Libertarianism

[LimeIzMyFaveColor]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

LimeIzMyFaveColor

I do agree with people having equal opportunity, but I do not agree that people should have equal levels of education. I like my courses challenging. Regular classes make me tired and bored. AP and Honor classes are the way to go on my path.

And if everyone had the opportunity to be in those classes?
To have equal opportunity, everyone needs equal education. If you don't want to decend into neo-darwinist nonsense, you have to recognise the absurdity between children being responsible for their education--which decides the rest of their lives--and children being declared incapable of holding responsibility for anything else.

Equal opportunity is having the opportunity to get an education. That does not mean that everyone needs an equal education. People learn on different levels. People need to be able to challenge themselves and excel and learn things that could benefit our society. Not everyone can learn how to come up with cool inventions if they were dumb down because Jimmy didn't know how to do Calculus. I'm motivated by challenge. School and education would just not be interesting if I wasn't motivated. Money is the motivator in the economy. Why shouldn't children be responsible for their education? I deserve the classes that I have because I worked hard for them. I am ranked number 2 of my class (salutatorian, that's under the Valedictorian). I have applied and got accepted to a University. I will get this state's scholarship for having a grand GPA and of the SAT and ACT scores. People have the opportunity (chance) to go to a college, but they need to work hard for it. Working hard means getting scholarships which can pay for their higher-level education.  

[dl1371]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

dl1371

Lethkhar

[-Erik-]

Lethkhar

Socially-Yes, anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Economically-No, a complete lack of regulation in a market leads to corporatism and a lack of responsibility by investors, as was seen in the latest market's crash.

I also believe that the government should be responsible for providing equal opportunity for everyone, something which Libertarians are against.

And honestly, the "Libertarian" Party here in the US isn't strictly libertarian. Bob Barr, the guy who ran for president in their party in 2008, is really just a neoconservative. If they were actually libertarian, you'd see Ron Paul running on their platform.

Libertarians are against that? I thought it was what they were aiming for.

Yeah, I don't live in the USA.

No, true Libertarians believe that the only function of government is to protect your right to the pursuit of property, along with other basic freedoms. They don't give a s**t about equal opportunity.

You're really not going to get equal opportunity in any system unless you take away children from their families at birth.

Socialised childcare would do well, but at the same time if you want to make equal opportunity meaningfull, everyone has to recieve equal levels of education, all the way through university, you also have to provide employment that isn't rendered unstable by the vagaries of the market, so that able people aren't thrown out of a job due to their emplyer going bust, so that implies a collectivised economy. To allow people to have free opportunity without having to worry about or be stiffled by a crippling bureaucracy, it needs to be done away, and society needs to be organised on a thoroughly collective and democratic basis.

In a word, to have true equal opportunity you need a communist society. Something libertarians fight against.

Well if everyone had the same education, some would fall behind while others would rapidly advance. If you're teaching some way x, who learn way y, and others way x, who learn way x, then its not equal opportunity. And to provide employment that isn't "rendered unstable by the vagaries of the market" would be changed in a communist society to employment that isn't "rendered unstable by lack of some materials and excess of more".  

[Lethkhar]

LimeIzMyFaveColor

Gracchia Saint-Justine

LimeIzMyFaveColor

I do agree with people having equal opportunity, but I do not agree that people should have equal levels of education. I like my courses challenging. Regular classes make me tired and bored. AP and Honor classes are the way to go on my path.

And if everyone had the opportunity to be in those classes?
To have equal opportunity, everyone needs equal education. If you don't want to decend into neo-darwinist nonsense, you have to recognise the absurdity between children being responsible for their education--which decides the rest of their lives--and children being declared incapable of holding responsibility for anything else.

Equal opportunity is having the opportunity to get an education. That does mean that everyone needs an equal education. People learn on different levels. People need to be able to challenge themselves and excel and learn things that could benefit our society. Not everyone can learn how to come up with cool inventions if they were dumb down because Jimmy didn't know how to do Calculus. I'm motivated by challenge. School and education would just not be interesting if I wasn't motivated. Money is the motivator in the economy. Why shouldn't children be responsible for their education? I deserve the classes that I have because I worked hard for them. I am ranked number 2 of my class (salutatorian, that's under the Valedictorian). I have applied and got accepted to a University. I will get this state's scholarship for having a grand GPA and of the SAT and ACT scores. People have the opportunity (chance) to go to a college, but they need to work hard for it. Working hard means getting scholarships which can pay for their higher-level education.

Yeah, I think everyone should be given the same minimum opportunity to education, then let them (and their families) decide what they do with it. You wouldn't be able to achieve all those things if you weren't provided with an education in the first place.  

[Lethkhar]

dl1371

Gracchia Saint-Justine

dl1371

Lethkhar

[-Erik-]

Libertarians are against that? I thought it was what they were aiming for.

Yeah, I don't live in the USA.

No, true Libertarians believe that the only function of government is to protect your right to the pursuit of property, along with other basic freedoms. They don't give a s**t about equal opportunity.

You're really not going to get equal opportunity in any system unless you take away children from their families at birth.

Socialised childcare would do well, but at the same time if you want to make equal opportunity meaningfull, everyone has to recieve equal levels of education, all the way through university, you also have to provide employment that isn't rendered unstable by the vagaries of the market, so that able people aren't thrown out of a job due to their emplyer going bust, so that implies a collectivised economy. To allow people to have free opportunity without having to worry about or be stiffled by a crippling bureaucracy, it needs to be done away, and society needs to be organised on a thoroughly collective and democratic basis.

In a word, to have true equal opportunity you need a communist society. Something libertarians fight against.

Well if everyone had the same education, some would fall behind while others would rapidly advance. If you're teaching some way x, who learn way y, and others way x, who learn way x, then its not equal opportunity.

That's really a matter of pedagogy rather than political theory. If given the proper resources, training, and classroom size, motivated teachers can quite easily accommodate individual students' needs.

Quote:

And to provide employment that isn't "rendered unstable by the vagaries of the market" would be changed in a communist society to employment that isn't "rendered unstable by lack of some materials and excess of more".

I think this could be just as well-served by a universal, government-run occupational registration program as by the government merely employing everyone directly. Make employers register their open positions with the government with certain requirements of information that must be provided, then have potential employees apply to open positions. Sort of like an "official" Craigslist.

Honestly, I don't really have a preference. Both would work given that they were run effectively.  

[LimeIzMyFaveColor]

Lethkhar

LimeIzMyFaveColor

Gracchia Saint-Justine

LimeIzMyFaveColor

I do agree with people having equal opportunity, but I do not agree that people should have equal levels of education. I like my courses challenging. Regular classes make me tired and bored. AP and Honor classes are the way to go on my path.

And if everyone had the opportunity to be in those classes?
To have equal opportunity, everyone needs equal education. If you don't want to decend into neo-darwinist nonsense, you have to recognise the absurdity between children being responsible for their education--which decides the rest of their lives--and children being declared incapable of holding responsibility for anything else.

Equal opportunity is having the opportunity to get an education. That does mean that everyone needs an equal education. People learn on different levels. People need to be able to challenge themselves and excel and learn things that could benefit our society. Not everyone can learn how to come up with cool inventions if they were dumb down because Jimmy didn't know how to do Calculus. I'm motivated by challenge. School and education would just not be interesting if I wasn't motivated. Money is the motivator in the economy. Why shouldn't children be responsible for their education? I deserve the classes that I have because I worked hard for them. I am ranked number 2 of my class (salutatorian, that's under the Valedictorian). I have applied and got accepted to a University. I will get this state's scholarship for having a grand GPA and of the SAT and ACT scores. People have the opportunity (chance) to go to a college, but they need to work hard for it. Working hard means getting scholarships which can pay for their higher-level education.

Yeah, I think everyone should be given the same minimum opportunity to education, then let them (and their families) decide what they do with it. You wouldn't be able to achieve all those things if you weren't provided with an education in the first place.

Yes we have equal opportunity to have an education.
But we don't need equal levels of education.

I suggest you guys read the short story: Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
It's about how you can't achieve equality because there will be inequality.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

LimeIzMyFaveColor

Lethkhar

LimeIzMyFaveColor

Gracchia Saint-Justine

LimeIzMyFaveColor

I do agree with people having equal opportunity, but I do not agree that people should have equal levels of education. I like my courses challenging. Regular classes make me tired and bored. AP and Honor classes are the way to go on my path.

And if everyone had the opportunity to be in those classes?
To have equal opportunity, everyone needs equal education. If you don't want to decend into neo-darwinist nonsense, you have to recognise the absurdity between children being responsible for their education--which decides the rest of their lives--and children being declared incapable of holding responsibility for anything else.

Equal opportunity is having the opportunity to get an education. That does mean that everyone needs an equal education. People learn on different levels. People need to be able to challenge themselves and excel and learn things that could benefit our society. Not everyone can learn how to come up with cool inventions if they were dumb down because Jimmy didn't know how to do Calculus. I'm motivated by challenge. School and education would just not be interesting if I wasn't motivated. Money is the motivator in the economy. Why shouldn't children be responsible for their education? I deserve the classes that I have because I worked hard for them. I am ranked number 2 of my class (salutatorian, that's under the Valedictorian). I have applied and got accepted to a University. I will get this state's scholarship for having a grand GPA and of the SAT and ACT scores. People have the opportunity (chance) to go to a college, but they need to work hard for it. Working hard means getting scholarships which can pay for their higher-level education.

Yeah, I think everyone should be given the same minimum opportunity to education, then let them (and their families) decide what they do with it. You wouldn't be able to achieve all those things if you weren't provided with an education in the first place.

Yes we have equal opportunity to have an education.
But we don't need equal levels of education.

I suggest you guys read the short story: Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
It's about how you can't achieve equality because there will be inequality.

To reply to this post and your previous one:
The point isn't to give everyone the same education, but an equal one, one that will enable everyone to achive their potential.

It is easy to say that someone who got good marks deserves to go to uni and that someone who got s**t marks doesn't. But this falls apart as soon as you look into it. Why did the person get bad marks? Because they didn't study? Let's assume this is true. Well, why? Maybe they are motivated by challenge, but not by staring at a book, or some other fault of the educator. Maybe they just felt it was boring. Whatever the case is, you are penalising someone for life for what? For being 'bad' during the stage of greatest influence in their development.

Rather than penalise someone for what is essentially not their fault, they should be given a decent education that works for them, that makes them the best they can be. If you are stimulated by challenge, then a challenging educational environment will work for you. But not everyone is like that, so not everyone should be forced into an environment that will only bring the best out of some of them.

To use dl's example, you are saying 'I benefit from way x so everyone should undergo a way x education, despite there being people who would benefit from way y, way z and many others.

So people should recieve equal levels of education, but the education should not be the same, instead it should be 'personalised' to their needs.

@dl:
With a temporary shortage of materials, a communist society would shorten the working day with no loss in pay. With longer shortages, training would be made available for areas where labour is needed. The difference is that this would be a conscious decision on part of the entire economy to shift labour, not merely a result of unknown market manueuvers. A better way to think about it is to compare it with a company hifting its workers around internally, instead of firing some janitors and hiring some coffee machine cleaners.  

[LimeIzMyFaveColor]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

LimeIzMyFaveColor

Lethkhar

LimeIzMyFaveColor

Gracchia Saint-Justine

LimeIzMyFaveColor

I do agree with people having equal opportunity, but I do not agree that people should have equal levels of education. I like my courses challenging. Regular classes make me tired and bored. AP and Honor classes are the way to go on my path.

And if everyone had the opportunity to be in those classes?
To have equal opportunity, everyone needs equal education. If you don't want to decend into neo-darwinist nonsense, you have to recognise the absurdity between children being responsible for their education--which decides the rest of their lives--and children being declared incapable of holding responsibility for anything else.

Equal opportunity is having the opportunity to get an education. That does mean that everyone needs an equal education. People learn on different levels. People need to be able to challenge themselves and excel and learn things that could benefit our society. Not everyone can learn how to come up with cool inventions if they were dumb down because Jimmy didn't know how to do Calculus. I'm motivated by challenge. School and education would just not be interesting if I wasn't motivated. Money is the motivator in the economy. Why shouldn't children be responsible for their education? I deserve the classes that I have because I worked hard for them. I am ranked number 2 of my class (salutatorian, that's under the Valedictorian). I have applied and got accepted to a University. I will get this state's scholarship for having a grand GPA and of the SAT and ACT scores. People have the opportunity (chance) to go to a college, but they need to work hard for it. Working hard means getting scholarships which can pay for their higher-level education.

Yeah, I think everyone should be given the same minimum opportunity to education, then let them (and their families) decide what they do with it. You wouldn't be able to achieve all those things if you weren't provided with an education in the first place.

Yes we have equal opportunity to have an education.
But we don't need equal levels of education.

I suggest you guys read the short story: Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut
It's about how you can't achieve equality because there will be inequality.

Rather than penalise someone for what is essentially not their fault, they should be given a decent education that works for them, that makes them the best they can be..

So people should recieve equal levels of education, but the education should not be the same, instead it should be 'personalised' to their needs.

Now I concur with you.  

[The Singular Enigma]

Edible Jennann

I've been doing a little reading on the Libertarian Party and I like most of what I've seen so far - smaller govt, lower taxes, more freedom. I'd be interested to hear what my fellow rational atheists opinions and/or thoughts are on the Party.

I am a Libertarian, but unfortunately, Libertarians are considered to be some sort of "radical sect" of political parties.

Source:
http://www.chrisbrunner.com/2007/05/09/libertarians-are-terrorists-says-the-state-of-alabama/  

[dl1371]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

With a temporary shortage of materials, a communist society would shorten the working day with no loss in pay. With longer shortages, training would be made available for areas where labour is needed. The difference is that this would be a conscious decision on part of the entire economy to shift labour, not merely a result of unknown market manueuvers. A better way to think about it is to compare it with a company hifting its workers around internally, instead of firing some janitors and hiring some coffee machine cleaners.

Well employment wouldn't be based on availability of materials, but the job you do would. And wouldn't the period where you put some of the workers in training to start producing the other material mean a slight drop in overall production for a small period. Oh well, it wouldn't be that big, but enough to impact someone lifestyle a bit.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

dl1371

Gracchia Saint-Justine

With a temporary shortage of materials, a communist society would shorten the working day with no loss in pay. With longer shortages, training would be made available for areas where labour is needed. The difference is that this would be a conscious decision on part of the entire economy to shift labour, not merely a result of unknown market manueuvers. A better way to think about it is to compare it with a company hifting its workers around internally, instead of firing some janitors and hiring some coffee machine cleaners.

Well employment wouldn't be based on availability of materials, but the job you do would. And wouldn't the period where you put some of the workers in training to start producing the other material mean a slight drop in overall production for a small period. Oh well, it wouldn't be that big, but enough to impact someone lifestyle a bit.

First, I'd like to ammend my previous post to mention socialism, not communism. But that is something non-commies prolly wouln't notice or care about, so...
If production in a given industry is low due to a raw material shortage, for example, shifting workers away from that industry won't lower production because they are already not producing. If you mean to say 'won't there still be an overall drop in production between the start of the shortage and when the workers are re-trained for their new positions' then yes, but that's the nature of the beast. Until we reach communism, a post scarcity society, we will have to deal with those issues. But because society manages the economy consciously, it will be better able to do this than any other.  

[dl1371]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

dl1371

Gracchia Saint-Justine

With a temporary shortage of materials, a communist society would shorten the working day with no loss in pay. With longer shortages, training would be made available for areas where labour is needed. The difference is that this would be a conscious decision on part of the entire economy to shift labour, not merely a result of unknown market manueuvers. A better way to think about it is to compare it with a company hifting its workers around internally, instead of firing some janitors and hiring some coffee machine cleaners.

Well employment wouldn't be based on availability of materials, but the job you do would. And wouldn't the period where you put some of the workers in training to start producing the other material mean a slight drop in overall production for a small period. Oh well, it wouldn't be that big, but enough to impact someone lifestyle a bit.

First, I'd like to ammend my previous post to mention socialism, not communism. But that is something non-commies prolly wouln't notice or care about, so...
If production in a given industry is low due to a raw material shortage, for example, shifting workers away from that industry won't lower production because they are already not producing. If you mean to say 'won't there still be an overall drop in production between the start of the shortage and when the workers are re-trained for their new positions' then yes, but that's the nature of the beast. Until we reach communism, a post scarcity society, we will have to deal with those issues. But because society manages the economy consciously, it will be better able to do this than any other.

Actually, I wasn't natural resources, I don't think I made that clear though, anyway, what I was talking about is demand for one material rising and dropping. For example: If you haven't got enough workers producing paper, and there is a sudden demand for paper, you're going to want to put workers, who would normally go into another business in the paper producing factories.
Here's a mathematical example:
You've got 100 paper manufacturing workers.
The paper manufacturing workers produce 50 packets of paper a day.
The people suddenly need 100 packets of paper a day.
But lo and behold, 100 new workers appear, and these workers would ordinarily go into the steel producing business, but instead go into producing paper.
Problem solved, but the people who would ordinarily go into steel are unhappy.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

In that situation there would, of course, be a shortage of both paper and steel as resources both human and capital) that would normally be devoted to steel would be moved over to paper. I'm not sure what bearing this has on where I took the topic, but I'll run with it because it's fun (if the OP wishes to complain, I'll shut up). The difference is, the decision to change production, hiring, and training, in a word, the decision made to invest in a particular industry will be made consciously by society as a whole based on an appraisal of the needs of society as a whole, and would likely result in a shift of social and production priorities over the whole economy, and not merely one industry. To carry cour example (and it is merely an example): With a shortage of paper, we can guess that this would lead to a redirection of priorities in that more things that can be stored in books would be stored electronically. This would result in an increased demand for computers and connectity apparatus (modems, fiber optic cables, wi-fi, possibly even the old copper cables in certain cases).

Would socialism have many of the same problems we have now, inherit others, and gain a whole new set of problems? Sure, but socialism is a stepping stone. No one can say how long we would stay there, but it is merely a stepping stone until we get to a post-scarcity society: Communism.  

[dl1371]

Gracchia Saint-Justine

In that situation there would, of course, be a shortage of both paper and steel as resources both human and capital) that would normally be devoted to steel would be moved over to paper. I'm not sure what bearing this has on where I took the topic, but I'll run with it because it's fun (if the OP wishes to complain, I'll shut up). The difference is, the decision to change production, hiring, and training, in a word, the decision made to invest in a particular industry will be made consciously by society as a whole based on an appraisal of the needs of society as a whole, and would likely result in a shift of social and production priorities over the whole economy, and not merely one industry. To carry cour example (and it is merely an example): With a shortage of paper, we can guess that this would lead to a redirection of priorities in that more things that can be stored in books would be stored electronically. This would result in an increased demand for computers and connectity apparatus (modems, fiber optic cables, wi-fi, possibly even the old copper cables in certain cases).

Would socialism have many of the same problems we have now, inherit others, and gain a whole new set of problems? Sure, but socialism is a stepping stone. No one can say how long we would stay there, but it is merely a stepping stone until we get to a post-scarcity society: Communism.

I think this is because you said something about work being based on the fluctuations of the market, and I said that even in a communist society work would still be based on the production of materials
Why we started talking 'bout that, no idea.

Anyway, I realize that difference, but if you didn't have that difference, society would still need to redirect some workers who would be happy working in steel(Or some manufacturing something else). My overall point is:
Absolute equality isn't possible, communism is pretty close to it, but we will never get even employment equality.  

[MiniSiets]

Lethkhar

Socially-Yes, anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Economically-No, a complete lack of regulation in a market leads to corporatism and a lack of responsibility by investors, as was seen in the latest market's crash.

I also believe that the government should be responsible for providing equal opportunity for everyone, something which Libertarians are against.

And honestly, the "Libertarian" Party here in the US isn't strictly libertarian. Bob Barr, the guy who ran for president in their party in 2008, is really just a neoconservative. If they were actually libertarian, you'd see Ron Paul running on their platform.

I 100% support this statement.  

[Le Pere Duchesne]

dl1371

Gracchia Saint-Justine

In that situation there would, of course, be a shortage of both paper and steel as resources both human and capital) that would normally be devoted to steel would be moved over to paper. I'm not sure what bearing this has on where I took the topic, but I'll run with it because it's fun (if the OP wishes to complain, I'll shut up). The difference is, the decision to change production, hiring, and training, in a word, the decision made to invest in a particular industry will be made consciously by society as a whole based on an appraisal of the needs of society as a whole, and would likely result in a shift of social and production priorities over the whole economy, and not merely one industry. To carry cour example (and it is merely an example): With a shortage of paper, we can guess that this would lead to a redirection of priorities in that more things that can be stored in books would be stored electronically. This would result in an increased demand for computers and connectity apparatus (modems, fiber optic cables, wi-fi, possibly even the old copper cables in certain cases).

Would socialism have many of the same problems we have now, inherit others, and gain a whole new set of problems? Sure, but socialism is a stepping stone. No one can say how long we would stay there, but it is merely a stepping stone until we get to a post-scarcity society: Communism.

I think this is because you said something about work being based on the fluctuations of the market, and I said that even in a communist society work would still be based on the production of materials
Why we started talking 'bout that, no idea.

Anyway, I realize that difference, but if you didn't have that difference, society would still need to redirect some workers who would be happy working in steel(Or some manufacturing something else). My overall point is:
Absolute equality isn't possible, communism is pretty close to it, but we will never get even employment equality.

Well...