Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not at all, just saying libertarian platform in present day is same as 1980s. Appreciate your honesty.
There is no "libertarian platform" aside from the NAP and respect for private property rights.
Your obsession with statists disguised as libertarians is noted.
I don't blame you though. It's much easier to play "chase the dog's tail" within that paradigm than it is to argue against the logically and morally consistent position of anarchy (real libertarianism).
There is no "libertarian platform" aside from the NAP and respect for private property rights.
Your obsession with statists disguised as libertarians is noted.
I don't blame you though. It's much easier to play "chase the dog's tail" within that paradigm than it is to argue against the logically and morally consistent position of anarchy (real libertarianism).
I'm not really sure how you can claim to speak for all here, or anywhere else for that matter. Perhaps though, that's another story so I'll leave it for you & others to figure out.
Despite all of the 'anti-government' rhetoric, the actual practices associated with reveal it was never about reducing the role of the state. Rather it was about changing the nature of its intervention. Away from remedy in favor of the many & for the common good. & towards an open defense of the interests of the few, & solely for their own self-interest.
The fanciful theoreticals & hypotheticals lack internal coherence & have never come even close to predicting real-world behavior anywhere.
Apparently though, this is 'not a bug, it's the main feature'.
I'm rather moving along now, have a nice day & a pleasant tomorrow.
Last edited by ChiGeekGuest; 10-26-2017 at 05:30 AM..
Much of public schools are paid for on a local level with property taxes. As a libertarian I am fine with local jurisdictions continuing to levy a tax for local schools. I don't see the need to pay a federal income tax to support local schools. If people want to donate to their local school district using some of the extra money they have from not paying federal income tax that is fine.
The majority of Libertarians send their kids to public schools. They are not against funding local schools. They are against sending the funding to D.C. only to have a portion of it sent back.
Pretty sure we went over this earlier... You believe you're entitled to the fruits of other people's labor just for existing?
Everyone supports that. There may be a very small fraction of a percentage of people who do not. Today's artificially low interests rates are an example of this. Quantitative Easing is an example of this. The bail-outs were an example of this.
When do you suppose we will stop doing those things?
Ron Paul would most likely not have as big of a problem with the Fed if they weren't constantly screwing the people over as Greenspan admits to having done.
Ron Paul would most likely not have as big of a problem with the Fed if they weren't constantly screwing the people over as Greenspan admits to having done.
Joseph Stiglitz' Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall Street crisis
Quote:
...First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron.
Wage slavery or starvation thats not a choice thats a threat. You fail to take into account the many problems people face throughout there lives. Sure for you it might be voluntary for others they could be stuck.
An individual having problems in life does not give their employer ownership of them. As in the example I provided, they can work for Employer_A for X standard of living, Employer_B for Y standard of living, forage/hunt/build their own means of survival for Z standard of living, or they can do nothing at al and eventually wither on the vine. All of these choices are voluntary and are according to that individual's rational self-interests.
Employers are not required to provide a particular standard of living. They have a job they need done, they compensate someone for doing it, end of story. They do not benefit at all, and actually harm themselves, if they price the job so poorly that nobody will do it. That is why wages follow supply and demand and smart companies set wages properly in any given market. What standard of living that affords the person doing the job is totally up to how that individual defines living. A fry cook making $8 an hour might be a crappy standard of living for a married father of four, but it might be a sweet standard of living for a 16 year old who needs extra money. The restaurant doesn't care, they just set the wage for fry cooks at $8 because someone always comes in and performs the job at that wage. In either case, neither individual is a slave to the employer, because at any time they can seek out better compensation elsewhere.
What you call a wage slave is actually what Buddhists would call enslaving yourself to your own desires. There is this standard of living that one becomes accustomed to, and in order to maintain that standard of living, they must do X Y and Z things else lose that standard of life. This still does not make their employer their master in a maser-slave relationship, it makes their desires, their wants/needs the master, and the employer is simply one avenue they can utilize to satisfy that particular mater.
I'm not really sure how you can claim to speak for all here, or anywhere else for that matter. Perhaps though, that's another story so I'll leave it for you & others to figure out.
Despite all of the 'anti-government' rhetoric, the actual practices associated with reveal it was never about reducing the role of the state. Rather it was about changing the nature of its intervention. Away from remedy in favor of the many & for the common good. & towards an open defense of the interests of the few, & solely for their own self-interest.
The fanciful theoreticals & hypotheticals lack internal coherence & have never come even close to predicting real-world behavior anywhere.
Apparently though, this is 'not a bug, it's the main feature'.
I'm rather moving along now, have a nice day & a pleasant tomorrow.
Everyone supports that. There may be a very small fraction of a percentage of people who do not. Today's artificially low interests rates are an example of this. Quantitative Easing is an example of this. The bail-outs were an example of this.
When do you suppose we will stop doing those things?
And that minuscule percentage of the population are anarchists/voluntaryists.
The public school system new deal programs that got rid of third world poverty. I understand libertarians have this fantasy about returning the state to the founding of this country but that is simply it a fantasy.
Libertarians aren't opposed to public school. They are opposed to a federal Department of Education because every town and every state may want and should be allowed to set education funding, goals, framework, etc any way they see fit. They also oppose compulsory education, as if public schools are 12 year internment camps and your 18th birthday is your parole.
If a town wants to set up a school, and they have people willing to teach, the funding to make it possible, etc...why again should the federal or state government have jurisdiction over how this group of individuals chooses to educate their own children in their own community? If I home school, and some of my neighbors ask if they can have their kids attend my kid's lessons, and we agree to a modest fee of like $100 per month just for supplies and snacks...why should the federal government or the state legislate how we arrange that, what I teach, etc? And if I am Super_Obsessed_Parent_01, and I have my kid passing the GED at age 5 and then doing Calculus at age 6, why should the federal or state government have some say in what my kid does during school hours for the next 12 years?
There is no need for the Department of Education. We got all the way to 1979 without it, and all that has happened since its creation is our achievement relative to other 1st World nations has consistently and reliably declined every single year. Not a real good ROI if you ask me. We spends $billions and the product we pay for decreases in value. If a state or neighborhood decides that there needs to be some sort of public school to accommodate parents with lesser resources, let them fund and operate it. Since schools generally sell neighborhoods and keep real estate values up, there is proper free market economic incentive to doing so, along with incentive to ensure the product itself is better than that provided in other neighborhoods. All of this can be done without any federal or state meddling, and if private, charter and magnate schools, as well as homeschooling, have shown us anything, it is that competing for the education buck improves the product, while structuring it as government monopoly wrecks it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
