(1) There are things that are properly the responsibility of the federal (overall) government.
(2) There are things that are properly the responsibility of the various levels of local governments.
(3) And there are things that are not properly the responsibility of any government.
If the parks, utilities and various other things are run by private concerns instead of the government, then wouldn’t the government be deprived of those selfsame user fees?
Rather, you’re showing yours.
No comment because I have no way of knowing if you actually know what Liberarianism is all about.
You may be one of the people who think of Libertarianism as hard core Conservatism, as it is often portrayed in the US media, who knows.
Read up on the political philosophy and the history of Libertarianism. According to Libertarianism an individual should be allowed to enslave and torture another person if it is to the first person’s benefit.
As an aside, both Catholicism and Liberatrianism allow for slavery. Catholicism blessed it for 1,500 years. Libertarianism will always treat it as an acceptable practice.
How is that a change? Nobody is prohibiting private schools - they’ve existed for decades. Anyone who wants to home school their child or send him to a private school is able to do so providing they’re willing to pay the cost.
The big real world debate is over vouchers. Which is essentially massive government subsidizing of private corporations. And if you can fit that inside your definition of libertarianism, I’ll be impressed.
Do you have cites for that incredible line of horseshit you just posted, Naxos? Libertarians believe it’s ok to enslave and torture? Slavery is A-Ok? I assume wife beating is also on the approved list? Yes?
-XT
Sure – but you can have voluntary taxation. A sales tax is voluntary (you can, after all, grow your own food and make your own clothes). A user fee is voluntary (you can choose not drive on the government roads).
I read it, and it says nothing against parents who want their kids to be educated by the government and are willing to pay for it. It means that if society wants to decide to spend X dollars on each child’s education, parents should have say-so in how it gets spent. If your preference is to do that in a government-run school, you can do that.
If they were in favor of abolishing public schools, they’d say so; but if they were in favor of doing away with all public schools by force of law, the part about “local control” wouldn’t make sense.
Basically, they want local control, and unlimited vouchers. May or may not appeal to you, but that’s different from coercing people out of public schools if that’s what they really want.
Yes.
The drama of your descriptions is irrelevant to the ideology of Libertarianism, that supports an individual’s right to define value to other objects or other humans, and not have to be subjected to a social order of any kind.
Libertarianism supports the right of a human being to define the worth of his/her surroundings. They call it “freedom” and “liberty”, and they allow anything any human being would want to do, because if they can impose their will on others then they should because it’s their right to do so.
That’s Libertarianism.
It’s in the books.
Parks et al can be run by the government, charge user fees, and solicit voluntary donations all at the same time. Many of them already do; I’ve paid fees to get in national parks, and I’ve donated money to local schools and libraries.
I don’t understand the conflict here.
Cite for this bullshit?
[QUOTE=Naxos]
Yes.
The drama of your descriptions is irrelevant to the ideology of Libertarianism, that supports an individual’s right to define value to other objects or other humans, and not have to be subjected to a social order of any kind.
Libertarianism supports the right of a human being to define the worth of his/her surroundings. They call it “freedom” and “liberty”, and they allow anything any human being would want to do, because if they can impose their will on others then they should because it’s their right to do so.
That’s Libertarianism.
It’s in the books.
[/QUOTE]
IOW, no…you don’t. Ok, just checking in case I missed something in Libertarian School™. Thanks for your input.
-XT
Name and page.
If you want to flame libertarians, do it in the Pit. GD is not the place for this kind of thing.
Wouldn’t a Libertarian society turn over the running of the parks to private business? it’s not like the Constitution directly tells us to preserve land for future generations, as I’ve heard Libertarians say before.
I don’t.
I comment on ideologies.
(edit)…
I just noticed you’re an admin.
As I said above, I’m commenting on ideologies and political theories, not individuals. I would think debate about ideas is what a “Great Debates” forum would be about, independently of the personal feelings of the arguments discussed here.
Thanks 
OK, by that logic you can avoid payroll taxes by not getting a job.
OK, I guess it’s not impossible to keep public schools, yet have no government interference in education.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
The big real world debate is over vouchers. Which is essentially massive government subsidizing of private corporations. And if you can fit that inside your definition of libertarianism, I’ll be impressed.
[/QUOTE]
As opposed to massive public subsidization of a top heavy government education system? 
You are right…people can currently put their kids in private schools, assuming they are willing to pay twice, since there is no way to opt out of that portion of your taxes. Probably in Libertopia, assuming it was retro-fitted on top of our current system, that wouldn’t change either. But maybe it would, and people would be able to opt out of portions of their taxes. Or, maybe if we didn’t have a big military and drugs and prostitution were legal (and taxed) we’d have enough money to finally bring about the liberal dream of throwing enough money at our collective problems to bury them with sheer weight of dollars.
-XT
Maybe, maybe not. I tend toward saying “yes,” at least in many cases.
Keep in mind that “turn over the running of the parks” does not mean “sell.” The gov can still exercise stewardship over various national treasures, even if the lady working in the gift shop at Monticello ceases to be a Park Service employee.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Wouldn’t a Libertarian society turn over the running of the parks to private business? it’s not like the Constitution directly tells us to preserve land for future generations, as I’ve heard Libertarians say before.
[/QUOTE]
Our local park is maintained by a private company, so I’d say ‘it depends’. Why would a libertarian government turn over public lands to private companies? Where in libertarian philosophy does it say that public lands can’t stay in public hands, and can’t be maintained by, well, the public?
Which ‘Libertarians’ have you heard say this stuff? Do you have a cite or link to some so we can look at the context?
-XT
Exactly. People would still be paying taxes for a public school system and would be paying taxes for a voucher system as well. How is that an argument for libertarianism?
Or are you saying we should close down the public school system? If so, will private schools be required to take up the slack and accept the problem students they don’t want to accept now? Or will we end up with a school system that costs just as much as our current system but educates fewer children?
Flood control is a major purpose of many dams.
In Libertopia it’s easy for a fire-fighting crew to stand around and watch a house burn down because it didn’t subscribe to fire protection.
But how do we build a 90% flood control system, with 10% of landowners refusing to subscribe, and ensure the residual flooding affects only their land?
Similarly, on the matter of buying land for roads and canals without the power of eminent domain, how do we avoid paying millions of dollars per acre to the last landowning holdout? Or is his entrepreneurial cleverness in getting the millions just the sort of market event that libertarians find divinely beautiful?