Now that I'm sufficiently scared, where do you live, so I know where to move away from?
LOL - point taken. I guess my point is that shit like that probably happens all over (not just where I live), it's just that we never hear about it. It doesn't change the fact that we truly *are* less likely to be killed by a terrorist attack than in an automobile accident, or by drowning, or by taking aspirin (I can't remember if it was this article, or another, but someone pointed out the true fact that more people die each year from OTC drug overdoses and drug interactions than are killed by acts of terrorism).
I guess I just wanted to make the point that there's a reason why it's true that terrorism isn't really that likely to happen, and it's not because terrorists aren't really that dangerous.
Yes, I completely agree with you that it's a tradeoff. Like I said, I would like to not have to wonder if every weird 'click' I hear during a phone conversation is some FBI agent listening in on me.
I would like to believe that the threat of terrorism is a myth, and that we're really not in any significant danger.
Look - I'm not going to say this in an attempt to convince you of anything. I could just be some random self-important interweb liar for all you know. I only want to explain why I feel the way I do. I work for the DoD and a while ago, I was 'volun-told' to be a force protection (FP) representative for my unit - basically, I had to start going to local anti-terrorism working group meetings. Normally, these are pretty benign affairs - practice your FP posture, know what happens if the force protection condition (FPCON) is elevated, etc.
Well, a little while ago, some MI folks started coming to our meetings and briefing us on specific threats, as in "Here's a picture of a guy who teaches people how to blow stuff up, and he's a native of this country, and lives in your town, and he recently went to a foreign country and met with these guys (more pictures) who are Islamic fundamentalists with known ties to known violent agents who have a history of blowing themselves up. We think they're waiting for a group of natives to escort them into the country to this area to carry out their mission."
It was a sobering experience, to say the least. Before I started hearing all this stuff, I kind of figured that it was all being blown out of proportion, too. But, based on my experience, it's not.
Like I said, I don't care if you are convinced by my (intentionally vague) story. I just wanted to give you my side of it.
Did you miss the part of the fucking article that says they used it for personal gain and not for anything to do with national security?
Um, yeah I missed that part. Mostly because it exists in your own head, not in the actual text of the article. Seriously, I read the article pretty thoroughly before I even started posting. You sounded so certain that you convinced me that I missed something the first time, so I went back and read it again. And again.
Which part of the article was that again? Show me a quote. And remember, I'm not wearing the same tinfoil hat that you are, so it should probably be a pretty clear, unambiguous quote about how specific FBI agents used private information obtained illegally for their own, specific personal gain, and it would help if the quote said what that gain was - you know, fraud, blackmail, etc.
I asked:
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.
and you responded:
Respectfully, I submit it was me, you, and every other American, as our collective rights and liberties have been squashed even more.
OK. Let me repeat the part of my original question that you ignored: one actual, real concrete example
I am still waiting.
Since the first rule of National Security Letters is not to talk about National Security Letters, then ya, it will be a good while till you hear an actual example. So, to paraphrase: "Uhh... I... Uhh... I can't think of anything off the top of my head.. uhh... aahhh... hm.... IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!"
That about covers your argument, then.
Or did you mean that surveillance, eavesdropping, searching and financial snooping aren't violations of fundamental, inalienable rights? Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Look - are you American? If not, you're forgiven for being ignorant of the concept of fundamental, inalienable human rights. If you *are*, then you have no excuse - you should understand the basis of our government before you criticize it.
I won't argue. If we can't agree on what's fundamental, there's nothing really to discuss. OK, that's fine. Just know that what you characterize as a "disagreement" is, in reality, something called
"you're wrong"
BTW, can I have your SSN? No. Oh... wait. OMG!!! You just totally disproved my point! Because I'm not willing to give my SSN to an anonymous stranger over the internet, I'm completely wrong about this whole debate!
Look - I understand your problem with the government surveilling private individuals. Despite all my sarcasm, I really would prefer that the government butt out of my life as much as possible. That includes butting out of healthcare, education, the free market, keeping an eye on me and my private life, etc. I believe that government should do what ONLY government *can* do. And national security is one of those things that *only* government can do.
So, as unfortunate as it is, I'm willing to accept a restriction on one of my DERIVED rights (the right to privacy) in order to protect one of my FUNDAMENTAL rights (the right to life).
I understand that we all mistrust the government and its agents here. Question Authority (but not mine), and Stick it to the Man (but I'm not him) - right?
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.
Your federal government buggers up the school system and universal education and you win by taking it away from them. Um. Yes?
Why should we accept failure and fraud from the government? Because it's "The Government?" We don't accept continued failure from private organizations, so why is it OK if our government screws things up? I think you have way too much faith in the establishment, and your anti-privatization argument is laughable:
All privatisation does is strip profits out of the system and adds a layer of B$ marketing which you have to pay for. So, marketing is merely fraud and waste, and you're worried about taking money out of "the system?" Are you for real?
Education is a serious matter, and it deserves thoughtful and rational consideration. Please, examine your assumptions.
The founder, Jarret Cohen, runs the internet equivalent of the inside of a toilet stall. Despite this, he says:
"I want it to be a place where people can express themselves freely, just as if they were to go to a town square and say whatever brilliant or foolish thoughts they have," I think he meant to say:
"I want it to be a place where people can express themselves freely and anonymously, just as if they were to go into a toilet stall with a pen, and write whatever crap they wanted to on the wall while they were taking a dump."
The difference between the town square and Jarret's site is that, in the town square, people see your face and know who you are. TFA shows a few examples of stuff that wouldn't happen "in the town square":
in the Yale student's case, one person threatened to sexually violate her.
And in the town square: "I'm gonna rape ya', bitch!" *immediately gets beaten up*
One chat thread included a sexual joke about a female Holocaust victim.
And in the town square: "Hah! I fucked the dead Jew in the oven!" (or whatever) *immediately gets beat up*
Another Yale law student learned a month ago that her photographs were posted in an AutoAdmit chat that included her name and graphic discussion about her breasts. She was also featured in a separate contest site
And in the town square: "HEY! LOOK AT THESE TITTIES!!! HEEEEYYY!! TITTIES!! BIGGUNS!! LOO-" *immediate kick to the groin*
Jarret Cohen, the founder says:
"People would not have as much fun, frankly, if they had to worry about employers pulling up information on them."
Yep, that all looks like a bunch of fun. Like I said, toilet stall.
Look - Jarret claims that he and his cofounder are:
"very strong believers in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas . . . and almost never censor content, no matter how abhorrent it may be," ... then they refuse to hold people accountable for what they say, and claim that they're doing something noble? This site is the equivalent of writing on a shitter wall. Any employer who uses this for background on a potential employee probably called "Susie, for a good time" at one point in his or her life.
Why dont we... not pander to the test mentality... stop comparing our entire populations abilities to the abilities of only the best of other countries... just accept the fact that a lot of people are just not cut out to being college grads
And let's just stop pandering to the "mortality rate" mentality for doctors, and stop comparing our population's mortality rate to those of other developed countries, and just accept the fact that American doctors are just not cut out to prevent death as much as those in other developed countries!
While we're at it, we should also stop comparing the abilities of our car mechanics to the best of other car mechanics, stop pandering to the "gee, I wish my car would run" mentality and just accept the fact that some car mechanics are just not cut out to fix cars as well as others.
... Look: We, as a nation of parents decided (I guess) that the education of our children ought to be entrusted to the government, and that we're willing to pay a lot of money for it. The system that the government created, and the teachers that this system hires have produced alarmingly mediocre results despite our disproportionately large bill. When they've asked for more money, they got it. When they asked for different racial/ethnic kinds of teachers and administrators (stating that this was the "real" problem), they got it. (Look at the Washington D.C. and Philadelphia school districts) And what were the results? No improvement.
Why are we so accepting of this blatant failure and fraud? If this happened in any other industry, we, as the people that foot the bills, are (or should be) up in arms!
The anti-testing, anti-standards crowd says that the objective standards that teachers consistently fail to improve are invalid. Well, that's really convenient. Not meeting the standards? Lower them, or declare them invalid! Problem solved!
I think it's time we faced the fact that we've been defrauded by the government, and take back the education of our children.
Why dont we have our students actually learn in school and not pander to the test mentality which has proven to be ineffective and misleading
I'm just curious... You wouldn't happen to be referring to the whole "multiple intelligences" theory, would you?
I know. That's really the issue. You can either raise your family, or make sure they have enough to eat, but not both completely with the way things are now.
Telecommuting, and maybe more flex hours would be great - I mean, maybe if you stop socializing kids into the 8 hour, 9-5 workday, pretty soon all the new companies about a decade later have flex hours and work-from-home options. That's great for industries that can do that. Things like software engineering companies come immediately to mind. Lazy coders don't like getting out of bed before 1100 anyways. Even factories could possibly do something like that - with a large enough employee base, you work when you can, and as long as every machine is covered by an employee 24/7 (or however long the factory's open), you're good.
But then there are the jobs that you just *gotta* work 8 hour shifts - mostly service-industry, like McDonald's...
Hm. Maybe working at McDonald's will always suck, and there's no way to get around it.
My point is that there exists a model to do privately what we now solely entrust to the government to do for our education system. But you bring up an interesting thought.
Our healthcare system isn't perfect, I agree. But it's not lack of privatization that's the problem - it's the economic insanity that socialization introduces that causes the inefficiency you pointed out.
Look - here's some econ 101: Desires and needs are mostly limitless. Our capacity for production is not. Normally, price gives us that balance between unlimited want and limited production. I wouldn't charge too much more than most people are willing to pay for, say, an apple, because before long, nobody would be buying apples from me (because somebody else would set up shop next door and sell them cheaper). I also can't realy charge less than it costs me to provide you the apples (if apples are the only things I sell) because, well, I gotta eat, too (and not just apples).
Price is an indicator of an underlying reality: it's the balance point between the scarcity of a commodity, and the strength of our demand for it. Artificially raising or lowering prices doesn't change that underlying reality. For example, if the government said that I couldn't charge more than $1 per apple, it wouldn't change how much you want apples, and it certainly wouldn't change how much time and money it takes me to provide you those apples.
So, how does this tie into healthcare? Well, the problem is really twofold. First, government health programs typically reimburse healthcare providers a fraction of the actual cost of the healthcare they're providing. The intent of such programs is to provide "accessible health care to all!" But the artificial lowering of the price of healthcare (paid by the taxpayer) to the recipients of Medicare and Medicaid doesn't change the reality of how much it costs to provide high-quality care, and to pay for the research of new drugs and medical technologies. It simply pushes the excess cost to the paying customers: the private insurance companies. These private insurance companies now have to foot the bill to pay the shortfall from Medicare and Medicaid payouts. As a result of the increased cost to the private insurance companies, those same private companies imposed draconian "payout" schemes to healthcare providers (modeled after Medicare and Medicaid's systems) so that clinics and hospitals then had to fight for every dollar they billed.
The healthcare industry circled their wagons and put a ridiculous premium on their time and resources, just to keep them in business. Here's a perfect example of this: Going to the doctor with the sniffles probably costs your insurance company about the same as going there with a broken leg, minus the cost of putting on the cast. In fact, some of the cost of your "sniffles" visit is probably going to help pay for the shortfall of what Medicare doesn't pay for the guy with the broken leg!
To compound these problems, you, as an individual, don't see any of this cost - it's all a $25 copay and your regular annual premiums. If you had to pay this full price, you'd probably wait a week or two to see if your sniffles went away before paying a couple hundred bucks to be told, "Take 2 Advil, drink lots of water, and get plenty of sleep." The most powerful form of economic rationing - self-rationing - is destroyed by Medicare and Medicaid and the insurance industry that follows the government's lead.
Finally, none of this artificial price wrangling even acknowledges that there are only so many doctors, and only so many hours in the day, and that the time you take up with your sniffles means that someone with a broken leg - or cancer! - has to wait longer to see a doctor.
That's the true price of "affordable healthcare for all!"
Anyway, my point is that the the education system could benefit from privatization, and that there's a model in practice right now - JCAHO - that works to accredit private healthcare organizations, and provides safe, world-class healthcare - not that our healthcare system is perfect. Your factoid shows the dark side of socialized medicine. It's not an argument against privatization - it's an argument *for* it.
So... Your wife's three-month experience at Sylvan amounted to, "Sylvan is a rip-off" and therefore it logically follows that the whole industry is crap?
No, I don't think so. But to be fair, my own, singular good experience isn't "evidence" that supports privatization either.
But, look - put your wife's experience aside. It's obvious that it works. Why is it still in business if it doesn't? Your wife's Sylvan was bad, mine was great. So there isn't a consistent standard. But that's what accreditation gets you - adherence to a standard across the board.
Look at healthcare organizations in the states - they are private organizations, independently accredited by a private third-party organization. And the result is the safest, highest quality healthcare in the world. So the independent accreditation model can work for healthcare.
I agree, we're missing something, but I don't think we're going to find it in "other cultures."
The solution is easy - privatize school accreditation, just like how our hospitals do it with JCAHO. This accreditation organization would be in charge of inspecting every aspect of a given school. Schools not compliant with standards would be shut down. Once that infrastructure has been in place long enough to work out the kinks, start privatizing education.
When I worked for Sylvan Learning Centers, I sort of gamed out in my head how much a family would have to spend (in time and money) if their child received their entire education at Sylvan - the answer works out to be something like 2 or 3 days a week in school (or a few hours a day, 5 days a week) and the parents would spend significantly less than what they pay in taxes earmarked for education.
So privatize schools. Start phasing out most tax dollars earmarked for education, since education is about to get a whole lot more affordable (and better). Keep some education taxes to provide vouchers for families that can't afford school. Viola. Everyone is educated in independently accredited, private institutions, that their parents can select for them. Don't like religion? Send your kid to a secular "Sylvan." Catholic? I'm sure there'll be a "St. Mary's of Sylvan" somewhere within driving distance.
One major obstacle is that school is no longer day care. A parent might actually have to be available to, well... Be a parent more than a few hours a day. I don't quite have an answer for that one yet... But I'm not entirely certain that this really is a problem. I mean, I see so many people rail against how they don't trust the government with their tax dollars, their welfare, their safety, their rights, etc. Yet these are often the same people who love public education, and, therefore, trust the same evil government *with* *their* *children*. I think anything that keeps children closer to their parents, and less in contact with the typically bottom-tier performers that are the majority of our teachers today is probably a good thing. Please don't misunderstand me: there are wonderful, brilliant, selfless teachers out there, but they are the minority.
Another obstacle is the teachers' union. Like any union, they exist to maximize profit for their members at the expense of everyone else, including everyone's children. I'm pretty sure that any effort to upset the status quo of education as an entirely union-dominated market would be opposed by those who stand to lose the most if their unions don't maintain the current stranglehold on our educational system. Look at the steel and automobile industries. They never "transitioned" from being under the iron fist of unions - they just failed, spectacularly, and the organizations that are growing up to replace the now-defunct union shops are simply non-union. Maybe that's the only way to do it.
And finally, the biggest obstacle to fixing our educational system is the misguided Orwellian notion that "The State" needs to socialize our children. At the basis of every argument against the privatization of education is the belief that we can only trust the wisdom and benevolence of The State to properly indoctrinate our children.
I don't know about anyone else, but the person I trust the most is myself, and I think that I do the best job when it comes to raising my children. I should be able to pick what school they go to, and I shouldn't have to pay for a state education that they're not going to use.
I believe that every child ought to be educated in the way that their parents best see fit, and if they can't, despite their best efforts, afford it, we, as a good society, should help them out. I think taxes for education are OK! But we need to make our educational system leaner, non-union, and provide real choice to every parent.
Do you have any links to stuff about this? I don't doubt you, I'm just very interested in reading it.
The solution is easy - privatize school accreditation, just like how our hospitals do it with JCAHO. This accreditation organization would be in charge of inspecting every aspect of a given school. Schools not compliant with standards would be shut down. Once that infrastructure has been in place long enough to work out the kinks, start privatizing education.
Like I said in an earlier post, when I worked for Sylvan Learning Centers, I sort of gamed out in my head how much a family would have to spend (in time and money) if their child received their entire education at Sylvan - the answer works out to be something like 2 or 3 days a week in school (or a few hours a day, 5 days a week) and the parents would spend significantly less than what they pay in taxes earmarked for education.
So privatize schools. Start phasing out most tax dollars earmarked for education, since education is about to get a whole lot more affordable (and better). Keep some education taxes to provide vouchers for families that can't afford school. Viola. Everyone is educated in independently accredited, private institutions, that their parents can select for them. Don't like religion? Send your kid to a secular "Sylvan." Catholic? I'm sure there'll be a "St. Mary's of Sylvan" somewhere within driving distance.
One major obstacle is that school is no longer day care. A parent might actually have to be available to, well... Be a parent more than a few hours a day. I don't quite have an answer for that one yet... But I'm not entirely certain that this really is a problem. I mean, I see so many people rail against how they don't trust the government with their tax dollars, their welfare, their safety, their rights, etc. Yet these are often the same people who love public education, and, therefore, trust the same evil government *with* *their* *children*. I think anything that keeps children closer to their parents, and less in contact with the typically bottom-tier performers that are the majority of our teachers today is probably a good thing. Please don't misunderstand me: there are wonderful, brilliant, selfless teachers out there, but they are the minority.
Another obstacle is the teachers' union. Like any union, they exist to maximize profit for their members at the expense of everyone else, including everyone's children. I'm pretty sure that any effort to upset the status quo of education as an entirely union-dominated market would be opposed by those who stand to lose the most if their unions don't maintain the current stranglehold on our educational system. Look at the steel and automobile industries. They never "transitioned" from being under the iron fist of unions - they just failed, spectacularly, and the organizations that are growing up to replace the now-defunct union shops are simply non-union. Maybe that's the only way to do it.
And finally, the biggest obstacle to fixing our educational system is the misguided Orwellian notion that "The State" needs to socialize our children. At the basis of every argument against the privatization of education is the belief that we can only trust the wisdom and benevolence of The State to properly indoctrinate our children.
I don't know about anyone else, but the person I trust the most is myself, and I think that I do the best job when it comes to raising my children. I should be able to pick what school they go to, and I shouldn't have to pay for a state education that they're not going to use.
I believe that every child ought to be educated in the way that their parents best see fit, and if they can't, despite their best efforts, afford it, we, as a good society, should help them out. I think taxes for education are OK! But we need to make our educational system leaner, non-union, and provide real choice to every parent.
Kids are already in school - what? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? I worked at Sylvan Learning Center as a tutor part time, and I watched kids master a year's worth of math concepts in maybe a few months of twice-a-week, 45-minute-long tutoring sessons.
So what if we taught every kid, every subject, that way? I can't remember exactly how it worked out, but I think it was like kids would go to school like 3 half-days a week and have all kinds of other time to do stuff.
I can't be the first person to have ever had this thought, which makes me wonder at why we have an 8-hour school day, and your comment pointed out one reason why that might be. I don't buy conspiracies, and I happen to not have a problem with capitalism, but I *do* have a problem with school being used as a tool to "socialize" my kid to an 8 hour work day.
I mean, people adapt to shit. It's not like I need 14 years of practice to switch to a night shift. I think kids would probably be just fine with a shorter, more effective learning schedule, and still be able to adapt to whatever came at them once they graduated.
You're right. And your argument leads nicely into another similar point.
Guns are not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Guns are not a threat. More people die by owning pools every year in the U.S. than by owning guns. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Pools kill more people than guns in this country.
And, also, being a soldier in Iraq is not dangerous. People need to see that in print more, too. Being a soldier in Iraq is not dangerous. More people die violent deaths in Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., or New Orleans than soldiers die in Iraq. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Violence kills more people in U.S. cities than it does in Iraq.
And driving drunk is not dangerous. bberens would probably agree with me that people need to see that in print more. Driving drunk is not dangerous. More people die in automobile accidents NOT involving alcohol each year than people that die in automobile accidents involving alcohol. Seriously, think about that for a minute: sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers.
Yep, statistics are awesome, aren't they?!?
... and as long as you ignore that just governance requires rational thought, and attempt to substitue rhetoric and hyperbole for reasoned argument, you'll probably continue to be confused and frustrated with me. So I guess we're in agreement on that much.
BTW, please don't bother lecturing me on exactly what type of right "privacy" is. I'm good, thanks anyway.
That's about what I figured. Look - you're saying, "They're taking away our Rights!" but then you refuse to even talk about (or show that you really understand) what "Rights" are.
To be sure, if one of our fundamental rights, say like the right to life, liberty, or property, were taken away, that'd be cause for an outrage, kind of like the ongoing debate about Eminent Domain. But saying that something is a "Right" doesn't make it one. It's not like the concept of limits to our behavior, or rules about the procedures in our justice system are anything new. You've just picked one that you don't like and called it a violation of our fundamental "Rights," giving you the illusion that you're arguing from some sort of moral high ground.
Where, indeed, to begin, with your statement?
we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others
1) We "all" haven't lost the "right" of Habeas Corpus. The Nov 13th 2001 Presidential Order made it legal to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. So unless you're a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, you haven't lost anything.
2) Habeas Corpus isn't a fundamental right - it's a procedural privilege. (before you respond to this point, make sure you understand what a fundamental right is, and is not, and please read a little about procedural (derived) rights, too.
3) You (or anyone else, for that matter) hasn't even names "many other" rights that we've lost. So what are they?
The answer to your question is right there in front of your face.
Is conquering, exploiting, and trading the end-all be-all of human achievement?
Ambition is part of human nature - just the simple fact that you seem to think there's "more" to life than common commerce is perfect evidence of that! Do you really think that you're the first person to consider the questions of "where are we all going," and "how can we do better?" Human ambition is the motive force behind every iota of progress we as a species have made since the beginning of humanity. You're right in saying that it can manifest itself as conquest and exploitation, but to imply that that's all it ever amounts to is stiflingly cynical.
The dream of happiness and perfect justice for all of humankind is a guiding principle for those of us lucky enough to not get stuck in the weeds of mere survival in our lifetimes. Our goal should be to raise all of humanity out of those weeds, in order to enable everyone to contribute to that end. How? That's the question of economics - and the best framework that we've discovered so far is free market capitalism, with thoughtful, carefully considered regulation and strong rule of law. Communism and its concomitant economic theory, socialism, intentionally deny the necessity, validity and worth of human ambition, an inescapable aspect of human nature, and are based on the philosophy of unending conflict and struggle. To that end, they have directly and indirectly caused immesurable death and suffering in our short human history. Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes the validity and existence of human ambition, and seeks not to eliminate it, but only to limit its manifestations to those not harmful to others.
Human ambition isn't the end - it's only a means. It's a powerful force that causes progress, both good and bad. We can't deny its existence, and when we've tried to make it go away, we've failed miserably, with disastrous consequences. What we can do is to try to direct it, and keep it in check so it doesn't destroy us.
But what direction? That's the real question, the one that you really meant to ask. And I think the answer is that you, and I, and anyone else who cares about our future - that's what we can contribute. You said that it would take a "better man" than you to come up with the answer. I say, there's no better man than you to come up with that very answer.
Where do you want us to go? What do you want us to accomplish? Figure that out, and then work to make it happen. That's the best that any person can do.
Go preach your sermon about fulfilling peoples' needs and providing happiness to the homeless & destitute. I think we can do better
OK, I think I see where you're coming from. So you think we can do better? OK, explain to me your idea of how it all should work. And don't just criticize capitalism, because that doesn't count. Offer a solution.
Hence Microsoft Windows/Office vs. the other 4 or 5 widely distributed operating systems/office suites. Which ones were those again?
OK, so what's your point? In things where people have varied tastes, like pickles, your argument of "big business bad!" falls flat on its face. But what *this* example lacks is the "badness." In the case of OSes and office productivity software, people don't want "boutique" and "gourmet," they want "works" and "compatible with everyone else." So, for your example to have any meaning, you'd need to explain how the lack of variety that most consumers don't even care about aside from vague, anti-Microsoft (because it's fashionable to talk trash about the big guy) sentiments is really detrimental. And I don't mean "bad" in some metaphysical, cosmic justice-y "share the wealth, mannn!" way, either. How does it negatively impact the consumer?
The goal of our system of commerce is to maximize the capital of a few shrewd individuals.
OK, so you're mistaken - the goal of an *individual* is to maximize their capital, and that's not a bad thing - I mean, you do it every day. When you get a job offer that pays you $10,000 a year more than your current job, and you leave your old one, aren't you trying to "maximize your capital?" When you decide to buy your pants when they're on sale instead of paying full price, aren't you trying to "maxmize your capital?" If you sell widgets online, and you buy in bulk to reduce your unit cost, aren't you trying to "maximize your capital?" What nobody has yet been able to answer me is this: if it's "wise" and "frugal" for an individual, or a mom & pop business to do it, when does it become "ruthless" and "evil?" When mom & pop have not just their one quaint store, but 2? 5? 20? When?
Anyway, the goal of the *system* is to provide an environment where individuals can freely, without fear of fraud or theft, engage in trade. Part of that, like I said before, is that people's rights - both innate and derived - have to be protected by law, which is why things like OSHA and the EPA exist. It's not within the realm of ethical conduct to try to circumvent such laws.
Ahh, but some people take it as axiomatic that commerce itself is one of the highest principles... I am convinced that some people think this way, that they are not in the minority, and thay they are well represented among capitalists. Indeed, they routinely glorify capitalism and the "free market"
I try to stay away from "some people" arguments as much as I can. They sure sound persuasive, especially if presented with a few hand-wavy, pithy anecdotes, but *I'm* convinced that "some people" arguments are mostly straw men. I find it easier to just ask someone how they feel about it and form my opinions based on that. I mean, you asked me where I'm coming from, right?
OK, so here goes: I believe that free-market capitalism is the best economic system we have to fulfill people's needs and provide satisfaction and happiness. I also believe in the fundamental worth and dignity of an individual, and that we ought to help out those who are less fortunate in life, and those who are less fortunate in the circumstances in to which they were born. I believe that, free from artificial restraint, people will strive to succeed in the best way for them, as only they could know, and I believe that we should, as best we can, ensure that the way is clear for their efforts. I believe that corporations should be as unfettered as possible by artificial tinkering with the prices of their goods, and should not be unduly burdened with punishing taxes. But at the same time, I also believe that large (how large? dunno - you know when you see it) corporations, because of their power, have certain responsibilities to the societies they exist within.
Anyway, my point is that capitalism isn't bad, and neither are most people who like it. But don't believe the hype - just ask.
If a company goes out of business because it's inefficient or because its product isn't as successful a seller as a competitor's, that supply doesn't vanish from existence. There are necessarily competitor's products - other brands of pickles - that exist in just as great quantities, and at an equal or greater value to society as a whole. That's why *your* favorite pickle company went out of business, and the others didn't.
But the argument you're trying to make - that efficiency drives variety out of the market, and you end up with a few big companies with broad mass-appeal but no real "flavor" - is just plain wrong, and I think you know it. Just take a look at your own example: pickles. Of course, you do have the few big mega-brands, like Vlasic, and... uhm.. Vlasic - I have to admit, I don't know a lot about pickles. Claussen! There's another. And I think Heinz makes pickles, too. Maybe. Anyway, you have the big brands, making the bland, mass-appeal everyman's pickle that's not exciting to true pickle aficionado... So, according to you, the pickle industry has been destroyed by the success of these big brands... Or has it?
OK, so do me a favor - Google "gourmet pickles" and spend a few minutes perusing the results. What did you see? Yeah, like only a billion niche, specialty, high-end pickle stores - and that's just online! Walk into any higher-end gourmet grocery store and I bet you'd find at least a few different, quirky, mom & pop brands of pickle. And that doesn't even count the actual "mom & pop" pickle making types, selling their pickles out of barrels at any number of farmer's markets all over the states.
And even the big, bland, boring mass-market product companies have recognized that niche, little, quirky, gourment, specialty, and boutique is "in!" Next time you're at the store, look at all the different specialty varieties of pickle that Claussen makes - I bet there's more than just a few.
So your point is that you want variety and speciality in the stuff you buy, and, viola! The free market has delivered! It's not just in pickles that this is true, either - look at *any* product, and you'll see the same effect. There are niches that small businesses find everywhere that Walmart and their kind can't go, because it's too specialized or the market isn't big enough. But where there's a need, there'll be someone making something to sell you. That, I guarantee.
So, your first argument that big companies induce blandness is just plain false. You know it's false - you just have to go to the supermarket to see that.
Secondly, efficiency is the primary goal of our system of *commerce.* There are higher principles in the world than the rules by which we conduct commerce, one of them being basic human rights like life, liberty and property. The most basic principle of the right to property is that, simply put, you "own" yourself, and noone, not even you, can legislate, sell, or trade that away. Slavery is a violation of that basic human right.
I hope that you know better than that, and you're just being deliberately inflammatory.
You bring up a good point - and I'm aware of the reality of how Walmart does business: It uses low prices to out-sell competitors, and forces suppliers to provide goods at a lower cost to them due to the huge volume of business Walmart will do with them.
Regardless of if your personal feelings about the evilness of Walmart, though, its wildly successful business model (ill begotten or not, bloody-minded or not) forces everyone in the food chain to be more efficient. Suppliers of suppliers (of suppliers...) in order to deal with Walmart and its big-box store competitors need to be increasingly efficient, and learn to live with smaller margins of profit or go out of business. This effect then applies to the next tier of suppliers, and so on.
The net effect (the one that everyone points to as one of the bad effects of Walmart) is that companies go out of business, and people lose jobs. But the reality of the cruel world is that not everyone's cut out to be an entrepreneur. Yesterday's failed small-business owner could be tomorrow's exec of the year at someone else's company. Or maybe yesterday's busted food packaging baron will be tomorrow's medical-supply packaging success story.
And this effect goes even further - down to the actual labor force, itself. A company has to utilize its employees in the most suitable way possible, down to the individual, in order to maximize efficiency: take the slow, thorough assembly-line worker and put him in QA instead. Take the focused, detail-oriented janitor and put him on the assembly team. Take the charasmatic people-person QA guy and make him a manager. Whatever.
Point is, that because of Walmart, resources get allocated in a more optimal way. The most effective business-owners thrive and grow, and less-effective ones fail and do something else instead - something that they're relatively better at.
If you focus only on the first-order effects - people losing jobs, companies going out of business - it's easy to arrive at the opinion that Walmart is evil due to all the immediate suffering it causes. But everyone seems to ignore the other, undeniable fact: that life goes on, and people get other jobs and start other companies - they do work (and create work, in the case of the companies!) where it wouldn't have been done before. They create real value with their works - value that would not have been created had their company not gone out of business.
Look - Walmart isn't the issue. The issue is that we don't like to see people suffer through failure, and we also kind of wish that the world was a little nicer and more cuddly, where not just #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) get to stay in business, but maybe #'s 4 through 200 get to have a piece of the pie, too. We want a world where "the bottom line" doesn't rule our bosses' thoughts at all times, and maybe we can just slack off a little every now and again.
But the simple, upsetting truth is that every bit of our total human capital that gets spent in a less-than perfectly efficient endeavour eventually ends up costing us more somewhere else. And you're not going to get a system that's better at distributing resources and indicating where we, as a society, ought to apply ourselves than free-market capitalism.
Every government bail-out to prevent a business from going under is time stolen from your life. Every farm subsidy, every price control, every artificial measure that influences sales, supply, or price, steals minutes from your life - time you must spend working to buy, or trade for the things you need and want that are more costly due to inefficiency.
So am I saying that *any* government expenditure to help people is wrong? Absolutely not. I believe that we ought to help out those who are down on their luck. I believe we need to try to make things more equal, where they haven't been in the past. But I recognize the ultimate tradeoff for what it is - I trade my ultimate capital for every bit of government largesse that helps someone else. So I knowingly ma
Slashdot Mirror
LOL - point taken. I guess my point is that shit like that probably happens all over (not just where I live), it's just that we never hear about it. It doesn't change the fact that we truly *are* less likely to be killed by a terrorist attack than in an automobile accident, or by drowning, or by taking aspirin (I can't remember if it was this article, or another, but someone pointed out the true fact that more people die each year from OTC drug overdoses and drug interactions than are killed by acts of terrorism).
I guess I just wanted to make the point that there's a reason why it's true that terrorism isn't really that likely to happen, and it's not because terrorists aren't really that dangerous.
Yes, I completely agree with you that it's a tradeoff. Like I said, I would like to not have to wonder if every weird 'click' I hear during a phone conversation is some FBI agent listening in on me.
I would like to believe that the threat of terrorism is a myth, and that we're really not in any significant danger.
Look - I'm not going to say this in an attempt to convince you of anything. I could just be some random self-important interweb liar for all you know. I only want to explain why I feel the way I do. I work for the DoD and a while ago, I was 'volun-told' to be a force protection (FP) representative for my unit - basically, I had to start going to local anti-terrorism working group meetings. Normally, these are pretty benign affairs - practice your FP posture, know what happens if the force protection condition (FPCON) is elevated, etc.
Well, a little while ago, some MI folks started coming to our meetings and briefing us on specific threats, as in "Here's a picture of a guy who teaches people how to blow stuff up, and he's a native of this country, and lives in your town, and he recently went to a foreign country and met with these guys (more pictures) who are Islamic fundamentalists with known ties to known violent agents who have a history of blowing themselves up. We think they're waiting for a group of natives to escort them into the country to this area to carry out their mission."
It was a sobering experience, to say the least. Before I started hearing all this stuff, I kind of figured that it was all being blown out of proportion, too. But, based on my experience, it's not.
Like I said, I don't care if you are convinced by my (intentionally vague) story. I just wanted to give you my side of it.
Um, yeah I missed that part. Mostly because it exists in your own head, not in the actual text of the article. Seriously, I read the article pretty thoroughly before I even started posting. You sounded so certain that you convinced me that I missed something the first time, so I went back and read it again. And again.
Which part of the article was that again? Show me a quote. And remember, I'm not wearing the same tinfoil hat that you are, so it should probably be a pretty clear, unambiguous quote about how specific FBI agents used private information obtained illegally for their own, specific personal gain, and it would help if the quote said what that gain was - you know, fraud, blackmail, etc.
Good luck with that.
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.
and you responded:
Respectfully, I submit it was me, you, and every other American, as our collective rights and liberties have been squashed even more.
OK. Let me repeat the part of my original question that you ignored:
one actual, real concrete example
I am still waiting.
That about covers your argument, then.
Or did you mean that surveillance, eavesdropping, searching and financial snooping aren't violations of fundamental, inalienable rights? Actually, that's exactly what I meant. Look - are you American? If not, you're forgiven for being ignorant of the concept of fundamental, inalienable human rights. If you *are*, then you have no excuse - you should understand the basis of our government before you criticize it.
I won't argue. If we can't agree on what's fundamental, there's nothing really to discuss. OK, that's fine. Just know that what you characterize as a "disagreement" is, in reality, something called "you're wrong"
BTW, can I have your SSN? No. Oh... wait. OMG!!! You just totally disproved my point! Because I'm not willing to give my SSN to an anonymous stranger over the internet, I'm completely wrong about this whole debate!
Look - I understand your problem with the government surveilling private individuals. Despite all my sarcasm, I really would prefer that the government butt out of my life as much as possible. That includes butting out of healthcare, education, the free market, keeping an eye on me and my private life, etc. I believe that government should do what ONLY government *can* do. And national security is one of those things that *only* government can do.
So, as unfortunate as it is, I'm willing to accept a restriction on one of my DERIVED rights (the right to privacy) in order to protect one of my FUNDAMENTAL rights (the right to life).
I understand that we all mistrust the government and its agents here. Question Authority (but not mine), and Stick it to the Man (but I'm not him) - right?
So somebody please explain to me who was harmed by these FBI "crimes." I would love to hear one actual, real concrete example of one person whose fundamental, inalienable rights were violated by this.
I'm waiting.
(and I probably will be for a while.)
Why should we accept failure and fraud from the government? Because it's "The Government?" We don't accept continued failure from private organizations, so why is it OK if our government screws things up? I think you have way too much faith in the establishment, and your anti-privatization argument is laughable:
All privatisation does is strip profits out of the system and adds a layer of B$ marketing which you have to pay for. So, marketing is merely fraud and waste, and you're worried about taking money out of "the system?" Are you for real?
Education is a serious matter, and it deserves thoughtful and rational consideration. Please, examine your assumptions.
"I want it to be a place where people can express themselves freely, just as if they were to go to a town square and say whatever brilliant or foolish thoughts they have," I think he meant to say:
"I want it to be a place where people can express themselves freely and anonymously, just as if they were to go into a toilet stall with a pen, and write whatever crap they wanted to on the wall while they were taking a dump."
The difference between the town square and Jarret's site is that, in the town square, people see your face and know who you are. TFA shows a few examples of stuff that wouldn't happen "in the town square":
in the Yale student's case, one person threatened to sexually violate her.
And in the town square: "I'm gonna rape ya', bitch!" *immediately gets beaten up*
One chat thread included a sexual joke about a female Holocaust victim.
And in the town square: "Hah! I fucked the dead Jew in the oven!" (or whatever) *immediately gets beat up*
Another Yale law student learned a month ago that her photographs were posted in an AutoAdmit chat that included her name and graphic discussion about her breasts. She was also featured in a separate contest site
And in the town square: "HEY! LOOK AT THESE TITTIES!!! HEEEEYYY!! TITTIES!! BIGGUNS!! LOO-" *immediate kick to the groin*
Jarret Cohen, the founder says:
"People would not have as much fun, frankly, if they had to worry about employers pulling up information on them."
Yep, that all looks like a bunch of fun. Like I said, toilet stall.
Look - Jarret claims that he and his cofounder are:
"very strong believers in the freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas . . . and almost never censor content, no matter how abhorrent it may be,"
And let's just stop pandering to the "mortality rate" mentality for doctors, and stop comparing our population's mortality rate to those of other developed countries, and just accept the fact that American doctors are just not cut out to prevent death as much as those in other developed countries!
While we're at it, we should also stop comparing the abilities of our car mechanics to the best of other car mechanics, stop pandering to the "gee, I wish my car would run" mentality and just accept the fact that some car mechanics are just not cut out to fix cars as well as others.
Why are we so accepting of this blatant failure and fraud? If this happened in any other industry, we, as the people that foot the bills, are (or should be) up in arms!
The anti-testing, anti-standards crowd says that the objective standards that teachers consistently fail to improve are invalid. Well, that's really convenient. Not meeting the standards? Lower them, or declare them invalid! Problem solved!
I think it's time we faced the fact that we've been defrauded by the government, and take back the education of our children.
I'm just curious... You wouldn't happen to be referring to the whole "multiple intelligences" theory, would you?
I know. That's really the issue. You can either raise your family, or make sure they have enough to eat, but not both completely with the way things are now.
Telecommuting, and maybe more flex hours would be great - I mean, maybe if you stop socializing kids into the 8 hour, 9-5 workday, pretty soon all the new companies about a decade later have flex hours and work-from-home options. That's great for industries that can do that. Things like software engineering companies come immediately to mind. Lazy coders don't like getting out of bed before 1100 anyways. Even factories could possibly do something like that - with a large enough employee base, you work when you can, and as long as every machine is covered by an employee 24/7 (or however long the factory's open), you're good.
But then there are the jobs that you just *gotta* work 8 hour shifts - mostly service-industry, like McDonald's...
Hm. Maybe working at McDonald's will always suck, and there's no way to get around it.
My point is that there exists a model to do privately what we now solely entrust to the government to do for our education system. But you bring up an interesting thought.
Our healthcare system isn't perfect, I agree. But it's not lack of privatization that's the problem - it's the economic insanity that socialization introduces that causes the inefficiency you pointed out.
Look - here's some econ 101: Desires and needs are mostly limitless. Our capacity for production is not. Normally, price gives us that balance between unlimited want and limited production. I wouldn't charge too much more than most people are willing to pay for, say, an apple, because before long, nobody would be buying apples from me (because somebody else would set up shop next door and sell them cheaper). I also can't realy charge less than it costs me to provide you the apples (if apples are the only things I sell) because, well, I gotta eat, too (and not just apples).
Price is an indicator of an underlying reality: it's the balance point between the scarcity of a commodity, and the strength of our demand for it. Artificially raising or lowering prices doesn't change that underlying reality. For example, if the government said that I couldn't charge more than $1 per apple, it wouldn't change how much you want apples, and it certainly wouldn't change how much time and money it takes me to provide you those apples.
So, how does this tie into healthcare? Well, the problem is really twofold. First, government health programs typically reimburse healthcare providers a fraction of the actual cost of the healthcare they're providing. The intent of such programs is to provide "accessible health care to all!" But the artificial lowering of the price of healthcare (paid by the taxpayer) to the recipients of Medicare and Medicaid doesn't change the reality of how much it costs to provide high-quality care, and to pay for the research of new drugs and medical technologies. It simply pushes the excess cost to the paying customers: the private insurance companies. These private insurance companies now have to foot the bill to pay the shortfall from Medicare and Medicaid payouts. As a result of the increased cost to the private insurance companies, those same private companies imposed draconian "payout" schemes to healthcare providers (modeled after Medicare and Medicaid's systems) so that clinics and hospitals then had to fight for every dollar they billed.
The healthcare industry circled their wagons and put a ridiculous premium on their time and resources, just to keep them in business. Here's a perfect example of this: Going to the doctor with the sniffles probably costs your insurance company about the same as going there with a broken leg, minus the cost of putting on the cast. In fact, some of the cost of your "sniffles" visit is probably going to help pay for the shortfall of what Medicare doesn't pay for the guy with the broken leg!
To compound these problems, you, as an individual, don't see any of this cost - it's all a $25 copay and your regular annual premiums. If you had to pay this full price, you'd probably wait a week or two to see if your sniffles went away before paying a couple hundred bucks to be told, "Take 2 Advil, drink lots of water, and get plenty of sleep." The most powerful form of economic rationing - self-rationing - is destroyed by Medicare and Medicaid and the insurance industry that follows the government's lead.
Finally, none of this artificial price wrangling even acknowledges that there are only so many doctors, and only so many hours in the day, and that the time you take up with your sniffles means that someone with a broken leg - or cancer! - has to wait longer to see a doctor.
That's the true price of "affordable healthcare for all!"
Anyway, my point is that the the education system could benefit from privatization, and that there's a model in practice right now - JCAHO - that works to accredit private healthcare organizations, and provides safe, world-class healthcare - not that our healthcare system is perfect. Your factoid shows the dark side of socialized medicine. It's not an argument against privatization - it's an argument *for* it.
So... Your wife's three-month experience at Sylvan amounted to, "Sylvan is a rip-off" and therefore it logically follows that the whole industry is crap?
No, I don't think so. But to be fair, my own, singular good experience isn't "evidence" that supports privatization either.
But, look - put your wife's experience aside. It's obvious that it works. Why is it still in business if it doesn't? Your wife's Sylvan was bad, mine was great. So there isn't a consistent standard. But that's what accreditation gets you - adherence to a standard across the board.
Look at healthcare organizations in the states - they are private organizations, independently accredited by a private third-party organization. And the result is the safest, highest quality healthcare in the world. So the independent accreditation model can work for healthcare.
I think it could work for education, too.
I agree, we're missing something, but I don't think we're going to find it in "other cultures."
The solution is easy - privatize school accreditation, just like how our hospitals do it with JCAHO. This accreditation organization would be in charge of inspecting every aspect of a given school. Schools not compliant with standards would be shut down. Once that infrastructure has been in place long enough to work out the kinks, start privatizing education.
When I worked for Sylvan Learning Centers, I sort of gamed out in my head how much a family would have to spend (in time and money) if their child received their entire education at Sylvan - the answer works out to be something like 2 or 3 days a week in school (or a few hours a day, 5 days a week) and the parents would spend significantly less than what they pay in taxes earmarked for education.
So privatize schools. Start phasing out most tax dollars earmarked for education, since education is about to get a whole lot more affordable (and better). Keep some education taxes to provide vouchers for families that can't afford school. Viola. Everyone is educated in independently accredited, private institutions, that their parents can select for them. Don't like religion? Send your kid to a secular "Sylvan." Catholic? I'm sure there'll be a "St. Mary's of Sylvan" somewhere within driving distance.
One major obstacle is that school is no longer day care. A parent might actually have to be available to, well... Be a parent more than a few hours a day. I don't quite have an answer for that one yet... But I'm not entirely certain that this really is a problem. I mean, I see so many people rail against how they don't trust the government with their tax dollars, their welfare, their safety, their rights, etc. Yet these are often the same people who love public education, and, therefore, trust the same evil government *with* *their* *children*. I think anything that keeps children closer to their parents, and less in contact with the typically bottom-tier performers that are the majority of our teachers today is probably a good thing. Please don't misunderstand me: there are wonderful, brilliant, selfless teachers out there, but they are the minority.
Another obstacle is the teachers' union. Like any union, they exist to maximize profit for their members at the expense of everyone else, including everyone's children. I'm pretty sure that any effort to upset the status quo of education as an entirely union-dominated market would be opposed by those who stand to lose the most if their unions don't maintain the current stranglehold on our educational system. Look at the steel and automobile industries. They never "transitioned" from being under the iron fist of unions - they just failed, spectacularly, and the organizations that are growing up to replace the now-defunct union shops are simply non-union. Maybe that's the only way to do it.
And finally, the biggest obstacle to fixing our educational system is the misguided Orwellian notion that "The State" needs to socialize our children. At the basis of every argument against the privatization of education is the belief that we can only trust the wisdom and benevolence of The State to properly indoctrinate our children.
I don't know about anyone else, but the person I trust the most is myself, and I think that I do the best job when it comes to raising my children. I should be able to pick what school they go to, and I shouldn't have to pay for a state education that they're not going to use.
I believe that every child ought to be educated in the way that their parents best see fit, and if they can't, despite their best efforts, afford it, we, as a good society, should help them out. I think taxes for education are OK! But we need to make our educational system leaner, non-union, and provide real choice to every parent.
Do you have any links to stuff about this? I don't doubt you, I'm just very interested in reading it.
The solution is easy - privatize school accreditation, just like how our hospitals do it with JCAHO. This accreditation organization would be in charge of inspecting every aspect of a given school. Schools not compliant with standards would be shut down. Once that infrastructure has been in place long enough to work out the kinks, start privatizing education.
Like I said in an earlier post, when I worked for Sylvan Learning Centers, I sort of gamed out in my head how much a family would have to spend (in time and money) if their child received their entire education at Sylvan - the answer works out to be something like 2 or 3 days a week in school (or a few hours a day, 5 days a week) and the parents would spend significantly less than what they pay in taxes earmarked for education.
So privatize schools. Start phasing out most tax dollars earmarked for education, since education is about to get a whole lot more affordable (and better). Keep some education taxes to provide vouchers for families that can't afford school. Viola. Everyone is educated in independently accredited, private institutions, that their parents can select for them. Don't like religion? Send your kid to a secular "Sylvan." Catholic? I'm sure there'll be a "St. Mary's of Sylvan" somewhere within driving distance.
One major obstacle is that school is no longer day care. A parent might actually have to be available to, well... Be a parent more than a few hours a day. I don't quite have an answer for that one yet... But I'm not entirely certain that this really is a problem. I mean, I see so many people rail against how they don't trust the government with their tax dollars, their welfare, their safety, their rights, etc. Yet these are often the same people who love public education, and, therefore, trust the same evil government *with* *their* *children*. I think anything that keeps children closer to their parents, and less in contact with the typically bottom-tier performers that are the majority of our teachers today is probably a good thing. Please don't misunderstand me: there are wonderful, brilliant, selfless teachers out there, but they are the minority.
Another obstacle is the teachers' union. Like any union, they exist to maximize profit for their members at the expense of everyone else, including everyone's children. I'm pretty sure that any effort to upset the status quo of education as an entirely union-dominated market would be opposed by those who stand to lose the most if their unions don't maintain the current stranglehold on our educational system. Look at the steel and automobile industries. They never "transitioned" from being under the iron fist of unions - they just failed, spectacularly, and the organizations that are growing up to replace the now-defunct union shops are simply non-union. Maybe that's the only way to do it.
And finally, the biggest obstacle to fixing our educational system is the misguided Orwellian notion that "The State" needs to socialize our children. At the basis of every argument against the privatization of education is the belief that we can only trust the wisdom and benevolence of The State to properly indoctrinate our children.
I don't know about anyone else, but the person I trust the most is myself, and I think that I do the best job when it comes to raising my children. I should be able to pick what school they go to, and I shouldn't have to pay for a state education that they're not going to use.
I believe that every child ought to be educated in the way that their parents best see fit, and if they can't, despite their best efforts, afford it, we, as a good society, should help them out. I think taxes for education are OK! But we need to make our educational system leaner, non-union, and provide real choice to every parent.
Kids are already in school - what? 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? I worked at Sylvan Learning Center as a tutor part time, and I watched kids master a year's worth of math concepts in maybe a few months of twice-a-week, 45-minute-long tutoring sessons.
So what if we taught every kid, every subject, that way? I can't remember exactly how it worked out, but I think it was like kids would go to school like 3 half-days a week and have all kinds of other time to do stuff.
I can't be the first person to have ever had this thought, which makes me wonder at why we have an 8-hour school day, and your comment pointed out one reason why that might be. I don't buy conspiracies, and I happen to not have a problem with capitalism, but I *do* have a problem with school being used as a tool to "socialize" my kid to an 8 hour work day.
I mean, people adapt to shit. It's not like I need 14 years of practice to switch to a night shift. I think kids would probably be just fine with a shorter, more effective learning schedule, and still be able to adapt to whatever came at them once they graduated.
You're right. And your argument leads nicely into another similar point. Guns are not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Guns are not a threat. More people die by owning pools every year in the U.S. than by owning guns. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Pools kill more people than guns in this country. And, also, being a soldier in Iraq is not dangerous. People need to see that in print more, too. Being a soldier in Iraq is not dangerous. More people die violent deaths in Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., or New Orleans than soldiers die in Iraq. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Violence kills more people in U.S. cities than it does in Iraq. And driving drunk is not dangerous. bberens would probably agree with me that people need to see that in print more. Driving drunk is not dangerous. More people die in automobile accidents NOT involving alcohol each year than people that die in automobile accidents involving alcohol. Seriously, think about that for a minute: sober drivers kill more people than drunk drivers. Yep, statistics are awesome, aren't they?!?
... and as long as you ignore that just governance requires rational thought, and attempt to substitue rhetoric and hyperbole for reasoned argument, you'll probably continue to be confused and frustrated with me. So I guess we're in agreement on that much.
That's about what I figured. Look - you're saying, "They're taking away our Rights!" but then you refuse to even talk about (or show that you really understand) what "Rights" are.
To be sure, if one of our fundamental rights, say like the right to life, liberty, or property, were taken away, that'd be cause for an outrage, kind of like the ongoing debate about Eminent Domain. But saying that something is a "Right" doesn't make it one. It's not like the concept of limits to our behavior, or rules about the procedures in our justice system are anything new. You've just picked one that you don't like and called it a violation of our fundamental "Rights," giving you the illusion that you're arguing from some sort of moral high ground.
we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others
1) We "all" haven't lost the "right" of Habeas Corpus. The Nov 13th 2001 Presidential Order made it legal to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. So unless you're a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, you haven't lost anything.
2) Habeas Corpus isn't a fundamental right - it's a procedural privilege. (before you respond to this point, make sure you understand what a fundamental right is, and is not, and please read a little about procedural (derived) rights, too.
3) You (or anyone else, for that matter) hasn't even names "many other" rights that we've lost. So what are they?
Is conquering, exploiting, and trading the end-all be-all of human achievement?
Ambition is part of human nature - just the simple fact that you seem to think there's "more" to life than common commerce is perfect evidence of that! Do you really think that you're the first person to consider the questions of "where are we all going," and "how can we do better?" Human ambition is the motive force behind every iota of progress we as a species have made since the beginning of humanity. You're right in saying that it can manifest itself as conquest and exploitation, but to imply that that's all it ever amounts to is stiflingly cynical.
The dream of happiness and perfect justice for all of humankind is a guiding principle for those of us lucky enough to not get stuck in the weeds of mere survival in our lifetimes. Our goal should be to raise all of humanity out of those weeds, in order to enable everyone to contribute to that end. How? That's the question of economics - and the best framework that we've discovered so far is free market capitalism, with thoughtful, carefully considered regulation and strong rule of law. Communism and its concomitant economic theory, socialism, intentionally deny the necessity, validity and worth of human ambition, an inescapable aspect of human nature, and are based on the philosophy of unending conflict and struggle. To that end, they have directly and indirectly caused immesurable death and suffering in our short human history. Capitalism, on the other hand, recognizes the validity and existence of human ambition, and seeks not to eliminate it, but only to limit its manifestations to those not harmful to others.
Human ambition isn't the end - it's only a means. It's a powerful force that causes progress, both good and bad. We can't deny its existence, and when we've tried to make it go away, we've failed miserably, with disastrous consequences. What we can do is to try to direct it, and keep it in check so it doesn't destroy us.
But what direction? That's the real question, the one that you really meant to ask. And I think the answer is that you, and I, and anyone else who cares about our future - that's what we can contribute. You said that it would take a "better man" than you to come up with the answer. I say, there's no better man than you to come up with that very answer.
Where do you want us to go? What do you want us to accomplish? Figure that out, and then work to make it happen. That's the best that any person can do.
OK, I think I see where you're coming from. So you think we can do better? OK, explain to me your idea of how it all should work. And don't just criticize capitalism, because that doesn't count. Offer a solution.
OK, so what's your point? In things where people have varied tastes, like pickles, your argument of "big business bad!" falls flat on its face. But what *this* example lacks is the "badness." In the case of OSes and office productivity software, people don't want "boutique" and "gourmet," they want "works" and "compatible with everyone else." So, for your example to have any meaning, you'd need to explain how the lack of variety that most consumers don't even care about aside from vague, anti-Microsoft (because it's fashionable to talk trash about the big guy) sentiments is really detrimental. And I don't mean "bad" in some metaphysical, cosmic justice-y "share the wealth, mannn!" way, either. How does it negatively impact the consumer?
The goal of our system of commerce is to maximize the capital of a few shrewd individuals.
OK, so you're mistaken - the goal of an *individual* is to maximize their capital, and that's not a bad thing - I mean, you do it every day. When you get a job offer that pays you $10,000 a year more than your current job, and you leave your old one, aren't you trying to "maximize your capital?" When you decide to buy your pants when they're on sale instead of paying full price, aren't you trying to "maxmize your capital?" If you sell widgets online, and you buy in bulk to reduce your unit cost, aren't you trying to "maximize your capital?" What nobody has yet been able to answer me is this: if it's "wise" and "frugal" for an individual, or a mom & pop business to do it, when does it become "ruthless" and "evil?" When mom & pop have not just their one quaint store, but 2? 5? 20? When?
Anyway, the goal of the *system* is to provide an environment where individuals can freely, without fear of fraud or theft, engage in trade. Part of that, like I said before, is that people's rights - both innate and derived - have to be protected by law, which is why things like OSHA and the EPA exist. It's not within the realm of ethical conduct to try to circumvent such laws.
Ahh, but some people take it as axiomatic that commerce itself is one of the highest principles... I am convinced that some people think this way, that they are not in the minority, and thay they are well represented among capitalists. Indeed, they routinely glorify capitalism and the "free market"
I try to stay away from "some people" arguments as much as I can. They sure sound persuasive, especially if presented with a few hand-wavy, pithy anecdotes, but *I'm* convinced that "some people" arguments are mostly straw men. I find it easier to just ask someone how they feel about it and form my opinions based on that. I mean, you asked me where I'm coming from, right?
OK, so here goes: I believe that free-market capitalism is the best economic system we have to fulfill people's needs and provide satisfaction and happiness. I also believe in the fundamental worth and dignity of an individual, and that we ought to help out those who are less fortunate in life, and those who are less fortunate in the circumstances in to which they were born. I believe that, free from artificial restraint, people will strive to succeed in the best way for them, as only they could know, and I believe that we should, as best we can, ensure that the way is clear for their efforts. I believe that corporations should be as unfettered as possible by artificial tinkering with the prices of their goods, and should not be unduly burdened with punishing taxes. But at the same time, I also believe that large (how large? dunno - you know when you see it) corporations, because of their power, have certain responsibilities to the societies they exist within.
Anyway, my point is that capitalism isn't bad, and neither are most people who like it. But don't believe the hype - just ask.
If a company goes out of business because it's inefficient or because its product isn't as successful a seller as a competitor's, that supply doesn't vanish from existence. There are necessarily competitor's products - other brands of pickles - that exist in just as great quantities, and at an equal or greater value to society as a whole. That's why *your* favorite pickle company went out of business, and the others didn't.
But the argument you're trying to make - that efficiency drives variety out of the market, and you end up with a few big companies with broad mass-appeal but no real "flavor" - is just plain wrong, and I think you know it. Just take a look at your own example: pickles. Of course, you do have the few big mega-brands, like Vlasic, and... uhm.. Vlasic - I have to admit, I don't know a lot about pickles. Claussen! There's another. And I think Heinz makes pickles, too. Maybe. Anyway, you have the big brands, making the bland, mass-appeal everyman's pickle that's not exciting to true pickle aficionado... So, according to you, the pickle industry has been destroyed by the success of these big brands... Or has it?
OK, so do me a favor - Google "gourmet pickles" and spend a few minutes perusing the results. What did you see? Yeah, like only a billion niche, specialty, high-end pickle stores - and that's just online! Walk into any higher-end gourmet grocery store and I bet you'd find at least a few different, quirky, mom & pop brands of pickle. And that doesn't even count the actual "mom & pop" pickle making types, selling their pickles out of barrels at any number of farmer's markets all over the states.
And even the big, bland, boring mass-market product companies have recognized that niche, little, quirky, gourment, specialty, and boutique is "in!" Next time you're at the store, look at all the different specialty varieties of pickle that Claussen makes - I bet there's more than just a few.
So your point is that you want variety and speciality in the stuff you buy, and, viola! The free market has delivered! It's not just in pickles that this is true, either - look at *any* product, and you'll see the same effect. There are niches that small businesses find everywhere that Walmart and their kind can't go, because it's too specialized or the market isn't big enough. But where there's a need, there'll be someone making something to sell you. That, I guarantee.
So, your first argument that big companies induce blandness is just plain false. You know it's false - you just have to go to the supermarket to see that.
Secondly, efficiency is the primary goal of our system of *commerce.* There are higher principles in the world than the rules by which we conduct commerce, one of them being basic human rights like life, liberty and property. The most basic principle of the right to property is that, simply put, you "own" yourself, and noone, not even you, can legislate, sell, or trade that away. Slavery is a violation of that basic human right.
I hope that you know better than that, and you're just being deliberately inflammatory.
You bring up a good point - and I'm aware of the reality of how Walmart does business: It uses low prices to out-sell competitors, and forces suppliers to provide goods at a lower cost to them due to the huge volume of business Walmart will do with them.
Regardless of if your personal feelings about the evilness of Walmart, though, its wildly successful business model (ill begotten or not, bloody-minded or not) forces everyone in the food chain to be more efficient. Suppliers of suppliers (of suppliers...) in order to deal with Walmart and its big-box store competitors need to be increasingly efficient, and learn to live with smaller margins of profit or go out of business. This effect then applies to the next tier of suppliers, and so on.
The net effect (the one that everyone points to as one of the bad effects of Walmart) is that companies go out of business, and people lose jobs. But the reality of the cruel world is that not everyone's cut out to be an entrepreneur. Yesterday's failed small-business owner could be tomorrow's exec of the year at someone else's company. Or maybe yesterday's busted food packaging baron will be tomorrow's medical-supply packaging success story.
And this effect goes even further - down to the actual labor force, itself. A company has to utilize its employees in the most suitable way possible, down to the individual, in order to maximize efficiency: take the slow, thorough assembly-line worker and put him in QA instead. Take the focused, detail-oriented janitor and put him on the assembly team. Take the charasmatic people-person QA guy and make him a manager. Whatever.
Point is, that because of Walmart, resources get allocated in a more optimal way. The most effective business-owners thrive and grow, and less-effective ones fail and do something else instead - something that they're relatively better at.
If you focus only on the first-order effects - people losing jobs, companies going out of business - it's easy to arrive at the opinion that Walmart is evil due to all the immediate suffering it causes. But everyone seems to ignore the other, undeniable fact: that life goes on, and people get other jobs and start other companies - they do work (and create work, in the case of the companies!) where it wouldn't have been done before. They create real value with their works - value that would not have been created had their company not gone out of business.
Look - Walmart isn't the issue. The issue is that we don't like to see people suffer through failure, and we also kind of wish that the world was a little nicer and more cuddly, where not just #1 and #2 (and maybe #3) get to stay in business, but maybe #'s 4 through 200 get to have a piece of the pie, too. We want a world where "the bottom line" doesn't rule our bosses' thoughts at all times, and maybe we can just slack off a little every now and again.
But the simple, upsetting truth is that every bit of our total human capital that gets spent in a less-than perfectly efficient endeavour eventually ends up costing us more somewhere else. And you're not going to get a system that's better at distributing resources and indicating where we, as a society, ought to apply ourselves than free-market capitalism.
Every government bail-out to prevent a business from going under is time stolen from your life. Every farm subsidy, every price control, every artificial measure that influences sales, supply, or price, steals minutes from your life - time you must spend working to buy, or trade for the things you need and want that are more costly due to inefficiency.
So am I saying that *any* government expenditure to help people is wrong? Absolutely not. I believe that we ought to help out those who are down on their luck. I believe we need to try to make things more equal, where they haven't been in the past. But I recognize the ultimate tradeoff for what it is - I trade my ultimate capital for every bit of government largesse that helps someone else. So I knowingly ma