Any libertarians here? (employment, fast food, illegal, drugs)

[AJLVT]

Originally Posted by twojciac

People today are given the choice to privately fund primary education for students, but few do.

So then could it be that perhaps paying for this isn't likely to provide the person with more benefit than cost? Or is it up to you to decide what other people benefit from?

I think that schools can be funded through excise taxes, so in the end, it would be your choice. If you choose to participate in the economy, you will choose to fund at least the basic services that are required to support that economy. But if you wished to live on your own land with an allodial title, grow your own crops, and not interact with the outside world... then you should be free to avoid paying into those programs.

Oh, so you're not willing to steal money from me directly, only when I trade with someone.

If it's "my choice" then why can't I choose to trade (which is a critical advantage to human beings) and also choose whether or not I'd like to pay for this thing you say has benefits?

What gives you the right to interfere with my trades anyways?

Why can't "the basic services that are required to support the economy" be paid for voluntarily, like the way a barber shop or food distributor is paid for, for example? If you agree that competition and voluntary exchange is an effective way to get good sub sandwiches, what is different about schools that makes it so this same approach won't result in higher quality education? Why do you assume that stealing money from anybody who wants to trade something and redistributing it to the state's school system is going to provide people with a good and positive service?

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by AJLVT

So then could it be that perhaps paying for this isn't likely to provide the person with more benefit than cost? Or is it up to you to decide what other people benefit from?

I don't see how you could infer that there is no benefit to the cost simply because people choose not to donate money to the cause. It simply highlights that such an alternative exists today, but people choose not to participate.

Oh, so you're not willing to steal money from me directly, only when I trade with someone.

You are not forced to trade, it is a choice. If you participate in the economy, you should be expected to contribute to the infrastructure required to support that economy.

If it's "my choice" then why can't I choose to trade (which is a critical advantage to human beings) and also choose whether or not I'd like to pay for this thing you say has benefits?

You do have a choice if you wish to trade.

What gives you the right to interfere with my trades anyways?

Members of a society recognize the benefit in government, but at no point does that government posess rights. It is granted powers by the members of society, and requires some funding in order for it to function. The extent to which powers are granted, and the extent to how much it is funded often times are directly correlated, and variable based upon the views of that society.

Why can't "the basic services that are required to support the economy" be paid for voluntarily, like the way a barber shop or food distributor is paid for, for example? If you agree that competition and voluntary exchange is an effective way to get good sub sandwiches, what is different about schools that makes it so this same approach won't result in higher quality education? Why do you assume that stealing money from anybody who wants to trade something and redistributing it to the state's school system is going to provide people with a good and positive service?

You recieve a direct good or service from the barber shop or food distributor. There is an incentive to purchase such goods because there is an immediate benefit from the transaction, or that good or service would be unsustainable.

With services like police, fire, and education, there isn't always a direct good or service that is gained. Increased police patrols of your neighborhood discourage criminals from vandalizing your home, stealing your property, and hurting your family. While you could purchase private security for your home, you are not likely to purchase private security for the surrounding neighborhoods as well. But patrols of these neighborhoods has a direct impact on the safety of your neighborhood.

Now say you and your neighbors decide that you want to eliminate the police department and purchase private security. You succeed in banning the police department from your area, but the company that you hire has failed to deliver the services you requested. Assume this has increased crime in your neighborhood, but has also had a direct effect on the crime rates in a nearby neighborhood. Who assumes responsibility for the impact to personal safety as well as property value because of your decisions?

The same can be said of a fire, which can spread from property to property, neighborhood to neighborhood.

Oh, and I never said that a state run school was specifically the goal. Local funds directed by the parent (voucher system) applied to privately run schools would be my ideal solution.

But I have a question for you. Given the existence of a government, and assuming it was in some way democratic... would you prefer that the majority of voters be educated or ignorant?

[AJLVT]

Originally Posted by twojciac

I don't see how you could infer that there is no benefit to the cost simply because people choose not to donate money to the cause. It simply highlights that such an alternative exists today, but people choose not to participate.

I didn't say there was "no benefit to the cost." Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked you how likely it is that the benefits outweighed the costs.

You said: Paying for education provides more benefit than cost to the tax payer.
I'm saying: If that were really the case, people would choose to do it, right?

If you say no, perhaps you can explain why people would choose to not do something that would have benefits to them. (Your theory, not mine.)

You are not forced to trade, it is a choice.

Of course. And you are apparently allowed to steal from me when I make this choice.

If you participate in the economy, you should be expected to contribute to the infrastructure required to support that economy.

And who determines what is "required to support the economy"?

You say this as if the economic activity I choose doesn't already work to support those services I find useful. Why do I have to subsidize something *you* think is important even if I believe it to not be a good use of my resources?

You do have a choice if you wish to trade.

Why is my ability to trade conditional upon paying for the thing you want me to pay for?

Members of a society recognize the benefit in government, but at no point does that government posess rights. It is granted powers by the members of society, and requires some funding in order for it to function. The extent to which powers are granted, and the extent to how much it is funded often times are directly correlated, and variable based upon the views of that society.

This doesn't answer my question.

You're telling me something like: I am willing to take money from you when you trade with someone, because when you do this you become a part of the economy, and schools are a necessary function to the economy.

So, I'm asking you why you think you have a right to interfere with (or even necessarily know about) the trades I make. If I grew my own crops I and was entirely self-sufficient, you don't think you have a right to rob me for education money. OK, cool. But if my neighbor came to me and asked me to cobble him a shoe, and in exchange gave me a barrel of pickles, now you have a right to take my money?

But I have a question for you. Given the existence of a government, and assuming it was in some way democratic... would you prefer that the majority of voters be educated or ignorant?

I'd prefer there is no government, but working within the confines of your question:

I'd greatly prefer they be educated. Which is exactly why I want to keep the government out of education and let the marketplace work. I certainly don't want kids learning from state run schools, where they will learn that Presidents who fight wars are the best Presidents and that peacetime Presidents are the weak Presidents, and where they will learn about Keynesian economics and never be taught a thing about Austrian (free market) economics, sound money, or the dangers of inflation.

And even if I thought using the force of a gun to make someone else pay for education would somehow result in a better situation, I would recognize that this immoral action is chalk full of unintended consequence, and would not see it as any sort of real or compassionate solution.

Believe it or not, disagreeing that it's a good idea to forcibly take money from someone else does not mean I oppose the service of education and instead want ignorant people. What exactly was the point of a question like this?

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by AJLVT

I didn't say there was "no benefit to the cost." Please don't put words in my mouth. I asked you how likely it is that the benefits outweighed the costs.

You said: Paying for education provides more benefit than cost to the tax payer.
I'm saying: If that were really the case, people would choose to do it, right?

If you say no, perhaps you can explain why people would choose to not do something that would have benefits to them. (Your theory, not mine.)

People would likely not choose to fund an education system merely based upon the benefits associated with it because those benefits are not immediate. Our society has proven to have a short attention span and falls prey to immediate gratification. If our average citizen had $100, it is extremely likely that they would purchase food and entertainment for themselves with that money rather than save a portion of it or donate it for national defense or an education system. However, given the pattern in our giving, they are also very likely to take some of that money and donate it to the immediate benefit of charity, such as relief efforts for the recent hurricane in Louisiana.

When a child is educated, there may be measurable benefits to the parent, but there are few immediate benefits to society. However in the span of ten years that difference can be realized when that 16 year old could either be educated or ignorant. An educated individual is statistically more likely to seek employment or start their own business, less likely to commit crime, and places less burden on society. And very importantly, an educated voter can make decisions based upon issues and historical events, rather than being blinded by rhetoric.

But these benefits aren't immediate. I don't believe that a majority of individuals would contribute voluntarilly to a charity that doesn't immediately benefit them.

[quote]
Of course. And you are apparently allowed to steal from me when I make this choice.
[quote]

Government is allowed to collect an excise tax for transcations which the majority (or their representatives) agree upon, at the rate which they agree upon. It is no more stealing than you would be stealing from society when it affords its protections on you with you directly paying for them.

And who determines what is "required to support the economy"?

95. Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent. The only way whereby any one devests himself of his Natural Liberty, and puts on the bonds of Civil Society is by agreeing with other Men to joyn and unite into a Community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure Enjoyment of their Properties, and a greater Security against any that are not of it. This any number of Men may do, because it injures not the Freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the Liberty of the State of Nature. When any number of Men have so consented to make one Community or Government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body Politick, wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the rest.

96. For when any number of Men have, by the consent of every individual, made a Community, they have thereby made that Community one Body, with a Power to Act as one Body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. For that which acts any Community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body, one Community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see that in Assemblies impowered to act by positive Laws where no number is set by that positive Law which impowers them, the act of the Majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having by the Law of Nature and Reason, the power of the whole.

97. And thus every Man, by consenting with others to make one Body Politick under one Government, puts himself under an Obligation to every one of that Society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original Compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one Society, would signifie nothing, and be no Compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties, than he was in before in the state of Nature. For what appearance would there be of any Compact? What new Engagement if he were no farther tied by any Decrees of the Society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his Compact, or any one else in the State of Nature hath, who may submit himself and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit.

98. For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason, be received, as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make any thing to be the act of the whole: But such a consent is next impossible ever to be had, if we consider the Infirmities of Health, and Avocations of Business, which in a number, though much less than that of a Common-wealth, will necessarily keep many away from the publick Assembly. To which if we add the variety of Opinions, and contrariety of Interests, which unavoidably happen in all Collections of Men, the coming into Society upon such terms, would be only like Cato's coming into the Theatre, only to go out again. Such a Constitution as this would make the mighty Leviathan of a shorter duration, than the feeblest Creatures; and not let it outlast the day it was born in: which cannot be suppos'd till we can think, that Rational Creatures should desire and constitute Societies only to be dissolved. For where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one Body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again.

99. Whosoever therefore out of a state of Nature unite into a Community, must be understood to give up all the power, necessary to the ends for which they unite into Society, to the majority of the Community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one Political Society, which is all the Compact that is, or needs be, between the Individuals, that enter into, or make up a Common-wealth. And thus that, which begins and actually constitutes any Political Society, is nothing but the consent of any number of Freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a Society. And this is that, and that only, which did, or could give beginning to any lawful Government in the World.

John Locke, Second Treatise, "Two Treatises of Government".

You say this as if the economic activity I choose doesn't already work to support those services I find useful. Why do I have to subsidize something *you* think is important even if I believe it to not be a good use of my resources?

Because you gain a benefit from it, even if you don't see it. Take the criminal justice system for example. If a person commits a crime and is a serial rapist, you have something to gain by them being incarcerated, even if you weren't directly impacted by their prior actions. But the incarceration definitely has a cost associated with it which needs to be supported by society.

Why is my ability to trade conditional upon paying for the thing you want me to pay for?

This doesn't answer my question.

You're telling me something like: I am willing to take money from you when you trade with someone, because when you do this you become a part of the economy, and schools are a necessary function to the economy.

Same issue, same response as above.

So, I'm asking you why you think you have a right to interfere with (or even necessarily know about) the trades I make. If I grew my own crops I and was entirely self-sufficient, you don't think you have a right to rob me for education money. OK, cool. But if my neighbor came to me and asked me to cobble him a shoe, and in exchange gave me a barrel of pickles, now you have a right to take my money?

It depends. If you have an allodial title to your property, then the government has no claims to property taxes. But if you hold a feudal title, you are responsible for supporting society simply by owning property. It would be up to that society to decide which title system provides greatest benefit.

I'd prefer there is no government, but working within the confines of your question:

I'd greatly prefer they be educated. Which is exactly why I want to keep the government out of education and let the marketplace work. I certainly don't want kids learning from state run schools, where they will learn that Presidents who fight wars are the best Presidents and that peacetime Presidents are the weak Presidents, and where they will learn about Keynesian economics and never be taught a thing about Austrian (free market) economics, sound money, or the dangers of inflation.

I agree that state run schools are biased and have proven to be inefficient and in most cases ineffective. But it's possible to have society bear the burden of the cost of education, while applying those funds to a free market. It's based on a voucher system.

And even if I thought using the force of a gun to make someone else pay for education would somehow result in a better situation, I would recognize that this immoral action is chalk full of unintended consequence, and would not see it as any sort of real or compassionate solution.

Believe it or not, disagreeing that it's a good idea to forcibly take money from someone else does not mean I oppose the service of education and instead want ignorant people. What exactly was the point of a question like this?

Being supportive of an ideology is quite different than funding the implementation of it. While it is possible to educate children at home, or in an environment of charity, history shows us the results. We wind up with a stricter class structure because ignorance begets ignorance. Those without education see little value in education and favor immediate results of manual labor. Even those with the desire to learn may not have the means to obtain an education because the funding would be entirely dependent upon the charity of others. In the past we have seen this charity through churches, which have their own ideology to teach their students.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by AJLVT

Which is exactly why I want to keep the government out of education and let the marketplace work. I certainly don't want kids learning from state run schools,

Who do you think ought to run those 'marketplace' schools, then? Halliburton? Comcast? Lockheed-Martin? Kaiser-Permanente? Enron? Bud Selig?

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Who do you think ought to run those 'marketplace' schools, then? Halliburton? Comcast? Lockheed-Martin? Kaiser-Permanente? Enron? Bud Selig?

Whomever chooses to enter the market. If parents are given the choice to apply funds to the school they feel best meets their needs, schools meeting those needs will be rewarded while those that fail to meet those needs will fail themselves.

You only need to look at the early childhood development market to see that there are small private schools that run in the same market as franchise schools. Parents choose the school that best meets their needs, and so far both types of schools have continued to exist.

[AJLVT]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Who do you think ought to run those 'marketplace' schools, then? Halliburton? Comcast? Lockheed-Martin? Kaiser-Permanente? Enron? Bud Selig?

Considering Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Comcast, Enron, etc. are all creations of government (corporations), with special privileges granted to them by the government, I find it strange that you would try to lump me (an anarchist) in with this group. What I support is voluntary exchange, which these corporations pretty much spit on every step of the way.

What is your solution anyways? To point a gun at people and make them feed a monopoly on schools?

twojc, I don't have enough time to read that right now, I'll check it out and respond later. 8-)

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by AJLVT

Is this a fact merely because you assert it as such, or are you willing to debate this point?

Why do you believe it is "necessary" that a state monopoly provides defense?

What is different about defense (rather than say, education) that makes it so the private sector could not provide it effectively?

I might be open to privatized police, and privatized armed forces if it could be done effectively. As a matter of fact, there have been some prisons that experimented with privatization, where the prisoners pay for their own room & board. I can see implementing that, especially for white collar criminals, and drug trafficers who profitted monetarily from their crimes.

However, the difference between defense & law enforcement vs. education is that everybody benefits from having a strong military. Military and law enforcement are there to protect our borders and defend our Constitutional rights. Without those things, we would have anarchy, and the U.S. wouldn't be an effective nation.

While I believe that education is important, public education only benefits a certain segment of the population, mainly those with children. Contrary to what others have stated, having the schools funded by the general public is not a benefit to everybody. The quality of private institutions is highly superior to the substandard public school system. I know, because I attended both private and public schools. Private institutions are able to hire top quality teachers ... and parents can actually have more of a say as to what their children are learning. Public schools are often used by lazy parents as subsidized day care. Also, I have no children, yet I'm forced to pay property taxes (and other taxes) to keep this failure of a system chugging along to help raise kids who aren't mine. It's not exactly fair to the childless folks, nor is it fair to those with children who don't use the public system.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

While I believe that education is important, public education only benefits a certain segment of the population, mainly those with children. Contrary to what others have stated, having the schools funded by the general public is not a benefit to everybody.

So you don't see a benefit to having an educated population? Remember, these are the very people, who under a democratic system, will control your fate through the votes they cast.

Are you concerned about the burden on society? Higher unemployment, lower wages for those that can managed to be employed, higher rates of criminal activity, higher birth rates?

If education can alleviate those issues, is that not a benefit to society as a whole?

[Moth]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

One thing that I tend to disagree with the Libertarian party on is immigration. Until recently, many Libertarians advocated an open border policy, which I believe to be completely wrong. Thankfully, some Libertarians have begun to reconsider their stance on that issue in the last few years.

Libertarianism probably derives from European thinkers such as Adam Smith (Scotland) and Friedrich Hayek (Austria). But the reality is only a small sector in the USA has embraced it- you could say the Netherlands practices a certain form of social libertarianism to some extent though. So Libertarianism, as much as it does, thrives only in the USA and only to a certain extent. Europeans, Canadians, Australians and everyone else disdains the philosophy whilst happily embracing an activist State.

So it seems it you allowed unfettered immigration, you are going to import alot of people who do not buy into Libertarianism at all. Libertarians, already a minority, are going to be ever-more outnumbered.

Why would Libertarians, therefore, assist in their own destruction?