Very complex issue.

Val, your arguments spin around: I want free money!

Without going into detail, I have a question for you.

Do you believe that everyone should be able to set up a business?

I wonder why so many people use private versions of those that are often cheaper to pay for, when a public, free to use version that they already paid for is available.

Since you cannot quantify happiness, my concern is only the maximization of human productivity, which is at least somewhat quantifiable and most people agree it should correlate with happiness.

I didn't say you would starve. But you'd be a lot less productive, which means you'd be a lot poorer.

Like I said, capital must be produced. If you ban most forms of capital investment like the cuban government does, there will be a lot less capital, which is what happens in cuba.

So you can go to an university for years and not know whether you like the service or not? Really?

For me it may take a day or two to realize if I like the education or not, but in no way it takes until I finish a 5 year career. Besides, I can draw from the experience of other people who have studied there.

It's like saying restaurants can't be private because you don't know whether you like a meal or not until after you ordered it, and then you have to pay for it whether you like it or not.

This is like saying houses can't be private because you can throw the shoe in the garbage when you realize you don't like it, but not the house.

Sure it does. Your feet and walking style adapt to the type of shoes you're wearing. If you feel like you're wasting your time at the university, maybe you shouldn't be going to class there for a full year.

But it really doesn't matter because the same argument applies to so many other things that are private and work great.

So does getting a haircut. Besides, you can always study online.

Of course it does. People in different parts of the world use different types of shoes. As the best type of shoes are popularized, they spread to different regions and so now you can get pretty much any shoe anywhere.

Try applying your reasoning to food. It's heavily dependant on cultural background, yet the market works just fine.

Really these are just random ideas you came up with that don't mean anything as it regards to the private vs public provision of education. You're gonna have to do better than that.

Might want to check your facts.

The principles were not libertarian, they were Chicago school economic principles. Libertarian principles would not have allowed for a dictator so either you want to discuss Chicago school economics or you don't.

The one person ITT who seems to care most about this is you. You want to label Chilean policies as libertarian. Why not simply call the Chicago school economic policies (enected by a dictator). That would be accurate.

Agai with the labeling, why are you so hung up on what people "are"?

There was no Communism in Eastern Germany, merely Socialism.

The Chicago school of economics was a free market school, primarily designed by Milton Friedman, a libertarian, so you could accurately call the policies of the school libertarian, so I disagree with you there. But saying that a brutal dictator who enacted polices advised by the school makes that dictator a libertarian is blatantly dishonest.

Also, I believe the economic policies were instrumental in bringing an end to Pinochet's rein, as did Milton Friedman, so Chicago school economics did not allow for dictatorship. Quite the opposite.

you are wrong, it wasnt the free market or the school vouchers. it was people protesting in the street, the riots, the armed organizations, etc.

I dont wonder its because the public version is awfully unfunded.

well if you care about maximazing GDP then there isnt much discussion we can have since I think that is an awful indicator of how goods things are, even the UNDP ratings are much much better than that.

ok.

well I cant really tell how good the education Im getting is tbh, I just know its good because my shcool has the reputation as being the best one in the country.
too bad that of the 10000 education establishments only 100 or so have a reputation, the other 9900 dont have that advantage.
You are right that I cant know how good a meal is only after I eat it, thats why its necessary for the state to put some minimun health regulations.
However if I eat an untasty meal then I will only eat an untasty meal once, if I go to a bad school I will waste much more than 30 mins of my life.

not really, I can know if I like the house, but then again you are correct that some regulations is required( hint: building codes )

The problem is that Im probably a bad example, because I go to one of the two law schools in Santiago that has a good reputation that has 50+ years.
Also think about the average 7 year old student not me.

Maybe online education will change the paradigm and will make my whole argument invalid( of course the state will still need to spend a lot of money on computers and teaching kids how to use them but it would be a completely different kind of state intervention) but we are not quite there yet.

sorry, what I meant was cultural capital not cultural background.

this is true, there are small difference but still important, true libertarians wouldnt have bailed out the banks or the right wing press.

edit: Lirva still hasnt commented why a freer market hasnt brought democracy to countries in Asia.

Questions for val:

What is the structural difference between the Private and Public sector?

What is the one tool available to people that enable them to allocate their resources as efficiently as possible? What is the mechanism from which this tool is generated?

Which sector is more efficient at allocating resources to where they will be most productively used? Private or Public?

Do you think it is fair for people to be forced (with the penalty of being put in a box) to pay a significant proportion of their salary to fund a centralized force? How is this unlike the Mafia?

To summarize MissleDog's entire presence on this thread:

Pinochet supported free markets
All libertarians are evil murderers

Seriously, the Pinochet dictatorship killed/tortured/disappeared 30000, looted the country, destroyed the economy "experimenting" with libetarianism, fouled the eco-system, and violently suppressed civil society for decades. And you imagine life under Allende was worse than that?

BTW, there was no such thing as "Socialist Chile". A Socialist Party candidate, who only got 31% of the vote, and operated 100% within the framework of the existing capitalist constitution does not make a country socialist. Allende's administration wasn't around long enough socialize all production anyway. Pinochet's dictatorship was much more socialized than Vicuña's administration. Does that mean that Pinochet was a socialist too? Because Pinochet refused to undo Allende's nationalization of the crucial copper industry, and refused to undo the land redistributions that Vicuña initiated. Which were the only two sectors of the economy that the libertarians didn't utterly destroy under Pinochet. Well iraise44, do you think it's fair that 30000 people were "forced": as in rounded up, put into the soccer stadium "box", and tortured, murdered, and disappeared by a capitalist "centralized force"? How is capitalism unlike the Mafia? I mean, you do realize that it was the capitalists who interfered in Chile, correct? That the "THE STATE" used it's CIA to initiate this government interference? That Nixon and the CIA forced Chile to follow the Chicago Boy's "experiments". And that the capitalists were the one's "putting people in boxes", don't you? LOL no dude. I posted several linkees regarding this alleged Chilean "Miracle". But you do make a couple of good points.

First of all, do youz guyz go to a special school or something to learn Libertarian Math? Because the uniform consistency of these epic logic failures is impressive. No I'm not saying all libertarians are evil murderers. ZOMG, it's like talking to children. If I said a train arrives at 7:10, I bet a libertarian would start whining: MD says all trains arrive at 7:10, blah, blah, blah. It's both LOLtastic and quite exasperating. It's that literal mindedness, to a fault (INPT much, LOL).

How many times have I blogged: just because someone mentions that libertarians champion the "right" of racists to discriminate, doesn't mean they are saying all libertarians are racists. And here you go making the same exact epic logic failure in just 3 lines. Classic!

And second of all, what I'm getting at with LivrA is that capitalists don't take responsibility for their actions. I mean, was Pinochet a Chicago School Capitalist, or was Pinochet a Austrian School Capitalist... who cares? Nobody is going to deny he was some kind of capitalist, are they? Nobody is going to deny that the CIA installed him to do capitalist things are they? Nobody is going to deny what he did, are they?

The point is, that capitalists, including Libertarian Brand Capitalists, and including Chicago School Libertarian Brand Capitalists, always count the deaths, tortures, and complete lack of freedom that Communist dictators carry out against their victims against the ideology of Communism itself... but they never count the deaths, tortures and complete lack of freedom that libertarian capitalist dictators carry out against their victims against their ideology of capitalism.

And in poker, we call that "shooting an angle". Notice how LivrA is still refusing to respond to OP's original questions (below). BTW, the civilized answers are "YES" and "NO". But with libertarians, like always, YMMV...

hooray!! questions!!!

The private sector operates looking for a profit, the public sector operates looking to accomplish whatever mission it has.

your question supposes there is just one tool in the first place. I dont know the answer to the question yet, I do know that is definetly not unregulated capitalism since that leads to innocent children suffering and ending up in sweatshops.

The private sector of course, except that I dont think productivity is an end by itself, its only a mean to satisfy human needs, sure the private scctor may generate more wealth overall but what about the kids on the sweatshops? I prefer generating less wealth overall without child labor.

your question presupposes that all the salary is well earned in the first place. But yes I think its fair that people are forced to pay a significant proportion og their salary to fund a centralized force, the main difference between that and the mafia is that the mafia isnt an institution that can eventually be controlled by the people to do things like free public education, universal healthcare, regulate labor conditions, etc.

the awesum legacy of Chicago skul reforms continues...

Chile: Third Blackout In As Many Days
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_982074.html

SANTIAGO, Chile — Chile is suffering its third major electricity blackout in as many days, prompting the energy minister to call for strong new investments in the country's energy network.

Saturday's blackout was the worst, affecting more than half of the country's 17 million people. That was followed Sunday by a blackout around Chile's port city of Valparaiso. On Monday, much of northern Chile lost power. The reasons remain unclear, but failures in the transmission grid are suspected.

Chile's energy grids aren't even connected, much less modernized. Updating them is now seen as a major government priority.

Energy Minister Rodrigo Alvarez told Radio Cooperativa on Monday that the companies responsible will be fined.

But the busing system still rocks!