Tue Oct 24 17:44:02 CDT 2000
The following files have been updated since last week:
Emory LR -- debt
More updates have been promised. I will post them tomorrow evening.
>From Tue Oct 24 18:57:33 2000
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
spool id 21416 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:00:12
Received: from smtp.pace.edu (ntutil.pace.edu [18.104.22.168]) by list.uvm.edu
(8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21134 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Tue,
24 Oct 2000 19:00:10 -0400
Received: from fsmail.pace.edu by smtp.pace.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b)
with SMTP id <0.A849762D at smtp.pace.edu>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:59:40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Sender: <firizarry at fsmail.pace.edu>
X-Mailer: <IMail v6.04>
Message-ID: <200010241857.AA74711640 at fsmail.pace.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:57:33 -0400
Reply-To: FIrizarry at pace.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Frank Paul Irizarry <FIrizarry at PACE.EDU>
Subject: Re: VOTE FOR BUSH!!!
Comments: To: Daniel Hugh Nexon <dhn2 at columbia.edu>
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Frank Paul Irizarry wrote:
>> Actually, they're my wife Cindy's student loans. She's the bleeding heart liberal of the family who thought it was the government's "responsibility" to help pay for her Graduate education. I on the other hand took out no government student loans. I sold my car and walked two miles a day back and forth to the Northern Illinois University campus in sub-zero temperatures, i sold away an extensive CD collection, had no cable TV, ate pasta 45 times a month and i worked 16 hours a day over the summer hauling garbage just so i wouldn't have to take a single dime in government money for my education. I did it. Others should to.
>Even if you did not receive student loans, you went to a school which
>received substantial public funds -- thus subsidizing your education --
>took government roads, etc. Like it or not, you aren't "pure." Now, the
>real question is under what conditions it is appropriate to use coercive
>resource expropriation to provide for general welfare... and there are
>good arguments that some of things you've benefited from on fall within
>that domain. That's where the debate needs to be, not on the level of
>bogus, chest-thumping, rabid individualism.
THIS IS JUST A TERRIBLE ARGUMENT! Just because I can't fully escape all of the trappings of the system doesn't mean I need to be complicit with the system in its entirety. I can't escape all schools that receive public funds, I can't avoid all roads maintained with public funds etc... but I can limit the amount that I use the system. Instead of making this awful argument about how I'm not "pure" why don't you accept my narrative and respect it?
>> You assume that the "libertarian" notion (and i don't necessarily
>> categorize myself as such although I do have some strong libretarian
>> tendencies) means no one is concerned with others.
>I think what's more at issue is not some amorphous libertarianism, but the
>kind of sentiments you've expressed (which struck me as pretty hard-core
>self-interested egoism as well).
And that's a bad thing because....
>> That is just patently wrong. Even though the government strips me of
>39% of the money I earn, I still make many charitable
>contributions both of my time and my money. Last Christmas, my family
>decided we would not exchange Christmas gifts and we would instead donate
>all of that money (and then some) that we would have spent on gifts to the
>Volusia County Children's charities. Would you believe that Cindy and i
>had one of the highest contributions they had received that didn't come
>from an organization
>So what you're really saying is that you don't feel like your political
>participation established sufficient consent for your taxation in the
>context of policies aimed at establishing equality of opportunity?
I'm saying that I exercised my choice to donate to charity and that I may not be able to make that choice this year and the state shouldn't force me to.
>> * - the State does not have to wrestle away my money to give it to
>> someone else. i will give under my own vollition.
>The question is whether certain social aims can be achieved by relying on
yep - they can!
>> * - working through the state diminishes social responsibility because people feel that since there taxes went to help those in need than they don't need to do anymore. That's bad.
>I'm not sure this is borne out by historical experience. Generally,
>industrialized countries did not see individuals step in and attempt to
>even the economic playing field, nor support the needy such to assure
>basic quality of life. I expect that there are such effects as you
>describe at the margins, however.
>One of the reasons why it makes sense to assure basic health care is that
>it is a central precondition of equality of opportunity. Radically unequal
>access to health care creates enormous structural disadvantages for those
>who are less privilidged than others. Lack of health insurance leaves
>people vulnerable to financial collapse. The reliance of those who do not
>have coverage on emergency room care not only drives up their long-term
>costs and drives down their productivity, but also increases the cost of
>medical procedures for the rest of us. In short, there are perfectly good
>reasons to see health care--and health insurance--as a 'core need' for
>citizens of an advanced, industrial democracy which government should
>either provide or take steps to ensure adequate access to. In fact, if
>Bush is your candidate of choice you should be well-aware that his
>policies will also siphon off some of your money for this purpose, through
>the promotion of the scam (and market-segmenting agent) that are MSAs.[*]
>[*] The Republican fetish for MSAs is actually a pretty good example of
>the corrupting effects of special-interests upon American politics, but
>that's another story.
>Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
>"Everyone who has had a referee get the argument of his or her paper
>directly backward has wondered about calling it 'peer' review."
>-- Arthur L. Stinchcombe.
More information about the Mailman