Education is Not a Right

[Otep]

[quote]Majin wrote:
orion wrote:
Every country where education is not public disagrees with you.

Whole families throw their money together so that the best and the brightest can get an education, and these children REALLY work hard.

To think that those problems would not be addressed by society is ludicrous, they would, just more efficiently.

Could you post some examples of nations without public education that managed to address the problems Otep mentioned? I’d be interested to read about them.
[/quote]

x2

[orion]

[quote]Otep wrote:
Majin wrote:
orion wrote:
Every country where education is not public disagrees with you.

Whole families throw their money together so that the best and the brightest can get an education, and these children REALLY work hard.

To think that those problems would not be addressed by society is ludicrous, they would, just more efficiently.

Could you post some examples of nations without public education that managed to address the problems Otep mentioned? I’d be interested to read about them.

x2[/quote]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5224

Please notice that there is a 50 page paper downloadable as a pdf file on the bottom of the page.

It would be worth it to read at least the conclusion.

[Makavali]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Now you are doing what I am told I should never do, discriminating. I will admit there are alot of christians that are not well educated. There are a lot every creed in this world that are not well educated.[/quote]

The problem is that the idiots fuck it up for you.

[apbt55]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

…but I wouldn’t only home teach my children, they need to be socialized as well…

By whom?

Be careful with your answer because you are talking to a dad who homeschooled both of his kids for from kindergarten through eight grade. And when they emerged from the eighth grade they were very well socialized. Very.[/quote]

By whom I chose and in the environment I chose.

Parents should take the initiative not our corrupt government and their indoctrinating school system.

[apbt55]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Now you are doing what I am told I should never do, discriminating. I will admit there are alot of christians that are not well educated. There are a lot every creed in this world that are not well educated.

The problem is that the idiots fuck it up for you.[/quote]

Yes but there is that everywhere, statistically speaking about only 2.5% of any population base has enough critical thinking ability to truly think for themselves.

So are a lot of people out there to make the rest of their base look very incompetent.

We can look at science for an example, about 95% of the people in a science field are monkey’s spitting out someone else’s research and idea’s not really being able to draw their own conclusions. Now these are well educated people for the most part, doesn’t give you much hope in humanity or their ability to do what is right for them, or an entire populis for that matter

[apbt55]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

…but I wouldn’t only home teach my children, they need to be socialized as well…

By whom?

Be careful with your answer because you are talking to a dad who homeschooled both of his kids for from kindergarten through eight grade. And when they emerged from the eighth grade they were very well socialized. Very.

By whom I chose and in the environment I chose.

Parents should take the initiative not our corrupt government and their indoctrinating school system.[/quote]

Congratulations, I mean that sincerely.

Right now we have our 2 daughters in a learning center day care, until we can get our finances at a state where my wife can stay home.

But when the time comes we evaluate the charter schools in the area and see. I refuse to use the public school systems around here, with their quest for mediocrity.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
We can look at science for an example, about 95% of the people in a science field are monkey’s spitting out someone else’s research and idea’s not really being able to draw their own conclusions. Now these are well educated people for the most part, doesn’t give you much hope in humanity or their ability to do what is right for them, or an entire populis for that matter
[/quote]

Innovators are a rarity. They will never be a product of the classroom because by nature they are the ones who buck the system and reject norms. That is what makes them innovators.

Cultivating innovators requires an emphasis on individuality and academic freedom early in childhood. Government mandated classrooms are the antithesis of that.

[Gael]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.

The US government also isn’t some landlord of our property, taking it’s rent out of our checks (and through other means). Our government’s nothing but a neccessary evil we charge to defend our property and contracts. It shouldn’t be a tool for violating someone else’s property.

A landlord is someone who declares ownership of land, either by buying it from someone or otherwise, and then proclaims that anyone who wishes to live on their property must pay them rent.

A government is something that declares control of land, either through war, purchase, treaties or other means, and then proclaims that anyone who wants to live there must pay taxes.

I would be much more sympathetic to your view that taxes are illegitimate if you were consistent and upheld the same judgment in both cases.

Governments generally do not refer to themselves as landlords. But is this only reason why one is legitimate and one is not?

To illustrate with a hypothetical. Lets say two islands were discovered in the pacific. Both are reasonably desirable locations that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any government (ridiculous in this age, I know, but bear with me).

If a group of people go to the first island and set up what they call a “government” and declare that if anyone wishes to move to the island, they must pay taxes, you would say it’s illegitimate.

But if a group of people go to the second island and call themselves nothing other than landowners, and ask for “rent” you would say this is perfectly acceptable.

It seems you see a huge difference between the two situations.

First, you misunderstand me. I do believe we need a revenue source to fund national defense, courts…well, basically the extremely limited powers of our government as set down in the constitution.

Without a doubt I believe we must have a national defense in order to ensure our freedom isn’t swept aside by some outside power.

First Island. No, I wouldn’t say that. I’m not an anarchist. If they taxed to provide a military to prevent some other foreign power from being able to just walk in and completely rob me of my property, fine by me.

Now, if they taxed me because they feel like Jim Bob could use a little bit of money, I’d consider it illegitimate. A government has to respect my property rights. It’s very existence is to protect those rights.

Second Island. Absolutely acceptable, without question. They’re interested in me paying rent. Making a profit. And, not forcing me to participate in kooky social security, bloated and bankrupting Medicare/Medicaid, and spreading the wealth. Now I’d hope they’d form a government to provide courts, defense, and the like. [/quote]

Thanks for playing along with my hypothetical. Let’s carry it a bit farther.

Obviously, the landholders in the second island at some point will run into problems with tenants not paying their rent, overstaying their term or otherwise violating their contract. Is it OK in your view for them to use force (armed security guards etc) to evict tenants from the property?

Is it legitimate for the landholders to ask tenants to do as they wish or require them to leave (provided their is no breach of contract)?

You say there is no Social security, medicare/medicaid, or spreading the wealth, but they can spend your rent money however they wish. Say they decided for business reasons (foolishly or wisely, who cares) that senior citizens get cheaper rates. Many businesses do things like that. You may or may not describe this as spreading the wealth, but the effect is the same: you pay more than your share and they pay less.

Is there any point at which you would question the legitimacy of such a situation short of:

1. breach of contract
2. the use/threat of force beyond just eviction

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

Then I see that you prance around the issue like everyone else does when it comes to the gun you point at other people:

Yes, I do not pay for your children´s education, but you force someone else too.

Yes, that someone does not pick cotton, but whatever he does, you take most of it Not true away and spend it as you wish.

Yess, you do not point the gun yourself, but you employ the people that do it in your name.

Yes, people could leave your country, but what kind of person are you that people have to flee to be save from you? they don’t have to flee, they just transfermoney to a tax paradise

So, how is it that you can force other people to work for you?

Hi Orion, here we go again. I chose this chapter from your writings since this is what you want me to answer to, I think.

Let’s rehash what has been said.
I wrote, that education is defined to be a right in finnish constitution, to which you object that it is impossible, that it can be an entitlement at best. Mmmh, It’s an entitlement to all children and youth, in that case. The act in itself doesn’t change no matter what we call it.

Then there was discussion about the philosophical foundations of a welfare state. You consider philosophical foundations to be of utmost importance, I can’t see why. I’m interested in the results.

And the rest of the discussion, you are focused on taxation and want me to acknowledge that I force other people to partake in this system and that I prance around the issue. I like that expression, well said. True, I prance around it.

Let’s see what we can agree on. We can agree that taxation can be regarded as a form of exploitation, even though the comparison to slavery was retarded.

The reason why I prance aroud the issue is because you simplify it to a point where I can no longer recognize the society I live in. I didn’t accomplish this by myself, you know. Not a single party rallies against the welfare state. You know why? Because , it’s not a winning theme in politics. Everyone gets something in return for their taxes, regardless of income. Education is free and top class, they say.

PISA - PISA

If you are childless and single you have to be satisfied with cheap medical care and the usual safetynet. Now when I think about it, singles do whine a lot. So anyway, we may be thiefs, but we are ethical thiefs.
[/quote]

A) look at your pay check.

Ask your employer for everything that is not on your paycheck but should be.

That is your brutto-brutto salary. Then substract your “employers share” to taxes, social security taxes and so on that are actually payed by you.

That leaves your brutto salary, which is what you usually see on your paycheck.

Deduct taxes and social security taxes.

That is your netto salary.

Now, if you spend it, also deduct indirect taxes, like VAT and taxes on energy and gasoline.

I can almost garantuee you that you pay most of what your earn in taxes, it is just that the system is rigged for you not to notice.

B) The comparison is in no way retarded. If you make other people work for you at gunpoint, what else should I call it?

The interesting thing is that by not caring about the ethical foundations of this situation you not only put shackles on yourself, you think you have the right to enslave others.

That is unacceptable.

C) [quote]

So anyway, we may be thiefs, but we are ethical thiefs. [/quote]

No you aren´t, or otherwise you´d be able to give an ethical justification for what you are doing.

I have started a thread about the ethics of progressive taxation not to long ago, maybe you want to look into it.

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/taxes_and_ethics

Wishful thinking is not ethical reasoning and majority rule cannot justify theft, in fact, we have whole societies now that are so unable to say what they stand for and what logically follows that they vote on anything and that is noot how this was intended to work.

[orion]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.

The US government also isn’t some landlord of our property, taking it’s rent out of our checks (and through other means). Our government’s nothing but a neccessary evil we charge to defend our property and contracts. It shouldn’t be a tool for violating someone else’s property.

A landlord is someone who declares ownership of land, either by buying it from someone or otherwise, and then proclaims that anyone who wishes to live on their property must pay them rent.

A government is something that declares control of land, either through war, purchase, treaties or other means, and then proclaims that anyone who wants to live there must pay taxes.

I would be much more sympathetic to your view that taxes are illegitimate if you were consistent and upheld the same judgment in both cases.

Governments generally do not refer to themselves as landlords. But is this only reason why one is legitimate and one is not?

To illustrate with a hypothetical. Lets say two islands were discovered in the pacific. Both are reasonably desirable locations that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any government (ridiculous in this age, I know, but bear with me).

If a group of people go to the first island and set up what they call a “government” and declare that if anyone wishes to move to the island, they must pay taxes, you would say it’s illegitimate.

But if a group of people go to the second island and call themselves nothing other than landowners, and ask for “rent” you would say this is perfectly acceptable.

It seems you see a huge difference between the two situations.

First, you misunderstand me. I do believe we need a revenue source to fund national defense, courts…well, basically the extremely limited powers of our government as set down in the constitution.

Without a doubt I believe we must have a national defense in order to ensure our freedom isn’t swept aside by some outside power.

First Island. No, I wouldn’t say that. I’m not an anarchist. If they taxed to provide a military to prevent some other foreign power from being able to just walk in and completely rob me of my property, fine by me.

Now, if they taxed me because they feel like Jim Bob could use a little bit of money, I’d consider it illegitimate. A government has to respect my property rights. It’s very existence is to protect those rights.

Second Island. Absolutely acceptable, without question. They’re interested in me paying rent. Making a profit. And, not forcing me to participate in kooky social security, bloated and bankrupting Medicare/Medicaid, and spreading the wealth. Now I’d hope they’d form a government to provide courts, defense, and the like.

Thanks for playing along with my hypothetical. Let’s carry it a bit farther.

Obviously, the landholders in the second island at some point will run into problems with tenants not paying their rent, overstaying their term or otherwise violating their contract. Is it OK in your view for them to use force (armed security guards etc) to evict tenants from the property?

Is it legitimate for the landholders to ask tenants to do as they wish or require them to leave (provided their is no breach of contract)?

You say there is no Social security, medicare/medicaid, or spreading the wealth, but they can spend your rent money however they wish. Say they decided for business reasons (foolishly or wisely, who cares) that senior citizens get cheaper rates. Many businesses do things like that. You may or may not describe this as spreading the wealth, but the effect is the same: you pay more than your share and they pay less.

Is there any point at which you would question the legitimacy of such a situation short of:

1. breach of contract
2. the use/threat of force beyond just eviction

[/quote]

I kill those fuckers and make the island mine.

Unfortunately they have forgotten to build a government by the people for the people to protect their rights.

Now you might say, wait, don´t you believe in natural law?

And I´d say yes, but you probably don´t, so if there is no government to grant rights they do not have any.

Anyway, did you know that you are required by law to overthrow a government that no longer accepts and protects your natural rights?

[jp_dubya]

this was 5 pages of nothing. I expect more to come but expected more already.

[orion]

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
this was 5 pages of nothing. I expect more to come but expected more already.[/quote]

and your post helped to make it better in what way?

[Sloth]

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
And you right to spend someone else’s money is based on what exactly?

What’s the difference between a government forcing residents wishing to live under their jurisdiction to pay taxes and a wealthy landlord forcing people who wish to live on their property to pay rent?

If you have a landlord forcing you to stay on his property, paying him rent, you should call the police.

But the US doesn’t force people to live here, to immigrate here in such huge numbers.

The US government also isn’t some landlord of our property, taking it’s rent out of our checks (and through other means). Our government’s nothing but a neccessary evil we charge to defend our property and contracts. It shouldn’t be a tool for violating someone else’s property.

A landlord is someone who declares ownership of land, either by buying it from someone or otherwise, and then proclaims that anyone who wishes to live on their property must pay them rent.

A government is something that declares control of land, either through war, purchase, treaties or other means, and then proclaims that anyone who wants to live there must pay taxes.

I would be much more sympathetic to your view that taxes are illegitimate if you were consistent and upheld the same judgment in both cases.

Governments generally do not refer to themselves as landlords. But is this only reason why one is legitimate and one is not?

To illustrate with a hypothetical. Lets say two islands were discovered in the pacific. Both are reasonably desirable locations that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any government (ridiculous in this age, I know, but bear with me).

If a group of people go to the first island and set up what they call a “government” and declare that if anyone wishes to move to the island, they must pay taxes, you would say it’s illegitimate.

But if a group of people go to the second island and call themselves nothing other than landowners, and ask for “rent” you would say this is perfectly acceptable.

It seems you see a huge difference between the two situations.

First, you misunderstand me. I do believe we need a revenue source to fund national defense, courts…well, basically the extremely limited powers of our government as set down in the constitution.

Without a doubt I believe we must have a national defense in order to ensure our freedom isn’t swept aside by some outside power.

First Island. No, I wouldn’t say that. I’m not an anarchist. If they taxed to provide a military to prevent some other foreign power from being able to just walk in and completely rob me of my property, fine by me.

Now, if they taxed me because they feel like Jim Bob could use a little bit of money, I’d consider it illegitimate. A government has to respect my property rights. It’s very existence is to protect those rights.

Second Island. Absolutely acceptable, without question. They’re interested in me paying rent. Making a profit. And, not forcing me to participate in kooky social security, bloated and bankrupting Medicare/Medicaid, and spreading the wealth. Now I’d hope they’d form a government to provide courts, defense, and the like.

Thanks for playing along with my hypothetical. Let’s carry it a bit farther.

Obviously, the landholders in the second island at some point will run into problems with tenants not paying their rent, overstaying their term or otherwise violating their contract. Is it OK in your view for them to use force (armed security guards etc) to evict tenants from the property?

Is it legitimate for the landholders to ask tenants to do as they wish or require them to leave (provided their is no breach of contract)?

You say there is no Social security, medicare/medicaid, or spreading the wealth, but they can spend your rent money however they wish. Say they decided for business reasons (foolishly or wisely, who cares) that senior citizens get cheaper rates.

Many businesses do things like that. You may or may not describe this as spreading the wealth, but the effect is the same: you pay more than your share and they pay less.

Is there any point at which you would question the legitimacy of such a situation short of:

1. breach of contract
2. the use/threat of force beyond just eviction

[/quote]

You’ve got to go back to the very beginning and realize that profit motive leads to efficiency a government will never have. A landlord will not spread the wealth around for the sake of doing it.

He is not going to bankrupt himself providing social programs for the poor. You’re trying too hard to make a landlord into a government. A landlord is motivated to earn a profit. A government spends someone else’s money they’ve recieved through force.

Over time the market clears out inefficient landlords. An inefficient and wasteful government? Nah, it’ll print, borrow, and tax some more in an attempt to cover it’s deficits. Any you WILL comply.

[Gael]

Over time the market clears out inefficient landlords. An inefficient and wasteful government? Nah, it’ll print, borrow, and tax some more in an attempt to cover it’s deficits. Any you WILL comply.

So are you saying that over time, inefficient governments won’t be cleared out?

Look Sloth – what I’m driving at is the legitimate use of force.

I see a contradiction in your view. It is possible for the second island to reach a point of 100% pure tyranny, and all you can say is ‘well, why would they do that?’ In theory, the landowners make up the rules however they want. And you must either follow or leave.

Yes, a government and a landlord have different motives, but I don’t think this directly confronts the issue. Do you really think that power is legitimate or not depending on the motives?

I would be much more sympathetic to libertarians if they saw that private control of land and public control of land must both be classified the same – whether this is legitimate or illegitimate.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]orion wrote:

A) look at your pay check.

Ask your employer for everything that is not on your paycheck but should be.

That is your brutto-brutto salary. Then substract your “employers share” to taxes, social security taxes and so on that are actually payed by you.

That leaves your brutto salary, which is what you usually see on your paycheck.

Deduct taxes and social security taxes.

That is your netto salary.

Now, if you spend it, also deduct indirect taxes, like VAT and taxes on energy and gasoline.

I can almost garantuee you that you pay most of what your earn in taxes, it is just that the system is rigged for you not to notice.

B) The comparison is in no way retarded. If you make other people work for you at gunpoint, what else should I call it?

The interesting thing is that by not caring about the ethical foundations of this situation you not only put shackles on yourself, you think you have the right to enslave others.

That is unacceptable.

C)

So anyway, we may be thiefs, but we are ethical thiefs.

No you aren´t, or otherwise you´d be able to give an ethical justification for what you are doing.

I have started a thread about the ethics of progressive taxation not to long ago, maybe you want to look into it.

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/taxes_and_ethics

Wishful thinking is not ethical reasoning and majority rule cannot justify theft, in fact, we have whole societies now that are so unable to say what they stand for and what logically follows that they vote on anything and that is noot how this was intended to work.

[/quote]

Sorry Orion, I hadn’t noticed this reply. I won’t bother to continue this since we aren’t discussing on the same plane. As I have said before, you like to soar and to see clearly how things ought to be. I’m too jaded for that.
About your last sentence, it has never worked better than now, either. I’m not against capitalism, that would be childish, I just don’t buy your idealized view of it.

[Sloth]

[quote]Gael wrote:
So are you saying that over time, inefficient governments won’t be cleared out?

Look Sloth – what I’m driving at is the legitimate use of force.

I see a contradiction in your view. It is possible for the second island to reach a point of 100% pure tyranny, and all you can say is ‘well, why would they do that?’ In theory, the landowners make up the rules however they want. And you must either follow or leave.

Yes, a government and a landlord have different motives, but I don’t think this directly confronts the issue. Do you really think that power is legitimate or not depending on the motives?

I would be much more sympathetic to libertarians if they saw that private control of land and public control of land must both be classified the same – whether this is legitimate or illegitimate.[/quote]

How can they be classified the same? One is overseen by a political class, and one by an owner. You don’t believe self interest, private ownership and investment, leads to a higher degree of motivation?

Edit: Trying to be brief, but let’s see what I can do.

1. Inefficient governments still have Armies, Air Forces, Navies. If they decided they aren’t going anywhere…
   Market forces will clear out inefficient businesses.

2. Sure, I can leave Private Ownership isle. But, if he wants to make even a modest profit he’s not going to want to see that happening very often. Of course this is an extreme example. Being an island that I happen to pop on and all.

Realistically, it’s as simple as me choosing not to buy a product anymore, switching service carriers with a phone call, going to a different dealership, changing insurcance, or seeing a different doctor. Which is of course a lot easier than moving an entire family and belongings to another country to escape central planning.

[orion]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
orion wrote:

A) look at your pay check.

Ask your employer for everything that is not on your paycheck but should be.

That is your brutto-brutto salary. Then substract your “employers share” to taxes, social security taxes and so on that are actually payed by you.

That leaves your brutto salary, which is what you usually see on your paycheck.

Deduct taxes and social security taxes.

That is your netto salary.

Now, if you spend it, also deduct indirect taxes, like VAT and taxes on energy and gasoline.

I can almost garantuee you that you pay most of what your earn in taxes, it is just that the system is rigged for you not to notice.

B) The comparison is in no way retarded. If you make other people work for you at gunpoint, what else should I call it?

The interesting thing is that by not caring about the ethical foundations of this situation you not only put shackles on yourself, you think you have the right to enslave others.

That is unacceptable.

C)

So anyway, we may be thiefs, but we are ethical thiefs.

No you aren´t, or otherwise you´d be able to give an ethical justification for what you are doing.

I have started a thread about the ethics of progressive taxation not to long ago, maybe you want to look into it.

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/taxes_and_ethics

Wishful thinking is not ethical reasoning and majority rule cannot justify theft, in fact, we have whole societies now that are so unable to say what they stand for and what logically follows that they vote on anything and that is noot how this was intended to work.

Sorry Orion, I hadn’t noticed this reply. I won’t bother to continue this since we aren’t discussing on the same plane. As I have said before, you like to soar and to see clearly how things ought to be. I’m too jaded for that.
About your last sentence, it has never worked better than now, either. I’m not against capitalism, that would be childish, I just don’t buy your idealized view of it.[/quote]

The Gun in the Room

by Stefan Molyneux

“Put down the gun, then we?ll talk.”

One of the most difficult ? and essential ? challenges faced by libertarians is the constant need to point out “the gun in the room.” In political debates, it can be very hard to cut through the endless windy abstractions that are used to cover up the basic fact that the government uses guns to force people to do what they do not want to do, or prevent them from doing what they do want to do. Listening to non-libertarians, I often wish I had a “euphemism umbrella” to ward off the continual oily drizzle of words and phrases designed to obscure the simple reality of state violence. We hear nonstop nonsense about the “social good,” the “redistribution of income,” the “education of children” and so on ? endless attempts to bury the naked barrel of the state in a mountain of syrupy metaphors.

It is a wearying but essential task to keep reminding people that the state is nothing but an agency of violence. When someone talks about “the welfare state helping the poor,” we must point out the gun in the room. When someone opposes the decriminalization of marijuana, we must point out the gun in the room. When someone supports the reduction of taxes, we must point out the gun in the room ? even if one bullet has been taken out.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux29.html