"Freedom" thread or something

I am continually baffled that so many who spoke out adamantly over No Child Left Behind have very little to say over the Common Core.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/29/common-core-standards-no-child-left-behind-on-steroids/

rogerthat wrote: On the other hand, I very much do believe the role of tax is social redistribution and I discussed it at length a few pages back.  It has more to do with the history of how people were oppressed into lifelong poverty on the basis of caste/class by the elites hand-in-glove with religious institutions.   I don't think poverty per se is something to be compensated for by tax but the tax that the elites extracted from the poor, financially and socially, will have to be paid back.

Edited by JJLehto - August 19 2013 at 08:07

^^(To Geoff)You never read articles posted by other people so I don't understand why you would demand a different behavior.

Anyway, I don't need to read that to know I would NEVER support a for-profit prison system. I wouldn't like a for-profit public school system either. I'm more open to the post office option. Though I am happy with USPS service.

Edited by The T - August 19 2013 at 07:50

dtguitarfan wrote: Prisons, post offices, and public schools should not be for profit.  But you probably won't read that, or if you do, you won't think about it at all because it doesn't fit into your "free market" ideology where there is something magical and mystical about letting private companies run everything.....

I'm against private prisons.

The post office is a joke. Even with subsidies, it provides parcel services at a higher cost that private companies. It only remains in business because of a laughable monopoly on letter delivery despite the ability of existing companies to provide the service at a lower cost. Not that the article really wanted to talk about any relevant facts.

And that rant on public schools can be summed up with this quote:

Our schools are part of a public heritage passed down to us. They were built in our communities with a vision of bringing all children under the same roof to learn together. Privatization replaces this model of the commons with one ruled by marketplace "choices."

Oh okay.

Yes, since Geoff wants a real "debate" why not ask him the flip side then?

Yes, it may be required to create the necessary conditions for further liberalisation of the economy.  If you cannot provide access to education and healthcare to all citizens, you haven't even created the necessary conditions to help them survive in an economic trough.   Speaking of oligarchs, the other undesirable aspect of liberalisation in opaque societies like India is politicians get into business by proxy.  They open companies with, sometimes, their man servants on the board of directors  to make sure nobody can accuse them of holding an office of profit while active in politics.  While that is unethical, people could live with that if they stopped there.  No, that's just the beginning, they resort to all sorts of dirty games to throw legitimate businesses out of the competition.   On similar lines, I have heard that  the managements of Russian companies are at the mercy of the mafia.  Don't know if it's really true.  I really feel like laughing when some economists suggest there is no relation between literacy and economic growth.  Sure there may be no direct correlation that can be captured in stats but I would reasonably assume it is the high level of maturity in Western nations that allowed them to embrace de regulation.   Otherwise, it becomes very confusing here as to whether the benefits really outweigh the costs.    

JJLehto wrote: I really don't know much about India, in regards to what they've done to "prepare" the population. In my mind, I wanna think India has not done much which could lead to a pretty rough situation. If you can shed some more light that'd be great.

JJLehto wrote: First, you are again making libertarian to be anarchist... Maybe you're biased since some here are quite skewed to the VERY limited gov side (even anarchist in Pats case) but yeah are you really this out of touch or just making a point?

dtguitarfan wrote: JJLehto wrote: First, you are again making libertarian to be anarchist... Maybe you're biased since some here are quite skewed to the VERY limited gov side (even anarchist in Pats case) but yeah are you really this out of touch or just making a point? Ok, so why is it that when people come on this thread and claim to be representing Libertarianism, and they spew crazy sh*t like "all taxes are evil and there should be no government at all", other Libertarians don't pounce on them and say "look, I'm a Libertarian and what you just said is stupid and crazy"?  Because when you DON'T speak up like that, it gives people like me the impression that you're all crazy extremist weirdos.  And then when I start attacking that crazy weirdoness, those of you who are NOT crazy weirdos attack me for being someone who jumped on the Democrat bandwagon.  But you might be surprised to find out how much I actually think for myself.  The thing about the Democratic party is that they are a loose coalition, I think - there is a lot of variance on what they believe in, but they recognize the advantage of playing as a team nevertheless.

Hey look the all Muslims are terrorists argument!

Well you do have to understand, none of us here like either party and tend to slice through propaganda. There are VERY liberal folks who pop in, like Doc wherever he is, and I thought he was given a good amount of respect. Things got heated but he at leasted understood the realities, and would bash the Dems realizing they are a joke to anyone who claims to be liberal.

Edited by JJLehto - August 19 2013 at 14:59