Libertarianism v Liberalism

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Many misconceptions. As a Libertarian, I'm not against entitlements, I'm only against mismanaged government entitlements.

Bottom line: Libertarians believe in free market entitlements while Liberals believe in state entitlements

Many people don't realize this ;) Private charity does it better!

[jon_perez]

Ummm... I think "free market entitlements" is an oxymoron.

Entitlements, by definition, are the giveaways of a government working under socialistic policies.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Entitlements, hand outs, give aways, charity... same meanings. Libertarians DO believe in a strong charity market in the economy, look up the ideology. If you look at Libertarianism & Liberalism, well, Libertarians ARE classical liberals, now you have socialists tht have hijacked liberalism, so that is what their state entitlements stem from. Libertarianism would promote unrestricted private charity that would operate in a VARIETY of various ways: one examble being * ok. you want to attend a certain school, you don't have the money, so you go to a charity and you are "sponsored" for your education. It's the point that private charity is completely optional and private charity takes care of people better than a socialistic state does.

You understand, right?

STATE CHARITY: Inefficient, sluggish, controls the entire market and that completely ruins quality, ... what is their incentive to create better healthcare? That's the point.

PRIVATE CHARITY: The same programs that are completely private, they may also run in any way that they want : some may offer healthcare sponsorships in return for monthly dues, who knows.

Less people would need charity : no inflation, less taxes, sound money, open ended enterprise..cmon

Healthcare:

1. Doctors would need to compete
2. Competition reduces prices
3. Quality would be at its best

Cheap, superior quality, 1 on 1 doctor - patient care

Education:

1. Schools/teachers would need to compete
2. Competition would decrease prices
3. Schools will get rid of bad to mediocre teachers

No government funding..no problem.

If you still can't afford something, work something out or get some charity...there you go. Cool, huh?

Dr Paul has cared for his patients while rejecting MEDICARE & MEDICAID, he either did it for free or made payment plans. John Edwards was paid $50,000 to make a speech on poverty...who is really helping the poor?

[drinkbleach]

Entitlements, hand outs, give aways, charity... same meanings. Libertarians DO believe in a strong charity market in the economy, look up the ideology. If you look at Libertarianism & Liberalism, well, Libertarians ARE classical liberals, now you have socialists tht have hijacked liberalism, so that is what their state entitlements stem from. Libertarianism would promote unrestricted private charity that would operate in a VARIETY of various ways: one examble being * ok. you want to attend a certain school, you don't have the money, so you go to a charity and you are "sponsored" for your education. It's the point that private charity is completely optional and private charity takes care of people better than a socialistic state does.

You understand, right?

STATE CHARITY: Inefficient, sluggish, controls the entire market and that completely ruins quality, ... what is their incentive to create better healthcare? That's the point.

PRIVATE CHARITY: The same programs that are completely private, they may also run in any way that they want : some may offer healthcare sponsorships in return for monthly dues, who knows.

Less people would need charity : no inflation, less taxes, sound money, open ended enterprise..cmon

Healthcare:

1. Doctors would need to compete
2. Competition reduces prices
3. Quality would be at its best

Cheap, superior quality, 1 on 1 doctor - patient care

Education:

1. Schools/teachers would need to compete
2. Competition would decrease prices
3. Schools will get rid of bad to mediocre teachers

No government funding..no problem.

If you still can't afford something, work something out or get some charity...there you go. Cool, huh?

Dr Paul has cared for his patients while rejecting MEDICARE & MEDICAID, he either did it for free or made payment plans. John Edwards was paid $50,000 to make a speech on poverty...who is really helping the poor?

I think your idea here is flawed, both in your generalization of what many liberals think and also the services provided.

Some goods and services are so necessary in a productive society that the government must step in to assist. I'll address education since I'm more familiar in that realm.



1. Schools/teachers would need to compete
2. Competition would decrease prices
3. Schools will get rid of bad to mediocre teachers

No government funding..no problem.

If you still can't afford something, work something out or get some charity...there you go. Cool, huh?
Schools and teachers are already competing. The best teachers choose better schools to teach at and the best schools attract better teachers. What about a school that isn't very good? They don't attract the best teachers etc, etc. It creates something of an endless spiral where the best continue to get better and the worst conitnue to get worse. Government incentives to teachers to go to teach at poorly performing schools allows less competitives schools to compete against the better schools. I'd also like to mention that the better schools also tend to have better funding available from local tax revenues. Sometimes the government needs to intervene to close the gap.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

ok. Are you a Libertarian or Liberal? well.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

check that out.

In America, mediocre to very bad teacher's are teaching, why? Because of the teacher unions that have these school districts by the balls. They demand higher wages and make the process of firing almost impossible.

I'm saying.. in a Libetarian society : anyone could start their own school, anyone could be a teacher, .. choices. There wouldn't be any "Diploma" <-- that's government issued. The result of this is...

1. Cheap
2. High in quality - private organizations may open up to rate/review the various schools
3. Choices

And, if you like one, but cannot pay... there would be a charity to go to that will pay your way! I don't know about you, but I'm seeing that :

a. I'm no losing QUALITY, I'm getting that free market quality
b. I'm able to now spend less due to free market competition
c. If I can't pay, there would be private entitlements that I could pursue

[angelatc]

My solution is to let the states decide what works best. Putting the Feds in the midst of the system hasn't done anything except increase the number of standardized tests that my kids take.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

My solution is to let the states decide what works best. Putting the Feds in the midst of the system hasn't done anything except increase the number of standardized tests that my kids take.

Yeah, it's different when it comes to America * Ron Paul has it covered.

[literatim]

ok. Are you a Libertarian or Liberal? well.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

check that out.

In America, mediocre to very bad teacher's are teaching, why? Because of the teacher unions that have these school districts by the balls. They demand higher wages and make the process of firing almost impossible.

I'm saying.. in a Libetarian society : anyone could start their own school, anyone could be a teacher, .. choices. There wouldn't be any "Diploma" <-- that's government issued. The result of this is...

1. Cheap
2. High in quality - private organizations may open up to rate/review the various schools
3. Choices

And, if you like one, but cannot pay... there would be a charity to go to that will pay your way! I don't know about you, but I'm seeing that :

a. I'm no losing QUALITY, I'm getting that free market quality
b. I'm able to now spend less due to free market competition
c. If I can't pay, there would be private entitlements that I could pursue



From Death of the West by Patrick J. Buchanan, page 84-85:


Another of the insights of Horkheimer and Adorno was to realize that the road to cultural hegemony was through psychological conditioning, not philisophical argument, America's children could be conditioned at school to reject their parents' social and moral beliefs as racist, sexist, and homophobic and conditioned to embrace a new morality. Though the Frankfurt School remains unfamiliar to most Americansm its ideas were well-known at the teachers' colleges back in the 1940s and 1950s.

The school openly stated that whether children learn facts or skills at school was less important than they graduate conditioned to display correct attitudes. When Allan Bloom wrote in The Closing of the American Mind that "American high school graduates are among the most sensitive illiterates in the world," with some of the lowest test scores on earth in comparative exams, but the highest scores for sensitivity issues like the enviroment, Bloom was testifying to the success of the Frankfurt School. Parents may consider today's public schools costly failures where children no longer learn. To the Frankfurt School, they are a success; for the children coming out of them exhibit all the right attitudes. On entering college, these students now go through orentation sessions, where they are instructed in the new values that obtain on college campuses--to get their minds right, as warden said in Cool Hand Luke.