3 ms·

> So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. Like most things in

> So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the transportation network from those using it, to taxpayers at large. Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. Let me reframe your statement: > So there is never any economic need to transfer the cost of using the education system from those using it, to taxpayers at large. In fact, socializing costs of education is what can cause economically non-viable education services to consume greater amounts of resources, and in doing so, burden the economy. Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA.

ETH_start 3y ago
>Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work? Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized. >Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs. As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... >Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA. I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control: https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-... These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.
- dendriti 3y ago
  Libertarianism has been exposed as bullshit over and over again. To dismiss these well-documented concerns as "ideological defense mechanisms" is just sad. FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
- fzeroracer 3y ago
  > As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. The evidence, an example of that which I provided, shows that they are. May I ask if you or your relatives are in a union? If so it may be hard for you to be objective about this. >As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block. The unions that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that mandate the employer - which in the case of the public sector, is the government - to engage in collective bargaining with them, to the exclusion of all other parties. This provides them with an extreme barrier to competition from other workers, which in turn allows them to extract economic rent.
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      No, I nor are any of my relatives are in a union. That will not be an avenue of argument for you. Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action. Additionally teachers are not required to join a union; the fact that teachers join the union and engage in collective bargaining is a result of their natural collective power. If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization. I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that. Given your post history, that seems to be where you actually lie.

ETH_start 3y ago

>Like most things in a thriving, functioning society, socializing the costs is what makes it work. What is it about transportation wherein socializing the costs of using it would make it work? Toll roads work all around the world, and better than the routes where the costs are socialized. >Yet this same education system is what has produced a society capable of enormous economic output over the relatively short history of public education. The modern education system arose largely in the 1930' "high school movement", which was almost all locally funded and controlled, and thus subject to very little socializing of costs. As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839935 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/111/3/671/1839... >Your argument is the most basic of libertarian nonsense that would argue that in past decades would argue that tax dollars collected in UT shouldn't fund interstate highways in CA. I never made a libertarian argument. I made an appeal to basic economics. That triggered your anti-libertarian ideological defense mechanism, which has been instilled in the populace by the rent-seeking institutions that rely on centralized control: https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-... These rent-seeking mechanisms are rapidly taking over the economy: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-longrun https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long... And as they do, the belief systems that they rely on, like anti-libertarianism, become more pervasive.

dendriti 3y ago
Libertarianism has been exposed as bullshit over and over again. To dismiss these well-documented concerns as "ideological defense mechanisms" is just sad. FWIW homeopaths and chiropractors use the same sad defense.
fzeroracer 3y ago
> As the costs of providing education have become increasingly socialized, the spending efficiency has decreased as rent-seeking institutions like teachers unions have taken over: I have nothing else to say but to point at this comment and say that calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  >calling a teacher's union a 'rent-seeking institution' is nonsense. The evidence, an example of that which I provided, shows that they are. May I ask if you or your relatives are in a union? If so it may be hard for you to be objective about this. >As a libertarian you should be cheering for unions because they are the natural consequence of workers using their power in a free market to come together and negotiate as a block. The unions that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that mandate the employer - which in the case of the public sector, is the government - to engage in collective bargaining with them, to the exclusion of all other parties. This provides them with an extreme barrier to competition from other workers, which in turn allows them to extract economic rent.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    No, I nor are any of my relatives are in a union. That will not be an avenue of argument for you. Second, the businesses that exist today are not operating in a free market. They leverage laws that allow them to prevent employees from leveraging their ability in engage in collective action. Additionally teachers are not required to join a union; the fact that teachers join the union and engage in collective bargaining is a result of their natural collective power. If there is a refusal to engage in collective bargaining then they can strike, both of which are natural consequences of free market unionization. I am still not seeing where you are claiming there is 'economic rent' other than the fact that unions exist and you seem to dislike that. Given your post history, that seems to be where you actually lie.