How would a public school even work without a state? It would be either homeschooling or church schooling.
In any event, homeschooling and church schooling are not a replacement for higher education. You're not going to get engineers, lawyers, or doctors just from those things alone.
Even in our society, they are highly regulated. History has shown that without standards, schools could just teach kids anything so they couldn't be productive members of society. Meritocracy is important for that reason. But even then, the "non-state" argument from these people is ridiculous on its face.
Every society requires some level of bureaucracy to manage large groups of people. Corporations, businesses, or any large-scale organization operate the same way to ensure people actually work and do what they're supposed to do. This is just an observable fact of life. Treating the state, or any human organization really, as some kind of abstraction, instead of a real human relationship developed as a tool from centuries of experience of humanity struggling against its own social conditions, is how a lot of anarchists and libertarians reach a lot of their retarded conclusions about life and society in general.
Libertarians can't even make viable politics, but they want to lecture you about how society operates and how it ought to be. It's laughable, really.
Yes it is retard. You love your human chattel. The government had to ban it. There was no free market solution.
If the Union Army had just told the South to stop using slaves because libertarian philosophy says its unethical, they surely would have done so. If the kulaks had simply told their fellow farmers that political absenteeism is ethical and that political power is unethical, surely the Soviets would have never starved them to death. Hell, Franco should have just invited the CNT-FAI over for tea and traded with them; they would have just stopped killing Catholic priests! Surely, the intellectual genius of this man is unparalleled by no other. If Christ had simply told the Romans to live and act according to libertarian beliefs, they certainly would have never nailed him to a cross.
Surely the Melians failed because they simply could not persuade the Athenians on the practical application of libertarian ethics.
I'm not that much of a critic of Libertarianism, i'm just trying to work out how they would expect their society to play out. Open borders as a concept is very one-sided in first world nations, and as a citizen in one I don't want my heritage thrown by the wayside to try out some utopian economic system.
Asking libertarians to think systematically is like trying to teach a cat how fly an airplane. They can't even create a theory on how to reach their own society because they're more interested in being atomized individuals above all else. They're just cattle for the slaughterhouse.
Can you not egg him on on this particular matter please? See the below quote. I take him arguing on KF over him doing real "action" in real life. Since his methods for his ideal society is this:
I can't even egg the guy on. When you pressure him, he ignores you. It's typical of how he argues. Libertarians only know how to run away from problems because they don't have any ability to solve them. That's why he preaches about the evils of political power and considers absenteeism ethical. Cowardice is one of their primary virtues, and they couldn't be so egocentric without it. He's never going to do anything of note, like all libertarians, because they can't do anything but posture.
