5 ms·
> 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 sc
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoHere'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.
- clarkmoody 8y agoYou cannot leave. The US has near-global extradition treaties. To renounce your citizenship, you must ask permission (which can be denied), then you must pay a fee. Also, the social contract is not voluntary.
- thanksDr 8y agoI don't get it - How do you fund the police? Or are you 'free' to protect yourself?
- clarkmoody 8y agoHuge topic within libertarianism. You could start here: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7717015-the-private-production-of-defense https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7717015-the-private-prod...