Yeah, skinned gave specific examples of freedom of choice in schools from a liberal state and Cam fired back with "nu uhhh". But that's par for the course. Never specific so he can't be disproven.

See thats where we differ.
I invest a ton of time reading and listening about economics, history and the reasoning/logical processes behind libertarianism.

While others are content to call it 'cooky' instead of understanding or refuting it..


I thoroughly responded to a post without valid substance, identified it as such, and explained why it was invalid.


Are you really being serious? Its not opposite day.
Did you even read post #3189? But sure just pretend i said 'nuh uhh' im sure thats much easier for you.

When was the last time you responded to my posts with anything productive or honest at all?
I was going through old threads yesterday and didn't find a single occurrence of that happening. Just dismissive attitudes, misrepresentations and insults, much like the post you just made.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 21 2015 10:50am

as i said, jacking off to mises.org articles isn't economics.
i'm fairly sure that i'm better read than you when it comes to (even libertarian) political philosophy anyways, stop pretending that you've ever actually read anything in the field and shove it.

This post was edited by Gastly on Nov 21 2015 11:06am

You don't actually know what substance is apparently. Give specific unbiased citations, results, and consequences and you have substance. Just saying "there are many who agree with me" isn't substance.

the reason this happens is because of what has happened on this sf any time someone engages you in legitamite discussions

we run into your brick wall of a thought process that isn't as spectacular as you make it out to be

...

like your thoughts on laws against collusion by employers to drive down wages


then you went on to strawman the arguments against tacit collusion spinning them as arguments that people have a right to be hired because that was absurd and easier to attack

you do this in about 100% of the actual discussions people have had with you btw which is why most regulars understand it to be a waste of time to engage you in serious discussions

nowadays when i see you engage newcomers with half a brain in discussions i just like to see how long they'll be mislead believing you can be reasoned with before they realize they are wasting their time

You want to have a more in depth conversation about school choice? Great.
Thats easily a winning and interesting topic for me.
Even skinned recognizes the failure of the rigid status quo and the failure of top-down federal measures like NCLB.

However, I was not met with further inquiry about the alternatives i brought up.
Instead it was completely dismissive attitudes, feigned ignorance, accusations of stealing education, pretending i only talked about privatization(skinned) or nothing at all(*cough* by you), and personal digs at libertarians..

Portability to choose other schools in some fashion is a nice option instead of kids getting stuck with whatever lousy public school they happen to live near.
There are a number of ways that can happen and it DOESN'T necessarily require complete privatization, not even from my POV.
I might be a staunch libertarian/ancap, but i'm not opposed to reforms that include the government in some way in a lesser/better capacity.
You give the families a tax credit/voucher etc and they can choose to go to a charter/private/public whatever. Instead we have guys like DeBlasio fighting tooth and nail against charters and other school options in major areas across the country.

We can also scrap crap like common core/NCLB that forces conformity on a national level instead of letting different schools and different localities compete and try different things.

How in depth should i even bother going when such bile is the response? i'm talking to myself at this point.

Do i really need to go over the importance of competition and innovation in a market?

Its not kooky or evil to support more freedom to choose/competition and more versatility among what can be offered.


Very mature.
Seriously i'm debating with children. What a waste of time.

Having a massive fundamental disagreement over what should be allowed and painting something in a different light that is true is not necessarily illegitimate or fallacious.
I see you are still caught up on that one single convo from over a year ago.

I fully realize many of my views are unpopular and often differ from what is currently in place. There is however plenty of reasoning behind them and i attempted to explain that reasoning.
Instead you want to dismiss it as fallacious and unreasonable..
My unwillingness to abandon my beliefs and reasoning due to you holding a different opinion does NOT indicate unreasonableness.

I advocate property rights and freedom of association/contract and you have a problem with that, particularly when it negatively effects your options when people don't want to hire you.

The quoted portion is an accurate statement and a legitimate line of questioning about banning no-poach agreements.
The rest of the convo did not go down as you imagine and claim.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Nov 21 2015 11:57am

Doubling down on the strawman was somewhat expected but im still dissappointed

You haven't shown it to be a strawman.
Which part is a strawman and why?

i'm not debating here.