Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[FoolKiller]

Sorry to jump in but, wat. That sounds absolutely ludicrous.

This one. Don't worry. They gave her healthy chicken nuggets.
And this one of home lunches being banned in 2011.

But this one is a trend of school lunches getting trashed due to federal regulations on overdrawn accounts. I can't even fathom how that part got passed.

 

[NotThePrez]

This one. Don't worry. They gave her healthy chicken nuggets.
And this one of home lunches being banned in 2011.

But this one is a trend of school lunches getting trashed due to federal regulations on overdrawn accounts. I can't even fathom how that part got passed.

Two stupid questions:

1) How exactly does a school determine if a student's lunchbox is not "healthy enough?"

2) What exactly allows them to confiscate somebody's lunch?

 

[Famine]

Two stupid questions:

1) How exactly does a school determine if a student's lunchbox is not "healthy enough?"

2) What exactly allows them to confiscate somebody's lunch?

Fascism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

1) How exactly does a school determine if a student's lunchbox is not "healthy enough?"

2) What exactly allows them to confiscate somebody's lunch?

Fascism.

In what way?

 

[Liquid]

In what way?

Fascism hasn't 'allowed' these things to occur per say, but the act of taking someone's dinner because it's not healthy enough has similarities in Fascist ideas. Taking away things because they don't conform to x personal standard when it isn't or shouldn't be their responsibility.

 

[FoolKiller]

Two stupid questions:

1) How exactly does a school determine if a student's lunchbox is not "healthy enough?"

2) What exactly allows them to confiscate somebody's lunch?

So far as I understand it, the home lunch issue was one only enforced on local levels. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if that changes in light of the GAO report that shows 1.2 million less kids bought lunches in the first year of the program, despite an increase of school lunch assistance participants. The actual total appears to be closer to 1.6 million students. This is only a 3% or 5% decrease, but between the more expensive foods being required and regulations increasing benefits for employees school, budgets are being stretched pretty thin. That doesn't figure in the fact that food prices in general in the US have increased. Put it all together and you have a very tight budget.

If that becomes an issue then I can see home lunches being banned or heavily regulated in order to encourage/force more students to buy school lunches. As diabolical as that seems, it wouldn't be the first time I knew of regulations designed to create a hassle for people participating in undesirable behavior.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yep.

See, it turns out that when we start denying freedoms at a state level, all sorts of freedoms get ignored further down the chain. Then people with even fewer freedoms attack us to deny us our freedoms and we react by denying more freedoms in order to stop them.

Then folk come up with ideas to deny other freedoms because some people are having theirs ignored. For some reason, no-one notices just how insane this is.

And if you give unlimited freedom you give power to everyone to deny it to the weaker members of society.

See, it's interesting because your example in all of this from the beginning has been one where state education has been co-opted by people who want to deny freedoms, and your solution is more of it.

I'm afraid that the problem you're thinking of cannot be solved by denying freedoms, no matter how many you want to deny, except for one. That one is "remove all children from their parents at birth". I guess you don't want to go there because you know what that means, so instead you want parents to "look after" their children in the sense of giving them a place to live but have them removed from all responsibility of educating them.

Why it's just education and not feeding them, clothing them, housing them, looking after their health - all of which can kill a child very quickly if done poorly - I just don't know.

Wait, more state education than what we have? No, no and no. I'm talking about less state education, just with regulation of basic standards (e.g more academies and free schools, but retaining OFSTED). You only have to look at the NHS Wales fiasco to convince you that more state control is a bad thing.

Sorry to jump in but, wat. That sounds absolutely ludicrous.

Fortunately the school my girlfriend works in doesn't act like the food police. It's more of a power to remove lunchboxes containing nothing but junk food in excess quantities (by excess I'm talking bigger than adult sized portions of sweets/fizzy drink).

 

[FoolKiller]

And if you give unlimited freedom you give power to everyone to deny it to the weaker members of society.

Um, I don't believe @Famine said anything about anarchy. You are becoming hyperbolic and forgetting the primary thread topic. Considering this is the libertarian thread I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone who understands the topic that in this context freedoms end where another's becomes infringed.

This seems to be a common theme when people try to argue against libertarian ideas. An instantaneous jump from allowing people to be free to do anything that doesn't bother anyone else to anarchy. It feels similar to the gay rights opponents jump to bestiality and pedophilia.


In this specific case, a turkey and cheese sandwich, chips, an apple, and a juice in a girl's lunchbox infringes no one else's freedom. AQ school official, deeming themselves the nutrition police, taking (stealing?) that lunch and then forcing (extorting?) the parents to pay for a school-provided lunch definitely does.

 

[Dotini]

...a power to remove lunchboxes containing nothing but junk food in excess quantities (by excess I'm talking bigger than adult sized portions of sweets/fizzy drink).

I agree with this sensible and prudent power, whether fascist, anarchist, libertarian or Whig. People who come to school with junk food and sweet fizzy pop are bringing in a pernicious poison to themselves and others. A whole people become fat, diabetic, useless and die young. It's like a Communist plot except it's a plot by capitalists like Coca Cola and Frito Lay to become rich by preying on our worst habits, and credulous shareholders buy into it. I suppose we get what we have coming, even if too much freedom kills us.

 

[KSaiyu]

Um, I don't believe @Famine said anything about anarchy. You are becoming hyperbolic and forgetting the primary thread topic. Considering this is the libertarian thread I think it should be pretty obvious to anyone who understands the topic that in this context freedoms end where another's becomes infringed.

This seems to be a common theme when people try to argue against libertarian ideas. An instantaneous jump from allowing people to be free to do anything that doesn't bother anyone else to anarchy. It feels similar to the gay rights opponents jump to bestiality and pedophilia.


In this specific case, a turkey and cheese sandwich, chips, an apple, and a juice in a girl's lunchbox infringes no one else's freedom. AQ school official, deeming themselves the nutrition police, taking (stealing?) that lunch and then forcing (extorting?) the parents to pay for a school-provided lunch definitely does.

It's not hard to see that the abuse of power would increase with a greater amount of freedom. There's nothing hyperbolic since it's happening already with the current restrictions of freedoms that we have in place, it's only logical to conclude that by removing them and supposedly concentrate on guaranteeing "rights" those affected by our current system will be even worse off (there is still nothing to show how Trojan Horse, or a dangerous hospital would be confronted in a libertarian world).

I agree with this sensible and prudent power, whether fascist, anarchist, libertarian or Whig. People who come to school with junk food and sweet fizzy pop are bringing in a pernicious poison to themselves and others. A whole people become fat, diabetic, useless and die young. It's like a Communist plot except it's a plot by capitalists like Coca Cola and Frito Lay to become rich by preying on our worst habits, and credulous shareholders buy into it. I suppose we get what we have coming, even if too much freedom kills us.

Within reason. Schools don't need food nazis, but a reasonable person spotting clear excesses for a child's lunch. Foolkiller's example shows how it shouldn't be done.

 

[Exorcet]

It's like a Communist plot except it's a plot by capitalists like Coca Cola and Frito Lay to become rich by preying on our worst habits, and credulous shareholders buy into it. I suppose we get what we have coming, even if too much freedom kills us.

They're doing nothing wrong. You are, by insinuating that you know best for other people. If people value sugary drinks more than a long life, that is their call.

In schools, no one needs to watch over what the kids are eating, especially if they're going to apply a lazy blanket approach to determining what is acceptable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Schools don't need food nazis, but a reasonable person spotting clear excesses for a child's lunch.

Who should define what is reasonable?

In schools, no one needs to watch over what the kids are eating

They absolutely do, schools are under pressure to perform and no one wants an afternoon with kids full of purple sugar. At what point does the expectation that the school can use its expertise to make decisions in loco parentis override the right of the parent to stock their child's snap as they see fit?

Those are both genuine questions; I'm still trying to work my head towards this.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's not hard to see that the abuse of power would increase with a greater amount of freedom. There's nothing hyperbolic since it's happening already with the current restrictions of freedoms that we have in place, it's only logical to conclude that by removing them and supposedly concentrate on guaranteeing "rights" those affected by our current system will be even worse off

So, you're arguing that the way to have freedom is to restrict freedom?

See, I don't see how preventing those in power from being able to restrict freedoms will allow them to take them away. You seem to have this idea that a libertarian world would be a free-for-all where you are free to abuse others. You really need to explain to me, us, how you see this happening.

I imagine you will have some version of a racist business owner won't hire or serve certain people on race alone. Well, it is his business. But it would be out in the open for everyone to see. That guy does the same today, in as much as he can hide it from the law, but he hangs an "equal opportunity employer" poster on the wall and appears to be a fine, upstanding citizen. If he was allowed to act openly he would lose customers who refuse to support a racist. Hell, Chick-Fil-A had that happen because the owner had a personal belief that wasn't being used in his business practice.

(there is still nothing to show how Trojan Horse, or a dangerous hospital would be confronted in a libertarian world).

People wouldn't use the school. Instead of complaints being dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not effectively dealt with, as explained here.

The report found that senior council officials and elected members were apparently aware of these issues, but dealt with them on a case-by-case basis rather than making "any serious attempt to see if there was a pattern," though it is not clear whether this was due to "community cohesion," an "issue of education management," or appeasement.[1][2] Birmingham City Council imposed a temporary freeze on the appointment of school governors after probes into Operation Trojan Horse were announced.[13]

You would have parents able to immediately withdraw their children from the school and put them in another school.

However, in a libertarian society Trojan Horse wouldn't have needed to be created. Instead of infiltrating schools they could have opened a school whose aims were those of their beliefs and affiliations. It would be the Islamic extremist version of Catholic schools. But keep in mind non-aggression is a cornerstone of libertarianism. They could not be training for terrorist attacks or any actions that would infringe another's rights.

As for a dangerous hospital; would you use it willingly? It doesn't take long for word to get out that a hospital is killing people and for people to go to a different hospital. It happens now. Statistics on mortality and infection rates are gathered and publicly available. I used them in deciding on a transplant center to use. I used them to find a doctor for my daughter. I use them anytime I need to make a decision in choosing a healthcare provider. I once had a bad experience with a surgeon. My doctors have it on file that I will never use that surgeon again.

We are in a world with Yelp. Information necessary to make a choice for what you want is everywhere now. Did you know I can ask my doctor where they ranked in their graduating class, what their MCAT score was, where they studied, what their GPA was, where they did their residency, and even the mortality ratio of patients in their care? And then I can go online and find reviews of his practice and determine if his personality and bedside manner might affect my opinion of him.

Never mind the fact that a doctor who uses his freedom to kill patients regularly would not be legal.



Is that enough of an explanation for you?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You would have parents able to immediately withdraw their children from the school and put them in another school.

Where does the money come from for these elastic catchments, or do people pay for the school... and then isn't that just a Public School system where privelege buys opportunity?

 

[FoolKiller]

Where does the money come from for these elastic catchments, or do people pay for the school... and then isn't that just a Public School system where privelege buys opportunity?

People pay for the schools now. They just have no say in it.

Add in that private schools manage to do it cheaper (the local public schools spend twice per student what I pay to put my daughter in a private school) and present better results and suddenly it isn't as expensive as you'd think, especially when they aren't paying those taxes.

And yes, better schools will cost more than others. The more wealthy will be able to send their kids to better schools. Of course, scholarships and the like would be a possibility. Schools want to look better when money is on the line. They will find away to get high performing, poor kids in there.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And yes, better schools will cost more than others. The more wealthy will be able to send their kids to better schools. Of course, scholarships and the like would be a possibility. Schools want to look better when money is on the line. They will find away to get high performing, poor kids in there.

It's funny, but in my state, the top performing schools are all public schools because we have a selective stream. The big-name private schools are all surprisingly low in the rankings. They're not massively down, but they don't have a monopoly or a stranglehold on the top of the list.

 

[FoolKiller]

I want to add to my above points that all of that assumes that in a libertarian style society schooling would look the same. There is a chance that it wouldn't.

It's funny, but in my state, the top performing schools are all public schools because we have a selective stream. The big-name private schools are all surprisingly low in the rankings. They're not massively down, but they don't have a monopoly or a stranglehold on the top of the list.

We have a handful of schools that use varying types selective entry that do exceptionally well. Most of them are single sex, having an opposite gender counterpart, and look very similar to the public schools in the area. They excel at athletics and academics.

Unfortunately, there is no clear cut comparison with private schools. The private schools don't participate in the government's standardized testing that is used to compare the schools. I do know that when I went to college there were kids from public schools that managed to earn some college credits due to AP classes, but private school students could be considered a sophomore or junior based on credits alone because the private schools worked out deals with local universities where the highest performing students were allowed to take freshman level courses in place of their high school courses. This allowed these students to either graduate college early, spend four years focusing purely on their major as they had completed their prerequisites, or be well on to a masters or doctorate while others in their age range are just completing their bachelors.


And I am not saying that in our current society that public schools can't perform well, but rather that parents get very little say in where their kids go to school and how/what they are taught. If they are stuck in a school with a high drug problem, teachers who don't know how to control a classroom, and a high drop out rate a parent is unable to put their kid in a different school to give their kid an opportunity. Everyone pays the same school taxes but don't get equal education or an opportunity to achieve that. When some of my fellow high school graduates went back and publicly complained about not being prepared for college the school made a big show of bringing them in to discuss the issue. The result of that meeting was, "We are a farming community. We are focused on preparing students for that lifestyle."

And that was when I decided that I will find a way to afford to send my kids to a place of my choosing.

 

[Exorcet]

They absolutely do, schools are under pressure to perform and no one wants an afternoon with kids full of purple sugar. At what point does the expectation that the school can use its expertise to make decisions in loco parentis override the right of the parent to stock their child's snap as they see fit?

Rights are never overridden. A private school has the right to dictate its terms of acceptance for students though.

My response was aimed more at government regulated oversight.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We have a handful of schools that use varying types selective entry that do exceptionally well. Most of them are single sex, having an opposite gender counterpart, and look very similar to the public schools in the area. They excel at athletics and academics.

Unfortunately, there is no clear cut comparison with private schools. The private schools don't participate in the government's standardized testing that is used to compare the schools.

Our system has a standard model that all schools have to follow, as everyone sits the same exam at the end of Year 12. Which subjects are on offer vary according to demand and available staff, and anyone looking to do an accelerated or extension course usually has to show cause - to demonstrate that they can maintain a certain standard.

Selective schools choose students by way of an independent entry test, but the problem is that the test format hasn't changed, and you can get kids arriving in the school and all they know is the entry test. I used to tutor part-time, but quit when they were trying to move me into a class drilling kids through entry tests because there was the expectation that they would get into the selective system, but I knew they couldn't make it, either academically or in terms of social development.

 

[KSaiyu]

So, you're arguing that the way to have freedom is to restrict freedom

Ehh, more like the greatest available freedom for everyone in society.

See, I don't see how preventing those in power from being able to restrict freedoms will allow them to take them away. You seem to have this idea that a libertarian world would be a free-for-all where you are free to abuse others. You really need to explain to me, us, how you see this happening.

I imagine you will have some version of a racist business owner won't hire or serve certain people on race alone. Well, it is his business. But it would be out in the open for everyone to see. That guy does the same today, in as much as he can hide it from the law, but he hangs an "equal opportunity employer" poster on the wall and appears to be a fine, upstanding citizen. If he was allowed to act openly he would lose customers who refuse to support a racist. Hell, Chick-Fil-A had that happen because the owner had a personal belief that wasn't being used in his business practice.

No, I'm arguing the exploitation would be worse. You can't elminate it, but you can have reasonable countermeasures without overly infringing on individual rights.

People wouldn't use the school. Instead of complaints being dealt with on a case-by-case basis and not effectively dealt with, as explained here.

You're not understanding the situation. The majority of parents wanted the school to be like this. We even had an MP defending the schools in the face of evidence confirming the sexist/racial bias.

However, in a libertarian society Trojan Horse wouldn't have needed to be created. Instead of infiltrating schools they could have opened a school whose aims were those of their beliefs and affiliations. It would be the Islamic extremist version of Catholic schools. But keep in mind non-aggression is a cornerstone of libertarianism. They could not be training for terrorist attacks or any actions that would infringe another's rights.

You can have that now. It's called a "free school", or an academy if it requires government funding. I'm not against that, as long as they are subject to some form of scrutiny.

As for a dangerous hospital; would you use it willingly? It doesn't take long for word to get out that a hospital is killing people and for people to go to a different hospital. It happens now. Statistics on mortality and infection rates are gathered and publicly available. I used them in deciding on a transplant center to use. I used them to find a doctor for my daughter. I use them anytime I need to make a decision in choosing a healthcare provider. I once had a bad experience with a surgeon. My doctors have it on file that I will never use that surgeon again.

I wouldn't either. I'm not the rest of the population however, some of whom have no choice or lack the capacity to make informed decisions.

We are in a world with Yelp. Information necessary to make a choice for what you want is everywhere now. Did you know I can ask my doctor where they ranked in their graduating class, what their MCAT score was, where they studied, what their GPA was, where they did their residency, and even the mortality ratio of patients in their care? And then I can go online and find reviews of his practice and determine if his personality and bedside manner might affect my opinion of him.

This is going back to Famine's "car warranty" argument. Yes, all these things are traceable but a sizeable amount of the population will never do this. I understand the logic - create a pressure to be held accountable for your choice of healthcare provider but when you deal with real patients in a real population the logic quickly falters.

Never mind the fact that a doctor who uses his freedom to kill patients regularly would not be legal.

How do you prove negligent care, or trace a fatal error in the medical management of a patient with multiple co-morbidities?

 

[FoolKiller]

Ehh, more like the greatest available freedom for everyone in society.

Um, so am I. I am arguing for individual freedoms, which are the greatest available freedoms for everyone. The moment you focus on a more group-oriented mindset you begin to leave people out. Worried about a minority being abused? The individual is the greatest minority there is. If you cannot focus on the individual it is you that is abusing a minority.

No, I'm arguing the exploitation would be worse. You can't elminate it, but you can have reasonable countermeasures without overly infringing on individual rights.

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how you see this happening.

You're not understanding the situation. The majority of parents wanted the school to be like this.

Wow, they really failed at defining Trojan Horse then. It was a secretive attempt to take over the schools, that the majority was on board with?

Of course, I am wondering why parents who wanted this were complaining.

We even had an MP defending the schools in the face of evidence confirming the sexist/racial bias.

Shhhh! That's a secret too.

Which was it? A secret plot, as I am reading and as the name would lead one to believe, or a well-known group mindset that the majority of parents and officials were all on board with and defending?


But to your point, the few minority of the parents who weren't on board could have chosen to remove their students for other options in a libertarian world.

You can have that now. It's called a "free school", or an academy if it requires government funding. I'm not against that, as long as they are subject to some form of scrutiny.

It is your definition of scrutiny that is the problem though. You want them to fit within a social view that you desire. If they want to teach radical religious views in a private school then let them. It would be the parent's choice. Not yours.

I wouldn't either. I'm not the rest of the population however, some of whom have no choice or lack the capacity to make informed decisions.

Did you ever think that people don't make informed decisions because we have repeatedly told them not to worry about? We have given them a crutch. We have perpetuated the lie that government has it all under control and they won't make any mistakes. We can trust them. Why would they need to work at making informed decisions when they have been tricked into believing that their government can do it for them?

If you have ever tried to teach someone something, you know that if you just do it for them and hand them a completed project they learn nothing. Your version might even be wrong, but they won't know. But if you teach them how to do it, let them fail on their own, and make it so that they need to take personal responsibility they will learn.

This is going back to Famine's "car warranty" argument. Yes, all these things are traceable but a sizeable amount of the population will never do this. I understand the logic - create a pressure to be held accountable for your choice of healthcare provider but when you deal with real patients in a real population the logic quickly falters.

Going back to what I just said; they are leaning on a crutch. Personal responsibility is an important part of being an adult, as is being informed. If they can't take five minutes to open a Consumer Reports (weird how they stay in business when people are too dumb and irresponsible to research for themselves), open an app, or visit a Web site that is on them. It shouldn't be on the system. When you put the burden on the system it means that responsible people get punished by being forced to pay for the irresponsible.

The simple fact of the matter is that when someone has to do something they aren't used to they either adapt or find someone to help. That is how real people in a real population work. If they didn't then there would be no technological progression. The market wouldn't support new technology because in your hypothetical no one would bother with learning new things. See, you are assuming that people are unable or unwilling to adapt. Our mere existence is evidence that you are wrong.

How do you prove negligent care, or trace a fatal error in the medical management of a patient with multiple co-morbidities?

Well, since every patient doesn't have multiple co-morbidities I am willing to bet that having a morbidity rate among hernia patients being equal to the morbidity rate of heart surgeries would raise some attention. Did you really think I meant that he would be busted on the morbidity rate of high risk patients only?

 

[Dotini]

It must be acknowledged the Libertarian Party didn't do too well in yesterday's elections.

The Tea Party branch of the Republicans, which Libertarian Ron Paul helped to found, had all its candidates eliminated from running in any key contest, and this shrewd move was part of the basis of the Republican victory.

Does this signal the end of libertarianism, the Tea Party, and paleo-conservatism in American politics? Only Rand Paul knows for sure, but likely the answer is yes.

 

[Liquid]

Does this signal the end of libertarianism

No.

the Tea Party

Maybe.

paleo-conservatism in American politics?

Don't know.

 

[Famine]

It is your definition of scrutiny that is the problem though. You want them to fit within a social view that you desire. If they want to teach radical religious views in a private school then let them. It would be the parent's choice. Not yours.

No no, you can't let parents parent their children because they might do it wrong. Unless they do it the way I want it done, in which case they're okay to parent on their own.

Apparently.

 

[Dotini]

The Libertarian Party will never succeed in America. It relies way too much on the education, intelligence and discrimination of the people not to abuse the freedoms with which they would otherwise be endowed.

The American people need strong authoritarians and authoritarian guidance at all levels, top to bottom.

Libertarianism is a lie, a dream, a delusion. Beautiful though it is.

 

[FoolKiller]

Does this signal the end of libertarianism,

Nope, looks the same as always. The struggling third party in a two-party dominated system that creates impossible barriers of entry in order to protect the charade of two parties fighting in order to hide government abuse of power.

the Tea Party

I hope so, because this tea party is not the one that Ron Paul started. It was a co-opted movement by people who could barely recognize the name Ron Paul.

and paleo-conservatism in American politics?

I am guessing not. It is hard to kill any specific ideology when all it takes is for the greedy of one group to screw things up and make the tide swing back the other way.

 

[Keef]

Tea Party folks make me sick. They're basically extra-angry Republicans that are simply unhappy with the system but don't actually understand why. They hear buzzwords like "liberty" and "constitution" but don't bother delving into the history or personality of the people saying those words. It is a very good thing that Tea Party candidates aren't being chosen because they would simply muddy the philosophical divide between libertarians and Republicans with clever use of key words.

 

[Danoff]

I hope so, because this tea party is not the one that Ron Paul started. It was a co-opted movement by people who could barely recognize the name Ron Paul.

Agreed, it became a monster years ago and needed to die.

 

[Omnis]

To me, Rand Paul represents what Libertarians (big L) needed to be doing all along. It's a dirty game, but you have to play to win. Rand has gained more influence in four years than the entire liberty movement in the past 40 years.

All we need is sane people in power and an appeal to reason. Then you'll eventually arrive at the libertarian position.

 

[KSaiyu]

Um, so am I. I am arguing for individual freedoms, which are the greatest available freedoms for everyone. The moment you focus on a more group-oriented mindset you begin to leave people out. Worried about a minority being abused? The individual is the greatest minority there is. If you cannot focus on the individual it is you that is abusing a minority.

I'm worried if the individiual can't become "individiual" in the first place.

I'm still waiting for an explanation on how you see this happening.

The current problems we have in Tower Hamlets is a good start.

Wow, they really failed at defining Trojan Horse then. It was a secretive attempt to take over the schools, that the majority was on board with?

The complaints were ignored in large part by the local autorities (perhaps central government) because of fears of coming across as racist/insensitive. For a similar, and far worse situation read about the Rochdale child grooming scandal.

Of course, I am wondering why parents who wanted this were complaining.

The parents didn't hold power - the governors did. The governors were more in tune with what the parents wanted, and dealt with problematic teachers accordingly. The ones who were complaining were those who opposed the radicalisation.

Shhhh! That's a secret too.

Not really. She's been outed as a useless MP (true for the majority of them unfortunately).

Which was it? A secret plot, as I am reading and as the name would lead one to believe, or a well-known group mindset that the majority of parents and officials were all on board with and defending?

The letter is believed to have been a fake - a way of attracting national attention since concerns were being ignored.

But to your point, the few minority of the parents who weren't on board could have chosen to remove their students for other options in a libertarian world.

They could in this world too....

It is your definition of scrutiny that is the problem though. You want them to fit within a social view that you desire. If they want to teach radical religious views in a private school then let them. It would be the parent's choice. Not yours.

See, it's not a problem to have that little bit of scrutiny. It's unlikely you deal with the after effects of the "individuals" coming out of such systems. It's probable you don't live a few roads down from an honour killing victim. It's doubtful you don't know women who have undergone FGM. It's likely you have a normal male:female birth rate in your area. The problem with giving everyone a free for all with respect to certain established social rules is that you are opening a whole can of worms with how the most vulnerable will be treated.

Did you ever think that people don't make informed decisions because we have repeatedly told them not to worry about? We have given them a crutch. We have perpetuated the lie that government has it all under control and they won't make any mistakes. We can trust them. Why would they need to work at making informed decisions when they have been tricked into believing that their government can do it for them?

Yes. We've taken it so far that we're in danger of producing generations of identikit personalities, afraid to question things and think for themselves. I don't think the answer is found at the other extreme however.

If you have ever tried to teach someone something, you know that if you just do it for them and hand them a completed project they learn nothing. Your version might even be wrong, but they won't know. But if you teach them how to do it, let them fail on their own, and make it so that they need to take personal responsibility they will learn.

My tutees think I'm harsh in comparison to the majority of their state school teachers, but it's only because I want them to recognise failure is part of success. Letting someone "fail" in their health decisions is a little more controversial.

Going back to what I just said; they are leaning on a crutch. Personal responsibility is an important part of being an adult, as is being informed. If they can't take five minutes to open a Consumer Reports (weird how they stay in business when people are too dumb and irresponsible to research for themselves), open an app, or visit a Web site that is on them. It shouldn't be on the system. When you put the burden on the system it means that responsible people get punished by being forced to pay for the irresponsible.

I can't agree since I believe in a right to health for everyone, something libertarians would baulk at. Notice I didn't say healthcare, a distinction that is going to become increasingly more relevant in the coming years.

The simple fact of the matter is that when someone has to do something they aren't used to they either adapt or find someone to help. That is how real people in a real population work. If they didn't then there would be no technological progression. The market wouldn't support new technology because in your hypothetical no one would bother with learning new things. See, you are assuming that people are unable or unwilling to adapt. Our mere existence is evidence that you are wrong.

With respect to healthcare models, this is not true. America pays far more for less, and for years lived with a huge demographic of uninsured patients. The market let the individual and the general population down.

Well, since every patient doesn't have multiple co-morbidities I am willing to bet that having a morbidity rate among hernia patients being equal to the morbidity rate of heart surgeries would raise some attention. Did you really think I meant that he would be busted on the morbidity rate of high risk patients only?

A comparison of mortality rates could prove incompetence. I'm not understanding, would it be illegal to be an incompetent surgeon?