Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[Omnis]

Well it's rather interesting to see how the neoconservative movement (as described by Irving Kristol) has proliferated throughout Washington and especially the right. And now, of course, it isn't even limited to the Republican party:



Even the current admin and Hillary Clinton support the Bush Doctrine. (despite their best efforts to talk around it)

 

[Touring Mars]

Since when was the war in Afghanistan a "preventative war"? I don't think it is a bad thing that Ron Paul is challenging the Bush Doctrine - and I agree with his views that the war in Iraq was such a preventative war (although he also thinks the war in Iraq was illegal under international law) - but I don't agree that the war in Afghanistan was, nor that continued US involvement in Afghanistan (and hence Obama's recent announcement of his strategy in Afghanistan) represents an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine in any way...

But even if you believe that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, or that mistakes have been made, then the question is not just about changing government policy about the reasons why the country goes to war in the first place (although Ron Paul is quite right to argue against the doctrine of preventative or preemptive war), but is also a question of what is the right thing to do if a just war is not going in your favour. In Ron Paul's own words, "when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not continue the mistake". The current administration's plans to expand operations in Afghanistan are not continuing the mistake (if it ever existed) of endorsing the policy of preventative war, but are an attempt to correct the monumental mistake that was starting another major war before finishing the job in Afghanistan...

It is ironic, because I would agree with everything he says IF he were talking about Iraq. But he isn't... he's talking about Afghanistan, although he seems to be making the same mistake that Bush made in confusing the two things or treating them as if they are the same thing.

 

[Omnis]

Since when was the war in Afghanistan a "preventative war"? I don't think it is a bad thing that Ron Paul is challenging the Bush Doctrine - and I agree with his views that the war in Iraq was such a preventative war (although he also thinks the war in Iraq was illegal under international law) - but I don't agree that the war in Afghanistan was, nor that continued US involvement in Afghanistan (and hence Obama's recent announcement of his strategy in Afghanistan) represents an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine in any way...

But even if you believe that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, or that mistakes have been made, then the question is not just about changing government policy about the reasons why the country goes to war in the first place (although Ron Paul is quite right to argue against the doctrine of preventative or preemptive war), but is also a question of what is the right thing to do if a just war is not going in your favour. In Ron Paul's own words, "when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not continue the mistake". The current administration's plans to expand operations in Afghanistan are not continuing the mistake (if it ever existed) of endorsing the policy of preventative war, but are an attempt to correct the monumental mistake that was starting another major war before finishing the job in Afghanistan...

It is ironic, because I would agree with everything he says IF he were talking about Iraq. But he isn't... he's talking about Afghanistan, although he seems to be making the same mistake that Bush made in confusing the two things or treating them as if they are the same thing.

You're assuming that Afghanistan is a just war. The only just thing to do would have been to issues letters of marque against those directly responsible for their attacks. I guess Obama should start bombing Florida since we've been home for a few terrorists for a while too.

I'm not a fan of the Taliban, but Afghanistan has always been a glaring sign of perpetual war. Karzai and his corrupt regime are no better at running Kabul than beforehand. I say Kabul because there doesn't even exist a country structure to which we are accustomed in that land. It's just a giant tribesland. There's Kabul and then there's no man's land. If we're supposed to hunt Al Qaeda, then just hunt down Al Qaeda. But now it seems like we've degenerated into gang warfare between allied forces and the invisible-yet-omnipresent Taliban on the frontier. It's no longer a war. ... Never was one. If it were any kind of war, it should've been a declared one in the first place. All of these wars of choice will just turn into endless occupations with gang-like skirmishes while the original targets are off god-knows-where doing god-knows-what. The Russia 2.0 approach won't work.

 

[YSSMAN]

You're assuming that Afghanistan is a just war.

That depends on how you want to look at just war theory. In terms of jus ad bellum, we're in fairly good shape. Where we begin to lose it is jus in bello.

 

[Touring Mars]

You're assuming that Afghanistan is a just war.

True, although I do think that it is a just war...

I'm not a fan of the Taliban, but Afghanistan has always been a glaring sign of perpetual war. Karzai and his corrupt regime are no better at running Kabul than beforehand. I say Kabul because there doesn't even exist a country structure to which we are accustomed in that land. It's just a giant tribesland. There's Kabul and then there's no man's land. If we're supposed to hunt Al Qaeda, then just hunt down Al Qaeda. But now it seems like we've degenerated into gang warfare between allied forces and the invisible-yet-omnipresent Taliban on the frontier. It's no longer a war. ... Never was one. If it were any kind of war, it should've been a declared one in the first place. All of these wars of choice will just turn into endless occupations with gang-like skirmishes while the original targets are off god-knows-where doing god-knows-what. The Russia 2.0 approach won't work.

While I don't disagree with this much, I reckon it is a bit late to debate the justice or the wisdom of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 - neither thing is the issue facing Obama now anyway. The issue facing Obama is what to do now that he is Commander-in-Chief of the US forces that are already there. Quitting the region with the principal objectives of the original invasion as yet unaccomplished is clearly not an option, no matter how appealing the idea of a quick exit might seem.

While I commend Ron Paul for questioning the policies behind going to war in the first place, it doesn't mean that he is correct in suggesting that it is wrong for America to be in Afghanistan right now. The suggestion seems to be that the US presence in Afghanistan is a 'mistake' that can be corrected simply by pulling out - but this neglects to address the reality on the ground, that a sudden US/allied withdrawal from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region could be disasterous.

While I was against the war in Iraq for many reasons, I was also against a sudden withdrawal of allied forces, believing that the US in particular had a moral obligation to finish the job and leave only when the security forces in Iraq were suitably capable of holding their own against the insurgents. I have to reluctantly accept that Bush's surge policy actually seemed to work, such as it was a last-ditch quick fix for an otherwise horrifically botched job. Obama is in a similar position in Afghanistan - rather than to pull out and to permanently embolden the Taleban, al-Qaeda and fundamentalists throughout the region, and to risk Afghanistan falling back to where it was before 2001, now is the time to hit them and hit them hard, hence why a surge in troops is a better option than a withdrawal IMO.

 

[Omnis]

Who is "them" and where are they to be hit? You can't fight a shadow. These guys aren't playing that game. They're smarter than that.

We should be discussing this in another thread, but you demonstrate my point well. Surging troops instead of withdrawing them is literally the recipe for perpetual war. It'll never be a better option to withdraw troops with the way things are going. We already ****ed up hard by going in, and now it seems like we want to delay the inevitable just like how we've handled economic corrections for the past 80 years.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't think you'd go there—but objectivist that you are, I can't say I'm entirely surprised. I may ask, though, how rights relate to logic—to you?

I created a whole thread on the subject - "Truth, Justice and the America way". I also created a thread specifically on human rights. The question is not so much how human rights relate to logic, but how logic relates to human rights.

 

[DK]

First of all, why the hell did Bush invade Iraq? Some say because Hussein had nukes. Saddam was bluffing! Terrorism is like poker - you can't show what your hand is. Conspiracy theorists are saying Bush did it for oil. Kinda convenient for oil prices, because if Saddam Hussein decided to say, "NO!!! I'm not exporting my oil!" or "I'm going to sell it at $400 a barrel!", prices would shoot up. Or maybe other oil resources in the world get extracted faster, and so run out faster too. Why can't Bush have invaded North Korea? They have nukes! But they didn't have oil...or so say the conspiracy theorists. The war in Iraq was useless. It's no more peaceful as it was when the Americans and Brits invaded it in 2003. Besides, there may be another reason why the USA hasn't invaded North Korea yet - their missiles go way off target. But maybe one day they may hit land...and it maybe where they were aiming at...or at least one of their myriad of enemies.

 

[Danoff]

First of all, why the hell did Bush invade Iraq?

First of all, what the hell does this have to do with this thread? Is Bush a Libertarian? No. Do Libertarians have a party position on Iraq? No. Does this belong in this thread? No.

 

[FoolKiller]

In regards to the war in Afghanistan and Ron Paul's position on it, it was not a war declared by Congress as laid out in the Constitution. International law be damned if we don't get it right by our own law.

Where Ron Paul differs from his son is that Rand Paul says he would have voted for an official declaration of war, not to hand over war powers to the president. Ron Paul wouldn't have even done that.

 

[Public'sTwin]

The question is not so much how human rights relate to logic, but how logic relates to human rights.

I knew you'd say that.

</wanders over to TJAW>

 

[Joel]

Human rights are subjective IMO.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Human rights are subjective IMO.

*flees to Monaco*

 

[Joel]

*flees to Monaco*

Yay! No Taxes!!! But then no OHIP.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Yay! No Taxes!!! But then no OHIP.

OHIP didn't cover my dental or optometrist bills, anyway.

</END offtopicness.>

 

[FoolKiller]

Human rights are subjective IMO.

So the wrongness of slavery or murder is subjective? Meaning that if someone doesn't see it as a rights violation, then it is fine for them to do it?

 

[Dotini]

We already ****ed up hard by going in, and now it seems like we want to delay the inevitable just like how we've handled economic corrections for the past 80 years.

Omnis has got it right. These are the two biggest issues of our times, and the proper focus of all Libertarians and Paleos. Nothing else matters much when you are fighting and broke.

 

[FoolKiller]

Another example of how the private industry does thinsg significantly better than government: Your kids would have less of a chance of getting food poisoning if their school replaced the cafeteria with KFC and McDonald's.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-12-08-school-lunch-standards_N.htm

Fast-food standards for meat top those for school lunches
By Peter Eisler, Blake Morrison and Anthony DeBarros, USA TODAY

In the past three years, the government has provided the nation's schools with millions of pounds of beef and chicken that wouldn't meet the quality or safety standards of many fast-food restaurants, from Jack in the Box and other burger places to chicken chains such as KFC, a USA TODAY investigation found.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says the meat it buys for the National School Lunch Program "meets or exceeds standards in commercial products."

That isn't always the case. McDonald's, Burger King and Costco, for instance, are far more rigorous in checking for bacteria and dangerous pathogens. They test the ground beef they buy five to 10 times more often than the USDA tests beef made for schools during a typical production day.

And the limits Jack in the Box and other big retailers set for certain bacteria in their burgers are up to 10 times more stringent than what the USDA sets for school beef.

For chicken, the USDA has supplied schools with thousands of tons of meat from old birds that might otherwise go to compost or pet food. Called "spent hens" because they're past their egg-laying prime, the chickens don't pass muster with Colonel Sanders— KFC won't buy them — and they don't pass the soup test, either. The Campbell Soup Company says it stopped using them a decade ago based on "quality considerations."

Makes you wonder how the classrooms compare.

 

[Joel]

Another example of how the private industry does thinsg significantly better than government: Your kids would have less of a chance of getting food poisoning if their school replaced the cafeteria with KFC and McDonald's.


Makes you wonder how the classrooms compare.

I can say from first hand experience, (Canadian high school, it's the same 🤬 different pile) That the cafeteria food is absolute GARBAGE. It's sad when Mcdonalds has better fries, and KFC has better chicken. I don't understand why they can't make a case by case thing.

My school is in an area that is basically all farming. We have 3 local butchers, and even M&M meat shop would be better than the crap at the school. There's chicken farmers, all kinds of stuff. I don't understand why they buy garbage made in a factory in Toronto, instead of good quality meat in the town. I'd gladly pay 4$ for a good burger at school than the 2.75 we pay for absolute trash. Whatever, I'll pack my own lunch.


I don't agree with you on the private classrooms though. Personally, I find that when done properly, Public school can be perfect. My school is the only catholic high school in the area, and has around 1200 students. Due to it getting all of the board's catholic high school money, it's loaded. TV in every room, smartboards in every room, huge library, Mac lab with 24 G5 imacs (being upgraded this summer), TV broadcasting studio (does the morning announcements), Big stage, fully stocked art room, music room, computer technology room, cosmotology (class to learn how to professionally do hair and nails and stuff like that), state of the art shop classes,all kinds of stuff. I see the flip side of the equation in the secular board. The secular board has a school in every town, so money is stretched thin, and the schools are absolute garbage.


In addition, this is my biggest issue with private schools. There are reports surfacing of private schools basically giving out free marks.

Link to an article right here. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/06/can-high-school-grades-be-trusted/

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't agree with you on the private classrooms though. Personally, I find that when done properly, Public school can be perfect. My school is the only catholic high school in the area, and has around 1200 students.

Wait, maybe I am confused. Are you saying your Catholic high school is publicly funded? No Catholic high schools I know of in the US get public funding. Nor do I think they have any kind of local board handing out money. If they do Louisville, KY still has many private Catholic institutions, all of which do better than public schools in their same region.

The main problem is that public schools often do not do it properly.

As for the quality of private schools, I went to college and met kids that went to private schools and already had enough credits earned from high school AP courses to technically be a Sophomore. I had a friend that switched to private-based home schooling and she was a full year behind the curriculum and had to double up and catch up within a year.

Then there is the fact that very often private schools get these results for less money per student than public schools. To see a sample of this from a test case simply look at the DC Voucher program that the Obama Administration killed off to appeas teachers' unons.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/06/vouchers-vs-the-district-with-more-money-than-god/
$26,555 per student in DC public schools.
An average of less than $6,000 per student in the voucher program.

Results showed students were getting equal or better results in the classroom and parents enjoyed the safer school conditions.

 

[Joel]

Wait, maybe I am confused. Are you saying your Catholic high school is publicly funded? No Catholic high schools I know of in the US get public funding. Nor do I think they have any kind of local board handing out money. If they do Louisville, KY still has many private Catholic institutions, all of which do better than public schools in their same region.

The main problem is that public schools often do not do it properly.

As for the quality of private schools, I went to college and met kids that went to private schools and already had enough credits earned from high school AP courses to technically be a Sophomore. I had a friend that switched to private-based home schooling and she was a full year behind the curriculum and had to double up and catch up within a year.

Then there is the fact that very often private schools get these results for less money per student than public schools. To see a sample of this from a test case simply look at the DC Voucher program that the Obama Administration killed off to appeas teachers' unons.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/06/vouchers-vs-the-district-with-more-money-than-god/
$26,555 per student in DC public schools.
An average of less than $6,000 per student in the voucher program.

Results showed students were getting equal or better results in the classroom and parents enjoyed the safer school conditions.

Yes, my school is publicly funded. The school board gets X (roughly 95 million CAD or so) number of dollars from the Ministry of Education, and then dishes out money to the different schools (elementary & secondary). And I was wrong about it being the only catholic HS in the board. There's 3, but regardless, it's a phenomenal school.

A good indicator for the school's success is standardized tests. The secular board passes around 75-80% of students in the Literacy test we take in Grade 10. My school passes 91-92% of students. If you take out the kids who went to the secular board for K-8, the pass rate is around 98%

 

[niky]

The main problem is that public schools often do not do it properly.

...

$26,555 per student in DC public schools.
An average of less than $6,000 per student in the voucher program.

Results showed students were getting equal or better results in the classroom and parents enjoyed the safer school conditions.

I'm not surprised.

I went to a state University, simply because its reputation as a producer of some of the best graduates in the land was unmatched by anything besides the best private schools.

Only after I enrolled did I realize they got this reputation by accepting only the best students and grinding them down in numbers to get only the "best-of-the-best" to take licensing boards. Teachers didn't show up. Others didn't give two 🤬's worth about student issues. The maintenance and facilities were horrible.

And to top it off... before I graduated, we had a little conference with the Chancellor. Turns out our Congress was paying twice our tuition per student in subsidies to keep our butts in school. Yeah. We paid 1/3rd what private school students paid, but the government subsidy meant that more money was being spent on our education than almost anywhere else. And it wasn't that much better than everywhere else.

Being a private school stockholder... (heh heh) I wish our government would take up the voucher idea, or try paying private schools to provide public service, instead. They've already made steps in the right direction by experimenting with using private school systems to administer some public elementaries... but they could save even more money by going all the way.

 

[Joel]

I have seen both ends of the publicly funded school. I've raved about my school enough, and it's awesome. But, i go the next town over, and the pass rates on standardized tests goes down 15-20%, and the schools are absolute 🤬. I don't agree with the Catholics on much, but they can educate, I'll give em that. In addition, I don't think that catholic schools should be publicly funded, but whatever. It's not going to change.

 

[Biggles]

Wait, maybe I am confused. Are you saying your Catholic high school is publicly funded? No Catholic high schools I know of in the US get public funding.

The existence of public funded Catholic schools in the province of Ontario is a consequence of needing to accommodate two distinct cultural, linguistic & religious peoples - the Roman Catholic French in "lower Canada" (present-day Quebec) & the Anglo Protestants in "Upper Canada" (present-day Ontario) - at the time of Canadian Confederation in the 1800s. The "Protestant" schools eventually became "secular", like U.S. public schools, while the Catholic schools retained their religious identity.

It was a arrangement typical of the pragmatic approach of British government, in contrast to the more ideological & rational approach embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Few people in Canada would defend the logic of continuing to extend public funding to Catholic schools in Ontario (known as "Separate Schools") in the present day, but any attempt to change the system now risks opening a can of worms that few politicians wish to deal with.

 

[Omnis]

Which is why Quebec should just secede and make everyone happier.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Which is why Quebec should just secede and make everyone happier.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't agree with the Catholics on much, but they can educate, I'll give em that.

...but then again, neither does he.

 

[FoolKiller]

...but then again, neither does he.

Based on personal experience I would say he has a point. My wife and I have been looking into Catholic schools (she's Catholic) for our soon to be born daughter. What I have found is that it truly is based on a school to school basis. Where the top notch schools are located appears to depend on the local population and how many private schools it can support.

Localy in Frankfort we only have an elementary school. After that students go public or move to a school in Lexington or Louisville. The elementary school in Frankfort is by far the worst private school I have found so far, but they are also cheaper. The curriculum itself is not much more advanced than the public schools, but the teachers are much more willing to work with parents and have a one on one relationship. We have personal benefit from the fact that my wife knows the majority of the teachers personally because she used to run the Religious Education Program (supplemental religious courses for public school members of the church) at her church.

But for about an extra $1,000 a year I am looking at schools closer to Louisville and Lexington and I see a huge difference. The curriculum is far above public schools, but there are more than 25 elementary and 9 high schools in the system. They have to compete. And that does not take into account the magnate school (you must test in) in the public system or the secular private schools as well. If these schools want money from parents they must show why they are worth it.

While being Catholic alone is not a sign of a good education, the fact that they operate as a private school will mean that they must offer something above public schools, whether it be a safer/less distracting environment, a religious eductaion for parents who want that (not all Catholic School students are Catholic though), or a better educational environment. This is why many people in the US think Catholics can teach well. Fact is, I know many of the schools have some non-Catholic teachers.

 

[Dotini]

Human rights are subjective IMO.

Human rights arise as a virtue of citizenship. Citizenship is the right to have rights. E.g., Palestinians have no human rights because they are stateless.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[FoolKiller]

Human rights arise as a virtue of citizenship.

Human rights are inalienable. They are called human rights because you have them for being human.

Legal rights are a virtue of citizenship. Huge difference.

 

[Dotini]

Why then do some people not enjoy human rights?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini