|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think it's absurd that its viewed as acceptable for one sex to fully support the other, and I think that it demeans both sexes. |
I think this is ridiculous. The couple supports the family. A family is a unit. |
I meant financially. As someone who is free market and anti-socialist maybe look at stay at home moms as recieving some sort of domestic welfare if that makes the point more comfertable to you. |
We have very different ideas about marriage and the family. My spouse will not be receiving welfare. Our family will have an income. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I totally disagree. The private sector delivers superb cars, televisions and cellphones, and countless other products, that are perfectly affordable to virtually everyone. The reason private education is expensive presently is because (a) the state confiscates capital from the private sector and (b) the state gives away a free product. Just (a) would be bad enough, but (a) plus (b) makes it impossible for real private sector competition to develop, reflected in expense. Only a minority of people (the rich) can afford to pay for state education (in the form of taxation) and still be willing to hand over yet more money for private schooling - and this exclusivity is reflected in the high cost of private sector schools. However, if state education and the taxation thereto were abolished, private education would expand across the whole of society, bringing opportunities for the poor and, indubitably, superior ones to the current state system. If the state gave away free cars, private sector investment would drift away from cars and the only private sector cars available would be of the most exclusive variety; the days of the affordable private sector car would disappear since virtually all demand would flow into the 'free' state alternative. The same occurs in education. It is utterly fallacious for statists to advocate (a) and (b) and then subsequently criticize the private sector for being unaffordable; of course it's unaffordable, for that is the economic corollary. If then the statist then makes the claim "if we abolish state cars, only the rich will be able to afford cars thereafter", I would say no, that's unlikely, because the very expense is a consequence of (a) and (b) which I intend to abolish.
It is an article of faith, I acknowledge, but I feel quite certain that universal private education would be affordable and perfectly attuned to individual needs. |
How would this work in the current developing world where cars and education, etc. are out of the reach of the majority of people? It would seem to me that this still serves the interests of the rich of the world, or is that the point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I totally disagree. The private sector delivers superb cars, televisions and cellphones, and countless other products, that are perfectly affordable to virtually everyone. The reason private education is expensive presently is because (a) the state confiscates capital from the private sector and (b) the state gives away a free product. Just (a) would be bad enough, but (a) plus (b) makes it impossible for real private sector competition to develop, reflected in expense. Only a minority of people (the rich) can afford to pay for state education (in the form of taxation) and still be willing to hand over yet more money for private schooling - and this exclusivity is reflected in the high cost of private sector schools. However, if state education and the taxation thereto were abolished, private education would expand across the whole of society, bringing opportunities for the poor and, indubitably, superior ones to the current state system. If the state gave away free cars, private sector investment would drift away from cars and the only private sector cars available would be of the most exclusive variety; the days of the affordable private sector car would disappear since virtually all demand would flow into the 'free' state alternative. The same occurs in education. It is utterly fallacious for statists to advocate (a) and (b) and then subsequently criticize the private sector for being unaffordable; of course it's unaffordable, for that is the economic corollary. If then the statist then makes the claim "if we abolish state cars, only the rich will be able to afford cars thereafter", I would say no, that's unlikely, because the very expense is a consequence of (a) and (b) which I intend to abolish.
It is an article of faith, I acknowledge, but I feel quite certain that universal private education would be affordable and perfectly attuned to individual needs. |
How would this work in the current developing world where cars and education, etc. are out of the reach of the majority of people? It would seem to me that this still serves the interests of the rich of the world, or is that the point? |
As someone mentioned before, like communism, sergio's ideas sound good in theory, but when implemented will most likely end not working as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I think it's absurd that its viewed as acceptable for one sex to fully support the other, and I think that it demeans both sexes. |
I think this is ridiculous. The couple supports the family. A family is a unit. |
I meant financially. As someone who is free market and anti-socialist maybe look at stay at home moms as recieving some sort of domestic welfare if that makes the point more comfertable to you. |
We have very different ideas about marriage and the family. My spouse will not be receiving welfare. Our family will have an income. |
Is your wife a stay at home mom/person. If that is the case the family doesn't have an income, you do. In that situation it could be said to be similar to her receiving welfare from your salary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| As someone mentioned before, like communism, sergio's ideas sound good in theory, but when implemented will most likely end not working as well. |
The air is too rarefied up on that cloud he sits on. Ordinary mortals cannot survive up there for long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strange. Most women I know wanted to stay with their child as much as possible. Of course I am married and have a child so what would I know. No my income is the family income. It's a partnership.
But my wife works now because she wants to. I think the Soviet state tried taking children from parents and raising them in an ideal setting without over parenting. I do believe that after a few years they were producing really screwed up little monsters and stopped it. Of course what would I know.
Back on topic The drastic fall in the birth rate in Europe has probably been a big part of their downfall. A child makes you feel vested in the future and is a great motivator. Of course falling enrollment in Universities meant less money , so fewer professors so less infrastructure and soon you have an uneducated society that are slave to the state. Waiting until the master gives them their rations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| Strange. Most women I know wanted to stay with their child as much as possible. Of course I am married and have a child so what would I know. No my income is the family income. It's a partnership. |
This is how I feel as well. My wife and I have come together in a common pursuit. When we both work, each of us contributed to this goal through both the earning of income from outside sources and by tending things that needed to be tended around the house. Now that she doesn't work, she instead contributes with more focus on maintaining the household. She's not an invalid who is doing nothing, such that she could be said to be "on welfare." Just like me, she is doing her part to make our collective life better. The fact that her contribution currently takes a different form than mine isn't relevant.
We've both been happier since she's been staying at home. It's really what's taken me from, "Strongly suspecting this lifestyle works," to being a full believer in it. Her working at an English hagwon wasn't enriching her or improving her as a person, it was just forcing her to use her time doing something she didn't especially like in pursuit of money that we didn't really need. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Strange. Most women I know wanted to stay with their child as much as possible. Of course I am married and have a child so what would I know. No my income is the family income. It's a partnership. |
This is how I feel as well. My wife and I have come together in a common pursuit. When we both work, each of us contributed to this goal through both the earning of income from outside sources and by tending things that needed to be tended around the house. Now that she doesn't work, she instead contributes with more focus on maintaining the household. She's not an invalid who is doing nothing, such that she could be said to be "on welfare." Just like me, she is doing her part to make our collective life better. The fact that her contribution currently takes a different form than mine isn't relevant.
We've both been happier since she's been staying at home. It's really what's taken me from, "Strongly suspecting this lifestyle works," to being a full believer in it. Her working at an English hagwon wasn't enriching her or improving her as a person, it was just forcing her to use her time doing something she didn't especially like in pursuit of money that we didn't really need. |
What does she do with her time, if you don't mind me asking? This is not something that I feel super strongly about, more of a case of having too much time at work with not enough to do. I feel that working at a Hagwon is mostly a waste of time other than the money aspect so I can agree with that. Part of my view is from seeing some stay at home moms who didn't really do much with their time as well as knowing several socially stunted and awkward people who were home schooled, which I suspect in many cases springs from the same ideas that foster the idea of the stay at home mom. I feel that I would be resentful of a person who lived off of my earnings while not doing it, mostly because I do dislike wage labor so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
Strange. Most women I know wanted to stay with their child as much as possible. Of course I am married and have a child so what would I know. No my income is the family income. It's a partnership.
But my wife works now because she wants to. I think the Soviet state tried taking children from parents and raising them in an ideal setting without over parenting. I do believe that after a few years they were producing really screwed up little monsters and stopped it. Of course what would I know. |
If one person doesn't earn money than it's not their income. When I was a child my parents income wasn't mine, it was theirs that they shared with me. The soviet example is an extreme one, not to mention the indoctrination that goes with pretty much most everything the soviets tried to do. Extremes are always bad, whether it is under parenting, or a parent who over manages and over nurtures their child. The whole " a generation of men raised by women" fight club bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| How would this work in the current developing world where cars and education, etc. are out of the reach of the majority of people? It would seem to me that this still serves the interests of the rich of the world, or is that the point? |
The developing world needs capital accumulation before it can even consider such luxuries as universal education. Child labor and sweatshops all the way.
I'm very egalitarian: leave no pauper unexploited  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
What does she do with her time, if you don't mind me asking?
|
Primarily household chores (cleaning, laundering, shopping, and cooking), the creation of clothing or household decorations via sewing and stitch-craft (most of our household decorations were made by either her or her mother, and some of her clothing is of her own make as well), and studying (both academic subjects like English and a minor mirroring of my philosophic studies, and practical subjects like cooking and crafts). It doesn't sound like much perhaps, but it keeps her quite busy.
| Leon wrote: |
I feel that I would be resentful of a person who lived off of my earnings while not doing it, mostly because I do dislike wage labor so much.
|
There was a time when I thought I would feel this way too. My wife improves my life in so many ways, however, that resentment simply finds no purchase in my heart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I totally disagree. The private sector delivers superb cars, televisions and cellphones, and countless other products, that are perfectly affordable to virtually everyone. The reason private education is expensive presently is because (a) the state confiscates capital from the private sector and (b) the state gives away a free product. Just (a) would be bad enough, but (a) plus (b) makes it impossible for real private sector competition to develop, reflected in expense. Only a minority of people (the rich) can afford to pay for state education (in the form of taxation) and still be willing to hand over yet more money for private schooling - and this exclusivity is reflected in the high cost of private sector schools. However, if state education and the taxation thereto were abolished, private education would expand across the whole of society, bringing opportunities for the poor and, indubitably, superior ones to the current state system. If the state gave away free cars, private sector investment would drift away from cars and the only private sector cars available would be of the most exclusive variety; the days of the affordable private sector car would disappear since virtually all demand would flow into the 'free' state alternative. The same occurs in education. It is utterly fallacious for statists to advocate (a) and (b) and then subsequently criticize the private sector for being unaffordable; of course it's unaffordable, for that is the economic corollary. If then the statist then makes the claim "if we abolish state cars, only the rich will be able to afford cars thereafter", I would say no, that's unlikely, because the very expense is a consequence of (a) and (b) which I intend to abolish.
It is an article of faith, I acknowledge, but I feel quite certain that universal private education would be affordable and perfectly attuned to individual needs. |
How would this work in the current developing world where cars and education, etc. are out of the reach of the majority of people? It would seem to me that this still serves the interests of the rich of the world, or is that the point? |
As someone mentioned before, like communism, sergio's ideas sound good in theory, but when implemented will most likely end not working as well. |
I get that. I was just curious as to how he thinks certain obstacles could be overcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| May European Social Democracy breathe its last breath and never shall posterity be inculcated with the tenuous virtues of the parasitic left. |
In an environment where economies cannot support anywhere near full employment and the number of unemployed far outstrip the number of vacancies available we are unlikely to see people clamoring for pure capitalism.
What we are likely to see, indeed we are already seeing it, is the scaling back of the state. I personally feel that the state occupies a disproportionately large role in western Europe and that this is a welcome move, but you are a fantasist if you think that this will inevitably lead to the complete dismantling of the state - and what an unwelcome move that would be.
Moreover, many of these governments in Europe have instituted libertarian policies too, for example unilaterally prizing open their labour markets to other countries which are some way off from achieving wage parity. Some of them, like in the UK, managed to pull this off with the whole hearted backing of the unions too - Milton Friedman would never have envisaged that happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't call for the complete dismantling of the state. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
* Imposition of taxes on the use of land (specifically its value and size)
* Abolition of all other taxes
* Abolition of monarchy
* Abolition of drug prohibition
* Abolition of state-run healthcare
* Abolition of state-run education
* Abolition of government building restrictions
* Abolition of welfare benefits, to be replaced with compulsory alms-giving*
* Near-complete abolition of all spending on defence
* Abolition of all green/climate legislation
* Abolition of all state support for banks
* Abolition of all state activity, save for law & order, scientific research and the collection of taxes thereto
* Re-introduction of capital punishment**
* minimum payment of 1% of monthly income donated to charity or charities of choice
** mandatory euthanasia for perpetrators of gratuitous violence and murder |
Sensible policies for a happier Europe! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
I didn't call for the complete dismantling of the state. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
* Imposition of taxes on the use of land (specifically its value and size)
* Abolition of all other taxes
* Abolition of monarchy
* Abolition of drug prohibition
* Abolition of state-run healthcare
* Abolition of state-run education
* Abolition of government building restrictions
* Abolition of welfare benefits, to be replaced with compulsory alms-giving*
* Near-complete abolition of all spending on defence
* Abolition of all green/climate legislation
* Abolition of all state support for banks
* Abolition of all state activity, save for law & order, scientific research and the collection of taxes thereto
* Re-introduction of capital punishment**
* minimum payment of 1% of monthly income donated to charity or charities of choice
** mandatory euthanasia for perpetrators of gratuitous violence and murder |
Sensible policies for a happier Europe! |
Oh right, fair enough. For aforementioned reasons I still feel that the above scenario is extremely unlikely in western Europe, and again, I think it would be fair to say you are a fantasist. Even Milton Friedman supported a role for the state in monitoring and ultimately punishing business which externalised their costs, through pollution for example.
With respect to the abolition of the monarchy - and presumably the aristocracy - how would you deal with their massive land holdings, which equal a third of all the land in the UK for example? I am not just referring to the Queen, but the large number of dukes and even greater number of earls whose ancestors never acquired that land via the market. Do you count it as the state's and thus subject it to a process of privatisation? Or do you consider it already private? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
