I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Al B. Sure!]

But is not the anti-public education idea inherently destructive to capitalism? Education is the means by which one opens (yes, opens as a non-passive verb, not have them opened for one) the doors of oppurtunity, which he then walks through to success by hard work.

Such things as welfare do not have the same effect as education funding. welfare and other new deal legisation is wasted money that is not repaid, what with the best result of welfare being welfare hogs at the gov't trough. Education however is repaid by having an educated workforce, a necessary aspect for modern capitalism.

furthermore, capitalism, being a system by which any individual can achieve success through his hard-work, would not exist if it were not for public education, as a lack of education eliminates the chances for any individual to work for his success.

[David Floyd]

But is not the anti-public education idea inherently destructive to capitalism? Education is the means by which one opens (yes, opens as a non-passive verb, not have them opened for one) the doors of oppurtunity, which he then walks through to success by hard work.

As Berz adequately pointed out, the desire to learnm rather than millions of dollars, creates opportunities for education.

In any case, why do you keep assuming that I am interested in your arguments from greatest efficiency? I'm not a utilitarian - I'm only interested in freedom.

However, I do note that you abandoned your emotional "but what about the children" argument that is used so much by the commie-mommies.

[Az]

Now, the problem is, who do they pay reparations to? They can't pay the dead, and paying themselves is just silly. There is no one for them to pay. If there is no one for them to pay, then there is no one for me to pay, either. I shouldn't have to pay people who are already deriving a benefit from the existence of slavery, whether they be black or white. That's unjust.

substract the price of a ticket from africa. I haven't understood the meaning of "coming from africa". I thought you believed in open borders.


Don't worry, I'll answer you dillema for you. anyone who has recieved welfare shouldn't recieve compensations.

[David Floyd]

substract the price of a ticket from africa.

You think the only advantage of automatic citizenship, and years of generational citizenship, are the price of a single ticket from Africa?

haven't understood the meaning of "coming from africa". I thought you believed in open borders.

Sure, but not free transportation, and in any case, you are ignoring more intangible issues of becoming immersed in the culture and politics of the US, gaining political power, etc.

Don't worry, I'll answer you dillema for you. anyone who has recieved welfare shouldn't recieve compensations.

How about anyone who has received any social services at all shouldn't receive compensations? That sounds more fair - why should welfare be singled out? That would nicely reduce our number of reparation recipients to ZERO.

However, again, it really isn't necessary to go this route, because they are deriving both tangible and INTANGIBLE benefits.

[Al B. Sure!]

David:

I think this is the root of my incomprehension of libertarian ideas: libertarian idealism and lack of pragmatism.

The course of the past few pages in this debate show that. I tend to be a practical thinker and I couldn't do much more than read the last few pages of abstract rights and constraints, which have no practical implications. Yall talk so highly but essentially, are saying nothing.

And that is why I posted this thread. We want industry, both blue and white collar, to operate but can it operate without a public education system? without anti-trust legislation to prevent anti-capitalistic monopolies destroying that heart of capitalism: competition? We want less crime, criminals to be caught, punished, and released (knowing they'll never commit crime again), and, most importantly, citizens to be relatively safe from crime. But how does this work with private security firms, especially what with economic crimes being more prevalent in poor areas, rural boondocks and the inner city? Security firms will realize putting their officers there will not cause a positive result in any profit/cost ratio and never place their officers there.

As Berz adequately pointed out, the desire to learn rather than millions of dollars, creates opportunities for education.

but again... the child has a great desire to learn but he can not afford to give himself an education obviously. His parents must do that but if they refuse to, what then? the child has a great desire to learn but he is turned away from the school's doors... you don't find anything extremely wrong with this picture? you don't think that his right to work hard is lost? you don't think his freedom has been constrained and sacrificed through no fault of his own, but rather through the fault of his parents? His parents are constraining his freedom.

[Az]

Sure, but not free transportation, and in any case, you are ignoring more intangible issues of becoming immersed in the culture and politics of the US, gaining political power, etc.

as I said, you can substract the the ticket fare.

complete bull. being immersed in culture and politics of the US doesn't cost money, and noone granted it to them. if you believe in free borders, any immigrant group would get it.

How about anyone who has received any social services at all shouldn't receive compensations? That sounds more fair - why should welfare be singled out? That would nicely reduce our number of reparation recipients to ZERO.

bull. those people paid taxes, as well.

[David Floyd]

being immersed in culture and politics of the US doesn't cost money,

Oh, it will cost a little money, but you are making my point for me. Living in this country, and having had your relatives live in this country since, say, 1765, provides a benefit that you would not have if you immigrated tomorrow. That is, you and your family have built certain relationships, have been able to, in certain cases, accumulate wealth, have, in some cases, the respect of others, etc. Even minor things come in here - for example, you visit the same bar every weekend, the bartender knows you, and you get free drinks because your father also went there. Or, you live in a small town, and your family knows the family of the local sheriff. So, when your son gets picked up for smoking weed, for example, rather than charges being filed, he gets taken home to you for an ass-whuppin'.

The whole point is that these things DON'T, primarily, cost money. They are a positive benefit of having lived in the United States for years, and your family having lived in the US for years, and are all benefits that an immigrant fresh off the boat would certainly NOT receive.

if you believe in free borders, any immigrant group would get it.

Sure, eventually. But just because I believe in open borders doesn't mean that borders were open in the past. Open borders - that is, difficulty or ease of immigration - is NOT the primary reason for immigration, in many cases. Let's assume that the US had open borders since the beginning, and that slavery never existed. Would that mean that millions of blacks from Africa would immigrate to the US? Certainly not! Probably very few would come. And of those who didn't come, how many of their children, and their children's children, etc., would have come? Probably not too many.

The fact that they were forced to come, and work in slavery, is horrible and immoral. But that doesn't mean that their descendants, who probably otherwise wouldn't be here, aren't deriving some significant benefits ALREADY from the existence of slavery.

bull. those people paid taxes, as well.

In that case, why are you bringing up welfare, which is also funded by taxes?

[David Floyd]

We want industry, both blue and white collar, to operate but can it operate without a public education system?

I don't see why not. If people weren't taxed for public education, they'd have that money to pay for private education, and if there were no public education, the number of private schools would go up and the cost of private schools would go down.

without anti-trust legislation to prevent anti-capitalistic monopolies destroying that heart of capitalism: competition?

As we have never seen a true capitalist system, and the economic results that follow, I don't think that is a fair criticism at all.

We want less crime, criminals to be caught, punished, and released (knowing they'll never commit crime again), and, most importantly, citizens to be relatively safe from crime. But how does this work with private security firms, especially what with economic crimes being more prevalent in poor areas, rural boondocks and the inner city? Security firms will realize putting their officers there will not cause a positive result in any profit/cost ratio and never place their officers there.

Who said anything about "private security firms"? Certainly, those can exist, but no Libertarian that I am aware of are in favor of abolishing the police - I think you are thinking of anarchists.

His parents must do that but if they refuse to, what then? the child has a great desire to learn but he is turned away from the school's doors... you don't find anything extremely wrong with this picture?

Sure, his parents are *******s. That's certainly a problem.

But as heartless as it sounds, it isn't MY problem. You don't find anything extremely wrong with holding me responsible for the poor decisions of people I don't even know?

you don't think that his right to work hard is lost?

Uh, no. Education and hard work are not related. You can work hard, having never gone to school.

you don't think his freedom has been constrained and sacrificed through no fault of his own, but rather through the fault of his parents? His parents are constraining his freedom.

One is free to go to school, certainly, but one is not free to demand and take services without compensation. If his parents won't send him to school, they aren't violating his freedom - there is no "right to an education". That would imply that there is a right to demand certain services without compensation, which is a violation of another's rights.

Now, you can argue all day long that the child's parents are potentially limited the child's long term options, and you might even be correct. But where your argument fails is when it tries to bring me into the picture. It's not my problem or responsibility - hell, I don't even know this hypothetical child or his parents, so don't try to hold me responsible for the actions of either.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Reading threads like this gives me an overwhelming desire to start claiming welfare.

[Sandman]

Child pornography and child prostitution is legal in a libertarian society, isn't it?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Do any of our liberatarians here have serious disabilities? I'm not talking having no sex life, or crap dress sense, but a real disability.

[Al B. Sure!]

Sandman:

Child pornography and child prostitution is legal in a libertarian society,

libertarians would say that in the case of those things, there is an inherent inequity in the decision making. child prostitutes are not prostituting themselves by their own accord but are being manipulated/forced to do so.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
libertarians would say that in the case of those things, there is an inherent inequity in the decision making. child prostitutes are not prostituting themselves by their own accord but are being manipulated/forced to do so.

Well, I have to confess as to being ignorant as to exactly what Libertarians think about children.

But if children are 'allowed' to work, then surely they are also allowed to sell their bodies to paedophiles, if they so choose. And child porn is presumably free speech.

Even if they are prepared to compromise their belief in the ownership of one's body in order to prevent this from happening, the lack of birth-registration and compulsory education, not to mention the hordes of street children, will make a libertarian society a very attractive place to live for paedophiles.

[Whaleboy]

I fully accept that in my lifetime, perhaps even for this civilisation in its current guise, libertarianism will make little or no difference. Can someone tell me why this matters?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gepap -

Unless you believe murder is a choice consistent with the meaning of freedom, how does the moral absolute - murder is immoral - create an inherent contradiction by prohibiting murder?

Whic leads to the final answer you NEVER ANSWER, EVER, EVER, EVER: what right do you claim to have to categorize an act as immoral, hence anti-freedom, hence banned?

I do NOT await an answer, for I know none shall come.