New tradition here on Great Conversation(s). We’re going to take some time to help define terms, which all by itself…makes it easier to have great conversations.
Wednesday Wednesday Wordplay:
What does “liberal” mean?
(Yes, I’m equally aware that this conversation is happening on the FB group and determined that eventually we’ll have enough people on GC to have it here. :))
"Randy Lioz: As a self-described progressive, I’m clearly on the other side of this issue from most of you. I’m wondering if my point about needing some tools and structure to be able to maximally enjoy our liberty resonates at all. Public money used for infrastructure, education, healthcare and many other things can help us enjoy our freedom to move around and start enterprises. I recognize that y’all believe it can go too far (and has already), but are we all behind this principle?"
Roads, Brigdes and dams are fine. Healthcare and Education ... no.
Thanks for engaging, Rob. Would you mind explaining why? Is there an underlying fundamental difference that I don't see? And does this mean you'd prefer to get rid of public education altogether? (I don't actually know how Butch feels about this.)
Government run Healthcare involves the state setting the price for someone else's labor. That is ethically wrong. Then there is the price issue. The US system is not a free market system. It has not been so since the 50's and it has gotten worse by the decade. The cost of medicine has risen at two to for times that of inflation since the 60's. This is unsustainable.
As for schooling. Lets look at higher ed first ...
1) Higher education has seen the same price inflation as medicine. This is putting it out of the reach of people.
2) Then there is the issue of 'how many art history majors does the nation need?' not as many as the state funded system produces. Baristas who have $100K in student loans are people who made poor choices and were lied to.
3) There was a time when a liberal arts major was deadly. They could think and communicate their thoughts incredibly well. Now ... many departments (the 'studies' in particular) are indoctrinating students and punishing them for having independent thoughts. A free market would be far, far less likely to reward such institutions.
4) I actually think we are seeing an education bubble, and a lot of colleges are going to shut their doors in the next 20 years. Which is a shame
Seems like a lot of colleges are shutting their doors as we speak because of the pandemic. But I certainly see all this stuff very differently. The out-of-control costs in both the medical and educational fields seem to be directly related to our NOT having them centered around public spending. Other countries that spend a lot less in total are having much better health outcomes when their healthcare systems are funded publicly, and there seems to be a big element of economies of scale there.
And to your point about the state setting the price for someone's labor, it's an interesting one. Makes me wonder about the difference between some gov't employees and others. Why should gov't set the wage of one person who provides a service that contributes to the public good, like restaurant health inspectors and police officers, while not others, like teachers? How can a gov't exist without setting public wages?
Please bear in mind that I'm ambivalent about some issues like minimum wage and charter schools, partly because we've seen the more conservative approaches work in some places, like Sweden. But there they still provide a strong foundation and safety net with public money. So getting back to the original topic, I think we can be "liberal" in a lot of ways that progressives might take issue with, but not if we deny the strong role that gov't can and should play in providing the foundation for that liberal approach.
K to 12 ... look at the results. Since the Federal government got involved in the early 70's in our local schools the results have been disastrous. Desegregation came a decade earlier and is not the problem. The federal level social tinkering is an issue.
Here's the FB conversation which will expire Friday, Oct 23 at 5pm EDT.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/greatconversations.us/permalink/686040745354986/
"Randy Lioz: As a self-described progressive, I’m clearly on the other side of this issue from most of you. I’m wondering if my point about needing some tools and structure to be able to maximally enjoy our liberty resonates at all. Public money used for infrastructure, education, healthcare and many other things can help us enjoy our freedom to move around and start enterprises. I recognize that y’all believe it can go too far (and has already), but are we all behind this principle?"
Roads, Brigdes and dams are fine. Healthcare and Education ... no.
Thanks for engaging, Rob. Would you mind explaining why? Is there an underlying fundamental difference that I don't see? And does this mean you'd prefer to get rid of public education altogether? (I don't actually know how Butch feels about this.)
Government run Healthcare involves the state setting the price for someone else's labor. That is ethically wrong. Then there is the price issue. The US system is not a free market system. It has not been so since the 50's and it has gotten worse by the decade. The cost of medicine has risen at two to for times that of inflation since the 60's. This is unsustainable.
As for schooling. Lets look at higher ed first ...
1) Higher education has seen the same price inflation as medicine. This is putting it out of the reach of people.
2) Then there is the issue of 'how many art history majors does the nation need?' not as many as the state funded system produces. Baristas who have $100K in student loans are people who made poor choices and were lied to.
3) There was a time when a liberal arts major was deadly. They could think and communicate their thoughts incredibly well. Now ... many departments (the 'studies' in particular) are indoctrinating students and punishing them for having independent thoughts. A free market would be far, far less likely to reward such institutions.
4) I actually think we are seeing an education bubble, and a lot of colleges are going to shut their doors in the next 20 years. Which is a shame
Seems like a lot of colleges are shutting their doors as we speak because of the pandemic. But I certainly see all this stuff very differently. The out-of-control costs in both the medical and educational fields seem to be directly related to our NOT having them centered around public spending. Other countries that spend a lot less in total are having much better health outcomes when their healthcare systems are funded publicly, and there seems to be a big element of economies of scale there.
And to your point about the state setting the price for someone's labor, it's an interesting one. Makes me wonder about the difference between some gov't employees and others. Why should gov't set the wage of one person who provides a service that contributes to the public good, like restaurant health inspectors and police officers, while not others, like teachers? How can a gov't exist without setting public wages?
Please bear in mind that I'm ambivalent about some issues like minimum wage and charter schools, partly because we've seen the more conservative approaches work in some places, like Sweden. But there they still provide a strong foundation and safety net with public money. So getting back to the original topic, I think we can be "liberal" in a lot of ways that progressives might take issue with, but not if we deny the strong role that gov't can and should play in providing the foundation for that liberal approach.
K to 12 ... look at the results. Since the Federal government got involved in the early 70's in our local schools the results have been disastrous. Desegregation came a decade earlier and is not the problem. The federal level social tinkering is an issue.