The Libertarian Con: Favorite 'Rebel' Ideology of the Ruling Class

[quote name='mykevermin']...the social issues are a mirage, because economic issues are the only thing of import to them...[/QUOTE]

I have to say that this is true for me, but for a good reason. None of today's biggest social issues really apply to me. I support gay marriage, the legalization of drugs and abortion. But, I'm not gay, don't do drugs, and always wear a condom. So it's not like I'm mean, I definitely support these rights, but I do have to look out for myself first, and the economic issues are a bit more important to me. When it comes to elections, the question isn't which candidate do you like, it's which candidate do you hate the least. And I always find the candidates to just be awful, but I go with what I believe is the lesser of two evils (which is generally Republican, but not always).
 
It's interesting to think about how corporations are doing everything we were scared our government would. I think it's that fear of "big government" that led us right into this capitalist wolf's den we find ourselves in. This "recession" will most likely be the new normal since it works so well for the rich.

It's crazy to think about how the need for workers is declining, profits are soaring, and yet we still expect everyone to pull a 40+ hour work week. We've been brainwashed to think that not "working hard" is somehow dirty or wrong.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It's interesting to think about how corporations are doing everything we were scared our government would. I think it's that fear of "big government" that led us right into this capitalist wolf's den we find ourselves in. This "recession" will most likely be the new normal since it works so well for the rich.

It's crazy to think about how the need for workers is declining, profits are soaring, and yet we still expect everyone to pull a 40+ hour work week. We've been brainwashed to think that not "working hard" is somehow dirty or wrong.[/QUOTE]

True. Funny how noone else gets this.
 
Economics are the only things libertarians care about? Strange, I didn't get that memo. I thought liberty was the only thing libertarians cared about. I voted for Obama last election because he seemed to be the most liberty oriented candidate. I regret that choice, thought I don't think a vote for McCain would have been better. Could have been worse in fact.

All I see here are a bunch of entitled brats who can't stand this idea of self-reliance because they themselves aren't producers. You'll take about how big government makes our lives better, but then throw a fit when that very same big government starts pepper-spraying their occupy buddies for expressing a constitutional right and fail to recognize the fact that government involvement in business is what has led to our current economic woes. When the government chooses the winners and losers in economics, you get stagnation. Just look at Japan, they've been going through it for more than a decade. Without government involvement, you wouldn't see crony-capitalism that lead to bailouts. Those companies that did the wrong thing would have paid the price and wouldn't be around anymore, thus the cream would have risen to the top.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Economics are the only things libertarians care about? Strange, I didn't get that memo. I thought liberty was the only thing libertarians cared about. I voted for Obama last election because he seemed to be the most liberty oriented candidate. I regret that choice, thought I don't think a vote for McCain would have been better. Could have been worse in fact.

All I see here are a bunch of entitled brats who can't stand this idea of self-reliance because they themselves aren't producers. You'll take about how big government makes our lives better, but then throw a fit when that very same big government starts pepper-spraying their occupy buddies for expressing a constitutional right and fail to recognize the fact that government involvement in business is what has led to our current economic woes. When the government chooses the winners and losers in economics, you get stagnation. Just look at Japan, they've been going through it for more than a decade. Without government involvement, you wouldn't see crony-capitalism that lead to bailouts. Those companies that did the wrong thing would have paid the price and wouldn't be around anymore, thus the cream would have risen to the top.[/QUOTE]

Liberty is a smokescreen, Libertarianism is about business making government their bitch.
 
Every now and then a troll crawls out out of then den, takes a dump in a vs thread, and then slithers back to their hole.
 
[quote name='Clak']Every now and then a troll crawls out out of then den, takes a dump in a vs thread, and then slithers back to their hole.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I'm wondering if he actually typed that or just did a cut-and-paste job from Fox news.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Ha, right, because fox news is such a friend to Libertarians. At this point, I can only assume that this is a joke thread.[/QUOTE]

Why have you capitalized the word "libertarians"?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Look up the rules for capitalization in regards to political parties. Come back and tell me what you find.[/QUOTE]

OK - I thought you were talking about political philosophy.

So you're talking about the Libertarian political party, the guys who backed Howard Stern as their candidate for governor of NYC and whose slogans come from modern science fiction (just like Scientology)

Good to know.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Well, off I go, back to work so I can pay Clak's welfare check.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Temporaryscars']Look up the rules for capitalization in regards to political parties. Come back and tell me what you find.[/QUOTE]
Liar.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Economics are the only things libertarians care about? Strange, I didn't get that memo. I thought liberty was the only thing libertarians cared about. I voted for Obama last election because he seemed to be the most liberty oriented candidate. I regret that choice, thought I don't think a vote for McCain would have been better. Could have been worse in fact.

All I see here are a bunch of entitled brats who can't stand this idea of self-reliance because they themselves aren't producers. You'll take about how big government makes our lives better, but then throw a fit when that very same big government starts pepper-spraying their occupy buddies for expressing a constitutional right and fail to recognize the fact that government involvement in business is what has led to our current economic woes. When the government chooses the winners and losers in economics, you get stagnation. Just look at Japan, they've been going through it for more than a decade. Without government involvement, you wouldn't see crony-capitalism that lead to bailouts. Those companies that did the wrong thing would have paid the price and wouldn't be around anymore, thus the cream would have risen to the top.[/QUOTE]

Uh, you're aware that Obama and McCain weren't the only candidates running, right? What specifically made you think Obama was the 'liberty candidate'?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Uh, you're aware that Obama and McCain weren't the only candidates running, right? What specifically made you think Obama was the 'liberty candidate'?[/QUOTE]

Apparently this whole time he has been talking about the Libertarian party (hence the capital "L"). I didn't know that they were supporting Obama ;)
 
[quote name='IRHari']Uh, you're aware that Obama and McCain weren't the only candidates running, right? What specifically made you think Obama was the 'liberty candidate'?[/QUOTE]

Yes, but those two were the only one that had a chance of winning. Therefore I went with the one that seemed more likely to push a pro-liberty agenda.

[quote name='dohdough']I prefer the term LOLbertarians, myself.[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a true statist.

[quote name='camoor']Apparently this whole time he has been talking about the Libertarian party (hence the capital "L"). I didn't know that they were supporting Obama ;)[/QUOTE]

We certainly aren't now since he's proven to be just as bad as Bush was. Many voted for him last election.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Yes, but those two were the only one that had a chance of winning. Therefore I went with the one that seemed more likely to push a pro-liberty agenda.[/quote]
Why is it that dumb fuck LOLbertarians(I know, redundant) always use such nebulous terms like "liberty" and "freedom?" Liberty to do what? Freedom for what purpose? If you want more FREEDUMZ and think "the state" is holding you back, fucking go to Somalia.

Spoken like a true statist.
Click to expand...
Is this supposed to be an insult? What makes you any different? The fact that you want all the benefits of a state, but none of the responsibility ie taxes?

We certainly aren't now since he's proven to be just as bad as Bush was. Many voted for him last election.
Click to expand...
According to what criteria? I'm betting that a lot of the criteria would make EVERY president as bad as Bush.
 
Yeah, I always wonder what freedoms people are craving. I mean what can you not do in the US than you really want to do? We have arguably the most freedoms of speech and expression anywhere in the world, the most lax gun laws of any first world country probably and so on.

It all just seems an excuse for not wanting to pay much taxes. That and a few libertarians I've encountered weren't really libertarians and just social conservatives pissed about not being able to have prayer in school, evolution being taught but not creationism etc. So those aren't libertarians as they'd have no gripes if the government fit their world view and pushed their views on others.

So I've never had a libertarian make any convincing argument that they're really unhappy with anything other than taxes because they're just heartless bastards and want a dog eat dog world with no social saftey nets and only the bare minumum of public services.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I always wonder what freedoms people are craving. I mean what can you not do in the US than you really want to do? We have arguably the most freedoms of speech and expression anywhere in the world, the most lax gun laws of any first world country probably and so on.[/quote]

I want to be able to express my right to bear arms by purchasing weapons of mass destruction like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Those NRA pansies are just too liberal for me, and they compromised too much on our 2nd Amendment rights. Why can't I go hunting with sarin gas? Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

(that's a totally satirical point, federal watchdogs!)

So I've never had a libertarian make any convincing argument that they're really unhappy with anything other than taxes because they're just heartless bastards and want a dog eat dog world with no social saftey nets and only the bare minumum of public services.
Click to expand...

More or less, Libertarians are those who are so disaffected by politics that they find it convenient to be "above" left/right politics and are therefore somehow intellectually superior, they falsely believe in the profit motive above all else (so. easily. refutable. - facebook, for starters), and this vicious ideology seems to support some kind of "natural" order of affairs. Which is really ideal to them, until I show up to their property with an armed militia, prepared to sieze their property and claim them as my own, or burn the fucker to the ground if they refuse. Suddenly, when presented with that threat, government services are pretty important to them.

But in response, the Libertarian canard of "well, government's role is to protect" will arise - easily disarmed when you ask "protect what, exactly? should the starving child be protected from dying with a meal paid for by your tax dollars, or are we only talking about protecting your material possessions?" The Libertarian response then reveals what we all know - their brutal utilitarian premise is exposed, revealed to be self-serving ideology with no genuine expectation of a more just or utopian society. Just more government resources aimed at them and their interests, less aimed at others and their interests. Like all the rest, Libertarians are hedonists. But unlike "statists" (heh.), the Libertarian ideology is necessarily contradicted by that very hedonism.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']We certainly aren't now since he's proven to be just as bad as Bush was. Many voted for him last election.[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Libertarian party nominated Bob Barr / Wayne Allyn Root

If you're going to vote for mainstream candidates you're going to have to start using that little "l"

You don't seem to have a grasp on what libertarianism even is, or what the Libertarian party stands for.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
So I've never had a libertarian make any convincing argument that they're really unhappy with anything other than taxes because they're just heartless bastards and want a dog eat dog world with no social saftey nets and only the bare minumum of public services.[/QUOTE]

That's the definition of a libertarian. They assert that "the sole purpose of government is to protect the right of an individual to life, liberty, and property"- Frederic Bastiat.There is some merit to that line of thought but that's not a world I want to live in.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Why is it that dumb fuck LOLbertarians(I know, redundant) always use such nebulous terms like "liberty" and "freedom?" Liberty to do what? Freedom for what purpose? If you want more FREEDUMZ and think "the state" is holding you back, fucking go to Somalia.[/QUOTE]

No thanks, this country was founded on the idea of limited government. Read any of the documents written by our founders and that will become quite clear.

No, as far as what "freedoms" I'm talking about, well, I just listed a few, and there are many, but a brief rundown:

NDAA
Patriot Act
Continuation of the war on drugs (laws to protect us from ourselves!)
Nanny statism (no smoking, no eating bad foods - see NYC)
Bans on gay marriage or other marriages
Constant police violations of the first, fourth and fifth amendments
HR 347
Approval of drone surveillance
Killing of Americans without due process

Things are only getting worse. They're talking about having national ID cards that would have tracking chips in them (see the GOP debate from the '08 election), DNA databases for those who commit minor offences, etc, etc.

[quote name='dohdough']
Is this supposed to be an insult? What makes you any different? The fact that you want all the benefits of a state, but none of the responsibility ie taxes?
[/QUOTE]

Where did I say I wanted the benefits of the state? You barely know my positions. Do I think I should have to pay taxes? Of course. It would be impossible to have a functioning society without some taxes. I'm not an anarchist. Should I have to fund the poor, illegitimate wars, a policing system that doesn't work, the social sercurity pyramid sceme or any department of government that oversteps the boundries put in place to limit it? NO. In this way, taxes are theft.

Do you seriously advocate the use of force to take from one group of people to give to another group of people?



[quote name='dohdough']
According to what criteria? I'm betting that a lot of the criteria would make EVERY president as bad as Bush.[/QUOTE]

Promised he'd close Gitmo. Gitmo is still open. Promised he'd end the wars. Wars are still ongoing AND he bombed other countries and threatens to get involved in other conflicts. He's a war monger just like Bush. Extended key provisions of the patriot act. Signed the NDAA which gives the government the right to kill American civilians without due process. The list goes on and on.
[quote name='Clak']Freedom to not fully read and understand documents and act like a general dumbass.[/QUOTE]

Once again, a comment that just insults rather than adds anything to the conversation. I can only assume that you're still in high school at this point.
 
Oh god, there were responses while I was typing my response. Well, I'll just hit on one of them.

[quote name='camoor']Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Libertarian party nominated Bob Barr / Wayne Allyn Root

If you're going to vote for mainstream candidates you're going to have to start using that little "l"

You don't seem to have a grasp on what libertarianism even is, or what the Libertarian party stands for.[/QUOTE]


Not all Libertarians vote for the Libertarian candidate. We're not a hivemind. Sometimes Democrats vote for Republicans and sometimes Republicans vote for Democrats. I find that most of you are making blanket statements.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']

So I've never had a libertarian make any convincing argument that they're really unhappy with anything other than taxes because they're just heartless bastards and want a dog eat dog world with no social saftey nets and only the bare minumum of public services.[/QUOTE]

Then you aren't listening because you don't care. Heartless? dmaul, there's no virtue in forced charity. Theft is theft, regardless of where the money is going. If you walked into Walmart, stole a turkey and gave it to somebody who was starving, would that make you any less guilty of theft? There are plenty of social services out there that aren't funded with stolen dollars that would do a fine job of actually giving aid to those who truly need it WITHOUT the intervention of government. In fact, those institutions would probably be better funded if you average worker got to keep more of his paycheck. Just look at the woman who was ridiculed on that bus, people gave her how much? $500,000 or something? People are giving as it is, yet you advocate theft with threat of violence.
 
People are hedonistic. We could have no taxes at all and people would never donate anywhere near what currently goes into government funded social services, medicaid/medicare etc. Most people don't give a crap about anyone but themselves and their families and friends. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if tax cuts led to decreases in charitable donations since a lot of donations are just people trying to reduce their tax burden and give less money to the government out of spite.

Schooling would be even worse as well, as the majority of families couldn't afford to pay what the government currently pays per student for their children's public education. Thus only the well off would be able to afford sending their students to good private schools, where as the middle class and down would be stuck with cheaper private schools with crappier teachers making lower salaries, outdated books and technology etc.

You can only have an advancing society with forced redistirbution of wealth to cover the needy, advance education, science, technology etc.

We're already way off target on that stuff and that's why we're falling so far behind a lot of other countries in education, science, inventions and so on. People here don't care about investing in anything that doesn't directly improve their own financial bottom line. There's no esteem placed on science and knowledge unless it leads to personal wealth and material goods to flaunt.

All of that just gets worse in a libertarian society where such investments and social goods are left up to individuals and the free market who care nothing more than maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to themselves--and in our capitalist society that equation is driven by the all might dollar.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I want to be able to express my right to bear arms by purchasing weapons of mass destruction like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Those NRA pansies are just too liberal for me, and they compromised too much on our 2nd Amendment rights. Why can't I go hunting with sarin gas? Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

(that's a totally satirical point, federal watchdogs!)
[/QUOTE]

I see you mention hunting. Should I assume you think that's why we have a second amendment? I'm having a hard time figuring out your point with this paragraph.


[quote name='mykevermin']
More or less, Libertarians are those who are so disaffected by politics that they find it convenient to be "above" left/right politics and are therefore somehow intellectually superior, they falsely believe in the profit motive above all else (so. easily. refutable. - facebook, for starters), and this vicious ideology seems to support some kind of "natural" order of affairs. Which is really ideal to them, until I show up to their property with an armed militia, prepared to sieze their property and claim them as my own, or burn the fucker to the ground if they refuse. Suddenly, when presented with that threat, government services are pretty important to them.[/QUOTE]

Libertarian philosophy, summed up, could be that you can do whatever you'd like as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. As soon as you show up to take someone else's property, you are infringing on the rights of others, and yes, the government's role is to protect. Protect what? Life, liberty and property. Disarmed? Get over yourself. As far as your appeal to emotion with your starving child scenario, like I said before, people are giving without being forced with violence from government.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People are hedonistic. We could have no taxes at all and people would never donate anywhere near what currently goes into government funded social services, medicaid/medicare etc. Most people don't give a crap about anyone but themselves and their families and friends. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if tax cuts led to decreases in charitable donations since a lot of donations are just people trying to reduce their tax burden and give less money to the government out of spite.[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of examples of selfless people who give to charity (most of whom are conservatives! Gasp!) Do you have any expamles or proof that any of what you've said here is true?

[quote name='dmaul1114']
You can only have an advancing society with forced redistirbution of wealth to cover the needy, advance education, science, technology etc.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, so you are for the use of violence to take from one group and give to another.

It's funny. I came from a poor family, got good grades in school, worked my way through college, graduated without any debt and now hold a decent paying job. I had plenty of obsticles in my way and yet, I was able to do it. Remind me again why others can't take the same path? What did I have that they didn't?

[quote name='dohdough']How is any of that tripe a refutation of us saying that you don't just don't want to pay taxes?[/QUOTE]

Maybe the part where I said some taxes are necessary? You can read, can't you?
 
You wouldn't have that path or success in a purely libertarian society as there wouldn't be a quality public school to have gone to. Your poor parents would be left sending you to a low quality school as that would be all they could afford. And if you're family was poor, did they get any kind of public assistance at any time in their lives to help make ends meet?

Anyway, ignore +1.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']No thanks, this country was founded on the idea of limited government. Read any of the documents written by our founders and that will become quite clear.

No, as far as what "freedoms" I'm talking about, well, I just listed a few, and there are many, but a brief rundown:

NDAA
Patriot Act
Continuation of the war on drugs (laws to protect us from ourselves!)
Nanny statism (no smoking, no eating bad foods - see NYC)
Bans on gay marriage or other marriages
Constant police violations of the first, fourth and fifth amendments
HR 347
Approval of drone surveillance
Killing of Americans without due process

Things are only getting worse. They're talking about having national ID cards that would have tracking chips in them (see the GOP debate from the '08 election), DNA databases for those who commit minor offences, etc, etc.



Where did I say I wanted the benefits of the state? You barely know my positions. Do I think I should have to pay taxes? Of course. It would be impossible to have a functioning society without some taxes. I'm not an anarchist. Should I have to fund the poor, illegitimate wars, a policing system that doesn't work, the social sercurity pyramid sceme or any department of government that oversteps the boundries put in place to limit it? NO. In this way, taxes are theft.

Do you seriously advocate the use of force to take from one group of people to give to another group of people?





Promised he'd close Gitmo. Gitmo is still open. Promised he'd end the wars. Wars are still ongoing AND he bombed other countries and threatens to get involved in other conflicts. He's a war monger just like Bush. Extended key provisions of the patriot act. Signed the NDAA which gives the government the right to kill American civilians without due process. The list goes on and on.


Once again, a comment that just insults rather than adds anything to the conversation. I can only assume that you're still in high school at this point.[/QUOTE]
Oh and you add just sooo much to our conversation here. No, you come in here every now and then, drop your shit, and then leave. You think you're the only one to do that? You think any of us respect you when you do that? Get the fuck out of here with that shit.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I see you mention hunting. Should I assume you think that's why we have a second amendment? I'm having a hard time figuring out your point with this paragraph.
[/QUOTE]
We know why we have the 2nd amendment, because the founders of the country thought that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the country. Now tell me where your local militia meets. What, there isn't one? Then STFU.

And BTW, I own firearms, and people like you make me embarrassed to admit it, for fear somebody might think me one of you.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You wouldn't have that path or success in a purely libertarian society as there wouldn't be a quality public school to have gone to. Your poor parents would be left sending you to a low quality school as that would be all they could afford. And if you're family was poor, did they get any kind of public assistance at any time in their lives to help make ends meet?

Anyway, ignore +1.[/QUOTE]

Lol, you ignore people you disagree with politically? That's real mature of you. Boo hoo.

My parents never received public assistance. They both worked for a living, they just didn't make a ton of money, but they made it work.

As far as public schools go, statistics show that private schools can educate for much less per student and do a better job of it to. I've always liked the idea of public schools handing the job over to private schools and still have it funded with taxpayer money, as it would cost a lot less. Like I said before, I'm not saying we should have zero taxes and neither do all Libertarians (just the anarcho-capitalists).

[quote name='Clak']Oh and you add just sooo much to our conversation here. No, you come in here every now and then, drop your shit, and then leave. You think you're the only one to do that? You think any of us respect you when you do that? Get the fuck out of here with that shit.[/QUOTE]

I do. I come in and I present a position and I use examples to support my position. Some may not agree with my position, but I don't come in here, talk a bunch of shit, act like an Internet tough guy or throw around childish insults, as we see in the post that I've quoted.

By the way, you think I give a crap about what a bunch statists think of me? Hardly.

[quote name='Clak']We know why we have the 2nd amendment, because the founders of the country thought that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of the country. Now tell me where your local militia meets. What, there isn't one? Then STFU.

And BTW, I own firearms, and people like you make me embarrassed to admit it, for fear somebody might think me one of you.[/QUOTE]

Maybe this will help you.

[media]www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/media]
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I see you mention hunting. Should I assume you think that's why we have a second amendment? I'm having a hard time figuring out your point with this paragraph.[/quote]

oh, womp womp, then. I demand the freedom to purchase ICBMs to protect my property, then, if it suits you.

Yeesh.

Libertarian philosophy, summed up, could be that you can do whatever you'd like as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

And that's a premise so vague so as to be useless.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']oh, womp womp, then. I demand the freedom to purchase ICBMs to protect my property, then, if it suits you.

Yeesh.



And that's a premise so vague so as to be useless.[/QUOTE]

Sorry! I'm interested in hearing your position but I couldn't see through all the snark. You're still making it unclear, but if I had to take a stab at it, I would guess that you're saying that Libertarians think they should have WMDs to protect themselves? That's interesting, since I don't think I've ever talked to one that held that position. Problems with things like WMDs is that their use, while they may be used against those who wish to do someone harm, aren't very targeted and in the process of using them, you tend to trample on the rights of others (namely, those within the blast radius), so I think you'll find that most in our group wouldn't support such a thing.

Vague? How so? It's pretty much the golden rule. Basically, as long as what you're doing doesn't interfere with another's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, then you're good to go.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']

As far as public schools go, statistics show that private schools can educate for much less per student and do a better job of it to. I've always liked the idea of public schools handing the job over to private schools and still have it funded with taxpayer money, as it would cost a lot less. Like I said before, I'm not saying we should have zero taxes and neither do all Libertarians (just the anarcho-capitalists).[/QUOTE]

There is no doubt in my mind that private schools provide better education for less (much less than what it costs the state to educate each child) but my question to you is, what happens to the kids who can't afford to go to school? Who educates them? How would that impact our society?
 
I just said, the switch to private schools should still be funded with taxpayer money, therefore, those who cannot afford it can still go to school, it's just that it won't cost us as much and we'd have a better return on our money.

Again, my position isn't that there should be zero taxes.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I just said, the switch to private schools should still be funded with taxpayer money, therefore, those who cannot afford it can still go to school, it's just that it won't cost us as much and we'd have a better return on our money.

Again, my position isn't that there should be zero taxes.[/QUOTE]

Colleges and Universities are doing this throughout the country. How's that working out for everyone?

Private schools (K-12) produce great results because they have a smaller student body and don't have to deal with teachers unions. Also, the majority of the student body comes from afluent families that take a strong interest in their children's academic success.

One last point, an education tax (legal plunder) goes against what libertarianism stands for. So I'm not sure why you are okay with that.
 
There it is, there is that belief that the private sector can do everything better. Although the idea of giving public money to a private institution doesn't seem very libertarian like to me.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Colleges and Universities are doing this throughout the country. How's that working out for everyone? [/QUOTE]

Which private universities operate solely on taxpayer money? I'd like to get some more information on this, that way I can specifically address what you're talking about.

[quote name='kill3r7']
Private schools (K-12) produce great results because they have a smaller student body and don't have to deal with teachers unions. Also, the majority of the student body comes from afluent families that take a strong interest in their children's academic success.
[/QUOTE]

So it seems like you're suggesting that overtime, the private schools would just become like the public schools they replaced. I'm not so sure. I think the general attitude of private schools in contrast to that of public schools accounts for more of the job that's done teaching. Not having such stringent regulation over the methods used would help as well. The larger student body does pose a problem, but even private schools face expansions from time to time and it doesn't seem to degrade the job they do.

As for kids whose parents don't care about them...well, there's nothing that can really be done about that. They would fail in a private school just as much as they would in a public school.

I can't say as though I know what the outcome would be for such a plan, and you raise some very good concerns, but I still think it's a good enough of a plan to try it out. Besides, even if it does become as bad as public schools, then we're right back to where we were with nothing lost, we only stand to gain.


[quote name='kill3r7']
One last point, an education tax (legal plunder) goes against what libertarianism stands for. So I'm not sure why you are okay with that.[/QUOTE]

Right, but everyone goes through the school system, so it's not like you're getting nothing for your money. If someone is home schooled or just doesn't go to school, then there should be an option to opt out.

I know there are some Libertarians out there who would disagree with that position, but like I've said, there are varying levels of every political party.
 
[quote name='Clak']There it is, there is that belief that the private sector can do everything better. Although the idea of giving public money to a private institution doesn't seem very libertarian like to me.[/QUOTE]

It's not a belief, it's a fact. Name one thing that the public sector does better than the private sector?

As for the second part of your comment, see above.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Colleges and Universities are doing this throughout the country. How's that working out for everyone?

Private schools (K-12) produce great results because they have a smaller student body and don't have to deal with teachers unions. Also, the majority of the student body comes from afluent families that take a strong interest in their children's academic success.

One last point, an education tax (legal plunder) goes against what libertarianism stands for. So I'm not sure why you are okay with that.[/QUOTE]

Yep. As universities are losing state funding the quality of education is definitely dropping as I've seen first hand. Class sizes are increasing as enrollment is upped to add $$$ to replace the lost state funding. More classes are being taught by grad students and adjuncts rather than tenure track faculty. Etc.

Then you have the for profit schools as an example of whats wrong with education driven by money. All over the news lately over scandals of taking tuition, wasting federal student loan dollars etc. on students who often don't graduate due to almost know accountability, degrees being largely worthless in getting a job even for those who do graduate etc.

Privatizing K-12 schools and funding them with tax dollars would improve nothing. And it likely wouldn't save money if private prisons are any indication as studies have repeatedly found that they didn't deliver on their promises of saving costs vs. state ran prisons. And there have been concerns of more inmate abuse etc. in private prisons.

And it wouldn't at all solve the problem of poor districts/counties having poor school systems due to the lower tax base. That's one of our biggest issues in education, and it will remain regardless of whether it's public or private schools getting the tax dollars.

As long as education is funded even partially and the local level the inequality will remain with poor rural and urban districts/counties having worse schools due to smaller tax bases. Thus making it harder for people in those areas to break out of multi-generational poverty.

Some things need to be done for the greater good of society, and profit motive often goes against that. Be it education, funding research of things that doesn't have any profit incentive (i.e. anything that doesn't lead to a saleable good, but generates knowledge, makes the world safer etc.). That's where the public sector is better taking the lead than the private.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Which private universities operate solely on taxpayer money? I'd like to get some more information on this, that way I can specifically address what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

State schools are heavily subsidized and offer free education/ scholarships to underprivileged kids (we are talking dirt poor). The reason I used colleges as an example is because under the proposed system some kids would still have to pay for school while others would get a free ride based on their financial needs.

[/QUOTE] So it seems like you're suggesting that overtime, the private schools would just become like the public schools they replaced. I'm not so sure. I think the general attitude of private schools in contrast to that of public schools accounts for more of the job that's done teaching. Not having such stringent regulation over the methods used would help as well. The larger student body does pose a problem, but even private schools face expansions from time to time and it doesn't seem to degrade the job they do. [/QUOTE]

You don't have to believe me. I'm sure you've read plenty about this very topic in the papers lately. Peruse any newspaper and you are likely to see folks are complaining about "Obamacare", especially doctors, nurses and hospital administrators. They are eager to tell everyone how much worse the system will become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top