What would your polictical party be? Should we abolish the political spectrum?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
So often we get lumped into either being Liberal or Conservative and for our friends to the south it's Republican or Democrat. And when a person doesn't fit perfectly into one of those molds they get labeled "Moderate".

So my question is, if you could design your own political party, what sort of ideologies and policies would it represent?

Would it fall into a certain place on the political spectrum?

Should we do away with the political spectrum model altogether?

Should we have more diverse parties like they do in Europe?

Discuss...

Get a load of this one....

"Progressive Independent Aristocrat" party.

We give the powers to the Aristocracy and they protect us. With a contract to the social status of the state. That establish and promotes advances in both social and production for the citizens.

(awaits for the Feudal backlash comments)

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Because that way it insures a fair society where people have equal access to necessary programs and services

the point being that anarchists do not believe a society is fair if there is a body that can, at the threat of a loss of personal liberty, take the amount of money they feel from you at the frequency they decide

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And that matters more then having more doctor's or teachers?

no, just means that having a teaching degree would be useless if the market is over saturated with teachers.

I certainly don't feel that just having an abundance of people with teaching degrees and MDs around is a good thing. Maybe if people targeted their education to what there was a real lag in in society, but that seems a little fascist...

also: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=277562

unemployed teachers aren't helping alleviate the burden.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And if less value is placed on the degree, then that should effect it's market value which would in theory help to lower tuition.

what happened in france were the ecole polytechnique, private schools which groom the rich 🙂 The real degree is from the polytechnique, boobs get one from the state

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Bardock's point was that it was unfair to try and put a private institution vs. a state institution and say it doesn't work because it is not based a free market interpretation. If the operating costs were the same, then the government funded college would have its prices skyrocket if said funding was taken away.

It isn't fair. I worked for that money. It's mine. If I want to give it to someone else, it's my choice not the government's.

Your way would lead to a vast increase in poor people and in turn an increase in crime.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, but still, taxes do not benefit me long term, they just give a part of what I could have in a non government (or small government society) back to me and say they are solely responsible for it.

Although whether those professions listed could be provided without taxation and subsequent allocation of part of that taxation to education is up for discussion.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That's why there are student loans.

I currently have a student loan with my government.

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]the point being that anarchists do not believe a society is fair if there is a body that can, at the threat of a loss of personal liberty, take the amount of money they feel from you at the frequency they decide

no, just means that having a teaching degree would be useless if the market is over saturated with teachers.

I certainly don't feel that just having an abundance of people with teaching degrees and MDs around is a good thing.

And more Doctors means patient loads on individual doctors are reduced and they can give their patients more attention and better care.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If those professions I listed above could not be possibly provided without taxation and government funding then overall taxation does technically benefit you.

If, then yes. If that's ever proven I shall apologize officially to taxes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Although whether those professions listed could be provided without taxation and subsequent allocation of part of that taxation to education is up for discussion.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Not really because the privately funded colleges charge the same.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Which put people in huge debt they spend a large part of their lives paying off.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Well unfortunately in a free society we live by the idea that everyone has a right to live and be protected by police and fire departments.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Your way would lead to a vast increase in poor people and in turn an increase in crime.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Who provides these loans?

My policy on taxation is that I support "responsible taxation". What I mean by that is that I am happy to pay taxes as long as the money is being used correctly. When politicians vote themselves a raise every session it makes taxes look bad.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, just means that having a teaching degree would be useless if the market is over saturated with teachers.

I certainly don't feel that just having an abundance of people with teaching degrees and MDs around is a good thing. Maybe if people targeted their education to what there was a real lag in in society, but that seems a little fascist...

also: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=277562

unemployed teachers aren't helping alleviate the burden.

I'm not sure I see how having an abundance of competing unregulated private institutions vying to provide degrees would help.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Well unfortunately in a free society we live by the idea that everyone has a right to live and be protected by police and fire departments.

re: you have no choice in who provides you with what protection and are forced by threat of loss of personal liberty to provide a forced amount of funding for these protections that you have no choice in the institutional organization of or spending practices of

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Your way would lead to a vast increase in poor people and in turn an increase in crime.

I can see the education argument...

I'll bite though. How would "his way" lead to increased poor people and increases in crime

(I'll ignore the fact that, by definition, crime doesn't exist in an anarchist society)

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Not really because the privately funded colleges charge the same.

Regardless of who's paying the bill to run the college the bill itself is still the same.

So, what you are saying is that there are private colleges in your town that charge the same as the government funded colleges in your town and you somehow think that's a good argument FOR government funded colleges even though people pay twice with them, once with tuition the other time with taxes? T-that's your argument?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Companies.

(I am not particularly averse to this anarchist model. I just frankly don't see it working.)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Interesting. What is the inherent benefit to the company? Are you required to work for the company upon completion of your studies or just pay off the money presumably with interest? Where exactly would companies derive the capital required for such a large amount of relatively risky unsecured loans.

(I am not particularly averse to this anarchist model. I just frankly don't see it working.)

That would probably be the deal.

Or it might be just a real loan. You know banks do tend to make money with loans.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes. So if the government funded institute lost its backing, it would skyrocket because it would need to offset its new operating costs.

But my point is that the costs to run the college are the same no matter who's paying for it, and the tuition is geared to offset those costs. So the tuition would be the same.

Very few career choices have that problem. Most make enough money to pay back loans in a reasonable amount of time.

No, it doesn't. A free market allows for more job opportunities and no taxes allows for a greater retention of wealth. Poor people are already worse off now. In a free market system there is a much greater chance to get out of poverty.

Yes it does, one of the leading factors of crime is poverty. And if people cannot afford post secondary education then all they can get is blue collar jobs, so then you have a massive influx of people trying to get these jobs and the job market is strangled and there isn't enough jobs for people. And so you have them turning to social assistance programs which puts more of a strain on them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Interesting. What is the inherent benefit to the company? Are you required to work for the company upon completion of your studies?

(I am not particularly averse to this anarchist model. I just frankly don't see it working.)

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
How is a society fair if only those with money can live and be protected?

1) society as it exists today requires people to have money. Even Canadian socialist society requires people to have money.

2) how is it fair to threaten someone with a loss of personal liberty for not giving a demanded amount of money? Like, when I go to work, I'm working for myself. Then the guy with the police comes, and magically, I have less money and a sore anus.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I don't think we need to worry about that, we are experiencing shortages in many professions and we have public funding in our education.

Why not? If we have more teachers then we can reduce class sizes and individual students can get more attention.

did you read the link I posted?

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
And more Doctors means patient loads on individual doctors are reduced and they can give their patients more attention and better care.

I don't think you get to call your taxes "responsible"

all encompassing might cover it...

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, what you are saying is that there are private colleges in your town that charge the same as the government funded colleges in your town and you somehow think that's a good argument FOR government funded colleges even though people pay twice with them, once with tuition the other time with taxes? T-that's your argument?

Yes, I also like the fact that it is government run so that you have a large body of oversight that can regulate the educational standards.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

(I am not particularly averse to this anarchist model. I just frankly don't see it working.)

As always, the question is why? If it is so important to you to have funds for higher education you are free to spend as much money on it as you want (and Aster Phoenix can help you). You just can't force me to spend money in what you believe in (in fact, I probably would spend on that most of all, just hypothetical). The thing is, if 50% of society actually believe that paying taxes for higher education is important then they can do that. (150 000 000 people in the US can spend a lot of money), but, if 50% do not think that it is necessary and they just go along with it because their neighbors get stolen from as well then it is a minority opposing their will on the majority of people and therefore shouldn't happen in a democracy either.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
regulate the educational standards.

re: control the passage of information in society

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Well, you can get just get a basic student loan from a bank, or you can have a company pay for all your room and board, tuition, food, etc. if you sign a contract to work for them after completion of studies. I used the first option because I personally didn't know where I wanted to live when I got out of college.