IsaacGage860 Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 So Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Education Secretary today. Despite her non existent experience with public schooling and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government, she is confirmed with the deciding vote being cast by Mike Pence. What a bunch of hypocrites all of the Trump supporters were to support this "pro choice" candidate. Pro choice in what way exactly? Pro choice to redirect disproportionate sums of federal dollars away from public schools and toward private schools? This mindset ignores the plight of special needs children with parents who very well may not be able to afford private schooling because private schools are focused exclusively on profits. Equating making lots of money with morality is a correlation/causation fallacy. Drain the swamp? Remember all of you who supported DeVos because she wanted to dismantle public schools will be held accountable for the shitshow we are about to experience. Here is a link to an article detailing Mrs. school choice and her history of contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. Notice that her "choice" is slanted decidedly towards private schools. Now that she is a public servant, will this bias constitute a conflict of interest? I already know the response I am going to get to this. "Oh you are just some bleeding heart Liberal who supports the indoctrination of our children!" Honestly this is most boring and predictable response that I can imagine. Think whatever you want I have no control over that. My opinion, based on discussions and exploration into ideas other than Conservatism has brought me to this conclusion. The idea that public education should be dismantled wholesale because it is "evil" is such a silly notion. If at any point you have ever been to a public school, you have benefited in some way from teachers there. Does this mean public school is the best fit for every student. No I am not saying that. What I am saying is that public education is not as pernicious as Conservatives and Libertarians want to make it out to be. I can only assume that most people who think this have not been to a public school where the students are succeeding in their endeavors. All I can say is that Conservatives need to learn how to be more open minded and consider alternatives to their ideal system. To be honest, this Trump presidency is not shaping up to be the type of swamp draining where corruption and favoritism in government is reduced or even eliminated. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/breaking-senate-confirmed-betsy-devos-our-nations-education-chief 5
Donnadogsoth Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Doesn't DeVos basically want to destroy public education? Is this bad?
Tyler H Posted February 7, 2017 Posted February 7, 2017 Doesn't DeVos basically want to destroy public education? Is this bad? That's what the MSM is saying so probably not, lol.
Mister Mister Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 So Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Education Secretary today. Despite her non existent experience with public schooling and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government, she is confirmed with the deciding vote being cast by Mike Pence. What a bunch of hypocrites all of the Trump supporters were to support this "pro choice" candidate. Drain the swamp? Remember all of you who supported DeVos because she wanted to dismantle public schools will be held accountable for the shitshow we are about to experience. Here is a link to an article detailing Mrs. school choice and her history of contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. We are so fucked. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/breaking-senate-confirmed-betsy-devos-our-nations-education-chief Sorry, I'm reading what I assume to be a hit-piece, but most of it sounds pretty good to me. Which part in particular concerns you? I'm not crazy about the part about religious values, but I'm curious WHAT ACTUAL PROPOSED POLICY reflects this? It sounds like they are just trying to frame a case of Guilt by Association, that she was in this or that Think Tank, and they once published an article that said X, therefore X will become National Education Policy. Pretty flimsy as far as I can tell. I also have to say, that as it stands now, Common Core is being used to promote a kind of religious ideology of collectivism and globalism that is way more troubling to me than the average Christian education, which is pretty good except for the Creationism/anti-Evolution part. It just exemplifies how the Left believes they have the moral high ground without having to prove anything. They just assume public schools are a good thing, "for-profit" = EVIL, and so on. They mention how Michigan has adopted this model, and just say 80% of charter schools are run by private companies...well, how are the kids in those schools doing compared to kids in the average public school? How does spending compare to public schools? A rigorous analysis would ask these kinds of questions, not just assume religion and profit BAD; public GOOD.
Will Torbald Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 If the liberals are foaming at the mouth at her appointment, that's all I need to know.
thecurrentyear Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 My notes for anyone interested: lack of "public service" experience is usually a good sign why would he cite mother jones? did someone hack his account? first paragraph, identity politics then vouchers capitalism, conservatism, voluntary welfare check, check, check child labor is awesome yes please bring it back traditional values, vouchers, no government schools?! awesome charter schools run by for-profit companies I don't see the problem ...? 2
Tyler H Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 It's important that Sauron didn't get the ring, but our job isn't done until the ring is destroyed. The coercive power of the state will continue to attract people who have more to gain from force than voluntary association. Even if Trump is unique, it won't take long for these bad actors to copy his formula and ride the wave to secure power, lay low for a while, and continue the creep towards totalitarianism once the citizenry thinks they're safely returned to the protective arms of the Constitution. Trump may have been a necessary step, but I think a constant backfill of anarcho-capitalistic principles and pathways are still absolutely necessary. We should take these opportunities to speak out against the nature of government, not particular carpetbaggers inherent to the existing structure.
Mister Mister Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 It's important that Sauron didn't get the ring, but our job isn't done until the ring is destroyed. The coercive power of the state will continue to attract people who have more to gain from force than voluntary association. Even if Trump is unique, it won't take long for these bad actors to copy his formula and ride the wave to secure power, lay low for a while, and continue the creep towards totalitarianism once the citizenry thinks they're safely returned to the protective arms of the Constitution. Trump may have been a necessary step, but I think a constant backfill of anarcho-capitalistic principles and pathways are still absolutely necessary. We should take these opportunities to speak out against the nature of government, not particular carpetbaggers inherent to the existing structure. Trump is Aragorn. All Hail the King. But yes the Ring must be destroyed. 1
tele Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 So Betsy DeVos was confirmed as Education Secretary today. Despite her non existent experience with public schooling and fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government, she is confirmed with the deciding vote being cast by Mike Pence. What a bunch of hypocrites all of the Trump supporters were to support this "pro choice" candidate. Drain the swamp? Remember all of you who supported DeVos because she wanted to dismantle public schools will be held accountable for the shitshow we are about to experience. Here is a link to an article detailing Mrs. school choice and her history of contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. We are so fucked. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/breaking-senate-confirmed-betsy-devos-our-nations-education-chief From reading the article it seems that Betsy DeVos wants state school to be replaced with private school and then wants to remove taxpayers money from education. Seems reasonable to me. A problem could be that she will focus on including supreme being stuff in the curriculum but I don't expect this to be much of a problem. Let me explain why. For most lessons it won't matter, i.e. English, Maths , Physics etc. For Geography and RE this does present a problem. However most children go through 11 years of state indoctrination and most do not turn into foaming lefties. The same will happen with teaching supreme being indoctrination. So, the end result will be better education of children because of the increased competition and better educated children still rejecting attempts to brainwash them. A lot of libertarians make the mistake of that because a change isn't perfect according to our beliefs we should reject it. I used to be like that myself. DeVos is not perfect but is a step in the right direction. tele. 1
Anuojat Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 why would he cite mother jones? My thoughts exactly. I got loandry list of false/fake news about trump all of which a in the style such as: "Trump again shows why he never opened a bible before" "Is trump walking into a mexican trap?" "Is Donald Trump SOFTENING even more on immigration?" "Trump is big Fat liar." (From "Even more untruth about DT" and "Solinckes Rules for radicals [rule 5]") 1
IsaacGage860 Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 Compared to what? Compared to someone who will represent the public rather than there own interests. Everyone that is saying government is ALWAYS the problem are unfortunately misinformed. This is also not necessarily true. The question is not whthere we have a government or the free market. The question is to what degree should the government step in to make up for market failures as the free market is not a perfect entity. My notes for anyone interested: lack of "public service" experience is usually a good sign why would he cite mother jones? did someone hack his account? first paragraph, identity politics then vouchers capitalism, conservatism, voluntary welfare check, check, check child labor is awesome yes please bring it back traditional values, vouchers, no government schools?! awesome charter schools run by for-profit companies I don't see the problem ...? This is exactly the problem. Treating everything as strictly a business. My account wasn't hacked I have simply updated my perspective based on talking with people who are only concerned with making profits. I have taken accounting course and are currently enrolled in an ethics class. The market is not perfect and there are people who do not share your moral code. Fraud is always an issue and unethical business practices are abound for the type of attitude that you have. Often there is much more to life than simply getting profits. Wall Street is a perfect example of people who only want to have money. It's important that Sauron didn't get the ring, but our job isn't done until the ring is destroyed. The coercive power of the state will continue to attract people who have more to gain from force than voluntary association. Even if Trump is unique, it won't take long for these bad actors to copy his formula and ride the wave to secure power, lay low for a while, and continue the creep towards totalitarianism once the citizenry thinks they're safely returned to the protective arms of the Constitution. Trump may have been a necessary step, but I think a constant backfill of anarcho-capitalistic principles and pathways are still absolutely necessary. We should take these opportunities to speak out against the nature of government, not particular carpetbaggers inherent to the existing structure. But that's the thing, government is not always the problem as Anacaps think that it is. What you are advocating for is Utopia where the market operates perfectly and when there are mistakes private charity will pick up the slack. To imagine the world in this way paints a very idealistic and theoretically compelling argument, but it is simply not how the real world works. A completely unregulated market could very well prove to be a complete disaster and those are concerns that Ancaps do not recognize nor even care for. For having such an adherence to the NAP, it is surprising to me that one would actually believe that a completely privatized market would be the most ideal. 2
shirgall Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 Compared to what? Lionel Nation did indeed challenge people to name previous Secretaries of Education... I certainly failed.
IsaacGage860 Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 From reading the article it seems that Betsy DeVos wants state school to be replaced with private school and then wants to remove taxpayers money from education. Seems reasonable to me. A problem could be that she will focus on including supreme being stuff in the curriculum but I don't expect this to be much of a problem. Let me explain why. For most lessons it won't matter, i.e. English, Maths , Physics etc. For Geography and RE this does present a problem. However most children go through 11 years of state indoctrination and most do not turn into foaming lefties. The same will happen with teaching supreme being indoctrination. So, the end result will be better education of children because of the increased competition and better educated children still rejecting attempts to brainwash them. A lot of libertarians make the mistake of that because a change isn't perfect according to our beliefs we should reject it. I used to be like that myself. DeVos is not perfect but is a step in the right direction. tele. How is education funded by taxpayers indoctrination? Is learning to be an empathetic person without believing in the perfection of the free market really so bad? I would argue not. Another board member Nima actually made a video explaining why government deficits and debt are not what most Libertarians make them out to be. A government has to tax its citizens because taxes provide the funding necessary for the military and for other public goods like education, healthcare, goods that if left to the private sector entirely would likely go unsatisfied based on a sound rule of law. The unwillingness of Anarchists/Voluntaryists to even consider why government is in fact necessary is one reason why Anarchism is never taken seriously by most everybody in society. Sorry, I'm reading what I assume to be a hit-piece, but most of it sounds pretty good to me. Which part in particular concerns you? I'm not crazy about the part about religious values, but I'm curious WHAT ACTUAL PROPOSED POLICY reflects this? It sounds like they are just trying to frame a case of Guilt by Association, that she was in this or that Think Tank, and they once published an article that said X, therefore X will become National Education Policy. Pretty flimsy as far as I can tell. I also have to say, that as it stands now, Common Core is being used to promote a kind of religious ideology of collectivism and globalism that is way more troubling to me than the average Christian education, which is pretty good except for the Creationism/anti-Evolution part. It just exemplifies how the Left believes they have the moral high ground without having to prove anything. They just assume public schools are a good thing, "for-profit" = EVIL, and so on. They mention how Michigan has adopted this model, and just say 80% of charter schools are run by private companies...well, how are the kids in those schools doing compared to kids in the average public school? How does spending compare to public schools? A rigorous analysis would ask these kinds of questions, not just assume religion and profit BAD; public GOOD. A rigorous analysis would also not assume that just because profits are involved that does not necessarily mean things will improve for the better across the board. Different areas have different levels of success. This demonizing of so called "horrendous public education" is such intellectual laziness. Just because one person does not have the best experience with a public school does that always put the teacher at fault? Assuming that ignores so many factors that are relevant to the question. For example, what is the home life like? Are the parents actively involved in their child's education? Do the parents even care? There is a reason Mrs. DeVos was opposed so heavily by people who consider themselves more Liberal. "Safe space" and "Triggered" are just pejoratives used by people to dismiss legitimate concerns over a system run exclusively for profit. To assume that this will yield the best results assumes that everyone has the same motivations. As 2008 and 1929 show us, equating being a business person with morality is a correlation/causation fallacy. Doesn't DeVos basically want to destroy public education? Is this bad? Yes this is bad because public education is not as deleterious as Ancaps and Voluntarists always assume. Do you even understand the nuances of the public education system or are you assuming that because you may have had a bad experience that the whole thing should be torn down? This mindset involves no rigorous or rational thought process. Public education is where people go to learn to be engineers and physicists and economists, etc. Private schools can certainly offer this but the majority of them are Christian and teach only religion. A healthy combination of the two is the most optimal. Completely destroying public education and replacing it with a theocracy and "self sufficiency" is not what is in the best interests of society as a whole. Being completely self-reliant means that you make everything yourself and get no help or hear the perspective from anyone outside of your community. This is not strictly a bad thing but can easily give rise to the attitude that everything that is not Christian or self-reliant is negative and should be opposed at all costs. I empathize but do not agree with this assessment of morality and "hard work." 4
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 Compared to someone who will represent the public rather than there own interests. Everyone that is saying government is ALWAYS the problem are unfortunately misinformed. This is also not necessarily true. The question is not whthere we have a government or the free market. The question is to what degree should the government step in to make up for market failures as the free market is not a perfect entity. Okay then who has represented the public rather than their own interests? Who said government is ALWAYS the problem? What do you mean "THE question? There is also the question of free market or government. It's a perfectly valid question. Especially in the moral sense. Don't try to dictate what "THE question" is. "Market failure" assumes some goal of the market (as if a market is some agent and not just people interacting in the economic realm). As if it should have achieved X but failed. Should the government "step in" whenever there's a failure in the market of free ideas or the market of romance or the market of friendship? 1
IsaacGage860 Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 For everyone wondering who past education secretaries were here is a list of them and their histories. All on the list attended public universities and graduated with degrees in political science or some other discipline and understand the importance of public education especially higher education. I wonder why that is. Could it be that public education is not actually useless? Food for thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauro_Cavazos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Paige https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Spellings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_Duncan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_King_Jr. Okay then who has represented the public rather than their own interests? Who said government is ALWAYS the problem? What do you mean "THE question? There is also the question of free market or government. It's a perfectly valid question. Especially in the moral sense. Don't try to dictate what "THE question" is. "Market failure" assumes some goal of the market (as if a market is some agent and not just people interacting in the economic realm). As if it should have achieved X but failed. Should the government "step in" whenever there's a failure in the market of free ideas or the market of romance or the market of friendship? A lot of the people here are saying that public education is useless and should be done away with. If you look at the genreal reaction to my original post this becomes abundantly obvious. What I am saying is that dismantling public education in favor of private education is not the appropriate course of action. Lots of people in America worship Ronald Reagan and I mean like worship to the point that they do not consider his flaws. Reagan famously said government is the problem and not the solution. Many people from that era are still alive today and that is whats fueling this animus against public education. I do not subscribe to this ideology and I am dismayed that so many are willing to have corruption and Cronyism in government simply because it is not "evil" Obama in charge anymore. I am not arguing that private schools are exclusively bad here. What I am saying is that favoring schools run exclusively for profit is not the best and most ideal solution. Everyone should be represented fairly and yes parents should have the choice in where their children go to school. But to say that public education and schools are "indoctrination" camps is such a ridiculous exaggeration that I can do nothing but laugh at people with this position. Is religion not indoctrination as well? Do your morals represent the absolute best standard for everyone to follow. Also the idea that radical Islam is being taught in schools is ridiculous conspiracy theory level propaganda. Last I checked, terrorism was an idea that the majority of people find abhorrent. I suppose it it everyone's prerogative to think what they want but upon more critical examination, most of these ideas are unfounded and outlandish. 3
Will Torbald Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 Everyone should be represented fairly and yes parents should have the choice in where their children go to school. Woah woops, but that is impossible to happen at the same time. Parent choice will always lead to voluntary segregation. If what you're scared of is black schools, then deal it with your community. But white people will go to white people schools because they don't like getting stabbed. This is why the left is so against choice and private education. They can't get their brown utopia if they just let people decide for themselves.
deadflagblues Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 The unwillingness of Anarchists/Voluntaryists to even consider why government is in fact necessary is one reason why Anarchism is never taken seriously by most everybody in society. I think people would take anarchism even less seriously if it claimed that government was necessary. 1
Mister Mister Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 A rigorous analysis would also not assume that just because profits are involved that does not necessarily mean things will improve for the better across the board. Different areas have different levels of success. This demonizing of so called "horrendous public education" is such intellectual laziness. Just because one person does not have the best experience with a public school does that always put the teacher at fault? Assuming that ignores so many factors that are relevant to the question. For example, what is the home life like? Are the parents actively involved in their child's education? Do the parents even care? There is a reason Mrs. DeVos was opposed so heavily by people who consider themselves more Liberal. "Safe space" and "Triggered" are just pejoratives used by people to dismiss legitimate concerns over a system run exclusively for profit. To assume that this will yield the best results assumes that everyone has the same motivations. As 2008 and 1929 show us, equating being a business person with morality is a correlation/causation fallacy. Sorry I think you just put a whole bunch of words in my mouth. Show me where I said: - profits being involved necessarily means things will improve for the better across the board (not sure what that means) - where I "Demonize horrendous public education"...using words like that is intellectual laziness - because I had a bad experience in school therefore the teacher is at fault. - equating being a business person with morality "'Safe space" and "Triggered" are just pejoratives used by people to dismiss legitimate concerns over a system run exclusively for profit. To assume that this will yield the best results assumes that everyone has the same motivations"... This one really boggles my mind. First off, who says the system is run exclusively for profit? That's just a leftist talking point. People have all different motivations for what they do, the owner of the school, the teacher, the parent, the child, monetary profit is only a small part of it. Second of all, who says that we are assuming everyone has the same motivations??!!! We don't at all assume that: that's why we know a centralized education model which decides on the curriculum and funding for millions of children from different backgrounds can't work. Also you never really answered my initial question of, which particular policies concern you and why?
IsaacGage860 Posted February 9, 2017 Author Posted February 9, 2017 Sorry I think you just put a whole bunch of words in my mouth. Show me where I said: - profits being involved necessarily means things will improve for the better across the board (not sure what that means) - where I "Demonize horrendous public education"...using words like that is intellectual laziness - because I had a bad experience in school therefore the teacher is at fault. - equating being a business person with morality "'Safe space" and "Triggered" are just pejoratives used by people to dismiss legitimate concerns over a system run exclusively for profit. To assume that this will yield the best results assumes that everyone has the same motivations"... This one really boggles my mind. First off, who says the system is run exclusively for profit? That's just a leftist talking point. People have all different motivations for what they do, the owner of the school, the teacher, the parent, the child, monetary profit is only a small part of it. Second of all, who says that we are assuming everyone has the same motivations??!!! We don't at all assume that: that's why we know a centralized education model which decides on the curriculum and funding for millions of children from different backgrounds can't work. Also you never really answered my initial question of, which particular policies concern you and why? "It just exemplifies how the Left believes they have the moral high ground without having to prove anything. They just assume public schools are a good thing, "for-profit" = EVIL, and so on. They mention how Michigan has adopted this model, and just say 80% of charter schools are run by private companies...well, how are the kids in those schools doing compared to kids in the average public school? How does spending compare to public schools? A rigorous analysis would ask these kinds of questions, not just assume religion and profit BAD; public GOOD." This is a direct quote from your first response. Just because it works well in one town in one community does not mean you abandon public schools wholesale. This seems to be the policy prescription of many Conservatives. I support school choice as well, but if more parents decide to send their children to public schools in each different cities across America then Conservatives have to accept that. Liberals also have to accept that some parents want to send their children to private schools which is fine as well. Since you seem to keep mischaracterizing my opposition allow me to explain it more thoroughly. Liberals oppose the policy of "school choice" because it is looking like Mrs. Devos is going to direct our tax dollars away from from public schools that most want to send their children to and redirect them to private schools that only a minority of people want to send their children to. Based on her campaign contribution history and her own personal beliefs it is looking like this is what she is planning to use her clout to do. I hope that rational and brave people like Lisa Murkowski abandon towing the partisan Conservative party line and oppose disproportionate redirecting of funds from public schools to private schools. If people better understood the potentially deleterious nature of exclusively for profit ventures they would understand why so many are opposed to this. Try sending your kids to a private school and wait until the bill shows up. If you are willing to pay that tuition than you shouldn't be stopped from doing so. But if Donald Trump gets the government out of education, there will be no subsidies coming from the federal government which help to fund these schools. If that is what you want then by all means advocate for it but you will be paying for all of it through donations. What do you do for the students from lower income households? Not everyone has thousands upon thousands of dollars to spend sending their kids to a private school. 2
thecurrentyear Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Proof that indoctrination works, folks.
Mister Mister Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Sorry I'm still not sure what you're getting at. The proper conservative/libertarian position is to kill the DOE and return it to the states and local governments, as education is a local institution, this is perfectly reasonable to me. What the DOE has done the last 40 or so years, is take tax money out of communities, run 60-70% of it through a massive, unnecessary bureaucracy, and return the rest back to those communities, provided they cooperate with certain curriculum prescriptions. It's a typical example of the government breaking your leg, giving you crutches, and asking you to thank them for it. So I guess my question is, for the third time, WHAT SPECIFIC POLICY PROPOSALS do you think actually go against the idea of school choice which you say you agree with? Because you're saying a lot of words but not really being clear about what the actual concern is.
Tyler H Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Not everyone has thousands upon thousands of dollars to spend sending their kids to a private school. They might if the government didn't tax them into poverty, regulate them out of business, or rob them through debasing the currency. If government regulations had stayed at the levels at which they were in 1949 the GDP today would be $53T, an average of $330k per person. Instead we sit at $15T, about $53k per person. And that's just the opportunity cost of regulation, just imagine what the cost of the misallocated resources (the real source of booms and busts due to the government creating false market signals that can't be backed up by actual consumer demand) and undeveloped innovations due to the forceful transfer of wealth from peaceful people to highway robbers who can't make a case for a voluntary transaction. There's no reason to invest in combine harvesters when you have slaves. Also, school doesn't have to cost as much as it does. How much cheaper do you think it would be if there weren't a bunch of unnecessary bureaucrats getting paid to fatten their asses? A private system that seeks to make a profit and satisfy customers (the salient aspect) will compete to lower prices and elevate quality. In the early 19th century, before government intervention, a private school offered education at $2.50 a year. Thats $60 dollars a year today (~10k). Do you think people who have rejected the use of force as a useful method for organizing society would be so cruel as to not provide an education to the few who would not be able to afford it? Especially when they're average wealth is six times (at least) greater than it is now and the cost of education is vastly cheaper? Perhaps you still think it's necessary to steal from people under the threat of death is necessary to fund education? Well let's take a look at what people who use guns can accomplish. Well it looks like they're really good at collecting money, but thats about it. Oh! And producing entitled, social justice warrior nincompoops. Voluntarists are not utopian ideologues who fantasize about an unachievable society. We say it's wrong to initiate force so stop trying to take a shortcut at my expense and use your brain to figure out another way to get what you want done and society will be better for it. I'm sure at one point an argument was made that abolishing slavery was a utopian ideal, but aren't we all glad that abolitionists said "I don't care, it's wrong!" And they said it, and they said it, and they said it until enough people got it. The free market isn't perfect, but it is fantastically wonderful at self regulating based on human incentives (more likely to limit greed than exacerbate it since only the government can transfer the risk from the investor to the public). It's truly amazing. Bastiat, Mises, and Rothbard are some of my favorite authors on the subject. I really suggest you read them. If you're curious how an anarcho-capitalist society would run there is plenty of material available without cost from Stef, the Mises Institute, and the rest of the internet. You'll soon find that your criticism of ancaps regarding ignorance and lack of rigor is grossly unfounded. You may be surprised at how much you're not being told by left wing sites like Mother Jones or by your professors who enjoy a government provided shield from the free market which would no doubt expose how little value they provide. Here check this out to start. By the way yes, religion (if taught to children as true) is indoctrination. And if it includes the threat of hell it's outright abuse.
Recommended Posts