Ammar, I can see your point, but what’s your beef with us Libertarians? You mention us only once in your column. How do you figure we are opposed to the idea? We Libertarians are not anti-tax, we are for fairness in taxation. We are opposed to taxing income from labor, which was never meant to be taxes in the first place. We are opposed to excessive taxation of any kind that would inhibit economic growth and thus draw the economy into a recession.

We are also against providing free education to illegal immigrants who contribute nothing to this country and who are only an unnecessary burden. What about Americans who work hard, pay their taxes and want a better life for their own kids? Don’t they have rights anymore? Hey, sorry your home country took so long to take notice of the need for free quality public education, but damn! Give us Americans a break. You can only get away with making us feel guilty for so long. After that, we’ll just say “Screw ya! You’re on your own!”

Again, what exactly is your beef with Libertarians?

Right on, Ammar!

To 12:11 am: I have no personal beef with libertarians. It’s just that some of them do tend to categorize issues as Good or Evil, and there is hardly a middle ground when it comes to libertarians. As for public education in the UAE. The only reason I mentioned it was to remind the reader that wealth redistribution has great benefits when applied properly. I don’t know where you got that I was trying to make anyone feel guilty!

To sum up: No beef and No Guilt trip just trying to prove my point about the initiative.

You bring up a good point in explaning that universities are paid for by tax dollars. However, that is also the stem of the problem of Martin’s proposal. Why should the university have the ability to say, “yes you’ve already paid your taxes, but we’ve decided that we need to take more of your hard earned money to pay for other people’s kids to go to school”? Many of the people who oppose this proposal don’t oppose it because of a political belief (although there’s nothing wrong with that), they oppose it because there are major problems with the proposal. This proposal does not take into account whether the student pays for their own tuition, how many college age children are in the family, or how old the student is (students who are juniors and sophomores this year undoubtedly won’t see any benefit from these tuition hikes, but will have to pay them anyway).

“And it [redistribution of wealth] is something that should not be feared, as long as it is kept under control”. I agree with you on that point, but once redistribution of wealth is in the university’s hands, it’s no longer under control.

Ammar, We don’t give a crap what the folks in the UAE are doing. This is a University of Wisconsin issue. Biddey Martin is attempting to directly tax US citizens without representation. Read Amercian history. We forcefully object to these kinds of dictated money grabs by pusillanimous potentates. We really object when they are couched in the deceitful slobering rhetoric of “helping the poor”! It isn’t moral for a dictator to arbitrarily steal the hard earned possesions from one group to give to another. We have revolutions to stop this kind of crap!

This Nation was founded and sustained by people that would not and will not submit to the diktats of kings, komrades, or cardinals alike. Our President showed his contempt for those core American beliefs, its founding Fathers, and every citizen when he recently prostrated himself before the Saudi King. Today, he is denying that he deeply bowed, trying but failing to hide his personal reverence for all things Islam and clear contempt for our American traditions and values. Biddy Martin is no different, showing clear contempt for the WI State legislature and their legal authority to determine taxation through representation.

The time has come to take a stand, fellow Citizens. The time has come…..

I agree with almost all of this article. Making it harder for kids from poor families to go to school isn’t doing society any good. However, I really do believe engineering and business majors should get a break on this. Non-engineering majors and non-business majors pay 0% of the current differentials because they take 0% business/engineering classes. Why should bus/eng majors pay 100% of the differential for L&S which they take 50% of the classes from? I understand all of this money isn’t going to L&S but as a Soph in engineering how on earth will I benefit at all from this? It would more fair to reduce the initiative for people who already are paying more

Ammar, that’s no justification for singling out Libertarians. The guy has a valid concern. Liberals and conservatives are the ones who have been running the show since the US became a country in 1776. Just look at the damage done by them.

Libertarians don’t capriciously categorize everything as absolutism. I don’t know where you got this idea. You need to talk to some Libertarians and find out what they really believe, dude.

“Leave it to them to turn an innocuous and practical initiative like Chancellor Biddy Martin’s Madison Initiative for Undergraduates into a new battlefront between those who value freedom and self-reliance and those pesky Marxists who just love leeching off the rich.”

The principles of Marxism put into practice killed millions of people in the 20th century. Calling that “pesky” is quite a mischaracterization.

“First of all, one must realize wealth redistribution is something that is prevalent in most aspects of American civil society. And it is something that should not be feared, as long as it is kept under control.”

What principle will you use to keep it under control once you accept that an individual can be sacrificed to the “common good?” Once you abandon moral principles what’s to stop the next incursion on liberty and the next one and the next one? Won’t these too be just another attempt to inject ideology into a practical issue?

“We are losing faculty to other universities that are providing higher pay, benefits and other incentives. And the only practical way to stop the loss of faculty is to raise tuition in order to improve what our university can offer.”

Why not just force faculty to work for less? Sure, it’s not practical now but it’s certainly acceptable on Marxist principles and maybe some future “leader” will decide it is.

“First, without ability-based contribution, these essential programs will not be accessible to everyone. And second, if public education programs cease to exist, those who will be priced out of an education will not be the only ones hurting.”

In other words, if we don’t force people to pay for things that are valuable they will cease to exist? This is just the opposite of the truth. In every area of life where freedom is allowed to function people do NOT get priced out. Computers get more affordable, etc. If education were allowed to operate freely instead of confiscating citizens’ wealth there would be an abundance of educational options at all price levels. But who can compete when citizens are forced to pay for public schools?

“Hence, even though the affluent might not seem like they are getting their money’s worth, they are in fact the people who benefit the most from the advancement of this society as a whole.”

The issue is not whether they benefit; the issue is whether their money belongs to them. If you can’t persuade people of your alleged benefits, by what right do you have to force them?

“In fact, the society as a whole will be harmed by the lack of a well-educated workforce.”

In fact a society is harmed by the lack of proper moral and political principles. In fact society is nothing more than a group of individuals and what individuals need to survive is freedom. A well-educated workforce cannot be commanded into existence by force. Freedom is a prerequisite to achieving any value including education.

Ammar, what exactly motivated you to write this crappy article? And why do you suddenly get a wild hair up your bum about libertarians? They don’t even control anything, though I think we’d all be better off if they did. If you want to solve a lot of problems, then take away the federal government’s power to tax our incomes. You’ll take home more money, even be able to pay for your college education. Let ‘em tax consumption instead and be happy with it. Taxing income, yeah that was a really smart move! All it did was give Congress carte blanche to do whatever they want, and seldomly anything that benefits us. That’s why we military bases overseas that we don’t need. That’s why whoever is in the Oval Office can declare war and send troops anywhere in the world on a moment’s notice.

Yeah, and while that’s going on, you rant about libertarians, how bad things are here and in your own country. There are solutions, if you can just pry yourself away from all the Koolaid drinkers for awhile.

Look, Ammar just likely confused Jim Allard’s views and columns with those of other libertarians.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

^^There is much MUCH MUCH less redistribution of wealth in Dubai than there is here.

Most of you are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

If the costs go up to run the University then the money must come from somewhere. Don’t forget, a major portion of the dollars used are from private donors. The state portion has gone down year after year.

And rather than complain about what this is or isn’t. What is YOUR plan on how to fund the needs? Don’t just complain about what you don’t like about the plan, offer up some suggestions on how to accomplish the mission in another manner.

Maybe UW doesn’t need to be undertaking construction project after construction project. They are out of money? Could have fooled me.