[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

oh oh ok.

so the neighborhood puts forth a bunch of tyrants to be 'elected,' 51% vote for them, 49% vote against them, but to bad. move.

hitler was elected by democratic election.

so much for democracy.

those stupid ass jews should of just moved. same with those stupid property title clinging kulaks in the ukraine.

if you dont like the democratically elected government, just move.

duh.

those stupid idiots making trouble for everyone.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

and I have said it before you don't like it where you live and the rules and laws that entales then you can move, I don't need to give up 100% of my wage just have a fair taxation policy for everyone

 

and i've said it many times before, what gives the govt the right to rule in teh first place? that is the question.

according to you if a bunch of guys move into your neighborhood, declare themselves the rulers, tax everyone at 50% just because, and a few of the gangs friends consent to their behavior, then they allow you people to vote on a few different 'leaders' and you dont like their policies....your answer to this is 'well, i dont like these guys, so i just got to move.'

instead of kicking their asses out of your neighborhood.

that is all a government is. a gang with a flag. that is how all governments came around.

the very question is what gave them the right to rule in the first place, where did the people consent and what gives them the power to run everyones lives?

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

You may not have realised but people dont earn huge amounts of money, even if they increase their productivity in their job they still wont earn more money for it, so without a public education system I would have to work another job so maybe 70+ hours a week work just so my son can go to school.

 

you just criticized me for my resistance to forceful taxation because i 'didnt want to pay for anything' and now you are telling me you want everything for free.

hmmm...

you still dont get it.

if state schools were abolished, schools that people could afford would pop up. imagine if we had government monopolized food stores and they sold rice for 20$ a pound. you would have us believe that if we allowed freedom, that the price would go to 200 a pound and no one could afford it. yet in all your other posts , you are complaining about 'big business' charging to 'cheap of prices' putting ''mom and pop stores' out of business. and you think that these greedy business men would not come up with a satisfactory schooling method that people can afford?

 

 

So he would suffer because he would never see his father because I would be forced to work just so he could go to school. This would also be unbenficial for me because I would always be tired, no leisure time, no family time.

that may be true, but lets remember it is living standards and productivity that gives us leisure. lets not forget when people were flocking their horrible lives on the farm to make more money in a horrible factory, they were bettering their lot in life. it wasnt THAT long ago when people were working 12 hours a day just to put food on the table, they werent spending their extra income on iphones and vacations. because their labor was worth so little that they had to work that many hours.

 

the way to get rich is to increase your productivity. get better skills if you want to work less and make more money.

 

 

Also I said education should not be ran to make profits, it should be to provide an education to everyone, if you start runnign the education system solely to make a profit then the level of education would suffer, teachers wages getting cut back, cutting spending to non profitable subjects like art.

why should teachers make more money when they cant even teach the kids anything at the rates they currently make?

state schools fail horribly at providing an education, so i think you are arguing a moot point.

basically you are in favor of free schools, that you dont have to pay for, your neighbor does, and if he doesnt you send in the guys in uniforms with badges and guns to extract the revenue, and to top it off, you dont even want children educated, you want them indoctrinated and dumbed down.

 

Also with the home schooling arguement, so if the parent isn't intelligent enouogh to be earning enough money in a job to send their child to school what makes you think they will be intelligent enough to provide a complete education?

i dont know, seems similar too..'what if the parents are not capable of feeding their kids?' or 'what if they feed their kids something that i dont like?' if you base your entire case on the cases that hardly ever happen, it just gets plain stupid.

 

what if parents choose to stay home and teach their kids but have a high labor productivity?

plenty of people do this.

 

you are asking questions similar to...'what if we let private industry build bridges... instead of government?'

'why how will they pour the concrete or set the beams?' 'how will they span the distance?'

these are just technical problems that get ironed out.

 

i already said you can have your public school, if you just dont throw people in jail if they dont fund.

but since i have already demonstrated by having you say it with your own mouth, liberals do not put thier money where their mouths are. they like to talk a good game about compassion, charity, etc. yet when it comes to their own dime, they recoil at the very thought of putting their own money down. if all the liberals and statists just voluntarily pooled their own money and set up their own private voluntarily 'public' institutions, they could just shut the F up and get on with their lives and leave the rest of us alone.

perhaps you should ask warren buffett, michael moore and al gore what they would do in those situations and since they the funds to fix all those problems, take up the issue with them.

 

i'd also say that given the number of people who justify the entire coercive school system on teh fact that 1 person in a state might not be able to 'adequately' educate their children to the specifications of other people.... that these people are illustrating a demand to fund a non profit institution to take care of these kids on a totally voluntary basis. after all there is plenty of demand for red cross services, why not free private school services? look at all the free information on the internet, probably in 20 years the internet and free distribution materials will make formal schooling irrelevant. the destitute and homeless have plenty of private shelters and soup kitchens, why not a bunch of free private schools?

you are illustrating the demand for this by making your post.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

just because some people can afford to send their kids to private school is fine, not veryone can therefore it is better to have a public education system too for those people that cannot afford to choose.

 

sure thing, just stop throwing people in cages if they dont pay for your public schools.

that is all i have ever asked.

put down the guns and let people alone.

 

but your response shows that you cannot let what im saying sink into your head.

the COST WILL FALL BECAUSE THERE IS A DEMAND FOR LOW COST SCHOOLING. usually the left is constantly telling me how excessive the market is, how they are undercutting people and selling stuff to cheap, now you are trying to tell me that in this one case where money can be made, capitalists will not seek profits. atleast keep a consistent argument. how can they make money by charging 1 million dollars per year when poor people can only afford the equivalent of their property tax payment @ 2000 per year? the market will allocate resources and give consumers what they want. it is what it always does.

 

your response also neglects to take into account the incentives put forth by the state itself. for instance if people were made to bear the true cost of their lifestyle and the goods and services they consume, if the state was severely scaled back, they would have to reorganize. the incentive would no longer be to rely on the state, it would be to rely on yourself. if you knew you had to pay for your kids schooling and that it might cost a couple thousand a year, first off, you'd have that property tax school tax and income tax back in your pocket, so you have an instant 30-50% raise right there. but you would also have the incentive to seek better jobs, increase your productivity, perhaps welfare queens might have to seek husbands who want to excel in life instead of stay in the slum system and stay on welfare with 5 different kids and slinging crack on the side. they might want to have more interest in that nice young 'dorky' guy their mom was telling them about at church.

you see, the basic lesson of economics is to look at everything, not just what is seen. you have to look at what is unseen. you cannot see what options would become available in abundance, just like they always do when freedom flourishes. all you see is a bunch of kids being trotted off to 'free' indoctrination camps in yellow prison buses.

 

you see when you subsidize something you get more of it. its basic economic law. if you subsidize the poor or the uneducated you get more of it. this is the reason the poverty rate has remained basically unchanged since johnson declared war on it. when they declared war on drugs, we went from pot to cocaine to crack and now have meth taking over the country.

 

its not at all unlike the 19th century conundrum of 'if we free the slaves who will pick the cotton?!?!'

if someone in 1830 told you that in 150 years these big steel machines running on dinosaur piss would be using using gps technology to pick it, would you believe it?

it will be the same without government schools. maybe in 100 years the very idea of sending kids off to mini concentration camps based on the prussian model to create good obedient factory workers and patriotic state lovers, will be totally scrapped and kids will be taught alternatively and the previous methods would seem as barbaric as forcing enslaved africans to ' pick the cotton.'

 

Also home schooling is pretty hit or miss if you ask me, depends on the intelligence level of the parent, and the points Fist makes are very valid too.

all the more incentive for the parent to become intelligent.

there is no utopia my friend, all we can ask for is the freedom to choose.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

i'm not trying to just hit you with a side comment as you accuse me of, but how is homeschooling free?

in a 2 parent household it cuts the potential earned income in half, let alone the cost of the homeschooling program and books, extra meal consumed at lunch (not via a terrible lunch program thru the schools), increased use of power and water during the day, etc

 

i'll admit nothing is totally 'free' as in there is no such thing as a free lunch. everything is a trade off.

but if you want to look at those sort of costs, you might as well look at how much kids cost in general, i mean you have to feed them, clothe them, you have to stay home with them before they are old enough to go to school or pay for a baby sitter, you have to organize baby sitters if you send your kids to school and work to watch them before or after you get off, or if you send them to school you lose the income you could potentially have by working more hours, but instead you have to leave work early to pick up your kids. these are all sort of technical problems that are different for each family. for some families if one person is driving an hour to work every day in an SUV and only making a minimal salary, it might make sense to just stay home, save the gas, let the husband work a couple more hours and have hte kids home schooled. who actually eats the slop they serve at schools anyway? when i went to half of my schooling in a public school, i didnt eat it once.

 

i'd also like to point out, without state requirements and over sight that is quite burdensome in some areas, the costs could be reduced much further. most of the arbitrary requirements for text books, etc are just BS filler anyway that doesnt even matter. it boils down to the principle of ownership. who owns you and your children? you and your family or the state? what gives them the right to dictate to anyone how they are teaching?

 

when you compare the cost of schooling a child in public school with federal and state funding is on average 24K per student. i have an acquaintance who home schooled their family of 5 in alaska, all 5 kids mind you, for a grand total of 8-10K. total, not per kid. that is for k-12. that is half the cost of one year of public school. one child is in 7th sfg, another got a scholarship to harvard at age 16 the rest are just finishing up their formal home schooling.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

but AOD it isn't that bad because schooling is free for kids, you remove state education and start charging $20k a year for schools then you will see kids being forced into work because their parents cannot afford to send them to school.

 

This is why if you look at the issues one by one they dont seem so bad but if you scale it all out to real world then it doesn't hold up the same

 

home schooling is almost free. you give a kid the best education possible ,1-12 grades, for what it costs to send a student to school for 1 year.

and they produce the best results. this is undeniable fact.

there are plenty of interesting numbers floating around.... state schools are 24K per student on average per year. private schooling is average of 7K per year. hell, alot of people that own normal houses are paying that already to fund public schools.

 

if there is a demand for schools, a supply will meet it. which is why you have such a variety of services and goods in all other non government sectors. food, you can buy bulk rice for 50 cents a pound, or you can by caviar for 50$ an oz. you can buy a cheap used honda or your can buy a mercedes benz. you can home school, you can send your kids to a cheap private school, expensive private school or an ivy league private school. i dont get it, you have to pay for your hamburgers, clothes and iphone, why shouldnt one bear the true cost of their education and decide which education is best for themselves?

 

you are stuck in this paradigm where because the government has essentially monopolized something, that without the government providing this service, it cant possibly happen in the private sector. its sort of like how the soviets thought that without government, they wouldnt be able to eat. they thought waiting in line was normal and anyone who talked about private property rights and free exchange in food was met with your typical response...'but if we have private markets in food, everyone will starve, the food will be poisoned, and only profiteers will be engaged in food distribution.' yet that was what was going on with state provided food. yet when you look at reality, the state schools dont educate, cost twice as much as a much better private education, if not multiples more when compared to home schooling, and a high school diploma of 1950 is what a college degree MIGHT be worth today. state education has dumbed down generations. and we are told without the government having a monpoly on schools, everyone will be getting dumber, yet this is what is happening with the monopoly.

 

if public schools are tops, then obviously the president and vice president wouldnt be sending their kids and grand kids to private schools, they would go to public schools with the rest of the mundanes. typical political hypocrisy

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

I think if you can pay a bunch of 12 year olds $3/hr BELOW min wage then you dont have to shell out 100k for a tractor, but I could be wrong.

 

i realize your creating this story here to appeal to peoples liberal sensibilities and make some case against free trade, etc, but what in the hell are farmers who are trying to make money... 'plowing' with exactly? what are these 12 year olds using shovels? teaspoons? what farm in 21st century america 'plows' with 12 year olds pulling a plow board? maybe im just knitpicking at your semantics here, but you are making a totally silly case about 12 year olds plowing with any farm equipment.

 

 

Cheap manual labor is at least why there's hardly a machine in the factories where apple products are made (which is also where the highest suicide rates are in china). Anyway 12 year old labor is an existing reality in the mid-west. Children are allowed to plow fields on non-school hours if they're 12 or older, and by law they're payed below min wage because they are minors. Everywhere else the minimum working age is 16 and paid minimum.

and what exactly is wrong with this?

i started 'working' when i was 9 or 10. when i did this, i was able to save enough money to make all other lazy non working kids to shame. and i credit this with the reason why im able to live the lifestyle that i am, because i learned work ethic at an early age. i was able to purchase a few items that cost in excess of 1000 dollars by the time i was 13. i was able to save enough money by the time myself and some non working high school graduates, that they could not understand where my money came from. they knew nothing of work and making money. they only knew running around, doing stupid shit, and screwing off waiting for their parents to give them a few bucks. see, the thing with stuff like the minimum wage that you support is that it attempts to solve these imaginery problems, while outlawing a kid working for their neighbor on their farm, ranchette or property, to make side money. do you really intend to outlaw a 12 year old kid who is DYING to make some money in order to buy x, y, z the freedom of choice to voluntarily contract with a guy across the fence to do a little work and make a few bucks when he isnt in school? its not 'by law' they are FORCED to be paid 'less than minimum wage' its the fact that is what their labor is worth. do you really think an 8 year old who rakes leaves for a neighbor can do so just as fast and efficient as a 30 year old landscaper with a crew of 3 guys with leaf blows and tree shredders? use your noggin.

 

I dont limit the "gang" phenomena to out of work kids. I think adults partake in gang activities as well. Most crime happens in blue collar areas where the antisocial unskilled uneducated laborer can make a living by lifting heavy things and using their body. And during the era when blue collar work fueled most of small-town america, nightly barfights was just part of the culture. What you see happening in gentrified areas is a reduction in crime, because people who make a living by being social, mild mannered, and educated generally dont partake in any of the same barfighting activities. Overall crime in America is on the decline. I see that being in conjunction with an increasing demand for white collar work, and blue collar work drying up.

i dont see 60 year old well off adults going into crime full time.

usually poor kids get into crime because they dont have any other viable options. and since the government has outlawed things like drugs, gambling, prostitution and other things that organized crime revolves around, therefore making them highly lucrative jobs, they attract kids with low producitivity. it makes economic sense to them. and since the state has outlawed legal work for children under the age of 18 effectively in most areas, where else do they turn when they have no options?

 

 

 

but child labor laws are there to protect kids from being sold by their parents/orfanages into indentured servitude as was popular in the 17-1800's in america, and still popular in developing countries.

do you really think in 21st century america where the poor have iphones, cars, and air conditioning that they are going to sell their kids into indentured servitude? why not just disallow 'selling kids into slavery' but legalize the right of a child to contract and rake leaves legally for a neighbor? so long as there is consent, the parents consent and the kids consent, what in the hell is the problem? in effect by advocating the illegality of a 15.9 year old or a 17.9 year old (where ever the legal age limit is where you live)from legally obtaining a paying job, you are making it illegal for a kid to earn money and learn responsibility.

 

i mentioned a well known virginia farmer in a previous post. this guy has local neighbor kids knocking down his door trying to work on this farm. he cant legally hire them until they are 18 because in virginia you have to be 18 to operate a cordless drill. in fact, the irony also is, a 16 year old can drive a F250 that weighs 10K lbs down the highway going 70mph, but he cannot employ anyone under 18 to operate one of his tractors. the ideology that backs your beliefs on economic intervention is the reason for this. you have a sitaution here where both sides mutually agree, the kids are going to the employer for work, and the employer cannot hire them.

 

Right now kids who drop out of highschool and start working have 20% unemployment. College grads float around 2%. Imagine the unemployment rate if Jr high kids were allowed to drop out and perform work.

what you are essentially saying is that the state owns children and owns their parents and has a right to tell them what kind of education they need. you see in a free society people are able to make good and bad decisions. if they make a bad decision that is their choice. the obvious incentive is to try to get more education. however a college education is getting to be totally worthless. we have this new thing going on where kids to go college till they are in their late 20's and then they just move back into their parents house.

 

its in peoples best interest to try to increase their productivity. its what people do. when you get a better paying job, its because you increased your productivity some how. getting more education is a way of increasing their productivity. if people dont want to do that, that is entirely up to them. maybe someone is happy cutting grass for a living instead of programming computers. this is just freedom of choice.

[Occupy Wall Street]

im totally with you on the 'fetishism' most people seem to have with 'authority' or public 'servants' in general. however to me there is something extremely ironic with the police brutality against the protesters.

the overall message of these protests is that we need more government because capitalism has failed. so in the process of demanding more government, the protesters seem to be literally, as mencken said, 'getting exactly what they want, good and hard.'

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

check out and discuss: The Myths of "Libertarian" Economics

 

i'd rather run by nuts over a cheese grater, but i'll say this and move on:

 

the marxist labor theory of value is completely false, and the subjective theory of value is correct, because your thread has absolutely no value to me. if LTV is correct, i would have to agree it has value.

consumers wants and needs are subjective. period.

 

if you dont believe that, try telling your boss that you think digging a foundation for a house with a teaspoon is just as effective and valuable as me using a back hoe.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up.

yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it.

 

google defines society:

1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

 

both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group.

 

yes?

 

i'll let the person this was addressed to respond fully, but...

i dont think 'order' requires a state or government at all. nor to customs, etc need to be given to people from down on high.

i see individuals not groups. if people want to voluntarily interact, that is their choice. i dont think a monopoly on force with official sanction to use legal violence against people who have aggressed against no one, is needed to tell individuals what to do.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

Dude, austrian economists aren't the only people who are academics in the field of Economics. There are plenty of economists that instruct on the college level that are Keynesian, Austrian, Marxian, Syndicalist, etc. The only people who say shit like "if you ain't da free market, you don't know da economics" are fucktards that live on the Ludwig von Mises institute and haven't gone on in economics past their undergrad.

 

keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

Or maybe im misunderstanding what you're trying to say. If you were to not partake in anything related to the state: I.E. not pay taxes, not vote, only use private schools, private libraries, private zoos, private roads, private soup kitchens, products from private companies who've never taken advantage of public loans, never pay into or take out of social security, never purchase property within the state, never use a public fire department or call the police.... if you had no part in any of that, what's left for you to connect to your fellow americans with?

 

 

WOW. by not calling the police or using a government loan, you cannot connect to your fellow americans?

GOT DAMN, public schools brain washed the F out of you. just sayin, that is probably the siliiest thing you have EVER written.

 

 

 

What do you think about 12 year old Middle Americans allowed to plow fields for $2 under minimum wage? That currently exists.

 

so what you are saying is someone is breaking the current law, so another law will fix this. got ya. makes perfect sense. those stupid murderers dont pay attention to murder laws, so now we gotta lock up peaceful gun owners who have aggressed against no one, because its possible to use a gun to kill someone when a deranged murderous criminal gets a hold of one.

 

joel salatin, a well known person in the 'food' culture today, who is a hero of the left if there ever was one, has a great theory that says the reason why we have roving teenage gangs today is because the things kids used to do to wear them out, where they went to bed at 8pm is now illegal.

what about parents? where are the parents in these situations? something is telling me that we dont have millionaires sending their kids off to 'plow fields' (what are these 12 year old kids operating 100K tractors all by themselves?) making 2$ an hour.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

Considering America is a society that is resposible for eachother's wellfare through the state, wouldnt that be a rejection of society? Senior services, public roads, public schools, fire departments, etc. By not paying for those what is your stance on society?

 

 

this is akin to saying you are against slaves if you dont praise the slave owner. after all the slave owner is responsible for the slaves welfare. by not supporting the slave owner, you are 'rejecting' the slaves.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

 

The other thing you said that was quite interesting to me was that colonial times would seem like relative anarchy compared to now. I see your point, the federal or colonial government would have little influence on or power over people in 18th century America. But at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most people's lives, and the course of their lives, were far more prescribed than our lives today. Most people did what their parents did. The church had more control over their lives. Communities were smaller and closer, people were shamed out of bad behavior and encouraged into good behavior. We have much more freedom to choose our direction in our jobs, relationships, where we live, etc., because many social controls are modified or non-existent. Our freedom to choose a career is a double edged sword as well, since we are also free to fail. In 18th century America, the prodigal son would return and the community would pick him up. 20-21st century prodigal son may have no one or where to return to. We have welfare of course, but libertarians want to abolish it, even though its predecesor no longer exists and its successor is not apparent.

 

To summarize, we live in a fundamentally different world than 18th century Europeans and Americans. Indeed, the opening of the 20th century was a sea change from the end of the 18th. What is freedom and what is not freedom has changed, it is never universal, and never as simple as you seem to make it out to be.

 

i think the concept of freedom under natural rights theory has always been universal and always will be. for instance, i dont think people could ever think human chattel slavery was 'freedom.' yet when people are chained to the state, they think this is freedom.

 

i think your first paragraph up there addresses a key point. hobbes vs locke. if humans are free, do they have to rely on themselves and communities? or when humans are free, do they kill each for looking at one another cross ways? the very heart of the debate is...is liberty the mother of order or the daughter? im thoroughly convinced liberty is the MOTHER of order, not the other way around.

given that all state invervention has unintended consquences, i think its quite clear the state creates many more problems than it solves.

 

in refererence to welfare you cannot negate the fact that the state has replaced the family and the community in these areas. i think you realized this but didnt really blame the government for taking away the community/family aspects of the sitaution you talked about above. if the state no longer acted as the 'safety net' people would be forced to rely on themselves. its in effect a moral hazard. you tend to act differently if you have something to fall back on. if you have 5 million in cash sitting in a bank account, you probably dont really care if you boss at your job fires you all that much. if you have nothing to fall back on at all, you might really try to do your best at your job and do as much as you can to excel, get promoted, open your own business, etc. but if you have a high social safety net, it creates a moral hazard type situation, not unlike the bail outs. people take risks, and do stupid things, knowing full well they have the government to fall back on. which is why we have this new phenomenon among hipsters and im sure familiar to many on this board....leaving your job, getting unemployment and traveling for a year while collecting a check. or college kids with parents paying 30K a year for school, on food stamps shopping at the farmers market.

 

 

i also think the 'inflexibility' of a particular philosophy is a good thing, especially when used for the 'right' purpose. of course, i would of liked hitler to be a bit more 'flexible' instead of instituting the 'final solution...' but i digress

if you believe that you own your self, you are necessarily against slavery in all its forms. any power over you that you did not consent to is illegitimate. in the the same way you cant just be 'a little bit pregnant...' you are either free or your arent. to me there is nothing capable of 'flexing' on that. you are either enslaved or you are free and any arbitrary power over you is necessarily evil, unless you consent to it. now, the situations in which you may live might not be stalinist russia, just like there probably were some well treated slaves on certain plantations, but the fact remains you are still a slave.

[gun thread]

damn! im in CA and i just went to the SF gun show a few weeks back, .223/.556 rounds were 260$ for 1000 RELOADS.... you got a screamin deal!

 

 

what state are you in?!?

 

lets not forget he got wolf ammo

[gun thread]

Whats the deal with gun shows? guns for cheap riight?

Easier to get, no?

 

it usually depends on your state.

in highly restrictive gun law states or states that outlaw or severely restrict private sales (without ffl transfer) you probably arent going to find any thing cheap. its basically a bunch of dealers. now, if you like to socialize, you'll love a gun show.

it is a way of getting a bunch of dealers together in one place so you dont have to ride around to every gun shop in the area trying to find a certain gun.

 

however if you live in a more free state, private sales are pretty common. lots of trading, selling, buying, all without FFL transfers. much easier, much less hassle and much cheaper.

 

all this aside, you'll have to wade through tables of beef jerky, dream catchers and a bunch of other weird shit. but to me its still worth going...you'll eventually find a deal on something

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

T You are framing responsibility to society as responsibility to the state, thus if I reject the state I have rejected society. I think you would be hard pressed to find any libertarian who did not acknowledge they are members of a society and within that society they held some responsibility. The state is not society.

 

EXTREMELY well put!

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

ok, they have resources, but no capital to do anything with them.

after all, they are so poor, what do they need them for? what good are the resources?

trying to make your case is like saying america in 1800 was super rich because we had oil coming out the wazoo. it wasnt until capitalism and the living standard rose and capital investments and inventions gave rise to the value in oil

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

a school shouldnt be about profit it should be about creating a good education for children, people cannot afford to pay the fees that the private schools charge, and they certainly pay less in taxes than the tuition fees charged by the private schools.

 

businesses cater to consumer demands. supply and demand. econ 101.

government schools cost twice as much as private schools, home schooling costs a fraction of the cost of a private school. given an increased demand if government schools were abandoned, a supply would meet it. look at car repair. we have so many different levels. dealers, independent repair shops, quick lubes, back yard garages...all get the job done at different levels of quality and cost. hell, look at pricing of cars. if we had nationalized cars you'd say we need to subsidize and nationalize cars because no one could afford them if they were in private hands. yet we have kia's that cost 10K new and we have mercedes benz. we have used cars. every single possible price range and level of quality is met. if there is a demand there will be a supply

 

a business cannot make a profit, UNLESS IT SATISFIES CONSUMERS. you fully acknowlege business wants to make money, but you neglect to see that in order for business to make money, it has to satisfy its customers. in government they dont have to. which is why you see the mall parking lot well maintained, and the public road leading to it, full of pot holes. you see, governments get their revenue through violence, they get it weather they do a good job or not. business must persuade you to give them money in exchange for goods or services.

 

you are making a dangerous admission in your case above. you are stating the obvious. people want good schools. yet you are saying if we abandon public schools, (which are undeniably less efficient and produce dumber kids that state schools) that the greedy capitalists wouldnt fill the void. that they would not meet the demand of school consumers.

 

you critiqued one of my arguments previously that i 'want something for nothing.' that i dont 'want to pay for things.' which is exactly what you are advocating. you are saying that you dont want to pay for your kids education, so you send guys with badges to the guy down the block to take his money to pay for your kids education.

 

I think it is a frankly disgusting notion that people think that just because they dont have children they shouldnt contribute towards free education for ALL children no matter race or anything else. A school isnt about self interest and it should never be it is about educating and having a workforce that will be able to enter the workplace and compete, under your plans AOD most countries would be fucked, just look at education in the 3rd world where people cannot afford to pay for it.

if you feel the need to educate other peoples children or pay for your neighbohrs grandparents retirement, feel free to stroke off a check, brother.

 

the third world has no wealth, no resources, nothing.

that is like comparing modern america where the poor have cell phones to the native americans on this continent in the year 1500 and then saying...'see, if we didnt have government schools like we do, we;d be ignorant and living in teepees just like the indians.'

yet it is capitalism that has allowed the accumulation of capital for investment. it is because of capitalism and capital investment that you are able to have leisure time, the time to debate political theory on the internet on a computer made by someone that you exploited in china. you see, if we were poor like we were in 1800, we would be working all day just so we could eat. now we can work a couple hours out of one day and have enough capital for food for the entire week. that is because we have a high standard of living due to capitalism, due to competition and due to the free market.

 

the problem with your arguments is that they presume that wealth just exists. you neglect to realize it must be created first. you take it as a given. it is something that has taken modern 'first world' societies many years to create.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

no, not at always.

but the arguments you put forth in previous posts demonstrate that you just dont understand the basics of free market theory. if you did, you would not of presented the arguments like you did.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

your economic beliefs seem based on a soft marxism. so i can assume you never were taught basic free market economics or totally reject econ 101.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

he's going to say its not a true free market, and that its 'not working' because of the oppressive regulations they face. and that if we eliminate those regulations, more competition will somehow rise up and the existing players will develop a moral compass, and the people will decided who succeeds and fails because now they have so much choice (and still no moneys)..........................

 

you have that same racket going on that elmammero does...

you cant respond to the actual debate points, you just interject stuff like this.

 

its quite obvious you have never studied a lick of any free market theory because you cant even grasp the basics.

 

its not from benevolence that we get our wares from the butcher and baker, its because he has a keen awareness for his own self interest. because he seeks his own self interest, he has to satisfy his customers, otherwise he cant profit.

 

you guys keep making incoherent arguments.

first you say business only cares about profit and seeks to rip off customers. then you try to tell me that when it comes to schools and serving blacks and minorities they suddenly dont want to seek profit, they want to kill people of color. that they dont want to serve blacks. all of a sudden they dont want to seek their own self interest.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

AOD your faith in business to do anythign than make money is amazing to me.

 

where have i denied free market businesses dont want to make money?

what you fail to accept is that when they seek 'profit' they benefit society. you said you own an iphone. do you really think apple has oppressed you, ripped you off and made you impoverished? they are making billions by giving people what they want, hand held computers.

 

 

Yea you have no profit organisations, they wont be able to afford to run a school, therefore best option is government run education at least you can keep bat shit crazy religion out of it.

 

haha, scared of these fantasies.

non profits wont be able to run schools? really. they do it ALL the time in the US.

private schools exist. ever realize that?

so you are saying people can afford to pay 25K per student in public school for a shitty education where kids are getting dumber(federal and state funding) but they cant pay 5-10K per year for a super high quality education at a private school. home schoolers tend to produce the smartest kids with the least amount of resources. i know of plenty of cases where people have raised people who were incredibly intelligent, some have offers for scholarships to ivy league schools, and they were taught their entire lives on the amount of money it takes to send one public school student to school for 1 year. yes, you heard right. an entire 1-12 education, came out unbelievably smart, for what it takes to send a public school student to school for 1 year.

 

Also AOD what you want may be freedom to you but moat peoples lives would be worse under what you want, education, healthcare, roads fuck allowing business to run that and profit.

 

i've already offered you a million times, if you leave me alone, i'll leave you alone. you can have your government just dont force others to participate. the problem is and the reason why you REFUSE to answer this is because you realize that your system relies totally on forcing your will on others because you want them to do what YOU think is right. I say lets have freedom of choice. on everything.

 

Most 3rd world countries that have been pushed to adopt free market policies aer now suffering less growth and development now tan in the 60s and 70s, the free market doesnt work.

 

every time you go to work, you receive a pay check the 'free market' is 'working.

 

if state intervention works, why didnt communist russia flourish? why isnt zimbabwe doing great? why cant you just go to a third world country, pass a few laws and create a workers paradise?

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

I love how if someone questions/disagrees with some libertarian value, you automatically dismiss them as complete totalitarians or group them with some ridiculous historical faction that has no bearing on the debate at hand. Yet when someone implies you're a wing nut you get all salty.

 

whats funny is you consider the idea of freedom to be a 'wing nut' idea.

even more funny is a guy who says he 'cant deal with debating this idiocy' or whatever line you parroted before yet are still debating. well, semi debating, because you never really offer a full response. you take one little part, then comment on it and change the topic to something else where you can try your case again.

 

I'm also interested as to whether you will be voting for Ron Paul and participating in government sex trafficking, or whatever insane thing you'd compare elections to. I'm assuming that while you're strongly in favor of democratic elections (as they are stressed in the Constitution) you must be disillusioned with the process as it has continuously resulted in officials that you view as tyrants. Will you vote for him because you believe he embodies your values best out of any recent candidates, or will you just endorse libertarian ideals and hope for the best?

i think hl mencken offered the best insights on elections to date. i'll leave those insights up to you to find.

 

actually, im not 'strongly' in favor of 'democratic' elections nor am i 'strongly' in favor of the constitutional form of government (as i previously explained.)

i have never seen elections as any way to achieve liberty. well, except maybe when i was 18 or 20. i have never been one of those guys that is like..'if we just get so and so in the white house...everything will be different.'

 

the reason i am a ron paul fan is not because he could dismantle the federal government (even though he would love to) its because he is someone who has dedicated his life to bringing people to the ideas of liberty. if it werent for him, there wouldnt nearly be as many freedom advocates as there are today. RP could immediately do some great things if elected. he could use all his powers as president to do things that people such as yourself supposedly stand for. restoration of civil liberties by non enforcement of the laws like the patriot act. he could shut down gitmo and would as well as bring home troops from around the world. he could and said he would pardon all non violent drug offenders. you see RP is a strange politician, he doesnt want to run your life and he doesnt want power, he wants to limit power over you.

 

'hoping for the best' is rather a silly statement. there has never been a time where a government has voluntarily ceded back its own power it has accumulated. 'hoping for the best' achieves nothing.

think of an election as a bunch of the enslaved, voting on their masters. sure, we would want the masters who treat us best, so i see no harm in the practice. but we must realize you are still enslaved. you cant be just a little bit pregnant. you either are or you arent. i choose not to participate because i know it doesnt matter. after all, if it did, it would be illegal. i think a much better approach is try to limit the affects of government in your life, come to terms with that and then live your life as if it doesnt exist to the best of your ability. there is nothing wrong with voting, i just think its a waste of time to devote your entire life for the political process.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

yea man I know, fucking crazy, glad that it will always just be theory

 

yeah, its a fucking crazy idea. people own themselves. its definitely a radical notion. a freaking crazy idea indeed...freedom. man, all the good movies are about freedom yet you guys think its some crazy idea.

 

a long time ago, you flat earthers thought the earth was flat. some radical came in and said it wasnt, and you were about to burn dude at the stake. wilberforce screamed that slavery was immoral from the rooftops and you thought he was a dangerous radical with some stupid theory that would never become the way society organized its self.

back when monarchies ruled the day, a republic or a democracy was 'just a theory' that would never be.

one day brave abolitionists will recognize government as the monopoly on violence that it is and abolish most or all of it freeing billions of people.