Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

All liberatarians are derailing assholes

2456715

Posts

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    There's literary libertarians too, but I left them out considering the audience....

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    One of the problems associated with not "saving people from themselves" is that a huge portion of Americans don't have health insurance. Seatbelt laws keep you and I from paying for the other guy's health care when he goes through his windshield, since "let him die" is not an acceptable option.

    Of course manditory seatbelt laws manage to protect drivers at the expense of more accidents, and increased danger to pedestrians...so they're not exactly all that helpful.

    I've not heard this before. Cite?

    I've heard this too, and I recall seeing actual studies to back it up, though I don't have a link handy. The idea is that people feel safer with seatbelts, and so they drive more recklessly. I still recall the upshot being a net positive.

    At any rate, seatbelt laws are the perfect poster child for libertarian myopia. To wit, sometimes laws that ostensibly infringe upon your ability to be a smacktard actually serve to protect you from other people's smacktardedness. Few things happen in a vacuum, and when your dumb ass winds up splattered all over the pavement, it's not like you're the only one that's affected. More people are late to work, as the mess takes longer to clean up than it would've if your face hadn't exploded. Resources that could be used on other emergencies are squandered scraping your you-chunks off the back of someone's SUV. Much of the libertarian philosophy presupposes that human interaction is a lot more localized than it really is.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    at least I know who im voting for come election time

    So do I. :o

    tea-1.jpg
  • Me Too!Me Too! __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    I am not a troll I just got sick of being trolled myself. Moderators clearly overstepping their boundaries just tries to incite me to anger and in response to their unserious, flaming response ill only give unserious flaming responses.


    at least I know who im voting for come election time

    http://www.kubby2008.com

    Did anybody say you were a troll?
    No.
    And don't try pushing shit onto mods. You brought it on yourself. Will made a topic so that the gun control one wasn't derailed. You're the one who started being a little shit about it.

  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

  • electronicmajielectronicmaji __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    Bullshit!


    I will probably end up voting for obama because kubby wont get on the ballot here in arkansas...but ideologically the man is flawless


    http://www.kubby2008.com/node/8

    Top Weekly Artists
    Electronicmaji.gif
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    This is from my thread:
    moniker wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I really don't need the government to save me from myself.

    How about others? I'm going to assume you aren't insane enough to propose the privatization of police and fire departments, so what about the products and externalities that others produce. Also, governmental intervention to provide services and means to rural areas. Services like electricity, or roads.

    I'm not so much talking about stuff like the privatizing the police force. I'm more talking about all the stupid ass laws that tell me how to run my life even though the actions they are legislating don't directly effect other people. Stuff like seat-belt laws (except for minors), and helmet laws, and laws against smoking pot, or all the taxes on cigarettes in a attempt to force people to stop smoking.

    It impacts others in the terms of health care costs being increased across the board in order to help all the people flying through windshields, getting cancer, and spliting their heads open since letting them die isn't a good solution.

    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    Why isn't just letting them die not a good solution. If I'm too stupid to put my seatbelt on then I'll accept the consequences.

    You're a cold, heartless prick. The reason we shouldn't let them die is because then our insurance premiums will go up.

    Actually, since the insurance companies wouldn't be paying for a few idiots too stupid to wear a seatbelt *cough*Corzine*cough*, I would think that our premiums would go down.

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    sky.JPG
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    Really? Is that what you got from my post?

    Anyone can have a political position, but it's who your representatives are that demonstrate the strength of your political platform. Frankly, if your entire party is only being parroted by comedians, then people are going to view it as what it is, a freaking joke.

    Of course, Moniker is the best at explaining why the party itself is a joke, I'm just speaking in general.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Actually, since the insurance companies wouldn't be paying for a few idiots too stupid to wear a seatbelt *cough*Corzine*cough*, I would think that our premiums would go down.

    It's generally recognized that human life (even really stupid human life) is worth saving if technology reasonably allows it.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    tea-1.jpg
  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Sentry wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    Really? Is that what you got from my post?

    Anyone can have a political position, but it's who your representatives are that demonstrait the strength of your political platform. Frankly, if your entire party is only being parroted by comedians, then people are going to view it as what it is, a freaking joke.

    Of course, Moniker is the best at explaining why the party itself is a joke, I'm just speaking in general.

    90% of libertarians have nothing to do with the libertarian party.

    sky.JPG
  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to battle the image that nobody in the world could possibly be Libertarian. It's different than the "cool" look of being Democrat or the shunned nature of Republicans. It's supposed to let people know it's okay to be something other than Dem or Repub if you think both are wrong, other people have done it before.

    I know the list is silly. But maybe in that list is someone you think is actually pretty smart and decent (I love me some Dave Barry).

    EDIT: If this fits your bill better, here's some Libertarian Nobel Peace Prize winners....

    Friedrich Hayek, 1974, Economics. Hayek was one of the leaders of the Austrian school of economics.
    Milton Friedman, 1976, Economics. Friedman is one of the founders of the Monetarist school of economics, which advocates a free-market economy with strict control over the money supply.
    James Buchanan, 1986, Economics. Buchanan won the prize for developing the "Public Choice" school of economics, which analyzes political behavior (of voters, politicans and lobbyists) in terms of self-interest.
    Gary Becker, 1992, Economics. The Chicago-school economist is a leader and former president of the free-market Mont Pelerin Society.
    Kary Mullis, 1993, Chemistry. Mullis won the prize for figuring out how to make unlimited copies of DNA. In the Fort Bragg, California, Advocate News, a reporter noted that Mullis "talks about his Libertarian philosophy" as just one of "his wildly divergent interests. Government, he feels, is best suited to protect groups of people from outside interference, but ill-suited to dictate how individuals should lead their private lives."
    Vernon Smith, 2002, Economics (shared). The public choice economist pioneered 'experimental economics,' using simulations to predict the outcome of regulatory changes (particularly with regard to energy markets).

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • ElkiElki GOBS OF PUKE!!! YES!!!!!!!Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    Speaking seriously though, why do libertarians get such a bad rap?

    Collective action problems.

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to battle the image that nobody in the world could possibly be Libertarian. It's different than the "cool" look of being Democrat or the shunned nature of Republicans. It's supposed to let people know it's okay to be something other than Dem or Repub if you think both are wrong, other people have done it before.

    I know the list is silly. But maybe in that list is someone you think is actually pretty smart and decent (I love me some Dave Barry).

    I think you should be less concerned about the coolness of your political beliefs. There are other ways of letting people know it's ok to self identify as neither a democrat or a republican than parroting the idiotic LP, too.

    sky.JPG
  • drinkinstoutdrinkinstout Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I am actually amazed that people are able to 100% back and align themseleves with a party to begin, especially ones whos views and opinions are so far in one direction or the other.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    I get what you're saying, but I'm trying to battle the image that nobody in the world could possibly be Libertarian. It's different than the "cool" look of being Democrat or the shunned nature of Republicans. It's supposed to let people know it's okay to be something other than Dem or Repub if you think both are wrong, other people have done it before.

    I know the list is silly. But maybe in that list is someone you think is actually pretty smart and decent (I love me some Dave Barry).

    I love Dave Barry too... just not enough to form my own political ideology off of what he says.

    The fact is, Libertarianism works best inside peoples heads, where it belongs.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I am actually amazed that people are able to 100% back and align themseleves with a party to begin, especially ones whos views and opinions are so far in one direction or the other.

    People don't actually do that, which is why 90% of all libertarians just bite the bullet and vote republican.

    sky.JPG
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

    Because noone (at least noone serious) parrots a list of them as a justification or reason to become a Democrat. If you're best justification to join a party is because of the cool people you get to hang out with at conventions...yeah.

    tea-1.jpg
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Actually, since the insurance companies wouldn't be paying for a few idiots too stupid to wear a seatbelt *cough*Corzine*cough*, I would think that our premiums would go down.

    It's generally recognized that human life (even really stupid human life) is worth saving if technology reasonably allows it.

    I guess I just don't really agree with the general populace then.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

    Because noone (at least noone serious) parrots a list of them as a justification or reason to become a Democrat. If you're best justification to join a party is because of the cool people you get to hang out with at conventions...yeah.

    I think that's more for Scientologists, rather then Libertarians, but the point remains...

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm a libertarian for practical issues. I just happen to know too much about how government works in a practical setting. I don't want the government taxing me for their social programs because they don't work well, and very quickly become corrupt. Look at the education system. Everyone loves the idea of pumping more money into it, despite the fact that we pay more than almost any other industrialized country already. No one pays attention to the fact that it's because this money gets embezzled to a ridiculous degree because there is so very very little oversight. It's much easier to cry out for more money than bring practical solutions. The government should be involved in oversight and preventing corruption, not providing opportunity for it.

    I am also a libertarian because you don't have the right to control my behavior unless it very directly and very significantly affects you. Not because it might effect your insurance premiums. Otherwise we should be legislating what people can eat, how much exercise they get, and how dangerous their recreation can be. All of which is kind of bullshit.

    Big "L" Libertarians do tend to take things too far however. I realize that you think you should be able to take any mind altering substance on the planet, but in reality the fact that it alters your state of mind means that it effects your ability to choose freely. Ask a coke addict if they are freely choosing to do drugs. It is muddy waters however. How addictive does something have to be before you regulate it? My personal theory is, if you'll suck a dick for it; it's too addictive.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

    Because noone (at least noone serious) parrots a list of them as a justification or reason to become a Democrat. If you're best justification to join a party is because of the cool people you get to hang out with at conventions...yeah.

    I seriously doubt imbalanced was making that argument.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

    Because noone (at least noone serious) parrots a list of them as a justification or reason to become a Democrat. If you're best justification to join a party is because of the cool people you get to hang out with at conventions...yeah.

    I really don't think that was his point at all. I think the point was that not all libertarians are complete nut-jobs trying to argue for a completely unrealistic utopian dream they have in their head.

  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws <-- Interesting read.
    As of January 2007, 25 states and the District of Columbia have primary seatbelt laws, 24 have secondary seatbelt laws, and one state (New Hampshire) has no laws[16].

    As far as I know, primary = they can pull you over for not wearing one and secondary = they can't pull you over for it, but if they do so for something else, they can bust you for not wearing one.

    sky.JPG
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'm a libertarian for practical issues. I just happen to know too much about how government works in a practical setting. I don't want the government taxing me for their social programs because they don't work well, and very quickly become corrupt. Look at the education system. Everyone loves the idea of pumping more money into it, despite the fact that we pay more than almost any other industrialized country already. No one pays attention to the fact that it's because this money gets embezzled to a ridiculous degree because there is so very very little oversight. It's much easier to cry out for more money than bring practical solutions. The government should be involved in oversight and preventing corruption, not providing opportunity for it.

    So kids shouldn't be educated? Should they be educated only if their parents can afford it?

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • electronicmajielectronicmaji __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    God wrote: »
    Sentry wrote: »
    Imbalanced, your list of "famous" libertarians is precisely the problem with libertarians. The whole thing is one big joke.

    Why is that? Comedians can't have political positions?

    It's just as stupid as saying "Hey, you know who else is a democrat? Susan Sarandon! Sean Penn! Pretty much the whole cast of Dead Man Walking!"

    And yet noone makes the claim that the fact that they are democrats invalidates the democratic party as a whole.

    Because noone (at least noone serious) parrots a list of them as a justification or reason to become a Democrat. If you're best justification to join a party is because of the cool people you get to hang out with at conventions...yeah.

    I really don't think that was his point at all. I think the point was that not all libertarians are complete nut-jobs trying to argue for a completely unrealistic utopian dream they have in their head.

    and the plans democrats and republicans make their goverment on are any more reasonable?

    :rolleyes:

    Top Weekly Artists
    Electronicmaji.gif
  • GodGod Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    I'm a libertarian for practical issues. I just happen to know too much about how government works in a practical setting. I don't want the government taxing me for their social programs because they don't work well, and very quickly become corrupt. Look at the education system. Everyone loves the idea of pumping more money into it, despite the fact that we pay more than almost any other industrialized country already. No one pays attention to the fact that it's because this money gets embezzled to a ridiculous degree because there is so very very little oversight. It's much easier to cry out for more money than bring practical solutions. The government should be involved in oversight and preventing corruption, not providing opportunity for it.

    So kids shouldn't be educated? Should they be educated only if their parents can afford it?

    Most libertarians think that kids should be educated.

    Most libertarians who don't think they should (lol) think that there's no way to kill the public school system anyway.

    So both kinds just vote against those property tax increases.

    sky.JPG
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    The building codes, FDA, EPA, etc, protect me from other people. I don't want my house burning down around me because some asshole building contractor wanted to cut some corners. I don't want the pharmaceutical industry pedaling snake oil to me. Like I said, I'm not completely against government involvement. I'm just all for pulling the government out of my ass a bit.

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    No, the system's problems should be adcressed and fixed, rather than throwing money at it. Inventing new government programs, and creating ridiculous standardized tests is not how you fix the education system, it's just more expedient. You need to take the control out of the hands of the legislators, unions, and burocrats, and put it into the hands of local teachers, with oversight to make sure money is not being wasted. Smaller, more local, and easier to change. But that's just for the programs that are really necessary like education. Many should be scrapped.

    edit: and regulation on things like building codes, and product labels is Ok. I should not have to be an engineer to buy a safe house or car. Things that are sold to the public should have a reasonable expectation of safety that a layperson can understand.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    I'm a libertarian for practical issues. I just happen to know too much about how government works in a practical setting. I don't want the government taxing me for their social programs because they don't work well, and very quickly become corrupt. Look at the education system. Everyone loves the idea of pumping more money into it, despite the fact that we pay more than almost any other industrialized country already. No one pays attention to the fact that it's because this money gets embezzled to a ridiculous degree because there is so very very little oversight. It's much easier to cry out for more money than bring practical solutions. The government should be involved in oversight and preventing corruption, not providing opportunity for it.

    So kids shouldn't be educated? Should they be educated only if their parents can afford it?

    There are two ways I can interprit MentalExercise's statement. Either he doesn't want to publically fund education or he want a stronger oversight of the public funds going to education not just and increase in funding. I'm absolutely 100% in favor of the latter.

    EDIT: I guess I got my answer, and I completely agree with it.

  • electronicmajielectronicmaji __BANNED USERS
    edited April 2007
    the only solution to fixing public schools is opening it up for competition. Their currently are no competititors each little school is a small company usually owned by a bigger company which leeches of goverment money. Private School tax vouchers would force public schools to shape up or close up

    Top Weekly Artists
    Electronicmaji.gif
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    the only solution to fixing public schools is opening it up for competition. Their currently are no competititors each little school is a small company usually owned by a bigger company which leeches of goverment money. Private School tax vouchers would force public schools to shape up or close up

    That's all well and good. But you don't want to pay taxes so some kid can go to a Catholic school or a Jewish school right? God forbid they go to an Islamic school man!

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • imbalancedimbalanced Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    I'm a libertarian for practical issues. I just happen to know too much about how government works in a practical setting. I don't want the government taxing me for their social programs because they don't work well, and very quickly become corrupt. Look at the education system. Everyone loves the idea of pumping more money into it, despite the fact that we pay more than almost any other industrialized country already. No one pays attention to the fact that it's because this money gets embezzled to a ridiculous degree because there is so very very little oversight. It's much easier to cry out for more money than bring practical solutions. The government should be involved in oversight and preventing corruption, not providing opportunity for it.

    So kids shouldn't be educated? Should they be educated only if their parents can afford it?

    Not quite. I think beyond high school that the people who receive education should be those who actually WANT education. This mentality that everyone should go to college doesn't actually help the majority, because then you have no measuring stick for companies to judge by when they're hiring people. If everyone has a bachelors degree, it's like nobody has a bachelors degree. That's why the value of a 4-year education has plummeted dramatically. If you want the really, really good jobs, you have to have a masters or higher.

    Nevermind that much of college education doesn't apply to the general work force anyway. Everything most people do at work, barring doctors and other highly specialized fields, can be learned ON THE JOB. It takes a few weeks, and then you can adequately do your job.

    And then compound that with the fact that SOMEBODY in this world HAS TO HAVE a shitty job. There's no two ways around it. Someone is going to get the shit work that nobody else wants. Garbage men, plummers, the guy who kills all the stray dogs, people who manage McDonalds. You think someone of a scholarly BA degree is going to "lower" himself to do it? Sadly no.

    That's the part about social hierarchy that won't ever go away, unless you create smart robots to do all the work. And anyone who has watched "The Second Renaissance" knows what happens when robots take over....

    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    the only solution to fixing public schools is opening it up for competition. Their currently are no competititors each little school is a small company usually owned by a bigger company which leeches of goverment money.

    Oh yeah... sign me up...
    On August 16, 2004, the Department of Education released the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress of 2003.[14] These results, from a study of 6000 4th grade pupils in 2003, were reported, most prominently by the New York Times, it showed that charter school students perform worse in both mathematics and reading than students in regular public schools.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    imbalanced wrote:
    In the Fort Bragg, California, Advocate News, a reporter noted that Mullis "talks about his Libertarian philosophy" as just one of "his wildly divergent interests. Government, he feels, is best suited to protect groups of people from outside interference, but ill-suited to dictate how individuals should lead their private lives."
    I seriously can't believe you just quoted the Fort Bragg Advocate News.

    Fort Bragg is a tiny tourist village of a town. It's major claim to fame is the world's largest salmon barbecue (and, of course, the beach). I mean, seriously, I was just there last week. What a fucking joke.

    In any case, libertarians are just liberals who don't know what a collective action problem is. The fact is that most of the Libertarians in the party are batshit crazy, and most of the libertarians not in the party sell out pretty much every other part of their ideology in favor of lower taxes, and vote Republican. Basically, they put George W. Bush, Bill Frist, and Tom Delay in power because they feel that lower taxes are more important to freedom than anything else.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    No, the system's problems should be adcressed and fixed, rather than throwing money at it. Inventing new government programs, and creating ridiculous standardized tests is not how you fix the education system, it's just more expedient. You need to take the control out of the hands of the legislators, unions, and burocrats, and put it into the hands of local teachers, with oversight to make sure money is not being wasted. Smaller, more local, and easier to change. But that's just for the programs that are really necessary like education. Many should be scrapped.

    edit: and regulation on things like building codes, and product labels is Ok. I should not have to be an engineer to buy a safe house or car. Things that are sold to the public should have a reasonable expectation of safety that a layperson can understand.
    The idea that somehow there is less corruption when you run things on a local level than when you run them on a larger level is fucking hilarious.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    What are you views towards building codes, the FDA, EPA, &c.?

    The building codes, FDA, EPA, etc, protect me from other people. I don't want my house burning down around me because some asshole building contractor wanted to cut some corners. I don't want the pharmaceutical industry pedaling snake oil to me. Like I said, I'm not completely against government involvement. I'm just all for pulling the government out of my ass a bit.

    Then you aren't a Libertarian.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    the only solution to fixing public schools is opening it up for competition. Their currently are no competititors each little school is a small company usually owned by a bigger company which leeches of goverment money. Private School tax vouchers would force public schools to shape up or close up
    Yeah. Just look at every other industrialized nation in the world.

    Clearly, a purely public school system cannot function. And I'm sure private schools would have no incentive to take the money and not spend it on the kids.

Sign In or Register to comment.