Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[FoolKiller]

And are you sure that doctors would donate their time, companies resources etc.

I am, because there are doctors all over that do it right now, at a loss of profit to their private practice. The biggest organization for this in my state is called Health Kentucky.

There are also prescription assistance programs (PAPs) run by the pharmaceutical companies for those who are underprivileged and/or lack adequate insurance coverage. Again, at a cost to their profits.

So, yes, I am sure they would donate their time and resources. They do it now.

Companies doesn't even work like that anyways. They want to get profits, not to do charity.

See above.

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.

See above.

They doesn't for example give them in Africa where they need medicines because they cannot pay.

International trade and politics plays a very large role. We could end Malaria in Africa, but the UN won't allow the necessary chemicals to be used.

And PHARMa is donating drugs, but if course they get attacked in the media for that too. They aren't 100% where they should be! fighting generic drug introductions, but they are donating to Africa.

And I don't think that government provided services are always badly done.

I work for the government. It takes over a month, and eight signatures, just to buy envelopes. Compared to my work in private industry, this is the most inefficient, sloppily organized, and horribly planned system in existence.

EDIT: I forgot that I saw this and wanted to post it.

 

[Keef]

Oh, and I also think a law should be implemented requiring the headlights of all new (as of whatever date) road-legal vehicles to be no more than a certain distance above the ground, based on the average of the mid-size sedan class of cars as of whatever other date. So basically, look at an Accord right now - I think all headlights, factory or aftermarket, for use on the road should be no higher off the ground than that. That means that all current trucks' headlights are about two feet too high. But the law would only affect the design of future trucks.

It's a serious safety hazard. Most trucks' headlights are positively blinding to anybody who isn't in a truck themselves. As a person who has been taught about how the eyes work at night and who takes precautions to protect my night vision during night flights, I'm very aware of how dangerous having blinding lights of all sorts beaming you in the eyes while driving at night actually is. As far as I can tell it's a crap shoot - the fact that blinded drivers aren't careening into each other at night one after the other is a miracle in my mind. Probably a factor of reduced traffic at night.

So yeah, I'm not a perfect libertarian. Most of my authoritarian angst is aimed at the road network and science of driving in the US. So much of it is designed so poorly and is so dangerous it's just ****ing appalling to me. Driver training is where the overhaul needs to start but it also needs to include changes in infrastructure as well.

 

[Foxhound93]

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

If it is happening in US it doesn't mean that itr will happen ewerywhere else.

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

But the possibility of lack of money to get in school and proceed in your life. Charity might solve this. But will it do it for all who need help? Maybe. Maybe not.

They will, they do.

Ok, they do but will it be enough for all needs. This would be difficult especially in poor countries.

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

Yes. I am one of them, but I donate outside my own country. I don't have to donate my own country because there is no need for that. Everyone is taken care of.

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.

I admit that that is impressive. But they are international companies so that should also be spread rather widely. And still we have all those poor people all over the world... Of course corrupted governments plays a role in this which is an issue...

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

I disagree if there is good reason for that. But that is your opinion, go ahead! It is our freedom after all


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

They still can't do whatever they want because they have limited resources, other targets and sometimes profit targets set by governments. Yeah, I claim that they doesn't need to do profits in last post but what I really meant that they haven't to do profits for investors. If they have to achieve targets, they have to be efficient enough. Otherwise all public services would be bought by government from private companies but it is not always happening here.

I am, because there are doctors all over that do it right now, at a loss of profit to their private practice. The biggest organization for this in my state is called Health Kentucky.

There are also prescription assistance programs (PAPs) run by the pharmaceutical companies for those who are underprivileged and/or lack adequate insurance coverage. Again, at a cost to their profits.

So, yes, I am sure they would donate their time and resources. They do it now.

And while they donate their time and resources, is there any guarantee that it is enough for all who need help? There is still a lot of people who need these services but haven't access to them. Mainly in Africa. Government ruled systems have on the other hand proven themselves over the years in Scandinavia for example.


International trade and politics plays a very large role. We could end Malaria in Africa, but the UN won't allow the necessary chemicals to be used.

And PHARMa is donating drugs, but if course they get attacked in the media for that too. They aren't 100% where they should be! fighting generic drug introductions, but they are donating to Africa.


I work for the government. It takes over a month, and eight signatures, just to buy envelopes. Compared to my work in private industry, this is the most inefficient, sloppily organized, and horribly planned system in existence.

Again, if the system doesn't work well there what prevents it working better somewhere else. I have been working for government too and never had bigger issues with it. And private corporations can be inefficient too.

Replies inside quotes because I can't do it better

Anyways I will say that government provided healthcare etc. is currently working (if it is implemented well!) whereas relying only on private sector with charity might let poor people in difficult situation. There is no proof that it would work, or that's how I see it. And when this is the situation, why fix something when it is not broken especially when fixing would likely result on worse system what we already had.

 

[FoolKiller]

Replies inside quotes because I can't do it better

This is how quote tags work around the parts you want to separately quote.

And while they donate their time and resources, is there any guarantee that it is enough for all who need help?

No, because we have a workforce issue in the US right now. In the next few years we expect 60% more doctors to retire than graduate from medical school.

But how would a government run system fix that? Create forced slave doctors?

There is still a lot of people who need these services but haven't access to them. Mainly in Africa.

Yes, certain areas don't have the number of doctors they need, because most doctors are people and want to live where the living conditions are better, but in the US we still have voluntary mobile clinics that visit those areas. We also have Doctors Without Borders that go to places like Africa.

The issue here is not enough doctors living in the area. People who live in the vicinity of a doctor are not denied access, eve in our private system. Again, how will government fix issue? Forced labor camps in needed areas?

You cannot justly force someone to enter a certain career or live and work in a certain region.

Government ruled systems have on the other hand proven themselves over the years in Scandinavia for example.

Since you keep mentioning Africa, how has Scandinavia's system fixed that?

Again, if the system doesn't work well there what prevents it working better somewhere else.

Interesting question. Apply it to your Scandinavia example. Government run healthcare works well there (except for forcing certain parts of the population to pay for others...you know, because it isn't actually free) but what means it will work well somewhere else?

I have been working for government too and never had bigger issues with it. And private corporations can be inefficient too.

I've worked in both. I have never felt less productive than I do in my government job. If you repeatedly screw up in private industry you fail and cease to exist as a business. Screw up repeatedly in government and they throw more taxpayer money at you to fix it.

See, here is the issue I see with government run systems: it is charity at gunpoint.

 

[Danoff]

If it is happening in US it doesn't mean that itr will happen ewerywhere else.

I wonder why it's happening in the US...

But the possibility of lack of money to get in school and proceed in your life.

I paid my way through school by working.

Ok, they do but will it be enough for all needs. This would be difficult especially in poor countries.

Don't know, but it's the only moral thing we have.

Yes. I am one of them, but I donate outside my own country. I don't have to donate my own country because there is no need for that. Everyone is taken care of.

In otherwords, socialism leads to reduced charity. You're charitable when you know that people aren't being given money by the government.

I admit that that is impressive. But they are international companies so that should also be spread rather widely. And still we have all those poor people all over the world... Of course corrupted governments plays a role in this which is an issue...

I'll take that as an apology for assuming that companies don't contribute to charity and only chase profits.

I disagree if there is good reason for that. But that is your opinion, go ahead! It is our freedom after all

It's not an opinion. The fact that it is immoral to force one person to pay for another is rooted in logic alone.

They still can't do whatever they want because they have limited resources, other targets and sometimes profit targets set by governments. Yeah, I claim that they doesn't need to do profits in last post but what I really meant that they haven't to do profits for investors. If they have to achieve targets, they have to be efficient enough. Otherwise all public services would be bought by government from private companies but it is not always happening here.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. There is a drive toward efficiency in private companies. In government, there is no motive for efficiency.

 

[squadops]

My step mother is a DDS, she came from a conservative family with more than enough money I would say. She made some wrong choices when young and when my father met her, he paid her way through school.

Just a bit of background is all, my point is she is very successful now and most importantly travels every year to south america into places most would fear to tread. She fixes teeth for free and villagers run to her, if they can't, she goes to them. The pictures of her travels she has shown me paint a thousand words.

I've never seen her give like that to the U.S. populous. In agreement with Danoff on this one.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

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.

That's probably because the curriculum is being set to appease the needs of every focus group and stakeholder in the process of education. Except, of course, for the students. And all of this can be traced back to the bloody PISA World Rankings (which assess quality of education based on literacy and numeracy), and politicians who have no understanding of what they are and how they are actually calculated. We currently have a national assessment programme called NAPLAN, which is designed to regularly assess the literacy and numeracy of students. And that's fine if all you want to do is figure out how your students compare to the rest of the nation. But then the politicians have the bright idea of tying education funding to NAPLAN outcomes, and the whole thing turns into a competition between schools simply because the PISA rankings say our country has fallen behind Estonia or some other country that took the time to put in place an actual curriculum development programme and are now reaping the rewards. And here we are, throwing students at standardised tests that only develop their most basic thinking skills.

 

[Foxhound93]

No, because we have a workforce issue in the US right now. In the next few years we expect 60% more doctors to retire than graduate from medical school.

But how would a government run system fix that? Create forced slave doctors?


Yes, certain areas don't have the number of doctors they need, because most doctors are people and want to live where the living conditions are better, but in the US we still have voluntary mobile clinics that visit those areas. We also have Doctors Without Borders that go to places like Africa.

The issue here is not enough doctors living in the area. People who live in the vicinity of a doctor are not denied access, eve in our private system. Again, how will government fix issue? Forced labor camps in needed areas?

Of course you can't force doctors to work. But how libertarism would fix that? How to fix this issue is to make the job attractive. In Africa I bet that there would be willing local people to work as doctors if there would be free education and fair salaries.

Interesting question. Apply it to your Scandinavia example. Government run healthcare works well there (except for forcing certain parts of the population to pay for others...you know, because it isn't actually free) but what means it will work well somewhere else?


I've worked in both. I have never felt less productive than I do in my government job. If you repeatedly screw up in private industry you fail and cease to exist as a business. Screw up repeatedly in government and they throw more taxpayer money at you to fix it.

See, here is the issue I see with government run systems: it is charity at gunpoint.

If a system works in one place, it has potential and has good chances that it will work somewhere else if it is done properly. Libertarist system on the other hand...

I don't see how it is charity at gunpoint. If you don't want to pay higher taxes, dont have such high income And when you get income, there is always government and other people involved: goods are transported via roads, airports, seaports; there is educated labour etc. Also that is one of the reason why it works: the system gets money from all people instead of some random donations. If it is fair or not... I would say it is because income is not related to how hard you actually work or how much wealth you create. If everyone would get about same income relative to their work it is a different story but that would be possible only in communism which has its own issues.

I see issue with private industry only-systems: there is nothing protecting human rights.

And again your government job is irrelevant because it doesn't apply everywhere. On the other hand if you screw up in government business, there is also other options than only throw money there... For example it can be shut down or sold to private owners. There is also issues when private companies goes bankrupt. Who will clean their mess if a mine fails for example?

I wonder why it's happening in the US...

Me too.

I paid my way through school by working.


Don't know, but it's the only moral thing we have.

Did you work so you can get to primary school?

Only moral thing we can do? I doubt so...

In otherwords, socialism leads to reduced charity. You're charitable when you know that people aren't being given money by the government.

I'll take that as an apology for assuming that companies don't contribute to charity and only chase profits.

What is your point? Why there would be need for charity if the system takes care of people? And then we can dotate for those outside our country who really needs help anyways. And how it reduces charity? Because we have to pay taxes? But then i would have to pay if I want to use roads, schools, health care etc. so I probably would have even less money to donate. And where I did say that government should give money to people

As for apology, it is more like an apology because I didn't wrote what I meant. I know that certain companies do charity. What I meant that their main goal is not to do charity but profits and if they do profits by selling something are they willing to give it free for someone at the same time. Apparently it is happening and what I didn't know was the scale of sums given.

It's not an opinion. The fact that it is immoral to force one person to pay for another is rooted in logic alone.

But isn't it immoral to ignore human rights? Do you really force people to pay for another, because if you don't want to pay, you can always ask for smaller salary? Is it wrong when most citizens think it is OK to pay taxes for providing services? Even if someone doesn't want that, he/she still is pretty much dependant on other citizens and public infrasructure. Do you realise that morality questions is not always black/white? Saying them as facts are completely nonsense. And can you show some of that "logic" you are suggesting?

I have no idea what you're trying to say. There is a drive toward efficiency in private companies. In government, there is no motive for efficiency.

When there is limited resources and a target to achieve (lets say that healing people for example -- for private companies the target is to achieve profits) doesn't that drive towards efficiency? And there is also companies which are mostly funded and operated by governments but also parly owned by private investors (or fully state owned enterprises which chases profits). Some railroad companies for example. But they chase profits among with other purposes so it is somewhat irrelevant in health care and similar services... But anyways government doesn't equal inefficient in all cases.

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course you can't force doctors to work. But how libertarism would fix that? How to fix this issue is to make the job attractive.

Private healthcare does make the job look attractive. Doctors are rich, drive fancy cars, bang the newest young nurses, and have tons of respect. How do you make the job attractive by saying giving him more is unfair or taxing him twice as much if he makes more money?

In Africa I bet that there would be willing local people to work as doctors if there would be free education and fair salaries.

Don't forget resources. You gotta have resources. How many schools does Oprah have to open before it fixes the problem? Maybe it helps if you can use what is around you to produce something of value. Desert nations don't have a lot of that.

As for free education; the US has a program that does that if doctors move into underserved areas. And we still have a problem. It's even worse because as soon as they work the specified amount of time as agreed to they leave. Huh, I guess even free education and a fair salary (they still get paid well) isn't enough. I wonder if it's because it is a crappy place to live.

But hey, free education will make tons of doctors want to work in the desert, battling Ebola, HIV/AIDS, malaria, small pox, and various other deadly diseases while being threatened by warlords.

It is also important to note that there have been increased retirements in healthcare due to the government's new regulations.

If a system works in one place, it has potential and has good chances that it will work somewhere else if it is done properly.

Or equally not. Our issue here are some federal mandated school curriculums. What works in LA doesn't work in a Kentucky.
And as someone with major health issues, I see private healthcare working fine, only becoming an issue when government interjects. Hey if a system works in one place, it has potential and has good chances that it will work somewhere else if it is done properly, right?

Libertarist system on the other hand...

Open-ended sentence. What do you mean, or do you not have evidence to back up your view against libertarian ideals?

I don't see how it is charity at gunpoint.

Only pay for what you agree with. Let me know how it goes.

If you don't want to pay higher taxes, dont have such high income

So ridiculous. Don't have higher income if you don't want to pay taxes. Don't work if you want the government to pay you. Hey, I got an idea. I'll use my health to claim disability and use @Danoff's money to buy my food and shelter.

And when you get income, there is always government and other people involved:

At one time there was always slavery. It doesn't make it right.

goods are transported via roads, airports, seaports; there is educated labour etc.

All of which can be private. My daughter goes to private school. No government money is helping her get educated....and she is three years ahead of the local public schools.

income is not related to how hard you actually work or how much wealth you create.

I know. Those unions require everyone get the same pay raise, no matter if they are better at their job than others or not.

If everyone would get about same income relative to their work it is a different story but that would be possible only in communism which has its own issues.

How would being paid more for being better than others at your job be communism?

I see issue with private industry only-systems: there is nothing protecting human rights.

And this is where I believe you fail to understand libertarians. Government does have a place. To protect inalienable human rights, and that is it. You don't protect rights by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And again your government job is irrelevant because it doesn't apply everywhere.

Same goes for your Scandinavia example. See, you call anything you disagree with irrelevant elsewhere and the things you agree with universal.

On the other hand if you screw up in government business, there is also other options than only throw money there... For example it can be shut down or sold to private owners.

I'm trying to find out when this happened in the US...ever. I can think of the Postal Service and VA health system as to shining examples that need to be dealt with and just keep getting more money.

There is also issues when private companies goes bankrupt. Who will clean their mess if a mine fails for example?

No one. That's the beauty of it. You succeed or fail on your own merit. No handouts, no bailouts, no tax breaks. Only you.

 

[Danoff]

What is your point? Why there would be need for charity if the system takes care of people?

And how it reduces charity?

You answered this question above.

And where I did say that government should give money to people

Where did I say that you did?

As for apology, it is more like an apology because I didn't wrote what I meant. I know that certain companies do charity. What I meant that their main goal is not to do charity but profits and if they do profits by selling something are they willing to give it free for someone at the same time. Apparently it is happening and what I didn't know was the scale of sums given.

..and this has caused you to rethink your position on whether charity is capable of helping the poor.

But isn't it immoral to ignore human rights?

Yes.

Do you really force people to pay for another, because if you don't want to pay, you can always ask for smaller salary?

It is your right to trade goods and services with other individuals at agreed upon prices/quantities without someone else forcing their way in and taking part of it.

Is it wrong when most citizens think it is OK to pay taxes for providing services?

Yes. Consensus is irrelevant when it comes to rights.

Even if someone doesn't want that, he/she still is pretty much dependant on other citizens and public infrasructure.

"Dependent" is overstepping.

Do you realise that morality questions is not always black/white? Saying them as facts are completely nonsense. And can you show some of that "logic" you are suggesting?

See the human rights thread.

When there is limited resources and a target to achieve (lets say that healing people for example -- for private companies the target is to achieve profits) doesn't that drive towards efficiency?

No. Efficiency comes from aligning the target with personal gain.

But anyways government doesn't equal inefficient in all cases.

Yes. But sometimes it's the only option.

 

[KSaiyu]

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.

Nothing special here, as in your examples. I'm talking about a simple, balanced education. Is that a right for children?

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.

1. Would never happen.
2. Would never happen.

I think you answered the question.

-----

I have a hypothetical here..

Imagine a deaf couple want to have children. They see deafness as a gift, not a disability. They intentionally go to IVF clinics to select a embryo with a high probability of being deaf. What do libertarians make of this?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What do libertarians make of this?

Well, my first question would be "why do you continue to assume that all libertarians dream of a society with unlimited personal freedoms, when everyone in this discussion who subscribes to libertarianism repeatedly said and demonstrated that they support a *greater* degree of personal freedoms, *not* that they support unlimited personal freedoms?" and I'd take it from there.

You have repeatedly tried to discredit libertarianism by presenting a series of extreme hypothetical scenarios, then tried to put us in a position where we come across as unstable/immoral/selfish if we agree with it, and hypocritical if we don't. Now, if I really wanted to, I could depict your political inclinations as dangerously counter-productive, but I'm not going to because a) it doesn't require much imagination, and b) you're doing a better job of it than I ever could.

Now, at the risk of presenting an argument that you will ignore because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what libertarians believe, allow me to illustrate my point with an example: a senior conservative political figure said today that defacto couples should consider marriage for the sake of their children (if they have them), because marriage promotes stability, and stability is in the interests of the children. The libertarian response to this would be "trust us to know what is good for our children, since we're the ones raising them". If you would like an example of this in action, get on YouTube (I can't post the link, as I'm on a mobile) and search for Carrie Bickmore's response to Liberal senator Cory Bernardi's claims that anything but the traditional family structure will invariably lead to the corruption of any children living within that family.

 

[KSaiyu]

Well, my first question would be "why do you continue to assume that all libertarians dream of a society with unlimited personal freedoms, when everyone in this discussion who subscribes to libertarianism repeatedly said and demonstrated that they support a *greater* degree of personal freedoms, *not* that they support unlimited personal freedoms?" and I'd take it from there.

I'm replying to each poster individually. For convenience I use "what would a libertarian do".

You have repeatedly tried to discredit libertarianism by presenting a series of extreme hypothetical scenarios, then tried to put us in a position where we come across as unstable/immoral/selfish if we agree with it, and hypocritical if we don't. Now, if I really wanted to, I could depict your political inclinations as dangerously counter-productive, but I'm not going to because a) it doesn't require much imagination, and b) you're doing a better job of it than I ever could.

The hypotheticals are actually based in reality, and used as appropriate responses to criticise libertarianism, or individual interpretations of it. I'm not trying to paint everything as black or white, rather exploring the limitations libertarians would agree on. For example on your last point on universal health care:

It IS available to everyone, regardless of their situation.

If that amount of care was available to everyone, regardless of their location, insurance plan, previous medical history at the same price in America then I will concede you have made your point about the future of universal health care in a libertarian society. Even then, would that be acceptable to other libertarians? Where (and how) is the consensus reached?

Now, at the risk of presenting an argument that you will ignore because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what libertarians believe, allow me to illustrate my point with an example: a senior conservative political figure said today that defacto couples should consider marriage for the sake of their children (if they have them), because marriage promotes stability, and stability is in the interests of the children. The libertarian response to this would be "trust us to know what is good for our children, since we're the ones raising them". If you would like an example of this in action, get on YouTube (I can't post the link, as I'm on a mobile) and search for Carrie Bickmore's response to Liberal senator Cory Bernardi's claims that anything but the traditional family structure will invariably lead to the corruption of any children living within that family.

That guy seems like an idiot. I believe marriage should be encouraged, but not forced. And certainly not by government. My aunt and uncle have raised a great family with their son having a stable marriage and a kid and their daughter becoming a successful make-up artist without ever being married. Meanwhile three of my other aunts have had kids during marriage but ended up divorced.

 

[BobK]

I'm talking about a simple, balanced education. Is that a right for children?

Not if it implies an obligation on the part of anybody other than the parents to provide it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Not if it implies an obligation on the part of anybody other than the parents to provide it.

Then you leave it open to extremism. If you want an analogy, think about our interventions in Iraq, Libya and our lack of in Syria. The disenfranchised will find something to cling onto and force feed it onto everyone else - you really think they'd limit it to their family? And who's going to stop them?

 

[Famine]

Then you leave it open to extremism.

And you don't with public schooling? I'm surprised you don't remember your own example...

The difference is that state or authority-led extremism in public schooling affects all children, not just the children of extremists.

 

[KSaiyu]

And you don't with public schooling? I'm surprised you don't remember your own example...

The difference is that state or authority-led extremism in public schooling affects all children, not just the children of extremists.

And who stopped them? We've come full circle to that example, except in a libertarian society who would be doing the checks?

 

[Famine]

And who stopped them? We've come full circle to that example, except in a libertarian society who would be doing the checks?

In Libertarian society who would be running the public schools?

Oh wait, no-one. No problem.

The difference is that state or authority-led extremism in public schooling affects all children, not just the children of extremists.

 

[BobK]

Then you leave it open to extremism. If you want an analogy, think about our interventions in Iraq, Libya and our lack of in Syria. The disenfranchised will find something to cling onto and force feed it onto everyone else - you really think they'd limit it to their family? And who's going to stop them?

What on Earth are you talking about? You asked if children had a right to an education, and I said, basically, "no". Not a right.

I can't begin to fathom what that has to do with intervention in Syria/Libya/Iraq.

Is it a Good Idea to educate children? Obviously, yes. Does this mean somebody should be forced to provide it, potentially at gunpoint? Of course not, because that would violate the would-be provider's rights.

Note further that parenting implies obligations towards the children on the part of the parents of those children.

I have obligations to my children.

You have obligations to your children.

I have no obligations to your children, nor you, mine.

 

[KSaiyu]

In Libertarian society who would be running the public schools?

Oh wait, no-one. No problem.

There would be no Operation Trojan Horse of private schools? Really..

What on Earth are you talking about? You asked if children had a right to an education, and I said, basically, "no". Not a right.

I can't begin to fathom what that has to do with intervention in Syria/Libya/Iraq.

Is it a Good Idea to educate children? Obviously, yes. Does this mean somebody should be forced to provide it, potentially at gunpoint? Of course not, because that would violate the would-be provider's rights.

Note further that parenting implies obligations towards the children on the part of the parents of those children.

I have obligations to my children.

You have obligations to your children.

I have no obligations to your children, nor you, mine.

The Syria, Libya and Iraq relevance is in showing what a power vacuum does.

Again we are seeing this perfect world mentality. Yes, we would have no obligations to other children in such a world. Such a world probably wouldn't have rapists and paedophiles but imaginary is imaginary. Parents will on occasion be worse than useless. To offhand those children by saying "I have no responsibility" is my biggest worry with libertarianism.

 

[Danoff]

I'm talking about a simple, balanced education. Is that a right for children?

A simple education is a right for children and must be provided by their guardian.

1. Would never happen.
2. Would never happen.

I think you answered the question.

Did you want to prosecute someone for something that can't be proven?

 

[KSaiyu]

A simple education is a right for children and must be provided by their guardian.

So.....home school.

Not good enough for me.

Did you want to prosecute someone for something that can't be proven?

Yes, if it's proven to raise the risk of life threatening conditions of those in your care.

 

[LeMansAid]

So.....home school.

Not good enough for me.

Home school, private school, public school. Not one but two of those would persist in all logic.

 

[Famine]

There would be no Operation Trojan Horse of private schools? Really..

It's hardly a trojan horse if it's the aim of the school... Remember, private education is opt-in.

Again we are seeing this perfect world mentality. Yes, we would have no obligations to other children in such a world. Such a world probably wouldn't have rapists and paedophiles but imaginary is imaginary. Parents will on occasion be worse than useless. To offhand those children by saying "I have no responsibility" is my biggest worry with libertarianism.

And that's exactly what happens NOW. The overwhelming majority of parents take no responsibility for their children's education and stuff them into the nearest state school oblivious to what they're being taught and by whom...

Yes, if it's proven to raise the risk of life threatening conditions of those in your care.

That would be proving "that the behaviour resulted in harm", which you rejected out of hand as "would never happen".

Let's ask the question again. Did you want to prosecute someone for something that can't be proven?

 

[Exorcet]

To offhand those children by saying "I have no responsibility" is my biggest worry with libertarianism.

Where it would be less of an issue than it is today since people would be more likely to take responsibility for things.

Today, it sometimes comes down to people thinking "government will do it" and then government arbitrarily decides "I have no responsibility for X,Y,Z" or "I think this is more important than that" while potentially wasting lots of time and money to reach that conclusion.

Not good enough for me.

Why should that matter? If it's not good enough for you, do something about for your case. Don't meddle with someone else.

 

[Danoff]

So.....home school.

No. The child can either by taught by the guardian or the guardian can find someone else to teach the child - whether there be compensation for it or not. Thresholds of learning would have to be met - basic reading and math skills for example. Fail to meet that and you get a case worker assigned who's job it is to determine whether you are abusing your child due to lack of education (I see this as a proper role of government).

 

[BobK]

So.....home school.

The parents are responsible for seeing to the education of their children. They are not obligated to do this themselves, they are free to contract it out to others (ie, a school).

Yes, if it's proven to raise the risk of life threatening conditions of those in your care.

Belting your kids into the back seat of your car and pulling out of your driveway increases the risk of them encountering a life-threatening condition. So clearly anyone transporting their kids in their car should have charges brought against them for manslaughter, by that logic.

 

[Foxhound93]

And this is where I believe you fail to understand libertarians. Government does have a place. To protect inalienable human rights, and that is it. You don't protect rights by robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Fine. There is one problem: human rights are relative term. Someone might see it different than others. For example, lets look at Universal Declaration of Human Rights presented by UN: Article 22. or 26.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a22
There is always a choice between different values and that is why we have democracy. Yes, social democracy (or whatever it is called in english) may conflict with right to personal property but libertarianism does conflict with some rights too. For example those two articles I mentioned.

Yes. Consensus is irrelevant when it comes to rights.

So we should ban social democratic party? I do morally wrong if I vote left-wing parties? But that wouldn't be democracy. And it would be against human rights in my opinion. Do you realize not everyone shares same wiews as you. There is no definite answer in what is human rights. And there will always be some conflict between people regardless of the system used, be it social democracy or libertarist system. Again, that is why we have democracy.

No. The child can either by taught by the guardian or the guardian can find someone else to teach the child - whether there be compensation for it or not. Thresholds of learning would have to be met - basic reading and math skills for example. Fail to meet that and you get a case worker assigned who's job it is to determine whether you are abusing your child due to lack of education (I see this as a proper role of government).

But what if the parent(s) is unable to provide that education or doesn't just care? If he/she is found guilty, what does that help apart from giving a motive to give education? Or what about when the guardian(s) dies? Who is taking the responsibility? Can you force someone such as grandma to do that?

 

[Danoff]

So we should ban social democratic party? I do morally wrong if I vote left-wing parties? But that wouldn't be democracy. And it would be against human rights in my opinion. Do you realize not everyone shares same wiews as you. There is no definite answer in what is human rights. And there will always be some conflict between people regardless of the system used, be it social democracy or libertarist system. Again, that is why we have democracy.

Nope. See signature. Rights are no subject to vote. The United States, for example, is a constitutionally limited republic with democratically elected representatives.

But what if the parent(s) is unable to provide that education or doesn't just care? If he/she is found guilty, what does that help apart from giving a motive to give education? Or what about when the guardian(s) dies? Who is taking the responsibility? Can you force someone such as grandma to do that?

All of these questions are already answered by guardianship laws right now. Just replace "education" with "food".

 

[Foxhound93]

Nope. See signature. Rights are no subject to vote. The United States, for example, is a constitutionally limited republic with democratically elected representatives.

Humans have rights and responsibilities. Some rights also are conflicting. You can't say that your wiew on human rights is somehow more "correct" than others. Of course I could say that I have a right for clean air to breathe. Don't drive petrol cars and generate energy with coal! Libertarism is not only acceptable system around here.

And I don't know what US guardianship laws contains.