Five myths about Libertarianism

[NYcarbineer]

You say I said something false, then you start blathering about entitlements. Does that make you an idiot, or does it make you a moron?

You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.

The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,

therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.

I see the problem now, you can't read.

I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.

So you're saying you posted a non sequitur because you couldn't cope with staying on topic,

and I'm at fault for giving you some benefit of the doubt that perhaps that wasn't what you were doing?

Okay.

So now tell us exactly how the payment for public education, through forced taxes unequally leveed, is not a redistribution of wealth.

 

[Foxfyre]

You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.

The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,

therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.

I see the problem now, you can't read.

I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.

So you're saying you posted a non sequitur because you couldn't cope with staying on topic,

and I'm at fault for giving you some benefit of the doubt that perhaps that wasn't what you were doing?

Okay.

So now tell us exactly how the payment for public education, through forced taxes unequally leveed, is not a redistribution of wealth.

He will probably answer better than I could, but public education is not a redistribution of wealth any more than any other mutually beneficial services adopted by a community. The commonly shared sewer system, water system, trash pick up, city streets, public schools etc. are all for mutual benefit and not intended to benefit one citizen more than any other citizen. This is social contract, and has been a part of a free America since its inception. No true libertarian would deny the people the ability to form social contract.

Now when you take my money and give it to another citizen or non citizen so that he or she can attend school at any level, THAT is redistribution of wealth. And if you do it against my will or without my explicit or implied consent, it is a destroyer of unalienable rights and liberty and no true libertarian would condone it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their ‘definition’ on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please….

It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.

I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.

And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.

You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.

No, I'm telling you what the Libertarian Party professes to believe. One would assume that the positions taken in the platform were placed there by some sort of consensus amongst those in the party.

If you're saying I shouldn't trust anything in the Libertarian Party's platform there is no rational basis for party's platform,

fine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see the problem now, you can't read.

I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.

So you're saying you posted a non sequitur because you couldn't cope with staying on topic,

and I'm at fault for giving you some benefit of the doubt that perhaps that wasn't what you were doing?

Okay.

So now tell us exactly how the payment for public education, through forced taxes unequally leveed, is not a redistribution of wealth.

He will probably answer better than I could, but public education is not a redistribution of wealth any more than any other mutually beneficial services adopted by a community. The commonly shared sewer system, water system, trash pick up, city streets, public schools etc. are all for mutual benefit and not intended to benefit one citizen more than any other citizen. This is social contract, and has been a part of a free America since its inception. No true libertarian would deny the people the ability to form social contract.

Then why does the Libertarian party platform say this:

Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.

That's a call for privatizing all education. Libertarians wrote that platform.

Now when you take my money and give it to another citizen or non citizen so that he or she can attend school at any level, THAT is redistribution of wealth. And if you do it against my will or without my explicit or implied consent, it is a destroyer of unalienable rights and liberty and no true libertarian would condone it.

Refer to the bolded: That is what school taxes DO. Period. Not to mention the portion of public education that may come from state income taxes. That is redistribution of wealth. That is forcing you, if you're wealthier, to pay for the education of the less wealthy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.

The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,

therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.

I see the problem now, you can't read.

I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.

No, but when it is called education when it isn't, it can be confiscation of wealth.

To NYC, do not confuse Libertarian - capital "L" - as a political party with libertarian - small "L" - which is a philosophy, a mindset, and/or a belief system.

So the reason there can't be myths about Libertarianism is because it doesn't exist?

lolol

 

[Wry Catcher]

#2 and #3 are certainly myths....not so sure about #1, #4, and #5. Ron Paul is kind of a hippie, the "true" libertarians are for drug/abortion/religion rights (ie: the right to have, and the right not to have them), and libertarians are certainly hurting the Republican party by not voting republican.

Has little to do with them being pro-abortion, pro drug use, or anti-religion. They just think the government should not be telling people what they can and cannot do.

I see now. Thanks for a very concise definition. And now I understand why Roark had the absolute right to rape Dominique. Damn those government bureaucrats.

 

[rightwinger]

You're going to try a dodge by using the word 'formal' government? LOL, no.

Name the societies that did not have a government.

Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government

Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.

What is Government then?

Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.

 

[g5000]

I joined the Young Americans for Freedom in 1977, and went to their national convention in New York City. That is where I met Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. I also met Henry Kissinger, Bob Dole, Jim Buckley, and several other luminaries. I also have a very amusing story about an incident I had involving Nixon's treasury secretary.

Anyway, while most of the conventioneers were Republicans, there was a large Libertarian contingent. This was my first exposure to Libertarians. I glady wore one of the Laissez-faire buttons they gave me. I also wore a ZGG button.

Zero Government Growth.

It was obvious Reagan was heavily influenced by libertarians, and Buckley certainly had a wide libertarian streak. Conservatives were a little pissed off at Buckley at that time because he argued for the legalization of pot and for giving the Panama Canal back to Panama.

I have had a solid grasp of Libertarians ever since, and hold many of their same views. But I do not "peg the meter", as it were. For example, I am in favor of legalizing pot, but not hard drugs like heroin or crack or cocaine or meth.

I believe in more regulation than Libertarians. However, I do not believe in a lot of regulation, just good regulation.

[Somewhere, there is a Libertarian/Anarchist howling, "There is no such thing as a good regulation!"]


Libertarians believe we should end the Federal Reserve. I understand all the points, and yet still think that would be a colossal mistake. I trust a banker (not much) more than a politician for the proper management of our money supply. You have to be stone cold crazy to think politicians won't turn on the money spigot every two years to inflate their way to re-election.

Ending the Fed would not end runaway government spending. That's a simple fact.

So Libertarians and I part ways on the Federal Reserve. And I think our differences on the Fed are illustrative of all our differences in that I am a realist who understands the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In a perfect world, we would need no laws, no regulation. But the world is made of very, very flawed human beings with poor impulse control.

It would only take a few tweaks here and there to get us back on the right path, not an entire dismantling.

I would like to see Libertarians start topics explaining their platform. One item at a time. Perhaps starting with a topic about the privatization of the roads.

It certainly would be a nice break from all the whiny bitching topics with which we are plagued here.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Not all of them, no. There are several instances of completely free of formal government systems (leaders, taxes, etc). That is, until the Statists heard of such blasphmey. Then they had to be dealt with. Something you would have fuckin' cheered on, no doubt.

And I noticed you conveniently omitted the fact that celtic ireland existed for 1,000s of years free of any State. I suppose that goes againt your ability to deflect, meld together terminology and general fucktardery.

And yet, you have failed to identify a single one of them

Why am I not surprised

Celtic Ireland existed on a clan structure which is still a government. So, once again you fail miserably

Jeebus, f'in christmas, some of you are beyond stupid. Here, let me help you out since you can not differentiate terminology and in so, get stuck on stupid.

gov·ern·ment

: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2
obsolete : moral conduct or behavior : discretion
3
a : the office, authority, or function of governing
b obsolete : the term during which a governing official holds office
4
: the continuous exercise of authority over and the performance of functions for a political unit : rule
5
a : the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it
b : the complex of political institutions, laws, and customs through which the function of governing is carried out
6
: the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization:

clan noun \ˈklan\

Definition of CLAN

1
a : a Celtic group especially in the Scottish Highlands comprising a number of households whose heads claim descent from a common ancestor
b : a group of people tracing descent from a common ancestor : family
2
: a group united by a common interest or common characteristics

tribe noun \ˈtrīb\

Definition of TRIBE

1
a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers
b : a political division of the Roman people originally representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome
c : phyle
2
: a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest
3
: a category of taxonomic classification ranking below a subfamily; also : a natural group irrespective of taxonomic rank <the cat tribe> <the rose tribe>

Now, i realize there are a lot of words there, and yest each one has specific meaning. None of the three of these terms give connotation to the same thing. They are vastly different.

And if someone had read any history, they would KNOW that the celts were considered...wait for it.... WAIT FOR IT..... anarchic. hence the justification by their conquerors that they were "barbaric.

It's like teaching ******* first semester political history in here most days.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government

Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.

What is Government then?

Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.

Use a ******* dictionary once in a while, you thundering dunderhead.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you're saying you posted a non sequitur because you couldn't cope with staying on topic,

and I'm at fault for giving you some benefit of the doubt that perhaps that wasn't what you were doing?

Okay.

So now tell us exactly how the payment for public education, through forced taxes unequally leveed, is not a redistribution of wealth.

He will probably answer better than I could, but public education is not a redistribution of wealth any more than any other mutually beneficial services adopted by a community. The commonly shared sewer system, water system, trash pick up, city streets, public schools etc. are all for mutual benefit and not intended to benefit one citizen more than any other citizen. This is social contract, and has been a part of a free America since its inception. No true libertarian would deny the people the ability to form social contract.

Then why does the Libertarian party platform say this:

Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.

That's a call for privatizing all education. Libertarians wrote that platform.

I am not sure what they mean by that. I don't know that it is a call to privatize all education or whether it supports a voucher system or what. But again, a true libertarian (little "L") would say that if a community wants a public school, it should have the right and ability to form a school district. Liberty means we that we can form the sort of society we wish to have. And the federal government should be strictly hands off of that process. And if people prefer a private school or parochial school or homeschooling their kids, that should be their right too. If a community doesn't wish to educate their kids at all that should also be their right, but such an option would be so abhorrent to 99.9% of all Americans, it won't happen.

Again do not confuse libertarianism with the Libertarian Party any more than you should confuse modern conservatism with the Republican Party or modern liberalism with the Democratic Party.

Now when you take my money and give it to another citizen or non citizen so that he or she can attend school at any level, THAT is redistribution of wealth. And if you do it against my will or without my explicit or implied consent, it is a destroyer of unalienable rights and liberty and no true libertarian would condone it.

Refer to the bolded: That is what school taxes DO. Period. Not to mention the portion of public education that may come from state income taxes. That is redistribution of wealth. That is forcing you, if you're wealthier, to pay for the education of the less wealthy.

No they don't. Not as libertarianism intended it. The social contract may include taxes to fund the public school, but the libertarian way is that it does not fund one citizen any more than any other citizen. The rich and poor alike receive the same education in the public school. Again it is no different from rich and poor alike enjoying the benefits of mutually shared roads, sewer and water systems, and other public services that the community decides to have. Just as those who don't own cars benefit from the roads, even those without children benefit from public schools and an educated society that can provide jobs, provide good workers, keep up property values, etc. etc. etc. and all the other benefits of an educated people.

The Founders, each and every one of them libertarian (little "L"), intended that the federal government would secure the rights of the people and prevent the various states from doing violence to each other, and then the states and the people within them would work out their own social contract with no interference or involvement of the federal government.

It was a wonderful concept that produced the greatest, most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, most creative, and most benevolent nation that has ever existed . . . until corrupt or foolish men started dismantling it in favor of an ever more authoritarian invasive federal government.

 

[rightwinger]

Not all of them, no. There are several instances of completely free of formal government systems (leaders, taxes, etc). That is, until the Statists heard of such blasphmey. Then they had to be dealt with. Something you would have fuckin' cheered on, no doubt.

And I noticed you conveniently omitted the fact that celtic ireland existed for 1,000s of years free of any State. I suppose that goes againt your ability to deflect, meld together terminology and general fucktardery.

And yet, you have failed to identify a single one of them

Why am I not surprised

Celtic Ireland existed on a clan structure which is still a government. So, once again you fail miserably

Jeebus, f'in christmas, some of you are beyond stupid. Here, let me help you out since you can not differentiate terminology and in so, get stuck on stupid.

clan noun \&#712;klan\

Definition of CLAN

1
a : a Celtic group especially in the Scottish Highlands comprising a number of households whose heads claim descent from a common ancestor
b : a group of people tracing descent from a common ancestor : family
2
: a group united by a common interest or common characteristics

tribe noun \&#712;tr&#299;b\

Definition of TRIBE

1
a : a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers
b : a political division of the Roman people originally representing one of the three original tribes of ancient Rome
c : phyle
2
: a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest
3
: a category of taxonomic classification ranking below a subfamily; also : a natural group irrespective of taxonomic rank <the cat tribe> <the rose tribe>

Now, i realize there are a lot of words there, and yest each one has specific meaning. None of the three of these terms give connotation to the same thing. They are vastly different.

And if someone had read any history, they would KNOW that the celts were considered...wait for it.... WAIT FOR IT..... anarchic. hence the justification by their conquerors that they were "barbaric.

It's like teaching ******* first semester political history in here most days.

Wow....I'm impressed
Someone knows how to look things up in a dictionary. Too bad you don't understand what you read

Even the Celtic clans had a form of Government. They were patriotic and loyal to their clan. They obeyed clan elders. They fought and died for their clans. They contributed to the clan and helped other clan members

That is GOVERNMENT. It is government on a small scale but government just the same. It ultimately failed because it was inefficient an unable to compete with larger societies

 

[Wry Catcher]

I joined the Young Americans for Freedom in 1977, and went to their national convention in New York City. That is where I met Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. I also met Henry Kissinger, Bob Dole, Jim Buckley, and several other luminaries. I also have a very amusing story about an incident I had involving Nixon's treasury secretary.

Anyway, while most of the conventioneers were Republicans, there was a large Libertarian contingent. This was my first exposure to Libertarians. I glady wore one of the Laissez-faire buttons they gave me. I also wore a ZGG button.

Zero Government Growth.

It was obvious Reagan was heavily influenced by libertarians, and Buckley certainly had a wide libertarian streak. Conservatives were a little pissed off at Buckley at that time because he argued for the legalization of pot and for giving the Panama Canal back to Panama.

I have had a solid grasp of Libertarians ever since, and hold many of their same views. But I do not "peg the meter", as it were. For example, I am in favor of legalizing pot, but not hard drugs like heroin or crack or cocaine or meth.

I believe in more regulation than Libertarians. However, I do not believe in a lot of regulation, just good regulation.

[Somewhere, there is a Libertarian/Anarchist howling, "There is no such thing as a good regulation!"]


Libertarians believe we should end the Federal Reserve. I understand all the points, and yet still think that would be a colossal mistake. I trust a banker (not much) more than a politician for the proper management of our money supply. You have to be stone cold crazy to think politicians won't turn on the money spigot every two years to inflate their way to re-election.

Ending the Fed would not end runaway government spending. That's a simple fact.

So Libertarians and I part ways on the Federal Reserve. And I think our differences on the Fed are illustrative of all our differences in that I am a realist who understands the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In a perfect world, we would need no laws, no regulation. But the world is made of very, very flawed human beings with poor impulse control.

It would only take a few tweaks here and there to get us back on the right path, not an entire dismantling.

I would like to see Libertarians start topics explaining their platform. One item at a time. Perhaps starting with a topic about the privatization of the roads.

It certainly would be a nice break from all the whiny bitching topics with which we are plagued here.

Excellent post; concise, pragmatic and sensible.

 

[Foxfyre]

Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government

Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.

What is Government then?

Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.

To some, government is a necessary evil to be kept placated and then ignored as much as possible.

To some, government is the protector, security blanket, mommy, daddy, and public teat to which we all belong and can expect to receive what we need as we need it.

To some, government is the villain to be destroyed and buried if we can.

And to the libertarian, little "L", government is what we put into place to enforce the social contract that we want. We give the governmentits power and it has no power of its own.

 

[Trajan]

[/B]
2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.

This is directly from the Libertarian Party 2012 Platform:

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

and since Libertarianism opposes any redistribution of wealth, it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.

This is further indicated by this plank in the Libertarian platform:

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

Education 'without interference from government' and without any governmental 'redistribution of wealth',

means NO public education. Period. Which thus means education can only be acquired based on one's ability to pay for it.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

with ignorance like that no wonder you're a liberal........

 

[Trajan]

Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.

What is Government then?

Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.

To some, government is a necessary evil to be kept placated and then ignored as much as possible.

To some, government is the protector, security blanket, mommy, daddy, and public teat to which we all belong and can expect to receive what we need as we need it.

To some, government is the villain to be destroyed and buried if we can.

And to the libertarian, little "L", government is what we put into place to enforce the social contract that we want. We give the governmentits power and it has no power of its own.

well said......over the last 10 years I have become more libertarian ......I was dead set against say, legalization of pot, after reading for years, I finally stumbled upon a Reason article that spelled it out in such a way that I just could no longer formulate an honest agreement against it.... in short you cannot get a little pregnant, I cannot say no you cannot have that and then turn right around and say yes on something else in the same context.

Both parties, the dems ands gop have driven their own ideas of big gov. just from different axes, examples- from the farm bill, highway bill to ethanol its big gov. period and its all a mess.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[/B]
2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.

This is directly from the Libertarian Party 2012 Platform:

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

and since Libertarianism opposes any redistribution of wealth, it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.

This is further indicated by this plank in the Libertarian platform:

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

Education 'without interference from government' and without any governmental 'redistribution of wealth',

means NO public education. Period. Which thus means education can only be acquired based on one's ability to pay for it.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

with ignorance like that no wonder you're a liberal........

Do kids whose parents are on welfare get to go to public school?

Who pays for that?

 

[Trajan]

This is directly from the Libertarian Party 2012 Platform:

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

and since Libertarianism opposes any redistribution of wealth, it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.

This is further indicated by this plank in the Libertarian platform:

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

Education 'without interference from government' and without any governmental 'redistribution of wealth',

means NO public education. Period. Which thus means education can only be acquired based on one's ability to pay for it.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

with ignorance like that no wonder you're a liberal........

Do kids whose parents are on welfare get to go to public school?

Who pays for that?

its burning...you know

 

[NYcarbineer]

He will probably answer better than I could, but public education is not a redistribution of wealth any more than any other mutually beneficial services adopted by a community. The commonly shared sewer system, water system, trash pick up, city streets, public schools etc. are all for mutual benefit and not intended to benefit one citizen more than any other citizen. This is social contract, and has been a part of a free America since its inception. No true libertarian would deny the people the ability to form social contract.

Then why does the Libertarian party platform say this:

Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.

That's a call for privatizing all education. Libertarians wrote that platform.

I am not sure what they mean by that. I don't know that it is a call to privatize all education or whether it supports a voucher system or what. But again, a true libertarian (little "L") would say that if a community wants a public school, it should have the right and ability to form a school district. Liberty means we that we can form the sort of society we wish to have. And the federal government should be strictly hands off of that process. And if people prefer a private school or parochial school or homeschooling their kids, that should be their right too. If a community doesn't wish to educate their kids at all that should also be their right, but such an option would be so abhorrent to 99.9% of all Americans, it won't happen.

Again do not confuse libertarianism with the Libertarian Party any more than you should confuse modern conservatism with the Republican Party or modern liberalism with the Democratic Party.

Now when you take my money and give it to another citizen or non citizen so that he or she can attend school at any level, THAT is redistribution of wealth. And if you do it against my will or without my explicit or implied consent, it is a destroyer of unalienable rights and liberty and no true libertarian would condone it.

Refer to the bolded: That is what school taxes DO. Period. Not to mention the portion of public education that may come from state income taxes. That is redistribution of wealth. That is forcing you, if you're wealthier, to pay for the education of the less wealthy.

No they don't. Not as libertarianism intended it. The social contract may include taxes to fund the public school, but the libertarian way is that it does not fund one citizen any more than any other citizen. The rich and poor alike receive the same education in the public school. Again it is no different from rich and poor alike enjoying the benefits of mutually shared roads, sewer and water systems, and other public services that the community decides to have. Just as those who don't own cars benefit from the roads, even those without children benefit from public schools and an educated society that can provide jobs, provide good workers, keep up property values, etc. etc. etc. and all the other benefits of an educated people.

The Founders, each and every one of them libertarian (little "L"), intended that the federal government would secure the rights of the people and prevent the various states from doing violence to each other, and then the states and the people within them would work out their own social contract with no interference or involvement of the federal government.

It was a wonderful concept that produced the greatest, most free, most prosperous, most productive, most innovative, most creative, and most benevolent nation that has ever existed . . . until corrupt or foolish men started dismantling it in favor of an ever more authoritarian invasive federal government.

So this guy is wrong too?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/redistribution-of-wealth-in-america/?_r=0

"Aside from hard-core libertarians, who view the sanctity of justly begotten private property as the overarching social value and any form of coerced redistribution as unjust, how many Americans on the left and right of the political spectrum would disagree with Mr. Obama’s very general and cautiously phrased statement?"

...

"The fact is that redistributive government policy — mainly through benefits-in-kind programs, agricultural policy and the like — has been very much a characteristic of American life, just as it has been in every economically developed nation, albeit at different levels.

Start at the local level. Through property taxes, local governments all over the United States routinely take from high-income Americans living in expensive houses to subsidize the education of children from lower-income families. It is the American way, based on the widespread belief that doing so will make society as a whole better off. Is there a significantly large constituency for abolishing this form of redistribution at the local level and instead letting every family fend for itself, with its own budget, in a private market for education?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

with ignorance like that no wonder you're a liberal........

Do kids whose parents are on welfare get to go to public school?

Who pays for that?

its burning...you know

You're correct. School taxation that is levied disproportionately on wealthier Americans and disproportionately benefits lower income Americans is a redistribution of wealth,

contrary to what is being claimed by others here.

That's why libertarians are so loath to admit either

a. that they support public education, because they know that is purely anti-libertarian

or

b. that they oppose public education, because they know that is idiotic.