Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[FoolKiller]

I'm interested to know how many people think Hillary is a warhawk.

That's not a hard conclusion to make when she wanted Obama to do more in Syria.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's certainly a possibility, not in the slightest is it idealized either. Where would the laws you want come from anyway? No one cares about morality, but supposedly laws would be passed to protect people?

Also, even if the hospital didn't care, news of poor performance from the doctor driving away patients is a good way to have the whole thing shut down.

Protection comes from mandatory registration to a professional body that requires its members to abide by ethical standards. Currently we have the GMC in the UK (in the US it's the state's Medical Board).

First post

How would you effectively police the schools so that they wouldn't incite a generation to breach another person's rights. You are expecting these schools to recognise a limit and regulate their teachers to teach hateful discrimination, but only up to a certain point? "Women are your possesions, and the jews are worse than you, but don't do anything about it m'kay".

Children should be entitled to more than basic communication and calculation from an education. They should have the right to have the tools necessary to function in society beyond their community, if they decide to. This would include protection from teaching that would effectively cost them the ability to recognise their rights and make informed decisions in the future. From the story I linked to earlier about food companies lobbying for pizza to be classified as "one of your 5 a day", imagine the possibility that for some of those kids school will be the only place to learn about a balanced diet. What do you think happens if they are told pizza is as nutritious as broccoli? As well as damage to their future health, you close off any exposure to basic nutritional needs. No they don't have a right to this, but it's my view that it should be in a government's powers to restrict certain freedoms for the benefit of the child.

Your quote of mine having a problem with "extremist agenda" teaching hardly backs up your assertion that I'm bouncing between religion and discrimination. If anything it shows religion is a non issue save for categorising more conveniently (the providers of such education in the UK are most likely to be muslim, whereas in the US it's probably fundamental Christians).

Post

While you admit you would have a problem with the outcome, your philosophy would provide less protection from it occurring in the first place. I still can't understand where this leaping to conclusions comes from, unless you want to argue that allowing schools to preach supremacist attitudes would somehow promote integration?

One of the ways people in this country find out about their rights is through their experiences in education, and employment. Having no legislation like the Equality Act or Race Relations Act will restrict certain individuals from becoming aware of those rights. Are such acts foolproof? No, and no act ever will be when it comes to protecting the rights we can universally agree on as they will be stacked in favour of the employee making it inherently "unequal", but a complete stripping of such acts would be a worse scenario that I'm puzzled no-one here can accept. It's a trade-off in freedoms.

Following from my example on not understanding each others logic (technically our differing conclusions vis a vis particular scenarios based on logical deductions; I fear this argument has evolved from my use of a colloquialism, i.e. "my logic" and "your logic") you then state that if it was on the basis of someone's say so it would be subjective and thus, not logic. This is not what I was debating - rather the fact that logic will have limitations when applied to a government's responsibilites and scope, and should be clearer following my admission of using the wrong word.

I know it's a nice idea to think that a voluntary registry body would take over the GMC, but not even America with their far more libertarian view on healthcare and more litigious medical culture would get rid of mandatory registration, for reasons that I would think are blindingly obvious. We could argue on this, but I'll leave it out of this reply. You ask why the CQC would go, but I wonder if you read my link earlier (America doesn't have a direct equivalent of the CQC).

Your final paragaph seems at odds with my direct question asking what would happen to those girls forced to attend a school similar in education policies to those materialising from Operation Trojan Horse (which you said would be legal). I struggle to see how this provides more protection for those without power?

Liability. I watched a law firm push out a 72 year old partner who was responsible for bringing in millions. Their top earner by far over the rest of the firm. But he was too old, too much of a liability, so he was forced to retire. The company did this voluntarily. I suppose you'll ignore this example and continue stating that it would never happen.

That is liability to the company. In a hospital in the libertarian world this would be the owners. There would be little thought of liability to the patients, as long as the bottom line showed the worker (in this case a doctor) was bringing in more than he was costing, or likely to lose. Even if said doctor was fired by this hospital once it was able to secure a less risky one, what stops a desperate hospital picking up the dangerous one at rock bottom value? There's only so far insurance, and the threat of litigation can go when it comes to protection from malpractice...

I know you didn't say that. But you think teachers should be equivalent to doctors. If that is so how is private tutoring different than unlicensed medical practicing?

If tutoring was the sole educational input the child has, very little.

------

It probably seems from my responses I want state schools and the NHS for all, and less privatisation. If anything I want our country to head towards more privatisation in the education and health sectors. This would free up the government to ensure there was a minimum standard for these providers, instead of carrying on a quixotic quest to create a unified service. The sense of entitlement is ridiculous at times; 40% of respondants disagree with the idea that the NHS should charge for missed appointments. People expect hotel service standards of care from providers with no clue on the budgets of hospital trusts. Changing, however to a government that would create thousands of uninsured patients and schools serving the needs of parents or shareholders ahead of children is not the answer to these problems.

 

[FoolKiller]

If tutoring was the sole educational input the child has, very little.

So, why would you allow private tutoring?

It probably seems from my responses I want state schools and the NHS for all, and less privatisation. If anything I want our country to head towards more privatisation in the education and health sectors. This would free up the government to ensure there was a minimum standard for these providers,

Your problem is that you want minimum standards on certain topics that might not mesh with the parents' religious or personal views. It should be the parents' say on those kinds of things. Not yours or the government's. Allowing government to set these standards is bad, bad, bad. All it takes is one charismatic leader, sporting a cool mustache, to convince the majority that certain things are proper that history will greatly frown upon. Anytime you put government in control of trying to create group think you open the door to one bad leader creating an atrocity.

It doesn't even have to be that extreme. My entire childhood I was told that anytime I see my parents doing something that society might frown upon I should tell them that it is wrong. This included not recycling, before we had a recycling program within 30 miles of our town. God only knows how often young, naïve me got on my dad for not turning the water off while shaving because I was taught that we would be out of fresh water before I was an adult. And I can only imagine how it came off to my dad when his son kept harping on him to not smoke because of how bad it was. I was too young to understand the implications of telling someone who worked at a cigarette factory that I hated what he produced because it was deadly. I basically went home to tell my dad that the food he put on our table was bought with blood money. And that "alcohol is a drug" BS they would beat me over the head with. Or how about the fact that when I was young we were taught that gay sex caused HIV/AIDS?

Or a modern example: I referred to someone as stupid after they did something that put my wife in tears. My daughter reacted as if I called them by the term I had in my head (starts with a C). I got a mini-lecture on how we shouldn't say stupid because it was mean. Due to some stupid school administrator's policy my daughter thinks that stupid is the worst thing that you can say about someone, and that I was worse than the 🤬 that made her mother cry. And then there is the case of the school sports that don't keep score.

Fact is, even in a private school I am seeing things that I want to address at the next school board meeting and make me want to join the PTO so that I can get a say in these kinds of decisions.


Whether you agree or disagree with the policies in my anecdotes does not matter. What matters is that there are guardians of the children involved that do not agree. In fact, different guardians of different kids may not agree. And these aren't the politically hot big issues. Now imagine when you start trying to impose those issues. Which guardian is right? Which societal choice is right?

 

[Danoff]

How would you effectively police the schools so that they wouldn't incite a generation to breach another person's rights. You are expecting these schools to recognise a limit and regulate their teachers to teach hateful discrimination, but only up to a certain point? "Women are your possesions, and the jews are worse than you, but don't do anything about it m'kay".

Supply and demand.

Children should be entitled to more than basic communication and calculation from an education. They should have the right to have the tools necessary to function in society beyond their community, if they decide to. This would include protection from teaching that would effectively cost them the ability to recognise their rights and make informed decisions in the future.

Ok, but your example above doesn't compromise that ability.

From the story I linked to earlier about food companies lobbying for pizza to be classified as "one of your 5 a day", imagine the possibility that for some of those kids school will be the only place to learn about a balanced diet. What do you think happens if they are told pizza is as nutritious as broccoli?

Parents would choose to send their kids to other schools. Right now, with public schools, that's not an option - so if a lobbyist gets that in place in a public school, parents have very few options.

That is liability to the company. In a hospital in the libertarian world this would be the owners. There would be little thought of liability to the patients,

I described a case to you where the company was concerned about liability to the customers. I also said you'd ignore it.

Even if said doctor was fired by this hospital once it was able to secure a less risky one, what stops a desperate hospital picking up the dangerous one at rock bottom value? There's only so far insurance, and the threat of litigation can go when it comes to protection from malpractice...

Really? Because it seems to be doing exactly what you say it won't do.

 

[Exorcet]

Protection comes from mandatory registration to a professional body that requires its members to abide by ethical standards. Currently we have the GMC in the UK (in the US it's the state's Medical Board).

The ethical standards arise from innate human concern on the issue, not because a group of people got together. That's what I was getting at. The company firing the doctor for being unethical (either because they don't like it or the patients don't like it) is as likely as the government passing laws against certain practices. You don't need direct government oversight everywhere to have a moral society.

Conversely, when it comes to making money, governments can be bribed and bought out, so the unethical doctor doesn't go away in a highly regulated society.

 

[Famine]

Protection comes from mandatory registration to a professional body that requires its members to abide by ethical standards.

No. But on the other hand...

Protection comes from registration to a professional body that requires its members to abide by ethical standards.

That's better. And no laws nor customer choices were harmed in the process.

 

[kennylmao]

I don't go into politics much because I don't have an interest for it. I always had the idea that liberals = freedom and conservatives = restriction, therefore I had always considered myself to be liberal because it's all about teh freedom!

After reading this, apparently I got it wrong. I was so confused when I read somewhere that the liberals want to take guns away from Americans, lol.

Going through that list, I don't know which side I stand as I support and oppose ideas from both sides.

 

[FoolKiller]

There are more than two names on the ballot.

 

[Famine]

I don't go into politics much because I don't have an interest for it. I always had the idea that liberals = freedom and conservatives = restriction, therefore I had always considered myself to be liberal because it's all about teh freedom!

After reading this, apparently I got it wrong. I was so confused when I read somewhere that the liberals want to take guns away from Americans, lol.

Going through that list, I don't know which side I stand as I support and oppose ideas from both sides.

Yeah, the problem is that none of that is true.

Conservatism is a description of a right-wing financial policy - social policy isn't part of it. The peak of right wing financial policy is the free market - the ultimate in financial freedom - but you can have liberal conservatives (Libertarians) who support social freedom too and fascist conservatives who support wide-ranging state control and social legislation. You might recognise the latter as every Western government there is (and most Western political parties).

What you describe as liberalism where they want to take away guns is more a fascistic social policy, that could be either conservative or socialist in nature, rather than liberalism.

You might want to have a look at the Political Compass, because it's not quite as simple as a single sliding scale...

 

[kennylmao]

Ahh as I expected, things aren't always black and white. Thanks for the explanation @Famine.

PS: I feel blessed and honored to receive a reply from The Great Famine.

 

[LeMansAid]

There are more than two names on the ballet.

It varies quite a lot. This one has none evident......

 

[FoolKiller]

It varies quite a lot. This one has none evident......

This new predictive text keyboard on my iPad is making me lazy.

 

[KSaiyu]

So, why would you allow private tutoring?

Because there's very little potential for immediate harm, as opposed to unlicensed medical practice.

Your problem is that you want minimum standards on certain topics that might not mesh with the parents' religious or personal views.

I don't see it as a problem when we are talking about discriminating against girls. Create a separate institution if you want segregation, but discrimination in the same class by teachers should not be allowed, either by professional obligations or law.

It should be the parents' say on those kinds of things. Not yours or the government's. Allowing government to set these standards is bad, bad, bad. All it takes is one charismatic leader, sporting a cool mustache, to convince the majority that certain things are proper that history will greatly frown upon. Anytime you put government in control of trying to create group think you open the door to one bad leader creating an atrocity.

There's a misunderstanding here. I'm for less "group think". The protections I'm advocating are minimal and therefore less likely than our current system for governmental abuse. For example my girlfriend received a letter from a parent requesting her children be withdrawn from "joint religious education" (where you learn about other faiths) and banned from all classes with musical instruments. I have no problem for the school making a decision to comply with the request (although it really sucks for the teacher who has to explain to a 5 year old why they can't play with the maracas like everyone else in the class). If, on the other hand the parent asked for her daughter to be put to the side of the class, forced to study in silence and learn on her own just because she is a girl then no, that's where a school should be required to deny the parent's wishes.

It doesn't even have to be that extreme. My entire childhood I was told that anytime I see my parents doing something that society might frown upon I should tell them that it is wrong. This included not recycling, before we had a recycling program within 30 miles of our town. God only knows how often young, naïve me got on my dad for not turning the water off while shaving because I was taught that we would be out of fresh water before I was an adult. And I can only imagine how it came off to my dad when his son kept harping on him to not smoke because of how bad it was. I was too young to understand the implications of telling someone who worked at a cigarette factory that I hated what he produced because it was deadly. I basically went home to tell my dad that the food he put on our table was bought with blood money. And that "alcohol is a drug" BS they would beat me over the head with. Or how about the fact that when I was young we were taught that gay sex caused HIV/AIDS?

These are all examples of things I wouldn't consider mandatory teaching (and shouldn't be regulated/enforced). I probably wouldn't even consider equality teaching a requisite for all schools (nor teaching equally: it makes sense for the child with greater potential to receive a different approach to the average child). The extent of regulation should purely be to maintain reasonable, basic standards.

And then there is the case of the school sports that don't keep score.

Weird, I thought this was a British phenomenon and far too "un-American" to happen over there. I moved from a "we are all equal" school to one that held their sports day at an athletics track. Beating my old school 5-1 in football was a great memory..

Whether you agree or disagree with the policies in my anecdotes does not matter. What matters is that there are guardians of the children involved that do not agree. In fact, different guardians of different kids may not agree. And these aren't the politically hot big issues. Now imagine when you start trying to impose those issues. Which guardian is right? Which societal choice is right?

Again, the imposition stemmed from discussing Operation Trojan Horse, and more specifically the mal-treatment of girls. I think we fail as a society if we don't have certain boundaries when dealing with vulnerable populations.

Supply and demand.

The demand is there in some communities unfortunately.

Ok, but your example above doesn't compromise that ability.

Which example?

Parents would choose to send their kids to other schools. Right now, with public schools, that's not an option - so if a lobbyist gets that in place in a public school, parents have very few options.

The vast majority of parents would (though that's debatable with our ridiculous obesity epidemic). I'm talking about bad parents. You know, the ones that forget to pick up their child from school weeks into the start of a term. Or the ones who send in their kids with a family size pack of oreos for lunch (Real examples, and tame for an inner-city school).

I described a case to you where the company was concerned about liability to the customers. I also said you'd ignore it.

Uhh, not ignore. You didn't specify he was a liability to customers, just that he was a liability.

Really? Because it seems to be doing exactly what you say it won't do.

Where's the proof of this? Both our countires require mandatory registration to a professional body - we don't rely only on insurance.

The ethical standards arise from innate human concern on the issue, not because a group of people got together. That's what I was getting at. The company firing the doctor for being unethical (either because they don't like it or the patients don't like it) is as likely as the government passing laws against certain practices. You don't need direct government oversight everywhere to have a moral society.

Conversely, when it comes to making money, governments can be bribed and bought out, so the unethical doctor doesn't go away in a highly regulated society.

See it's not really the government that maintains these standards, it's the bodies representing the professions. You are right about the origin of ethical standards, but the maintenance of these unfortunately necessitates some form of oversight.

Some recent examples from the UK:
The nurse who behaved inappropriately while working in a NICU. (Ethical)
The hapless doctor who prescibed the pill for someone trying to conceive. (Competence)

Now you could say legal protection would stop either from practising again, but can you guarantee someone, somewhere won't hire them? What's to stop them creating their own practice? Insurance costs can make you more unemployable, but it doesn't outright make you unemployable.

No. But on the other hand...That's better.

And the ones who don't sign up?

 

[Famine]

And the ones who don't sign up?

Cannot claim to be members.

 

[KSaiyu]

Cannot claim to be members.

Yeah....so? How is that protection for those using the service? Are we assuming there wouldn't be a market for those that don't sign up....

 

[Famine]

Yeah....so?

So members of the professional body can say they are and of course they're required to maintain the body's standards, while non-members cannot and are not.

How is that protection for those using the service?

It's not. Do you get Hyundai's warranty when you buy a Ford? Of course not, so why would you expect the 'protection' of a Hyundai warranty if you don't buy a Hyundai?

Are we assuming there wouldn't be a market for those that don't sign up....

Nope. We're not assuming anything, though I'd guess that there'd be a market for the probably-cheaper services of people who can't claim to be members of a professional body that maintains certain ethical and professional standards.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's not. Do you get Hyundai's warranty when you buy a Ford? Of course not, so why would you expect the 'protection' of a Hyundai warranty if you don't buy a Hyundai?

There is my problem. Healthcare isn't the same as buying a car. You should expect better protection depending on your provider (as in the Ford vs Hyundai example), but there should at least be a minimum standard.

 

[Famine]

There is my problem. Healthcare isn't the same as buying a car. You should expect better protection depending on your provider (as in the Ford vs Hyundai example), but there should at least be a minimum standard.

There's a minimum standard of vehicle warranty. It's based on competition for consumers - and some manufacturers offer more precisely to get more customers. No manufacturer offers zero warranty (maybe in some markets, this would actually happen) - and indeed none offers less than the industry standard.

Do you mean that there should be a minimum legal standard - and if so, why?

 

[Spurgy 777]

@Famine, are you saying that healthcare providers and schooling shouldn't be made to meet a minimum standard under law (even if the standard isn't set by the government)? Just trying to understand the discussion as I've lost track of it a bit.

 

[Famine]

@Famine, are you saying that healthcare providers and schooling shouldn't be made to meet a minimum standard under law (even if the standard isn't set by the government)?

Yes. Well, sort of.

Just trying to understand the discussion as I've lost track of it a bit.

You and me both!

The original discussion was about whether teaching should be a regulated occupation, with teachers required to teach to a curriculum set by whatever government is in power (opening it up to widespread state indoctrination with propaganda) and mandatory attendance (making it a criminal offence for parents to homeschool), with mandatory registration for all people involved in teaching (making it a criminal offence for parents to teach their children anything unless registered). Now... that doesn't sound so great to me.

I'm wholly happy for private institutions that form voluntary membership teaching bodies - unions, if you like - to have minimum standards for their members which can be legally enforced.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Yes. Well, sort of.You and me both!

The original discussion was about whether teaching should be a regulated occupation, with teachers required to teach to a curriculum set by whatever government is in power (opening it up to widespread state indoctrination with propaganda) and mandatory attendance (making it a criminal offence for parents to homeschool), with mandatory registration for all people involved in teaching (making it a criminal offence for parents to teach their children anything unless registered). Now... that doesn't sound so great to me.

I'm wholly happy for private institutions that form voluntary membership teaching bodies - unions, if you like - to have minimum standards for their members which can be legally enforced.

What if the minimum standard is set by a publicly regulated, independent body, and that it is compulsory for all teachers to meet that standard? Surely then government would have no influence over what is or isn't taught.

 

[Famine]

What if the minimum standard is set by a publicly regulated, independent body, and that it is compulsory for all teachers to meet that standard? Surely then government would have no influence over what is or isn't taught.

What about homeschooling - and I don't just mean children who are educated at home instead of at school, but things like teaching our 2 year old to read and count?

Why should parents be bound to that standard? If they aren't, why can they not choose to hire someone who is similarly not bound to that standard in the privacy of their own home? If they can, why can they not choose to hire several people who are similarly not bound to that standard on private premises - like a private school? If they can, what's the problem exactly?

 

[Danoff]

What if the minimum standard is set by a publicly regulated, independent body, and that it is compulsory for all teachers to meet that standard? Surely then government would have no influence over what is or isn't taught.

It's even worse to give an unelected group the ability to effectively pass law over who can become teachers and what they must do.

 

[Spurgy 777]

What about homeschooling - and I don't just mean children who are educated at home instead of at school, but things like teaching our 2 year old to read and count?

Why should parents be bound to that standard? If they aren't, why can they not choose to hire someone who is similarly not bound to that standard in the privacy of their own home? If they can, why can they not choose to hire several people who are similarly not bound to that standard on private premises - like a private school? If they can, what's the problem exactly?

Parents can teach what they want, as unfortunately it is unrealistic to control what nonsense some parents teach. But I would suggest making it compulsory for all kids to be taught by a teacher, whether at home, or at a school, doesn't matter, and that all teachers must meet the minimum standard. That way you can at least ensure that all kids are being taught some sense to help counter whatever nonsense their parents may be coming out with.

It's even worse to give an unelected group the ability to effectively pass law over who can become teachers and what they must do.

I said it would be publicly regulated so they can't do whatever they want, won't go into how that works today (or at least the basic idea behind it), as it might take a little while to write out.

 

[Famine]

Parents can teach what they want, as unfortunately it is unrealistic to control what nonsense some parents teach. But I would suggest making it compulsory for all kids to be taught by a teacher, whether at home, or at a school, doesn't matter, and that all teachers must meet the minimum standard. That way you can at least ensure that all kids are being taught some sense to help counter whatever nonsense their parents may be coming out with.

You're within as-much-as-makes-no-difference of suggesting that my wife and I teaching our two year old to count (and she's started doing basic calculations - she's three next month) should be illegal because we are not teachers. Well, I sort of am, but I don't possess teaching qualifications.

Educating is a parent's job. Who they choose to employ to take this job off them is their prerogative.

 

[V0RT3X]

i have a freind who is a MEGA liberitarian. lets just say hes....... interesting........

 

[Danoff]

I said it would be publicly regulated so they can't do whatever they want, won't go into how that works today (or at least the basic idea behind it), as it might take a little while to write out.

Either they're elected lawmakers (representative government) or not elected lawmakers (worse).

 

[KSaiyu]

You're within as-much-as-makes-no-difference of suggesting that my wife and I teaching our two year old to count (and she's started doing basic calculations - she's three next month) should be illegal because we are not teachers. Well, I sort of am, but I don't possess teaching qualifications.

Educating is a parent's job. Who they choose to employ to take this job off them is their prerogative.

I don't get that from the post. It's more like there should be something in addition to your teaching. In healthcare this is covered under "best interests", but the concept isn't quite so developed (or regulated) in education.

Either they're elected lawmakers (representative government) or not elected lawmakers (worse).

It's pretty reductive to call professional bodies un-elected lawmakers. If anything the elected lawmakers are the worse option becuase they can give power to people lacking the necessary and relevant experience (see the NHS reforms under Andrew Lansley).

 

[Famine]

I don't get that from the post.

I have edited the post to bold the relevant section of quote for you.

It's pretty reductive to call professional bodies un-elected lawmakers.

And yet if they are a compulsory body that regulates an occupation that is effectively what they are.

Teaching unions - like the ones we have - are exactly the same but opt-in. They regulate their members - and since their governance is made up of their membership they are also regulated by their members. Seems like they give you what you want without stifling choice...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What if the minimum standard is set by a publicly regulated, independent body, and that it is compulsory for all teachers to meet that standard?

We are.

Surely then government would have no influence over what is or isn't taught.

And they do. We recently got a new national curriculum, which was largely delayed because the individual state governments were at loggerheads over what should be included and what should not.

Educating is a parent's job. Who they choose to employ to take this job off them is their prerogative.

As a teacher, I can say this is absolutely true.

For one, education works best when parents are actively engaged in their child's learning. And parents have the right to choose where their children are educated, be it a public, private or secular school.