Governator cutting education funds!!

[Vistani]

there's a reason we didn't want the darkies learning how to read. they got all uppity.

Maybe they should be less selfish and be happy in their roles.

[Ryko]

Why is it so wrong for such a large majority to prosper when the only real downside is a minority must do "lower" jobs which may or may not make or break their happiness. Are the more uneducated really better off thinking they are being wronged somehow instead of trying to just be happy doing what they can?

Did you just try to put a positive spin on keeping people ignorant despite having the means to educate using the guise of it creating a better world/nation due to some convoluted sense of economic diversity? Spoilers: There will be no small amount of school kids to hand you your "fries with that" while they finish up a degree, your nation is safe.

[Maxxthepenguin]

is it really in the best interest of a society to educate everyone equally?
Is it not better that some people know little and have their contribution to society while others know a lot and have their contributions. If everyone were well educated, there would be no gammas

I don't care about society. I don't even really care about the economy. I care about the people who are affected and the fact that in this modern world both society and economy are necessary for people to have good lives rooted in our nation, but when people start caring about society and economy ABOVE people, that's where I draw the line.

People > Concepts

that's a pretty selfish PoV don't you think? That you want to feel good about where you live and what opportunity it gives everyone equally, you feel that is more important than a prosperous nation.

What does the prosperity matter if everybody is miserable? Now, I personally think prosperity helps the people in general but we shouldn't be sacrificing citizens to the god of prosperity. I'm not sure how this is selfish at all, as a matter of fact it seems selfless to me.

It isn't morally wrong or right either way either, do don't try and argue that. The only reason to give everyone the same treatment is guilt or your own personally sense of morals, which is different from person to person.

It actually doesn't feel good to help people who you will never meet. I do it because I try to be a positive influence on people and help what I can.

Why is it so wrong for such a large majority to prosper when the only real downside is a minority must do "lower" jobs which may or may not make or break their happiness. Are the more uneducated really better off thinking they are being wronged somehow instead of trying to just be happy doing what they can?

There is nothing wrong with 'lower' jobs at all, I think people looking down on them is major bullshit. You really don't want to live without sewer workers and janitors. The issue is when they have to spend all their time doing them and can't spend it on things like their family, their interests, and bettering themselves. Having people never able to eat a good meal when other people get it breakfast, lunch, and dinner sucks ass.

[guartz]

as if anarchocapitalism doesn't have moral and practical contradictions.

well the best you can do is read the philosophy and see if you find any contradictions. I haven't found any, some people did with original anarchy, regarding personal property, so it was adjusted.

[Mashu]

Well, according to anarchocapitalism it's legal for parents to let their children die. It's also legal for parents to sell children to other people.

http://www.mises.org/story/2568

I was going to sit on the side of this whole argument, but I love Mises and I had to step in and correct you.

1. That's quoted way out of context. Rothbard was trying to draw a distinction between murdering someone and allowing someone to die. Both are morally reprehensible, as he says in the next few lines, but there is a distinction. This is much applicable to the abortion issue that has surfaced within the last 30 years. Should a State have the right to intervene on whether a mother has the right to kill her baby? Rothbard and I would say no; but that doesn't mean we approve of it.

2. Don't confuse libertarianism with anarchocapitalism, as both are wildly different in terms of how much a role government should play. In the eyes of a libertarian (i.e. all the founders of this nation) government should exist to guarantee that everyone has equal rights, not to restrict it. And any attempts by the government to restrict the economic (i.e. tax hikes) or civil liberties (i.e. suspension of habeas corpus) of a person should be resisted.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Where did I say the government would pay private institutions? And where did I say "improve neighborhoods by removing schools?"

You were talking about vouchers. In the cases of school vouchers being implemented that I'm familiar with (in Milwaukee), the government allowed students to attend private schools and they paid for at least a portion of the tuition for these parochial and/or religious institutions with the vouchers. Are there situations in America where school vouchers have been implemented that didn't involve private schools? (what's the point of vouchers if it doesn't?)

I don't think vouchers have been implemented anywhere that didn't involve private schools. Under a universal voucher system I think all schools would be private. Vouchers by nature are a free-market solution, meaning the government just funds education, not provides it.

There are a few reasons for vouchers. For one it would give schools an incentive to improve. The good schools will attract more students while the bad schools will either reform or close. It would also make previously un-affordable opportunities affordable for poor people.

[guartz]

Well, according to anarchocapitalism it's legal for parents to let their children die. It's also legal for parents to sell children to other people.

http://www.mises.org/story/2568

That was an interesting article, thanks. It did a good job addressing the many reasons you mentioned above as legal necessities in a free society.

legal for parents to let their children die.

"in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights."

Let's give it a worse-case scenario. Let's say there is a woman, who gets off on starving children. She gives birth, and doesn't breast feed her child, just lets him/her die. She would have to continue to do so in secret, because if others found out, she would be shunned out of society, quite literally. Markets wouldn't sell to her, since if I was a business owner, I wouldn't want people to know that I was doing business with a baby-killer if I'm not personally sicked by her. She would most likely not find employment either.

anyway, it's all speculation. Since people can just sell unwanted children to adoption centers, private individuals, etc.

and

"In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult. It must therefore be illegal and a violation of the child's rights for a parent to aggress against his person by mutilating, torturing, murdering him, etc."


excellent article.

[guartz]

I was going to sit on the side of this whole argument, but I love Mises and I had to step in and correct you.

Benders of BG love mises.

[Beckwin]

Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.[10] This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous "shortage" of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.[11]

Is that Mises article serious?

[Kuya]

Disregarding current arguments, how exactly does one decide who is deserving of education and who isn't? When exactly did we start believing that people are either born smart or dumb, instead of it being largely due to a nurturing environment? So then why is anyone going to take punitive action agaisnt those who have no say in what environment they're raised in? It's not like the North American or Puerto Rican society actually puts forth considerable effort in educating the masses to the point that they actually utilize what they learn; popular culture has always been the real teacher. Far be it for me to say that we need to raise intellectuals in order to raise mankind to the highest pinacle, as that sounds like a utopian pipedream, but i don't see why the effort shouldn't be put forth or much less take arbitrary steps to choose who gets to be educated and who doesn't. Furthermore, why in the word would people who live in a democracy, argue agaisnt mass education? It was my understanding that mass education was vital in a society where democracy or some form of it, rules.

Americans seems to be raised to place importance on making money, and puerto ricans raised to live off others, so don't be surprised when they don't put much effort into actually learning.

[archibaldcrane]

Is that Mises article serious?

It means white babies, duh. Brown babies mash well into dirt and don't leave that aesthetically displeasing contrast of color.

[Beckwin]

impracticality and contradiction within anarcho-capitalism:

There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard himself asserts that the right to contract is based in inalienable human rights[17] and therefore any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, which would, for instance, prevent a person from permanently selling himself or herself into unindentured slavery. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.[26]

On one hand you own your body, but on the other hand it's not really property if you can't sell it or you're invading on the right to contract something, which is unacceptable.

Included in the right of contract is the right to contract oneself out for employment by others. Unlike anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employees of others, whichever they prefer and the freedom to pay and receive wages. David Friedman has expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces."[27] Rothbard does not express a preference either way but justifies employment as a natural occurrence in a free market that is not immoral in any way.

Aside from the impracticality from a business/efficiency standpoint of no one really working for anyone, there's also essentially an argument for unions ("entrepreneurs related by trade" lol) from Friedman.

Now to really get into it, Rothbard's assertion that employment is a natural occurrence and thus not immoral gets a bit twisted when you think of why at the basic level people seek employment in a capitalistic society: survival. Necessities of life cost money/property, and that comes from employment, assuming you don't inherit a business or are able to start one successfully. So if you're working (employed) to survive, can you argue that the employment is of a compulsory nature?

In terms of law and order, Friedman's idea of different brands of justice and the general idea of competing private justice agencies screams moral bankruptcy and discrimination. It'd be wonderful to press charges against someone when you're paying the arresting police, the judge, the jury, and the punishment facilities, wouldn't it? Not to mention you get to shop around for someone to take your "case", and I'm sure no one would ever think of taking a high bid to pursue something controversial. But oh, if word got out that a Justice company was corrupt, they'd go out of business so fast! you say? You know full well you can't guarantee that (as if the most wealthy couldn't keep their own police and justice services afloat), so label anarcho-capitalist justice either a moral contradiction or simply impractical, whatever your fancy is.

And here's what the fucking man says:

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."

[evilbau]

In terms of law and order, Friedman's idea of different brands of justice and the general idea of competing private justice agencies screams moral bankruptcy and discrimination. It'd be wonderful to press charges against someone when you're paying the arresting police, the judge, the jury, and the punishment facilities, wouldn't it?

Lets hope we still get Robocop
http://geekofalltrades.files.wordpre...-792844bmp.jpg

[Ishido]

It seems to me like anarchocapitalism is just asking for people to abuse the hell out of whatever power they get.

[Beckwin]

honestly I wonder if guartz even thoroughly reads the stuff he professes to support. he's rare to ever give in-depth explanation and instead just throws links at people. if you can't explain it yourself, how and why do you argue it so fervently? it's kind of a cop-out to play some intellectual high ground sneering "go read this and this link, simpleton", but hilarious when it backfires.

[terranova]

lol Perdue did this in Georgia some years back. ALOT of teachers got fired and programs were cut. (Ironically he was voted in by teachers because he said he give them a raise rotf).

[Saphirea]

It's not the governments job to educate us anyway. Plus, why would anyone trust the info they are giving our children to be correct? They can't do alot of things right and you know it.

Ahh but here is where you're wrong. This week Cali passed laws making home schooling illegal, unless the "teachers" passed state accredited courses and paid the fees to get accredited. So if they're saying homeschooling is illegal, then well apparently it IS there job to educate our children.

I personally hope this gets overturned, I'd hate for this to set precedence and I'll be forced to send my children to state run schools that teach them things that go completely against the Catholic church teachings. At least I still have parochial schools.

[Correction]

Heaven forbid your kids learn about stuff like evolution and contraceptives, or that gay people are perfectly content to simply be and not needing some deviant label.

But that's neither here nor there. If I understood the cali law correctly, part of the motivation behind it was to deny state funding to home school 'centers' which amounted to little more than day care on the government dole. Which isn't bad, until you realize it's taking the place of an actual education and makes it nearly impossible to track educational progress of children, a big requirement of that big bad federal law. Drive around in the South Bay of los angeles and you see these converted homes every few blocks with big signs that say 'uncle reb's school. Enroll your kids today!'

[Saphirea]

Heaven forbid I want to teach my kids about abstinence and God's Creation, it should be my choice correct? it should be my choice to teach them to love the sinner but hate the sin. You have your views, I have mine.

I have no problem with an accreditation process, if it ensures that the parents are teaching them a curriculum that will allow them to pass school standards. Forcing them to pay an absurd amount is what my problem actually is.

[Correction]

Heaven forbid I want to teach my kids about abstinence and God's Creation, it should be my choice correct? it should be my choice to teach them to love the sinner but hate the sin. You have your views, I have mine.

Which is fine.

Until your kids reach college and have to take science tests and are surrounded by drunk and horny members of the opposite sex.

I have no problems with religious upbringings. The idea that they should trump an education backed by rigorous scientific scholarship leaves a bad taste in my mouth, however. I do pray that you're the kind of parent who draws intelligent lines around religion for a child and allows roles for both that and science in their lives.