Governator cutting education funds!!

[guartz]

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]

I read ethics of liberty, and what he said was that self-ownership is an inalienable right and therefore cannot be contracted out since contracting is based on those rights. Contracting itself, is not an inalienable human right, lol. At least I never read rothband saying that. Would be a pretty stupid thing to say.

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.

right, see above.

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.

No, it's just roth saying any of those are acceptable, and Friedman is stealing the concept from marx's labor theory of value. However, unlike marx, friedman makes it clear that he takes "overhead" expenses, machinery etc, into account when calculating the labor value.

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?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

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.

Well there are a few logical flaws in your reasoning, and i'll tell you why. Don't hesitate to correct me if I misunderstood what you are saying.

The entire social structure is based on the idea that nobody can assert special privileges or powers over any other person, unless that person somehow violated your rights. So there will be different procedures regarding persons who violated your rights, versus procedures for people who, say for example, play their music very loudly at night and cause you to miss sleep and thus reduced your income somehow.

To understand how this will work, you gotta know what it's going to look like in practice.. First of all, everyone will want to contract into some type of protection agency for obvious reasons. Let's call them dispute agencies.

You agree to abide by certain rules, and in return you get services like protection, ability to resolve disputes, have them keep credit scores, etc. Business's, banks, lawyers, etc will only want to deal with people who contracted into a reputable agency for obvious reasons.

If you choose not to join an agency, you'll be socially castrated from the better parts of society. You won't be able to get any fair loans, can't submit a complaint, etc. Not to mention that you'll be pretty much "free game" to sharks, thugs, since you are on your own.

If however, you crime isn't a simple dispute over a missed payment or something, and you like raped somebody, or murdered somebody. Then that person, or that person's agency have legal claim on your ass, since you violated somebody's rights, you don't get any for yourself. Unless of course, you are absolved from guilt.

When friedman, or roth, or nozick talk about justice, they are talking about scenarios like this. Where organization isn't in question, but the application of it is.

Also, you are suggesting that mega-rich people will be able to sustain their own agencies? lol. And i'm the 12 jewish banker conspiracy theorists, right?

Ok but in seriousness, it will be VERY hard to stay rich if you bribe entire cities, considering that most wealth accumulation now comes from government interference/protection/use of force or intellectual property rights. Neither of those will exist, in anarchist society.

"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."

yea, I'd expect a socialist to say that. No disrespect to a great historian though.

[evilbau]

Not to mention that you'll be pretty much "free game" to sharks, thugs, since you are on your own.

Not me, the Jets got my back
http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medi...6/18629180.jpg

[Vistani]

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.

Sounds like a swampdonkeyism.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

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.

Sounds like a swampdonkeyism.

I never got into the nuts and bolts of the F _ _ _ _ _ x.

I throw shit tons of links at people saying "read this."

I never explained the F _ _ _ _ _ x thoroughly, or any other view I have had.

Damn, it passes the test.

[Plow]

I just have to /sigh at the amount of there/their of/have etc mistakes in this thread ><


Anyway, people pretty much covered it, but vouchers create a situation where nobody wants to own a school in a poor area, and the places outside it just say "oh we're full" because they aren't about to choose in a free market to bus kids in from the ghetto, etc.


Not to mention the trade of vouchers, and the convenience of people donating to get into the best schools etc.


You already see it even in the public school system now, cept it goes the other way lol. The summer after Danny Manning was a junior in high school, his dad the truck driver based in like California or something magically got a job as an assistant coach for KU basketball and they moved to Lawrence for his senior year and then he went to college there.

The exact same sort of things would happen, the kids that were going to be worth a lot of money would be pulled from wherever, and the rest would be left behind, except now instead of having a shitty school to go to, they have no school at all.



edit: heh I'm also reminded of when we had a plumber out to work on our toilet, and he asked for a tv so he could watch his son play basketball for wichita state... we knew who it was, and he had gone to the best, most expensive private high school in the state lol...

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Anyway, people pretty much covered it, but vouchers create a situation where nobody wants to own a school in a poor area, and the places outside it just say "oh we're full" because they aren't about to choose in a free market to bus kids in from the ghetto, etc.

First off the schools don't do the choosing, the parents do. And why wouldn't anyone want to own a school in a poor area? Regardless if the area is poor or not, there will still be money to be made because the poor will have vouchers to pay for it.

Not to mention the trade of vouchers, and the convenience of people donating to get into the best schools etc.

I'm pretty sure the government would make vouchers only redeemable by the person they're made out to.

[Kuya]

Obama+Marx=???

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Obama+Marx=???

Socialist dream ticket?

[Kuya]

Obama+Marx=???

Socialist paradise?

Socialism=! Communism

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Ok, communist dream ticket then.

[Kuya]

Oh, i get it, you're trying to get a rise out of people. Only explination for willfull ignorance. Have fun with that.

[aurik]

Why do you hate freedom, Kuya?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not trying to get a rise at all. But based on this boards leanings, it would be a dream ticket.

[Plow]

Anyway, people pretty much covered it, but vouchers create a situation where nobody wants to own a school in a poor area, and the places outside it just say "oh we're full" because they aren't about to choose in a free market to bus kids in from the ghetto, etc.

First off the schools don't do the choosing, the parents do. And why wouldn't anyone want to own a school in a poor area? Regardless if the area is poor or not, there will still be money to be made because the poor will have vouchers to pay for it.

Not enough to make it worth it, and a large portion of the vouchers reaching those areas would be siphoned off for people that need to pay for food/rent/etc more than they care about their kid being enrolled in a school he's not going to go to anyway.

Not to mention the trade of vouchers, and the convenience of people donating to get into the best schools etc.

I'm pretty sure the government would make vouchers only redeemable by the person they're made out to.

And private school systems would surely follow these policies perfectly, as no one in a free market system ever seeks monetary gain at the expense of others.



And yeah, if the schools are private it is completely up to them who goes there and who doesn't...

[Maxxthepenguin]

I'm not trying to get a rise at all. But based on this boards leanings, it would be a dream ticket.

Uh no. Believe it or not, we can actually be nuanced and like some things Marx while disliking others.

Fucking crazy isn't it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Not enough to make it worth it, and a large portion of the vouchers reaching those areas would be siphoned off for people that need to pay for food/rent/etc more than they care about their kid being enrolled in a school he's not going to go to anyway.

They wouldn't be siphoned off as they would only be redeemable at educational institutions, much like you can't use food stamps to buy non-food.

And yeah, if the schools are private it is completely up to them who goes there and who doesn't...

And the solution to that is you have to accept people from your district.

[archibaldcrane]

Heaven forbid I want to teach my kids about abstinence

If you think that abstinence isn't a part of public school sex education...you're hitting the neocon misinformation pipe -way- too hard.

[Beckwin]

Obama+Marx=???

??? = Beckwin with a slightly better tan.

[Kuya]

Why do you hate freedom, Kuya?

It's a combination of my dark skin and abominable sexual appetite.

[Plow]

Not enough to make it worth it, and a large portion of the vouchers reaching those areas would be siphoned off for people that need to pay for food/rent/etc more than they care about their kid being enrolled in a school he's not going to go to anyway.

They wouldn't be siphoned off as they would only be redeemable at educational institutions, much like you can't use food stamps to buy non-food.

Rich guy wants to go to a super nice school, gets turned down, goes to black market voucher broker, gets extra voucher sold by ghetto mom with 8 kids that couldn't get to school if they wanted to, rich school gets 2 vouchers.

And yeah, if the schools are private it is completely up to them who goes there and who doesn't...

And the solution to that is you have to accept people from your district.

Which means the only schools that have to accept the poor kids in the ghetto are... the ones that don't exist because it's not worth it.