Big difference, IMO.

At least this race, the Libertarian Party doesn’t have the most laughable candidate. I definitely lean towards libertarian, but I realize libertarianism is utopian. I do have a practical streak — darn it all!

“They probably would privatize them, but that’s not quite what I said. Anyway, even if they did, I think the situation you proposed is a little more complex than that. In a community it may be worth more for a company or group of them to build a park than strip logging the area. There are other economic factors involved.”

Actually, it’s quite simple. I can make a little money over a long term chargeing admission to, say, Prarie Creek State Park. Or I could liquidate it and make alot of money right now.

And once you’ve built the Great Smokey Mountain Outlet Mall or the Half Dome Residnetial Retreat, there’s no going back.

A newspaper, for example, being privately owned, can refuse to print any letter to the editor they so desire. Most don’t, but they could. It is well within their rights.

Likewise, if I invite you to my house and you start saying things I don’t like or find offensive, I am well within my rights to kick you out and call the police should you refuse to leave.

Would Adrian Lopez change this? Would he (or she) make it so that I cannot remove people from my own property if I find they are becoming disruptive? Would I lose the right to control what happens in my own house? Would I be forced by the government to tolerate any slight, any disruption, any insult or annoyance in my own house in the name of a misunderstood idea of “free speech?”

Say someone walks onto a black family’s lawn and begins to scream racist remarks and wave signs covered in racial slurs. If property owners could not deny “free speech” to people on their property, the family would be forced to endure this abuse, and any attempt to remove the racist jerk would be illegal. Is this what we want?

The idea that ANYONE cannot limit speech is absurd and not at all in line with the Constitution. Simply looking at the way things work should tell you that.

For instance, a Libertarian might say that if a Jesus freak wants to stand on your lawn with a megaphone and harangue passersby, you would have the right to call the police (yes, there would still be police) and have him removed. Why is that so bad? The guy with the megaphone would need to find a property owner who agrees with him, or failing that, buy his own property. You have a right to control what happens on your property.

I wrote a post earlier that apparently the moderator of this blog did not agree with (I was saying that vouchers to help send kids to private schools would be beneficial). My post was not added to this discussion. That’s an example of a property owner exercising his right over free speech. He, or she, has every right to edit, control or ban my speech on this blog. If I don’t like it, I can start my own blog.

Although I’m very proud of my daughter, don’t take this as a bragging post, I’m just trying to defend at least some of the public schools

As someone who recently exited the public education system, I can say that 75% of public education needs to be reworked, trimmed, or completely gutted, but the other 25% is absolutely crucial. Regardless of whether it’s idealistically better to materialize a world with no public schools, the best way to combat the problem right now, in my eyes, is to fix the 75% crap.

Just to add: Love Penn most of the time and he was great at influencing me to become more skeptical. Irrational fear of the government is still irrational, however.

“As far as I know, this is statistically not true.”

Really? I’d love to see those statistics. What is the percentage of families who were living below the poverty line and managed to rise above it?

The data that I can find easily suggests otherwise. The National Poverty Center at the U of MI (see url below) seems to say that poverty rates overall dropped from 1950 to 1970, then fluctuated a bit, and has been rising steadily since 1980. Note that this only shows that the actions of the government were not causing an increase in poverty before 1970, and they were not causing a decrease in poverty after 1980.

National Poverty Center
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the US start to increase defense spending in the 80s while cutting or freezing social programs? The recent increase in poverty rates (an increase of 5.4 million poor from 2000 to 2006) is even more substantial, and is concurrent with the Republican push to cut domestic spending.

You’re right that I overstated my case. However, we currently we have mechanisms in place to provide a degree of assistance (e.g. public education) to the less fortunate. This is what allows some from the lower class to dig their way out. Removing them is a big step backwards, and only benefits those at the top (and if it ultimately leads to civil unrest, then even they won’t get much benefit).

As far as I know, this is statistically not true. People frequently start in poverty and move up pretty consistently throughout their lives, with ups & downs in between. It is a very low percentage of people that start in poverty that stay there. I’ll try and find statistics when I have more time.

Other forms of wealth should also be considered when measuring poverty. If you’re 60 and own your own home, but live on a low fixed income you will be listed as being in poverty, but your net worth is much higher.

Nice ad hominem attack. You want my credentials? I’ve got a BA in Anthropology and an MS in Computer Science. I’ve also spent years studying biology, history, and electro-optics. Yes, my mother is proud of me, but that’s probably more related to how I’m raising my children. What’s your background?

After your attack on me, you go on to set up a nice little straw man argument:

“Let’s get two groups of parents, as nearly alike as possible in all important characteristics like education, socio-economic status and whatever else seems germane.”

The problem with this premise is that all families are decidedly NOT nearly alike. By accident of birth, many (most?) are born into economic situations where they have no control and no real opportunity for advancement. As much as I’d like to believe that anyone can improve their situation through hard work, it simply isn’t true. Poverty is indeed a trap, and while a few who were caught in it have managed to escape it by work *AND* luck, most don’t.

Take a good look at the homeless or at those living in slums and think about what it would truly take for them or their children to move into the middle class. The current systems of public education and health care improve the odds, but it’s still a bit of a long shot. Now think that one of those children might be the next Hawking, Asimov, Pasteur, etc. – but only if they survive to adulthood and can get enough of an education.

The non-religious might say, “I’m very lucky not to be in such a trap.” The religious might say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Neither statement seems to be part of the libertarian philosophy.

I have as yet to meet anybody who really got a good education because of a public school education, rather than despite it.

As for other alternatives, academically there’s no contest; virtually all other forms of schooling achieve superior academic results. People are left spouting nonsense about “social skills” as if the human race didn’t function before our current system was put in place.

I wrote a blog about this recently:

http://jessmills.blogspot.com/2008/07/i-guess-im-social-retard.html

I have not heard Penn’s comments, but I can say both as a homeschooled individual and as a former public school teacher, the best thing we could do for the future of America is to burn every public school building to the ground and never inflict such mind-numbing idiocy on any child ever again.

Not that I have strong feelings about this, or anything! lol…

And yes, I know that 99% of you are aghast that anybody could think this way, and will immediately assume I’m naive, an anarchist, stupid, or crazy (or some combination of the above).

Jess

Dave UK

Quick note to webmaster: Can you do a comment preview function? Thanks.

That is not what Penn said. ( I think the Twain quote was intended as hyperbole.) The data I have seen suggests that public, as in taxpayer funded, education and mandatory attendance laws did not produce any net benefit over strictly private, voluntary education. Literacy levels did not improve at any greater rate after the introduction of public schools. At least one study suggests that literacy rates actually went down after the introduction of public schools.

I, as perhaps a very extreme example of libertarian, agree with Penn that public education should be abolished, because children deserve better, and I believe the evidence and economic theory support the notion that private education will do better for everyone. Yes, I realize that there will be families who will have difficulty affording a private school, but I’m not opposed to finding ways to help them out, even if it means (gulp!) a government transfer from the wealthy to the less fortunate.

“I don’t even know what a Libertarian is.”

Librarians that decide to go into politics.

To make it more clear: we, the people, have been forced to demand from businesses their financial records, and have paid in blood. We the people have been forced to demand from businesses the transparancy of their employment practices, and have paid in blood.
We, the people, have demanded change, and it has never been effectively implimented through ordinary market channels.
Every case of a furtherance of freedom of an individual has come by regulation of behavior of others.
Now, this is not as revoloutionary a screed as you might expect.
Aw, hell, yes it is.
I’d get subtler, but I’m overdue for bed.

All love to y’all, I’m just not up (literally)for the argument anymore. Thank you to all who actually read and responded, the best part about a free society will always be the arguments that we are allowed to have.
Much love,
Autumn

By the way, a nice web site for Americans who would like to defend the institution of government against cultists (and boy, do Americans need to defend it, having strangled it almost out of existence over the past couple of decades, except for the military and anti-terrorist parts of it) is Government is Good“.

Ford’s profits are up this year. BTW, their current profits (or not) bear no correlation to the dodgy practice previously mentioned. That is the problem.

Oh Rage Against the Machine, we hardly knew ye (before ye sold out for, what? Oh yeah, bunches and bunches of cash).

To defuse a bomb you need to be calm.