 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | (...) More questions I'm afraid :) Using this premise, does the child have a right to expect an education from their parents? And if the parents default on that duty - would the child suffer? (As I understand it, one of a Libertarian state's duties (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) And if the parents decide not to send their child to school, what then? Do they spend time in jail? Who decides what constitutes "schooling", and what doesn't? Why do I get the feeling this inevitably leads to the government deciding whether (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) What happens when parents (inevitably) decide that they can provide a decent education at home, rather than spending all of that money? If the child has a right to a certain level of education, and the state has to uphold that right (or rather (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) You mean just like they do now? (Home schooling was ruled constitutional, IIRC. At any rate, it took the courts.) (...) And who certifies the certfier? IOW, quis custodet custodies? I'd guess that would have to be either a fourth-party, (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) This would also be a good solution if the parents are on crack (perfectly legal in the libertarian utopia) and not really into making sure their kid gets taken care of (let alone educated). (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) YM, throwing the parents into jail and throwing the kid out on the streets? I fail to see the overall improvement. Jasper (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | | (...) Duh, then the house/hovel that they previously occupied can go to better, more worthy people - in Libertopia this seems to be equivalent with richer people. (1) Richard (1) And why not, as they supply the libraries, schools and workhouses ;) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) It might not be an improvement, but it'll certainly be an issue. 'Cause without the government telling corporations they can't, a lot of food products could very easily have a new secret ingredient. Oh, sure, people might vote with their (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) And Coka Cola would finally win the tasteaddictionMORE challenge... Richard (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | (...) Didn't the original Coca-Cola have cocaine in it, for that extra midday boost (1), when it first came out? 1) Original advertisement, which I saw, many moons ago! Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes, that's true. Cocaine was originally not realized to be harmful and thought of as medicinal. When it became apparent that there might be some health concerns, Coca-Cola removed it from their product. But this isn't necessarily a promise (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Actually, they removed it from their product when there was a law passed against cocaine. Or so I'd heard. (...) Nor do they even seem willing to admit that nicotine is addictive. I mean, for crying out loud: "I, personally, do not believe (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) With none of those embarassing white powder marks around the nostrils. ;) (This is similar to the selling point of chewing tobacco, no smoke stains or smells.) (...) Where did you find one of *those*? I've never seen one, except as a plate in (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | | (...) I think it was in one of my classes, showing the history of drug laws. Sociology, perhaps? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (URL) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) "Now back to the _old_ old formula!" Jasper (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
