civil disobedience

[Universe Prince]

It is good to bring up Ghandi , who was the master of the non-violence method.

His people were most effective when they were most disaplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?

Good question. I don't know.

Was Thoreau a Libertarian in sprit?

Heh. Possibly.

[kimba1]

several personally
and i believe a few people here said this also.

non-violence so far causes less fatality
remember this is fairly onesided and the situation ends fairly quick

violence tends to get drawn out and grow
and gives both parties excuse to keep fighting

[Rich]

>>There is no reason to think that schools with less government intrusion would not be held to standards.<<

I didn't mean to imply that at all. Take Hillsdale College for example. They've told the government to mind their own business and have been very successful. A friend on mine's son has received a football scholarship to Hilldale. He played with my son here. But that's different than an elementary or high school. The market would take care of the standards I suppose. which of course is better than government standards anyway.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The market would take care of the standards I suppose. which of course is better than government standards anyway.
=======================================
The government does not set standards for private schools, colleges and universities AT ALL.
These are set by accrediting agancies, such as SACS (Southern Association of College and Schools) There are five of these. As a rule, if a school is not approved by SACS or one of the others (Western, North Central, New England),then the feds will not loan money to students to attend said school.

BoB Jones University is unaccredited by any of the regional accreditation bodies, but their graduates  generally work in church-related positions. Whether Bob Jones is better or worse than Punxatawney State is anybody's guess. I don;t think I would hire a BJU grad for a pharmacy lab, but I don;t think they have degrees in hard sciences.

You are wrong to say that the government has standards. It has none, other than to rely on the regional bodies. It is typical of your minddset that you would think that "the market" would decide how qualified people are better than the government, because this is largely untrue. If you graduate from an unaccredited school, you are unlikely to be hired at all. At least by anyone who actually understands how education works in this country.

It is, of course, possible that an accounting major from Numbskull Private College of Numbers and Witchcraft might actually buy an accounting book and be the world's best accountant. Degrees are one thing and actual proficiency is another. But a degree in accounting would generally mean that the graduate had a better idea of what accounting is all about than someone who attended a place that merely called itself a college. The United States University of America has a very impressive-sounding name, but they will sell you any degree you might desire for a mere fraction of what a real university might charge, and you would not have to take a single class.

[Plane]

It is good to bring up Gandhi , who was the master of the nonviolence method.

His people were most effective when they were most disciplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?

Good question. I don't know.

That is not optional , it is the key .

If Gandhi had been persuasive to only a few Indians they could have all been ignored or locked up.

If his large number of followers had been less disciplined , every gathering would have become a riot and the harsh methods applied by the authorities would have seemed just.

Gandhi was appealing to the people of India and he was appealing to the people of England too , his voice was heard , his methods were effective , but without the large number of obviously peacefull and reasonable people at his back he could have been ignored.

There might be more Libertarians than we know , there might be even more potential Libertarians who don't yet know themselves. What a great nascent movement is possibly sleeping amoungst us we just don't know . Where is the voice of this multitude?


I think Threau and Tolstoy would have been great Libertarians , they are unfortunately not available for employment at present.

Libertarianism doesn't seem to lend itself to acceptance of a leader on a white horse , who they will obey , lacking this quality what sort of quality does Libertarianism have that can motiveat large numbers of people to disciplined action?

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

All violence consists in some people forcing others, under threat of suffering or death, to do what the do not want to do.
Leo Tolstoy

http://www.withfriendship.com/quotes/Author-Leo-Tolstoy.php

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/t/tolstoy/leo/t65wm/chapter3.html

[Stray Pooch]

Thanks for saying what I couldn't find the words to say Pooch.

I am never at a loss for words.   SO MANY wish I was!

[Stray Pooch]

often i hear that parents bright students are told that thier child must not excell to not hurt the feeling of other students.

Absolutely true.  Many TAG (Talented and Gifted) programs have been dissolved because school officials thought that other kids would feel inferior to those in the programs.  There is a very strong fear of competition in liberal society these days.  In Massachusetts, they have actually instituted the concept of "non-results oriented competition" - an oxymoron if ever I have heard one.  The idea is that everyone plays in the soccer game, but there is no recorded score.  Have the fun, they say, but nobody gets hurt feelings.  The academic world really does think that way.

[Stray Pooch]

That such things are ingrained, seems to me, is exactly why something like civil disobedience might be the only means to counter such things. Certainly they won't be changed by elections.

I agree, I'm just not sure that you can muster as much support as a more widely-accept concept of injustice would.

Political grandstanding not noble stands you say. Seems to me, like what King and Ghandi led, a libertarian civil disobedience could be both. Much would depend on getting people willing to spend the time defending these efforts as not petty protests against the so-called "contributing" to society, but as actually contributing to society.

Yes, but Ghandi and King were fighting against occupation in Ghandi's case and racial prejudice in both cases.  Either of those reasons for resistance are more justifiable, and therefore easier to sell, than just a concern about a relatively benign government imposing inappropriate controls.  It may be that in the end the evils of (at least our current brand of) public education are potentially worse than those other ills.  But few, I think, would see it that way.

Not successful in the short term you say. The first question that comes to mind is: What civil disobedience movement is ever genuinely successful in the short term? The second question that comes to mind is: What do you mean by "successful"? (No, not to rehash previous meaning arguments, just a straightforward question asking for clarification.) Not meaningful in the long term you say. I think that will depend the commitment of those involved and how it is defended. No one is claiming this will be easy.

Actually, I was talking about getting immediate sympathy and eventual results.  King's actions did that.  People noticed him quickly.  The bus boycott got results within about a year.  That's pretty good short-term return.  As to long-term, few could claim that the civil rights movement hasn't been successful.  Racism is not gone, nor will it ever be, but Jim Crow is gone to stay, and sufficient safeguards in hiring, housing and other laws to protect at least against institutional discrimination.  I think it is fair to say that the simple crossing of racial lines in the mid-twentieth century has lead to a point where far fewer people consider race when making decisions about relationships. 

This is not to say your criticisms are not valid. But I would say, in my perpetual optimism, that your criticisms are reasons for caution and consideration, but not for abandonment.

Well, many a world-changing revolutionary has said the same thing under such criticism.  After all, how huge does the issue of a stamp-tax seem.  In retrospect, it was pretty big.

[kimba1]

thanks pouch
I knew I can count on you to back me up.
I have no idea how to find a link for this ,but I remember talking about this many many times

[fatman]

I am never at a loss for words.   SO MANY wish I was!

Not that I wish you were at a loss for words, as you're usually very articulate, but I tried to follow your and UP's discussion on libertarianism recently, and gave up when I came to the conclusion that it was like trying to read "The Brothers Karamazov" of a message forum.

[Stray Pooch]

Not that I wish you were at a loss for words, as you're usually very articulate, but I tried to follow your and UP's discussion on libertarianism recently, and gave up when I came to the conclusion that it was like trying to read "The Brothers Karamazov" of a message forum.

LOL!!  That was not exactly one of my better moments, though I gather that some were very entertained.  The original name of this forum, you may recall, was almost "Tourament of Minds" until UP (IIRC) came up with the 3DHS.  That thread lived up to both names.  It was a tournament of two damn fine minds (if I do say so myself) beating the hell out of a particular horse. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Libertarianism doesn't seem to lend itself to acceptance of a leader on a white horse , who they will obey , lacking this quality what sort of quality does Libertarianism have that can motiveat large numbers of people to disciplined action?

Anarchists of the World, Unite! doesn't quite make it as a slogan.

KIng and the bus boycott worked as a valid protest because no one can claim that anyone lacks the right to not take the bus, or that everyone who does ride the bus and pays the same fare should have the right to select their seat.

Libertarianism has none of that. Refusal to pay taxes?

It just won't work.

[Universe Prince]

The government does not set standards for private schools, colleges and universities AT ALL.
These are set by accrediting agancies, such as SACS (Southern Association of College and Schools) There are five of these. As a rule, if a school is not approved by SACS or one of the others (Western, North Central, New England),then the feds will not loan money to students to attend said school.

What? Someone besides government can set education standards, and schools will actually try to meet those standards? Voluntarily? Astounding. (Okay, not really astounding. I'm just being sarcastic.)

[Universe Prince]

It is good to bring up Gandhi , who was the master of the nonviolence method.

His people were most effective when they were most disciplined , can American Libertarians manage this sort of thing?

Good question. I don't know.

That is not optional , it is the key .

I don't know if discipline is so much the key as a leader and spokesperson. In India, there was Ghandi. Here, there was Martin Luther King, Jr. The civil rights movement had a face in King, more so than any of the other notables involved. He spoke for the movement, and when some folks tried to violently protest, he said, no, that is not the way. Who would do this for libertarians? I have no idea.

[Universe Prince]

Many TAG (Talented and Gifted) programs have been dissolved because school officials thought that other kids would feel inferior to those in the programs.

Again, not surprised really, but I confess I don't understand. I mean, understand the reason given, but the reason seems, well, bass ackawards. How can students be encouraged to excel at learning if any hint of excellence is tamped down from the top?