So I did fairly well on the state-mandated test (MCAS, for those in Massachusetts) when I took it in 10th grade. Today, I got a letter in the mail saying I won the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, which basically waives tuition if I go to any state school or university.
Now, after telling a few people who know I'm a libertarian, they've pointed out something that makes me conflicted.
"You're against government handouts and bailouts, and now you're getting money to go to college for free."
Like most libertarians, I'm a fan of being consistent on everything, I can't help but think they're right.
Blueline976: So I did fairly well on the state-mandated test (MCAS, for those in Massachusetts) when I took it in 10th grade. Today, I got a letter in the mail saying I won the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship, which basically waives tuition if I go to any state school or university. Now, after telling a few people who know I'm a libertarian, they've pointed out something that makes me conflicted. "You're against government handouts and bailouts, and now you're getting money to go to college for free." Like most libertarians, I'm a fan of being consistent on everything, I can't help but think they're right.
Tell them it's similar to rolling the dice with the mob. Sure, they could "help" you out, but at great cost, and they if they hadn't "provided" (coerced and/or monopolized) an opportunity for you, it would be easier to do without them (i.e. government monopolizes education, then grants you a "waived tuition' per the MCAS, when if it didn't monopolize or interfere in the education market, better options would be available through other private, free-market forms of accreditation & standards tests). If it's your only option, i.e., your other options on your own aren't realistically achievable, you could take the reparation stance vis-a-vis taxes. Does the MCAS have other uses, like say, being good on a resume for employment? If your back is against the wall, I can see why you would choose the waived tuition. Although, imo, I don't think it's incorrect to think there is some sort of fine print to this "waived tuition" and/or conditions or terms.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Everyone uses state roads and state schools. Does this mean no one can advocate free enterprise?
I would suggest you read "Living in a State-Run World" by Murray Rothbard.
There is a difference between a libertarian accepting tax dollars and a statist accepting tax dollars. The libertarian will go on to advocate for the repeal of taxes, unlike the statist. Every dollar you take from the tax coffers (which is rightfully yours, or your parents) is one less dollar that goes to some statist scum.
To your last point (Nitroaddict), there are eligibility terms I have to adhere to, such as:
I've already completed those, but there are more:
In order to claim the Adams Scholarship, the student must be
Those will be completed also, but yet again, there are more:
In order to use the scholarship the student must
And a little more:
To continue receiving the Adams Scholarship, the student must
So those are some of the requirements. As for the MCAS being good on a resume, I don't think so. It's a state test, so everyone, and I mean everyone takes it. And while my family is not financially in-the-hole, we're not made of money either. It is really irritating me to be consistent here, even though not having to pay tuition would be great.
Sukrit Sabhlok:I would suggest you read "Living in a State-Run World" by Murray Rothbard.
"Does that mean that all libertarians can cheerfully work for the government, apart from not lobbying for statism, and forget about conscience in this area? Certainly not. For here it is vital to distinguish between two kinds of State activities: (a) those actions that would be perfectly legitimate if performed by private firms on the market; and (b) those actions that are per se immoral and criminal, and that would be illicit in a libertarian society. The latter must not be performed by libertarians in any circumstances. Thus, a libertarian must not be: a concentration camp director or guard; an official of the IRS; an official of the Selective Service System; or a controller or regulator of society or the economy.
Let us take a concrete case, and see how our proffered criterion works. An old friend of mine, an anarcholibertarian and Austrian economist, accepted an important post as an economist in the Federal Reserve System. Licit or illicit? Moral or immoral? Well, what are the functions of the Fed? It is the monopoly counterfeiter, the creator of State money; it cartelizes, privileges and bails out banks; it regulates – or attempts to regulate – money and credit, price levels, and the economy itself. It should be abolished not simply because it is governmental, but also because its functions are per se immoral. It is not surprising, of course, that this fellow did not see the moral problem the same way."
Good analysis. I think there is a bit of speculation on Rothbards part; asking us to predict what would be on the market if the state had not provided it. Still, I think that it is a good theoretical argument in spite of some grey areas that might arise. (Would microsoft exist on the free market? maybe maybe not...) But there are a lot of clear cut examples, and I think education is one of them.
You have to compete with people who are getting these privileges.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Sukrit Sabhlok, wouldn't that just be selling out for political gain?
Also, as a note, this is TUITION WAVER. I honestly don't know if it uses tax dollars to cover costs, and I'm not getting "free money" as far as I know.
Waive the tuition. No point going into debt when you can avoid it especially during a time when people should be saving.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I don't think I could do it, it would be like one of the followers of Gandhi starting a violent rebellion.
But then again, I use government roads, went to public school, I don't know anymore...
Ideally we all would like it if no one stole any money, but then again I would also ideally like to never kill anyone, but I would if they fired at me.
I don't know, I'm having doubts now, it seems like no one can be a consistent libertarian in a state-run world, but does this mean we should take advantage of the state wherever and whenever we can? Or is this some kind of line somewhere?
Good topic.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
imho Walter is the best on this. ymmv
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Stranger: You have to compete with people who are getting these privileges.
+1. If you cannot find a better opportunity elsewhere on your own, you might need to deal with state-society, however reluctantly, to compete. At least while it's still around (this country is becoming bankrupt, in any case), methinks.
Blueline - As others have noted, it is impractical for libertarians to relinquish government benefits because of the tremendous size and scope of government power today. We can't avoid using government roads, for example. And in any case, why should statists - who are conniving thieves - be allowed to use our own ideology and moral principles against us? We are being robbed by a criminal gang (the State) on a daily basis - why should we listen to those that defend the criminal gang?
Besides, taking government money and donating it to a pro-freedom cause would actually reduce the amount of coercion in society.
While I think it's fine for libertarians to take government money, there is always the potential for this money to corrupt their views. Like anyone else, libertarians can (in theory) be tempted to water down their anti-government views so they continue receiving taxpayer grants. Libertarian organizations should, therefore, reject government money lest they become corrupted. And individuals who receive government money should declare it to the world (as you have).
I see. I was merely worried about being hypocritical because, as my friend stated, I'm always talking about how these handouts are terrible, blah blah blah, yet when I get one, I take it and run.
However, it turns out the scholarship is just a waiver, from what I've read so far. The letter I received was from my school principal and only said congratulations, there's an ceremony Nov. 23, etc., so it didn't really explain the scholarship in any detail.. I'm not getting anyone's tax money to go to school. If anything, it hurts the state/government public school because they won't be getting my money.
Blueline976:Today, I got a letter in the mail
Perhaps if you refused to receive it, on principle, you wouldn't be having this problem now.
Z.
But a waiver is indirectly "free money" isn't it? Because the cost of providing you a place at a state school/university doesn't come for free - there's always an opportunity cost.
Instead of taking you onboard as a tuition-exempt student, they could've taken someone else that paid for their place which would've made them more money. So it's like you're getting free money?
Sukrit Sabhlok:
I was thinking about that, but came to my earlier conclusion. You might be right, but my thought process is: I'm not receiving money to go to school. If I did, it would obviously come from taxes, and thus would be hypocritical of me to take the money because people would essentially be paying for me to go to school through taxes.
Rather the tuition is just waived. I thought that the school would just not get my money. If I did take money given to me, it would just go back to the state anyway. So this way, don't they just *not* get my money?
If any of that is confusing, I'll try to clarify what I mean.
z1235: That's a bit impractical, don't you think?. For one, I had completely forgotten about any scholarships and MCAS itself. Two, I'm never home when the mail comes. Three, I'm not about to walk up to the mailman and refuse to take certain pieces of mail.
Blueline976: Sukrit Sabhlok: I was thinking about that, but came to my earlier conclusion. You might be right, but my thought process is: I'm not receiving money to go to school. If I did, it would obviously come from taxes, and thus would be hypocritical of me to take the money because people would essentially be paying for me to go to school through taxes. Rather the tuition is just waived. I thought that the school would just not get my money. If I did take money given to me, it would just go back to the state anyway. So this way, don't they just *not* get my money?
I would say actually the Agorist perspective gives you a way out on this, as if you got money from the state, you wouldn't be able to utilize for anything else but the tuition (in effect, waiving the costs for you), & the money remains in the pink / red markets. Your own capital (most likely in pink / red market origin), however, would not contribute to this venture, & could be better spent elsewhere in areas that do not directly benefit pink / red markets, & more so grey & black-markets. It's a bit of a technical explanation, & a bit esoteric, but it would make more sense for the state to pay for your tuition for you to go to a state college . university than for you to waste your money on it, at least from a strategic point of view.You can always redeem yourself by leveraging the "education" you get to advance other libertarian means down the line. This then becomes a case of "picking your battles".
I'm way past feeling bad about using government roads and the like so I say take it. But...
I am always looking for ways to further disengage myself from the state in general. I would highly recommend doing the same.
And I wouldn't go out of my way looking for a government hand-out of any kind.
MatthewF: I'm way past feeling bad about using government roads and the like so I say take it. But... I am always looking for ways to further disengage myself from the state in general. I would highly recommend doing the same. And I wouldn't go out of my way looking for a government hand-out of any kind.
The way the state interferes with the economy & screws around with education by making it more expensive, I really don't see this as a hand-out. I see it as partial reparation. If other options are only mildly less convenient and/or available, though, it would be obviously be morally preferable. He may not have a choice, however, as costs of education will become more burdensome as the economy worsens. Many will be damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Blueline976: "You're against government handouts and bailouts, and now you're getting money to go to college for free." Like most libertarians, I'm a fan of being consistent on everything, I can't help but think they're right.
I consider myself a libertarian (in a sense) but I would say quite simply that the problem with the current government and its 'policies' is that it is insane, based upon impossible nonsense and contradictory to reality and civilization. That being said, I do not believe that describing the philosophy and government of the present world as evil means that one signs some sort of suicide pact, martyrdom is idiotic; it only attracts the wrong kind of people.
Taking money from the state is no different than buying subsidized products, it's simply rational behaviour, even if one holds the opinion that such outcomes as exist derive from insane ideas and barbarianism.
Blueline976:z1235: That's a bit impractical, don't you think?. For one, I had completely forgotten about any scholarships and MCAS itself. Two, I'm never home when the mail comes. Three, I'm not about to walk up to the mailman and refuse to take certain pieces of mail.
I was just being sarcastic. Using the state's mail services all your life has already placed you beyond the point of no return regarding the conundrum that's bothering you. You've already made your decision on your question at hand long before you knew you did.