Liberalism

Mike 1972

The trouble with the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" is that they have evolved to mean very different things at different times (and in different places) to the extent that there is a lot of confusion is to what they mean today.

A lot of ideas which would have been regarded as "Liberal" in the 19th century (e.g. minimally regulated free trade, Major industries privately owned) would be considered "Conservative" today (and vice versa)

In Australia the most Conservative of the major parties is called the "Liberals" In America "neo-conservative" politicians promote "neo-liberalism"

In Britain Margret Thatcher is regarded as an arch-conservative even though many of her policies would have at one time been regarded as radically Liberal

A policy which would be regarded as quite Conservativein in Sweden might be decried as extermeist Liberal (if that isint a contradiction in terms) in the United States.

In Ireland there is little consensus on whether just about any of the mainstrem parties are "Conservative" or "Liberal". Labels like "Liberal conservative" seem a tad contradictary and could mean just about anything.

Hazlittle

Classic liberals like myself(as the name implies) will be taking refuge here.

http://irishlibertyforum.org

Weekly articles, loads of videos and future discussion groups.

pagancornflake

simplistic2 wrote: »

The fact remains that mostly all school learning is rote learning. In all of the subjects you are only thought conclusions and then asked to memorize them and recite them back. You can actually get through school by understanding very little about the actual concepts and how they are formed. All you need to do is just learn blocks of information before exam time.

Here are some of the actual processes that happen during your time in school:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments - clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

http://www.spinninglobe.net/againstschool.htm

simplistic2 wrote: »

The fact remains that mostly all school learning is rote learning. In all of the subjects you are only thought conclusions and then asked to memorize them and recite them back.

Which is in fact necessary for all analytical topics which would make no sense, or would be too dense or complex without knowledge of initial function. Take a language for example. Along your line of reasoning, it would be necessary to explore the roots of the language you are learning (and by that I mean delineate its divergence from its mother tongue, affect from regional dialogues in order to explain its use of phonetics and trace the progression of its grammatical forms) before you actually learn the rules themselves, or how to use the vocabulary. Similarly, in mathematics you would be getting into number theory, a topic of bewildering complexity where you would explain to 4-6 year olds 4000 years of number history culminating in a dense mathematical proof that 2 comes after 1, and 3 after 2 etc. in order to teach them how to count? Refrain from telling them seemingly arbitrary methods of calculating a GCD between numbers, or go through the function and proof of an algebraic Euclidean algorithm (at 10 years of age) in order to avoid rote learning?

I disagree with your statement that "mostly all school learning is rote learning". How do you determine this? Why do you make no distinction between the different levels of education, and the obvious progression of independent though which is necessary to engage with them (English eduction beginning with rote learning of the phonetic alphabet, and consisting of literary contemplation and individual criticism in secondary school).

simplistic2 wrote: »

You can actually get through school by understanding very little about the actual concepts and how they are formed. All you need to do is just learn blocks of information before exam time.

Please refer to individual subjects and the methods used which you disagree with. You need to start justifying with reference. You are just making claims.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Here are some of the actual processes that happen during your time in school:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority.

Explain how they do this. I'd like to add that the presence or requirement for a child to follow an authority does not equate them propagating lifelong obedience to authority. Were this the case, you could make the same argument about parenthood and their role as authority figures. Authority exists in these institutions as a reflection of the fact that children/teenagers, are not fully mature, and lack faculties of judgment that the teachers, parents themselves posses.

simplistic2 wrote: »

This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can't test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

This is all contingent on your unsupported assumption above- it will be ignore for now.

simplistic2 wrote: »

2) The integrating function. This might well be called "the conformity function," because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

I'm sure that an integrating function would work as above. Now, kindly support the idea that it features in our education system.

simplistic2 wrote: »

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student's proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in "your permanent record." Yes, you do have one.

School has nothing to do with determining someones social role. That is up to them. My employment prospects are determined by my work experience, and references to previous employers, who make no reference to school records (as they often dont for unskilled labor). School records are not in any way determinants for one's entire life. I find it incredibly naive of you to assume otherwise. Employers also keep records of conduct and performance, do you disagree with this and label this collectivist also?

simplistic2 wrote: »

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been "diagnosed," children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits - and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

Again, evidence please. Reference, anecdote, any basis in reality will do.

simplistic2 wrote: »

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin's theory of natural selection as applied to what he called "the favored races." In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments- clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That's what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

I found this part particularly hilarious.

simplistic2 wrote: »

In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit - with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments

Astoundingly ignorant, and merely a fantasy. Some are born with aptitudes lacking in some areas. I, for example, have an exceedingly low aptitude for mechanical reasoning and languages, and an above average aptitude in abstract reasoning. So, would you say that my poor performance in technical drawing was a "punishment", or a result of my personal inability to cope with the material do to my predetermined weakness in that area? Would you call the extra (remedial) help I got in the subject (which helped me to get an honor in the subject in the LC) a punishment?

simplistic2 wrote: »

clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes.

True, I specifically remember the conversations...

me: "wanna go out with me"
her: @aww, I really would, but your axonometric projections are just too inaccurate for me"

In my school, we had a streaming system based on academic performance. I can certainly tell you, the lads in the lower classes had no problem getting women despite their "punishments". In fact, many of them are winning the reproductive sweepstakes already; some have been doing so from a very young age.

simplistic2 wrote: »

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

Could you give the names of some schools that offer this programme? I want to send my kids there.

pagancornflake

Argh, sorry simplistic2, I come off as a bit of a jerk in that comment. I havent had my cup of coffee or my cigarette yet Also, I am a jerk.

simplistic2

pagancornflake wrote: »

Which is in fact necessary for all analytical topics which would make no sense, or would be too dense or complex without knowledge of initial function. Take a language for example. Along your line of reasoning, it would be necessary to explore the roots of the language you are learning (and by that I mean delineate its divergence from its mother tongue, affect from regional dialogues in order to explain its use of phonetics and trace the progression of its grammatical forms) before you actually learn the rules themselves, or how to use the vocabulary. Similarly, in mathematics you would be getting into number theory, a topic of bewildering complexity where you would explain to 4-6 year olds 4000 years of number history culminating in a dense mathematical proof that 2 comes after 1, and 3 after 2 etc. in order to teach them how to count? Refrain from telling them seemingly arbitrary methods of calculating a GCD between numbers, or go through the function and proof of an algebraic Euclidean algorithm (at 10 years of age) in order to avoid rote learning?

I disagree with your statement that "mostly all school learning is rote learning". How do you determine this? Why do you make no distinction between the different levels of education, and the obvious progression of independent though which is necessary to engage with them (English eduction beginning with rote learning of the phonetic alphabet, and consisting of literary contemplation and individual criticism in secondary school).

I think that there is very little independent thought encouraged in schools. What I mean by rote learning is that there is little interaction between the student and teacher. Throughout my years in different schools I was told information then told to recite it back and never asked what I thought about it or why I thought it was that way. The repitition of this style of learning does not help you to think independently and creatively. It also makes children feel less valued when their input is seen as irrealavent.

As for the languages we do need repitition but regarding the way they are thought in schools they are an utter failure. 1000s of hours of irish and french all I have is a few sentences Id say its the same for large percentage of the population.

For maths it is more than possible to teach 8-9 years fundamentals without telling them the equations but by simply asking them questions. Here is an example http://www.garlikov.com/Soc_Meth.html


Just out of curiosity do you think the education system can be improved?If so how?

pagancornflake wrote: »

Please refer to individual subjects and the methods used which you disagree with. You need to start justifying with reference. You are just making claims.

All of them I believe all schools should be fully privatised and childern should be allowed to persue their own interests in full.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Explain how they do this. I'd like to add that the presence or requirement for a child to follow an authority does not equate them propagating lifelong obedience to authority. Were this the case, you could make the same argument about parenthood and their role as authority figures. Authority exists in these institutions as a reflection of the fact that children/teenagers, are not fully mature, and lack faculties of judgment that the teachers, parents themselves posses.

Mainly because rules followed in school are followed out of fear and not love or respect. I wear the same cloths as everyone else because of fear of punishment. I do homework not because I enjoy it but because of fear. I come in on time because of fear. Very few actions in school are based on respect for the teacher or love of the work. Children then connect authority with fear.

pagancornflake wrote: »

I'm sure that an integrating function would work as above. Now, kindly support the idea that it features in our education system.



School has nothing to do with determining someones social role. That is up to them. My employment prospects are determined by my work experience, and references to previous employers, who make no reference to school records (as they often dont for unskilled labor). School records are not in any way determinants for one's entire life. I find it incredibly naive of you to assume otherwise. Employers also keep records of conduct and performance, do you disagree with this and label this collectivist also?



Again, evidence please. Reference, anecdote, any basis in reality will do.



I found this part particularly hilarious.



Astoundingly ignorant, and merely a fantasy. Some are born with aptitudes lacking in some areas. I, for example, have an exceedingly low aptitude for mechanical reasoning and languages, and an above average aptitude in abstract reasoning. So, would you say that my poor performance in technical drawing was a "punishment", or a result of my personal inability to cope with the material do to my predetermined weakness in that area? Would you call the extra (remedial) help I got in the subject (which helped me to get an honor in the subject in the LC) a punishment?



True, I specifically remember the conversations...

me: "wanna go out with me"
her: @aww, I really would, but your axonometric projections are just too inaccurate for me"

In my school, we had a streaming system based on academic performance. I can certainly tell you, the lads in the lower classes had no problem getting women despite their "punishments". In fact, many of them are winning the reproductive sweepstakes already; some have been doing so from a very young age.



Could you give the names of some schools that offer this programme? I want to send my kids there.

The last points arnt that solid but I think the article is more based on the education system in America. All I really have to go on is my own experience and I felt it was an utter waste of my time and I wouldnt put my own children through it , unless they wanted it.

Sandvich

I've been meaning to say this(again) for a while so sorry for dragging it back down that road, what bothers me about this whole thread is that the Libertarians frequently drop stuff in Socialist threads as soon as there posted - people looking to discuss or find information on socialism, they go straight to the Socialism IS EVIL and STUPID.

But when anyone starts criticising them in their thread, they get pretty uppity about it.

I think that's a bit unfair and I see no reason for civility in this thread if they can't at least roll back some of their more obnoxious tendancies in the threads about things they disagree with. I don't mind discussing libertarianism in a mature light even if it really gets my goat, but it's unfair you can't talk about the other end of the spectrum in the same light.

Iwasfrozen

Sandvich wrote: »

I've been meaning to say this(again) for a while so sorry for dragging it back down that road, what bothers me about this whole thread is that the Libertarians frequently drop stuff in Socialist threads as soon as there posted - people looking to discuss or find information on socialism, they go straight to the Socialism IS EVIL and STUPID.

But when anyone starts criticising them in their thread, they get pretty uppity about it.

I think that's a bit unfair and I see no reason for civility in this thread if they can't at least roll back some of their more obnoxious tendancies in the threads about things they disagree with. I don't mind discussing libertarianism in a mature light even if it really gets my goat, but it's unfair you can't talk about the other end of the spectrum in the same light.

Agree with this 100%, many Libertarians who should know better seem to automatically link socialism with authoritarianism. Conveniently forgetting that socialism is an economic theory not a social one.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

I think that's a bit unfair and I see no reason for civility in this thread...

donegalfella effectively held a (tedious) questions and answers session here for the most of this thread. He was very patient, and only gave up when it became obvious that the motives for the posters asking him things were not genuine interest, but rather that they were looking for something to catch him out on so that they could score points.

If you want to pursue this accusation further then I would ask that you start quoting specific things that you felt were uncivil.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agree with this 100%, many Libertarians who should know better seem to automatically link socialism with authoritarianism.

Point out a system of socialism that wasn't authoritarian! Every time it's been tried it has resulted in gross human rights abuses. Even basic reasoning would lead us to believe that you can't achieve a planned economy without putting power into the hands of a few.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Conveniently forgetting that socialism is an economic theory not a social one.

To achieve the economic goals one has to start controlling individuals, hence it becomes a social ideology.

Sandvich

It's ridiculous, because you point out a very serious flaw, like with regards Global Warming, your post gets ignored and you get called a statist with a fetish for being controlled.

I don't go around calling Libertarians baby killers off the bat even though Maggie Thatcher's economics which were very similar to that of a Libertarian(but with conservative social policy) did just that(highest childhood povery rate in europe during her reign).

Sandvich

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

donegalfella effectively held a (tedious) questions and answers session here for the most of this thread. He was very patient, and only gave up when it became obvious that the motives for the posters asking him things were not genuine interest, but rather that they were looking for something to catch him out on so that they could score points.

If you want to pursue this accusation further then I would ask that you start quoting specific things that you felt were uncivil.

I honestly don't care. The basic fact is that the Libs on this forum go straight into socialism threads and cause a huff right off the bat, whereas this little Q&A session managed to happen for pages without any disturbence.

Why is this fair? You moan about civility yet some of the libs here go around insulting people and calling them statists and authoritarians with no basis.

You have absolutely no right to call it "tedious" when threads like this -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055886732

Are pretty much hijacked by Libertarians and their viewpoints.

The basic issue is that Libertarians want their little space, but will not allow their rivals to have the same.

Again, why is this fair? You can't be respectful(or rather you're consistantly apologising for someone who isn't) yet expect people to be civil.

Point out a system of socialism that wasn't authoritarian! Every time it's been tried it has resulted in gross human rights abuses. Even basic reasoning would lead us to believe that you can't achieve a planned economy without putting power into the hands of a few.

The Nordic countries are socialist leaning, and less authoritarian than countries like the US. There have been no true socialist systems. Nearly everything has combined it with something else. Unfortunately, some of the examples people like to use combined it with a dictatorship.

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

Are pretty much hijacked by Libertarians and their viewpoints.

I don't see what you mean here. How does one "hijack" a thread? Everyone here gets equal rights of discussion.

I just glanced at the thread you linked. The first page contained some realistic criticisms of socialism, most especially by Denerick, who is far from a libertarian. If you, or anyone else, had some good refutations to what was being said, the discussion would have been reigned in. However, there seems to have been a distinct lack of that. If the libertarians are taking control of a thread, why can't you take it back from them with a good argument?

Sandvich wrote: »

The Nordic countries are socialist leaning, and less authoritarian than countries like the US. There have been no true socialist systems. Nearly everything has combined it with something else. Unfortunately, some of the examples people like to use combined it with a dictatorship.

I have already addressed these points, and you have ignored what I said. In particular

• I argued here that the Nordic countries are not socialist, but rather social democratic. Perhaps you would like to address that?
• I've also said that anti-market socialism has always lead to authoritarianism, and that it could be logically deduced that future attempts will follow this pattern as the ideology places absolute power into a select elite.

Iwasfrozen

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Point out a system of socialism that wasn't authoritarian! Every time it's been tried it has resulted in gross human rights abuses. Even basic reasoning would lead us to believe that you can't achieve a planned economy without putting power into the hands of a few.

Everytime it has been tried it was tried as a economically socialist but socially authoritarian system. Socialism is not the opposite of libertarianism, it is the opposite of capitalism. Both can exist under socially authoritarian or libertarian belifes.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm tired !

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

To achieve the economic goals one has to start controlling individuals, hence it becomes a social ideology.

Not true, if we look at theories such as Social anarchism we see an ideology that is both socialist and libertarian.

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

donegalfella effectively held a (tedious) questions and answers session here for the most of this thread. He was very patient, and only gave up when it became obvious that the motives for the posters asking him things were not genuine interest, but rather that they were looking for something to catch him out on so that they could score points.

I wouldn't look at it like that; I have a handful of friends who are libertarian but DF is a better source of information;
1) Donegalfella is very articulate. While I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he's very good at explaining himself. Much better than most I know.
2) He has a very pure form of libertarianism. If I remember rightly he's an anarco-capitalist (apologies if I'm mistaken here) so he gives very consistent views on things which can be difficult to see with other minarchist libertarians (who diverge on what the minimal state is)

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Point out a system of socialism that wasn't authoritarian! Every time it's been tried it has resulted in gross human rights abuses. Even basic reasoning would lead us to believe that you can't achieve a planned economy without putting power into the hands of a few.

In cases where an extreme form of socialism was put in, that is certainly the case. But the same can be said for libertarianism; when hardcore free market capitalism has been implemented, it has also been accompanied by human rights abuses (Pinochet's Chile for example)

Open for correction here.

Eliot Rosewater

kickoutthejams wrote: »

1) Donegalfella is very articulate. While I disagree with him on a lot of issues, he's very good at explaining himself. Much better than most I know.

Absolutely. Earlier on in the thread df was being questioned by people who I think didn't really have any goal other than to undermine his views, and Sandvich seems to have taken exception to df's subsequent hesitance to respond to those posters' latest "What if..." scenario.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In cases where an extreme form of socialism was put in, that is certainly the case. But the same can be said for libertarianism; when hardcore free market capitalism has been implemented, it has also been accompanied by human rights abuses (Pinochet's Chile for example)

Yes, Mr Pinochet was an advocate of the free market, but not liberal on social issues I believe. I accept that any movement has the potential to become corrupt, however libertarianism's first priority is shrinking the state, making corruption very hard. Corrupt regimes are worst when a lot of power is vested in the government.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everytime it has been tried it was tried as a economically socialist but socially authoritarian system.

Can they be separated? Namely, how do you implement the reform socialism demands without taking full control of people's lives?

Lockstep

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yes, Mr Pinochet was an advocate of the free market, but not liberal on social issues I believe. I accept that any movement has the potential to become corrupt, however libertarianism's first priority is shrinking the state, making corruption very hard. Corrupt regimes are worst when a lot of power is vested in the government.

That is very true in theory, however, I'm unable to think of a libertarian regime that ever gave up the right of legitimate force. While economically liberal regimes have existed in history (19th century US, Chile under Pinochet and so on) they were repressive socially (conscription, secret police, arbitrary arrest of dissidents and so on)

Eliot Rosewater

Yes, but they weren't libertarian regimes in the social sense, which is important. I see where you're coming from. Take the American Republicans: they swear to have individualistic rights to freedom of enterprise from government interference, yet they've no problem using the government to start wars or institute moral agendas.

So I wouldn't identify those regimes as regimes planning to reduce the size of government in every sense, which is what libertarians would do.

Lockstep

The problem being that this then starts going into the area of "no true Scotsman". I don't think there's ever been a true libertarian regime then (which sounds like those socialists who claim that there's never been a true socialist regime)

ei.sdraob

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The problem being that this then starts going into the area of "no true Scotsman". I don't think there's ever been a true libertarian regime then (which sounds like those socialists who claim that there's never been a true socialist regime)

see this post here

unlike all the other "isms" before Libertarianism doesn't require the whole world to "convert" in order for it to succeed

In fact any shortcomings of the other systems (like high taxation, ban of on-line gambling in authoritarian states) are a plus to any libertarian leaning state/city/town/island since people/capital will flow inward then

I dont see it ever being attempted on a state level. kinda defies the purpose right? but why not create a special zone within a state

think of hong kong for example, being much more free-er than mainland china and hence enjoying more prosperity

Lockstep

ei.sdraob wrote: »

see this post here

unlike all the other "isms" before Libertarianism doesn't require the whole world to "convert" in order for it to succeed

In fact any shortcomings of the other systems (like high taxation, ban of on-line gambling in authoritarian states) are a plus to any libertarian leaning state/city/town/island since people/capital will flow inward then

I dont see it ever being attempted on a state level. kinda defies the purpose right? but why not create a special zone within a state

think of hong kong for example, being much more free-er than mainland china and hence enjoying more prosperity

Not strictly true; other -isms can be tried on the small scale too; anarchist communes in pre-Franco Spain for example. Medieval Irish paruchaie existed as kinds of socialist communes as well.
Small scale groups practicing an ideology is much easier (more people willingly conforming to it) than an entire society practicing it. Which is where every pure -ism fails, from socialism to libertarianism. No extreme can exist without massive repression.

By proxy, we are meant to be a much freer economy than Germany. Not sure if I'd call us more prosperous.
http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No extreme can exist without massive repression.

and thats where libertarianism is different

it completely opposes repression and top down authoritarian rule, unlike socialism, religious fundamentalism, environmentalism which all seek to "behaviourally modify" their "subjects" in order to achieve the aims of their "isms"

libertarianism on the other hand doesn't strive to create a workers paradise or heave on earth following some prophets writings or fix the environment, it simply about each person being atomic and contracts between these persons enforced, nothing stopping larger groups of people agreeing and coming together in a group (molecule), as long as that group doesn't force anything on other "atoms"

if someone doesn't want to be part of the libertarian system, they dont have to

nothing is forced on anyone, if a group of people want to come together and form a welfare group where they all share their wealth or whatever that's their choice, but this group then can not force others to join them since that would be criminal


edit: @df just put it better than i can

Lockstep

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and thats where libertarianism is different

it completely opposes repression and top down authoritarian rule, unlike socialism, religious fundamentalism, environmentalism which all seek to "behaviourally modify" their "subjects" in order to achieve the aims of their "isms"

libertarianism on the other hand doesn't strive to create a workers paradise or heave on earth following some prophets writings or fix the environment, it simply about each person being atomic and contracts between these persons enforced, nothing stopping larger groups of people agreeing and coming together in a group (molecule), as long as that group doesn't force anything on other "atoms"

if someone doesn't want to be part of the libertarian system, they dont have to

nothing is forced on anyone, if a group of people want to come together and form a welfare group where they all share their wealth or whatever that's their choice, but this group then can not force others to join them since that would be criminal


edit: @df just put it better than i can

I can see where both of ye are coming from but see the problem as lying in how this libertarianism comes about. Theoretically, it sounds fine. With no central government and with everyone free to do as they wish (including forming their own communist societies)
The problem is that I've yet to see a libertarian society; there have been examples of economic libertarianism but they required massive repression of groups like unions and dissidents to achieve this.

The question I'm is; can a libertarian society come about peacefully? Theoretically it sounds fine but the attempts at state-free libertarianism in the past have been so horrific that I can't see it as any more practical as real-world socialism. While there have certainly been economically libertarian regimes, there seems to be no examples of ones which are also socially libertarian.

On an aside, statism can also have the opt-out option; I'm a firm believer in the social contract where persons can renounce the social contract (moving) or seek to change it (voting/organising for a different regime)

ei.sdraob

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I can see where both of ye are coming from but see the problem as lying in how this libertarianism comes about. Theoretically, it sounds fine. With no central government and with everyone free to do as they wish (including forming their own communist societies)
The problem is that I've yet to see a libertarian society; there have been examples of economic libertarianism but they required massive repression of groups like unions and dissidents to achieve this.

The question I'm is; can a libertarian society come about peacefully? Theoretically it sounds fine but the attempts at state-free libertarianism in the past have been so horrific that I can't see it as any more practical as real-world socialism. While there have certainly been economically libertarian regimes, there seems to be no examples of ones which are also socially libertarian.

On an aside, statism can also have the opt-out option; I'm a firm believer in the social contract where persons can renounce the social contract (moving) or seek to change it (voting/organising for a different regime)

Your talking about "anarchy" and "feudalism"

there are no examples of fully libertarian "experiments" that i can think of

but there certainly are examples of more "liberal" and "free" states/cities that are undoubtedly more successful than the counterparts which went down socialist etc paths

but you are right its all very theoretical


the best we can hope for is being more "free" and "progressive" and "liberal" than now


on some further thinking, libertarianism is like atheism

while all other 'isms believe and try to implement in their various state "religions", libertarianism is like the odd one out "atheist" in the room

damn i have a hard time expressing myself clearly

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, most Irish schools are private but subsidised by the government. Most of them are owned by religious organisations who for years ran them at a loss as a sort of loss leader - educate them now, given them a bit of god talk, and you'll have a tithe paying catholic for the rest of their lives. Some schools were set up as private fee paying e.g. Institute of Education or boarding schools e.g. Kings Hospital, to cater for a minority of people who could afford to pay large sums for education.

National schools arose quite simply because there were certain areas where there was no school, not enough wealthy parents and no religious denomination was prepared to set up there.

In your scenario, you are simply advocating that the government withdraw the vast majority of support it gives to the denominational schools and sell off national schools to the highest bidder. But, to make national schools profitable a private enterprise will have to reduce costs (often to the detriment of the pupils) and seek increased money from the government. As regards denominational schools, again you are putting control back in the hands of religious orgainisations.

So your idea that we would have a better system if we had private run but subsidised schools doesn't really make sense, given that that is what we have now. Further privatisation of these schools may result in savings and increased productivity, or it may result in higher cost and lower productivity. I'm inclined to the latter view, because the only private schools that demand higher productivity are the fee paying schools (very few families can afford these) and in the short term anyway, increased privatisation means the additional cost of a profit for a private company. If there are efficiency savings to be made in the current system, these could be done by a government that was not afraid to make cuts.

Iwasfrozen

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually, most Irish schools are private but subsidised by the government.

No they aren't.

Lockstep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No they aren't.

Yes they are.

Most schools are owned and run by religious orders, with state aid.

johnnyskeleton

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes they are.

Most schools are owned and run by religious orders, with state aid.

Cheers KOTJ.

Here's another link from citizensinformation which says:

The vast majority of primary schools in Ireland are privately owned and supported by the different churches. The State pays the bulk of the building and running costs and a local contribution is made towards the running costs.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/education/primary-and-post-primary-education/going-to-primary-school/ownership-of-primary-schools