[Kman]

What makes those statements ridiculous?

I dont have the patience to decode your confused thinking.

[Decky]

I dont have the patience to decode your confused thinking.

Why are you on a discussion forum if you don't want to debate people who think differently than you? I mean you might as well be locked on your room alone clothing atlas shrugged if you aren't going to debate with people.

[Kman]

Why are you on a discussion forum if you don't want to debate people who think differently than you? I mean you might as well be locked on your room alone clothing atlas shrugged if you aren't going to debate with people.

I am not a paid teacher, I will teach people on this forum if I feel like it.

[Decky]

I am not a paid teacher, I will teach people on this forum if I feel like it.

I wouldn't call what you do teaching but fair enough. I just seems a little strange to me that you make the effort to log onto a forum for discussing politics and they get annoyed at the suggestion that you should do so. Still I guess it passes the time between perving on girls in MacDonalds

[ThePublicOpinions]

When you have a monopoly on the provision of a good or service, quality goes down and price goes up. So yes, we are all being dragged down. You are right, that the super elite can and do enroll their children in private schools but most people aren't rich enough to first be forced to buy public schools and then second send their kids to private schools. Furthermore, the government dictates to private schools what the curriculum must be (identical to public school curriculum). So there is no real choice.
My mother raised me and my two sisters on a welfare income, and we always had plenty of food to eat. So I doubt very much there is any malnourishment. Maybe a few freak cases where the parent is criminally negligent, or spends all their money on booze or crack or whatever, but even then you would expect family or neighbours to step in. At any rate, if you put government in monopoly control over the food supply there would be massive and immediate starvation, just as there as in Russia when the government there decided to feed everyone. Well that's what we have with the public school system. Our children are starved for actual intellectual nourishment.
You claim to know what the best methods of teaching and learning are. This is fatal conceit. You think you know the best way to teach every single child specific subjects? Are we all autonomatons? It is this hubris that leads us to believe that government should dictate to us how we live our lives. Teachers and parents should make the decision about how individual children sould be educated, not some government bureaucrat or wannabe intellectual. And if you look at the average person's understanding of math, grammar, language and science I think it's pretty clear the current methods aren't working. Most of the people I was in high school with could barely scribble a sentence together. This isn't necessary. We could all be geniuses. We do not have to settle for failure.
You are right that if we abolished the ministry of education there would be a hierarchy of education. It would range from good, to very very good. Just like food today ranges from good to very good. You would have us all eat rotten apples so that no one could have cake. I say let them eat cake.

[SecretSquirrel]

I remember traveling by bus as a boy from Chisinau where I lived to Ukraine with my grandmother to stand in line all day for sneakers and oranges. Half the time there weren't any left by the time we got to the end.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Two ladies are standing in a soviet bread line for two hours already, waiting for some moldy bread.

Alexandra : Aren't these bread lines terrible?
Irina : Yes, but just think how had it is in America, where the government doesn't give out any bread!

[grassroots1]

that is a huge cost that has to come out of households that dont even want to use the system and that greatly prohibits working class and middle class families from being able to afford a non-government run school.

The question is, what would society look like without these services? Would people be left without education and be worse off? Given historical lessons, I think it's very clear that they would. You are part of a democratic system that represents your community and we have decided as a community that education is too important to be left up to "the market." Historically the market alone has been insufficient to satisfy these needs.

That is what I despise so much about statists like you grassroots, you end up forcing innocent people like me to adopt your preferences in life because you force me to pay for the things you like, if education was 100% privatized then people would only have to pay for school systems and education methods that they agree with.

What baffles me about libertarians is the fact that they can idealize the situation to this level where broader economic and social impacts of the policies you propose are not even considered. Instead it's all about some abstract moral question. It's called living in a community, and in a democratic society Kman. These are great things and everyone in your country and my country benefits from it. If you don't like certain aspects of your society then you can work to change it through that democratic system, but don't suggest that there be no democratic system whatsoever. What you're suggesting whether you know it or not is actually tyranny of corporations.

Your friend was too lazy to go the hospital, OMG WE NEED SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE.

I provided detailed explanations of my positions and this is all you can come back with? The problem was that he could not AFFORD to see a doctor and felt that he could deal with the problem on his own. This is the difference between a medical system that focuses on treatment and one that focuses on general health and well-being, and preventative medicine. A very important difference.

Furthermore, the government dictates to private schools what the curriculum must be (identical to public school curriculum). So there is no real choice.

Private schools have more freedom in that sense, for one, and for two, if you are participating in a democratic system that is determining that curriculum, what is the problem? It is a curriculum that is a product of the democratic process within your community. We're not talking about fascist top-down authority here.

When you have a monopoly on the provision of a good or service, quality goes down and price goes up. So yes, we are all being dragged down. You are right, that the super elite can and do enroll their children in private schools but most people aren't rich enough to first be forced to buy public schools and then second send their kids to private schools.

You can't compare government to a monopoly when the government is a product of a democratic system and only exists to provide that service. A monopoly must make a profit, a government does not need to make a profit, all it exists to do if it is democratic is to reflect the beliefs, desires, and wishes of those it governs. This thinking is so twisted that it's difficult for me to wrap my head around.

My mother raised me and my two sisters on a welfare income, and we always had plenty of food to eat. So I doubt very much there is any malnourishment. Maybe a few freak cases

Article from 2005, and the situation has only become worse:

Increasing numbers of young American children are showing signs of serious malnourishment, fuelled by a greater prevalence of hunger in the United States, while, paradoxically, two-thirds of the US population is either overweight or obese.

In 2003, 11.2 per cent of families in the United States experienced hunger, compared with 10.1 per cent in 1999, according to most recent official figures, released on National Hunger Awareness Day held this year on June 7.

Some paediatricians worry that cuts in welfare aid proposed in President George W. Bush's 2006 budget will only worsen the situation. By contrast Bush plans to keep tax cuts for more affluent sectors of the population, they note.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200506/13/eng20050613_189927.html

There has been a dramatic increase in hunger in the United States in the three years, 2008, 2009 and 2010. There appears to be a slight decrease in hunger in 2011, as the economy improves. Statistics are only available for 2008. They show:

* In 2008, 17 million households, 14.6 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States. Four million households became food insecure in 2008, the largest increase ever recorded (p. iii, USDA 2008). (To get population figures from family size figures, multiply family size numbers by 2.58, the average family size.)

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm

The information is there for you to seek out.

At any rate, if you put government in monopoly control over the food supply

Again, taking a view and immediately taking it to the extreme. This is not what I'm suggesting in any way.

At any rate, if you put government in monopoly control over the food supply there would be massive and immediate starvation, just as there as in Russia when the government there decided to feed everyone. Well that's what we have with the public school system. Our children are starved for actual intellectual nourishment.

That's a highly disingenuous comparison.

You claim to know what the best methods of teaching and learning are. This is fatal conceit. You think you know the best way to teach every single child specific subjects? Are we all autonomatons?

I never claimed any such thing.

Teachers and parents should make the decision about how individual children sould be educated

They do, through the democratic system and through becoming involved in their individual schools. There are debates every year that happen over HOW different subjects should be taught. This did not happen in the fascist governments of history.

You are right that if we abolished the ministry of education there would be a hierarchy of education. It would range from good, to very very good.

This is pure speculation, and it's not what historical lessons show. The question is who can access this education, whatever quality it might be, and what the quality of life of the average person would be if these (I believe, essential) social services did not exist.

Just like food today ranges from good to very good.

Not a very good example, given that the rates of food insecurity in the United States continue to increase.

[ThePublicOpinions]

The state has a monopoly on education. I'm not comparing it to a monopoly, it is a monopoly. The state exists to exact tribute, not to 'educate', and government is absolutely a for profit institution. Many people get rich off government. Why do you think they take half of the wealth society creates every year? It is extremely naive to imagine only benign motives for our slave masters - a testament to how throughly you have been indoctrinated into statism.
What exactly does 'experiencing hunger' mean? If I go long enough without a sandwhich I experience hunger, but that's not really an indictment of anything. How many young American children are malnourished, and what was the methodology for establishing such? I have NEVER in my LIFE enountered a malnourished person. Where do you find them?

[grassroots1]

and government is absolutely a for profit institution. Many people get rich off government.

If people are able to get rich off government, that's a problem that should be dealt with. No one gets rich off of the public education system except overpaid administrators, and they aren't very rich. It is not a monopoly in the sense that De Biers has a monopoly on the diamond industry because it is not run to generate a profit, it is run to provide a service. This is the fact.

Why do you think they take half of the wealth society creates every year?

They? Half? We, through a representative democratic system, choose to set taxes at a certain level to fund our educational system.

[youtube]Blm_mb7ADWQ[/youtube]

See if you can wrap your head around this one. I'm getting really tired of this conversation.

It is extremely naive to imagine only benign motives for our slave masters

Let's get things straight, I'll repeat what I said to you the first time I spoke to you:

The state certainly does guarantee a form of 'social mobility', that is to say bureaucrats can become rich off of your hard work. But no poor person ever became rich by paying taxes.

I'd disagree, Public Opinion. So long as you live in a functioning democracy, paying taxes guarantees that your nation has a basic level of services: safe roads, fire and police services, libraries, public transportation, education, health services, etc. This is not just an investment in yourself, it is an investment in the quality of your entire nation. It allow for every person to have the ability to maximize their potential in life, and without it we can lose a great deal of potential, and in my mind, that loss is tragic. It's not just tragic to me for utilitarian reasons, it's actually tragic. The deck is stacked against the poor in this society (and more in others), in many cases, through no fault of their own. That doesn't mean people can't succeed, but you have to imagine the state of the poor in America if no services existed whatsoever. What you're imagining would probably be close to the Gilded Age in American history, when companies were able to mistreat their workers and were supported outright by the government. Only through a great deal of struggle did the things you probably take for granted come about in this country.

By the standards of libertarians, WE are socialist compared to some third world fascist nations where no services exist at all and where the government is the equivalent of a gang of mobsters*. But then we'd be having to use the idiotic standards of libertarians... you guys throw around the word so much it's meaningless.

But that's not to say I don't have a problem with the state of our government in this country today. I think special interests have thoroughly infiltrated the American government to the point that it can no longer really be called a democracy. I have no support whatsoever for our military ventures abroad and I have no support for the violations of American civil liberties since 9/11. Both of those things need to be rectified, and I believe the situation is reaching a point of urgency. However I do support the foundation this nation was built on, and I believe more in a restoration of our democracy and a restoration of our values as a nation than I do in any kind of revolution. It would be a great tragedy to see any form of tyranny take hold in this country.

*Come to think of it, how is it that you guys call both North Korea and Switzerland socialist?

What exactly does 'experiencing hunger' mean? If I go long enough without a sandwhich I experience hunger, but that's not really an indictment of anything.

What it means is that people go to bed without food at night--it means people do not have healthy diets and are not as food secure as, say, you or me. What matters here is that hunger in the United States has been increasing since the 2008 recession... the trend matters, not the particular definition or the percentage.

Someone happened to post this on facebook:

SAN FRANCISCO -- One in four California households with children reported food hardship, according to a new analysis of Gallup data released last Thursday by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC).

Children’s healthcare advocates worry about the consequences of a lack of access to nutritious food. “It’s disturbing, but not surprising,” said Kelly Hardy, director of health policy at Children Now.

The report analyzed data gathered as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index project’s responses to the question: “Have there been times in the past 12 months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”

“It sends a clear signal of economic distress, particularly for families with children,” noted James Weill, president of FRAC. “The answers to the question reveal there are times that these families are going without eating a meal, or the parents are skipping a meal for their children, or children are skipping meals.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/08/20

Apparently this is how they assess the problem.

How many young American children are malnourished, and what was the methodology for establishing such? I have NEVER in my LIFE enountered a malnourished person. Where do you find them?

Malnourishment in the United States takes a different form because obesity can come along with malnourishment. When people subsist on fast food diets, for example, they can become both obese and malnourished.

[ThePublicOpinions]

The whole reason there is a government is so people can get rich off the hard work of others. That's what taxes are. Society creates wealth and the state steals it. I agree, people should not be able to get rich off of government - that's why I want to get rid of taxes. A lot of people get rich off the public school system. You have teacher's, who have very cushy jobs w/ extended vacations, no accountability, no real responsibilities aside from making sure the kids don't kill each other (and even at that they are failing). You have administrators. Every town I moved to had a school board, where people would make very nice salaries pushing paper around. Then you have the companies that provide all the books and computers. The computers especially were very lucrative. The government doesn't care - it's not their money, they have to spend it all or their budgets get cut. The whole system is designed for profit. That's why everyone does everything. I hate to burst your bubble, but people are out there looking out for number 1. Benign angels are few and far between, and the people who crow the loudest about how they are self sacrificing and selfless are usually using every trick they have to enrich themselves at everyone elses expense. By any rational definition of monopoly, the state monopoly on education is a monopoly.
We do not choose to set taxes. If you poll people where they think taxes are, the answer is down. No government is elected by a majority, and even if they were that doesn't justify theft. We do not choose taxes, they are forced upon us. If taxes were really voluntary you wouldn't need coercion to obtain them.
Have you ever met someone who is malnourished? I have not. Well, I have a friend who is a little malnourished but that's because he chooses to spend all his money on booze, cigarettes and drugs. Perhaps this mythical creature exists. What % of the population do you think is malnourished?

[grassroots1]

Honestly I don't feel the need to continue the conversation, these are things we've been over numerous times. It's been swell, TPO.

[ThePublicOpinions]

gg son

[Voluntary]

AnCaps believe that land and natural resources are valid personal property and this creates unfair power structures. For example, if you came across some diamonds in Africa, found some way to extract them (i.e. mixed your labor), then hire the local populace at slave wages while holding a monopoly on the world's diamond supplies, then this would be a legitimate power structure for Ancaps.

In fact, many of them would probably proclaim that the slave wage rate was justified since the workers would not be better off without the capitalists.

Ancaps basically disregard the Lockean Proviso.

[Eran]

Diamonds may be the only practical example of a monopolized resource. The reason I say that is that I don't care to go and study the diamond industry, though personally I am pretty sure we would find mountains of government intervention in favour of DeBeers, and not a free market in action.

Be that as it may, there is not other example in human history of people monopolizing any natural resource in contradiction of the Lockean Proviso. I agree that one can easily enough envision such state of affairs (say in a small island or in the middle of the desert). But in practice, this is a complete red herring.

[Eran]

Diamonds may be the only practical example of a monopolized resource. The reason I say that is that I don't care to go and study the diamond industry, though personally I am pretty sure we would find mountains of government intervention in favour of DeBeers, and not a free market in action.

Be that as it may, there is not other example in human history of people monopolizing any natural resource in contradiction of the Lockean Proviso. I agree that one can easily enough envision such state of affairs (say in a small island or in the middle of the desert). But in practice, this is a complete red herring.

[Voluntary]

Be that as it may, there is not other example in human history of people monopolizing any natural resource in contradiction of the Lockean Proviso. I agree that one can easily enough envision such state of affairs (say in a small island or in the middle of the desert). But in practice, this is a complete red herring.

Please learn what a red herring is and learn your history. There are plenty of cases in which a few people monopolized natural resources over the majority. Just try to privatize our water supply and see where it gets you. Or better yet, lets look at Operation Ajax.

However, that is not my point. My point is that Ancaps believe in unfair power structures since they believe in simple ownership over natural resources simply by discovery and "mixing their labor" with them.

It is naive at best.

[Voluntary]

Would justice be limited to those who can afford it in an anarcho-capitalist society? Would justice be administered on a sliding scale according to the victim’s ability to pay? Would the poor receive justice assuming they had no money?

Since anarchists are opposed to authority, how would the enforcement of justice be carried out? Would prisons exist?

David Freidman answers your question better than I can. Scroll to page 60.
http://voluntarykaraism.com/wp-content/ ... om%20(1973).pdf

If that link doesn't work, then google "david friedman machinery of freedom" and click on the first link.

[Eran]

There are plenty of cases in which a few people monopolized natural resources over the majority. Just try to privatize our water supply and see where it gets you.

Do you have any examples where people did that without using force to establish their property claims? Where that was done without, in other words, reliance on government (or by governments)?

And how on Earth is government action (per Operation Ajax) at all relevant to the discussion of the monopolization potential of private (non-violent) actors?

[Voluntary]

Do you have any examples where people did that without using force to establish their property claims? Where that was done without, in other words, reliance on government (or by governments)?

C'mon dude, you are digging. Most of this world's history is a history of government.

Now, that is a red herring.

And how on Earth is government action (per Operation Ajax) at all relevant to the discussion of the monopolization potential of private (non-violent) actors?

Mossadegh wanted to nationalize and share the wealth of his oil among his people, instead of being raped by British Petroleum that allowed a select few to live high off the hog at the expense of others.