7 ms·

I'm reading this as you saying anyone who doesn't support public education is a shill. If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? This

I'm reading this as you saying anyone who doesn't support public education is a shill. If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? This strikes me as you essentially saying "anyone who doesn't think the way I do on this topic shouldn't be trusted".

Jedd 8y ago
I read it more as 'anyone who doesn't support public education isn't a person that should be setting policy for society'.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Really? How did you read it that way? Seems pretty clear the GP specifically used the term "shill".
  - Retra 8y ago
    You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean. Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean. What do you think the word “shill” means to most people? I’m baffled at your attempt to characterize this as “nitpicking”. > Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent. It’s pretty clear the author intended to call politicians who don’t “support public education” shills. There’s nothing “nuanced” about that. If you don’t think calling such people “shills” was the intent, I’m curious to hear your alternative interpretation.
      - Retra 8y ago
        A more generous interpretation would simply be that "shill" was used as a proxy for "selfish." But that doesn't even matter, you can ask that poster what they meant. Context should tell you they were doing nothing more than vaguely commenting on their feelings. You really don't have to dig into it.
metamet 8y ago
> If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? The libertarian argument against public education (pushed by Cato, etc) is that public schooling is worse than private school systems, therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers and other ways to fund the private organizations offering private education. They advocate for starving public education and giving those resources to private companies, which are able to selectively allow students through the guise of tuition. In addition to that, removing government standards allows for private education systems to teach "creationism vs evolutionism" as a "valid" scientific debate. Which is isn't. Same with climate change and all those other partisan talking points. Education shouldn't be wrapped up in a way that can be influenced by funders--do you think that the Kochs and DeVoses are not advocating for "education" that promotes their aspirations and biases? That's called indoctrination. So yeah. Any libertarian who actively believes that we should get rid of public education in favor of private companies influenced by money needs to rethink their position. The free market isn't the panacea they claim it is. There's very clearly work that needs to be done within the realm of public education. But giving the chalkboard over to people with deep pockets is a far cry from it.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers That's still spending public money, just with less oversight.
- clarkmoody 8y ago
  No, the proper libertarian argument is that we don't initiate violence against innocent people. In order to tax someone, you must ultimately threaten them with violence. Public schooling is paid for with taxes. Therefore, we oppose it on moral grounds as improper threats of aggression against the public.
  - msla 8y ago
    Here's a critique of Libertarianism (not the same one I posted above, in fact) with an answer to that: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html > If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail. > This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns. If you don't like this contract, you can vote to change it. If you can't get enough people on board to change it and you still don't like it, you can leave.
harimau777 8y ago
I don't think libertarians are shills in that I believe they are genuine in wanting to improve society. However, in my experience their policies tend to be built on the assumption that the government is entirely restructured in line with libertarian principles. Since that is unlikely to ever happen, those policies that do get implemented tend to assist those who already hold power. As an example, my understanding is that the libertarian argument for why deregulation will not result in people being hurt by defective products would be something like: People would not be harmed because corporations would be held accountable for their actions. Corporations would be held accountable because people can take them to court. People can take corporations to court because they can hire lawyers. People can afford to hire lawyers because restrictions on licensing and education that constrain supply would be removed. So preventing harm from deregulation would also require significant changes to the licensing and education of lawyers.
- GatorD42 8y ago
  Some libertarians (such as myself) generally believe corporations already have strong incentives to make non-defective products. Some products that compromise safety for cost provide consumers low cost options they would otherwise not have. Efforts to regulate such products to make them safer can cause more harm than good (by making such products more expensive and therefore unavailable so consumers will use something older or less safe). Currently it costs zero dollars to "hire" a lawyer in a class action against a company for a defective product. If a company has made a defective product there will probably be a class action and you will receive a small settlement. If you have been seriously injured eg by asbestos it also costs zero dollars to hire a lawyer, they work on contingency. I am totally in favor of reforming licensing laws, but if you have been seriously injured and you have a strong legal case, money is not a barrier to getting a lawyer. Generally I think there is too much regulation and too much litigation, I don't think private litigation is a solution for regulation, I think market incentives are the solution. When there are obviously unsafe products on the market is worth looking deeper to see if consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost.
  - stanleydrew 8y ago
msla 8y ago
> If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? I'm sure some are. I'm also sure some are honest people who believe things at odds with what we know about market failures. Here's a market-oriented (that is, based on the idea of market economies) critique of Libertarianism: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertar... It's founded in, ultimately, game theory, with a lot about coordination problems and defection.

Jedd 8y ago

I read it more as 'anyone who doesn't support public education isn't a person that should be setting policy for society'.

antidesitter 8y ago
Really? How did you read it that way? Seems pretty clear the GP specifically used the term "shill".
- Retra 8y ago
  You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean. Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > You used the term "specifically" but nobody is nitpicking the meaning of that word to elevate a non-generous interpretation of what you mean. What do you think the word “shill” means to most people? I’m baffled at your attempt to characterize this as “nitpicking”. > Sometimes people are just not that careful with the words they choose and don't expect others to jump on their word choice as indicative of some highly nuanced intent. It’s pretty clear the author intended to call politicians who don’t “support public education” shills. There’s nothing “nuanced” about that. If you don’t think calling such people “shills” was the intent, I’m curious to hear your alternative interpretation.
    - Retra 8y ago
      A more generous interpretation would simply be that "shill" was used as a proxy for "selfish." But that doesn't even matter, you can ask that poster what they meant. Context should tell you they were doing nothing more than vaguely commenting on their feelings. You really don't have to dig into it.

metamet 8y ago

> If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? The libertarian argument against public education (pushed by Cato, etc) is that public schooling is worse than private school systems, therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers and other ways to fund the private organizations offering private education. They advocate for starving public education and giving those resources to private companies, which are able to selectively allow students through the guise of tuition. In addition to that, removing government standards allows for private education systems to teach "creationism vs evolutionism" as a "valid" scientific debate. Which is isn't. Same with climate change and all those other partisan talking points. Education shouldn't be wrapped up in a way that can be influenced by funders--do you think that the Kochs and DeVoses are not advocating for "education" that promotes their aspirations and biases? That's called indoctrination. So yeah. Any libertarian who actively believes that we should get rid of public education in favor of private companies influenced by money needs to rethink their position. The free market isn't the panacea they claim it is. There's very clearly work that needs to be done within the realm of public education. But giving the chalkboard over to people with deep pockets is a far cry from it.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers That's still spending public money, just with less oversight.
clarkmoody 8y ago
No, the proper libertarian argument is that we don't initiate violence against innocent people. In order to tax someone, you must ultimately threaten them with violence. Public schooling is paid for with taxes. Therefore, we oppose it on moral grounds as improper threats of aggression against the public.
- msla 8y ago
  Here's a critique of Libertarianism (not the same one I posted above, in fact) with an answer to that: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html > If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail. > This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns. If you don't like this contract, you can vote to change it. If you can't get enough people on board to change it and you still don't like it, you can leave.

harimau777 8y ago

I don't think libertarians are shills in that I believe they are genuine in wanting to improve society. However, in my experience their policies tend to be built on the assumption that the government is entirely restructured in line with libertarian principles. Since that is unlikely to ever happen, those policies that do get implemented tend to assist those who already hold power. As an example, my understanding is that the libertarian argument for why deregulation will not result in people being hurt by defective products would be something like: People would not be harmed because corporations would be held accountable for their actions. Corporations would be held accountable because people can take them to court. People can take corporations to court because they can hire lawyers. People can afford to hire lawyers because restrictions on licensing and education that constrain supply would be removed. So preventing harm from deregulation would also require significant changes to the licensing and education of lawyers.

GatorD42 8y ago
Some libertarians (such as myself) generally believe corporations already have strong incentives to make non-defective products. Some products that compromise safety for cost provide consumers low cost options they would otherwise not have. Efforts to regulate such products to make them safer can cause more harm than good (by making such products more expensive and therefore unavailable so consumers will use something older or less safe). Currently it costs zero dollars to "hire" a lawyer in a class action against a company for a defective product. If a company has made a defective product there will probably be a class action and you will receive a small settlement. If you have been seriously injured eg by asbestos it also costs zero dollars to hire a lawyer, they work on contingency. I am totally in favor of reforming licensing laws, but if you have been seriously injured and you have a strong legal case, money is not a barrier to getting a lawyer. Generally I think there is too much regulation and too much litigation, I don't think private litigation is a solution for regulation, I think market incentives are the solution. When there are obviously unsafe products on the market is worth looking deeper to see if consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost.
- stanleydrew 8y ago

msla 8y ago

> If that's the case, you believe that libertarians are shills, then? I'm sure some are. I'm also sure some are honest people who believe things at odds with what we know about market failures. Here's a market-oriented (that is, based on the idea of market economies) critique of Libertarianism: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertar... It's founded in, ultimately, game theory, with a lot about coordination problems and defection.