CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 But is it really libertarian theory that is being discussed? It seems to be a blend of a few different viewpoints. Is there a name for a viewpoint that is only about the selfish wants of individuals who deny reality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 haha so you think white guys do white guy stuff and Mexicans do Mexican stuff and that's what constitutes pluralism? How simplistic. Anyway I should have known better than to bother engaging with our local npr podcast expert. Of course you're right dude, you are always right! Right? I don't know what white guy stuff is, but I definitely don't only speak spanish, work for $4/hr and stand on the side of the road waiting for someone to give me unskilled manual labor. "Pluralistic Society A society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens." While you're at it, why not expound on whether a "brick wall" really can't "talk back." And what's with the constant name changes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 It amazes me how narrow minded AOD is for his own point of view. It seems that he thinks he has all the answers and if we just went along with his thought process, we will be living in utopia. No, just no. In fact if you read Libertarian philosophy you would realize the argument against this "utopia" that people like you attempt to create. There is no utopia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 You assume a positive utopia is what I am talking about. I am talking about the 1800s hard labor in the field utopia that you idiots idealize. All of you make it seem that if you are not breaking your back, you are not suppose to get paid a decent wage. Your "no utopia" statement backs this up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Breaking your back? What are you talking about? Wages? All I was saying is, Libertarian philosophy acknowledges that a utopia is not obtainable. So attempting to do such with legislation, and expanding government is just not going to solve the problem at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Also to associate Libertarian philosophy with some kind of Amish lifestyle is comical. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ok, so a utopia is not attainable. Lets all just work in factories and fields for less then minimum wage, because that is what our labor is worth comparatively. You truly are learning disabled, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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? "American society". Case in point. I think it is quite a complex topic though. I think this definition is fairly satisfactory, although I do not accept laws, in the positive sense, to be a key characteristic of a society. I would more so accept 'living laws', as an outcome of shared customs, to be an contributor to society. So, premised by saying positive laws are not an intrinsic aspect of society, how can you say fundamentally that what goes on within the borders of the USA is American society? Why is society attributable to a national base unit? On a larger scale, is the West also a society? Or on a smaller scale, do cities or neighbourhoods have societies? Why does a society depend on being homogeneous within a geographical area? Perhaps do societies exist as intersecting networks? Are graffiti writers, for example, members of a society that cycling enthusiasts are not? As per my post earlier, I see society to be a multiplicity of forms. There is no one society, but many, that people intersect with often at the same time. As the state is virtually all pervasive, it influences many of these multiple forms, yet at no point does it fundamentally define them. Even if society was to be attributed to the social interactions born of national institutions and forms of order it would not solely be a characterised by the state, but also of the social norms belonging to those who interact with these institutions and forms of order. In this way even a 'national' society is one that is larger that the state. In accordance with this characterisation the state perhaps enables, yet exists within, society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I don't know what white guy stuff is, but I definitely don't only speak spanish, work for $4/hr and stand on the side of the road waiting for someone to give me unskilled manual labor. "Pluralistic Society A society comprised of people from numerous different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although some integration and acculturation is only natural, a pluralistic society is one that acknowledges and allows for the cultural diversity of its citizens." While you're at it, why not expound on whether a "brick wall" really can't "talk back." And what's with the constant name changes? This definition just points to the inadequacies of classical pluralist theory. Assuming that you find society to be a property of state institutions then historically there have only ever been a small fraction of states who have not been pluralistic in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Ok, so a utopia is not attainable. Lets all just work in factories and fields for less then minimum wage, because that is what our labor is worth comparatively. You truly are learning disabled, aren't you? What? Who even said this? It is ultimately up to yourself to get educated and get out in society to be productive, you determine your own self worth. If you do nothing to raise the value of your contribution to society why should you have status over someone who has? Why do you assume that in a society structured in the way that I see it should be structured you assume a backwards transition back to the middle ages?? Or whatever time period you feel is more accurate. I see no reason for this connection. Yeah, I have multiple learning disabilities. One of them includes discussing things of this nature over the internet with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 This definition just points to the inadequacies of classical pluralist theory. Assuming that you find society to be a property of state institutions then historically there have only ever been a small fraction of states who have not been pluralistic in some way. At this point It's not theory. It's a word with a definition. Maybe it was theory 2000 years ago when people actually talked like you but since then we've got the word "pluralism" written down in dictionaries. Society isnt property of the state. "The State" as in Public Wellfare, Public Education, Public roads, public utilities, public services, and public institutions is the commonwealth of society. Do you actually have a grasp on libertarianism (or the english language) or are you going to continue to sink this conversation into the abstract with rhetoric and philosophy? Rhetoric and philosophy are pretty cool in a conversation about rhetoric or philosophy, now they're used by pseudo intellectuals who dont actually have a grasp on the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 What? Who even said this? It is ultimately up to yourself to get educated and get out in society to be productive, you determine your own self worth. If you do nothing to raise the value of your contribution to society why should you have status over someone who has? Why do you assume that in a society structured in the way that I see it should be structured you assume a backwards transition back to the middle ages?? Or whatever time period you feel is more accurate. I see no reason for this connection. Yeah, I have multiple learning disabilities. One of them includes discussing things of this nature over the internet with you. The way you see things only applies to small towns and simple labor trade arrangements. It does not apply to multi-national corporations and financial markets that do not involve labor, which are the cause of the financial failures we currently are having and the libertarian nonsense does not include in their viewpoints. You seem pretty naive and are willing to disregard the realities of todays global markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Cilone really? Lotsbrains says utopia doesnt exist and HE's naive about the realities of global markets? Cmon now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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. 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. 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. 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 agree that kids need to have chores and develop positive activities and hobbies, 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 At this point It's not theory. It's a word with a definition. Maybe it was theory 2000 years ago when people actually talked like you but since then we've got the word "pluralism" written down in dictionaries. Society isnt property of the state. "The State" as in Public Wellfare, Public Education, Public roads, public utilities, public services, and public institutions is the commonwealth of society. Do you actually have a grasp on libertarianism (or the english language) or are you going to continue to sink this conversation into the abstract with rhetoric and philosophy? Rhetoric and philosophy are pretty cool in a conversation about rhetoric or philosophy, now they're used by pseudo intellectuals who dont actually have a grasp on the conversation. haha of course it is theoretical! Pluralism, like all concepts of the social sciences, doesn't exist in an objective sense, it is a theory or analytical tool to explain certain social phenomena. Anyway, we've had similar conversations in the past and given how shit seems to spark between us I'm not that keen to repeat them. The scope of politics, or the focus of certain social disciplines spring to mind. You will say 'check the dictionary brotard' and I say 'the dictionary is not always that precise cornball', or something like that. Can we not and say we did? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 it's not a social science theory you moron. "Pluralistic society" is a term used to decribe a melting pot of people. Cut the pseudointellectual bullshit. Frank you're a child who doesnt know anything actually about economics so you resort to stupid arguments like "how accurate is the dictionary, really?" Get off the computer and go play with kids your own age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 yep. taking a turn for the worse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Thats not true Im having a perfectly reasonable discussion with AOD. Frank's just being annoying and using rhetoric to dislodge my argument. The problem he hasnt realized yet is that rhetoricians use the ole "What do words mean, really" argument not to be constructive in conversation, but to melt language down to a meaningless pile of shit. You use it to piss off your english teachers when they ask you to write an essay on a subject and you write an essay about why being forced to write on that subject is insidious and intrusive to free thinking. It's a good way to get a C on a paper and piss off everyone who cares about the subject, without doing any of the assigned reading. I used to do it all the time. To bring this back around to a subject of libertarianism/ron paul, the discussion of libertarianism has always been state capitalism vs free market capitalism. That's the subject. This thread should be entirely made of examples of where state capitalism and free market capitalism either fucked up or made things better and thats it.... but it's not, and here's my theory on why: I don't think the average 12ozer knows that much about state capitalism or free market capitalism. I think when someone says they're libertarian they think it means you're antiestablishment or you're such a deep thinker that you're constantly questioning what is reality and how to rethink society. On this page we see Frank raging against the insidious and oppressive nature of the dictionary, which is great in the context of LSD but when the subject is ruled to specifically State capitalism vs free market capitalism, it's fucking annoying. Thats all i have to say about that. And back to Libertarianism/Free Ron Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Yeah I'm not going to bite. Save your oh so witty insults. In the meantime I am happy to continue to discuss the nature of society and its relationship with the state with anyone else. Although I realise it is starting to veer a bit off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I think not posting would've meant the same thing but whatevs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 I am wondering how the Libertarian theory holds up to the derivative markets? There is almost no labor involved in these markets since it is almost fully based on speculation and not necessarily tied to supply and demand. Also, how do Libertarians feel about capital gains? Almost all extremely rich people, live off of capital gains. There is zero labor involved, yet there is a vast amount of money being made for the rich. Would all this go away in a "Gold Standard"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/04/ron-paul-tells-piers-morgan-only-honest-rape-merits-abortion/ Ron Paul tells Piers Morgan only ‘honest rape’ merits abortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 The way you see things only applies to small towns and simple labor trade arrangements. It does not apply to multi-national corporations and financial markets that do not involve labor, which are the cause of the financial failures we currently are having and the libertarian nonsense does not include in their viewpoints. You seem pretty naive and are willing to disregard the realities of todays global markets. Says who? You? Corruption is the system we live under, you can not simply dismiss this and say it "won't work" because of the situation we are in now, we did not follow a free market to get into this mess, you don't understand this, you think we are already in a free market, and you think this is the reason for our economic turmoil. You are wrong. Please explain the realities of today's global markets, drop some knowledge bro don't just make blanket statements and move forward as if they are fact. Or as if you have any idea as to what you are claiming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.