NationStates Jolt Archive

Would we have ended up a technocracy?
Would we all be speaking Linux, C++ or something else?
Would all the charges against Microsoft suddenly be reversed?


(please think of more situations of the like, since Badnarik is an ex-programmer)

If Badnarik had won the election, would most of the country have a heart attack?

Silly lolbertarians, Jesus would never let that happen.

The war against Iraq would be settled in a Counter-Strike game... and US would still have won because bush probably is a fucking camper.

The war against Iraq would be settled in a Counter-Strike game... and US would still have won because bush probably is a fucking camper.
Naw he is more like a hacker … nuke crack

We'd be moving zig for great justice, not for oil.

We'd be moving zig for great justice, not for oil.

I suppose Bin Laden would have no chance to survive, or make his time?

I suppose Bin Laden would have no chance to survive, or make his time?

All his cave would undoubtedly be belong to us.

All his cave would undoubtedly be belong to us.

LMAO!

If Badnarik won the US would be the stupidest nation on earth after he eliminated public schools.

If Badnarik won the US would be the stupidest nation on earth after he eliminated public schools.

We're already the stupidest industrialized nation, if I remember correctly.

Attempting to get the Microsoft case thrown out would be consistant with the anti-anti-trust libertarian position. The most significant thing would be the withdrawal of troops from around the world, notably Iraq. That is, if he could survive thru his inaguration.

If Badnarik won the US would be the stupidest nation on earth after he eliminated public schools.

Given the quality of our Public Education System (Or rather, the lack thereof); that his highly unlikely...

Given the quality of our Public Education System (Or rather, the lack thereof); that his highly unlikely...
It's better than nothing, and nothing is what you get under libertarianism.

It appears that the US is indeed the stupidest nation on Earth.

Its inhabitants can't even properly use its own language.

Hint: Stupidest isn't a word. Dumbest is.

</proud graduate of the US school system>

It's better than nothing, and nothing is what you get under libertarianism.

No, there would still be schools... And the remaining ones, would be alot better.

All his cave would undoubtedly be belong to us.
Somebody set Bin Laden up the bomb

It appears that the US is indeed the stupidest nation on Earth.

Its inhabitants can't even properly use its own language.

Hint: Stupidest isn't a word. Dumbest is.

</proud graduate of the US school system>

Good call...

It's better than nothing, and nothing is what you get under libertarianism.

Under libertarianism, you get what you work for.

You get nothing from the government except the protection of liberties, which I think is what you were referring to.

It appears that the US is indeed the stupidest nation on Earth.

Its inhabitants can't even properly use its own language.

Hint: Stupidest isn't a word. Dumbest is.

</proud graduate of the US school system>
Stupid, stupider, stupidest. That's how it works, look it up. ;)

Good call...

At least the public school system benefitted someone... ;)

Under libertarianism, you get what you work for.

You get nothing from the government except the protection of liberties, which I think is what you were referring to.
What happens to all the kids who can't afford to go to school? What about schools that embrace a curiculum of oh, let's say, biblical literalism? We would have a truly stupid nation.

What about schools that embrace a curiculum of oh, let's say, biblical literalism?

They'd be forced to compete with the schools that don't. Guess who wins?

What happens to all the kids who can't afford to go to school? What about schools that embrace a curiculum of oh, let's say, biblical literalism? We would have a truly stupid nation.

Not all private schools embrace biblical literalism... In fact, only a small segment of them do.

What happens to all the kids who can't afford to go to school? What about schools that embrace a curiculum of oh, let's say, biblical literalism? We would have a truly stupid nation.

Like I said, you get what you work for. Or in the case of the parents, their kids get what the parents work for. It's harsh, having to rely on the charity of other human beings, isn't it? That's not at all like government.

Like I said, you get what you work for. Or in the case of the parents, their kids get what the parents work for. It's harsh, having to rely on the charity of other human beings, isn't it? That's not at all like government.

=)) Ah, the irony... I wonder if he'll pick it up....

...no death penalty. Strong Bad just walks up, kicks you right in "the Cheat" and screams "DELETED!"

=)) Ah, the irony... I wonder if he'll pick it up....

He might. He's actually pretty smart.

They'd be forced to compete with the schools that don't. Guess who wins?

"Compete"? That only works out well in a market, and while markets work great for selling iPods or Peanut Butter, why is it that Libertarians and School Voucher people don't make a distinction between Schools and Potatoes? We could just as easily take away tax exempt status from churches so that if you win more converts you stay afloat. Libertarianism destroys more liberty than it protects.

Also, our legislation would be open source.

Bednarik is a quack. Libertarianism is great, but the party is clueless. :headbang:

"Compete"? That only works out well in a market, and while markets work great for selling iPods or Peanut Butter, why is it that Libertarians and School Voucher people don't make a distinction between Schools and Potatoes? We could just as easily take away tax exempt status from churches so that if you win more converts you stay afloat. Libertarianism destroys more liberty than it protects.

Also, our legislation would be open source.

Libertarianism does not destroy liberty... Liberty is a state which exists along side of responsibility; and Libertarianism's concept is the principles of individual liberties. Schools are a product... They are an institution to produce educated persons. (And BTW, if Libertarians were running things, 'tax-exempt' becomes a pointless point; since income tax in the long run, would not exist... and instead the US would flip back to its original reliance on tariff income). So your illustration is an attempt at a illegal debate tactic called a "straw-man", rather than analyzing the LP platform; you set up an artificial platform, which you then attack... instead of confronting the actual platform. No "liberty" is lost by Libertarianism... in fact, what you get is REAL liberty.... not the fake crap washington feeds you on a daily basis... A liberty that actually have positive and negative points, a liberty that you have to work at in exercize; but a liberty that is yours, and yours alone; which you are free to exercize to the best of your own abilities.

Davistania:

"Compete"? That only works out well in a market, and while markets work great for selling iPods or Peanut Butter, why is it that Libertarians and School Voucher people don't make a distinction between Schools and Potatoes? We could just as easily take away tax exempt status from churches so that if you win more converts you stay afloat. Libertarianism destroys more liberty than it protects.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the market cannot work where schools are concerned, and simply because schools and potatoes are dissimilar does nada to support the argument.

Libertarianism destroys liberty? What a farce.

Libertarianism does not destroy liberty... Liberty is a state which exists along side of responsibility; and Libertarianism's concept is the principles of individual liberties. Schools are a product... They are an institution to produce educated persons. (And BTW, if Libertarians were running things, 'tax-exempt' becomes a pointless point; since income tax in the long run, would not exist... and instead the US would flip back to its original reliance on tariff income). So your illustration is an attempt at a illegal debate tactic called a "straw-man", rather than analyzing the LP platform; you set up an artificial platform, which you then attack... instead of confronting the actual platform. No "liberty" is lost by Libertarianism... in fact, what you get is REAL liberty.... not the fake crap washington feeds you on a daily basis... A liberty that actually have positive and negative points, a liberty that you have to work at in exercize; but a liberty that is yours, and yours alone; which you are free to exercize to the best of your own abilities.

Look how well the tariff system helped the South in the war.

But that is another arugment.

Bardy belives in privatization of the police force. Hmmm I wonder who would be running the police force in Redmond?

We could just as easily take away tax exempt status from churches so that if you win more converts you stay afloat.
I don't agree with Libertarians, but under the everyone would be tax-exempt.

Look how well the tariff system helped the South in the war.

But that is another arugment.

Bardy belives in privatization of the police force. Hmmm I wonder who would be running the police force in Redmond?

Well, that was a given; you had one group leaving, playing by the rules; against another group that did not give a crap on how many constitutional toes they stepped on to "win"... Though, you are right; has the South not stuck by its principles; it most likely have one; but then again, had it not stuck by its principles; there would have been no point. The South did pretty damn good, even with all of it's principled disadvantages, even with superior numbers, the North lost quite alot, and it took most of the Union Army 3 years just to take one Confederate state out... But, must like my ancestors that fought for the Confederacy; I would rather die by my principles; than live without them...

Davistania:

"Compete"? That only works out well in a market, and while markets work great for selling iPods or Peanut Butter, why is it that Libertarians and School Voucher people don't make a distinction between Schools and Potatoes? We could just as easily take away tax exempt status from churches so that if you win more converts you stay afloat. Libertarianism destroys more liberty than it protects.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the market cannot work where schools are concerned, and simply because schools and potatoes are dissimilar does nada to support the argument.

Libertarianism destroys liberty? What a farce.

"There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the market cannot work where schools are concerned." AAAHHHH! I don't go to the store and pick the best school! That's not how it works- that's not how it SHOULD work! I can go to the store and get the high quality, low priced potatoes I enjoy. But making a decision on schools is so devestating to the quality of the system it's unthinkable.

You're talking about the one thing I hate: marketing. You should never have to market your school. You should go to it and expect it to provide you with a decent education.

"There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the market cannot work where schools are concerned." AAAHHHH! I don't go to the store and pick the best school! That's not how it works- that's not how it SHOULD work! I can go to the store and get the high quality, low priced potatoes I enjoy. But making a decision on schools is so devestating to the quality of the system it's unthinkable.

Still....you have no point--simply because the selection process isn't the same...and it's NOT similar because the government has a near monopoly on education. If education was privitized, there would be guides (Consumer Reports? US News and World Report College Guide?). It's not like parent would be lost in a wilderness of options.

You're talking about the one thing I hate: marketing. You should never have to market your school. You should go to it and expect it to provide you with a decent education.

What is so morally reprehensible about marketing a school? Just some sort of "Damn the Man" aversion?

Colleges are marketed..... even the state run ones...

Don't tell me its not supposed to work that way... IT ALREADY DOES at the higher levels....

Still....you have no point--simply because the selection process isn't the same...and it's NOT similar because the government has a near monopoly on education. If education was privitized, there would be guides (Consumer Reports? US News and World Report College Guide?). It's not like parent would be lost in a wilderness of options.Once again. Schools don't act like consumer goods. They aren't governed by market forces. That's just the nature of the beast. Should we privitize medicine? Social Security? You draw the line for me.

What is so morally reprehensible about marketing a school? Just some sort of "Damn the Man" aversion? Maybe. I'm just proposing the radical idea that schools should spend more time teaching kids than marketing themselves. This goes back to arguments about testing. Teachers should NOT teach to the test. It creates a hoop to jump through, and your privitization of schools creates a million hoops to jump through and tricks to play.

Colleges are marketed..... even the state run ones...

Don't tell me its not supposed to work that way... IT ALREADY DOES at the higher levels....

Colleges serve an incredibly different purpose than primary schools. See?

The point is education is marketable, regardless of level... The fact that it serves a different purpose, has no bearing on whether it should be marketed or not...

I refuse to send my children to the pathetic socialist school systems... they are a failure, and will always be a failure, because socialism is a failure... I'd much rather send them to a good private school, or school them myself... And I refuse to pay into that dismal system...

Once again. Schools don't act like consumer goods. They aren't governed by market forces. That's just the nature of the beast. Should we privitize medicine? Social Security? You draw the line for me.

Schools aren't goods, they are services and can be marketed exactly like any other service. Part of the reason that health costs are so high is because of the system's regulations, many of which only benefit doctors and not patients.
Of course we should privitize social security because it's a ponzi scheme and inherently unstable.


Maybe. I'm just proposing the radical idea that schools should spend more time teaching kids than marketing themselves. This goes back to arguments about testing. Teachers should NOT teach to the test. It creates a hoop to jump through, and your privitization of schools creates a million hoops to jump through and tricks to play.

Nobody thinks their primary mission should be marketing, but most schools and districts have layers of administration that provide little or no value to the educational process. Would it be horrible if there was someone there to inform parents about the school or schools he or she represents? Teachers have to be held accountable for what they produce...testing is one way they attempt to do that.

The point is education is marketable, regardless of level... The fact that it serves a different purpose, has no bearing on whether it should be marketed or not...Religion serves a different purpose. Should it be marketed? Of course not. Medicine serves a different purpose. Should it be marketed? Of course not. We should not buy salvation for three easy payments of $299.99, nor should our hospitals have complimentary gift shops.

Education is marketable on a collegiate level. That's because it serves a different role, as I posted just a little bit ago. Primary education should be open to all people, not just rich white people living in gated communities. Also, just because you CAN market something doesn't mean you should.

Religion serves a different purpose. Should it be marketed? Of course not. We should not buy salvation for three easy payments of $299.99,

Please do not make the assumption that religion=salvation. That's just a pet peeve of mine. :)

Primary education should be open to all people, not just rich white people living in gated communities. Also, just because you CAN market something doesn't mean you should.

So college is only open to rich white people in gated communities?

Schools aren't goods, they are services and can be marketed exactly like any other service. Part of the reason that health costs are so high is because of the system's regulations, many of which only benefit doctors and not patients.
Of course we should privitize social security because it's a ponzi scheme and inherently unstable. But schools are so complicated that they don't react to a market in the way we want them to. The market isn't the way to run everything.

The idea of making medicine about economics just doesn't sit right with me. Call me romantic, but it's a precious thing doctors do, and prices tend to not matter in this game.

This does have its economic consequence. You'll buy the pills if they cost $50. You'll buy the pills if they cost $500. Drug companies know this. Also, it's much more profitable for drug companies to treat disease rather than cure it. As someone once said, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, you've destroyed your market base."

But that's a different point. The only point there is that Medicine is pretty quirky when it comes to market forces. I claim education is the same way. You claim it isn't. Maybe we should explore this?


Nobody thinks their primary mission should be marketing, but most schools and districts have layers of administration that provide little or no value to the educational process. Would it be horrible if there was someone there to inform parents about the school or schools he or she represents? Teachers have to be held accountable for what they produce...testing is one way they attempt to do that. Yeah, and I know it's a load of bs for me to knock on testing and privitization without offering up anything of my own. I realize that. It's just that it does strike me as this survival of the fittest contest, where we should be working together.

So college is only open to rich white people in gated communities?

If tuition goes much higher, YES. Let me say that again: if tuition goes much higher, college will only be open to rich white people in gated communities. But does Wisconsin listen? A little. Doyle does what he can. But the Republican legislature sure has made public universities its whipping boy, and the UW administration has decided to give itself a pay raise rather than lower tuition.

But this is a WHOLE different discussion. I get riled up about it.

Gun owning democrats and republicans would overthrow the government citing the second amendment. It was placed so you could overthrow "bad" governments they would say(ask NRA).

Then we would be back where we were before Badnarik was there.

Just like socialist pigs to assume everyone who wants the freedom to work and buy for their own good are "rich" and "living in gated communities"....

The Public system does not work... I do not want it.... I will not pay for it.... I refuse to pay for the lazy, and especially in a capacity where what I am paying for, is them having crap shoved down their throats... If they don't have it, they need to work harder... That's why the rest of us do...

Socialism fails.... I compete my own computer business against the VCU campus' computer sevice dept.... While the people have to pay for my services, they most often do.... why? Because, while we do the same work... people are likely to see their machine back and fixed within 1 or 2 days.... as opposed to VCU's 1-2 months...

Capitalism provides better service... PURE AND SIMPLE... Under capitalism, everyone has options, under socialism... no one has options...

Private social security, medicine (wait, it isn't already?) and education.
If medicine is so expensive then abolish the idea of ten years of exclusive copyright. Allow everyone to make generica within a short time of the original hitting the shelf. Watch the prices plummeth.

Too little control over the quality of education? Make an institute that annually tests and grades schools based upon independent, professional standards. It'll look great in marketing if your school reads 'government approved.'

If you can't afford mediocre medication and education then your parents fucked up somewhere along the lines. So teach yourself, work hard and you may be able to give your children better chances.
This may mean that you have to subject yourself to constant advertising from company X that is sponsoring that library, but that's the price you pay.


Social security is always some type of ponzi scheme. Private companies could give better rates based on how many children you have (as they won't be fed on welfare this'll actually make economic sense) and what not.

Orphans, unlucky children of drunkards and losers? Corporate orphanages that give them a specific education and a job within the same corporation. It's a chance and a lot better than what we have currently.


Really, libertarianism is only terrible if you believe that suffering itself should be abolished. Which is silly, because all goals require sacrafice and suffering. Without pain and reward we'd live in a terrible ennui.


If Badnarik had won then people would have become veeeery suspicious of e-voting.

It appears that the US is indeed the stupidest nation on Earth.

Its inhabitants can't even properly use its own language.

Hint: Stupidest isn't a word. Dumbest is.

</proud graduate of the US school system>

If you're gonna be sassy, how about this: Stupidest is a word, and "dumbest" means "that which is least able to speak."

Oh, Badnarik. Crazy bastard.

But schools are so complicated that they don't react to a market in the way we want them to. The market isn't the way to run everything.

The market is a far better way to run things, even education, than the government. The market increases quality and innovation and helps to decrease costs.


The idea of making medicine about economics just doesn't sit right with me. Call me romantic, but it's a precious thing doctors do, and prices tend to not matter in this game.

Economics is about the way to make the most of resources- that means more heath care for more people. But when there are artificial barriers in place for entering the medical field, that limits the number of doctors which increases costs, putting care out of reach for many.

This does have its economic consequence. You'll buy the pills if they cost $50. You'll buy the pills if they cost $500. Drug companies know this. Also, it's much more profitable for drug companies to treat disease rather than cure it. As someone once said, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, you've destroyed your market base.".

I would like to recuse myself from this part of the question, since I work for a drug company. They do many wonderful things. But I can tell you this, drug companies are by no means a glowing beacon of capitalism, but on the other hand globally they operate in a heavily regulated environment.

But that's a different point. The only point there is that Medicine is pretty quirky when it comes to market forces. I claim education is the same way. You claim it isn't. Maybe we should explore this?

The problem is that medicine is a hugely and oddly regulated field. It doesn't operate within the market because of the regulation, not because of the field itself. But even with regulation, medicine is still part of the private sector, funded (for the most part) with private funds.


Yeah, and I know it's a load of bs for me to knock on testing and privitization without offering up anything of my own. I realize that. It's just that it does strike me as this survival of the fittest contest, where we should be working together.

I know that testing is a highly imperfect judge of teacher competence, student knowledge, etc. It is a pathetic attempt to make public education accountable to the taxpayers. I would rather see vouchers instituted so that unhappy parents can send thier children elsewhere.

Colleges are marketed..... even the state run ones...

Don't tell me its not supposed to work that way... IT ALREADY DOES at the higher levels....
Not India Institute of Technology. And they're so good applicants list MIT Harvard and Princeton as their second choices.

Primary and Secondary schools do not obey market values because they are in effect a utility, not a commodity. It's like gas or electricity-- the only efficient way of doing it is to give each utility its own geographic monopoly. Otherwise you're building miles of extra pipelines to compete with or bussing kids all over a city to compete. It just doesn't work that way.

Gah - you guys hijacked my thread!

Gah - you guys hijacked my thread!

When all you really wanted to know is how things would be different ;)


The only difference...gridlock and vetos...not a bad thing, considering.

What happens to all the kids who can't afford to go to school? What about schools that embrace a curiculum of oh, let's say, biblical literalism? We would have a truly stupid nation.

We do have a truly stupid nation.