roads why should I pay for the roads?

Schools: Have you *seen* the state of public education? it's a dismal failure across the board. Privatize the schools, let them compete for good teachers.

I forget what show I was watching it on where a character had this idea: tax a person a flat rate (say 1%) and have that money go directly to the public schools that educated them. Then, the schools are incented to not just graduate you, but graduate you as a useful member of society. If you succeed, THEY reap a tiny percentage benefit.

By and large, just about everything the government tax dollars touch turns to shit, and then the government holds its citizens captive by offering to return the tax money it collected in the first place (e.g., the "if you don't raise the drinking age to 21, we won't give you {N} billion dollars in federal highway money" game).

Let people pay for what they use. It's a model that's been working for the NY State Thruway for years. As a toll road, it doesn't get federal highway funds, nor does it get any NY tax money. It gets every single penny of its expenses covered by tolls -- those who use it pay to keep it running. And it's been profitable for years. So profitable that about 5 or 10 years ago, when it was slated to "become free and get handed over to NY State to run" (it's presently run by an NGO), NY State basically said "we'll let you keep the tolls on it, how about you keep it, and take these other strips of interstate as well".

It *can* work. It *does* work, but it's such a power-shift from the politics-as-usual bullshit of today that nobody is willing to point out how well it works.

Tollways are great, except in Chicago where the "Tollway Atuhority" has embezzed it to shit. Problem is these guys pay the state to run it, so you can see where it goes from there.

Schools, I can agree to a point on that. Our educational system blows eggs. I would love to see a system where it changed from public to privately run. The problem is there isn't money out there (or at least the NEA won't release it) to run private schools well. At least I have enough coin in to put one in private school for a year or two just to get them ready for junior high.

But I guess I'm getting back to the point of where does moral judgement come into play with the letter of the law. People claim that they don't have religious unertones with certain debates (like the evolution/selected upbringing crap they went through on P&T a few weeks ago).

I don't entirely agree with my wife's stance on this.

But I do think that there's some unnecessary waffling people have about "enforcing morality on others." I'm sorry, I don't buy this. Rape is immoral. Theft is immoral. Slavery is immoral. Fraud is immoral. Child abuse is immoral. We impose these morals on people all the time, and I'm glad we do.

And no, I really don't think there's a distinction between these things and any other moral issue the law has to tackle.

The question is, really, where you draw the line. I prefer a society where everything that is not strictly forbidden is allowed by default. And I prefer one with as little centralized authority as possible. But there's always going to have to be laws. And if we want want to put a big circle around a lot things and say, "this is nobody else's business," I'm fine with that, but we're never going to escape violating even that, sometimes.

Realizing this is what put me in the "smaller government is better, and the more local control the better" camp. It's easier to argue about these things and find compromises in small communities than to try to enforce one standard on things upon a group of 300 million people, y'know?

That isn't quite what I've said you paraphrased me a bit. I'm sure that you think that is what I said, though. :)

My point is simple if you are ANTI-WAR because you think war is wrong and killing is bad than you can't honestly say that you support the troops because you think what they are doing is wrong...that doesn't follow, ya see.

If you think that abortion is "wrong" and that you could never bring yourself to do it - but you don't want to impose your "morality" on others - so you are okay with it - that doesn't mesh. It's hypocritical. I don't mean it as an insult. That is just how I see it.

That's it. That doesn't mean you can't be that way - just that your reasoning is skewed.

I don't want to outlaw abortion - not at all. I just believe in calling a spade a spade, so to speak.

Most of our laws are a result of imposing morality. People impose morality all the time. That is why rape, incest, murder, theft and a host of other "immoral" behavior is illegal.

If someone is stridently anti-war (in all cases) cuz they think it's criminal - how can they say with a straight face that they "support the troops"? I hope that is more clear.

To answer Rosemary ...

I disagree with you. It is possible, for example, to be totally against abortion, but to recognize that it is a moral choice that is up to each person to decide their own viewpoint on. That's not saying "I'm ok with abortion" because I support your right to make up your own mind on the topic, it's saying that I don't think it's my place to tell you what you can and can't do.

Similarly, you can support the troops while not supporting the war. It's a way of saying "I wish the hell they weren't fighting (and that can be because I'm nonviolent by nature, or simply because I disagree with this engagement), but since they ARE fighting, and I can't stop that, let's get them home safe and sound, and do whatever it takes to make that happen."

Sorry Derek. Non-Violoent by nature? Where's that HD with the shotgun shell thorugh it ;-)

Rosemary, I think that you are confusing "concious thought" with "actions". I can think that I shouldn't pay taxes; but that doesn't mean that I'm going to fight like hell to get them repealed. Even though I might not agree with someones views, that all it is, just their views.

I know for a fact that Derek doesn't like the war and doesn't want our guys over there. But I also know he wants them home taking care of issues here, and not over there. He supports them, but just doesn't agree with their orders from GW. We've had many a debate over this, and I've never sensed a hope that something bad would happen to our guys.