The libertarian argument against public education (pushed by Cato, etc) is that public schooling is worse than private school systems, therefore we should be not spending public money on education, but rather shuffle those resources into vouchers and other ways to fund the private organizations offering private education.
They advocate for starving public education and giving those resources to private companies, which are able to selectively allow students through the guise of tuition. In addition to that, removing government standards allows for private education systems to teach "creationism vs evolutionism" as a "valid" scientific debate. Which is isn't. Same with climate change and all those other partisan talking points. Education shouldn't be wrapped up in a way that can be influenced by funders--do you think that the Kochs and DeVoses are not advocating for "education" that promotes their aspirations and biases? That's called indoctrination.
So yeah. Any libertarian who actively believes that we should get rid of public education in favor of private companies influenced by money needs to rethink their position. The free market isn't the panacea they claim it is.
There's very clearly work that needs to be done within the realm of public education. But giving the chalkboard over to people with deep pockets is a far cry from it.
That's still spending public money, just with less oversight.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
> If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.
> This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.
If you don't like this contract, you can vote to change it.
If you can't get enough people on board to change it and you still don't like it, you can leave.
As an example, my understanding is that the libertarian argument for why deregulation will not result in people being hurt by defective products would be something like:
People would not be harmed because corporations would be held accountable for their actions.
Corporations would be held accountable because people can take them to court.
People can take corporations to court because they can hire lawyers.
People can afford to hire lawyers because restrictions on licensing and education that constrain supply would be removed.
So preventing harm from deregulation would also require significant changes to the licensing and education of lawyers.
Currently it costs zero dollars to "hire" a lawyer in a class action against a company for a defective product. If a company has made a defective product there will probably be a class action and you will receive a small settlement. If you have been seriously injured eg by asbestos it also costs zero dollars to hire a lawyer, they work on contingency. I am totally in favor of reforming licensing laws, but if you have been seriously injured and you have a strong legal case, money is not a barrier to getting a lawyer.
Generally I think there is too much regulation and too much litigation, I don't think private litigation is a solution for regulation, I think market incentives are the solution. When there are obviously unsafe products on the market is worth looking deeper to see if consumers are willingly sacrificing safety for cost.
I was just listening to an interview with Deborah Blum on her new book, The Poison Squad, concerning the history of food safety regulations. It seems like most corporations have strong incentives to make defective products; bad products drive out good.
As for litigation, without regulations, you could only sue on the grounds that the corporation knowingly violated some "reasonable" standard of behavior.
One example that comes to mind is vinyl chloride in hairspray:
"The companies did not, however, immediately move to take the chemical out of hairspray. Their major fear seemed to be the possibility of lawsuits. In a January 1973 meeting, industry lawyers warned of the enormous potential legal liability:
""If vinyl chloride proves hazardous to health, a producing company's liability to its employees is limited by various Workmen’s Compensation laws. A company selling vinyl chloride as an aerosol propellant, however, has essentially unlimited liability to the entire U.S. population.""
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/the-crusa...
https://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/evidence/secrecy_pop02.html
I'm sure some are.
I'm also sure some are honest people who believe things at odds with what we know about market failures.
Here's a market-oriented (that is, based on the idea of market economies) critique of Libertarianism:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertar...
It's founded in, ultimately, game theory, with a lot about coordination problems and defection.
