The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart

[BocaRear]

Never said you were american, again try to actually address what was presented to you instead of arguing strawmen. That said its funny you come on a majority black american board, in a thread that talks specifically about the US spending, and you talk about things in ignorance, then want to cop pleas when you walk into something that exposes your ignorance regarding the nation you desperately want to discuss. take your L on that one and move on, but the attempt to save face is worse than just saying you were wrong.

2) I don't care what the abortion law is the UK, the discussion isn't about law, its about the THOUGHT and IDEAS behind abortion and the justification for that and applying it consistantly. You in a poor effort to discredit Rothbard, have yet to actually document and reply on idea and thought why he is wrong, here you refuse to do that, you try to hide behind legalese in a matter where the law is irrelevant. I don't care what the UK law considers unborn, again speak to the ideology as to why you feel its perfectly acceptable to kill a living being that is dependent on its mother in the womb, but its immoral and wrong for same parent to remove consent to continue to support the child after 24 weeks or after birth?

1) You're implying you have to be American to talk about American federal spending, completely illogical.

2) where am I "hiding behind laws", jurisprudence is the philosophical aspect of Law. Thoughts and ideas act outside of the Law? You're kidding. Youre acting as if the Law has to act accordance with your definition of morality and that is a fallacy, laws can and have acted outside the realms of what people define as moral because they gain legitimacy not in their moral argument, but through people subscribing to it.
In my application of the UK Child Destruction laws not Murder laws, I am highlighting just one reason as to why foetus and a baby aren't considered the same.

I posted the whole context of the argument Rothbard was presented, he was in no way shape or form arguing that its right or preferable for parents to starve their kids, and since everyone can see the quote in full context and scope of the argument he was presenting, I will no longer reply, its easy to see the lack of intellectual honesty you are employing.

If you read Rothbard you would see the main source of his statement isn't legal obligation its force, its called the non-aggression axiom or principle. This is based on his principal of self ownership, you own yourself first and foremost so you are the one in control of your own person and no one has a right to take ownershp of your body or person without your consent. Now I want to see you explain to me why this rationale is flawed, why is it that others can make a claim on your person stronger than the person themselves? To deny this contention is to effectly embrace and argue that slavery is acceptable, is that where you stand logically?

Now I really find it funny you claim we have to justify liberty and freedom, yet you don't offer any rationale for your stance that people owe society (which is merely a label, not a single body with a single will or presence) You claim those in society owe a duty to pay taxes, in the US a nation that terrorizes blacks, browns, and natives are can you argue that we owe this government anything?

The law is the law because it is the law? this has to be the worst case of circular reasoning i've ever seen typed. The law is the law because the people in power with a monopoly of force say its the law. Your aside about hitler makes no sense, it doesn't support your point nor provide any rationale behind why anyone should support your stance.

Being responsible and having a duty care of a child you've given birth to = slavery

who enforces this Non-Aggression Principle? Please don't say the market.


The theory of libertarianism hinges on the theory that state is inherently evil and thus the state is corrupt, so what do you want to do, get rid of the state so that evil goes away?
But you do realise that the state isn't some magical entity, it consists of actual human beings. The same human beings that would shyt all over the NAP

The whole concept of eradicating the state and the state being something that is inherently evil rather than something citizens actively participate in democratically is intellectually dishonest. the state enforces law & order and also ensures the general welfare of all its citizens.

If we eradicated the state and adopted a free-market you'd end up with a society in which citizens would be at the mercy of Corporations as they would consolidate smaller businesses. You'd end up with a real life monopoly hellscape where monopolies could set the prices of something like water to whatever they want it to be because they can.

And your appeal to emotions is pathetic, black, brown, white whatever. People should pay taxes because we all benefit from taxes. There's the philosophy of utilitarianism in which there is a Societal greater good and the needs of the many outweighs that of the individual on some occasions. If there were no taxes who would develop roads, what about universal healthcare are you opposed to that? Do you think someone should be condemned to death for being poor?


This is why your dogmatic individualism is ridiculous,
You and those that think like you are essentially overgrown children with little grasp of critical thought and apply the argument from fallacy throughout.

Lemme ask you some questions:

1) if a person is born to a family too poor to afford healthcare, what should happen to them?

2) what stops businesses forming monopolies and charging extortionate prices for basic essentials like water in your libertarian free market?

3) who enforces the NAP?

4) if a child was born and the parent decided to leave it at the hospital, what should happen to the child?

 

[88m3]

libertarians deserve to be cullled

 

[David_TheMan]

1) You're implying you have to be American to talk about American federal spending, completely illogical.

2) where am I "hiding behind laws", jurisprudence is the philosophical aspect of Law. Thoughts and ideas act outside of the Law? You're kidding. Youre acting as if the Law has to act accordance with your definition of morality and that is a fallacy, laws can and have acted outside the realms of what people define as moral because they gain legitimacy not in their moral argument, but through people subscribing to it.
In my application of the UK Child Destruction laws not Murder laws, I am highlighting just one reason as to why foetus and a baby aren't considered the same.




Being responsible and having a duty care of a child you've given birth to = slavery

who enforces this Non-Aggression Principle? Please don't say the market.


The theory of libertarianism hinges on the theory that state is inherently evil and thus the state is corrupt, so what do you want to do, get rid of the state so that evil goes away?
But you do realise that the state isn't some magical entity, it consists of actual human beings. The same human beings that would shyt all over the NAP

The whole concept of eradicating the state and the state being something that is inherently evil rather than something citizens actively participate in democratically is intellectually dishonest. the state enforces law & order and also ensures the general welfare of all its citizens.

If we eradicated the state and adopted a free-market you'd end up with a society in which citizens would be at the mercy of Corporations as they would consolidate smaller businesses. You'd end up with a real life monopoly hellscape where monopolies could set the prices of something like water to whatever they want it to be because they can.

And your appeal to emotions is pathetic, black, brown, white whatever. People should pay taxes because we all benefit from taxes. There's the philosophy of utilitarianism in which there is a Societal greater good and the needs of the many outweighs that of the individual on some occasions. If there were no taxes who would develop roads, what about universal healthcare are you opposed to that? Do you think someone should be condemned to death for being poor?


This is why your dogmatic individualism is ridiculous,
You and those that think like you are essentially overgrown children with little grasp of critical thought and apply the argument from fallacy throughout.

Lemme ask you some questions:

1) if a person is born to a family too poor to afford healthcare, what should happen to them?

2) what stops businesses forming monopolies and charging extortionate prices for basic essentials like water in your libertarian free market?

3) who enforces the NAP?

4) if a child was born and the parent decided to leave it at the hospital, what should happen to the child?

I never implied you had to be american to talk about anything. Now we have you lying to try to save face.
If Rothbard was presenting a legal argument, the law would be relevant, he isn't, he is talking philosophically on principle. That you would not even try to counter his argument one principle with but would instead defer to the law again shows how lightweight you are intellectually.

If I said being responsible was equal to slavery please post it, just once. You can't though, because like most of your responses in this thread, you are devoid of substance to actually argue and defend your position.

Why would anyone need to enforce non-aggression principle? That logically makes no sense, if you understand what the principle is. Its akin to saying who will enforce the golden rule, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Either you accept the principle or axion or you don't.

The theory of libertarianism doesn't rest on the theory that the state is evil, there are some minarchist libertarians that believe the state is needed to protect members of society, all libertarians are not anarchists. again you would know this if you had a shred of interest in knowing what you actually are talking about.

You say if libertarainim is accepted we'd be at the mercy of corporations, well how would that worst case scenario be any different than the status quo today? We are currently at the mercy of laws and policy implemented by major coporations in their various fields , we currently operate in a world where certain nations with the most might operate against the rule of law domestically and internationally as they see fit, how is the worst case scenario of libertarianism different than the status quo of today?

You say dogmatic respect for individual liberty is ridiculous, on what intellectual grounds is it ridiculous, please list them.

1. If a person is too poor to afford healthcare they can't afford healthcare. They would be free to ask for donations publicly, appeal to charity, or try to take out loans and such to get money for healthcare, similar to what is done today.

2. The market naturally stops businesses from forming monopoly, a business charges more than the market wants and compeittors and substitution alternatives arrive to drive prices back down. The only way a monopoly can be formed typically is by government power to lock down competitors and ability to enter the market, which is what monopoly originally referred to.

3. The NAP isn't something that is enforced, you accept it as a principle or axiom or you don't.

4. If a child is abandoned the same thing today would happen, the child is found, and put in another party's care that wants to care for it, either another family or individual, or organization dedicated to providing care for the child.

 

[BocaRear]

You're essentially saying here that, a child having "a claim on your person" is slavery

If you read Rothbard you would see the main source of his statement isn't legal obligation its force, its called the non-aggression axiom or principle. This is based on his principal of self ownership, you own yourself first and foremost so you are the one in control of your own person and no one has a right to take ownershp of your body or person without your consent. Now I want to see you explain to me why this rationale is flawed, why is it that others can make a claim on your person stronger than the person themselves? To deny this contention is to effectly embrace and argue that slavery is acceptable, is that where you stand logically?

.

You're either being intellectually dishonest or are a complete and utter retard,
For one there is no consent in slavery. If one is a slave, they are dragged into bondage against their will.
Whereas when a person has a child, they consent to having sexual intercourse, consent in carrying the foetus for 9 months, consent to giving birth and THEREFORE provide consent to their responsibilities towards the child. Whether they give the child up for adoption is a different matter as the child is still in theoretically safe hands, HOWEVER allowing a child to die is completely and utterly voiding your responsibilty of safety towards the child.

You say if libertarainim is accepted we'd be at the mercy of corporations, well how would that worst case scenario be any different than the status quo today? We are currently at the mercy of laws and policy implemented by major coporations in their various fields , we currently operate in a world where certain nations with the most might operate against the rule of law domestically and internationally as they see fit, how is the worst case scenario of libertarianism different than the status quo of today?

IF IT'S NOT ANY DIFFERENCE TODAY WHY CHANGE ANYTHING?

your nightmare scenario would eventually condemn people to live at the whim of a corporate entity and this is a FACT.

Businesses WILL develop MONOPOLIES by consolidating other businesses and thus make it difficult for smaller business to try to enter said markets; that's the whole reason for Competition law and regulation.

In your world, Sweat shops and child labour would be acceptable and there would be no protection for the Individual which is the greatest irony of all

The theory of libertarianism doesn't rest on the theory that the state is evil, there are some minarchist libertarians that believe the state is needed to protect members of society, all libertarians are not anarchists. again you would know this if you had a shred of interest in knowing what you actually are talking about.

You say if libertarainim is accepted we'd be at the mercy of corporations, well how would that worst case scenario be any different than the status quo today? We are currently at the mercy of laws and policy implemented by major coporations in their various fields , we currently operate in a world where certain nations with the most might operate against the rule of law domestically and internationally as they see fit, how is the worst case scenario of libertarianism different than the status quo of today?

"Minimal state" Libertarianism has been tried already with Act of Confederation WHICH FAILED because the central government was too weak to do anything. The US Constitution starts with the statement:

"We the people, In order to form a more perfect union"

Small government is only appealing to billionaires and rebellious angsty teenagers, even the founders realised it was entirely flawed


If we go to Anarcho-Capitalism which is a god awful oxymoron and is favoured by absolute children, you have to start entering Twilight Zone levels of delusion where people genuinely believe that an "Non Aggression Principle" enforced by nothing will prevent people from committing acts of Aggression.

What happened to the Golden Rule Principle? Oh yeah, that gets shyt on every single day because people actively kill one another.

Speaking of not killing one another - the principle "Thou Shall Not Kill" gets literally ignored every single day and that's under the threat of eternal hellfire, the fukk are people going to fear in an AnCap society?

If you suggest that a Private company will start enforcing laws here's another clip to show how idiotic you are

You say dogmatic respect for individual liberty is ridiculous, on what intellectual grounds is it ridiculous, please list them.

Because you have to live around other people. the very nature of complete and utter individualism is so retarded that children are taught even before the age of 5 that "you have to share"

Unlimited individualism is completely contradictory and just highlights how the "aggression" in the NAP can be manipulated to define it as whatever you wanted it to define because for example;
if I lived next door to you and I played my music really loud and it disturbed your individual freedom to enjoy silence, do you have the right to class my actions as Aggression and use violence against me?

1. If a person is too poor to afford healthcare they can't afford healthcare. They would be free to ask for donations publicly, appeal to charity, or try to take out loans and such to get money for healthcare, similar to what is done today.

2. The market naturally stops businesses from forming monopoly, a business charges more than the market wants and compeittors and substitution alternatives arrive to drive prices back down. The only way a monopoly can be formed typically is by government power to lock down competitors and ability to enter the market, which is what monopoly originally referred to.

3. The NAP isn't something that is enforced, you accept it as a principle or axiom or you don't.

4. If a child is abandoned the same thing today would happen, the child is found, and put in another party's care that wants to care for it, either another family or individual, or organization dedicated to providing care for the child.

1) "they're free to ask for money "

because appealling to the good nature and philanthropy of man works right? You are esentially condeming poor people to die, stop beating around the bush and flat out admit it.

2) that's false, Natural monopolies occur all the time in Water, Gas and other industries due to HIGH start up costs which make it difficult for competitors to enter the market

Natural monopolies exist when one firm dominates an industry

How does your society plan to deal with the price of Water being inflated to $1000 dollars a bottle when the entire industry is owned by ONE company?

Another good example of this is the diamond industry De Beers and their monopoly on the Diamond market which is why diamonds are extortionantly priced

3)

4) How does the adoption organisation have the right under the NAP to take the child?

Does the child have it's own NAP rights? If so, then no one is allowed to sell the child

If the child is property of the parent then no one has the right to take the child because the parent specifically left it there and to take the child is violation of the parent's NAP



this entire dogma is not applicable to the real world where various factors such as utility have to also be taken into consideration.

 

[David_TheMan]

You're essentially saying here that, a child having "a claim on your person" is slavery



You're either being intellectually dishonest or are a complete and utter retard,
For one there is no consent in slavery. If one is a slave, they are dragged into bondage against their will.
Whereas when a person has a child, they consent to having sexual intercourse, consent in carrying the foetus for 9 months, consent to giving birth and THEREFORE provide consent to their responsibilities towards the child. Whether they give the child up for adoption is a different matter as the child is still in theoretically safe hands, HOWEVER allowing a child to die is completely and utterly voiding your responsibilty of safety towards the child.





IF IT'S NOT ANY DIFFERENCE TODAY WHY CHANGE ANYTHING?

your nightmare scenario would eventually condemn people to live at the whim of a corporate entity and this is a FACT.

Businesses WILL develop MONOPOLIES by consolidating other businesses and thus make it difficult for smaller business to try to enter said markets; that's the whole reason for Competition law and regulation.

In your world, Sweat shops and child labour would be acceptable and there would be no protection for the Individual which is the greatest irony of all




"Minimal state" Libertarianism has been tried already with Act of Confederation WHICH FAILED because the central government was too weak to do anything. The US Constitution starts with the statement:

"We the people, In order to form a more perfect union"

Small government is only appealing to billionaires and rebellious angsty teenagers, even the founders realised it was entirely flawed


If we go to Anarcho-Capitalism which is a god awful oxymoron and is favoured by absolute children, you have to start entering Twilight Zone levels of delusion where people genuinely believe that an "Non Aggression Principle" enforced by nothing will prevent people from committing acts of Aggression.

What happened to the Golden Rule Principle? Oh yeah, that gets shyt on every single day because people actively kill one another.

Speaking of not killing one another - the principle "Thou Shall Not Kill" gets literally ignored every single day and that's under the threat of eternal hellfire, the fukk are people going to fear in an AnCap society?

If you suggest that a Private company will start enforcing laws here's another clip to show how idiotic you are








Because you have to live around other people. the very nature of complete and utter individualism is so retarded that children are taught even before the age of 5 that "you have to share"

Unlimited individualism is completely contradictory and just highlights how the "aggression" in the NAP can be manipulated to define it as whatever you wanted it to define because for example;
if I lived next door to you and I played my music really loud and it disturbed your individual freedom to enjoy silence, do you have the right to class my actions as Aggression and use violence against me?






1) "they're free to ask for money "

because appealling to the good nature and philanthropy of man works right? You are esentially condeming poor people to die, stop beating around the bush and flat out admit it.

2) that's false, Natural monopolies occur all the time in Water, Gas and other industries due to HIGH start up costs which make it difficult for competitors to enter the market

Natural monopolies exist when one firm dominates an industry

How does your society plan to deal with the price of Water being inflated to $1000 dollars a bottle when the entire industry is owned by ONE company?

Another good example of this is the diamond industry De Beers and their monopoly on the Diamond market which is why diamonds are extortionantly priced

3)

4) How does the adoption organisation have the right under the NAP to take the child?

Does the child have it's own NAP rights? If so, then no one is allowed to sell the child

If the child is property of the parent then no one has the right to take the child because the parent specifically left it there and to take the child is violation of the parent's NAP



this entire dogma is not applicable to the real world where various factors such as utility have to also be taken into consideration.

I believe I specifically said

This is based on his principal of self ownership, you own yourself first and foremost so you are the one in control of your own person and no one has a right to take ownershp of your body or person without your consent. Now I want to see you explain to me why this rationale is flawed, why is it that others can make a claim on your person stronger than the person themselves?

Where is there any direct inference to a child specifically or that a child or any person has a claim at all? I literally said explain to me how a person has a right to take ownership of another's body without the person giving consent? that isn't specifically children that is human in general and that goes both ways in a parental relationship. So from a logical and principled stance answer the question, isntead of relying on poor misdirects and strawmen.

I clearly told you slavery is against the consent of the enslaved, you seriously seem to have a problem comprehending the english language and simple arguments. Again you are caught lying out right to argue a strawman.

So worst case scenario of libertarianism is the status quo, best case is a society with more individual freedoms for anyone, your argument was what if worst case of libertarianism happens, my response is that we would be in the same situation we are today. To this you follow up, why change at all? Why? Easy because I believe things can get better than they are today. Very simple.

Businesses don't develop monopolies naturally in a free market, they are always subject to competition. Monopolies need centralized force to come about to keep competitors out the market and to keep those from leaving the market and subject to the control of the business granted monopoly privilege.

Yes in my world today sweatshops and children labor in business is not only available I would find it preferable. Why? because unlike today those give those in 3rd world nations the ability to increase capital through work as opposed to theft and other criminality or child prostitution and etc that comes about when socialist and western elites close down these opportunities in today's world.

Articles of Confederation isn't minarchy and minarchy isn't one set form of government, you literally don't have any clue of what you are talking about. Minarchy just means minimal government, that government can take many different forms though, so again like before try to read up on what you are taling about instead of doing quick google searches and throwing out shyt to see what sticks.

Small government appeals to people who value freedom and individual liberty, there are people across all economic spans that favor it, same with large government (Soros and Buffet being extremely rich men who favor large government) in short your statement shows a mind that doesn't really think beyond the superficial.

What does it matter if everyone doesn't accept the golden rule? What does that mean to the principle that it is based on? You literally didn't even address the contention, the sad part is your very same fallacious reasoning for disregarding it can be applied to every single ideology in the world that existed and will ever come to being.

I see no problem with private policing, far better than the unresponsive and criminal current police that exists now. And again the worst case scenario would simply effectively be wht is in effect today, a police system that caters to the rich and allows the politically connected to live above the law.

Living around other people isn't a refutation of individual liberty, you do know that right.
Individual liberty and sovereignty of their person isn't contradictory at all, it would be nice if you explained out it was.
How is the aggression in the NAP manipulated? You seem to really have a problem with the idea that people should not aggress against other people unless it is in defense? why is that?

If I you annoyed me with your music as long as you don't intrude on my property I can't force anything against you, what is wrong with that? If I used my property to build a sound break what would be the problem? its no different than those who build sound deading features in their yards today to drown out annoying road noises and loud neighbors today. It seems though, that you have a problem dealing with other people without having the threat of force behind you, which points to anti-social behavior, you see others as threats who need to be harmed to get your personal desired benefit.

1) Yes they are free to ask for money or support, like they do today. Yes charity does most definitely work, US privately donates more money than a lot of nations governments.

2) That isn't false, saying different industries does nothing to refute or rebut anything I posted. Yes there are industries with high barriers of entry, doesn't stop there from being competitors. I would say historically gas and electricity as well as water to this day show that their isn't really natural monopoly. For cities in the US there were typically mutliple gas and electric providers, city governments typically mandated one supplier or suppliers for kick backs, same with cable in the early 90s. As for water, there are people who have water delivered than get city water and there are companies that try to deliver alternative water directly but cities use legislation to demand supply to city water suppliers or city sewage suppliers via threat of law. That said the principles i listed before still stand.

I would say a monopoly exist when a firm dominates a industry, natural monopoly supposedly exist when evironmental factors contribute to the firm's domination.

First how would 1 company own all business? Second if 1 company did do that owned all the resources and was selling for 100 dollars a bottle, that would lead a lot of other businessmen to want to get in the water business, these would produce competition in the market and drive prices down wouldn't it? This is what usually happens when there is no government protection when a company tries to take prices on the higher level that the market doesn't want.

3) Funny how you failed to even try to present a logical reply, not surprising.

4) The child was abandoned, how is the agency or person who has possession of the abandoned child aggress against the child? Seems you are trying hard to try to make a point, but you have no understanding of the principles involved and no capability to even try to use that mind to figure it out or actually expend thought on the topic.

How is the child property of the parent? the parent abandoned or released claim of the child, you literally said that in your question? Or are you of the opinion now that child is chattal property of the parent that can't be discharged no matter what the owner (parent) wishes? Doesn't this go against your whole premise?

 

[BocaRear]

I believe I specifically said

Where is there any direct inference to a child specifically or that a child or any person has a claim at all? I literally said explain to me how a person has a right to take ownership of another's body without the person giving consent? that isn't specifically children that is human in general and that goes both ways in a parental relationship. So from a logical and principled stance answer the question, isntead of relying on poor misdirects and strawmen.

I clearly told you slavery is against the consent of the enslaved, you seriously seem to have a problem comprehending the english language and simple arguments. Again you are caught lying out right to argue a strawman.

So worst case scenario of libertarianism is the status quo, best case is a society with more individual freedoms for anyone, your argument was what if worst case of libertarianism happens, my response is that we would be in the same situation we are today. To this you follow up, why change at all? Why? Easy because I believe things can get better than they are today. Very simple.

Businesses don't develop monopolies naturally in a free market, they are always subject to competition. Monopolies need centralized force to come about to keep competitors out the market and to keep those from leaving the market and subject to the control of the business granted monopoly privilege.

Yes in my world today sweatshops and children labor in business is not only available I would find it preferable. Why? because unlike today those give those in 3rd world nations the ability to increase capital through work as opposed to theft and other criminality or child prostitution and etc that comes about when socialist and western elites close down these opportunities in today's world.

Articles of Confederation isn't minarchy and minarchy isn't one set form of government, you literally don't have any clue of what you are talking about. Minarchy just means minimal government, that government can take many different forms though, so again like before try to read up on what you are taling about instead of doing quick google searches and throwing out shyt to see what sticks.

Small government appeals to people who value freedom and individual liberty, there are people across all economic spans that favor it, same with large government (Soros and Buffet being extremely rich men who favor large government) in short your statement shows a mind that doesn't really think beyond the superficial.

What does it matter if everyone doesn't accept the golden rule? What does that mean to the principle that it is based on? You literally didn't even address the contention, the sad part is your very same fallacious reasoning for disregarding it can be applied to every single ideology in the world that existed and will ever come to being.

I see no problem with private policing, far better than the unresponsive and criminal current police that exists now. And again the worst case scenario would simply effectively be wht is in effect today, a police system that caters to the rich and allows the politically connected to live above the law.

Living around other people isn't a refutation of individual liberty, you do know that right.
Individual liberty and sovereignty of their person isn't contradictory at all, it would be nice if you explained out it was.
How is the aggression in the NAP manipulated? You seem to really have a problem with the idea that people should not aggress against other people unless it is in defense? why is that?

If I you annoyed me with your music as long as you don't intrude on my property I can't force anything against you, what is wrong with that? If I used my property to build a sound break what would be the problem? its no different than those who build sound deading features in their yards today to drown out annoying road noises and loud neighbors today. It seems though, that you have a problem dealing with other people without having the threat of force behind you, which points to anti-social behavior, you see others as threats who need to be harmed to get your personal desired benefit.

1) Yes they are free to ask for money or support, like they do today. Yes charity does most definitely work, US privately donates more money than a lot of nations governments.

2) That isn't false, saying different industries does nothing to refute or rebut anything I posted. Yes there are industries with high barriers of entry, doesn't stop there from being competitors. I would say historically gas and electricity as well as water to this day show that their isn't really natural monopoly. For cities in the US there were typically mutliple gas and electric providers, city governments typically mandated one supplier or suppliers for kick backs, same with cable in the early 90s. As for water, there are people who have water delivered than get city water and there are companies that try to deliver alternative water directly but cities use legislation to demand supply to city water suppliers or city sewage suppliers via threat of law. That said the principles i listed before still stand.

I would say a monopoly exist when a firm dominates a industry, natural monopoly supposedly exist when evironmental factors contribute to the firm's domination.

First how would 1 company own all business? Second if 1 company did do that owned all the resources and was selling for 100 dollars a bottle, that would lead a lot of other businessmen to want to get in the water business, these would produce competition in the market and drive prices down wouldn't it? This is what usually happens when there is no government protection when a company tries to take prices on the higher level that the market doesn't want.

3) Funny how you failed to even try to present a logical reply, not surprising.

4) The child was abandoned, how is the agency or person who has possession of the abandoned child aggress against the child? Seems you are trying hard to try to make a point, but you have no understanding of the principles involved and no capability to even try to use that mind to figure it out or actually expend thought on the topic.

How is the child property of the parent? the parent abandoned or released claim of the child, you literally said that in your question? Or are you of the opinion now that child is chattal property of the parent that can't be discharged no matter what the owner (parent) wishes? Doesn't this go against your whole premise?

You dismiss everything you dislike as strawmen, you're literally dodging your own words and trying to hide behind semantics.

you claim the Articles of Confederacy weren't an example of Minarchism Libertarianism when it's a textbook example of how Weak and Limited government fails. Everybody knows about the Confederation, it's the 1st thing they teach you before you learn about the Constitution, to deny that it is an example of the failure of small government is an outright lie.

& oh yh Libertarians by their own admission don't constrict the "NAP" to strictly violence,

your building of a sound proof wall is all well and good, but you fail to take into account that noise pollution is an issue that residents get heated over, so you implying that everyone would simply " I'll build a soundproof wall" is ignorant of human nature.

Your definitions of Aggression are subjective, not everyone thinks like you

As to the rest of your juelzsantana.gif for why Natural monopolies wouldn't develop, you don't even deserve logical responses because you're simply shutting your eyes to the facts.

And the bolded is perhaps the dumbest thing you've said to act as if the worst Libertarianism could be is the society we live in today is just outright false

This exchange is exactly why I didn't want to engage with you because this type of logic only makes sense to someone with no contextual understanding of anything. If you don't want to live in a "Statist" society, then stop using public roads that taxes pay for, stop using running water.

I'll leave you with this:

 

[David_TheMan]

You dismiss everything you dislike as strawmen, you're literally dodging your own words and trying to hide behind semantics.

you claim the Articles of Confederacy weren't an example of Minarchism Libertarianism when it's a textbook example of how Weak and Limited government fails. Everybody knows about the Confederation, it's the 1st thing they teach you before you learn about the Constitution, to deny that it is an example of the failure of small government is an outright lie.

& oh yh Libertarians by their own admission don't constrict the "NAP" to strictly violence,

your building of a sound proof wall is all well and good, but you fail to take into account that noise pollution is an issue that residents get heated over, so you implying that everyone would simply " I'll build a soundproof wall" is ignorant of human nature.

Your definitions of Aggression are subjective, not everyone thinks like you

As to the rest of your juelzsantana.gif for why Natural monopolies wouldn't develop, you don't even deserve logical responses because you're simply shutting your eyes to the facts.

And the bolded is perhaps the dumbest thing you've said to act as if the worst Libertarianism could be is the society we live in today is just outright false

This exchange is exactly why I didn't want to engage with you because this type of logic only makes sense to someone with no contextual understanding of anything. If you don't want to live in a "Statist" society, then stop using public roads that taxes pay for, stop using running water.

I'll leave you with this:

I call strawmen arguments what they are. If you want to present a argument i've made, as I've shown in the previous post, i have no problem going line by line discussing it with you.

The articles of confederacy and the US constitution itself are examples of minarchism, the key part being a restricted government, the articles of confederation isn't the ideal or the embodiment of minarchist belief, that you don't seem to understand this tells me really all i need to know about you, you willfully ignore facts and speak in ignorance on things you have an emotional pull to.

Libertarians don't constrict the NAP to violence, yes they do, violence and the threat of violence or in general aggression is typically what the NAP is restricted to. So again we have you trying your best to talk like you are informed about what you are discussing, but showing you don't have a grasp of the ideals being bandied about.

How did I not take into account noise be aggravating to neighbors/ This is specifically why the noise proof building could be built in the first place, to stop the noise, why? because the builder was annoyed.

Its ignorant of human nature to expect the vast majority of people who to this day don't instantly resort to violence, to carry on as normal when faced with something they dislike from a stranger or neighbor? LIke I said before you seem to have fascination or compulsion to want to use violence to enforce your will on others and you project that onto others.

Aggression is typically reasoned as violence or the threat of violence against someone or group of people for reasons outside of self defense. If you were ignorant of what it meant, simply ask, don't create a strawman.

You have no ability to address why natural monopolies don't actually form in free or freer markets so you fail to put up a actual gif that attests to your inability to rebut logically something that should be simple to address.

Address how what i wrote is incorrect, saying its stupid, it isn't a logical rebuttal.

Again you complain about my statement, but you can't even formulate a logical rebuttal.

I pay taxes, why should I not use the "services" my taxes are taken from me to provide supposedly for my "benefit". Your dismissal is the equivalent of a white man telling black americans to shut up and go back to africa if they don't love america, it isn't a actual rebuttal to anything i've stated any principles being discussed, its textbook false dilemma fallacy.

As for your picture yes, I pull the lever and I go to the property owner and tell them what I did and why I did it and stand ready to accept any punishment if they deem it.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Higher fukking learning

 

[Recca Gatsby]

This comes down to parenting

 

[Serious]

Well, I'm just about finishing my degree in Engineering and, seriously, half the people that were in my classes had to take remedial courses in math and reading.

It was NOT optional. Without those courses, they would (and most did) fail.

I'm the oldest cat in here and they were ALL recent high-school graduates.

We started with about 40 people. We're down to 15.

​

Public Schools don't prepare students for shyt....
I wouldn't call those peeps dumb right off the bat, if you go from getting a's in hs to struggling with English 101 and pre-calc then there's clearly a problem.

 

[joe e]

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart
Daniel J. Mitchell
Wednesday, December 21, 2016

While I have great fondness for some of the visuals I’ve created over the years (especially “two wagons” and “apple harvesting“), I confess that none of my creations have ever been as clear and convincing as the iconic graph on education spending and education outcomes created by the late Andrew Coulson.

I can’t imagine anyone looking at his chart and not immediately realizing that you don’t get better results by pouring more money into the government’s education monopoly.

But the edu-crat lobby acts as if evidence doesn’t matter. At the national level, the state level, and the local level, the drumbeat is the same: Give us more money if you care about kids.

So let’s build on Coulson’s chart to show why teachers’ unions and other special interests are wrong.

Gerard Robinson of the American Enterprise Institute and Professor Benjamin Scafidi from Kennesaw State University take a close look at this issue.

…education is important to the economic and social well-being of our nation, which is why it is the No. 1 line item in 41 state budgets. …Schools need extra money to help struggling students, or so goes the long-standing thinking of traditional education reformers who believe a lack of resources – teachers, counselors, social workers, technology, books, school supplies – is the problem. …a look back at the progress we’ve made under reformers’ traditional response to fixing low-performing schools – simply showering them with more money – makes it clear that this approach has been a costly failure.

And when the authors say it’s been a “costly failure,” they’re not exaggerating.

Since World War II, inflation-adjusted spending per student in American public schools has increased by 663 percent. Where did all of that money go? One place it went was to hire more personnel. Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, public schools increased their staff by 386 percent – four times the increase in students. The number of teachers increased by 252 percent, over 2.5 times the increase in students. The number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. …This staffing surge still exists today. From 1992 to 2014 – the most recent year of available data – American public schools saw a 19 percent increase in their student population and a staffing increase of 36 percent. This decades-long staffing surge in American public schools has been tremendously expensive for taxpayers, yet it has not led to significant changes in student achievement. For example, public school national math scores have been flat (and national reading scores declined slightly) for 17-year-olds since 1992.

By the way, the failure of government schools doesn’t affect everyone equally.

Parents with economic resources (such as high-profile politicians) can either send their kids to private schools or move to communities where government schools still maintain some standards.

But for lower-income households, their options are very limited.

Minorities disproportionately suffer, as explained by Juan Williams in the Wall Street Journal.

While 40% of white Americans age 25-29 held bachelor’s degrees in 2013, that distinction belonged to only 15% of Hispanics, and 20% of blacks. …The root of this problem: Millions of black and Hispanic students in U.S. schools simply aren’t taught to read well enough to flourish academically. …according to a March report by Child Trends, based on 2015 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 21% of Hispanic fourth-grade students were deemed “proficient” in reading. This is bad news. A fourth-grader’s reading level is a key indicator of whether he or she will graduate from high school. The situation is worse for African-Americans: A mere 18% were considered “proficient” in reading by fourth grade.

But Juan points out that the problems aren’t confined to minority communities. The United States has a national education problem.

The problem isn’t limited to minority students. Only 46% of white fourth-graders—and 35% of fourth-graders of all races—were judged “proficient” in reading in 2015. In general, American students are outperformed by students abroad. According to the most recent Program for International Student Assessment, a series of math, science and reading tests given to 15-year-olds around the world, the U.S. placed 17th among the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in reading.

This is very grim news, especially when you consider that the United States spends more on education – on a per-pupil basis – than any other country.

Here’s a table confirming Juan’s argument. It lacks the simple clarity of Andrew Coulson’s graph, but if you look at these numbers, it’s difficult to reach any conclusion other than we spend a lot in America and get very mediocre results.

Juan concludes his column with a plea for diversity, innovation, and competition.

For black and Hispanic students falling behind at an early age, their best hope is for every state, no matter its minority-student poverty rate, to take full responsibility for all students who aren’t making the grade—and get those students help now. That means adopting an attitude of urgency when it comes to saving a child’s education. Specifically, it requires cities and states to push past any union rules that protect underperforming schools and bad teachers. Urgency also means increasing options for parents, from magnet to charter schools. Embracing competition among schools is essential to heading off complacency based on a few positive signs. American K-12 education is in trouble, especially for minority children, and its continuing neglect is a scandal.

He’s right, but he should focus his ire on his leftist friends and colleagues. They’re the ones (including the NAACP!) standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door and blocking the right kind of education reform.

P.S. This is a depressing post, so let’s close with a bit of humor showing the evolution of math lessons in government schools.

P.P.S. If you want some unintentional humor, the New York Times thinks that education spending has been reduced.

P.P.P.S. Shifting to a different topic, another great visual (which also happens to be the most popular item I’ve ever shared on International Liberty) is the simple imageproperly defining the enemies of liberty and progress.
------------

Damn shame how blacks get fukked over by these government schools yet the black voting base supports these failures that hurt our kids. I mean you look at a lot of the majority black public schools, they are like little fukking prisons.

We need to breakup these government school monopolies and get our kids out of this bullshyt institutionalization facilities that teach kids nothing but how to be model prisoners.

Talked to a couple people. I think I got one.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

libertarians deserve to be cullled

The king of insipid one liners has returned


now available with 25% more trolling and still 99% intellect free

 

[CodeBlaMeVi]

Poorly trained and apathetic teachers are not helping. Look at this articles about teachers in Finland. Pretty eye opening.

I'm a teacher and a thing that will not be quantified is earlier education wasnt as complexed and earning a D average was satisfactory. Parents of today are less involved than ever. So, teachers are stuck teaching laissez-faire pupils along with high stakes testing.