If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it? People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.

You ask: “If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it?” I recommend that people donate to and participate in charitable organizations. In fact, Americans already do. The USA Today reports that

Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7%. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73%, while France, with a 0.14% rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany.

You write: “People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.” How much would people need to donate to charity to demonstrate to you that they would do “the right thing”?

You wrote: “If government doesn’t mandate some sharing and cooperation who’s going to do it? People are only interested in themselves and won’t take care of others even though they know it’s the right thing to do.”

If this is true, what kind of politicians will such people elect? Politicians are just people, as are those who run the very government programs you support. If they are “only interested in themselves,” can you really trust them to do what is right? That’s why I support voluntary charities that must compete for donations. That way you can support the ones you think are doing a good job.

I also value charitable organizations that are effective and efficient, and do not see why government charities would be either, since they need not demonstrate it to donors. They get taxpayer dollars no matter how effective or ineffective they are. I address this issue here and here.

Nor do I see why government has taken over the unemployment insurance market. People take responsibility to buy auto insurance, homeowners insurance, and medical insurance (made more expensive by politicians). They can also choose they amount of coverage they want. Why not do the same for unemployment insurance?

I wouldn’t call myself a “rugged individualist.” I value individual freedom and personal responsibility. I see no virtue in empowering politicians to force my neighbors to donate to causes I see fit.

I’d like to live in a society where people take responsibility for their own lives. This means that government does not play the role of a nanny. It also means people take responsibility to support charitable organizations that they think do a good job.

We are too enamored with polls and statistics, trying to interprets social behavior from very unscientific and inaccurate means. I’d probably dump on Amity Shlaes, too, if I could figure out what the argument is…

Sorry if that comes across as harsh - it’s meant to be constructive criticism. If you really want to change minds, I suggest you spend less time on the libertarian/free market framing and more on the actual pros and cons. All that “school choice” and “government-run schools” language just seems like dog whistle stuff that appeals mainly to the already-converted.

Lastly, regarding your last paragraph, I’m guessing that most Americans probably think of education less as a commodity and more as a fundamental right. So I’m not sure how much that car analogy is going to resonate. It may in fact have the opposite effect.

A voucher is a government check used to pay for a school. Many people don’t like these b/c it means that tax dollars go to funding all kinds of schools they might not want. Many religious, I suppose. A reasonable objection. Then again, tax dollars are used to fund thousands of crappy schools already, but that’s a different issue. Vouchers also come w/ strings attached, in that government can put restrictions on the types of schools that are eligible, which in the end could make all schools government controlled, or influenced, if they want voucher money.

With tax credits, it’s your money. You write the check to the school or scholarship fund. The same strings attached concern could apply here, too, but historically it’s been less than an issue. Here’s a reference, and a shorter one that was in USA Today magazine.

Nub writes: “All that “school choice” and “government-run schools” language just seems like dog whistle stuff that appeals mainly to the already-converted.”

“School choice.” What would you call the issue? It’s often better to label the policy in terms of what you’re for, rather than what you’re against. Sure, I’d like government to cease its involvement in education and schools all together. But I can imagine that the first response to a “government school abolition” movement is that it promotes some kind of elitism. It doesn’t, but why dig that hole for yourself?

“Government-run schools.” We’ve discussed this before, I’m sure. Do you prefer “public schools”? To me, it doesn’t get at the heart of the issue. Your local grocery store is public. Anyone can walk in. Yet, many “public” schools are not open to students who do not live in the right place.

Rights. I bet many people do think of education as a “fundamental right.” I disagree with this view, and it’s worth addressing. My guess is that it’s implicit in many people’s thinking, and lends inherent support to government funding of schools. Although it does not follow from this that government should fund schools. It would make more sense to subsidize the students so they can pick the school.

Anyway, as I see it, rights are freedoms to act, like the right of self-defense or free speech. Rights are not entitlements to or moral claims on what other people produce. If you have a right to what others produce, and if the purpose of government is to protect rights, then it’s a crime for the producers to refrain from providing those in need. This sounds like a type of slavery to me, as producers can become rights violators (criminals?) when they gain the ability to produce something that is a “right,” but then mind their own business, or merely trade with other people on a voluntary basis.

And that’s the problem with those who yap excessively about voting being a duty or some moral obligation. They assume those who do not vote are doing so out of indifference or laziness. More so, I would argue that they’re sugar coating what they really mean. What they really is that you must vote, that you are obliged to vote. And if you have to vote, you have no choice. And without choice there is no freedom.

One is reminded of Churchill: “It has been said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.” I wonder what Wendy would propose as an alternative to our imperfect yet enduring brand of representative democracy. What else is there but tyranny of one sort or another? Or is it that she’s so pro-democracy that she will not deign to vote in a system that does not live up to her ideal? (Hence the ineffectual rigidity of moral absolutism.) Either way, her argument is truly baffling to me.

If I were a man given to moral arguments (and a certain degree of histrionics), I might point out that many people have died for your right to vote. Many who were for decades denied the right to vote have fought and died to secure it. From there one can easily make the moral case that it is a right not to be taken for granted. The Fifteenth Amendment would seem to back me up on this. So for anyone to argue or even imply that the act of voting is not just a personally disagreeable act, but an inherently immoral one, is to make a mockery of the one tangible thing that separates our democracy from despotism. For the essence of voting is not, as Wendy would have it, the act of “conferring legitimacy” on any one candidate or party. Rather it is simply that we have the choice to do so.