About the "If you don't vote for Hillary you are voting for Trump!" nonsense.

[petej0]

1) It depends on the hypothetical wages set by the free market. Sometimes this artificial minimum wage is higher, lower or equal to that wage the free market would set. The goal, however, is to make sure the every citizen can make a living while working. This isn't just good for income equality, but for economic growth as well. We know that a strong middle class is important to increase the demand in an economy.
2) That's because you don't believe in science. That's not my fault, it's yours.
3) It's a fact. 73 muslims were killed by USA airstrikes just days ago.
4) Again, your war on science is just tedious.
5) If you'd actually read the news, you'd have heard the offer given to Kasich.
6) You don't care about a lot of things it seems. Fact is that private schools did not improve quality, but still suck out money from the sector in forms of dividents and profit to rich people.
7) It is their handouts. USA is a Republic and a democracy first. One citizen, one vote. The capitalistic system is something you chose as a means to an end. If you decide that everyone is entitled to be fed, that is indeed the law of the country. How would the world look like if only rich people had power, like in a libertarian society?

If private schools are so bad why are the Obama girls enrolled in a private school? Why are they enrolled via vouchers that the President denied to other parents?

[Deleted]

I point out your fallacies to show out stupid you are. That is the argument. You need to rely on fallacies to push your agenda, because it can't stand up to logical scrutiny. That's not my problem, that's yours.

As to the rest of it, you are just pure wrong about your definitions of those things. I don't know why you think you're correct, but you are not. They are as I stated above, but I will repeat.

Anarchism advocates only the most basic and necessary of governance; things like roads or a minimum defense. People who actually consider themselves anarchists do not think there should be zero organized rules or laws. They wouldn't for example think murder is okay or that it shouldn't go punished.
"philosophical anarchism may accept the existence of a minimal state as unfortunate, and usually temporary, "necessary evil" but argue that citizens do not have a moral obligation to obey the state when its laws conflict with individual autonomy." You are misdefining Libertarianism with Anarchism, like I said.

As for our welfare in the US, it is beyond extensive. Not to the degree that Sweden's is no, but we also don't have huge costs of goods, low home ownership because of those high costs, nor nearly the systemic abuse of the welfare system you have either. You do realize that to give people who don't do anything something, you have to take it from someone else who earned it right? So you advocate robbing people of their individual freedom for what...people who don't have the common decency to support themselves? Also i'm sure you are unaware that the US is the MOST benevolent country on the planet. We give substantially more to charitable causes than anyone else does. There would never be people dying in the streets here no matter how much you want to push your stupid believes.

What is the difference between classical liberalism, libertarianism and anarchism then? You're only denying my definition without giving one yourself. This is not a credible way of debating.

Our employment rate (note: I'm not talking about unemployment) is among the highest in Europe. We have an extensive welfare state, but you also have to work and contribute to qualify.

You keep on saying you're charitable in the USA, yet you underperform in Health Care (high child mortality rate etc) and other welfare areas. Just because you donate a lot of money privately doesn't mean they're used efficiently in providing welfare for people who can't afford it. As we see in the statistics, a public financed system is much more efficient.

- - - Updated - - -

If private schools are so bad why are the Obama girls enrolled in a private school? Why are they enrolled via vouchers that the President denied to other parents?

One alternative might be that only rich children can afford to go there. If you privatize all schools, you won't get thousand of those schools, but rather thousand of public schools that make a profit eventhough they're performing poorly. Obama would probably still put them in the same school, regardless.

[BannedForViews]

1) It depends on the hypothetical wages set by the free market. Sometimes this artificial minimum wage is higher, lower or equal to that wage the free market would set. The goal, however, is to make sure the every citizen can make a living while working. This isn't just good for income equality, but for economic growth as well. We know that a strong middle class is important to increase the demand in an economy.
2) That's because you don't believe in science. That's not my fault, it's yours.
3) It's a fact. 73 muslims were killed by USA airstrikes just days ago.
4) Again, your war on science is just tedious.
5) If you'd actually read the news, you'd have heard the offer given to Kasich.
6) You don't care about a lot of things it seems. Fact is that private schools did not improve quality, but still suck out money from the sector in forms of dividents and profit to rich people.
7) It is their handouts. USA is a Republic and a democracy first. One citizen, one vote. The capitalistic system is something you chose as a means to an end. If you decide that everyone is entitled to be fed, that is indeed the law of the country. How would the world look like if only rich people had power, like in a libertarian society?

1)who are we and what is your proof. A minimum wage does one of 2 things. It either does nothing, or it inflates the actual equilibrium wage, which reduces the demand for labor. Simple econ. The actual minimum wage is zero, but I doubt you understand this concept.
2) I believe in science plenty. I doubt you have read or understand any of the "tests" that "prove" global warming though. I have. If you aren't an idiot, they aren't that mystifying, and they certainly aren't compelling.
3) So what. That isn't an argument for anything, you are just saying words. Who were they? Why were they killed? Provide details or your "information" is worthless.
4) Kasich is the governor of Ohio, not the GOP VP nominee. You are moving the goal post pretty hard here. Also Kasich doesn't like Trump, so I'm not sure what you think you're trying to prove.
5)your experience with "private schools" is irrelevant to the US. Here private schools are better across the board, and choice is never a bad thing. Don't compare apples and oranges.
6) You don't even know what the hell you are saying here. A libertarian society would not be one where only the rich had power. Once more showing how completely and utterly ignorant you are on what that word actually means. Furthermore, what is give can be taken away. It is not in perpetuity. If we decide to remove our welfare programs, then that is now the law of the land. If we decide to have the federal government stop taxing for and providing welfare programs, and instead allow states to decide if and how much welfare they want to give, that is now the new law and the way it will be, which is precisely what libertarians advocate. Hell, it's a core component of Gary Johnson's platform.

[Deleted]

That's true but you don't know how the Radar vote would have split between Bush, Gore and non voting.

We don't know for sure but exit polls at the time implied 48% would have voted for Gore, 31% stayed at home and 22% voted for Bush (studies cited in the link I gave). The 100,000 Nader votes in Florida were just so large relative to the tiny lead Bush won with, there's little doubt they would have been decisive if Nader had not run. I think his supporters realised this in retrospect too - his vote crashed from 2.9m in 2000 to 465,000 in 2004.

[petej0]

One alternative might be that only rich children can afford to go there. If you privatize all schools, you won't get thousand of those schools, but rather thousand of public schools that make a profit eventhough they're performing poorly. Obama would probably still put them in the same school, regardless.

I think public schools are fine. They need a different funding source and should be run at the state level. I have no problem with private schools either, but we should all vouchers so parents can move their kids into better schools if they choose.

[BannedForViews]

What is the difference between classical liberalism, libertarianism and anarchism then? You're only denying my definition without giving one yourself. This is not a credible way of debating.

Our employment rate (note: I'm not talking about unemployment) is among the highest in Europe. We have an extensive welfare state, but you also have to work and contribute to qualify.

You keep on saying you're charitable in the USA, yet you underperform in Health Care (high child mortality rate etc) and other welfare areas. Just because you donate a lot of money privately doesn't mean they're used efficiently in providing welfare for people who can't afford it. As we see in the statistics, a public financed system is much more efficient.

I have multiple times provided you with accurate definitions of those things. I will not keep repeating myself.

I also find it hilarious that you want to imply that private charities are inefficient in the distribution of charity, which further implies that governments are good at it, when we know that is exactly the opposite of what is true.

- - - Updated - - -

I think public schools are fine. They need a different funding source and should be run at the state level. I have no problem with private schools either, but we should all vouchers so parents can move their kids into better schools if they choose.

But But But....ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE GUUD SKOOLIN!

[petej0]

We don't know for sure but exit polls at the time implied 48% would have voted for Gore, 31% stayed at home and 22% voted for Bush (studies cited in the link I gave). The 100,000 Nader votes in Florida were just so large relative to the tiny lead Bush won with, there's little doubt they would have been decisive if Nader had not run. I think his supporters realised this in retrospect too - his vote crashed from 2.9m in 2000 to 465,000 in 2004.

That's significant. I must have missed the link, but that is significant. Gore and Bush were a close race between two popular candidates. Trump and Hillary is a close race between two unpopular candidates. If you have a sizable contingent of people who instead of sitting out voted third party you could steal a win with support from the independent swing voters and unhappy Democrats and Republicans.

[Deleted]

I have multiple times provided you with accurate definitions of those things. I will not keep repeating myself.

I also find it hilarious that you want to imply that private charities are inefficient in the distribution of charity, which further implies that governments are good at it, when we know that is exactly the opposite of what is true.

- - - Updated - - -



But But But....ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN GIVE GUUD SKOOLIN!

You have provided no definition. That you can be pragmatic is not a definition. How do you seperate between classical liberalism, anarchism and libertarianism? All of them proclaim to be for less government, so how do they differ, if my definition is not true?

It depends on what you mean with efficient of course. If you want to maximize the welfare of those in the bottom charities certainly has failed, as USA fails miserably in welfare statistics.

No, private schools can do just as well as public schools. However, they make profits that's not in line with their performance. Just look at my country, Sweden. You can't have rising profits and dividents when your pupils perform worse and worse. The schooling market is a market failure and should be handled by the government for greater efficiency

- - - Updated - - -

I think public schools are fine. They need a different funding source and should be run at the state level. I have no problem with private schools either, but we should all vouchers so parents can move their kids into better schools if they choose.

We had a state level strategy for schools in Sweden too. It did not help at all (surprise surprise). Teachers' wages and authority decreased significantly.

[petej0]

You have provided no definition. That you can be pragmatic is not a definition. How do you seperate between classical liberalism, anarchism and libertarianism? All of them proclaim to be for less government, so how do they differ, if my definition is not true?

It depends on what you mean with efficient of course. If you want to maximize the welfare of those in the bottom charities certainly has failed, as USA fails miserably in welfare statistics.

No, private schools can do just as well as public schools. However, they make profits that's not in line with their performance. Just look at my country, Sweden. You can't have rising profits and dividents when your pupils perform worse and worse. The schooling market is a market failure and should be handled by the government for greater efficiency

- - - Updated - - -



We had a state level strategy for schools in Sweden too. It did not help at all (surprise surprise). Teachers' wages and authority decreased significantly.

It's a lose lose. Here if public schools are failing it is because the funding is either low or the money is wasted on administration and other corruption. Private schools are vastly successful here because it fills a role. It is successful because parents who are active in their children's education see their kids are in bad schools and are active in finding successful programs to enroll their kids. These programs know they can only continue to exist if they have good results. I don't know how it is there, but failure should result in parents moving their kids to successful schools.

[BannedForViews]

You have provided no definition. That you can be pragmatic is not a definition. How do you seperate between classical liberalism, anarchism and libertarianism? All of them proclaim to be for less government, so how do they differ, if my definition is not true?

It depends on what you mean with efficient of course. If you want to maximize the welfare of those in the bottom charities certainly has failed, as USA fails miserably in welfare statistics.

[B]No, private schools can do just as well as public schools. However, they make profits that's not in line with their performance. Just look at my country, Sweden. You can't have rising profits and dividents when your pupils perform worse and worse. The schooling market is a market failure and should be handled by the government for greater efficiency.

I said multiple times, classical liberalism and libertarianism are basically the same fucking thing. This isn't up for debate.

"Right-libertarianism[33] developed in the United States in the mid-20th century and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in that region.[34] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism." Off the damn wiki page (even though I don't agree with it as a citable source but most of you crutch on it so whatever).

Anarchism is how you define Libertarianism.

There is nothing efficient about government run school in the US. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1566648/ Go watch that movie. You'll learn a lot.

[chipwood]

If private schools are so bad why are the Obama girls enrolled in a private school? Why are they enrolled via vouchers that the President denied to other parents?

Because the Secret Service won't let them go to public school for security reasons.

[Feel The Power]

Most people don't even realize the US is not a democracy, but a democratic republic. An actual democracy is akin to ancient Rome. Just a fun fact.

[Azadina]

Brexit was close in terms of percentage, but the number of people troll/protest voting was nowhere near making a difference.

Should have included the non voters in my mention, because it's the same thing. And it would have made a difference dozen times over.

[Reeve]

For those saying "the spoiler effect isn't real," just gonna drop this right here:



Ross Perot straight up fucked GHW Bush.