Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Government needs to provide basic things!

rated by 0 users
This post has 61 Replies | 11 Followers

Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

realbuffet:
consider a country like china.
Which has a very authoritarian government. I don't think you wanted to use that as an example.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,255
Points 80,815
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

consider a country like china.

Why should I?

poor family does not have enough to eat. so their son/daughter would not have a primary education and therefore would never be able to move out of the poverty. however if there was free gov education program it gives that family a chance to move out of that cycle in one generation time. For a country in the long run would have more educated population and thus future wealth. i can not see a private organization doing this as it is not profitable to provide education to that family.

Melodramatic assertion.

that is why i believe that schools is one of those very few institutions  which would be performed better under gov control along with private schools for more cash intensive structure to meet richer family needs.

Another unproven assertion.

Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Mon, May 4 2009 11:15 AM

Don't you just love the completely unfounded assertions made all the time by fascists/socialists?

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 574
Points 9,305
Natalie replied on Mon, May 4 2009 12:04 PM

Also people tend to forget that in many cases education is forced upon us by the state. You need to have degrees and licenses for many professions these days. Would so many people be spending a dozen years to become a doctor if weren't required to do it? I doubt it. And the prices for medical care would have come down as well.

If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.

J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 20
Points 475

Knight_of_BAAWA:

realbuffet:
consider a country like china.
Which has a very authoritarian government. I don't think you wanted to use that as an example.

 

alright then consider india

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

realbuffet:
alright then consider india

You presume that people can only get out of poverty through education.  The quickest way out of poverty is savings.  It's by producing more than you consume.  The reason why poor people are trapped in the "lower class" if at all, is because they are denied the opportunity to save through legal tender laws and debt based monetary schemes, as well as regulatory burdens which create barriers to entry, like licensing, minimum wage, certification.

The best way to help poor people get out of poverty, and be able to choose the education which best suits them, at a cost they can afford to pay without stealing from others, is freedom.  Get government out of their lives.  Humans are very good at working for their own self-interest.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

realbuffet:
alright then consider india
Very socialist. I don't think you wanted to use that as an example.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 20
Points 475

liberty student:

You presume that people can only get out of poverty through education.  The quickest way out of poverty is savings.  It's by producing more than you consume.  The reason why poor people are trapped in the "lower class" if at all, is because they are denied the opportunity to save through legal tender laws and debt based monetary schemes, as well as regulatory burdens which create barriers to entry, like licensing, minimum wage, certification.

 

i m with you on on licensing. especially the medical ones. people are dying to get appointments frm doctors and they still want to have unbelivably high standards (unnecessary) for graduate doctors. i read this argument in one book. forgot its name though.

 

*it will take long time for me to convince myself that gov has no role in education. but thats just me*

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

realbuffet:

*it will take long time for me to convince myself that gov has no role in education. but thats just me*

    Does a politician teach you where you live?  When did the Department of Education personnel actually enter the schools and teach the students?  The focus is still on the student correct?

 

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 107
Points 1,830

I'm progressing slowly on my learning from Mises books and on the road away from grovernment. I've decided now that government is so great an evil that I'm willing to take on concerns myself in order to avoid gov't. Once a gov't is established there is no way to stop it from growing into a monster. However, as that is historically true, would it be possible to have a nation with no gov't. The same forces that continually grow gov't would continually endevor to establish it.

IMHO schools today exist primarily to keep the young off the streets and out of trouble, as a propaganda and behavior modification machine, and to prevent the competition of cheap labor. Up until the 1950's most children who went to school completed no more than the 8th grade and by then were far better educated than our college graduates today. Children who did not get beyond 4th grade could read, write, and figure. The hope of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not equate happiness with education but with the ownership of property. Property is gained by savings, not education. Vanderbuilt started working at the age of 15 for under 0.50 cents a day and by 23 could invest $4000 of Savings to begin is fortune.

Many organizations have provided schools in the past and would gladly do to again if they could afford it. Churches for example. Church school were started specifically for the poor.

The French Foreign Legion is an example of a private army. To my knowledge they've never gotten out of hand. And they're very, very good at their jobs.  If they did get out of hand it would be easy to stop their funding. Nuclear weapons are very, very expensive to both build and maintain. To do so would require small payments from quite a lot of people. But I also suppose that the many private protection and court companies could all together support 1 private company to provide nuclear services.

Someone above mentioned "the problem of equality". First, what is the problem of equality? What is to be made equal. We are all different and wonderfully unique. The older I get the more I ejnoy and even revel in each persons uniqueness. And the more sure I am that each person has at least one great talent or gift of nature. Only a few of us are able to find that talent, and education does not help finding it. Today's educational system attempts to push everyone into the same mold.

No, the biggest problem I see with having no government is exactly the same as with having a limited gov't. How to stop one from starting and/or growing.

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

cryptocode:
I've decided now that government is so great an evil that I'm willing to take on concerns myself in order to avoid gov't.

Welcome to the party.  Very nice post.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095

cryptocode:
No, the biggest problem I see with having no government is exactly the same as with having a limited gov't. How to stop one from starting and/or growing.

I agree that this is the main problem.  And just like Lew Rockwell, I have decided that education is the only hope.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 170
Points 3,275
Arvin replied on Tue, May 5 2009 10:39 AM

Jon Irenicus:

The argument against private schools is as pathetic as it gets. Why is it surprising that they're costlier (still more cost-efficient though) than public schools when the latter have captured most of the market? I question the intelligence of education socialists.

 

I question their education.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 57
Points 1,350

My argument against a monopolized and government controlled military for defense is very simple.

A military is unnecessary and very inefficient for defense.

A militia trained in guerrilla warfare would be 100 times (or, I guess at least 6 times, using the 6 to 1 ratio) more efficient for defense. Moreover, if the majority of citizens participated, the establishment or growth of an undesired government would be absolutely prevented. The ultimate check and balance, you might say. No wonder my government dislikes and spreads negative propaganda about militias...

The 6 to 1 ratio. I honestly don't know it's origins, but I've seen it numerous times. It states, basically, that to successfully occupy an area defended by guerrilla forces, you need at least 6 conventional soldiers for every guerrilla. Of course there are a lot of factors, and times do change, but bear with me... Using that ratio, if the majority of the able bodied males in my country participated in the militia and guerrilla training, there wouldn't be enough military power on the planet, combined, to successfully occupy my country. Also note that countless times through history, defensive forces, including guerrilla forces and militias, have been able to repeal attackers with much worse odds than 6 to 1.

That ratio, though, is considering the average guerrilla, who is generally ill-equipped with only very basic training. If you considered militia or privately owned, state of the art defense systems, what does the ratio become then?

Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is not the producer of a righteous society, it is the product of one.

You can't have my guns, but I'd be glad to give you my bullets...

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 11,343
Points 194,945
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

thepaintballer45:
A military is unnecessary and very inefficient for defense.

Indeed violence and physical confrontation is unnecessary and inefficient.  Unfortunately, most (non-Austrian) Americans I talk to online equate peace with having the most guns, not diplomacy not or trade.

"When you're young you worry about people stealing your ideas, when you're old you worry that they won't." - David Friedman
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

thepaintballer45:

My argument against a monopolized and government controlled military for defense is very simple.

A military is unnecessary and very inefficient for defense.

A militia trained in guerrilla warfare would be 100 times (or, I guess at least 6 times, using the 6 to 1 ratio) more efficient for defense. 

   Yeap, a centralized government is easy to pick off and infiltrate, but a whole country full of individuals that don't won't bothered and have the means to carry out their self-defense is a hornets nest I wouldn't get near.  Unless of course other countries brainwash the militia country into giving this up and they start to make a centralized government.  That might be the only threat which would take hundreds of years quite possibly or at least a long time in which the new generations get sedentary and forget how good they have it... opps might be getting too much into the U.S. and Ireland on these sticking points.  I've read a little on Ireland and how they kept the British from taking over their country for over a thousand years because of their militia and no central government in Rothbards "For a New Liberty:..."  

   This also reminds me of the Irish man in "BraveHeart" when he said Ireland is, "My Island."

     

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 663
Points 10,885
Moderator

cryptocode:
Someone above mentioned "the problem of equality". First, what is the problem of equality? What is to be made equal. We are all different and wonderfully unique. The older I get the more I ejnoy and even revel in each persons uniqueness. And the more sure I am that each person has at least one great talent or gift of nature.

Excellent post.

I find it no problem whatsoever, for roughly the same reasons you don't see it as problematic. But the idea that inequality should be regulated and moved more towards equality is extremely prevalent, despite key points other than this (valid) argument (1. that material equality is taken as equality itself is an entirely unbacked and unreasoned statement and is hence suspect, 2. arbitrariness in most socialist/statist arguments for (more) equality, 3. that government usually creates and reinforces inequality rather than diminishes it).

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Tue, May 5 2009 9:15 PM

Thedesolateone:

cryptocode:
Someone above mentioned "the problem of equality". First, what is the problem of equality? What is to be made equal. We are all different and wonderfully unique. The older I get the more I ejnoy and even revel in each persons uniqueness. And the more sure I am that each person has at least one great talent or gift of nature.

Excellent post.

I find it no problem whatsoever, for roughly the same reasons you don't see it as problematic. But the idea that inequality should be regulated and moved more towards equality is extremely prevalent, despite key points other than this (valid) argument (1. that material equality is taken as equality itself is an entirely unbacked and unreasoned statement and is hence suspect, 2. arbitrariness in most socialist/statist arguments for (more) equality, 3. that government usually creates and reinforces inequality rather than diminishes it).

Very true, the point everyone misses is that is what is important is not relative equality but absolute living standards. By forcing equality we are putting a negative incentive on the kinds of efforts that make us better off as whole.

Say we could measure living standards in units of LS.

It seems silly to prefer person 1 and 2 both having 40. Than person 1 having 100, but person 2 having 50.

In absolute sense they are both better off.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 122
Points 2,205
BobT replied on Tue, May 5 2009 9:54 PM

yessir:

Very true, the point everyone misses is that is what is important is not relative equality but absolute living standards. By forcing equality we are putting a negative incentive on the kinds of efforts that make us better off as whole.

Say we could measure living standards in units of LS.

It seems silly to prefer person 1 and 2 both having 40. Than person 1 having 100, but person 2 having 50.

In absolute sense they are both better off.

I've actually asked marxists if they would rather have everyone be poor and equal, or have no one be poor but have large differences in wealth, and been told that they would rather everyone be equal, even if it meant being poor...

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 412
Points 8,630

BobT:
I've actually asked marxists if they would rather have everyone be poor and equal, or have no one be poor but have large differences in wealth, and been told that they would rather everyone be equal, even if it meant being poor...

rofl. yep, they want a classless society

do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095

BobT:
I've actually asked marxists if they would rather have everyone be poor and equal, or have no one be poor but have large differences in wealth, and been told that they would rather everyone be equal, even if it meant being poor...

Wow!  Just wow!  I never realized their mentality stooped this low.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 304
Points 3,965
Solomon replied on Wed, May 6 2009 1:36 PM

BobT:
I've actually asked marxists if they would rather have everyone be poor and equal, or have no one be poor but have large differences in wealth, and been told that they would rather everyone be equal, even if it meant being poor...

I think this is due to something basic in leftists' psyche.  It's why they are completely oblivious to notions like comparative advantage or individual initiative (though I may be confounding cause and effect to some extext).

Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (62 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS