With news that German state universities have dropped tuition fees, I think it’s worth keeping in context that traditional education models are dated and less than ideal means of facilitating learning. If that’s the case, then it seems the purpose has less to do with treating students as the customer and more with churning out a mass-produced product (the students) for corporate consumption.
So not supporting the Likud Party agenda, like the majority of Israelis don’t, means one is not “standing with Israel,” is against against the common interest of the Israeli people, and in fact is a bigot. Is that right, Ted Cruz?
As Jeffrey Tucker more neatly explains, the value of a bitcoin is imputed from the payment transaction system of the network.
But, as soon as you institute a ‘State,’ an organization whose agents assume control over a particular territory and over the lives of the people within the territory, no matter how ‘limited’ that State organization, what about those people within that territory who disagree with that organization’s control or monopoly of various ‘services,’ or its method of collecting payments for such ‘services’?
— Scott Lazarowitz, “True Libertarianism is Principled and Can’t Be Compromised”
I would turn the question back around. What of people who fundamentally reject the predominant organizations providing rights enforcement in a stateless society? Would the author support coercively pre-empting the enforcement of Marxist conceptions of rights, property, and freedom? If so, how can the author necessarily reject the notion of the state yet support non-state organizations excluding the enforcement of rules of conduct that don’t conform to the prevailing view. With respect to the hypothetical Marxist, wouldn’t that be monopolizing?