EDU: Public Schools (Was: Re: [extropy-chat]Gametheoryofcommoncold

[Harvey Newstrom]

Technotranscendence wrote,
> On Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:40 AM Harvey Newstrom 
> mail at HarveyNewstrom.com wrote:
> >> I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression
> >> that your life, career, works, example, spending
> >> and creating (non-exhaustive list) already give
> >> back amply to your community and beyond it.
> >
> > You are not mistaken.  We are very active in
> > volunteer work and spend huge amounts on
> > various charities we support.  This attitude is
> > only possible because we believe in our
> > community and in helping others.
> 
> Hey, good for you.  However, it seems you're using your so 
> called charitable works to boast about your moral superiority, no?:)

No.  Where did you get that idea.  I did not bring them up.  I answered a
direct question.  My point is that being comfortable with taxation and
public schools is not incompatible with charity work.  Where did I mention
anything about my moral superiority?  (If anything, I have an inferiority
complex that drives me to do more to try to prove myself.)

> The fact is that actually working, creating, etc. does more 
> overall to help others than charity.

This is a false dichotomy.  We don't have to choose between working,
creating or being charitable.  We can do it all.  I believe in the
non-zero-sum game, or the win/win situation.  It is this attitude that
encourages me to be charitable.

> > If I were a bitter old Libertarian clutching my
> > gun and grumping about all taxes being theft,
> > I would be so busy wallowing in my self-pity
> > and victim mentality that I would not give back
> > anything to anyone.
> 
> I'm sure there are a few people like that out there, but 
> almost all of the libertarians I know are not like that.

Maybe not that extreme.  But you are already arguing that charity is not as
important as working, creating and making your own money.  You seem to
actually look down on charity or see it as a bad thing, think I am a morally
smug (bad) person for doing it, etc.  This kind of zero-sum libertarian
thinking tends to turn selfish.  It leads one to believe that there are
limited resources, so "I have to make mine first" and "there isn't enough to
share with anybody else".  I think it also leads to selfish justification
that "I help others by holding my own job and keeping my own money".  Sorry,
but I don't believe in trickle-down economics.

> > It is this very fact that I have been blessed in
> > my life that empowers me to help others.
> > If I really felt that I had to claw and scratch out
> > every single penny with no help from anyone,
> > seeing the government and social institutions
> > as enemies, I would bury all my money in the
> > back yard and never help anyone.
> 
> I think you're setting up a package deal here -- meaning 
> you're packing together things that don't necessarily go 
> together.  I see nothing wrong with making wealth and 
> deciding what to do with it -- i.e., not having the 
> government come in and take some or force you to use your 
> wealth in certain ways.  As long as you don't harm others, 
> you should be free to produce, create, trade, give, and 
> consume as you see fit.  If you agree with this -- and this 
> is basically the standard libertarian ideal -- then why can't 
> you be charitable?  Many people I know who call themselves 
> libertarians do just this.

The ideals you are promoting under the "libertarian" banner are all about
freedom to get more for yourself.  Sure, there is nothing in it that
precludes charity.  But all of its specifically stated goals are pretty much
the opposite of charity.  Libertarians worry so much about getting more for
themselves, that many (not all) never get around to helping others.  Or they
set their priorities that they will work toward a free state, and help
others later.

> The package deal is that you are assuming that that 
> libertarian ideal must make you out to be a Scrooge-like 
> character and that only people who support government welfare 
> schemes can be truly generous.

No, libertarian philosophy does not make you a scrooge, but it is the
perfect philosophy for an already scroogy person to hold.  And, no, you
don't have to love the government to work through their charities, but a
deep hate or distrust of the government will probably lead people to not
support government programs in any way.

> I'm sure many people who believe in 
> government welfare mean well and feel it's the only way to 
> help others.  They're wrong, misguided, and their efforts are 
> counterproductive.  Likewise, not everyone who is allowed to 
> pursue his or her happiness is going to be charitable.  There 
> will be misers, but misers tend to be rare anyhow.  They 
> actually tend to do less harm because they don't stop the 
> rest of us from being generous.)

I agree with the first part.  But I disagree that misers are rare.  I do
auditing for a living.  I find rampant fraud almost everywhere I go.  People
cheat people all the time.  These misers do hurt other people all the time.
Enron is not an exception, it is the rule.  These people do the opposite of
trickle-down.  They destroy value for many others to enhance their own
stockpile.

-- 
Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, CISA, CISM, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
Certified IS Security Pro, Certified IS Auditor, Certified InfoSec Manager,
NSA Certified Assessor, IBM Certified Consultant, SANS Certified GIAC
<HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>