False, American schools are usually around the lower 20's when it comes to education rankings.
Also known as the lowest scoring developed nation in the world.
Advertisement
by New haven america » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:12 am
by Bressen » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:13 am
New haven america wrote:Bressen wrote:I can't fathom why people don't understand that all us Libertarians want, at our core, is a society based on voluntary, consensual actions.
1. You want a society where people voluntarily help others with the compassion of their hearts, where the government is just there to make laws and maybe work on infrastructure, and 2. where economics works nothing like how it does in the real world.
3. Which is ironic, considering most of the people in our government who represent Libertarians are neither compassionate, willing to let go of control over other people, or unversed when it comes to economics.
by New haven america » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:22 am
Bressen wrote:New haven america wrote:1. You want a society where people voluntarily help others with the compassion of their hearts, where the government is just there to make laws and maybe work on infrastructure, and 2. where economics works nothing like how it does in the real world.
3. Which is ironic, considering most of the people in our government who represent Libertarians are neither compassionate, willing to let go of control over other people, or unversed when it comes to economics.
1. I'm such a monster, right?
2. How wouldn't economics work? No, really, how wouldn't they? How does making the use of all services a voluntary exchange suddenly transcend economics into ''not working like it does in the real world''?
3. Which government are you talking about? If you mean the UK government, then there's next to no Libertarians in there. If you mean the US government, Ron (prior to his resignation) and Rand Paul have their entire platform based on getting the government out of the business of its citizens, which sounds like they're more than willing to let go of control.
by Bressen » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:31 am
New haven america wrote:Bressen wrote:1. I'm such a monster, right?
2. How wouldn't economics work? No, really, how wouldn't they? How does making the use of all services a voluntary exchange suddenly transcend economics into ''not working like it does in the real world''?
3. Which government are you talking about? If you mean the UK government, then there's next to no Libertarians in there. If you mean the US government, Ron (prior to his resignation) and Rand Paul have their entire platform based on getting the government out of the business of its citizens, which sounds like they're more than willing to let go of control.
1. Not a monster, just misguided.
2. If a government couldn't collect taxes, where do you expect them to get the money to actually run without over printing and causing a massive inflation problem? (Which would have an adverse affect all classes)
3. The US. I'd like to point out the highest ranking person in the US government to be or associate with Libertarianism is Paul Ryan.
4. Let me ask you a question: Do you think that charities alone could fix the US' poverty problem? (46 mil. and counting) This is becoming a very popular ideal amongst Libertarians recently, and I want to know how you fell on this.
by New haven america » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:47 am
Bressen wrote:New haven america wrote:1. Not a monster, just misguided.
2. If a government couldn't collect taxes, where do you expect them to get the money to actually run without over printing and causing a massive inflation problem? (Which would have an adverse affect all classes)
3. The US. I'd like to point out the highest ranking person in the US government to be or associate with Libertarianism is Paul Ryan.
4. Let me ask you a question: Do you think that charities alone could fix the US' poverty problem? (46 mil. and counting) This is becoming a very popular ideal amongst Libertarians recently, and I want to know how you fell on this.
2. My main is opposition is to income tax. I've made the case for having a sales/consumption/VAT system which the government could depend upon to fund the essentials, such as the courts, military and the police.
3. Paul Ryan isn't a Libertarian, not by a long shot. He's just a good advocate for limited government, which is a value Libertarians and Conservatives share and hence why the Republican party was home to Rand and Ron Paul.
4. There's no reason why it couldn't, but you don't even need to revert to charities to do all that work. My only issue is that the government shouldn't be involved in the process of social welfare if their involvement is at the expense of the taxpayer; if you want to VOLUNTARILY give money to fund these government programs, go ahead and do it. I'm sure the government's social welfare programmes would survive just fine if they reverted to a voluntary source of income for them, because people like these social welfare programmes. Hell, even I'd probably voluntarily give some of my paycheck to the government if they showed aptitude in and were better than charities at alleviating poverty. They key point here is that it needs to be a voluntary exchange; it's a feudalist idea that the government (or those in charge) should be able to force their citizens to give them money under the threat of being thrown in a cage.
by Bressen » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:58 am
New haven america wrote:Bressen wrote:2. My main is opposition is to income tax. I've made the case for having a sales/consumption/VAT system which the government could depend upon to fund the essentials, such as the courts, military and the police.
3. Paul Ryan isn't a Libertarian, not by a long shot. He's just a good advocate for limited government, which is a value Libertarians and Conservatives share and hence why the Republican party was home to Rand and Ron Paul.
4. There's no reason why it couldn't, but you don't even need to revert to charities to do all that work. My only issue is that the government shouldn't be involved in the process of social welfare if their involvement is at the expense of the taxpayer; if you want to VOLUNTARILY give money to fund these government programs, go ahead and do it. I'm sure the government's social welfare programmes would survive just fine if they reverted to a voluntary source of income for them, because people like these social welfare programmes. Hell, even I'd probably voluntarily give some of my paycheck to the government if they showed aptitude in and were better than charities at alleviating poverty. They key point here is that it needs to be a voluntary exchange; it's a feudalist idea that the government (or those in charge) should be able to force their citizens to give them money under the threat of being thrown in a cage.
2. Ok, enjoy having a candy bar cost more than 30$.
3. Yes he actually is (At least heavily associated with the party). He's a major Rand supporter (who created Objectivism, which is one of the largest influences on American Libertarianism), and does a lot to limit government and social services/safety net (Leaving it more to the people). Granted he has said that he reject Rand's ideals, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions haven't changed, at all...
4. Knew you were gonna say something along those lines, here's why you're wrong: There is almost no organization that collect nearly enough money to help large poor populations except for one: A countries government. There is no charity big enough to collect and manage that much money, nor are people generous enough to actually donate enough to keep those things running, and thinking that there is is horrendously naïve. The government is the only body in a country that can actually handle such large populations, they're the only body that can handle the amount of stress and responsibility that a job like fixing poverty would cause.
by Thermodolia » Wed Apr 26, 2017 1:58 am
by New haven america » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:01 am
by New haven america » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:05 am
Bressen wrote:New haven america wrote:2. Ok, enjoy having a candy bar cost more than 30$.
3. Yes he actually is (At least heavily associated with the party). He's a major Rand supporter (who created Objectivism, which is one of the largest influences on American Libertarianism), and does a lot to limit government and social services/safety net (Leaving it more to the people). Granted he has said that he reject Rand's ideals, but actions speak louder than words, and his actions haven't changed, at all...
4. Knew you were gonna say something along those lines, here's why you're wrong: There is almost no organization that collect nearly enough money to help large poor populations except for one: A countries government. There is no charity big enough to collect and manage that much money, nor are people generous enough to actually donate enough to keep those things running, and thinking that there is is horrendously naïve. The government is the only body in a country that can actually handle such large populations, they're the only body that can handle the amount of stress and responsibility that a job like fixing poverty would cause.
2. Now who's being unrealistic?
3. He might identify and associate with Libertarianism, but being pro-war and pro-obscenity laws isn't very Libertarian.
4. If that's the case, that still doesn't mean the government can't be funded voluntarily by the people to provide these services.
by Bressen » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:16 am
New haven america wrote:Bressen wrote:2. Now who's being unrealistic?
3. He might identify and associate with Libertarianism, but being pro-war and pro-obscenity laws isn't very Libertarian.
4. If that's the case, that still doesn't mean the government can't be funded voluntarily by the people to provide these services.
2. Where do you expect them to get the fekking money then? Get rid of income tax, everything else is gonna get raised to compensate. (This can be seen in Oregon, which got rid of sales tax, but had to compensate with income tax)
3. Yes, but due to how he views himself and how others view him, he's now your figurehead in America. Embrace that, maybe him and Bernie can have an epic dual or something.
4. No, it can't, no human is generous enough to support the government with the billions-trillions it needs.
by New haven america » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:20 am
Bressen wrote:New haven america wrote:2. Where do you expect them to get the fekking money then? Get rid of income tax, everything else is gonna get raised to compensate. (This can be seen in Oregon, which got rid of sales tax, but had to compensate with income tax)
3. Yes, but due to how he views himself and how others view him, he's now your figurehead in America. Embrace that, maybe him and Bernie can have an epic dual or something.
4. No, it can't, no human is generous enough to support the government with the billions-trillions it needs.
2. A sale tax isn't going to cause a substantial increase in the cost of goods if that sales tax is used only to fund the essentials of government.
3. Yeah, no. I'd rather not embrace a pseudo-Libertarian.
4. Why wouldn't it work? People are pro-taxes because they value the services the government provides, so they've no excuse to not voluntary donate to these services other than the fact they genuinely don't care about these services or only want everyone else's to fund these services whilst getting them for free; "I like taxes, but not for me".
by Thermodolia » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:23 am
by Lady Scylla » Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:26 am
Kubra wrote:Do american high schools not offer technical and vocational classes? Serious question. I know that here in leafland education on how the fuck to do taxes is also sorely lacking.Oldenfranck wrote:In many cases today, vocational training is more valuable than traditional college degrees. We should look into funding those some more, or at least incorporate some more relevant life skills into school curriculums. Let's teach kids how to cooks steaks, change tires, balance budgets and etc. instead of underwater basketweaving, Latin, and comic book analyzation.
by Narland » Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:10 am
Industrial Virginia wrote:Usually whenever I try to complain about stuff, I make a fool of myself. Now for a controversial topic that probably won't make me sound stupid. Anyway, so, I am personally against compulsory school due to the fact that people should be responsible for getting their own education. If schooling is left to be a persons decision, it will probably then go back to being left to the free market. This would be good because it could allow schooling to be competitive and create supply and demand for schooling.
Whatd'ya think? I know I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, so feel free to correct me politely
by Zottistan » Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:30 am
by Calladan » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:10 am
Zottistan wrote:Tesra wrote:Well what's more important?
The profit or the education of one's children?
So I'm dubious about leaving education to the market because I in general don't trust the free market, but that's an incredibly stupid question. It's like asking a car manufacturer "what's more important, profit or making a quality car?". You can't do one without the other.
I'd feel weird saying classroom attendance should be compulsory considering I am at present skipping school but yeah, it really should.
by Frank Zipper » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:23 am
Calladan wrote:Betamax was a clearly superior type of video tape, but VHS won out because it had more mass market appeal.
by Industrial Virginia » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:24 am
Calladan wrote:Zottistan wrote:So I'm dubious about leaving education to the market because I in general don't trust the free market, but that's an incredibly stupid question. It's like asking a car manufacturer "what's more important, profit or making a quality car?". You can't do one without the other.
I'd feel weird saying classroom attendance should be compulsory considering I am at present skipping school but yeah, it really should.
Oh that is so not true. You can make a lot of profit by making incredibly cheap and tatty crap as long as you have a good marketing campaign. Most movies work on that assumption. Even political campaigns.
iPhones are not the best phones in the world, but Apple's marketing is second to none. They make it the "NEXT BIG THING" and people want it because they are told they should want it, so they make a fuck load of profit of a second rate product.
Betamax was a clearly superior type of video tape, but VHS won out because it had more mass market appeal.
You can either educate children well, or you can make a profit. It is rare that you can do both well.
by Forsher » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:37 am
Industrial Virginia wrote:Usually whenever I try to complain about stuff, I make a fool of myself. Now for a controversial topic that probably won't make me sound stupid. Anyway, so, I am personally against compulsory school due to the fact that people should be responsible for getting their own education. If schooling is left to be a persons decision, it will probably then go back to being left to the free market. This would be good because it could allow schooling to be competitive and create supply and demand for schooling.
Whatd'ya think? I know I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, so feel free to correct me politely
by Kaboomlandia » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:40 am
by Forsher » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:57 am
Mezonpotania wrote:Kubra wrote:Oh gee looks like my post was skipped over, I guess it's because this guy does not understand the affect of population on economic activity
I tell ya, what's up with folks praising markets while only having a rough idea how they work?
I know how markets work.
I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Mezonpotania wrote:I know how markets work.
I also know that these markets don't exist today only because of banks and governments working for inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have and makes you poor.
Inflation is a measure to reduce the effects of debt on both a personal and national level, for fuck's sake.
Imperializt Russia wrote:No.
A debt is a fixed figure of cash value money you owe someone, minus the interest.
Inflation functionally devalues the figure of debt.
After 100% inflation, a £3000 debt is "worth" only £1500 of "old money", because it's still valued at £3000.
Meanwhile, your pay packet goes from £20k to £40k.
by Calladan » Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:57 am
by Frank Zipper » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:03 am
by Ryock » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:13 am
Mezonpotania wrote:On the poor and education thing, you do know there is such thing as public charity right?
People will try to look good, or are actually good, so they will donate to charity.
Plus, there is also inheritance and finally, EARNING YOUR MONEY.
You should try and earn money or save up before having a child! Otherwise, don't have one.
If you are raped, or just have an unexpected pregnancy, take birth control or have an abortion.
DONE.
by Industrial Virginia » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:14 am
Ryock wrote:Mezonpotania wrote:On the poor and education thing, you do know there is such thing as public charity right?
People will try to look good, or are actually good, so they will donate to charity.
Plus, there is also inheritance and finally, EARNING YOUR MONEY.
You should try and earn money or save up before having a child! Otherwise, don't have one.
If you are raped, or just have an unexpected pregnancy, take birth control or have an abortion.
DONE.
What if those people cannot afford birth control or abortions?
Advertisement
Advertisement