Chew on this to start with, I'll have some more a little later.

Nothing to argue with here.

Incorrect. It assumes equity, under the law. Ideally, it practices it, too.

True.

It doesn't work this way when the influence of money is not allowed in gov't. Ideally [for me, at least], the libertarian society does not allow corporations to contribute to the government, period, and instead would not exist. Maybe you want to argue with NoR if this is what your argument will be about.

So people with more money are able to afford "better" education. In reality, it is not the cost of the education, but the ability of the teacher. The cost only comes in after considering how the teacher's abilities can best sell.

I do not argue in favor of abolishing all education...its benefits far outstrip its negatives, however few there are.

So rich people get better educations. There is always the public library, if gov't schools aren't good enough; have you ever heard of magnet schools? Public schools for the gifted.

Of course. You rise up to the level of your abilities.

Which is not the case and if you read further you will come across an example or two.

In a system that lacks redistribution, forces of "Law and Order" serve to preserve the Status Quo and benefitting the haves over the have nots.

They already can, but the lack of governmental action removes the option of public education. Small government, remember?

Bullshit. A wealthy child has access to a far greater variety and quality of learning aids as well as wealthy schools being able to pay the best teachers more money.

Then you are already polluting the libertarian ideal... you lose.

Public schools have no place under a true libertarian society.

And if those abilities aren't enough to feed your family, well I guess they starve, don't they?

Gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling inside, yes?

Did you even read any of that?

Well no shit. Reality isn't equal. Some people are born idiots. Some people are born geniuses. If we treat them equally, then you will get seperate results. If you treat them inequally, you are going to disrput freedom of exchange.0 You've attempted to twist the word Equality to Sameness.


Furthermore, you do not desire perfect equality either. You are not a communist-you just want "more equality". Equality, however, does not make any sense in this term of the word. There is not more equal-only equal or not equal.

Indeed, by what standard have you derived what is "equal enough" to satisfy you?

You do realize wealth is not a static amount to be plundered and divided, but rather a object that can be created? And the realitive disutility of all parties involved is decreased on the onset of every trade?

How does my neighbor being rich prevent me from being so? On the contary, as far as we live in a cooperative society with free association, it makes me more rich.

I see. By preventing looting and keeping a steady rule of law, that is the same as keeping the status quo? Are you crazy?

The market economy is no respector of vested interests. Every day, Mom and Pop grocery stores are devoured by more efficient wal-marts. That is its greatest strength-it does not care WHO you are, only what you can do.

If there is ample demand for education, why do you think the market will not provide for it, much like for other wants? Or do you think there is a sizable population that does not want education? Then the true question is-can you educate someone who doesn't want it?

Again money is not a staic amount. And there are no safety nets in reality.

The market does not care about hard work because YOU the consumer do not care about hard work. Do you ask before you buy a pair of shoes ," In the construction of these shoes, who worked harder, Nike or Reebok?"

If there is a demand, a market will service them.

I think I know where Muz will go with this, and want to make a single (brief) remark from the gallery. Namely that you're misunderstanding the anti-libertarian against public education. It's not that there isn't sufficient demand. Because let's face it: more than likely, even without compulsory education laws, parents would require their children to go to school whether they want to or not (I don't know if you remember that far back, but until around 16, *I* sure as hell never wanted to go to school).

The point being made is that where education is concerned, it's not just demand or even willingness to pay. It's ability to pay that comes into the equation.

If you can't afford an education under the most extreme Randnick systems, you don't get an education. It doesn't matter how much I'm willing to pay if I can't pay, does it?

That's where the argument for the uneducated underclass comes from. You need a certain amount of education to get the better paying jobs, and there are only so many 'skilled labour' jobs available. The uneducated underclass probably won't be able to afford an education or reach the jobs that would let them be able to afford it.

What sets the prices of objects?

Finally, you do not think someone will be able to afford a library membership?

In a competitive market, the attempt of the market to tend towards equilibrium, though how well this would work in education could be debatable. Private school tuition for high school cost me about 5-5.5 grand a year; this was one of the less expensive. More standard cost 10-15 a year.

A few remarks:

1. A library is not always sufficient for education. Reading is great; it can help you learn a lot. But there is no subject for having the help of a professional in going through the material. Especially when you are uneducated trying to become educated.

2. Assuming a Randnick system, libraries will be private as well. So it's entirely plausible that libraries will again be pay; and that some will be unable to afford it.

Nowhere in there does Muz say that the debate is restricted to the party. Nowhere in here, I believe, have we ever said 'debate on LP party platform.'

If you can't answer the objection, fine. Say so. Don't hide like a coward behind 'well we're discussing the LP platform' when I don't think we've said any such thing.

I can, but it will bog down the discussion.

Why do you think it is different in education?

Furthermore, ever ask yourself the quality of education recieved by the urban poor and whether it is indeed better then no education? Some graduate without the ability to read.

At what point did I say equal? I said equitable.

Hence why I did not use the term.

Equitable enough to facilitate a "Fair Go." Providing enough opportunity to ensure any given person within a society can acheive their potential. I'm not advocating giving loafers a free ride, merely structuring the situation so as to give everyone a chance to succeed. I acknoledge that there are still massive advantages coming from family money but at least this gives a fighting chance that wouldn't be available under a libertarian system.

Really!?! You're kidding!!! Well that changes my whole outlook.
The fact that it takes wealth to create wealth escapes you? And that with the creation of more wealth, existing wealth decreases?

Provided you have something to trade with low elasticity, else you lose.

So you concede that the role of the police is the preservatoin of wealth? Surely they could purchase private security contractors.

The market economy respects those who can feed it, nothing more. Who can feed it? Those with money. As these businesses grow larger, they can exert more and more undue market influence.

Adam, I believe, covered this more than adequately

Depending on the society, the State provides a safety net, with social security, socialised medicine and even housing. I'd call these safety nets.

Indeed, the market does not care. Therefore, the State must.

Unless they can't afford that which the market would charge. You do realise that the more demand there is, the higher the price will go, right?

Who does not have a chance? What is Fair? Seems rather arbitary to me.

?

If i bend down, and dig up a lump of gold, whose wealth is decreased?

How?

No. Preservers of the Rule of Law.

Private contractors for violence seems to be a bad idea, as when violence is needed is an abadoment of social cooperation, and thus the market is inappropriate for it.

What are you talking about? Feed what, who, how, HUH?

The amount of goods produced annually fluctuates, correct?

So you understand if an amount is set aside to always be used as a "safety net", the rest of the market goods will experience a concommittally higher amount of insecruity?

Life is insecruity.

Why? If the individuals of the state do not care, why should their representatives?

Not necessarily.

Fine, then. Please answer it.

I don't remember the technical term, but certain goods and services (oil comes to mind) have a necessary quality about them. Everyone needs to have some level of it, keeping demand relatively constant. The demand for education being the necessity of it in the modern world.

inelastic

Remove your head from your arse and then ask that question again. "Fair" would be an equitable access to education, health, shelter and living costs in the event of being unable to earn the means to provide those for one's self.

If you bend down and dig up a lump of gold, that increases the amount of gold supplied to the market without altering the demand for gold, hence the value of all other gold drops as the market adjusts to re-establish equilibrium. The wealth of someone that owns gold just decreased.

Which is structured to inherently favour the wealthy and informed.

But when market forces, the rules by which you are running your world, demand it who are you to argue? The market says they're required.

But if a skill with violence is the only marketable good you possess? You don't have money, you're not intelligent but you're good at belting people up and taking what is theirs. The presence of law enforcement opposing you in this behaviour is inhibiting your ability to trade in your comparitive advantage as oppsoed to those who whield an advantage in capital availability, thus preserving the wealth of the bougoisise.

Reread it slowly at a speed that is more suitable for you.

As do the amounts required.

Clearly you do not assign a value ased on a crystal ball, you tailor your provision of government services to cater for those in need of assistance at the time.

Because there are people that the representatives represent that require these services and the community minded may not be in a position to aid them, therefore teh state, as representative of the populous, aids them in accordance to the wishes of the majority.

Incorrect.