The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thank fuck for scroll-wheels.

[Hermit]

As a matter of fact, yes. The wheel was smoking long before I got to .96 of c.

[mistermack]

Ha, no need to wear out the scroll wheel, just drag the side bar down.
But a Seth-skipper would be nice.

[apophenia]

Quick points.

Seth argues that the money belongs to the child. For lack of a better definition, I propose that ownership of an item is the granting of exclusive right of control over some thing. Seth's contention runs afoul of this definition in that many forms of control we normally associate with ownership of property, such as the right to hold onto it and do nothing with it, are not granted to the child. More serious is that Wikipedia defines money as, "any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context." True, there are records involved, but I know of no voucher programmer here which officially transfers a monetary sum or credit to the child himself. Matter of fact, I rather doubt one could legally set up a voucher program in which a minor was one party to the agreement, or, if possible, it would certainly be unwise. Further, if the owner of the voucher fails to use the voucher, it goes away (perhaps replaced another year by the same). In no sense is a voucher a liquid asset, as money surely is. I had something else, but I forget.

On the other side of the coin, churches have long been granted tax free status as a matter of tradition. However, churches also have, along with other 501c(3) organizations, been granted tax free status on the theory that their existence results in a tangible good for society, and that without this tax incentive fewer people would create churches, or more churches would fail to thrive. This is no different than giving electric companies tax incentives to put better scrubbers on their coal fired plants, or incentives for car manufacturers to produce less polluting cars. The society has, apparently, decided that it is in the public interest — a secular interest — that is served in doing so. It is neither unconstitutional nor unfair. One can argue the truth of this rationale, or whether the existence of churches on the whole do more good than harm, or that the reason is purely traditional, and not on account of societal benefit. That's likely an argument to take up with legislators and social scientists. However, one can't claim, arbitrarily that it is funding of religion with other people's money illegitimately — the religion isn't what's being funded, it's the good that churches do (big C and small c, organization + members) which is being funded, and that is a perfectly acceptable secular purpose. (I may have an argument with movetoamend.org's push to strip corporations of personhood, but I certainly wouldn't agree with stripping them of their tax-free 501c(3) status because I don't like their politics; the harm clearly would outweigh the gain.)

[Seth]

Quick points.

Seth argues that the money belongs to the child. For lack of a better definition, I propose that ownership of an item is the granting of exclusive right of control over some thing. Seth's contention runs afoul of this definition in that many forms of control we normally associate with ownership of property, such as the right to hold onto it and do nothing with it, are not granted to the child. More serious is that Wikipedia defines money as, "any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context." True, there are records involved, but I know of no voucher programmer here which officially transfers a monetary sum or credit to the child himself. Matter of fact, I rather doubt one could legally set up a voucher program in which a minor was one party to the agreement, or, if possible, it would certainly be unwise. Further, if the owner of the voucher fails to use the voucher, it goes away (perhaps replaced another year by the same). In no sense is a voucher a liquid asset, as money surely is. I had something else, but I forget.

There's nothing at all legally unusual about a conditional gift, it happens all the time. A voucher is an actual piece of paper that states both the amount due and the terms under which it can be redeemed, and it becomes the property of the child when the state sends it to him. Just like a store coupon or any other negotiable instrument, a voucher is the property of the authorized possessor, although it may be restricted in its use or fungibility.

And when I say "the child" I obviously mean "in the interests of the child" and the voucher is actually issued to the parents of a minor child, which is a small and irrelevant distinction.

On the other side of the coin, churches have long been granted tax free status as a matter of tradition. However, churches also have, along with other 501c(3) organizations, been granted tax free status on the theory that their existence results in a tangible good for society, and that without this tax incentive fewer people would create churches, or more churches would fail to thrive.

Actually, in the US, that is not completely true. Churches are not taxed in the US because the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibits the government from any act that "advances or inhibits" the free exercise of religion, which taxing churches does. In fact, taxing churches has traditionally been the primary method of government-sponsored oppression of, or by religion. Churches do pay some kinds of taxes and are subject to all civil laws however.

This is no different than giving electric companies tax incentives to put better scrubbers on their coal fired plants, or incentives for car manufacturers to produce less polluting cars. The society has, apparently, decided that it is in the public interest — a secular interest — that is served in doing so. It is neither unconstitutional nor unfair. One can argue the truth of this rationale, or whether the existence of churches on the whole do more good than harm, or that the reason is purely traditional, and not on account of societal benefit. That's likely an argument to take up with legislators and social scientists. However, one can't claim, arbitrarily that it is funding of religion with other people's money illegitimately — the religion isn't what's being funded, it's the good that churches do (big C and small c, organization + members) which is being funded, and that is a perfectly acceptable secular purpose. (I may have an argument with movetoamend.org's push to strip corporations of personhood, but I certainly wouldn't agree with stripping them of their tax-free 501c(3) status because I don't like their politics; the harm clearly would outweigh the gain.)

This is true of non-profits, but only partly true of churches.

[apophenia]

Seth argues that the money belongs to the child. For lack of a better definition, I propose that ownership of an item is the granting of exclusive right of control over some thing. Seth's contention runs afoul of this definition in that many forms of control we normally associate with ownership of property, such as the right to hold onto it and do nothing with it, are not granted to the child. More serious is that Wikipedia defines money as, "any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context." True, there are records involved, but I know of no voucher programmer here which officially transfers a monetary sum or credit to the child himself. Matter of fact, I rather doubt one could legally set up a voucher program in which a minor was one party to the agreement, or, if possible, it would certainly be unwise. Further, if the owner of the voucher fails to use the voucher, it goes away (perhaps replaced another year by the same). In no sense is a voucher a liquid asset, as money surely is. I had something else, but I forget.

There's nothing at all legally unusual about a conditional gift, it happens all the time. A voucher is an actual piece of paper that states both the amount due and the terms under which it can be redeemed, and it becomes the property of the child when the state sends it to him. Just like a store coupon or any other negotiable instrument, a voucher is the property of the authorized possessor, although it may be restricted in its use or fungibility.

Even if this were a conditional gift, it would be a condition precedent conditional gift in which the state agrees to pay the school a certain sum upon the condition that the child enrolls or otherwise commits to attending the school. Regardless, it is never a gift to the child, but made on the child's behalf to the school. Otherwise, condition or no, the child would be able to abscond with the funds and hop on a plane to Buenos Ares. Since this is not the case, it's clear the money is never given to the child. (ETA: Briefly skimming an article on Milwaukee's voucher program, it seems to imply that the voucher is implemented as a tax credit. Do you have an example of a voucher program, real or proposed by a legislature, in which funds are transferred to a child prior to any conditions being met? I'd be interested to see the details.)

On the other side of the coin, churches have long been granted tax free status as a matter of tradition. However, churches also have, along with other 501c(3) organizations, been granted tax free status on the theory that their existence results in a tangible good for society, and that without this tax incentive fewer people would create churches, or more churches would fail to thrive.

Actually, in the US, that is not completely true. Churches are not taxed in the US because the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution prohibits the government from any act that "advances or inhibits" the free exercise of religion, which taxing churches does. In fact, taxing churches has traditionally been the primary method of government-sponsored oppression of, or by religion. Churches do pay some kinds of taxes and are subject to all civil laws however.

This is all well and good, however, since I was simply arguing that a tax incentive to churches is not simply giving money to religion nor is it a violation of the establishment clause, all this is beside the point.

[Seth]

Seth argues that the money belongs to the child. For lack of a better definition, I propose that ownership of an item is the granting of exclusive right of control over some thing. Seth's contention runs afoul of this definition in that many forms of control we normally associate with ownership of property, such as the right to hold onto it and do nothing with it, are not granted to the child. More serious is that Wikipedia defines money as, "any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context." True, there are records involved, but I know of no voucher programmer here which officially transfers a monetary sum or credit to the child himself. Matter of fact, I rather doubt one could legally set up a voucher program in which a minor was one party to the agreement, or, if possible, it would certainly be unwise. Further, if the owner of the voucher fails to use the voucher, it goes away (perhaps replaced another year by the same). In no sense is a voucher a liquid asset, as money surely is. I had something else, but I forget.

There's nothing at all legally unusual about a conditional gift, it happens all the time. A voucher is an actual piece of paper that states both the amount due and the terms under which it can be redeemed, and it becomes the property of the child when the state sends it to him. Just like a store coupon or any other negotiable instrument, a voucher is the property of the authorized possessor, although it may be restricted in its use or fungibility.

Even if this were a conditional gift, it would be a condition precedent conditional gift in which the state agrees to pay the school a certain sum upon the condition that the child enrolls or otherwise commits to attending the school. Regardless, it is never a gift to the child, but made on the child's behalf to the school. Otherwise, condition or no, the child would be able to abscond with the funds and hop on a plane to Buenos Ares. Since this is not the case, it's clear the money is never given to the child.

But it is given to the child's parents. The voucher physically passes from the government to the parents who may use it or not use it as they see fit. They can burn it in the fireplace if they want, but they can only spend it on education for the child. They are not required to give the voucher to anyone, so it is indeed a gift, or a grant (same thing essentially) to the child. That legally separates it from being an act of government providing funds to a religious school. But, as I said, even if the government DIRECTLY gave money to a religious school for the education of children, it would be providing those funds for a purely secular and perfectly legal purpose: providing the state-mandated secular educational curriculum. It would NOT be for the purposes of religious education, which is in ADDITION TO the state-mandated curriculum and which is either given gratis by the church or is given at the expense of the parents. Either way there is no constitutional inhibition on the government giving money to a religious institution to fund non-religious secular programs.

That point has already been addressed by the courts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ha, no need to wear out the scroll wheel, just drag the side bar down.
But a Seth-skipper would be nice.

Put him on ignore. His posts become very compact.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, vouchers do not become the property of the child. You can't just make up the law.

[Beatsong]

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!"

I don't blame Mr Zappa for being immersed in his most excellent gigging and recording output while Moon Unit was growing up. But anyone who can say that has obviously never raised children.

I'm certainly no communist. But Zappa's politics were juvenile and this is just a way of trying to give them some kind of naturalistic credibility to compensate for their lack of intellectual credibility.

[Rum]

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!"

I don't blame Mr Zappa for being immersed in his most excellent gigging and recording output while Moon Unit was growing up. But anyone who can say that has obviously never raised children.

I'm certainly no communist. But Zappa's politics were juvenile and this is just a way of trying to give them some kind of naturalistic credibility to compensate for their lack of intellectual credibility.

I'm glad someone else has clocked this (I did early on in the thread). He was probably a musical genius, but unfortunately a political dweeb and should have kept his mouth shut about anything other than music.

[John_fi_Skye]

In every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!"

I don't blame Mr Zappa for being immersed in his most excellent gigging and recording output while Moon Unit was growing up. But anyone who can say that has obviously never raised children.

I'm certainly no communist. But Zappa's politics were juvenile and this is just a way of trying to give them some kind of naturalistic credibility to compensate for their lack of intellectual credibility.

I'm glad someone else has clocked this (I did early on in the thread). He was probably a musical genius, but unfortunately a political dweeb and should have kept his mouth shut about anything other than music.

From memory, each of my lot had "dadda" as a close second after "mamma". We could get into a gender politics thread, if you like, maybe.

[Rum]

Well he was pretty misogynistic that's for sure. I find it infuriating because his music is so beautiful at times it can bring me to tears and then the next track is about tits and wet teeshirts..

[Coito ergo sum]

Songs about tits and wet teeshirts are misogynistic?

[Seth]

Seth, vouchers do not become the property of the child. You can't just make up the law.

Sure they do. They are issued to the parents of the child for the benefit of the child. That's why they are called "vouchers." The parents are NOT REQUIRED to use the voucher if they don't want to. They can frame it and hang it on the wall if they like and pay for the child's education entirely themselves, or they can apply it to the costs of home schooling. Therefore, it is exactly and precisely the property of the child, though under the control of the parents.

school voucher
 
noun
a government cash grant or tax credit for parents, equal to all or part of the cost of educating their child at an elementary or secondary school of their choice. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/school+voucher

Here's the Wikipedia entry:

A school voucher, also called an education voucher, is a certificate issued by the government, which parents can apply toward tuition at a private school (or, by extension, to reimburse home schooling expenses), rather than at the state school to which their child is assigned. An alternative to the education voucher is the education tax credit, which allows individuals to use their own money to pay for the education of their children or to donate money towards the education of other children.
...
Under non-voucher education systems citizens who currently pay for private schooling are still taxed for public schools, therefore they fund both public and private schools simultaneously. Via offsetting the cost of private school tuition, vouchers and tax credits are intended to allow students and families to choose the school that best fits their needs. Controversy surrounds whether allowing families the option of both public and private schools undermines the public education system through threatening its funding and enrollment.[1]
...
The oldest continuing school voucher programs existing today in the United States are the Town Tuitioning programs in Vermont and Maine, beginning in 1869[2] and 1873[3] respectively. Because some towns in these states operate neither local high schools nor elementary schools, students in these towns "are eligible for a voucher to attend [either] public schools in other towns or non-religious private schools. In these cases, the 'sending' towns pay tuition directly to the 'receiving' schools."[2][3]

A system of educational vouchers was introduced in the Netherlands in 1917. Today, more than 70% of pupils attend privately run but publicly funded schools, mostly split along denominational lines.[4]

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman argued for the modern concept of vouchers in the 1950s, stating that competition would improve schools and cost efficiency. The view further gained popularity with the 1980 TV broadcast of Friedman's series Free to Choose for which volume 6 was devoted entirely to promoting "educational freedom" through programs like school vouchers.[5]

In some Southern states during the 1960s, school vouchers were used as a method of perpetuating segregation. In a few instances, public schools were closed outright and vouchers were issued to parents. The vouchers, in many cases, were only good at privately segregated schools, known as segregation academies.[6] Today, all modern voucher programs prohibit racial discrimination.