What do you think of Libertarianism?

I find some interesting aspects in the philosophy involved in Libertarianism. Their notions of freedom and limited government are especially interesting. I see other aspects that concern me.

What are your views?


________________________________

 

Libertarians seen to be almost everywhere on the political spectrum - from social liberal small government and fiscally conservative to social and fiscally conservative small government types. Common point seems to be smaller government involvement!

Any thoughts on the Republican Liberty Caucus? Republican Liberty Caucus Home

 

I am sympathetic to their concerns, particularly on social issues. I really don't think the government should be that involved with social matters.


That being said, I am not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to economic matters. In my view, government can play a valuable role in the economy, regulating for safety, providing public works, education, etc.

I see libertarianism in the same way I see communism--great in theory, impossible in practice.

 

I think that Libertarians are an evil cabal in cahoots with Republicans and conservatives.

 

I suppose I’m probably best classified as a ‘libertarian leaning’ conservative. I can certainly agree with leaner and more efficient government (what taxpayer would want more of their tax money wasted?), but that leaner and more efficient government might endanger someone’s favorite social program, so it will be tough to make happen! We get plenty of promises to ‘cut the fat’, but seldom does it really happen.:sour:

 

Since this a DL board, it might be interesting to pose the question:
"What would the ideal DL school look like, from a libertarian perspective?"

First, the school would be free from onerous government licensing rules. In a libertarian world, anyone could start a DL university.

Second, the school would not get any revenue from government financial aid. In a libertarian world, everyone would pay for their own education. Merit scholarships would be OK, as long as they were privately funded.

Finally, the school would set tuition based on free-market principles. They wlould charge only what people were willing to pay.

So are there any DL schools that operate completely free of government licensing, don't get government financial aid, and only charge what the market will bear?

Actually yes -- there is at least one DL school that fits all of these criteria, and is also very commonly discussed here at degreeinfo.

It's called "MUST University".

 

Well, I thought it was humorous, while relevant to the DL concerns of this board.

But we could put it a different way. In a truly libertarian society, would a school like MUST University face any barriers or restrictions to its operations? Would people be completely free to obtain and advertise MUST University degrees, with no restrictions other than the judgements of the markets ?

If there is a market for MUST University degrees, then from a libertarian perspective, why should the government interfere in that market? It's not hard to find libertarians who support the legalization of marijuana, or prostitution -- and from that perspective, legalization of MUST University doesn't seem like a particularly radical step.

 

For example, the Cato Institute, which is a very well-known and influential libertarian "think tank", has put it like this:

From this perspective, if MUST University wants to sell degrees, and if people want to buy them, the government should stay out of it.

So enough with the MUST University jokes. From the libertarian perspective, MUST University is simply fulfilling a market need.

 

"MUSTians" I love it!

 

CalDog: So are there any DL schools that operate completely free of government licensing, don't get government financial aid, and only charge what the market will bear?

Actually yes -- there is at least one DL school that fits all of these criteria, and is also very commonly discussed here at degreeinfo.

It's called "MUST University".

Ted Heiks: Oh, no! Not another MUST thread!

 

Not exactly -- because employers already have that right.

In the US, various states have various laws, enforced to various degrees, about the use of credentials issued by degree mills. But all of the existing degree mill laws have one thing in common: they only apply to people who advertise those degrees; i.e. job applicants. They don't apply to employers.

Employers are already free to hire anyone that they like, regardless of degree. If you want to hire someone with an RA degree, that's perfectly legal. If you want to hire someone with an NA degree, that's legal too. If you want to hire someone with only a high school diploma, or even a high school dropout, that is also legal. And if you want to hire someone with a MUST University degree, even that is legal.

It may not be a good idea to knowingly hire someone with a degree that appears to be bogus, but employers are perfectly free to do it.

 

So what would libertarians do differently? They would remove any barriers or restrictions on the use of degree mill credentials on the part of job applicants. It would become perfectly legal, in all US jurisdictions, for a job applicant to advertise a credential from MUST University. And that would be different from the present situation.

In practice, it seems likely that decriminalization of bogus degrees would result in a flood of cheap, worthless credentials from schools like MUST, Almeda, Belford, Rochville, etc. on the job market. For many people (perhaps most people), this would not seem like an improvement. But from a libertarian perspective, it would be an improvement, because there would be more freedom and less government regulation.

 

LOL! +1 for CalDog.

 

There is no easy or convenient way to look up and compare all of the degree use laws in all US jurisdictions. However, your description of Oregon law is only partially valid, and I suspect this would be true of at least some other jurisdictions as well.

Oregon does allow some unaccredited degrees to be advertised, if a disclaimer is attached. However, this rule applies only to unaccredited degrees from schools that have legal authorization to operate from some other US or foreign jurisdiction -- e.g. a state-approved but unaccredited school in California.

On the other hand, a school that issues degrees without any legal authority is defined as a "degree mill" or "diploma mill" under Oregon law. And such degrees are completely illegal for use in Oregon, with or without a disclaimer.

Since MUST University has no known legal authority to issue degrees from any jurisdiction, it falls into this category. At present, its degrees are flatly illegal for use in Oregon (and probably some other states as well). So yes, there would be a meaningful change (decriminalization) in the status of MUST University degrees (at least in some states) in a libertarian ideal world.

I suggested that in theory, a libertarian would have no objections to MUST University's operations, or to the advertisement of credentials from MUST University. You seem to be confirming that this interpretation is, in fact, correct.