Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[LeMansAid]

Driving on public highways is considered to be a privilege because the road is public property, and as such can be regulated as the governing authority sees fit.

Believe it or not, the conversation is somewhat extended from one that compared incest to drink driving (!!). Libertarians explaining that both should be universally allowed. I'm trying to work out what constitutes putting a rule in place. @Keef seems to suggest that what annoys him might be enough justification. I'll be genuinely interested to read thoughts on it.

 

[Keef]

Believe it or not, the conversation is somewhat extended from one that compared incest to drink driving (!!). Libertarians explaining that both should be universally allowed. I'm trying to work out what constitutes putting a rule in place. @Keef seems to suggest that what annoys him might be enough justification. I'll be genuinely interested to read thoughts on it.

I didn't suggest that, I just couldn't remember what my actual reason was at the time.

If the roads are public property as they are now then driving is a privilege. Rules may be set by the governing body as to how the roads are used. Taxes, fees or fines may be levied for the use and misuse of the system and its rules.

But there's a problem: Drunk driving is a crime. Speeding is not a crime. Running a red light is not a crime.

There should be rules set end enforced to promote the safe, quick and efficient travel purposed by the interstate system. Things such as speed limits are okay - they give people a ballpark of what speed they should be travelling at. I personally feel that speed limits on the interstate should generally be set higher and that people should be given more thorough training to improve their driving skills at various speeds and to improve their judgement skills. Also, rules such as "keep right except to pass" should be enforced as well. It currently isn't in Ohio and it results in a very inefficient system where some people who are either oblivious or full of themselves decide to camp in the passing lane, causing passing traffic to line up behind them and pissing everybody off.

I don't think I'm okay with people being fined monetarily for misusing the system, either. I think instead of fines, a clearer warning and penalty system on one's license would be better and more fair. Penalizing people for misusing the system is a good idea but how you penalize them will decide if they're more receptive and understanding or simply upset and disenfranchised. Excessive speeding could be penalized. Running red lights could be penalized. Drunk driving should be penalized. Currently, we throw people in jail for drunk driving. Why? They didn't hurt anybody. But let's say you're speeding, running a red light or drunk driving and then you crash into somebody. Now it becomes a contributing factor to the crime you committed when you ran into somebody, putting their life in danger, damaging their property, and destroying their liberty in that moment and in the period of time to come while they wait to get themselves and their property repaired.

@Omnis could tell you all about his ideas on how infrastructure such as roads might work better when owned and operated by private companies. Those companies would be charging usage fees and levying rules as well. But they couldn't charge you with crimes because they're not the police. This is an example of why acts like drunk driving shouldn't be a crime. It's not until you actually commit a legitimate crime which infringes somebody's rights and the justice system has to get involved that these rule breaches can be considered contributing factors. For example, your kids can run up and down the halls at Target all day long and they won't like it - they might even kick you out because it's against the rules. But it's not until your kids run into an old lady and she falls and breaks her leg that the cops show up. Basically the same thing on a privately owned road. Speed all you want, they'll penalize your license because you're breaking the rules, but it's not until you crash into something that the cops show up.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Keef Wouldn't that mean that the private company running the roads would have something to gain by not enforcing the rules? The more cars on the road there are, the more money they get. Taking a driver (and car) off the road would eat in to the fees they'd be paid. So if catching people doing the wrong thing reduces their earnings, why not do a double bunger and have very few monitoring the roads. Less money out, more money in. Wouldn't people quickly learn that they can do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone? Including annoying Keef.

 

[Exorcet]

If their road is a death trap who is going to pay to use it?

 

[Omnis]

Drunk driving, speeding, and red light running are all crimes.

Private infrastructure may have strict rules and operating standards that are agreed to by its users. You just have to have some imagination about what might reasonably occur. For instance, they may have a pit/full-service station entrance to their highway to make sure all their cars have proper tire pressure, are gassed up, drivers are sober, etc. And if something happens they'll come rescue you. However, the penalties for negligence or recklessness could be severe. How many people would drive like idiots if they knew their houses could be taken away from them in the event of an accident? They won't let people drive like idiots because it would ruin their reputation as a safe, fast, efficient roadway. If you drive like an idiot, breaking the agreement, you could be handed a nice fat bill once you exit the roadway, if you're not pulled over and towed to the nearest exit beforehand. You have to have some imagination for the good that people are capable of. It is not reasonable to let your imagination run wild and assume that the worst thing that could ever happen will be the norm just because it's a private society.

See Bruce Benson for more info

 

[LeMansAid]

If their road is a death trap who is going to pay to use it?

True, who in their right mind would drive if they were say 1881.20 times more likely to die than they are now? Surely no-one. Me? I'd only go as high as 58.01 times. Beyond that.... no way!!

As an Australian I would be willing to drive in Nepal, plenty of Norwegians may well even be willing to drive in Benin. Certainly many many people are very much driving in those countries right now.

 

[Exorcet]

True, who in their right mind would drive if they were say 1881.20 times more likely to die than they are now? Surely no-one. Me? I'd only go as high as 58.01 times. Beyond that.... no way!!

That's kind of what I was getting at. I don't think that having no limits would necessarily lead to max profit/user base. A road with lax standards just opens the market for a competing road with less lax standards and two separate groups of drivers as a result.

 

[GTsail]

Also, rules such as "keep right except to pass" should be enforced as well. It currently isn't in Ohio and it results in a very inefficient system where some people who are either oblivious or full of themselves decide to camp in the passing lane, causing passing traffic to line up behind them and pissing everybody off.

So, it should still be a crime to drive in the left lane, even if there are no other cars around?

Enforcing the rule at all times is ok?

A rule is a rule is a rule, always to be followed.

There should be rules set end enforced to promote the safe, quick and efficient travel purposed by the interstate system. Things such as speed limits are okay - they give people a ballpark of what speed they should be travelling at. I personally feel that speed limits on the interstate should generally be set higher and that people should be given more thorough training to improve their driving skills at various speeds and to improve their judgement skills.

So rules that promote safe, quick and efficient travel are ok.👍

Couldn't a rule against drunk driving also be considered a rule to promote safe travel?

And therefore rules against drunk driving would be ok?

Or is there a distinction between these two possible rules about driving that makes one ok, and the other excessive/un-necessary?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

So, it should still be a crime to drive in the left lane, even if there are no other cars around?

I'm curious if you read the whole post. Existing laws such as speeding and running lights do not ciminalize speeding and running lights under most circumstances. Drunk driving is a crime. It shouldn't be. It should be no different than speeding or running a light - a ticket and points on your license.

Couldn't a rule against drunk driving also be considered a rule to promote safe travel?

I said that it could be. But it shouldn't be a crime.

 

[GTsail]

Existing laws such as speeding and running lights do not ciminalize speeding and running lights under most circumstances. Drunk driving is a crime. It shouldn't be. It should be no different than speeding or running a light - a ticket and points on your license.

So a rule against drunk driving is ok, but our current penalty structure for drunk driving is too harsh?

What about after three citations for drunk driving, just more points on your license?

No additional penalties?


Ten citations? Just keep driving?


Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

I'm just not seeing how this doesn't steer (no pun intended) us back to what we have now.

Do you think that there should be minimum driving speeds?

I think that our government has not been very intelligent or creative with traffic rules, but it is the prerogative of the state to set rules for publicly owned roads.

 

[GTsail]

I think that our government has not been very intelligent or creative with traffic rules, but it is the prerogative of the state to set rules for publicly owned roads.

Well said:tup:

Sometimes, even governments (not always known for their intelligence) can improve the traffic rules.

Here in Massachusetts, about 10-15 years ago, they changed the law to allow "right-turns on red after a stop, if its safe to proceed". And then, at the same time, to indicate where you weren't allowed to turn-right on red, Massachusetts installed signs saying "No right on red". At first, Mass Dept of Motor Vehicles installed quite a few of these signs, but over time, all the un-necessary ones have been taken down, leaving only signs where it probably is best to wait for a light change before proceeding.

Before the law change, you would get a citation if you turned right after stopping at a red-light or after a stop sign. A lot of un-necessary waiting was encouraged.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Famine]

I don't think there should be speed limits either - they can be quite dangerous. There should be, at most, suggested maximum and suggested maximum in adverse weather conditions signage, including at corners on roads where, currently, it's legal to do the speed limit but not especially safe to do so.

A standard format for "this type of road" is useful too, to save on signage costs - we don't need it repeating that on a 3 lane motorway it's safe to travel at "x" in clear weather and "y" in inclement weather, except at roadworks and aged patches that don't meet current design standards, or on single carriageway built up areas near schools.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well said:tup:

Sometimes, even governments (not always known for their intelligence) can improve the traffic rules.

Here in Massachusetts, about 10-15 years ago, they changed the law to allow "right-turns on red after a stop, if its safe to proceed". And then, at the same time, to indicate where you weren't allowed to turn-right on red, Massachusetts installed signs saying "No right on red". At first, Mass Dept of Motor Vehicles installed quite a few of these signs, but over time, all the un-necessary ones have been taken down, leaving only signs where it probably is best to wait for a light change before proceeding.

Before the law change, you would get a citation if you turned right after stopping at a red-light or after a stop sign. A lot of un-necessary waiting was encouraged.

Respectfully,
GTsail

It's been like that in Kentucky as long as I can remember. Here I am beginning to see a lot more left turn arrows that flash yellow when the oncoming lane has a green light. That has cut down on a lot of unnecessary congestion.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's not all about charity.

Keep in mind that without public schools there would be higher demand for lower cost private schools. The reason private schools are almost exclusively religious, expensive, or both, is because there's no demand for a lower cost secular school when there's already a public school system that you've already paid for in your taxes. People will pay for expensive high class or religious private schools because they offer something different than what a public school offers. Nobody will pay even reasonably priced fees to send their kids to a private school that's similar to a public school.

I think there's a demand. See "academies" or "free schools" in the UK (I believe it's charter schools over in the US)

So would their ability to do more. Remember, ideally, you'd cut all the red tape. A free society is free. You'd be free to get with liked minded people, but a plot of land big enough to build a city on, ban guns on that land, build schools and hospitals, and make it so anyone you allowed to live there paid for the upkeep.

Charities could take whatever form they'd need to provide for others.

That's a definite upside.

Nope.

Charities could choose to take any slack left by the choices of the community, friends and family not to take up the slack.

That sounds even worse.

No, it would foster a better one as it fosters better communities.

If the USA is apparently the country closest to libertarian ideals, I beg to differ that it fosters better communities.

Value is not borne from rights. Newborns already have less protection in society than adults - for instance they cannot make decisions over their own healthcare nor sell their labour for a value they choose. These decisions are given to the adults responsible for them by proxy.

And if the adults who are responsible are irresponsible? Where is the line drawn in protecting the vulnerable vs protecting the rights of the responsible individual(s)?

The way ours currently does - most of the money from the government coffers comes from taxation.

How much does it cost you to visit a GP in America? Earlier this year, I had 1) a consultation about a large mole on my side, 2) minor surgery to remove it, 3) a second visit to have the stitches removed, and 4) pathology done on it to make sure it was nit cancerous (it wasn't). Altogether, it cost me about $50. And even then, I didn't pay up-front. I didn't even have to go to my health insurer.

Universal health care can and does work.

Was that treatment available to everyone, regardless of their situation. And you'll have to forgive me for being a little hesitant in believing universal health care would survive under libertarian rule after reading the arguments against the ACA.

In the case of my grandmother, the only child who isn't helping as she dies of cancer is my die hard liberal, socialist aunt who believes the government should control everything because free people won't be charitable. Very ironic how the person who can't be charitable is the one who thinks humans in general can't.

This is something I see in my work, and why I strongly believe the NHS isn't safe in a left leaning government's hands.

Charities would not be "running" health services. They'd be providing the means to obtain health services for people who didn't have those means.

And those people would have to rely on them. That burden would be colossal.

What country is the most charitable on Earth? The US (either by total dollars, or if you look up the World Giving Index 2013). Of sizable countries, which country's citizens are the most likely to identify with libertarian principles? I'd guess it's the US as well.

Yes the top scoring, but not even in the top ten for the percentage of the population who donate. Interestingly the entitlement capital of Europe (Greece) is one of the lowest ranking...

----

The principles may make a fine blueprint for creating a super nation, but I can't see them applying to the societies we actually live in. Expecting people to take such responsibility for themselves is impossible, if only because of human nature.

 

[Danoff]

The principles may make a fine blueprint for creating a super nation, but I can't see them applying to the societies we actually live in. Expecting people to take such responsibility for themselves is impossible, if only because of human nature.

The more socialist the nation, the less people will take care of themselves and the less they will be charitable. They being to rely on the crutches provided by the government in both cases.

 

[Famine]

That's a definite upside.

That sounds even worse.

Not sure how you can call the same thing good AND bad in two consecutive lines

If the USA is apparently the country closest to libertarian ideals, I beg to differ that it fosters better communities.

Really? Have you looked at the UK recently? Christ, we kill our next door neighbours because we don't like their hedge.

And if the adults who are responsible are irresponsible? Where is the line drawn in protecting the vulnerable vs protecting the rights of the responsible individual(s)?

I think you're a little bit confused here... the quote you're referencing applied to the current state of society, not a putative Libertarian one.

Expecting people to take such responsibility for themselves is impossible, if only because of human nature.

the notion currently engrained in us that we are owed and entitled, and that government exists to rule us (actually, more specifically, to rule other people - we're intelligent and don't need to stick to the rules we demand of other people) not to serve us.

 

[KSaiyu]

Not sure how you can call the same thing good AND bad in two consecutive lines

More power to charities good. Having a class of causes decided "unworthy" by the community and lumped over to charities who won't have an obligation to said causes - bad.

Really? Have you looked at the UK recently? Christ, we kill our next door neighbours because we don't like their hedge.

Yep. I'm thinking more Nordic or Asian countries as a comparison to the US though, and not the UK. Some communities, especially the asian put the native Brits to shame in this regard.

I think you're a little bit confused here... the quote you're referencing applied to the current state of society, not a putative Libertarian one.

I'm comparing what we have now to a libertarian future. Would those in power (that being those with the responsibility) have greater potential for possible harm since there could be less safeguards in place due to it infringing on their rights. An example would be smoking in a car with a child passenger.

the notion currently engrained in us that we are owed and entitled, and that government exists to rule us (actually, more specifically, to rule other people - we're intelligent and don't need to stick to the rules we demand of other people) not to serve us.

Both, I'd say. It's been my experience you can't underestimate how badly people want to be told what to do. How it manifests, and how often - that's the variety.

 

[Danoff]

If the USA is apparently the country closest to libertarian ideals, I beg to differ that it fosters better communities.

No the US is definitely not the closest country to libertarian ideals, it's just that the citizens of the US identify with those ideals more than others. In otherwords, it's what we here in the US like to delude ourselves into thinking we have.

More power to charities good. Having a class of causes decided "unworthy" by the community and lumped over to charities who won't have an obligation to said causes - bad.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

I'm comparing what we have now to a libertarian future. Would those in power (that being those with the responsibility) have greater potential for possible harm since there could be less safeguards in place due to it infringing on their rights. An example would be smoking in a car with a child passenger.

No. You don't get to harm someone else. Next question.

Both, I'd say. It's been my experience you can't underestimate how badly people want to be told what to do.

You can't underestimate how badly people need to be told "that's your problem".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Was that treatment available to everyone, regardless of their situation. And you'll have to forgive me for being a little hesitant in believing universal health care would survive under libertarian rule after reading the arguments against the ACA.

No, it wasn't available to everyone, regardless of their situation.

It IS available to everyone, regardless of their situation.

 

[Famine]

More power to charities good. Having a class of causes decided "unworthy" by the community and lumped over to charities who won't have an obligation to said causes - bad.

I also don't really know what you're talking about.

First line of defence for anyone is their family. The second line is their friends. The third line is their local community - which, as you point out, doesn't really exist any more because people have been made selfish through overprovision and entitlement. The last is charity. This applies now too - only people often add in a fifth line, "the government", and expect it to help often at the expense of charities.

I've no idea where you're getting classes of causes and community decisions of unworthiness from. And no-one has an obligation to any cause.

Yep. I'm thinking more Nordic or Asian countries as a comparison to the US though, and not the UK. Some communities, especially the asian put the native Brits to shame in this regard.

I'm struggling to think of many Asian countries not guilty of present-day gross human rights violations and corruption. I've got Japan and South Korea at the moment.

I'm comparing what we have now to a libertarian future.

Okay. That doesn't change the fact you were responding to a post about the present state of affairs with valid questions about how it's done now that wouldn't apply.

Would those in power (that being those with the responsibility) have greater potential for possible harm since there could be less safeguards in place due to it infringing on their rights. An example would be smoking in a car with a child passenger.

No. Rights do not allow you to harm others except for the protection of your own.

Both, I'd say. It's been my experience you can't underestimate how badly people want to be told what to do. How it manifests, and how often - that's the variety.

No, it doesn't really matter.

Adults aren't children and government aren't our parents. Adults are adults and government is our child - it exists to do what we tell it and we have the power to spank it when necessary.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm comparing what we have now to a libertarian future. Would those in power (that being those with the responsibility) have greater potential for possible harm since there could be less safeguards in place due to it infringing on their rights. An example would be smoking in a car with a child passenger.

Again, the problem with your argument is that you are assuming that with an increase in individual freedoms there will be less morality and more abuse.

Libertarianism does not suggest that freedoms are paramount and responsibilities can be forgotten. It never has, and it never will. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true, and that libertarians don't see responsibility as a liability.

You're making a purely conservative argument - that society cannot function without order, that the only order that promotes this is the existing order, and that anybody who disagrees with this order promotes anarchy. Everyone should therefore act in the interests of society, but in this case, "the interests of society" only benefit a select few - usually the conservatives.

 

[Dotini]

...a libertarian future.

Alas, there will never be a libertarian future. The US is a two-party system, currently Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians, by nobody's count ever exceed single digits. Currently the most powerful libertarian is Rand Paul, counting himself a Republican, sometimes referred to a conservatarian is order to boost his electability. Good libertarians can best be described as socially liberal, financially conservative, and anti-war. In all honesty, the best of us are a small cult of eggheads and paleo-conservatives.

 

[KSaiyu]

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

I'll use a real world example. A big news story this year in Britain has been the Trojan Horse plot by a group of Islamists to try and subvert the local education system of Birmingham and a few other areas. A letter (probably fake) was sent to authorities to alert them to the situation. Cue an investigation by the Department of Education, OFSTED and the police leading to a report criticising a whole lot of people.

Applying libertarian principles here, what happens for the children involved (muslim or not):

1. Their family. Likely to support a curriculum more islam orientated if they are muslims, or if they oppose it may try to find another school (see 4.).
2. Their friends. Under 18 so can't really do much.
3. Their community. See Family. Those who oppose such schools will be a small minority.
4. Charity. If you want a good, balanced education you can't turn to government since most of the families and the community have turned secular schools into faith schools by the back door. The demand is low for what you want so you have to hope a charity sees this as a worthy cause or sees potential for investment to create the school in the first place.

No. You don't get to harm someone else. Next question.

This is where I'm confused. Smoking has the risk of causing harm to the child, same as drink driving has a risk of causing harm. Do we ban one solely because it is proven to be detrimental to health?

You can't underestimate how badly people need to be told "that's your problem".

Yep, within reason.

Okay. That doesn't change the fact you were responding to a post about the present state of affairs with valid questions about how it's done now that wouldn't apply.

I'll admit, I don't understand. The "where is the line drawn" question was referring to what we have now compared to under libertarian ideals.

You're making a purely conservative argument - that society cannot function without order, that the only order that promotes this is the existing order, and that anybody who disagrees with this order promotes anarchy. Everyone should therefore act in the interests of society, but in this case, "the interests of society" only benefit a select few - usually the conservatives.

Not quite. I think there should be greater order than what a libertarian would want, but not what the current conservatives (at least in the UK) advocate.

 

[Danoff]

I'll use a real world example. A big news story this year in Britain has been the Trojan Horse plot by a group of Islamists to try and subvert the local education system of Birmingham and a few other areas. A letter (probably fake) was sent to authorities to alert them to the situation. Cue an investigation by the Department of Education, OFSTED and the police leading to a report criticising a whole lot of people.

Applying libertarian principles here, what happens for the children involved (muslim or not):

1. Their family. Likely to support a curriculum more islam orientated if they are muslims, or if they oppose it may try to find another school (see 4.).
2. Their friends. Under 18 so can't really do much.
3. Their community. See Family. Those who oppose such schools will be a small minority.
4. Charity. If you want a good, balanced education you can't turn to government since most of the families and the community have turned secular schools into faith schools by the back door. The demand is low for what you want so you have to hope a charity sees this as a worthy cause or sees potential for investment to create the school in the first place.

In a libertarian world there are no public schools, only private ones. If a teacher starts teaching propaganda, that teacher gets fired. In public schools if a teacher is not doing what they're supposed to do, that teacher doesn't get fired. If there is no demand for the lessons you want you child to be taught, you will have no options for schools and need to teach your child these lessons yourself. This part is no different in either society.

This is where I'm confused. Smoking has the risk of causing harm to the child, same as drink driving has a risk of causing harm. Do we ban one solely because it is proven to be detrimental to health?

If smoking is proven to have caused harm in a particular instance, the parent is prosecuted. If smoking is proven to ALWAYS cause harm, the parent cannot do it.

 

[Foxhound93]

In a libertarian world there are no public schools, only private ones. If a teacher starts teaching propaganda, that teacher gets fired. In public schools if a teacher is not doing what they're supposed to do, that teacher doesn't get fired. If there is no demand for the lessons you want you child to be taught, you will have no options for schools and need to teach your child these lessons yourself. This part is no different in either society.

How you come such conclusion that public schools teaches propaganda and private schools doesn't? (< I made that part little simplified but you get the idea, right?) Because I have almost opposite image of this.

I like some aspects of libertarian idea but there is some issues with it. Freedom is good thing of course. But I still think that there should be things such as free education and free/almost free health care. And the best way to keep them running is via taxation in my opinion. Especially health care is very expensive because it needs advanced equipment, well trained labour and medicines are expensive. Free education and health care would give everyone a realistic chance to have a good life, even those who haven't the best starting points for their lives.
If everything would be up to charity, there would be no quarantee for enough resources. And I don't think that there would be even nearly enough money for health care.

The system here in Finland works fairly well but I think government should use the taxation money only in necessary stuff, not things such as museums etc. They should run fully by private investments, sponsors and donations in my opinion.

After all, health care and almost free education makes my family life a lot easier and I can actually study in university. 👍

 

[KSaiyu]

In a libertarian world there are no public schools, only private ones. If a teacher starts teaching propaganda, that teacher gets fired. In public schools if a teacher is not doing what they're supposed to do, that teacher doesn't get fired. If there is no demand for the lessons you want you child to be taught, you will have no options for schools and need to teach your child these lessons yourself. This part is no different in either society.

Home schooling? That's really your suggestion if the community decides there is no demand for secular, balanced education?

If smoking is proven to have caused harm in a particular instance, the parent is prosecuted. If smoking is proven to ALWAYS cause harm, the parent cannot do it.

This is what I was trying to say. At the moment there is a movement to ban smoking in cars when children are passengers. Such a law would not be passed if Britain became libertarian tomorrow. You would be prosecuting the parent after the fact; an individual would have to prove their smoking related illness had come from the actions of the adult.

 

[Danoff]

How you come such conclusion that public schools teaches propaganda and private schools doesn't? (< I made that part little simplified but you get the idea, right?) Because I have almost opposite image of this.

I was referring to propaganda not desired by management. Both private and public schools engage in desired propaganda, but only public school protects teachers jobs if they go off the reservation.

But I still think that there should be things such as free education and free/almost free health care. And the best way to keep them running is via taxation in my opinion.

Aside from the immorality of taxing people to provide education and health care to others, government-run anything is usually badly done. Also there is no getting around economics. Take a valuable commodity and make it free (at point of sale) and what happens?

Especially health care is very expensive because it needs advanced equipment, well trained labour and medicines are expensive. Free education and health care would give everyone a realistic chance to have a good life, even those who haven't the best starting points for their lives.

Everyone is worried about the starting point. Starting points will always be different (because to do otherwise means to prevent parents from providing for their children). As long as rights are observed, everyone's starting point affords them the opportunity to succeed.

If everything would be up to charity, there would be no quarantee for enough resources. And I don't think that there would be even nearly enough money for health care.

If everything were up to charity, doctors would donate their time, companies would donate their resources - there doesn't necessarily need to be money raised to pay.

Home schooling? That's really your suggestion if the community decides there is no demand for secular, balanced education?

In any system, public, private, or a mix of the two, there is no other option to provide education that you want but that isn't being offered. This is the case right this second, and will always be the case in any system. In those scenarios, home schooling is required.

Let's say I want my daughter to learn the concept of recursion before she goes to college. Home school. Let's say I want my daughter to go on a field trip to Africa. Home school. Let's say I want my daughter to learn how to drive on ice. Home school. Let's say I want my daughter to learn how to fly a plane. Home school. Let's say I want my daughter to learn CPR. Home school. Let's say I want my daughter to learn what human rights are. Home school.

For many many subjects, probably for most subjects, it's up to parents to teach their children.

This is what I was trying to say. At the moment there is a movement to ban smoking in cars when children are passengers. Such a law would not be passed if Britain became libertarian tomorrow. You would be prosecuting the parent after the fact; an individual would have to prove their smoking related illness had come from the actions of the adult.

Two options:
1. Prove that the behavior resulted in harm, prosecute parent for harm.
2. Prove that the behavior always results in harm, prosecute the parent for behavior.

 

[Foxhound93]

I was referring to propaganda not desired by management. Both private and public schools engage in desired propaganda, but only public school protects teachers jobs if they go off the reservation.

That is not really happening here. If teachers doesn't do their job correctly, they will be fired if they can't change their bad habits. But that rarely is the case thanks to highly educated teachers. However i know some cases where teacher was switched in another position for bad habits.

When the rights are observed, how exactly we make sure that everyone gets a chance to success even from poor starting point? I would say it is a human right to be able to success but how it is provided in practice?

And are you sure that doctors would donate their time, companies resources etc. What if they don't? And besides, I just can not see that it would be enough to provide services those with poor luck. Not even nearly. Companies doesn't even work like that anyways. They want to get profits, not to do charity. How we provide expensive medicines to poor people? The companies which manufacturers them doesn't want to give them free because their business is based on paying customers. They doesn't for example give them in Africa where they need medicines because they cannot pay.

How is taxation immoral?

And I don't think that government provided services are always badly done. Is all the roads badly done. Some might be but not nearly all of them. Most main roads still are built by government. Well, here it is not necessarily by the government but by a company which is owned by our country. Government ruled services can have better efficiency because they haven't to make profits if they are made well. And I don't see why they couldn't if there is real will to make things properly. And there is always the possibility for government to buy services from private companies. In mass transit for example it works fine. Not always the best option though.

 

[Danoff]

That is not really happening here. If teachers doesn't do their job correctly, they will be fired if they can't change their bad habits. But that rarely is the case thanks to highly educated teachers. However i know some cases where teacher was switched in another position for bad habits.

In the US, public school teachers become almost impossible to fire after a short period of time.

When the rights are observed, how exactly we make sure that everyone gets a chance to success even from poor starting point? I would say it is a human right to be able to success but how it is provided in practice?

Unless your rights are being violated, there is nothing to stop you from being successful but yourself.

And are you sure that doctors would donate their time, companies resources etc. What if they don't?

They will, they do.

And besides, I just can not see that it would be enough to provide services those with poor luck. Not even nearly.

Then there will always be people who care about the poor luck story and help them with funds to buy what they need.

They want to get profits, not to do charity.

In 2012:

Wells Fargo Donated $315 Million
Walmart: $1B
Chevron: $250M
Pfizer: $3B
Goldman Sachs: $250M
Exxon: $213M
JP Morgan: $180M
Bank of America: $180M
GE: $161M
Target: $147M
Google: $1.1B

That's just the top 11.

How is taxation immoral?

It is immoral to force one person to pay for another.

And I don't think that government provided services are always badly done. Is all the roads badly done.

Government ruled services can have better efficiency because they haven't to make profits

Unfortunately they don't because they don't have to make profits.