Egads, I just saw this in Kimstu’s post after reading it the second time:
“Cost-free”? Really? So all those teachers are paid and school buildings are built with magic beans? Education is this country is not “cost-free” by any stretch, and while people aren’t charged an upfront tuition, everybody in the country pays for it either directly in the form of property taxes or indirectly in the form of rents paid to landlords (unless your particular state/county/district has another school financing plan).
I’m not sure where you got that idea, but in any case, name me three successful animal species that expend effort keeping freeloaders alive. I’m not talking about members who can’t support themselves, I’m talking about members who won’t.
Sigh. Sorry for the confusion; I thought the context of my remark made it clear that I meant “cost-free” in the sense of not charging an upfront tuition, as you put it: which, of course, makes it absolutely free to those who are too poor to pay taxes or non-government-subsidized rents. Just as with other publicly funded enterprises, some people pay for more than they use and some use more than they pay for.
As for the horror stories of shiftlessness described by other posters, be assured that I don’t take them lightly: I completely agree that it is dreadful for people to lead useless and destructive lives. In fact, I think the sort of “new village poorhouse” system that matt_mcl proposed would be much less subject to such abuses than the current welfare system: we don’t hand out welfare checks that the lazy able-bodied can divert to buying booze, we simply provide some very basic food and shelter for free to anyone who can’t afford anything better. There would certainly be a lot of problems in designing and implementing such a system, and nobody is claiming that it would solve all the world’s problems; all we’re suggesting (if I may shove my way onto matt’s platform here :)) is that it might be better (and maybe even cheaper!) for society as a whole than the system we have now.
What surprises me most is the vindictiveness many posters seem to feel towards the occasional hypothetical artist or student who would be willing to live at this bare-subsistence level not out of laziness, but in order to devote all his or her time to working on something with no commercial value. Would it really destroy society for us now and then to let such a lunatic eat the public cabbage and lentils, even for a few years?
I can’t resist bringing up the famous example of the author J. K. Rowling, who as everyone knows was a struggling single mother when she began to write the first Harry Potter book. Get this: a government-funded arts council gave her some money to finish writing it. Can you believe it?! Instead of telling her to support herself and her kid with a real job and write in her spare time, or insisting that if it were really a worthwhile effort she’d be able to negotiate an advance with a commercial publisher, they simply handed her some of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money and told her to do what she wanted. Shameful!!..But you know, I imagine that the British government has by now recouped that initial investment out of millionaire Rowling’s taxes quite a few times over. Perhaps letting freeloading artists support themselves at the taxpayers’ expense can sometimes pay off in unexpected ways.
No, but that way of thinking will. You think that hand-outs are okay for artists. Someone else thinks that they are okay for med students. Someone else thinks they are okay for, I don’t know, beer researchers.
So, you get together with enough people and you legislate this thing into the system. More and more hand-outs are legislated. Eventually, I’m losing more that a quarter of my paycheck to pay for stuff I don’t care anything about. When does it stop?
I have a better solution: Get together with other people that think the same as you and set up a fund for starving artists. If I agree with you, I’ll contribute; if I don’t I won’t.
Why do you insist on wanting to subordinate my freedom to spend my money on what I choose to someone else’s freedom to choose a profitless line of work?
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
It’s not so much vindictiveness as complete flabbergastedness at the idea of someone who expects to be rewarded for refusing to contribute in the most basic way to their own survival. Let 'em forage, if they’re so willing to exist at a subsistence level. Ooops–foraging is work, innit? That might take time away from their creation of art.
By the way, letting someone else do all your work and pay your bills isn’t “subsistence.” It’s laziness.
And I’m sure the number of people who got those grants and amounted to nothing far outpaces the number of J.K. Rowlings. You think?
Matt:
I’m quite certain that pack animals and tribal animals like chimps, gorillas and elephants have ethics. Read the behavioral studies. In any event, the fact that we have a certain kind of intelligence is piss-poor support for the idea that we should subsidize lethargy. Don’t want to work for a living? Watch out for cheetahs and hyenas.
There is a free rider problem here: you might benefit from the starving artists (wow, has this example been used to distort this thread) either because you like what they do, you feel sorry for them or you feel threatened by them., but you have little incentive to contribute. This is due to the jointly consumable nature of such benefits. Unlike separately consumable goods (like bananas) you can consume without paying, and there is no presumption that you will pay in proportion to the benefits you receive.
It is also worth noting that inputs into the production of wealth include the consent of the population - people’s general willingness to abide by the rules - and the belief that contracts will be enforced by the coercive power of the state. Why do you insist that the legitimate role of the state ends where it is convenient for your wallet?
Can anyone tell me why patronage seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur? I know we have the NEA, but I’m referring to actual people or families who support particular artists.
Again, I’d like to address the “if society has no value you don’t make money argument” - if the teachers weren’t convincing, consider police, who have a median starting salary of 20K a year. Yes, I know they CHOSE to be cops with full awareness of what this would mean financially. But doesn’t anybody else think that maybe it doesn’t necessarily mean that society doesn’t value something just because it doesn’t pay well? Maybe it means that one is making the lowest wage one’s employer feels they can get away with paying you.
I certainly don’t think the soviet system was good (as evidenced by its failure), and I do believe in supporting yourself to the fullest of your abilities. I think that this “crazy pinko idea” wouldn’t change much as regards the lazy and whatnot. They’re on public assistance already (though from friends who have worked on Indian reservations, I’d have to argue that breaking the cycle of poverty isn’t as easy as Derleth seems to think).But I also think that we really ought to re-examine “society”, since it’s getting flung around so much. I’d argue that society is a construct that we create - sometimes by general consensus, sometimes by those who are in power (i.e., dictators), and that it’s here to serve us rather than the other way around. Society has changed throughout time, folks, it’s not a static thing.
I also agree that this debate seems to be far more heated than one would think. “Cry me a river” seems to be a common theme. I really don’t think Matt’s OP was suggesting that we totally support anyone (except those who cannot work through no fault of their own), but that perhaps there might be a better way to distribute what’s already there. Example - part of your tax dollars go to X public service. Let’s argue that while working like crazy, being a responsible societal member, etc., you lose your job through no fault of your own. Wouldn’t it be nice to know that if your could not find another job at the same income level immediately, you could take a job at a lower rate but not have to forfeit your apartment or house due to lack of funds? I know, the leeches will still be there, sucking someone’s financial blood, but they’re doing that now, folks.
You can’t look at supply and demand from only one side. The simple fact is that the price I am willing to pay is an indicator to the artist whether or not it is worthwhile to continue his work. Supply and demand is an interaction between the participants. If you want to look at charitable contributions from this perspective, be prepared to consider all sides of the argument.
You seem to assume that there are things that benefit people that those same people are not willing to pay for. I assume that what they are willing to pay is a direct measure of how much it benefits them. This is based on the notion of freedom: I believe that I am in a better position to evaluate what benefits me than you are. You obviously think that I am too irresponsible to handle this decision.
If you don’t want freedom, then I certainly can’t argue you into wanting it.
This is true of just about every human interaction and every form of government. Why bring it up?
I don’t know of any governmental system that works without some form of enforceable agreement between parties. Don’t you think it is an overuse of the word ‘coercion’ to apply it to legally requiring people to do what they said they would do?
I don’t claim that the location of my wallet is a marker for the boundaries of state power. I claim that my fundamental rights demark those boundaries, and the state’s power should only be used to deal with those situations when individual’s rights overlap.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Speaking of the NEA, isn’t it designed to do what matt is proposing (at least to some very small degree)? There is a possibility. Get the NEA to fund your “art”.
Other possibilities: Keep living with your parents, or Take Peter Pan’s magic pea and never ever grow up.
Personal to pldennison: Clearly I was not as perceptive as I thought and had guaged your postions wrongly. I appologize, sir.
Life is Hard. It’s harder if you’re stupid – John Wayne
“You seem to assume that there are things that benefit people that those same people are not willing to pay for. I assume that what they are willing to pay is a direct measure of how much it benefits them.”
Excuse me, but does this mean that you have never paid less than what something was worth to you? Say you collect antique pillboxes. There is one in a store that you would willingly pay $75 for, but it is priced at $40. Do you inform the seller that you would have paid more? I have found few people willing to pass up a bargain when they find one.
“Why do you insist on wanting to subordinate my freedom to spend my money on what I choose”
Indeed. But our money is being spent on that which we might not choose already. Would it not benefit us ALL to find a way to re-distribute it? I know I’d rather give teachers a raise than subsidize another #@! football stadium. The OP might actually channel more of our righteously hard-earned tax dollars back to us if we could think of a viable means of implementing it (theoretically). I’d at least like to see if we couldn’t figure it out on a small scale just for intellectual whoop-de-do.
I have paid less than something was worth, but never more. Are you wanting to have a discussion on the interactive nature of price-setting? Obviously, you would be particularly interested in the area of discriminatory pricing. In which case, I imagine dhanson can discuss the topic far better than I.
This is the crux. You want to reach a quorum as to the best way to spend ‘our’ money. I want us all to decide individually how best to spend our money.
As far as football stadiums go, I have no desire to finance them through legislation. If tickets and advertising finance them, then there must be a demand.
If teachers are being paid too little, it does not say something about their “worth”, whatever that might be. It says there are too many teachers. If you artificially inflate the price of teachers, you will create an unnatural oversupply.
I know you’ll never believe me on this, but if you will leave the market alone, it will, by definition, create the best allocation of resources.
And please don’t come back with stuff about state-funded teachers and such, as I don’t think the government should be involved in education at all.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
“This is the crux. You want to reach a quorum as to the best way to spend ‘our’ money. I want us all to decide individually how best to spend our money.”
Nope, sorry - I obviusly didn’t make that clear. I want to find a way to have us ALL spend OUR INDIVIDUAL $ ON WHAT WE WANT. You don’t want you money to go to X. I don’t mind mine going to X but would rather it didn’t go to Y.
“And please don’t come back with stuff about state-funded teachers and such, as I don’t think the government should be involved in education at all.”
Wasn’t planning on it.
“I have paid less than something was worth, but never more. Are you wanting to have a discussion on the interactive nature of price-setting?”
Nope again. My point was that (and perhaps I have missed your point)if you say “I assume that what they are willing to pay is a direct measure of how much it benefits them” there is often a discrepancy between what you will pay for a thing and what it is worth to you - if you pay $40 for an item that you felt would be of benefit to you at $75, does this mean that you now benefit $35 less from it? Dhanson’s input would be useful - perhaps I don’t understand price-setting.
That’s a great idea, but it really isn’t what matt is asking. He’s saying that he doesn’t want to have to decide if he should paint or eat; he wants other to pay FOR him to eat, so he can paint.
You are confusing the difference between what I was willing to pay and what I did pay. If you consider me to be the only consumer, this will always seem ridiculous. You cannot set a price and have it be the max that every consumer is willing to pay. Lower prices include more consumers, higher prices include less consumer. Where you set the price will affect how many of the item you sell. You cannot critique the model based on one transaction.
If there was another point you wanted me to address, I’m sorry, I missed it.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Thanks, SmartAss. I understand your position better. I am not knowledgeable enough to debate the point further.
“That’s a great idea, but it really isn’t what matt is asking. He’s saying that he doesn’t want to have to decide if he should paint or eat; he wants other to pay FOR him to eat, so he can paint.”
I concede your first point.There has been so much objection to the second, however, that what I am trying to suggest is an alternate means to matt’s proposal based on redistribution of what we currently pay in the US in taxes for certain services.
Citizen Bleedingheart agrees to finance Painter X’s endeavors (in part). Citizen Survival Of The Fittest says $#^%!! Painter X and everyone else, I’m keeping these cookies. If we only contributed to what we agree with, would it A) allow the OP to be feasible or B)be all that different than the present system?
If I am reading you correctly, then you are agreeing with me. It would definitely be better if we were only contributing our money where we thought it should go. What fucks it all up is the people who want to legislate this giving and make the government the distributor.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
At the risk of being boring (yes, I teach microeconomic theory), this is not how markets work. As I think you noted over in the communism thread, the general advantage of markets here is they do not require cooperative behaviour. You do NOT assume that people are willing to pay according to benefits: it is the working of the market for goods like bananas which induces people to behave this way. Two features of bananas are that (1) a banana can be consumed by only one person and (2) you can prevented from consuming the banana if you do not pay. This means that you will buy keep buying bananas as long as the marginal banana is worth more to you than what you have to pay for it. The market process reveals your preferences. Resources flow towards willingness to pay.
But not all goods are like this: some are jointly consumable and consumers are difficult to exclude on the basis of payment. Take a radio broadcast: once in existence, any number of persons can consume without reducing the amount of the good available to others (the polar opposite of the banana case). In addition anyone with a radio set can tune in even if they don’t pay. In this case you do not have the incentive to reveal your preferences, or pay anything. This is what I meant by the free rider problem: the link between preferences and willingness to pay is severed.
I agree completely. In an earlier post to this thread, I noted that a popular way of looking at what those rights (or more neutrally, rules) should be was to ask what you would agree to if you knew how society worked (including the degree to which incentives to work, take risks etc. mattered) but did not know your own place. All I would say is that in such circumstances, negative freedom would not necessarily be the only matter on the table.
“If I am reading you correctly, then you are agreeing with me.”
For the most part, yes. I do think that if we are going to castigate those people who give little and take much, we could cut those who give much but take little a bit more slack. To do otherwise seems a bit…miserly of spirit.
“It would definitely be better if we were only contributing our money where we thought it should go. What fucks it all up is the people who want to legislate this giving and make the government the distributor.”
I am in complete agreement on your first point. I agree with the second as well, and I think that’s the situation we already have.
Thank you for the clarification. Guilty as charged in terms of oversimplification.
However, with your radio example, I would submit that the market still works, it’s just more complicated. Radio stations have both listeners and advertisers as customers, with the preferences tending to flow in a somewhat triangular way (or, when you include the people that compile ratings, it may be turning into some kind of rhombus or something).
Would you not agree that the market works quite well here also, even if it’s harder to specify the terms of the transaction? More to the point: Can you think of a system that would work better?
Everything I keep seeing being recommended, particularly in this thread, wants to trade away personal freedom for various notions of the “greater good”.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Everything I keep seeing being recommended, particularly in this thread,wants to trade away personal freedom for various notions of the “greater good”.
Even “you pay for stuff you want and I’ll do the same”? I’d say that we trade many personal freedoms for the “greater good” every day, anyhow. What I’m asking, again, is if we all paid for what we wanted to, would it do more “greater good” while giving us back more “personal freedom”?
You don’t want you money to go to X. I don’t mind mine going to X but would rather it didn’t go to Y.