Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
If I may, though, not everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. While I'm totally certain that you worked hard to get where you are, had a few small circumstances been different for you it's entirely possible that you might not be as successful. Had it not been for a shining recommendation from a professor, I wouldn't have landed my first job out of college. Did I earn the respect of the teacher with hard work? Sure. Did she have to write the letter? No, that was luck. I'm sure if you look back over your life, you might find a similar circumstance. It doesn't make you any less deserving of that which you've earned, but it should point out that not everyone has that one moment go right for them. Some people work just as hard as you or I, just as smart, but they can't reach their potential due to circumstances outside of their control. Because of that very real fluke, and because humans are a species that developed a sense of community and empathy, it's not wrong to help these people as a society.
|
This point hits close to the point I want to make about one common failing I see in other libertarian thinkers, which is a failure to realize that providing individuals with certain freedoms allows them to control the freedoms of others indirectly.
Hopefully this (long) example will illustrate my point.
Suppose we go out to some poor, starving, partially westernized society and offer to hold an annual footrace, where the winners gets 1,000 head of cattle and rights to enough lands to graze them, etc divided up amongst themselves (say 500 to the winner, 300 to second 200 to third).
I think most libertarians would look at this as an idealized system, each person is in control of there own destiny, as long as we make sure people don't cheat in the race, ie no starting early and equal starting/finishing positions then it's a fair race, and will always be a fair race.
It looks reasonable on paper but look at what would realistically happen over say 500 iterations of the race. Gaining 500 head of cattle would be a huge asset, one that would enable the winner to gain access to things like better health through nutrition and care, better shoes to race in more time to train for the race due to the increased assets, in short, better chances at winning next years race.
Over the course of time a class structure will emerge where the groups that historically have always won the race will continue to win the race and those that lost continue to lose. Sure, there will be success stories where someone from the 'losing class' has a great day and wins, as well as those who have one the last three races will stumble and not even finish, but as a statistical average the class system will be definite.
Even though the race is 'fair' and the winner is determined by some intrinsic virtue (speed) it is set up in such a way that other factors not related to that virtue weigh heavily on the outcome, in such a way that being born into the winning or losing class greatly affects the likelihood of your winning or losing. The system errodes personal sovereignty because it allows those that control the assets now to influence who get to control the assets in the future in such a way that the more assets you control the more influence you get.
The only way to make the race fair again is to adjust the rules to accommodate differences in these other factors. For example, each race won makes your next race a mile longer or something (the numbers are not important the idea is) similar.
The idea is that using a central body (government) to limit the liberty of some who have undue influence over the liberty of others can function to increase liberty of the whole.
To land the plane with education. Right now the affluence of your parents influences the quality of state provided education you receive. Students are receiving better education (which in turn affects their socioeconomic status for the rest of their lives) on the state through no 'intrinsic worth' of their own (it has far more to do with their parents) and with the sponsorship of the government to boot. When I think of libertarians I would think this to be a hot button issue for them, but for some reason it isn't (that I've noticed).
As a libertarian (I've been told this is what I am, sometimes I'm not sure) I would like to see more money directed to poorer schools and less to richer ones, which raise more money at the local level, to equalize access to resources(quality teachers, equipment, books, etc) on a per pupil basis. Where you live and how much money your parents make should not influence the quality of the state sponsored education you receive. By equalizing quality of education receive across the classes, we equalize the playing field for students and allow a greater degree of self determination, because the level of education they receive (which is linked so closely with socioeconomic status) will be a great deal more under their control. Ideally, variations between schools in student performance (graduation rates, post secondary education acceptance rates, standardized test averages) would be nil, and where they do exist they will emerge entirely from a failure of the administration of the school, not the students themselves.