4 ms·

> See USPS vs. FedEx/UPS - USPS treats its employees well, delivers to everyone, and controls prices to make basic services accessible to all citizens UPS is u

> See USPS vs. FedEx/UPS - USPS treats its employees well, delivers to everyone, and controls prices to make basic services accessible to all citizens UPS is unionized and notorious for paying very good wages. The difference is that UPS doesn't deliver to a lot of rural (unprofitable) areas. That _is_ something the government should be funding through USPS. On the other hand the travesty that is the USPS delivery vehicle procurement process shows maybe we shouldn't always rely on government for everything. > I would argue it didn't - the ideology of industry better than government just changed the rules, broke the system, and claimed a victory. In this case industry also created a market where there previously wasn't one for your educational funds. Your local school district no longer has a monopoly on tax revenue for schools and is forced to improve to compete. I would argue we should be explicitly subsidizing those disabled students you're talking about rather than implicitly have everyone else pay for them. Then you can split out necessary costs (accessibility, etc.) vs. costs that need to be cut (school is paying admin too much, etc.)

avs733 5y ago
thank god the government no longer has a monopoly on...checks notes...the money I give the government to provide government services. Now we can...check notes...collect more tax dollars so that disabled students have access to segregated education and somehow that will show us who is making too much money. You have invented the idea of accounting and presume that it is impossible that it will not show you are right. I hear this type of logic a lot. If you don't start with an assumption that the ideology is true and therefore the outcomes from the ideology are better then what comes out is functionally incoherent. It begins with the assumption that public organizations are poorly run and then uses that assumption to conclude they are poorly run. That's not thinking, its not argumentation, and it should not be respected as a serious viewpoint. When the charter schools get to pick the students they want and leave the the more expensive students to the group that is required by law to educate them they haven't improved. They haven't innovated, they've stolen from the public and claimed their moral superiority for doing so. This comment is representative of the fucking inanity (not insanity) of this ideology.
- e4e78a06 5y ago
  > thank god the government no longer has a monopoly on...checks notes...the money I give the government to provide government services There's no inherent reason why I shouldn't get to decide how my own property taxes are spent. If my city decides through an election that those property taxes should be given as vouchers, why shouldn't that be allowed? You're proposing taxation without representation. > collect more tax dollars so that disabled students have access to segregated education and somehow that will show us who is making too much money Local tax dollars, which are raised by local elections approving those tax dollars. It also sounds like you haven't actually been in a school this decade because special needs students are _already_ segregated and take separate classes with separate teachers. > You have invented the idea of accounting and presume that it is impossible that it will not show you are right If I'm wrong then the tax dollars all flow back to public schools anyways. That's how a market works. > It begins with the assumption that public organizations are poorly run and then uses that assumption to conclude they are poorly run I don't see why we shouldn't give parents the choice to decide themselves whether those public organizations are in fact poorly run. And speaking from experience growing up in public K-12 and a public university, a lot of these organizations _are_ poorly run. > When the charter schools get to pick the students they want and leave the the more expensive students to the group that is required by law to educate them they haven't improved. They haven't innovated, they've stolen from the public and claimed their moral superiority for doing so You mean just like how gifted programs pick the students they want and leave the more expensive students (in dollars per student graduated or however you want to measure it) to the group that is required by law to educate them? You seem to assume that charter schools automatically haven't shown any improvements in outcomes when you say this. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say let's wait and see how they do. I think parents are more than intelligent enough to select the best school for their kids. I'm happy mandating that charter schools be nonprofits if that reduces the grifting but I think we need choice. The other alternative is I move to where the good schools are and pay $$$$ for a house in a good school district. I think one is definitely going to help more people than the other, don't you think?
  - ROTMetro 5y ago
    Isn't the whole point of taxes that they are for spending we don't get to choose, because if we did, it wouldn't happen? Otherwise what is the point? They aren't Credit Unions or crowd sourcing, they are taxes. You are proposing taxes by direct democracy, and the United States at least is not based on that, because most of our founders came from minorities that were having penalized by popular rule, we tend to favor protection from the tyranny of the majority that you propose. WHile special needs may be segregated, they are still funded by the general pool, you completely failed to address his argument. You also seem to say criticize his opinion for not being in a school this decade, so are you arguing that maybe people who are say, more expert in schools, should make schooling decisions and not just any old person, say someone handed a voucher? The voucher side always touts the free market, but it completely fail to address that in markets there are ALWAYS winners and loosers, and if we as society are willing to increase that aspect when it comes to children and education. Instead of fixing a sinking boat, it just figures out a way for some to get to lifeboats. I'd like to think we can do and be better than that. BTW I was pro voucher in theory, but the outcome in reality just isn't morally acceptable to me.

avs733 5y ago

thank god the government no longer has a monopoly on...checks notes...the money I give the government to provide government services. Now we can...check notes...collect more tax dollars so that disabled students have access to segregated education and somehow that will show us who is making too much money. You have invented the idea of accounting and presume that it is impossible that it will not show you are right. I hear this type of logic a lot. If you don't start with an assumption that the ideology is true and therefore the outcomes from the ideology are better then what comes out is functionally incoherent. It begins with the assumption that public organizations are poorly run and then uses that assumption to conclude they are poorly run. That's not thinking, its not argumentation, and it should not be respected as a serious viewpoint. When the charter schools get to pick the students they want and leave the the more expensive students to the group that is required by law to educate them they haven't improved. They haven't innovated, they've stolen from the public and claimed their moral superiority for doing so. This comment is representative of the fucking inanity (not insanity) of this ideology.

e4e78a06 5y ago
> thank god the government no longer has a monopoly on...checks notes...the money I give the government to provide government services There's no inherent reason why I shouldn't get to decide how my own property taxes are spent. If my city decides through an election that those property taxes should be given as vouchers, why shouldn't that be allowed? You're proposing taxation without representation. > collect more tax dollars so that disabled students have access to segregated education and somehow that will show us who is making too much money Local tax dollars, which are raised by local elections approving those tax dollars. It also sounds like you haven't actually been in a school this decade because special needs students are _already_ segregated and take separate classes with separate teachers. > You have invented the idea of accounting and presume that it is impossible that it will not show you are right If I'm wrong then the tax dollars all flow back to public schools anyways. That's how a market works. > It begins with the assumption that public organizations are poorly run and then uses that assumption to conclude they are poorly run I don't see why we shouldn't give parents the choice to decide themselves whether those public organizations are in fact poorly run. And speaking from experience growing up in public K-12 and a public university, a lot of these organizations _are_ poorly run. > When the charter schools get to pick the students they want and leave the the more expensive students to the group that is required by law to educate them they haven't improved. They haven't innovated, they've stolen from the public and claimed their moral superiority for doing so You mean just like how gifted programs pick the students they want and leave the more expensive students (in dollars per student graduated or however you want to measure it) to the group that is required by law to educate them? You seem to assume that charter schools automatically haven't shown any improvements in outcomes when you say this. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say let's wait and see how they do. I think parents are more than intelligent enough to select the best school for their kids. I'm happy mandating that charter schools be nonprofits if that reduces the grifting but I think we need choice. The other alternative is I move to where the good schools are and pay $$$$ for a house in a good school district. I think one is definitely going to help more people than the other, don't you think?
- ROTMetro 5y ago
  Isn't the whole point of taxes that they are for spending we don't get to choose, because if we did, it wouldn't happen? Otherwise what is the point? They aren't Credit Unions or crowd sourcing, they are taxes. You are proposing taxes by direct democracy, and the United States at least is not based on that, because most of our founders came from minorities that were having penalized by popular rule, we tend to favor protection from the tyranny of the majority that you propose. WHile special needs may be segregated, they are still funded by the general pool, you completely failed to address his argument. You also seem to say criticize his opinion for not being in a school this decade, so are you arguing that maybe people who are say, more expert in schools, should make schooling decisions and not just any old person, say someone handed a voucher? The voucher side always touts the free market, but it completely fail to address that in markets there are ALWAYS winners and loosers, and if we as society are willing to increase that aspect when it comes to children and education. Instead of fixing a sinking boat, it just figures out a way for some to get to lifeboats. I'd like to think we can do and be better than that. BTW I was pro voucher in theory, but the outcome in reality just isn't morally acceptable to me.