ldrews

Did you just move the goalposts? What level of fraud would you designate as "rampant" fraud? The popular vote difference was, what, 2-3%? Would that be rampant? Are you serious? 37% of the precincts showing more votes than voters! That is not some random machine error.

Do we actually have any facts/evidence in this area? Has anyone credible investigated? I have read that the Detroit precincts are pretty messed up with significantly more votes recorded that actual votes in the ballot box.

Mea culpa. Apparently what I remembered is Sean Spicer's comment:

I think from the fotos that Trump is both correct and incorrect. The physical attendance was clearly larger for Obama. But if I remember correctly, Trump's statement included both the physical and the internet attendance. In that I case I have no clue which total was larger. To me the interesting feature is the media treatment. During the campaign Trump consistently drew larger crowds at his rallies than did Clinton, but I don't remember the media doing a crowd size comparison then. So to me it seems somewhat biased to be comparing Obama's inauguration crowds to Trump's inauguration crowds, particularly since Trump was not competing with Obama. What is that about?

I agree, there are many areas of concern. But I prefer to judge based on actual actions, not what he might/might not do. Speaking as an independent/libertarian, so far he seems to be doing just what he promised on the campaign trail. This apparently upsets those voters who did not agree with his "vision". But those people didn't vote for him anyway. Again, his cabinet picks cause me some concern. But the common factor seems to me to be that he has selected, with some exceptions, people who have strong, practical experience in managing large organizations. And they have their own strong opinions and are not afraid to go counter to Trump in their expressions of their opinions. But since Trump has extensive experience managing a conglomeration of business entities, I assume he will be able to manage his cabinet as well, So I anticipate some significant and fundamental changes in the affected agencies. Whether this will be good or bad depends on your ideological viewpoint. So, unless Trump is assassinated or impeached/convicted, I foresee a significant change in direction for the nation. I happen to think it long overdue.

I suspect that the group of people who share that concern are mostly called "Democrats".

Well, as I said, I was born in the US. I don't think that qualifies as "deciding" to live in the US. But you are right, I have in the past given tacit consent, the same way that I cooperate with a mugger who is waving a gun in my face. Not in the same category as voluntary consent/participation. The same is true regarding abiding by the laws of the country. I am faced with overwhelming force, so I comply to survive. It is sort of like bad weather: I deal with it, tolerate it, but do not necessarily like it or "consent" to it. That is all much different than a voluntary agreement that you and I might make. Here we both find value in an exchange sans force or coercion, or otherwise we would not make the agreement. If the "public good" was indeed recognized as beneficial to the parties by the parties, no governmental participation would be necessary. People have formed voluntary associations for eons to carry out such activities. Introduction of governmental participation immediately makes me suspect that some of the parties involved do not agree or do not want to participate, so those that do want to participate use government to force the recalcitrants to participate. Most likely to spread the cost of the activity over a larger base so that the promoters do not have to bear the full cost themselves.

I was born in the US. I am not aware of deciding this. I also do not remember ever consciously accepting a social contract. Perhaps you could provide me a copy of the agreement with my signature?

So, if I am a retiree living in a small cabin outside of town, how does the taxes I pay to support education benefit me? And do I have any choice in the matter? Does the government coerce me to pay the taxes to support education whether I agree with their benefit analysis or not?

Seems to me that they favor using something as a currency that the government cannot debase. Gold being one obvious choice. So what do you think of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin?

But doesn't an efficient Coasian solution depend upon well defined property rights and zero transaction costs? How does the use of government (a coercive tool) allow for a negotiated arrival of an efficient allocation? And how does this apply to education which can probably be formulated using property rights but has non-zero transaction costs?

hrothgar, I have no competency in formal economics so you have me there. But I do kind of like the Austrian School. They say the following: Arguments against There are several arguments against the public goods theory: there is no way of knowing what is the "optimal" amount of the good produced many other goods can be to some degree considered public with the imprecise definition the presence of the state changes the incentive structure. Companies may declare their product for a public good to receive taxpayer funding.[2] many of the 'public goods' are successfully produced in the private sector the theory does not at all prove that the government should produce these goods many of the goods government actually does produce do not correspond to the economist's definition of public goods, so the theory poorly explains the government's actual role in the economy[3]

Slide 40: First Welfare Theorem Private market provides a Pareto e¢ cient outcome under three conditions 1 No externalities 2 Perfect information 3 Perfect competition Theorem tells us when the government should intervene

hrothgar, What you call "greed" I call "self-interest". The rewards/payoff from self-interest come in many forms and many sources, not just financial. Approval of others, self-esteem, feelings of pride, etc., are just some of the payoffs that I think we all strive for. It is my opinion that any activity that one engages in that does not return more benefits, measured over time, than the costs incurred will be discontinued. And if I am willing to look at the longer timeframes and wider environment to assess the payoffs, then it is what I would call "enlightened self-interest". I assert that almost everyone is motivated by such self-interest most, if not all, of the time. There may be a truly altruistic person out there, but I have yet to meet him/her. So, when someone extolls the "public good", I first check my wallet and then look for the payoffs that person is receiving from the "public good". I guess I am just a cynic.

Well, first you allege that I took advantage of education provided to me and then avoided contributing back to society. Do you think 60 years of labor in the US qualifies for "contributing back"? Then I ask you for an example of your contribution which you have evaded. So I ask again, what have you contributed back? Second, you engage in character assassination by calling me a "greedy bastard". Your attitude of arrogance and lack of civility shine through, don't you think? But that is ok, continue to evade.

From wikipedia: Comment?

You seem to have a problem with someone who does not march the way you think they should march. Is this a common occurrence for you? Comment 2: I don't need a valid excuse to avoid paying taxes. As Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand said: "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands." Comment 3: Education is not legally a "public good". No more than "jobs" are a public good, even though the public benefits from people having jobs. I am not a pawn, servant, or slave of the public. If you wish to volunteer for such positions, be my guest. Comment 4: Fortunately my vote counts the same as yours. What you call greed I call enlightened self-interest. The same self-interest that motivated millions of people to settle the US, build businesses, and feed their families. Apparently you do not have the same appreciation of those efforts that I do. I worked for 60 years in the US building the ancestors of the very software you are probably using today. Often 60-80 hours/week. I think I have paid my dues. How about you? Have you contributed anything to society besides an arrogant attitude?

If I as a parent wish to spend my excess disposable income to enhance the quality of my child's education, should I be permitted to do so? And if so, then my child would receive a better education than that provided by the state, and would violate your condition above. The other children would not be entitled to an equal level of education that I provide my child. Now, if you asserting that the level of education provided by the state should be equal for all children, then the political reality is that that level would be a minimum. That would be so because politically aware parents would want to preserve as much money/resources as possible to giver their own children an advantage. I know I certainly would. Also there are some other difficulties in providing an equal level of education to all children. How can we assure that the quality of teaching is the same? That external factors are the same (blizzards shutting down schools, etc.)?

From Wikipedia: The United States spends more per student on education than any other country.[8] In 2014, the Pearson/Economist Intelligence Unit rated US education as 14th best in the world, just behind Russia.[9] According to a report published by the U.S. News & World Report, of the top ten colleges and universities in the world, eight are American.[10] (The other two are Oxford and Cambridge, in the United Kingdom.)

hrothgar, Do you agree that, as matters currently stand, education is a matter for the states per the current Constitution of the United States? That since it is not an enumerated Federal responsibility, that education is reserved for the states? That, therefore, to implement federal funding of education would require an amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

Isn't education (and funding) a state right, per the Constitution? So national funding would require an amendment to the Constitution? Wow, a state exit tax! Pretty sure that doesn't pass constitutional muster either.

I make no such reasoning. I do not place fault on anyone. I have simply described the current mechanism for funding. What is your solution to the funding inequality? Do you tax everyone in the state more and give the additional tax money to the underfunded schools? But then wouldn't you be raising taxes on the residents of the poorer districts disproportionately? Or would you institute a more progressive tax on the wealthier residents in order to subsidize the poorer? How is that fair? And if you raise taxes on the affluent citizens, don't you encourage them to move elsewhere, taking all of their tax revenue with them? (see California) I moved my family and business out of California many years ago for that very reason.

So my belief is that funding, per se, is not the problem. A broken, non-functioning delivery system is the problem. But how can we satisfy both the funding inequities and fix the delivery system? How about this: Establish a statewide level of funding per student per year Provide that funding to the parents and/or student via a voucher Allow the parents and/or student to select the educational vehicle to which the funding is disbursed (any educational vehicle that can show a minimum percentage of students passing a national competency test) At the Federal level, establish a nation wide competency test in base core subjects Require any institution receiving federal funding to accept the passing of the competency test as equivalent to a high school diploma This approach equalizes funding at the state level, provides parents/students the opportunity to select an appropriate educational vehicle, allows for innovation in educational vehicles without requiring political/governmental approval, provides a standard against which all educational vehicles can be measured, and ensures a base level of competency for those that pass the test. And there are already national organizations that can prepare, vet, and administer such tests (Scholastic Aptitude Test administers).

All of the places in the US that I have lived (about 15), school funding was paid primarily by county property taxes. The school funding was established by a county wide vote at various time intervals. So the level of funding was decided, at the county level, by the voters. So the choice was made by those same voters. If the funding is inadequate, please take it up with those same voters. If funding was a statewide issue then you would have an argument. In fact I believe the Federal Courts have imposed some statewide revisions of funding based on constitutional grounds. I believe those additional funds do come from the state level. But if you do support local rule, then the unequal funding, while regrettable, stands. Otherwise, in my opinion, you violate local rule and impose other's beliefs and policies from above. If one does not support local rule, then where do you draw the line? State level? Federal level? International level? Seems like one could make a case for all of them. However, sans constitutional infractions, educational activities are reserved to the states as prescribed in the Constitution. Right?

Another thing to consider is that school funding is a local community decision. If the local schools are underfunded then the local community must be unwilling to fund them "properly". Who are we to tell them they are wrong? It is their decision, isn't it?