Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4371)	11/1/2000 12:31:27 PM
From: Jim S	Respond to of 13056

Saw an interesting thing on the tube last night, forgot which program (Fox's Bill O'Reilly?). It seems that in Australia, voting is mandatory, so there is always nearly a 100% voter turnout. How's that for anti-libertarian? jim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4371)	11/1/2000 12:35:50 PM
From: The Street	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

<<Fortunately, most libertarians i know don't agree with these party positions.<< I am REALLY going to try and CHANGE that. EVERY Libertarian I talk (sans one) feels the same as me. "The Street for President in 2004.... A Gun in Every House..."

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4371)	11/1/2000 12:53:55 PM
From: All Mtn Ski	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13056

I don't agree with no public schools either. Our society today requires an education just to get through the complexities of life, let alone a career. I think there should be competition in the educational system, not just a bunch of money sucking breaucrats "administrating" the system. The USA spends more and more on education each year, but test scores show no improvement, so throwing money at the problem is doing nothing but wasting resources. Let the free markets work for education, let parents decide where to send their kids, and if a public school is not serving the needs of its students, then they will leave it for a better school and the old school will either have to improve to compete, or be shut down. The system now is sustaining so many failing schools, and in turn failing our children. On the environmental issue, I see no reason to turn back what has already been done with the national park system, but the land grabs that the Feds have been making recently is appalling. We need to bring the power back to the local level, where decisions are made by the people in that area, to benefit those same people. No one in Washington is going to know how to properly allocate resources to people in Alaska, Tennessee, Colorado or Vermont. They all have different needs and wants that cannot be solved by a one nation policy in Washington. It only benefits the greedy career politicians that hold the purse strings. They are not likely to ever give that up, as they are weak and corrupted by power. What a country! Tom

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4371)	11/1/2000 1:32:24 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

CH - ...To suggest that poor people don't need/deserve education is just silly and counterproductive.... It's really hard to imagine how you are able twist the Libertarian position on education into this absurdity. In short, education is far too important to allow a virtually complete state monopoly of supply. The result of a century and a half or so of public compulsory education is that 99% of college graduates today have inferior educations to what was the median for the sixth grade graduates of a century or more ago. This is likely to be true even after normalizing for native student ability, although economic factors limiting the historical access to even a sixth grade education need to be considered. Where the present public school students have the advantage is in an uncanny skill to separate household waste into the proper recycling containers. Regards, Don

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4371)	12/4/2000 2:19:41 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 13056

The idea of no public schools, for example, is silly in this day and age...To suggest that poor people don't need/deserve education is just silly and counterproductive. If you believe that education should be public funded that does not necessarily mean you have to support public schools. Something can be publicly funded without being provided for directly by the state. When the federal created the food stamps program they did not create government food distrabution centers. The GI bill doesn't require that you use the education money at a state school. Tim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4371)	5/11/2002 12:09:29 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Better late than never Dept. Re: "To suggest that poor people don't need/deserve education is just silly and counterproductive." Yes Chris, but to suggest that the Libertarian platform stance against public education is akin to, or equates to the above, is wrong. In short, the platform does NOT "suggest that poor people don't need/deserve education." It is a good thing most libertarians you know don't support your interpretation, because in fact the Libertarian platform doesn't either. Freedom Works, Dan B