Often this argument makes liberty sound not too different from narcissistic self interest. Hows about a voluntary arrangement, whereby those wishing for education and other services may repay in future through performing hours of charitable labour? I'd assume those already wealthy would buy their way out of this obligation, providing additional funding for maintaining the operations of these entities. This applies both ways. Without some apparatus for enlightening the ignorant, liberty will never be universal.
Why not just a voluntary arrangement whereby everyone just pays for what they want, thereby negating any need for taxation, the bureaucracies required in order to maintain a compulsory system of education and instead receiving a curriculum tailored to the needs of those paying? Fkn stupid idea volunteering in order to clear a perceived debt for a service you've already bankrolled in the first place, and even more stupid buying your way out of an obligation you've already been coerced into funding previously. Are you a government adviser? :lol: :lol:
To be clear, I am saying that formal education supplied through an approved supplier(s) should not be a right enforced by law just like shoe laces should not be a right enforced by law. This doesn't mean that I am against education for everybody just like I am not against shoe laces for everybody. As I first said, it is a desirable thing when a society has sufficient free resources to devote to it, but it is not a right.
I don't see them as property either. I said guardianship rights are property rights. They deserve equal right to freedom from the coercive actions of others the same as anyone else. Opportunity doesn't require wealth but wealth can aid opportunity. Do the children of intelligent, beautiful or caring parents deserve to have their intelligence, beauty or love taken away from them just so that other kids can be "equal"? Are the parents who do want to invest in their child's future not allowed to because another child doesn't obtain the same investment from their parents? We work hard so that our child can get the best education and development we can offer. If our methods are good, this will give them unequal opportunities compared to the majority of children on the planet. But so what? That's our choice to invest more of our time and resources compared to other parents and I have no right to interfere with the methods or choices of other adults. Who knows, their method of letting them roam free in the parks around town rather than spending money on extra-curricular activities and hours of direct contact with us each day may actually make their children more successful.
Are you adding details I didn't, thereby misrepresenting my argument? Easy to call an idea stupid if you introduce the stupidity via elaboration using false assumptions. Did you notice any reference to taxation in my proposal? Read it again. Neither did I imply education would be compulsory. The aim is universal access to education. Your proposal of "everyone pays for what they want" doesn't work for those who can't afford breakfast. To be clarify my proposal, there is no prior funding via taxation, allowing those without the financial means an opportunity to gain education, at only the expense of their future labour. This allows for work experience opportunity upon completion of studies, facilitating a transition into working life. Those that are already financially privileged who seek education but prefer to pay in cash rather than labour would be free to graduate and immediately enter the employment market. Education is not compulsory. If you decide to learn from Pa how to run the farm, and you're happy with that, go for it. The education system would be maintained only by the fees paid by wealthy graduates, and operated by the service of poor graduates. There is no tax. The times of excess labour and insufficient funds would promote more "on the job training", using students as apprentices, and serving graduates as journeymen. Any labour shortage during periods of high wealthy student proportion would provide the funds to employ additional staff.
Making a summary to understand where we are at on this thread: 1 - The very first post (made by Jislizard) states the economic freedom country ranking is based on the size of the government and the amount of policies / regulations. 2 - I said a quantitative analysis is just wrong. It's like measuring justice by the amount of punishments. We need to see what does the government represent and what are exactly the regulations in order to assess the economic freedom. I gave the example of the derivatives market: low on regulations but I just have no (decent) choice to place my savings in there. Jislizard never bothered to reply. 3 - C.H. came in to: 3.1 - Ask how can the government enhance economic freedom and how do some freedoms nullify others. 3.2 - State that "You and everyone else has a freedom not to participate in derivative markets. Simple. No need to ban anything. Technically they can bet with whatever money they want on it." 4 - lgf came in to: 4.1 - Reply to 3.1, saying that "Countries with poor public education...keep their people ignorant and therefore, less free." 4.2 - Reply to 3.2: "If for some reason the information available is not enough and is misguiding people, then they are not completely free. Remember, perfect competition requires perfect information." C.H. never bothered to reply. 4.3 - Regarding the video, lgf said: "I wonder how they determined that. Finland's taxes can go up to 61.96% on individuals and apparently that makes them one of the most free countries. The tax revenue in Sweden (as % of GDP) is even higher and they are also wealthier. I think he failed completely in the point he was trying to make.". And petey added: "I haven't looked at the data yet but I often wonder the same. Take countries that tax 0%, they never seem to end up in these reports. Is it that they are exempt, for whatever reason or just ignored?" Jislizard never bothered to reply. 5 - I also came in to reply to C.H.: 5.1 - Addressing 3.1, I gave the example of Finland's free and supportive education (and social) system that allows everyone to pursue their dreams and what they are best at, keep their scarce free time as students and get more rapidly independent from their parents, as well as it enhances companies' freedom of choice from more talented / better suited candidates to their vacancies. 5.2 - Addressing 3.2, I said I was talking about the market itself. It's a great example of a "total freedom" environment, but I can't even find a decent opportunity to put my money in there. I feel I have zero freedom there. It's as if all the land in a certain region was damaged by industrial plants or other factors created by some people that were "just" using their own terrains. Sure I have the freedom not to buy any land in there...but is it ok? No need to ban anything? Technically they can do whatever they want in their own terrain? I believe most of you will stand for regulations in the land but, for some reason, the derivatives market doesn't need any. I sense a double-standard here. Anyway, C.H. didn't dare to reply, like anybody else. 6 - Then, col0016 came in to argue with lgf about what freedom is, and what freedoms harm others. Long story short, he didn't understand that me and lgf have been saying all the time that some freedoms stand against others and that they need to be balanced in order to maximize overall freedom. col0016 and lgf have also discussed the equality in public education. lgf has clearly shown how that could be achieved with a great model, something that col0016 totally ignored. I wonder why... 7 - bordsilver came to finally establish the difference between negative and positive rights towards freedom. But he said that economic freedom is just about the negative rights which, unlike he said, is not consensual and lgf proved that: 7.1 - Not only by logic: "People who ignore positive rights are just looking at part of the equation. It's like a company looking only at explicit costs (such as sunk costs) and completely ignoring implicit costs (opportunity costs). I don't think positive rights, just because they infringe on one another, should be completely ignored. There's a trade-off to be made." 7.2 - But also by reference to History: "The differences between alternative views of economic freedom have been expressed in terms of Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. Classical liberals favour a focus on negative freedom as did Berlin himself. By contrast Amartya Sen argues for an understanding of freedom in terms of capabilities to pursue a range of goals." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom) 7.3 - He also claimed that positive rights cannot be held equally be all people and again lgf proved he was wrong on that one too: "In many European countries education is completely free of tuition fees from basic school to university. That positive right is held equally by all people.". bordsilver managed to deviate from the subject by getting confused for several times about the extent of the words "all", "some" and "universal". 8 - lgf also put interesting questions to bordsilver that have never been answered: 8.1 - "if a 6 years old child can't pay his studies (and neither his parents), do you think he should work to pay them? Are you in favour of child labour?" 8.2 - "do you think a 6 years old child is mature enough to understand how important education is and how that will make him freer?" 8.3 - He also added that "If we don't do any trade-off as you are suggesting and we take it to the extreme, then we wouldn't have neither Education/Heath, nor Military/Police/Courts. I don't wish that living hell to anybody." We already know that bordsilver is not in favour of public education/health because that demands public resources to be obtained from citizens and that restricts their freedom. But, following the same logic, how can he be in favour of public spending in military/police/courts? Doesn't that restrict tax payers' freedom too? Another double-standard? 8.4 - lgf also showed that Denmark is the highest ranked country in terms of happiness and oddly the highest ranked country also on government spending. It is 10 positions behind Canada in terms of oil per capita. Canada ranks higher in that freedom ranking, has a much smaller government spending and still people are less happy than in Denmark. 9 - Then bordsilver said that: 9.1 - Amartya Sen is wrong, once only the negative rights stand for freedom, since they are universal, unlike positive rights that make some humans different to others in the eyes of the law. There are 2 fallacies here: - Some right being or not universal has nothing to do with it standing for freedom or not. - Education (which is a positive right) can be an universal right, which is what is explained in 7.3. First he manages to deviate from the subject, then he ignores the subject entirely. 9.2 - In an attempt to reply to 8.1 and 8.2, he said children do not have full rights and that guardianship is a property right (acquired like any other property right) and thus it cannot be abandoned without a societal process. But nobody has talked about abandonment. In 8.1, lgf is clearly asking if a child should work to pay his studies in case his parents don't have money. That question if never answered. As for the question in 8.2, bordsilver seems to believe that the parents of a child (no matter if they are ignorant and not concerned with their son at all) should have the power (or should I say the "property right") to decide all the education of their child, who may have a great natural talent to, let's say, perform medical surgeries but that might have to work all his life in a farm with his family. I guess that's the only way to be number 1 on that wise ranking about economic freedom. 10 - In regards to bordsilver claiming this should all be about voluntary and friendly societies, lgf claims the State is the evolution of that: "I believe in democracy. If people vote for a system that provides Public Education for everyone, those who don't contribute are stealing the opportunities of others. Of course we'll have to use force against those who want to limit our freedom and break the rules of an established society. No one forces them to integrate this society. They are free to go away and live in the mountains. They'll pay no taxes, but they won't profit from the society either." This is constantly ignored by bordsilver (and other users) who criticize the society we have but that, for some reason, don't want to leave it and live a totally free and independent life far away from the society they so vehemently criticize. 11 - Lovey80 appeared to say: "I'd go a long way to being happy if they just taxed everyone equally. Some equality in the tax code is what is needed first before we start trying to shove "equality" down peoples throats any more than it is today...Then and only then will the huge percentage of society that pays no net tax really start to put some real scrutiny on how the public purse is spent." 12 - lgf replies to Lovey80, saying that "There's a reason why the tax rate is not flat. Things have evolved into a progressive tax rate in pretty much every developed country. Only less-developed countries have flat tax rates. Indeed, a progressive tax rate better reflects the effort of each person in contributing to the system. 500 are much more essential to a person who earns 1000 than 5000 to a person who earns 10000. If a person who earns millions contributes with 50%, he still has half of the millions to spend and he will barely notice the impact of that on his life style. It's called "law of diminishing returns"." 13 - bordsilver: 13.1 - Keeps on insisting to state the obvious (public education removes freedom from tax payers) as if it was something new or that lgf hasn't yet admitted. What lgf claims is that the freedom is removes from tax payers is far less than the one it enhances for the children that will benefit from it. In the end, the overall freedom will increase. 13.2 - Suggests that inevitable inequalities (like some people being more beautiful or intelligent than others) somehow prevent us from addressing evitable inequalities, such as the capacity of different parents to guide/perform the education of their children. In essence, lgf (and I, in some cases) has been addressing everybody on every point while his "opponents" have been conviniently ignoring many of his points: - Countries with poor public education keep their people ignorant and therefore, less free. - Regarding the derivatives market: If for some reason the information available is not enough and is misguiding people, then they are not completely free. Remember, perfect competition requires perfect information. - I believe most of you will stand for regulations in the land but, for some reason, the derivatives market doesn't need any. I sense a double-standard here. - People who ignore positive rights are just looking at part of the equation. It's like a company looking only at explicit costs (such as sunk costs) and completely ignoring implicit costs (opportunity costs). - In many European countries education is completely free of tuition fees from basic school to university. That positive right is held equally by all people. - If a 6 years old child can't pay his studies (and neither his parents), do you think he should work to pay them? Are you in favour of child labour? - bordsilver is not in favour of public education/health because that demands public resources to be obtained from citizens and that restricts their freedom. But, following the same logic, how can he be in favour of public spending in military/police/courts? Doesn't that restrict tax payers' freedom too? Another double-standard? - Denmark is the highest ranked country in terms of happiness and oddly the highest ranked country also on government spending. It is 10 positions behind Canada in terms of oil per capita. Canada ranks higher in that freedom ranking, has a much smaller government spending and still people are less happy than in Denmark. - Some right being or not universal has nothing to do with it standing for freedom or not. - Education (which is a positive right) can be an universal right. - bordsilver seems to believe that the parents of a child (no matter if they are ignorant and not concerned with their son at all) should have the "property right" to decide all the education of their child, who may have a great natural talent to, let's say, perform medical surgeries but that might have to work all his life in a farm with his family. - If people vote for a system that provides Public Education for everyone, those who don't contribute are stealing the opportunities of others. Of course we'll have to use force against those who want to limit our freedom and break the rules of an established society. No one forces them to integrate this society. They are free to go away and live in the mountains. They'll pay no taxes, but they won't profit from the society either. - There's a reason why the tax rate is not flat. If a person who earns millions contributes with 50%, he still has half of the millions to spend and he will barely notice the impact of that on his life style. It's called "law of diminishing returns". - bordsilver suggests that inevitable inequalities (like some people being more beautiful or intelligent than others) somehow prevent us from addressing evitable inequalities. Regardless, I must congratulate bordsilver, once he is the only one (among the lgf's "opponents") to stand for his own points without running away from the debate (like most did).
Great attempt at making a summary Phransisku, I appreciate it. I don't have time at the moment to respond properly but first, on this point: I skirted around this so as not to go too far off topic. As others would know from my posts over the years I am not in favour of government spending on the military/police/courts either because (a) it is internally inconsistent (or a double standard) and (b) it is unnecessary. Many Classical Liberals/Libertarians/etc do not believe (b) and therefore support a government having this minimal role, while others just believe that the general conditions required to obtain (b) in a way that is actually nice to live requires a transition from all of the other roles that government has undertaken before it can privatise the military/police/courts etc.
Not consistently ignored, it's been addressed 100's of times before (yawn), it's just that you are late on the scene. We don't want to leave the society in which we live and work, we want self-responsibility and freedom from others (you) demanding how our earnings should be spent and how our lives should be organised. Running away from what debate?? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ok, at least you are coherent. But it takes time and a long process to get there. Basically what you're talking about is an utopia. Thinking in utopias, any perspective (Left, Right, etc.) and any system (Capitalism, Communism, etc.) will do. Once people are all great in every sense, any ideology works. That's why politics are made thinking about who misbehaves. Ideologies are nothing more than different ways to get to utopia, blocking noxious attitudes and making people to walk in the right direction. In the end, of course we don't need enforcement of any kind. Anyway, this thread is not about ideologies but the extent of economic freedom. And I believe it's more than proven that both negative and positive rights contribute to it (maybe not all of them but at least some). Regarding the summary, you're very welcome. And the simple fact you appreciated it is just another proof that you really want to debate here. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of your response. Have a nice week!
Everything is written and I read it all, I'm not late on the scene at all. If you don't want to leave society, you must accept its rules. If you don't agree with them, it's fine, since you are in a democracy you can vote for a change. But you can't force other people's will to agree with your ideas. Your earnings come not only from your work and talent but also from the society itself: - Through your direct or inderect clients (your employer). - Through the academic background you built from what the society has provided for you. - Through the stable environment the society has provided (investing on health care, security and infrastructure). In return, the society asks for a limited contribution. It's a fair game (unlike the derivatives market) and nobody forces you to stay.
No, only negative rights can guarantee our freedom. Positive rights can enhance our freedom, but they can also impinge upon our freedom. A society that upholds liberty as the highest virtue can only be based upon negative rights, the minute that we demand universal positive rights is the minute we cross the line of liberty and endanger individual freedom. It is the minute we condone aggressive behaviour upon person and property. For example the right to education is considered a universal positive right and I happen to agree with the intention of it. However, how does an individual access education? Generally, if the individual is a child the parents provide the necessary funds in order to obtain schooling. What happens if the parents don't have the funds, or the child has no parent? In the majority of cases the State provides the funds. Where does the State find the money? By taking it from others. In other words, by the forcible removal of an individual's property and the redistribution of it to another. This same scenario is played out over and over again with every service the government provides. In attempting to uphold the positive right to education, the State has in fact destroyed the liberty and freedom of individuals. Only a society that upholds the individual's right to protect his person and property from the uninvited attention of others is free. The provision of social services then is left to private providers which in general charge a fee for use based upon a contractual obligation guaranteeing the protection of person and property of all parties, with those unable to pay the fee either not opting for the service, being "free-riders" or relying on the goodwill of others in the form of charitable organistaions, relatives or benefactors, of which there are literally thousands and thousands.
I doubt you've read it all. If you support democracy, you are opposed to freedom. You can in a democracy. On the one hand you argue that since this is a democracy I can vote for change, but then you argue I can't force my will upon others. That is logically inconsistent. edit to add: My earnings come from a mutually beneficial agreement I have entered into with my employers. My education came firstly from a system I had no say in whether I wished to be involved in or not, and neither did my parents who were forced by the State to send me to school, and then later, by my voluntary attendance at universities paid for by others. The stable environment we have in Australian society has not been arrived at as a consequence of the presence of the State, but as accepted norms and practices evolving over the past few centuries and passed down from generation to generation. It's why we have not descended into decay or social upheaval like other countries. The State is always late on the scene, and always takes the credit. No, the State asks for an increasing share of our property. And it's certainly not fair. If I choose to not give the State a portion of my income, they will send the uniformed thugs around to arrest me.
You pay in labour or coin, your choice. It goes direct to the education institution, there is no gov to disperse it. Since when is fee for service, or service for service a tax?
When your money goes to paying for someone else's education. It would simply be easier to introduce a user-pays scheme, for those that can't afford it they either don't study, get a job and save or they borrow money from a creditor.
Although on the surface it may sound utopian, it really isn't. The basic premise is that people are sovereign individuals who act with the aim of rendering conditions at some point in the future more satisfactory for the actor than they would have been without their action. At times people will lie, cheat, steal, destroy, harm or kill to achieve such. Recognising this, people and institutions should rely on mutual self-interest to keep themselves and others in check and to achieve things beyond the possibilities of what individuals could achieve acting as individuals. Granting a few individuals special privileges or power over others will always be subject to abuse. Good governance principles in Liberal Democracies recognise this and deliberately separate and distribute powers as much as possible while also creating strong audit procedures and cross check and (in general) hold that no individual is above the law. This devolution of powers and equality before the law (coupled with free speech and transparency) is a large part of what made Western economies successful. Essentially they regard having blind trust in benevolent kings or virtuous citizens as utopian and therefore deliberately and actively attempted to do remove the need for such trust in a cost effective manner. I say, let's take it one step further and remove the source of power and privilege altogether. This doesn't mean that there won't be people elected into roles where they are responsible for making decisions that affect the safety and livelihoods of a great number of people, but that they will not have the privilege to make laws that strip away the rights or property of others with impunity. Without privileges, everybody will have to rely on the need to serve others in order to improve their lot in life. They will not be able to bend the ear of power to grant them monopolies, ban competitors or steal and redistribute the property of others for their benefit. Such political entrepreneurship or crony capitalism is a blight and the best way to minimise it is to take away the ability for such corruption to occur. As posted elsewhere recently, it is because of privileges that 90-year old men are arrested for daring to feed homeless people. (And it is because of privileges and the immoral use of power that many people are stackers in the first place.)
Your money goes to paying for your education, including the labour of those in service. Either that, or your service goes to paying for your education. This allows those unable to find employment or get a loan the opportunity to get an education. User pays either in labour or fiat. They pay the educational institution, or they serve as required. The educational institution is a private entity. There is no government, there is no tax. If you don't want to pay, you work off the equivalent sum by producing goods within, or providing services for, as required by the educational facility. There is no means testing,you decide under which arrangement you would like to get an education. The main thing being, you have the opportunity regardless of your socio-economic status and current employment prospects. One of my friends in primary school was an asylum seeker from Chile during the Pinochet era. His parents were offered work as cleaners by the school to help them meet the tuition fees until they improved their English, and eventually gained qualifications in nursing and drafting. I never saw it as being my parents paying for his education. There was no levy paid by others, and no government involvement. You sound like you believe that education is reserved only for those who have money, or the ability to earn more than a subsistence wage. I believe that some people are not free to get an education due to being stuck in underemployment, with no chance to improve their situation. No ability to get a student loan due to lack of income. What is the harm in letting students serve in the canteen, clean toilets, work in the library, aid lecturers, tutor other students, maintain networks, conduct environmental survey etc etc? Obviously your service would depend on your ability, and change as studies progress to be something more related, with placements given on a merit basis. Available courses would be matched with available service positions. Alternatively, they can remain ignorant, unskilled, and live paycheck to paycheck, unable to aspire to anything greater, their potential unrealised. More spare time than they care for, and no productive avenue for it to be utilised.
Misunderstanding. All good, so rather than the fees being paid by wealthy graduates and poor graduates in services, the fees will be paid by wealthy students and poor students in services.
