Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Duke]

Both. For what it's worth, both of my kids go to pubic schools in one form or another.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Both. For what it's worth, both of my kids go to pubic schools in one form or another.

Was that your choice or theirs? Do you prefer public schooling over private schooling (again, in general)?

 

[Duke]

No, I prefer private schooling, in general, because there are a couple of excellent ones in this state. Unfortunately, they're both out of my physical range (no way to get my daughters there) and at least one is definitely out of my price range (even though I went there myself).

My elder (and hopefully younger, as well) daughter goes to a nearby Charter School, which I like a lot. It's public - IE, tax funded, and open enrollment - but charter schools are allowed to set their own priorities, and this one sets very high academic and behaviour standards. They also teach to the students' various levels, instead of insisting on a "one size MUST fit all" approach like the local public school district was headed for (before we started a campaign to get the old Superintendent non-renewed when his contract expired).

My daughter's grades and test results (both statewide and national) prove that their curriculum and methods work.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No, I prefer private schooling, in general, because there are a couple of excellent ones in this state. Unfortunately, they're both out of my physical range (no way to get my daughters there)

Ah, OK.

and at least one is definitely out of my price range (even though I went there myself).

Do they have vouchers/scholarships available? (just curious)

My elder (and hopefully younger, as well) daughter goes to a nearby Charter School, which I like a lot. It's public - IE, tax funded, and open enrollment - but charter schools are allowed to set their own priorities, and this one sets very high academic and behaviour standards.

Nice. My sister goes to a similar school, but I'm not sure if the distinction between a charter school and a regular public school is made there. It is the only 1 out the 5 high schools in my area that has a program similar to what you've just described. Then again, after reading this it's the least they can do.

They also teach to the students' various levels, instead of insisting on a "one size MUST fit all" approach like the local public school district was headed for (before we started a campaign to get the old Superintendent non-renewed when his contract expired).

We go through Superintendents as often as people drink lemonade on a hot summer's afternoon. I think within the past 5 years or so we've been through 5.

My daughter's grades and test results (both statewide and national) prove that their curriculum and methods work.

Excellent... happy to hear that. Sounds like just such a program should be implemented here (as opposed to incorporating Ebonics into a class -- but I digress). Yet another question to ask (though this one may be a bit more personal...):

In your opinion, how diverse is the nearby Charter School that hopefully both of your daughters will attend?

 

[ledhed]

I started out wanting to send my son to public school for the diversity and the life experiance that it offers...but then the reality of crappy teachers and shrinking budgets hit.
I took him out and sent him to a charter school for math -tech-science . That lasted two years but now I'm back with a public highschool . The teachers are much better but he's still about two years ahead of everyone except for the computer classes that offer a college level ed. Its not anything like when I went to school . (They dont use gas lites for one thing and you dont have to worry about leaving your horse . ) .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I started out wanting to send my son to public school for the diversity and the life experiance that it offers...but then the reality of crappy teachers and shrinking budgets hit.

Oh yes. That sounds familar.

I took him out and sent him to a charter school for math -tech-science . That lasted two years but now I'm back with a public highschool . The teachers are much better but he's still about two years ahead of everyone except for the computer classes that offer a college level ed.

That's cool. The reason I ask is because if private schools are preferable, I think it would make more sense to find ways to improve on existing establishments (i.e. public schools) rather than eliminating/reducing them. I know I wouldn't be able to go to school were it not for the existence/availablity of government-funded education (no matter how inefficient it may be).

Its not anything like when I went to school . (They dont use gas lites for one thing and you dont have to worry about leaving your horse . ) .

I think my parents are old enough to remember that as well.

 

[Danoff]

I won't go off anymore... but I do have a question to ask (in general). Did you go to a private school or a public school (K-12, preferably)?

My wife and I have both attended both public and private school and I very much prefer private school. Unfortunately private schools have trouble competing directly with public schools since public schools are "free" (or you have to pay for them regardless of where you go). This means that the niche for private schools is to cater to people who have enough money to pay their property taxes and STILL pay private tuition. The system is rigged to eliminate cheap private schools.

 

[Swift]

My wife and I have both attended both public and private school and I very much prefer private school. Unfortunately private schools have trouble competing directly with public schools since public schools are "free" (or you have to pay for them regardless of where you go). This means that the niche for private schools is to cater to people who have enough money to pay their property taxes and STILL pay private tuition. The system is rigged to eliminate cheap private schools.

Can't argue with that. Though I doubt private schools would get "cheap" Certainly less expensive, but not "cheap"

 

[Danoff]

Can't argue with that. Though I doubt private schools would get "cheap" Certainly less expensive, but not "cheap"

Why not?

Let's look at other things that private industry provides.

Water (vital for life) - cheap.
Gas (very important) - cheap.
Food (vital for life) - cheap. Hell I can go into the supermarket and for a few bucks by something that was shipped in from the other side of the planet.
Computers - Cheap, and always getting better.
Air Travel - Cheap (and think about all of the process and knowledge invovled)
Television - SUPER Cheap (all you have to do is sit through commericals)


So then judging from experience, competition wouldn't drive prices to very affordable levels?

 

[Swift]

Why not?

Let's look at other things that private industry provides.

Water (vital for life) - cheap.
Gas (very important) - cheap.
Food (vital for life) - cheap. Hell I can go into the supermarket and for a few bucks by something that was shipped in from the other side of the planet.
Computers - Cheap, and always getting better.
Air Travel - Cheap (and think about all of the process and knowledge invovled)
Television - SUPER Cheap (all you have to do is sit through commericals)


So then judging from experience, competition wouldn't drive prices to very affordable levels?

Yeah, but GOOD air travel, food, computers and TV are arguable not cheap. All I was saying is that it's not like there's going to be a 75$ a month private school that's worth it. That's all.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, but GOOD air travel, food, computers and TV are arguable not cheap. All I was saying is that it's not like there's going to be a 75$ a month private school that's worth it. That's all.

Well that's a different argument. Yes there will be a price range.

If there were a $75/month private school, some people would use it because they couldn't afford any more (and that's why one would exist) - and their kids would get a fairly crappy education. Just like some kids get fairly crappy nutrition from their parents.

It would be like a car is now. You can either by a really crappy car and spend about $1000 bucks. Or you can buy a really nice car and spend hundreds of thousands. Private school (were there no "free" "competition") would have some cheap solutions.

But we have truly free private school now in some areas, so maybe it wouldn't be so crappy. Right now lots of kids get home schooled by parents who volunteer to teach kids during the day in some neighborhoods. In those cases the education is completely free - and quite possibly better than the babysitting and... dare I say... brainwashing kids get in public school.

Schools will always have to compete with the parents-teaching-their-own-kids situation.

 

[Swift]

Well that's a different argument. Yes there will be a price range.

If there were a $75/month private school, some people would use it because they couldn't afford any more (and that's why one would exist) - and their kids would get a fairly crappy education. Just like some kids get fairly crappy nutrition from their parents.

It would be like a car is now. You can either by a really crappy car and spend about $1000 bucks. Or you can buy a really nice car and spend hundreds of thousands. Private school (were there no "free" "competition") would have some cheap solutions.

But we have truly free private school now in some areas, so maybe it wouldn't be so crappy. Right now lots of kids get home schooled by parents who volunteer to teach kids during the day in some neighborhoods. In those cases the education is completely free - and quite possibly better than the babysitting and... dare I say... brainwashing kids get in public school.

Schools will always have to compete with the parents-teaching-their-own-kids situation.

Well Said.

Public school hasn't gotten the idea that NOT all children learn the same way. So why are they taught and sometimes tormented, in the same way?

I'm all about public schools because it would be like the daycare situation now. There would be COMPETITION for the schools to be better/more efficent etc. Unlike now where there only thing holding public schools together is State mandates. And most of them a just sliding by.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

My wife and I have both attended both public and private school and I very much prefer private school. Unfortunately private schools have trouble competing directly with public schools since public schools are "free" (or you have to pay for them regardless of where you go).

Property taxes don't all go to public schools, though. It pays for police, fire fighters, maintains roads (well, most of the time... probably not in NYC ), and other municipal services. For example, every year, my city has a fireworks show... made possible by property taxes.

As far as private schools and competition is concerned, why don't they [private schools] advertize? Drop prices? Something... anything to attract more sales -- err -- students.

This means that the niche for private schools is to cater to people who have enough money to pay their property taxes and STILL pay private tuition.

True -- but what happened to vouchers/scholarships?

The system is rigged to eliminate cheap private schools.

And why do you think that is? I think I have an idea as to why the "system" is rigged to eliminate cheap private schools. I'd like to hear your theory first, though.

Can't argue with that. Though I doubt private schools would get "cheap" Certainly less expensive, but not "cheap"

Agreed.

Why not?

Will explain.

Let's look at other things that private industry provides.

OK.

Water (vital for life) - cheap.

Water is "cheap" because it is easily accesible. The privitization of bottled water didn't make water less expensive -- it increased prices. We are not only paying for the bottle, we are paying for the cost of advertising as well (among other things).

Gas (very important) - cheap.

Could be cheaper if it were nationalized... but I won't go into that.

Food (vital for life) - cheap. Hell I can go into the supermarket and for a few bucks by something that was shipped in from the other side of the planet.

Food is cheap because of the supply. That would be like saying every public school every built should be converted into a private school. Then, and only then (by sheer numbers) would private schooling become cheap.

Computers - Cheap, and always getting better.

Agreed. However, that is because technology is constantly improving. How do you "constantly improve" on a private school?

Air Travel - Cheap (and think about all of the process and knowledge invovled)
Television - SUPER Cheap (all you have to do is sit through commericals)

Both have the Fed involved in some way via either the FAA or FCC. That, I believe, is a factor.

So then judging from experience, competition wouldn't drive prices to very affordable levels?

Temporarily.

Well that's a different argument. Yes there will be a price range.

If there were a $75/month private school, some people would use it because they couldn't afford any more (and that's why one would exist) - and their kids would get a fairly crappy education. Just like some kids get fairly crappy nutrition from their parents.
It would be like a car is now. You can either by a really crappy car and spend about $1000 bucks. Or you can buy a really nice car and spend hundreds of thousands. Private school (were there no "free" "competition") would have some cheap solutions.

Education should be the same for everyone regardless of their net worth.

But we have truly free private school now in some areas, so maybe it wouldn't be so crappy.

Not so sure about that one...

Schools will always have to compete with the parents-teaching-their-own-kids situation.

Wouldn't parents have to have money/time in order to home-school their children?

 

[Danoff]

Property taxes don't all go to public schools, though. It pays for police, fire fighters, maintains roads (well, most of the time... probably not in NYC ), and other municipal services. For example, every year, my city has a fireworks show... made possible by property taxes.

I'm well aware. Aren't you glad that money is taken forcibly from you to fund a fireworks show?

As far as private schools and competition is concerned, why don't they [private schools] advertize? Drop prices? Something... anything to attract more sales -- err -- students.

Because the system is rigged against cheap private schools (more later).

True -- but what happened to vouchers/scholarships?

Bad idea, but better than the current system.

And why do you think that is? I think I have an idea as to why the "system" is rigged to eliminate cheap private schools. I'd like to hear your theory first, though.

I already explained this, but I'll explain it again. Because public schools are "free" or funded by force. In order to attend a private school you still have to pay for the public one. So the public school is not on equal footing with private schools. Private schools don't have laws and police to require you to pay tuition like public schools do.

Look at it this way. Let's say your public school requires $1000/student per semester to educate a student. They take it from your taxes so you have no choice but to fund it. Now let's say a private school requires $750/student per semester to educate a student. That's BETTER than the public school!!! But look at why happens.

You have no choice but to pay for the publics school - so that happens in both situations. Let's say that everyone in the community has one kid going to school, so it ammounts to $1000 per semester in property taxes.

So the public school costs $1000/semester
But the private school costs $750 PLUS the $1000 you HAVE to pay to the public school.

Because you have to pay for public school regardless, private school is at a disadvantage.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. It's basic economics (not a "theory" as you called it).

Water is "cheap" because it is easily accesible. The privitization of bottled water didn't make water less expensive -- it increased prices. We are not only paying for the bottle, we are paying for the cost of advertising as well (among other things).

No? I disagree.

Could be cheaper if it were nationalized... but I won't go into that.

I don't think I can have a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

Let's look at all the cheap things the government offers us:

The military, that's pretty cheap.
Public schools - they barely cost anything.
Car registration and license plates, those things are super affordable considering how complex a process it is to offer.
Police? Always clamoring for more money.
Congressmen? Those guys are super SUPER cheap.
Roads? Damn affordable.
IRS? only 10 billion/year and all of the cost is created by them!!! Still its marvelously cheap.

Food is cheap because of the supply. That would be like saying every public school every built should be converted into a private school. Then, and only then (by sheer numbers) would private schooling become cheap.

...and why do you think supply is high? Competition.

Agreed. However, that is because technology is constantly improving. How do you "constantly improve" on a private school?

Get better teachers, find better methods of teaching, incorporate more technology in the classroom. I think it's pretty obvious that this is possible.

Both have the Fed involved in some way via either the FAA or FCC. That, I believe, is a factor.

The Fed raises the price by adding time and cost to the process. But it's cheap anyway.

Education should be the same for everyone regardless of their net worth.

This is dogma.

Wouldn't parents have to have money/time in order to home-school their children?

They should think about that before they have children.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I'm well aware. Aren't you glad that money is taken forcibly from you to fund a fireworks show?

It does more than that... I only gave that as an example. Although, I do think they can do a better job on certain roads.

Because the system is rigged against cheap private schools (more later).

That's really what I'm trying to find out from you. Your opinion as to why it is rigged. Then, however, you go on to say:

I already explained this, but I'll explain it again. Because public schools are "free" or funded by force. In order to attend a private school you still have to pay for the public one. So the public school is not on equal footing with private schools. Private schools don't have laws and police to require you to pay tuition like public schools do.

Look at it this way. Let's say your public school requires $1000/student per semester to educate a student. They take it from your taxes so you have no choice but to fund it. Now let's say a private school requires $750/student per semester to educate a student. That's BETTER than the public school!!! But look at why happens.

You have no choice but to pay for the publics school - so that happens in both situations. Let's say that everyone in the community has one kid going to school, so it ammounts to $1000 per semester in property taxes.

So the public school costs $1000/semester But the private school costs $750 PLUS the $1000 you HAVE to pay to the public school.

Because you have to pay for public school regardless, private school is at a disadvantage.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. It's basic economics (not a "theory" as you called it).

I am aware of that. Here, you are basically giving me the "what". I understand that part. Trust me. I want the "why"? Why is it like this? Why is the system set up in such a way that private schooling is at a disadvantage? This is where I would like your opinion.

Bad idea, but better than the current system.

OK.

I don't think I can have a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

I was mistaken... relax.

Let's look at all the cheap things the government offers us:

The military, that's pretty cheap.
Public schools - they barely cost anything.
Car registration and license plates, those things are super affordable considering how complex a process it is to offer.
Police? Always clamoring for more money.
Congressmen? Those guys are super SUPER cheap.
Roads? Damn affordable.
IRS? only 10 billion/year and all of the cost is created by them!!! Still its marvelously cheap.

You've made your point.

...and why do you think supply is high? Competition.

Of course. So why not "supply" more private schools. How would you go about increasing the supply of private schools?

Get better teachers, find better methods of teaching, incorporate more technology in the classroom. I think it's pretty obvious that this is possible.

Of course it's possible... but it will cost more money.

 

[Danoff]

That's really what I'm trying to find out from you. Your opinion as to why it is rigged.

Everytime government gets invovled private industry is at a disadvantage. Private industry does not have the power to force you to give them your money (and that's a very good thing), but the government has an advantage in that.

The "why" private school is at a disadvantage is because other schools are funded by taxes. The "why" behind the existance of public schools is because poor people didn't want to pay for schools themselves, so they decided to TAKE the money from other people rather than only consume what they produce.

The "why" behind the poor peoeple not wanting to pay for schools was because they didn't value education and/or were so poor they couldn't even afford school. But of course they shouldn't have children if they can't provide for them.

So what's the problem here? Kids need an education right? There's your law. Kids must get an education. That's the extent that the government should get invovled. To make sure parents aren't neglecting their kids.

That doesn't mean government has to provide the food, water, or education. Just make sure that parents aren't refusing to pay for these things for their children.

Of course. So why not "supply" more private schools. How would you go about increasing the supply of private schools?

Eliminate public schools but keep laws that require children to be educated.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Everytime government gets invovled private industry is at a disadvantage. Private industry does not have the power to force you to give them your money (and that's a very good thing), but the government has an advantage in that.

That's not true. I lost $200 on a car I couldn't buy because of "company policy". The government had nothing to do with that.

The "why" private school is at a disadvantage is because other schools are funded by taxes.

With you so far.

The "why" behind the existance of public schools is because poor people didn't want to pay for schools themselves, so they decided to TAKE the money from other people rather than only consume what they produce.

"Why" the disdain for those who are less fortunate? Is it really that poor people didn't want to pay for schools themselves? Or that they couldn't afford to pay for school themselves? I see a difference.

The "why" behind the poor peoeple not wanting to pay for schools was because they didn't value education and/or were so poor they couldn't even afford school. But of course they shouldn't have children if they can't provide for them.

If poor people didn't value education, they would not have sent their children to school in the first place. If I did not value the utility, fun, and convenience that my car brings to me, I would take the bus -- not steal someone else's car.

As far as your belief that people shouldn't have children if they can't provide for them -- that's understandable... to a point. If let's say the average family in New York needs a minimum $200,000/yr in order to have at least 1 child there would be a drastic reduction in the population. I don't see how anyone could put a "price" on life.

So what's the problem here? Kids need an education right? There's your law. Kids must get an education. That's the extent that the government should get invovled. To make sure parents aren't neglecting their kids.

And how would they go about doing that? How should the government make sure parents arent' neglecting their children, in your opinion?

That doesn't mean government has to provide the food, water, or education. Just make sure that parents aren't refusing to pay for these things for their children.

Understandable.

Eliminate public schools but keep laws that require children to be educated.

So, basically, force parents to pay for their children to be educated even if they cannot afford it. If they cannot afford it, how then would the government require children to be educated (assuming public schools are eliminated)?

This is interesting...

Ever hear of Petroleos de Venezuala?

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html

 

[Danoff]

That's not true. I lost $200 on a car I couldn't buy because of "company policy". The government had nothing to do with that.

Oh? Is that really the same thing? I said the government has the ability to force you to pay taxes and companies cannot force you to pay anything. How did the company force you to pay something in this situation?

"Why" the disdain for those who are less fortunate? Is it really that poor people didn't want to pay for schools themselves? Or that they couldn't afford to pay for school themselves? I see a difference.

I don't. Life is a series of choices. Where you end up is ultimately the result of your desires.

If poor people didn't value education, they would not have sent their children to school in the first place. If I did not value the utility, fun, and convenience that my car brings to me, I would take the bus -- not steal someone else's car.

They didn't value it highly enough to pay for it themselves - that doesn't mean they don't value it highly enough to steal it if they're given a zero consequences manner in which to do so.

You may not value a particular work of art enough to spend 4000 dollars on it. But if you were told that all you had to do was walk into a booth and check a box a certain way in order to get it - you might decide it was worth the effort.

As far as your belief that people shouldn't have children if they can't provide for them -- that's understandable... to a point. If let's say the average family in New York needs a minimum $200,000/yr in order to have at least 1 child there would be a drastic reduction in the population. I don't see how anyone could put a "price" on life.

Who's putting a price on life? I'm saying that if you can't afford to feed, clothe and educate your children then you shouldn't have them.

And how would they go about doing that? How should the government make sure parents arent' neglecting their children, in your opinion?

Same way they determine if children are being malnourished. There are lots of ways they could do it. I'm sure that if government officials spent their time on that instead of creating new tax loopholes for special interests they could figure something quite nice out. My off-the-cuff solution is competency tests in reading, writing, math, and science.

So, basically, force parents to pay for their children to be educated even if they cannot afford it. If they cannot afford it, how then would the government require children to be educated (assuming public schools are eliminated)?

Same thing as food. If parents aren't feeding their children (and since no public food source exists), neglected children get placed in foster care and, in many cases, neglectful parents go to jail.

But education wouldn't HAVE to cost anything. Parents can educate their own children after work or give them problems to work and books to read during the day. Parents in a neighborhood could take shifts teaching the neighborhood children.

As long as the parents teach enough for the child to pass the competency tests it doesn't matter how they do it. Just like parents can grow their own food to feed their children. As long as they provide food for their children, it doesn't matter how they do it.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Oh? Is that really the same thing? I said the government has the ability to force you to pay taxes and companies cannot force you to pay anything. How did the company force you to pay something in this situation?

In short, I put a down payment on a car the deal fell through. Due to the fact that they "wasted" they're time on me, instead of giving me back the full $1,000 that I gave them, they only gave me back $800.

I don't. Life is a series of choices. Where you end up is ultimately the result of your desires.

Scary.

They didn't value it highly enough to pay for it themselves - that doesn't mean they don't value it highly enough to steal it if they're given a zero consequences manner in which to do so.

So you believe that by eliminating public schools, that would force those who don't value an education to find alternative solutions (i.e. don't go to school, work extra jobs to pay for it etc.)

You may not value a particular work of art enough to spend 4000 dollars on it. But if you were told that all you had to do was walk into a booth and check a box a certain way in order to get it - you might decide it was worth the effort.

I see where you're going with that...

So by eliminating the "lottery", only those that can afford the $4,000 work of art should be able to enjoy it. OK. That's fair. Technically, we don't need art to function in society.

By eliminating public schools, only those that can afford the tuition should be able to benefit from it. OK. That's not fair. We need an education in order to function in society.

Who's putting a price on life? I'm saying that if you can't afford to feed, clothe and educate your children then you shouldn't have them.

I misunderstood what you were saying before.

Same way they determine if children are being malnourished. There are lots of ways they could do it. I'm sure that if government officials spent their time on that instead of creating new tax loopholes for special interests they could figure something quite nice out. My off-the-cuff solution is competency tests in reading, writing, math, and science.

Sounds good enough for me.

Same thing as food. If parents aren't feeding their children (and since no public food source exists), neglected children get placed in foster care and, in many cases, neglectful parents go to jail.

Harsh...

But education wouldn't HAVE to cost anything. Parents can educate their own children after work or give them problems to work and books to read during the day. Parents in a neighborhood could take shifts teaching the neighborhood children.

Interesting.

As long as the parents teach enough for the child to pass the competency tests it doesn't matter how they do it. Just like parents can grow their own food to feed their children. As long as they provide food for their children, it doesn't matter how they do it.

OK.

 

[Danoff]

So you believe that by eliminating public schools, that would force those who don't value an education to find alternative solutions (i.e. don't go to school, work extra jobs to pay for it etc.)

I know it would.

By eliminating public schools, only those that can afford the tuition should be able to benefit from it. OK. That's not fair. We need an education in order to function in society.

You also need food, water, and shelter and these things are not provided to you by the government. Fair is that you get what you pay for. Fair means that you consume as much as you produce - not what other people produce. Fair means that people who cannot afford to have children should not have them (rather than make others pay for them).

In short, I put a down payment on a car the deal fell through. Due to the fact that they "wasted" they're time on me, instead of giving me back the full $1,000 that I gave them, they only gave me back $800.

You probably agreed to that (of your own free will) somewhere when you gave them the down payment.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You probably agreed to that (of your own free will) somewhere when you gave them the down payment.

Not true. I wouldn't have given them such a large down payment if a knew that if the deal would not go through I would lose $200. I did not sign anything (except the receipt) when I gave the down payment. Nowhere on the receipt does it say "if the deal does not work out, you will lose $200." It's simply a statement that says yes, we received "x" amount from Brian on "x" date, for "x" car. Nothing more.

Without divulging too much information, what happened was two out of the 3 credit reporting agencies made a mistake on my co-signers credit report. They claimed that my co-signer owed $10,000 on a car before it was traded in. However, my co-signer has in their possession a letter from the bank showing that the lien was satisfied YEARS before my co-signer traded the car in. The bank I was trying to get the loan for to buy my car said that my co-signer could not insure the vehicle because of this (even though it was mistake) and you obviously cannot drive a car without insurance. When I asked for my money back (from the dealer), that's when I was informed that I would be given the money back "less $200". When I asked why, then AND ONLY THEN was I was given the "company policy" BS. Never at any time before did I see/sign anything agreeing to that.

I have to go back to school right now to straighten out some things, buy spark plugs for my car, and get the alternator belt replaced so I won't be able to respond to the rest of your post until I get back.

 

[Duke]

In your opinion, how diverse is the nearby Charter School that hopefully both of your daughters will attend?

It's as diverse, ethnically and economically, as our surrounding area is. There is a broad spectrum from poor white folks to rich black folks and everything in between; the largest concentrations are middle class caucasians and asians but there are numerous blacks, hispanics, and others. But as I said, this accurately reflects the makeup of the city in which we live (college town).

That being said, the Charter School is tuition-free and enrollment is taken from a random lottery of all applicants, with no admissions criteria at all. So the school is just as 'diverse' as the pool of people who bothered to fill out the application form for their kids.

 

[Danoff]

Not true. I wouldn't have given them such a large down payment if a knew that if the deal would not go through I would lose $200. I did not sign anything (except the receipt) when I gave the down payment. Nowhere on the receipt does it say "if the deal does not work out, you will lose $200." It's simply a statement that says yes, we received "x" amount from Brian on "x" date, for "x" car. Nothing more.

Without divulging too much information, what happened was two out of the 3 credit reporting agencies made a mistake on my co-signers credit report. They claimed that my co-signer owed $10,000 on a car before it was traded in. However, my co-signer has in their possession a letter from the bank showing that the lien was satisfied YEARS before my co-signer traded the car in. The bank I was trying to get the loan for to buy my car said that my co-signer could not insure the vehicle because of this (even though it was mistake) and you obviously cannot drive a car without insurance. When I asked for my money back (from the dealer), that's when I was informed that I would be given the money back "less $200". When I asked why, then AND ONLY THEN was I was given the "company policy" BS. Never at any time before did I see/sign anything agreeing to that.

I have to go back to school right now to straighten out some things, buy spark plugs for my car, and get the alternator belt replaced so I won't be able to respond to the rest of your post until I get back.

Well companies aren't allowed to just take your money. I'm sure there was some kind of agreement when you handed over $1000, otherwise you couldn't have been gauranteed that you'd get anything for that money.

Anyway if you're right then you might have a legal case against them.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What is so appealing about this political party? To those who would consider themselves:

• libertarians
• Libertarians
• Minarchists
• Anarcho-capitalists
• Objectivists
• Left-Libertarians
• Geolibertarians
• as having no particular political affliation but agree with a few/some/most/all Libertarian/Objectivist ideas

Why? What is it about the concepts of total personal freedom/responsibility and limited or no government that is so appealing? When did you first realize that you were a Libertarian? What "sparked" the change?

 

[Duke]

Read the prior 20 pages of this thread.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Read the prior 20 pages of this thread.

Not all of the questions that I just asked were answered in the prior 20 pages of the thread...

 

[Sage]

What is so appealing about this political party? To those who would consider themselves […] Why?

Because I like freedom.

What is it about the concepts of total personal freedom/responsibility and limited or no government that is so appealing?

First off, who does want oppression? I’ve certainly never heard anybody say, “Give me oppression, or give me death!”

Secondly, you’re still mixing anarchy and libertarianism – I can tell that by the diction in your question. Libertarians don’t advocate total freedom, and don’t advocate no government, and never have and never will. Please don’t make me explain again for the bajillionth time.

When did you first realize that you were a Libertarian? What "sparked" the change?

When an Objectivist friend of mine pointed me to the party, and I thought, Hey cool, I don’t have to start a brand-new party now!

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Secondly, you’re still mixing anarchy and libertarianism – I can tell that by the diction in your question.

You've misinterpreted my question then. I know the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. The "no government" reference was not directed towards you or anyone who shares your beliefs... there are people who call themselves "libertarian" who espouse anarchist views... I didn't see fit to leave them out of the discussion (see: anarcho-capitalist).

When an Objectivist friend of mine pointed me to the party, and I thought, Hey cool, I don’t have to start a brand-new party now!

Excellent.

Because I like freedom.


First off, who does want oppression? I’ve certainly never heard anybody say, “Give me oppression, or give me death!”

Freedom and oppression are not mutually exclusive. In some cases, freedom can result in oppression (and vice versa). Speaking of "liking freedom", I prefer positive liberties over negative liberties -- this, I believe is where our fundamental differences lie.

 

[Duke]

Freedom and oppression are not mutually exclusive. In some cases, freedom can result in oppression (and vice versa).

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. If you don't think so, then you don't understand the real concept of freedom. Real freedom is not the right to do anything you want and escape the consequences, nor is it the right to interfere with the freedom of others. So there is no way that freedom and oppression are not mutually exclusive.

What is a "positive" liberty? I expect I know what you're going to say, but I want to hear it in your words.

I like being a Libertarian because I value freedom more than anything else. I also very much value fairness, and by far the most fair way that I can imagine to live is to have a right to what I earn and to be responsible for my own living and my own actions. How much more fair can it be than that? I am rewarded or punished based on my choices and actions.

I was not born rich, nor was I born poor. I was born randomly into a given situation, and it's been my responsibility to make do with that beginning. That's fair, too. I can't ethically ask any more than that, not would I want to. It's not a person's fault whether they were born rich or poor. On that score, it's not a matter of "deserving" or not. Nobody can choose the circumstances of their birth. It's what you do with your advantages and how you overcome your disadvantages that determine your value as a person.

I am comfortable with this resposibility - in fact, for my own philosophical, moral, and ethical happiness, I must take this responsibility for myself. The satisfactions I get are all mine; the flip side is that I bear my disappointments myself. Again, how much more fair can that be? I earn my own joy through mental and physical work and ability. That's the appeal - and I can't understand how people could have any joy or satisfaction knowing that they had not earned what they have gotten (and remember, this does not refer to being born rich).

By the same token, I expect others to take their own responsibility for themselves. I will not make myself a burden on others, nor I will accept any burden that is thrust upon me by outside forces. How is that not fair?

Note that there are outside burdens I willingly accept - that of family, friends, and even charities of which I approve, I choose, and I determine how much to give. That's very different from having arbitrary law determining what charities/people I must support and how much I must pay to support them.

I became an Objectivist when I read Atlas Shrugged. My oldest sister told me I should read The Fountainhead in around 9th grade, because I was interested in becoming an architect. I read it, found it very compelling (it parallelled many of my own thoughts), and went looking for more Ayn Rand to read. I found Atlas Shrugged, devoured it, and from there it was no looking back. The fundamental ideas of Objectivism just make so much rational, logical sense that I could not refuse them. I've been reevaluating those ideals continuously for more than 25 years and I've found nothing else that comes close to their logic.

I became Libertarian as I approached voting age, when I began looking for a political party that most closely matched those ideals. I will point out that Ayn Rand highly disliked Libertarians, because she thought them undisciplined. But it's perfectly possible to be a Libertarian and discipline yourself, so I've been able to overcome that dichotomy.

 

[ledhed]

I do not feel the government should be in the business of legislating morality PERIOD . Its slippery slope that needs not a rider .
But all my views do not fit into the libertarian point of view..so I get to stay independent !

Independent I say ! You hear me ..I am free to pick my nose ! I can pick anything ! Pick pick pick ! I am freeeeeeee and indepenndent ...bwahahahahaha thats better than libertarian .