Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And there shouldn't be, because individuals can decide for themselves what they want to do there.

Not when our government sold them the rights to do as they wish. Not only are these private armies not beholden to Iraqi law, they're not beholden to US law either. Especially when a private mercenary can go there and earn 200K and your average US marine is earning 40-60 K. It's you domestic principle at work. No government interference, they make more money and they're still Americans. The mercenary will be able to afford to educate his children when he gets home, but the Marine will not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It doesn't change anything though. Your government should get out. What your businesses do in foreign countries is their business.

The public government should get out, in favor of a private one? Which is a non-issue, because that's exactly what has happened.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good that we agree.

We do not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Multiple possibilities. Take a loan, get a sponsor, make money and study on the side, educate himself, get sholarships, or get money from such charitable people like you who think they deserve an education.

Not too many 6 year olds can get a loan, much less their parents who are earning 25K a year, renting their home. And you can keep telling me that I'm the idiot rube who has a bleeding heart for the rest of teh world, but you know damn well that you're arguing with the luxury of an education already under your belt. Did you take out a loan when you went to kindergarten? Did your parents do it for you? I'm not talking about college. I'm talking about your primary education. It's fine for you to dismiss the benefits of an education that was free after you've already gotten it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How?

Because people with nothing can't get a loan to pay for their child. I understand that your logic continues to the point where the inevitable end is that people shouldn't have children they can't afford to feed, house, cloth and now educate. But people aren't going to stop having children just because they cost money. It hasn't happened thus far, has it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Taxing is stealing. It just factually is. Not only that, you steal from those that contributed most to society already more than from the ones that didn't. Income tax is without a doubt unfair. Taxes might be necessary to sustain a government, but then it should be beneficial for everyone, and people shouldn't be exploited through it.

Taxation is a reciprocal benefit. I'm all for fair taxation, but to give people line item authority to deny what taxes they'll pay would result in no one paying taxes. That might strike you as true freedom, but I like having sidewalks and garbage pick up service. I like roads and national infrastructure. I appreciate the fact that if someone murders my friend, I don't have to organize a posse to find them. Sure, there are problems. Take New Orleans as an example. Substandard levees. We raise more than enough money in taxes to have repaired and reinforced those levees by 2005. So, I'm all for getting rid of teh looters and parasites, but not the system they're abusing. Fix it, but don't scrap it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The government does not have any right to any expectations, it has no rights of it's own. The citizens should have a small government and expect from it the most and best they could get and the least infringment on their own rights. Non aggression principle, not supporting looters and parasites.

I'm not opposed to anything you've said. But! I never said teh government should have expectations. I said I don't understand why you think a government should exist at all, if the people can't expect anything from them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ugh.

LOL

Doesn't make it easy, does it?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Guliano is winning it but the ONLY candidate who belongs in the white house is Ron Paul,strangelove your a fool not to be a supporter of Ron Paul because he is the ONLY candidate there that represents the people and not big business and government.He is the only one that has never raised taxes and is the only one that wants to open up a new INDEPENDENT investigation into 9/11,therefore the world is screwed if we dont get Ron Paul into office in the next election.He is our ONLY hope to prevent the world from heading down the path of nazi germany that the elite have planned for us and have us headed down now.

Ron Paul has already denied that he believes 9/11 was a conspiracy.

Heil Hitler!

Originally posted by Devil King
Not when our government sold them the rights to do as they wish. Not only are these private armies not beholden to Iraqi law, they're not beholden to US law either. Especially when a private mercenary can go there and earn 200K and your average US marine is earning 40-60 K. It's you domestic principle at work. No government interference, they make more money and they're still Americans. The mercenary will be able to afford to educate his children when he gets home, but the Marine will not.

And. You are bringing up these pointless things that have nothing to do with whether the government should get out of Iraq or not.

Originally posted by Devil King
The public government should get out, in favor of a private one? Which is a non-issue, because that's exactly what has happened.

Telling me there are no official US soldiers over there?

Originally posted by Devil King
We do not.

I know.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not too many 6 year olds can get a loan, much less their parents who are earning 25K a year, renting their home. And you can keep telling me that I'm the idiot rube who has a bleeding heart for the rest of teh world, but you know damn well that you're arguing with the luxury of an education already under your belt. Did you take out a loan when you went to kindergarten? Did your parents do it for you? I'm not talking about college. I'm talking about your primary education. It's fine for you to dismiss the benefits of an education that was free after you've already gotten it.

Disregarding all the other things I said.

If you feel the need to help underpriviledged children, spend your own money on them, don't spend other people's money.

Originally posted by Devil King
Because people with nothing can't get a loan to pay for their child. I understand that your logic continues to the point where the inevitable end is that people shouldn't have children they can't afford to feed, house, cloth and now educate. But people aren't going to stop having children just because they cost money. It hasn't happened thus far, has it?

And that's the problem of anyone else, why?

Besides, you don't know what possibilities would arise if there was no public education. I am not against giving poor children an education, I am against stealing money to do so.

Originally posted by Devil King
Taxation is a reciprocal benefit.

It should be, it isn't though.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm all for fair taxation, but to give people line item authority to deny what taxes they'll pay would result in no one paying taxes.

I am sorry, but people have the right to refuse getting their money taken from them. The government uses force to steal our money, we have every moral right to refuse that, we don't because it is too risky (cause the government is an evil schoolyard bully nowadays)

Originally posted by Devil King
That might strike you as true freedom, but I like having sidewalks and garbage pick up service.

You could have it on a free market.

Originally posted by Devil King
I like roads and national infrastructure.

You could have it on a free market.

Originally posted by Devil King
I appreciate the fact that if someone murders my friend, I don't have to organize a posse to find them.

That's one of the few things a government should make sure.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, there are problems.

Far outweighing the pros. The only reasons why it hasn't been changed is the fear of change in people, the unfair benefit parasites (50+% of society) receive and the brainwashing the government does from an early age.

Originally posted by Devil King
Take New Orleans as an example. Substandard levees. We raise more than enough money in taxes to have repaired and reinforced those levees by 2005.

Free market would be the answer. Never noticed that whenever the government does something...it is shitty?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, I'm all for getting rid of teh looters and parasites, but not the system they're abusing. Fix it, but don't scrap it.

Yes, it should be fixed. But that means scrapping unfair programs like income tax which only benefit the looters, scrapping universial health care, extensive welfare, and all other programs that just leech off of productive people.

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not opposed to anything you've said. But! I never said teh government should have expectations. I said I don't understand why you think a government should exist at all, if the people can't expect anything from them.

I never said they can't expect anything, they just can't expect to get shit for free that other people have to pay shitloads for.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Guliano is winning it but the ONLY candidate who belongs in the white house is Ron Paul,strangelove your a fool not to be a supporter of Ron Paul because he is the ONLY candidate there that represents the people and not big business and government.He is the only one that has never raised taxes and is the only one that wants to open up a new INDEPENDENT investigation into 9/11,therefore the world is screwed if we dont get Ron Paul into office in the next election.He is our ONLY hope to prevent the world from heading down the path of nazi germany that the elite have planned for us and have us headed down now.

Explain "down the path of Nazi Germany", please?

Mr. Parker. I'm fine with you being a Ron Paul supporter.

But do not use Ron Paul as leverage for your own personal agenda (the 9/11 Truth and other conspiracies).

So wow, this is going to seem like ancient history, but I did want to keep this discussion going. I hope its not just rehashing the last 5-6 pages :/

Originally posted by Bardock42
They don't deserve the hand outs. They'd have to find a way to cope. (that's my opinion by the way, if you guys would actually listen to Paul you'd know he wouldn't abolish all that stuff on day one, he is a realist more so than anyone else in that election, he even supports a still lower welfare for now for those who are absolutely unable to get anything, maybe watch the videos I posted before you speculate on what you might think to know about Ron Paul, he says it quite clearly what he means)

Originally posted by BigRed
Sorry sir. But I'd rather rely on myself to take care of myself than another entity (in this case the government -- this is of course excluding the years prior to adulthood when it is necessary for a parent to take care of a child/teenager). It's not assuming anything. It is how it should be. You are making the assumption that the world and it's inhabitants will go to Hell basically (not in the literal sense -- in the sense that they will be lost) if they aren't being taken care of in some part by the government.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not what libertarians assume though. What they say is that people that can't take care of themselves have no right to be taken care of by everyone else. If all the socialist scum in the US would get together and open a voluntary support system consisting of just themselves, they could accomplish immensely much in a free market without STEALING and ROBBING (AT GUNPOINT) all other people in the society.

Ok, to begin with, I've watched many of the Paul youtube videos, and I get it. He isn't just going to change everything overnight. Also, I both support Paul for Presidency and call my self a Libertarian, so the moralistic "take at gunpoint" or "this is how the government should be" aren't overly effective.

That being said, I don't know what ideas Paul has for directly targeting poverty. Further, I will admit (and advise everyone read the book "The Soul of Capitalism" which addresses capital and market based solutions to social problems) that solutions to many of todays problems exist without government involvement.

Libertarians accept that there is a role for government to play in keeping people safe. They accept that government controls the military and the police. Even Rand talks about the government being the rightfully armed entity, in order to use that force in the service of defending people. We would all agree that it is a justified use of police force to target gangs and violent criminals.

However, here is where I find the conflict in Libertarian market and policy theory. The only proper way that government power can be used to target these problems is through force, even if it is pragmatically ineffective. There are numerous studies on gangs and the ways to solve the problems, police force is not an effective one, in fact it normally only serves to continue to ostracize young people from belonging to the "white authoritarian" mainstream political and social culture.

The more effective economic and market based solutions, offering incentive, or heaven forbid, jobs for these people, which would stimulate economic growth in these sectors, and would eliminate the causes of gangs and drug addiction, are seen as totally immoral and egregious uses of government power.

The argument I assume will be that gangsters choose to be gangsters and drug addicts choose to be drug addicts (which I'm going to address below). Lets even assume that this is true. Targeting gang and poverty based violence SHOULD be a legitimate use of government power under even the strictest libertarian views

I live near Toronto in Canada, we do not have nearly the same type of gang problems here as there are in even the smallest cities in America. However, it is growing, and in past years there have been growing numbers of innocent people dying in shootouts. That innocent person could be any one of us. It is random and senseless violence, something that the government should do something about. If the only possible solution to a libertarian is the use of government force afterward to punish offenders, the government is failing in its sole purpose, the preservation of human liberty.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Let me ask you this in return. How does it make it any worse?

If by make it worse you mean: Will, over time, the problems associated with poverty adversely affect your life more if not addressed directly, yes.

If you men: Will Paul be any worse than any other candidate, I'm going to say no, though quite ignorantly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It will decriminalize a pointless thing. It will make drugs more regulated and it will destroy the grip of gangs on drug trafficing and selling.

That's a theory of course, but I think one that makes sense.

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't care if someone wants to use drugs. Furthermore, I don't care if some uses drugs and gets an addiction. It is not different than someone getting an addiction to food. It is not my problem. Nor should it be the governments.

I'm all for drug legalization.

However, there are 2 issues. The first is that gangs that use drugs to make money, do just that, use drugs to make money. Unless you are say that the government should privatize and control every form of criminal fund raising, gangs will still exist. Taking out drugs and prostitution might prevent some of the petty turf wars, and thus reduce the effect on your life from being caught in a shoot out, but maybe not. If you look at Germany and other places with red light districts, or Amsterdam, you find organized crime heavily involved with drugs and prostitution (ie, Hell's Angels). Especially in the case of Amsterdam, drug peddlers throughout Europe use their nation as a haven because of the leniency.

The second problem is just like the first, only more related to how it will effect your life. Individuals in poverty stricken areas will still be subject to the things that drive them to join gangs or become drug addicts in the first place. Yes, I do believe it is their choice, yes, of course I feel the individual is ultimately responsible for their choices, but let me give you a "friend-of-a-friend" example. There is this city called Hamilton not to far from me, which is kinda rough. There were some streets where, if you belonged to gang X, gang Y would rob all your stuff, if you belonged to gang Y, gang X would rob you. If you didn't belong to either, you were a target for both of them. While we could point to thousands of stories of individuals who overcame these types of odds, there are at least as many of people who did not. Drug addiction is much the same way. Just because someone is poor and has no future, does not mean they are unaware of that fact. I'm not saying it is, but it could be much like the condition of "Acquired helplessness" that is seen in animal behaviour, where an animal, when put in a situation that seems helpless, will stop trying to save itself, even if the opportunity presents itself.

Originally posted by BigRed
Libertarians usually follow the Austrian school of economics.

Interesting, I'm a fan of Friedman. I don't know if he is of the "Austrian school" or not, nor could I tell you something that would engage me less then discussing schools of economics.

Some of the things you said I agree with on a rational basis,but I present elaborations or further arguments about them, because I believe one that would read it might easily get the wrong impression of what you said, especially the drug issue, I believe, though you said you are for the legalization of drugs, the casual reader would read on further and take your points as anti-drug arguments, which I wanted to prevent with some of the answers. It will be a two parter, cause I exceeded the maximum length of a post.

Originally posted by inimalist

Ok, to begin with, I've watched many of the Paul youtube videos, and I get it. He isn't just going to change everything overnight. Also, I both support Paul for Presidency and call my self a Libertarian, so the moralistic "take at gunpoint" or "this is how the government [b]should be" aren't overly effective. [/B]

Since you agree already, I don't really have to convince you. And I think it can't be said enough, because most people don't realize that that's exactly what is going on.

Originally posted by inimalist

That being said, I don't know what ideas Paul has for directly targeting poverty. Further, I will admit (and advise everyone read the book "The Soul of Capitalism" which addresses capital and market based solutions to social problems) that solutions to many of todays problems exist without government involvement.

Yes, I brought that up. It is not really the task of government to work against poverty though. (there aren't that many fair or good policies that help it anyways).

Originally posted by inimalist

Libertarians accept that there is a role for government to play in keeping people safe. They accept that government controls the military and the police. Even Rand talks about the government being the rightfully armed entity, in order to use that force in the service of defending people. We would all agree that it is a justified use of police force to target gangs and violent criminals.

Rightfully armed as long as it is not used for the wrong oppressive goals (as it is now). I did say that also, by the way, I accept the governments right to enforce the non-aggression principle, it's when the government becomes the aggressor (as it has) when it has to be cut down or done away with. (besides, there are always anarchist solutions as well, we get told government is the only way, that is not true)

Originally posted by inimalist

However, here is where I find the conflict in Libertarian market and policy theory. The only [b]proper way that government power can be used to target these problems is through force, even if it is pragmatically ineffective. There are numerous studies on gangs and the ways to solve the problems, police force is not an effective one, in fact it normally only serves to continue to ostracize young people from belonging to the "white authoritarian" mainstream political and social culture. [/B]

Well, that's the thing, there should be private solutions and there could and would be if the government didn't take it upon itself, destroy all competition and make situations only worse.

Originally posted by inimalist

The more effective economic and market based solutions, offering incentive, or heaven forbid, jobs for these people, which would stimulate economic growth in these sectors, and would eliminate the causes of gangs and drug addiction, are seen as totally [b]immoral and egregious uses of government power. [/B]

Because they don't work. They make it worse. It's not like libertarians have any power and stopped those programs (not in Europe at least) and there is still unemployment and much less need for actually getting a job. The problem, in my and libertarian opinions, is the involvement of the government altogether. To me, it seems like there are problems the government created or made worse and now uses them to give itself more power in order to make them even worse.

Originally posted by inimalist

The argument I assume will be that gangsters choose to be gangsters and drug addicts choose to be drug addicts (which I'm going to address below). Lets even assume that this is true. Targeting gang and poverty based violence SHOULD be a legitimate use of government power under even the strictest libertarian views

Nonsense.

Originally posted by inimalist

I live near Toronto in Canada, we do not have nearly the same type of gang problems here as there are in even the smallest cities in America. However, it is growing, and in past years there have been growing numbers of innocent people dying in shootouts. That innocent person could be any one of us. It is random and senseless violence, something that the government should do something about. If the only possible solution to a libertarian is the use of government force afterward to punish offenders, the government is failing in its sole purpose, the preservation of human liberty.

That whole paragraph forgets the likely possibility that all those problems are actually caused by government interference in the first place. Nor that ít has adverse effects to go into that direction. The distribution of wealth (at gunpoint (which is what this is factually)) is immoral and not necessarily of any positive effect. Better private solutions could be available if the government wasn't in the way.

Originally posted by inimalist

If by make it worse you mean: Will, over time, the problems associated with poverty adversely affect your life more if not addressed directly, yes.

Agreed. False dilemma though, to use it as justification for socialist tools.

Originally posted by inimalist

If you men: Will Paul be any worse than any other candidate, I'm going to say no, though quite ignorantly.

That's what I meant and I absolutely agree.

Originally posted by inimalist

I'm all for drug legalization.

Me too.

Originally posted by inimalist

However, there are 2 issues. The first is that gangs that use drugs to make money, do just that, use drugs to make money.

Yes. Harder to do if any store clerk can sell it legally and cheaper and of better quality.

Originally posted by inimalist

Unless you are say that the government should privatize and control every form of criminal fund raising, gangs will still exist.

Sure they will. But you will have more liberty. Less money lost in a war on drugs. And most likely a decrease in crime (even though the other two should be enough, cause it would never increase crime)

Originally posted by inimalist

Taking out drugs and prostitution might prevent some of the petty turf wars, and thus reduce the effect on your life from being caught in a shoot out, but maybe not.

It would decriminalize something that does not harm anyone but yourself (if even that). That should be enough reason. That it would most likely decrease turf wars and make drugs on the whole safer is icing on the cake.

Originally posted by inimalist

If you look at Germany and other places with red light districts, or Amsterdam, you find organized crime heavily involved with drugs and prostitution (ie, Hell's Angels).

It's not legal in Germany. There are some allowed prostitution, but on the whole there's more illegal prostitution, due to the strict regulations. Drugs aren't legal at all.

Originally posted by inimalist

Especially in the case of Amsterdam, drug peddlers throughout Europe use their nation as a haven because of the leniency.

Not sure on the statistics about that. But it is a special case, one that would not apply to the United States or Germany even. The disadvantages are minor to say the least.

Originally posted by inimalist

The second problem is just like the first, only more related to how it will effect your life. Individuals in poverty stricken areas will still be subject to the things that drive them to join gangs or become drug addicts in the first place.

The one conclusion every reasonable people should come to is "Drugs should be legal. Period."

Originally posted by inimalist

Yes, I do believe it is their choice, yes, of course I feel the individual is ultimately responsible for their choices, but let me give you a "friend-of-a-friend" example. There is this city called Hamilton not to far from me, which is kinda rough. There were some streets where, if you belonged to gang X, gang Y would rob all your stuff, if you belonged to gang Y, gang X would rob you. If you didn't belong to either, you were a target for both of them. While we could point to thousands of stories of individuals who overcame these types of odds, there are at least as many of people who did not. Drug addiction is much the same way. Just because someone is poor and has no future, does not mean they are unaware of that fact. I'm not saying it is, but it could be much like the condition of "Acquired helplessness" that is seen in animal behaviour, where an animal, when put in a situation that seems helpless, will stop trying to save itself, even if the opportunity presents itself.

I don't have a perfect solution, but neither have socialist or neo conservative governments. My approach doesn't make it worse...theirs does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And. You are bringing up these pointless things that have nothing to do with whether the government should get out of Iraq or not.

Telling me there are no official US soldiers over there?

I know.

Disregarding all the other things I said.

If you feel the need to help underpriviledged children, spend your own money on them, don't spend other people's money.

And that's the problem of anyone else, why?

Besides, you don't know what possibilities would arise if there was no public education. I am not against giving poor children an education, I am against stealing money to do so.

It should be, it isn't though.

I am sorry, but people have the right to refuse getting their money taken from them. The government uses force to steal our money, we have every moral right to refuse that, we don't because it is too risky (cause the government is an evil schoolyard bully nowadays)

You could have it on a free market.

You could have it on a free market.

That's one of the few things a government should make sure.

Far outweighing the pros. The only reasons why it hasn't been changed is the fear of change in people, the unfair benefit parasites (50+% of society) receive and the brainwashing the government does from an early age.

Free market would be the answer. Never noticed that whenever the government does something...it is shitty?

Yes, it should be fixed. But that means scrapping unfair programs like income tax which only benefit the looters, scrapping universial health care, extensive welfare, and all other programs that just leech off of productive people.

I never said they can't expect anything, they just can't expect to get shit for free that other people have to pay shitloads for.

I'm sorry, did I just hear you say that you didn't recieve a public education?

Originally posted by Devil King
I'm sorry, did I just hear you say that you didn't recieve a public education?

No. Where?

Bardock, if public schools were done away with, where do you think students who are currently in a public school and those that would be, would get there education, so they can get jobs and be a contribution to society?

A few things to consider... not everyone (most people) can't afford to send their children to private schools. In a free market, (private) schools would still be expensive, as there's a limit to how cheap schooling could be and still turn a profit.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bardock, if public schools were done away with, where do you think students who are currently in a public school and those that would be, would get there education, so they can get jobs and be a contribution to society?

I don't think Public Schools should just disappear. That is impossible, it wouldn't give the market the chance to evolve a feasible system. I think it should be phased out.

My theory is that in a free market system there'd be multiple opportunities we just don't have in our system now. I'd think there'd be rather cheap private schools. I think there'd be multiple opportunities for scholarships and funds and payment methods. I think there would be a much lesser focus on formal education, which would give more chances to autodidacts or alternative approaches. I think there could easily be community and charitable schools for younger or less fortunate children, privately funded. There are many, many options and on the whole I believe the education would be cheaper and and especially better and possibly for all people, not just on average.

A theory of course, but so is the "everything will be better if we just throw more and more stolen money at it" ....

Originally posted by Robtard
A few things to consider... not everyone (most people) can't afford to send their children to private schools. In a free market, (private) schools would still be expensive, as there's a limit to how cheap schooling could be and still turn a profit.

Yes, but we can't apply the costs we see now in Private schools. They are so expensive because they have to fight against unfair competition. It's their niche, but I believe a free market nowadays, would have multiple advantages.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think Public Schools should just disappear. That is impossible, it wouldn't give the market the chance to evolve a feasible system. I think it should be phased out.

My theory is that in a free market system there'd be multiple opportunities we just don't have in our system now. I'd think there'd be rather cheap private schools. I think there'd be multiple opportunities for scholarships and funds and payment methods. I think there would be a much lesser focus on formal education, which would give more chances to autodidacts or alternative approaches. I think there could easily be community and charitable schools for younger or less fortunate children, privately funded. There are many, many options and on the whole I believe the education would be cheaper and and especially better and possibly for all people, not just on average.

A theory of course, but so is the "everything will be better if we just throw more and more stolen money at it" ....

Yes, but we can't apply the costs we see now in Private schools. They are so expensive because they have to fight against unfair competition. It's their niche, but I believe a free market nowadays, would have multiple advantages.

That's a lot of assuming on the behalf of people just willing to put money is said systems. Would you, take part in funding those charities and scholarships?

That's a problem I have with Democrats, the "Just throw more money at it!" approach.

Well yes, but there would still be a limit in how cheap those schools could be, will still providing even sub-par education to the students.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a lot of assuming on the behalf of people just willing to put money is said systems. Would you, take part in funding those charities and scholarships?

Of course it is assuming, but it is rather rational. What I can see is that Public Schools are, without a doubt, failing. And that the solution is not more public schooling is the solution is evident. You could approach to my theory slowly and see how it is going, which is what should be done, because, the matter of the fact is, that there's no reason why everyone should pay for the education of a few.

I would consider it. It is not my duty to do so though. (think about how much more money everyone would have)

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a problem I have with Democrats, the "Just throw more money at it!" approach.

Me too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well yes, but there would still be a limit in how cheap those schools could be, will still providing even sub-par education to the students.

I gave multiple other options and I'd believe they'd be quite cheap actually.

Before I reply to Bardock, I'd say people should look up what Friedman has to say about schools and vouchers to lower income families. It actually sounds very good, and adds the drive of competition into the education process, supposedly to improve and maintain school quality.

Originally posted by inimalist
Before I reply to Bardock, I'd say people should look up what Friedman has to say about schools and vouchers to lower income families. It actually sounds very good, and adds the drive of competition into the education process, supposedly to improve and maintain school quality.

Do you have a link?

I think vouchers might be a decent idea for the beginning of the process to free market schools, but they are just not as good as real competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think there could easily be community and charitable schools for younger or less fortunate children, privately funded.

You mean schools where all the poor kids go to recieve a free education? So, you're kind of fine with "public" education as long as the people are fine with paying for it?