Your view of the public school system seems to be very much influenced by the public perception of urban schools. Not all schools are full of over-sexed, druggie 13 year olds. Public schools CAN expel kids for criminal behavior, they don't want to because they recognize that it is their duty to continue the attempt.
A voucher system, like school of choice, doesn't work for the vast majority of students because they don't have any other school they could reasonably go to. If I had wanted to go to a different school I would have needed a 40 mile ride to get there in an area with no public transportation.
The reason many people are against the voucher system is that it abandons the public schools instead of working to improve them. This does relegate them to become the "bastion of the uncouth and uneducatable". This is mostly a result of the idea that government cannot do anything right. This idea needs to die a quick death. Education for all is a valuable tool for the future of our country and the government can help it to come about. Teaching, probably, has the most overall payback of value to society of any profession, yet we pay teachers crap and treat them like either waitresses or factory workers.
Right now, there is a single homogenous system that looks the same everywhere you go, and it is failing, often miserably.
This isn't true. One of the major problems with the education system in the US is that there is not a US education system. There are 50 state educational systems which all give way too much control to the local districts. There is no consistent funding model or standard curriculum.
Now, having said all that, public education has never done as well at teaching the fundamentals as its proponents would have us believe. It is likely that most people learned to read, count, and do simple arithmetic at home, leaving the public system to only need to teach these to the stragglers. Now, it seems that more and more parents are abdicating all teaching responsibilities to the schools, but it turns out that teachers can't effectively teach 25-35 children to read at the same time. The solution to that problem (reading requirements to enter school, summer school, tutors) are unpalatable to parents with time and money constraints as well as the cultural idea that "that's the schools job". -- JimFive
In 1968 the electoral vote split was: Republicans: 301, Democrats: 191, Independent: 46.
That's the first one I found, but I'm sure there are others. Yes, it is a high hurdle for a 3rd party candidate and I would prefer a system like Range Voting to alleviate that. But, it isn't impossible. -- JimFive
I disagree that attacking primary system is the way to accomplish these changes. I do think that the states need to stop participating in the primary process since primaries are, technically at least, a private act of a private club.
I think that "Eliminate political parties" is actually the key step here. But to do that, you have to get rid of corporate personhood. As long as organizations can have the right to speech (i.e. spend money on politics) then there will be de facto political parties.
3. Change the voting system. [...] It will definitely take a constitutional amendment,
No it doesn't. Voting (for president) is actually a State run process. Any state can choose their electors pretty much however they want as long as it meets equal protection requirements. So a state could implement e.g. Range Voting on its own. -- JimFive
Of course they might lose a few too, but as long as they lose less than the democrats, they're basically sure of winning.
That's not quite accurate. The constitution requires that a candidate get a majority (not plurality) in the Electoral College. The electors are not legally bound to vote for any specific candidate. If the Electoral College cannot get to a majority then the House of Representatives chooses the president using a 1 vote per state model, which, I believe, also requires a majority vote.
Thus, If a 3rd party can take one state in a close election they can force a crisis, especially if they can get control of a congressional delegation at the same time. -- JimFive
Most agree that "shouting fire" in a crowded theatre is not allowed.
Actually, it is allowed. But it isn't protected speech. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre (that is not on fire) and someone, as a result, gets injured then you cannot (successfully) defend your act by claiming free speech. If, however, all that happens is the guy in front of you tells you to shut up, then you don't get prosecuted.
I know that "fire in a theatre" is the canonical example of limits on speech, but it bugs me when people jump from unprotected to illegal. -- JimFive
If copyright was not excessively long, by the time something became an "orphan" work, it would be out of copyright (or at worst, only a few years away from being out of copyright).
Not necessarily, the problem isn't that authors forget that they wrote a book. The problem is that someone unknowingly acquires the copyright during e.g. a bankruptcy or probate court action. This could easily happen shortly after a book was published and create an orphaned work that has nearly its entire copyright term ahead of it.
The GPs solution seems the best one overall. However, even without legislative action, it seems to me that Google could perform a diligent search for the copyright holder and just go ahead with the scanning. As long as they don't get lazy with the searches they should be able to protect themselves from any lawsuits. -- JimFive
Just because Google does not know how to find an author does not give them the right to make copies of the author's work without permission.
In law that is true. But in fact, if the copyright holder cannot be found then no one has standing to sue. If Google did sufficient due diligence to attempt to find out who owns an orphaned work and then went ahead and scanned it I think they would be pretty safe from a damages perspective. The important thing would be to not skimp on the research.
Of course, this problem would go away if copyright only lasted for a reasonable amount of time (say something on the order of 10-30 years).
Even 50 would be fine as long as it was a fixed term (not life+years). A fixed term would make it very easy to know when the copyright has expired just by looking at the copyright notice page. -- JimFive
When I said, "not expensive", I was looking at it from a cost/value perspective. $20/hr for a professional's time is very cheap. $50/hr (Total, includes insurance, fuel, maintenance) to rent a very expensive piece of equipment doesn't seem outrageous. So, sure, $2500+ to get a license isn't in the "anybody can afford it" category, but it's also not in the "completely out of reach for normal people" category, either. This isn't an up front cost, you pay as you go. So, it's one year of car payments, or two years of cable bills. -- JimFive
Except that Private Pilots' licenses aren't expensive. When I got mine it was about $50 / hour to rent the plane and $20 / hour to pay the instructor, I assume those numbers have gone up, but I haven't flown in a few years. The minimum requirements were 20 hours dual, and 20 hours solo, but it usually takes longer than that to learn the skills. The flight requirements are aimed at making sure you can control the plane, navigate, and recover if something goes wrong. None of the requirements are onerous or bureaucratic, none of the costs are outrageous. -- JimFive
Don't know about Minnesota, but here in WI, the snow stays on the roof for maybe a day or two before it is melted off from the black shingles slowly melting it all.
You need to insulate your roof. That snow isn't melting because the sun is hitting the black shingles (it isn't, they are covered in snow). It's melting because your furnace is heating your attic and melting the snow from underneath. You'll save quite a bit if you stop heating the outside. -- JimFive
And perhaps those who learn will become less occupied with facts and more engaged in larger questions of understanding.
Makes an assertion that understanding can be gained without facts. This seems absurd to me. In order to understand e.g. History, you need to know what has happened when and what has influenced whom. I like to break facts up into two categories: Trivial and Conceptual. Trivial facts can be easily looked up and forgotten and are, in general, unimportant for good understanding (although they may be important in specific cases, in which event, you look it up). Conceptual facts, on the other hand are required to be known in order to generate understanding. They cannot easily be looked up in a reference because they aren't the kind of thing that is usually stated as such. An example might be in order: Two trivial facts: The Treaty of Versailles ended WWI on June 28, 1919. A Spanish Flu Epidemic in 1918 killed an large proportion of 20-40 year olds. Conceptual fact: The untimely deaths of fighting age people led to Germany being unable to continue the war. Knowing that there was a flu epidemic just before the end of WWI is an important thing to memorize. Knowing specific dates or casualty figures isn't.
The problem with education has always been that it is easier to teach and test trivia. -- JimFive
Somalia is not an example of an anarchist society. Just because a government collapses doesn't mean that people respect the non-aggression principle
What does the "non-aggression principle" have to do with anarchy? You seem to be imposing some sort of idealism on anarchy that doesn't really exist. Any society needs ways to protect itself from bad actors. An anarchic society will be maintained through a variety of mechanisms. Some of those mechanisms will involve violence, from forcible expulsion to outright murder. -- JimFive
You haven't addressed why it's moral and ethical for one group of people to use violence to enforce their will on another group of people regardless of any prosperity that may or may not result.
In a democracy those two groups of people are the same group. Thus your question becomes "Is it moral and ethical for a group of people to use violence to enforce their will upon themselves?" -- JimFive
Even more than that, this plays into the studios' hands also. No license agreement is necessary for NetFlix to rent DVDs, but an agreement is necessary to stream the movies.
Now that the local rental store is basically gone, pushed out by NetFlix and replaced with limited selection kiosks (Redbox), the studios would like nothing better than for NetFlix to stop renting physical discs. This would allow the studios to dictate terms, availability, and get a cut from each view. -- JimFive
The only differences between the safe deposit box and Amazon's "cloud" are, there are no disc or box in the cloud.
Actually, the biggest difference is that you can't access the disk in the box at the same time as the disk in your house. The idea of an archival copy is that it is used only as a backup, not for everyday use (Ok, you use the copy and store the original, but the effect is the same.)
Another difference is that Amazon is making an additional copy for you on demand and Amazon didn't buy the CD.
While those distinctions seem fairly absurd to any technical person who understands how computers work, it isn't absurd to the legal system. -- JimFive
Though I am very late and a bit off topic, feeding the birds is not a solution. Your cat will learn to stake out the food pile and kill the birds as they are eating. The feeding ground basically becomes a bait pile. -- JimFive
What does that imply about a US high school education?
On thing that is being missed in this conversation is that there is no such thing as a US high school education. There is no national curriculum. There are 50 state curricula with assorted requirements and arbitrary funding levels. The differences between the good and bad schools within the same state are vast, and the differences between states are even more so.
Because of this, Universities have no idea what the incoming students actually know. To accomodate this they force from 1-2 years of "general education" on the student body.
The problem with this is that an 18 year old doesn't really see the value in general education and just wants to get on to the good stuff. Therefore, general education is viewed as either a money grab or a road block on the way to the diploma. -- JimFive
However, one person's "industry" is another person's "private affairs".
I don't think I quite understand. Can you cite an example?
If I decide to operate a nuclear reactor in my garage, is that industry, or private affair? Does it matter if it is for personal use or if I sell the electricity?
A lot of small businesses are started up with an individual's money on an individual's property. At what point does that stop being a private affair and become open to regulation?
Simple -- how is NHS or medicare "interfering with private affairs"? I never understood that argument.
I have heard two main arguments:
Forcing me to pay money that goes to support lifestyles that I oppose is wrong. (e.g. Abortion is the big one in the US)
The potential is there for coercing me to take up a lifestyle that I don't want to take up. (e.g. Eat less meat, or else...[I'm not sure what the threat is here, pay a fine?])
As is probably obvious, I don't buy these arguments, either. Someone else may be able to articulate them more clearly.
Overall, I agree with you that a role of government is to protect me from you, not me from me. I also think that a just society provides services that ensure that the basic needs of its people are met. Balancing conflicting roles is part of the job. -- JimFive
But in the grand scheme of things, when Kraft gets taxed, so does Sargento, etc. resulting in an across the board price increase for ALL cheese. So you cant avoid it.
Unless Sargento doesn't raise the price and thereby gains market share. Raising the cost does not change the equilibrium point of the supply/demand curve. Raising the price will lead to some consumers avoiding the "tax" by buying less. Hobson's choice is still a choice. -- JimFive
This is a common misconception. Repeat after me: "Businesses dont pay taxes, consumers do." Taxes are just another cost of doing business that is simply passed along to the consumer in higher costs.
This is a common misconception. Repeat after me: "Cost and Price are unrelated." The value of a product to the consumer does not change just because the cost of creating the product changes. -- JimFive
I'd like to see a social libertarianism, where there are no victimless "crimes" and government stays out of my private affairs, yet does in fact collect taxes to help society along and regulates industry so it doesn't victimize working people and the environment.
I pretty much agree with you. However, one person's "industry" is another person's "private affairs".
Government should protect you from me, it shouldn't protect you from yourself. I'm all for socialized medicine, and wish we'd impliment it here in the US.
I agree, something like a NHS or Medicare for all would be excellent. But how do you counter the arguments that it is "interfering with my private affairs".
-- JimFive
Evidence suggests that slave labor is unable to compete with free labor on a long term basis.
Evidence suggests that slave labor is competitive when land is plentiful (and, thus, cheap) and labor is scarce. But it is not competitive when land is scarce and labor is plentiful. -- JimFive
Slashdot Mirror
A voucher system, like school of choice, doesn't work for the vast majority of students because they don't have any other school they could reasonably go to. If I had wanted to go to a different school I would have needed a 40 mile ride to get there in an area with no public transportation.
The reason many people are against the voucher system is that it abandons the public schools instead of working to improve them. This does relegate them to become the "bastion of the uncouth and uneducatable". This is mostly a result of the idea that government cannot do anything right. This idea needs to die a quick death. Education for all is a valuable tool for the future of our country and the government can help it to come about. Teaching, probably, has the most overall payback of value to society of any profession, yet we pay teachers crap and treat them like either waitresses or factory workers.
Right now, there is a single homogenous system that looks the same everywhere you go, and it is failing, often miserably.
This isn't true. One of the major problems with the education system in the US is that there is not a US education system. There are 50 state educational systems which all give way too much control to the local districts. There is no consistent funding model or standard curriculum.
Now, having said all that, public education has never done as well at teaching the fundamentals as its proponents would have us believe. It is likely that most people learned to read, count, and do simple arithmetic at home, leaving the public system to only need to teach these to the stragglers. Now, it seems that more and more parents are abdicating all teaching responsibilities to the schools, but it turns out that teachers can't effectively teach 25-35 children to read at the same time. The solution to that problem (reading requirements to enter school, summer school, tutors) are unpalatable to parents with time and money constraints as well as the cultural idea that "that's the schools job".
--
JimFive
In 1968 the electoral vote split was: Republicans: 301, Democrats: 191, Independent: 46.
That's the first one I found, but I'm sure there are others. Yes, it is a high hurdle for a 3rd party candidate and I would prefer a system like Range Voting to alleviate that. But, it isn't impossible.
--
JimFive
I think that "Eliminate political parties" is actually the key step here. But to do that, you have to get rid of corporate personhood. As long as organizations can have the right to speech (i.e. spend money on politics) then there will be de facto political parties.
3. Change the voting system. [...] It will definitely take a constitutional amendment,
No it doesn't. Voting (for president) is actually a State run process. Any state can choose their electors pretty much however they want as long as it meets equal protection requirements. So a state could implement e.g. Range Voting on its own.
--
JimFive
Of course they might lose a few too, but as long as they lose less than the democrats, they're basically sure of winning.
That's not quite accurate. The constitution requires that a candidate get a majority (not plurality) in the Electoral College. The electors are not legally bound to vote for any specific candidate. If the Electoral College cannot get to a majority then the House of Representatives chooses the president using a 1 vote per state model, which, I believe, also requires a majority vote.
Thus, If a 3rd party can take one state in a close election they can force a crisis, especially if they can get control of a congressional delegation at the same time.
--
JimFive
Most agree that "shouting fire" in a crowded theatre is not allowed.
Actually, it is allowed. But it isn't protected speech. If you shout fire in a crowded theatre (that is not on fire) and someone, as a result, gets injured then you cannot (successfully) defend your act by claiming free speech. If, however, all that happens is the guy in front of you tells you to shut up, then you don't get prosecuted.
I know that "fire in a theatre" is the canonical example of limits on speech, but it bugs me when people jump from unprotected to illegal.
--
JimFive
If copyright was not excessively long, by the time something became an "orphan" work, it would be out of copyright (or at worst, only a few years away from being out of copyright).
Not necessarily, the problem isn't that authors forget that they wrote a book. The problem is that someone unknowingly acquires the copyright during e.g. a bankruptcy or probate court action. This could easily happen shortly after a book was published and create an orphaned work that has nearly its entire copyright term ahead of it.
The GPs solution seems the best one overall. However, even without legislative action, it seems to me that Google could perform a diligent search for the copyright holder and just go ahead with the scanning. As long as they don't get lazy with the searches they should be able to protect themselves from any lawsuits.
--
JimFive
Just because Google does not know how to find an author does not give them the right to make copies of the author's work without permission.
In law that is true. But in fact, if the copyright holder cannot be found then no one has standing to sue. If Google did sufficient due diligence to attempt to find out who owns an orphaned work and then went ahead and scanned it I think they would be pretty safe from a damages perspective. The important thing would be to not skimp on the research.
Of course, this problem would go away if copyright only lasted for a reasonable amount of time (say something on the order of 10-30 years).
Even 50 would be fine as long as it was a fixed term (not life+years). A fixed term would make it very easy to know when the copyright has expired just by looking at the copyright notice page.
--
JimFive
When I said, "not expensive", I was looking at it from a cost/value perspective. $20/hr for a professional's time is very cheap. $50/hr (Total, includes insurance, fuel, maintenance) to rent a very expensive piece of equipment doesn't seem outrageous. So, sure, $2500+ to get a license isn't in the "anybody can afford it" category, but it's also not in the "completely out of reach for normal people" category, either. This isn't an up front cost, you pay as you go. So, it's one year of car payments, or two years of cable bills.
--
JimFive
Except that Private Pilots' licenses aren't expensive. When I got mine it was about $50 / hour to rent the plane and $20 / hour to pay the instructor, I assume those numbers have gone up, but I haven't flown in a few years. The minimum requirements were 20 hours dual, and 20 hours solo, but it usually takes longer than that to learn the skills. The flight requirements are aimed at making sure you can control the plane, navigate, and recover if something goes wrong. None of the requirements are onerous or bureaucratic, none of the costs are outrageous.
--
JimFive
Don't know about Minnesota, but here in WI, the snow stays on the roof for maybe a day or two before it is melted off from the black shingles slowly melting it all.
You need to insulate your roof. That snow isn't melting because the sun is hitting the black shingles (it isn't, they are covered in snow). It's melting because your furnace is heating your attic and melting the snow from underneath. You'll save quite a bit if you stop heating the outside.
--
JimFive
And perhaps those who learn will become less occupied with facts and more engaged in larger questions of understanding.
Makes an assertion that understanding can be gained without facts. This seems absurd to me. In order to understand e.g. History, you need to know what has happened when and what has influenced whom. I like to break facts up into two categories: Trivial and Conceptual. Trivial facts can be easily looked up and forgotten and are, in general, unimportant for good understanding (although they may be important in specific cases, in which event, you look it up). Conceptual facts, on the other hand are required to be known in order to generate understanding. They cannot easily be looked up in a reference because they aren't the kind of thing that is usually stated as such. An example might be in order: Two trivial facts: The Treaty of Versailles ended WWI on June 28, 1919. A Spanish Flu Epidemic in 1918 killed an large proportion of 20-40 year olds. Conceptual fact: The untimely deaths of fighting age people led to Germany being unable to continue the war. Knowing that there was a flu epidemic just before the end of WWI is an important thing to memorize. Knowing specific dates or casualty figures isn't.
The problem with education has always been that it is easier to teach and test trivia.
--
JimFive
Excellent post. I wish I had mod points.
Somalia is not an example of an anarchist society. Just because a government collapses doesn't mean that people respect the non-aggression principle
What does the "non-aggression principle" have to do with anarchy? You seem to be imposing some sort of idealism on anarchy that doesn't really exist. Any society needs ways to protect itself from bad actors. An anarchic society will be maintained through a variety of mechanisms. Some of those mechanisms will involve violence, from forcible expulsion to outright murder.
--
JimFive
You haven't addressed why it's moral and ethical for one group of people to use violence to enforce their will on another group of people regardless of any prosperity that may or may not result.
In a democracy those two groups of people are the same group. Thus your question becomes "Is it moral and ethical for a group of people to use violence to enforce their will upon themselves?"
--
JimFive
Even more than that, this plays into the studios' hands also. No license agreement is necessary for NetFlix to rent DVDs, but an agreement is necessary to stream the movies.
Now that the local rental store is basically gone, pushed out by NetFlix and replaced with limited selection kiosks (Redbox), the studios would like nothing better than for NetFlix to stop renting physical discs. This would allow the studios to dictate terms, availability, and get a cut from each view.
--
JimFive
and placed my card on the "do not accept charges from this card, ever" list;
So, the fact that they are keeping your credit card number on a list, in a database, presumably as clear text, doesn't bother you at all?
--
JimFive
The only differences between the safe deposit box and Amazon's "cloud" are, there are no disc or box in the cloud.
Actually, the biggest difference is that you can't access the disk in the box at the same time as the disk in your house. The idea of an archival copy is that it is used only as a backup, not for everyday use (Ok, you use the copy and store the original, but the effect is the same.)
Another difference is that Amazon is making an additional copy for you on demand and Amazon didn't buy the CD.
While those distinctions seem fairly absurd to any technical person who understands how computers work, it isn't absurd to the legal system.
--
JimFive
Though I am very late and a bit off topic, feeding the birds is not a solution. Your cat will learn to stake out the food pile and kill the birds as they are eating. The feeding ground basically becomes a bait pile.
--
JimFive
What does that imply about a US high school education?
On thing that is being missed in this conversation is that there is no such thing as a US high school education. There is no national curriculum. There are 50 state curricula with assorted requirements and arbitrary funding levels. The differences between the good and bad schools within the same state are vast, and the differences between states are even more so.
Because of this, Universities have no idea what the incoming students actually know. To accomodate this they force from 1-2 years of "general education" on the student body.
The problem with this is that an 18 year old doesn't really see the value in general education and just wants to get on to the good stuff. Therefore, general education is viewed as either a money grab or a road block on the way to the diploma.
--
JimFive
However, one person's "industry" is another person's "private affairs".
I don't think I quite understand. Can you cite an example?
If I decide to operate a nuclear reactor in my garage, is that industry, or private affair? Does it matter if it is for personal use or if I sell the electricity?
A lot of small businesses are started up with an individual's money on an individual's property. At what point does that stop being a private affair and become open to regulation?
Simple -- how is NHS or medicare "interfering with private affairs"? I never understood that argument.
I have heard two main arguments:
As is probably obvious, I don't buy these arguments, either. Someone else may be able to articulate them more clearly.
Overall, I agree with you that a role of government is to protect me from you, not me from me. I also think that a just society provides services that ensure that the basic needs of its people are met. Balancing conflicting roles is part of the job.
--
JimFive
But in the grand scheme of things, when Kraft gets taxed, so does Sargento, etc. resulting in an across the board price increase for ALL cheese. So you cant avoid it.
Unless Sargento doesn't raise the price and thereby gains market share. Raising the cost does not change the equilibrium point of the supply/demand curve. Raising the price will lead to some consumers avoiding the "tax" by buying less. Hobson's choice is still a choice.
--
JimFive
This is a common misconception. Repeat after me: "Businesses dont pay taxes, consumers do." Taxes are just another cost of doing business that is simply passed along to the consumer in higher costs.
This is a common misconception. Repeat after me: "Cost and Price are unrelated." The value of a product to the consumer does not change just because the cost of creating the product changes.
--
JimFive
I'd like to see a social libertarianism, where there are no victimless "crimes" and government stays out of my private affairs, yet does in fact collect taxes to help society along and regulates industry so it doesn't victimize working people and the environment.
I pretty much agree with you. However, one person's "industry" is another person's "private affairs".
Government should protect you from me, it shouldn't protect you from yourself. I'm all for socialized medicine, and wish we'd impliment it here in the US.
I agree, something like a NHS or Medicare for all would be excellent. But how do you counter the arguments that it is "interfering with my private affairs".
--
JimFive
Evidence suggests that slave labor is unable to compete with free labor on a long term basis.
Evidence suggests that slave labor is competitive when land is plentiful (and, thus, cheap) and labor is scarce. But it is not competitive when land is scarce and labor is plentiful.
--
JimFive
Doesn't gander mean a group of geese?
No, a gander is a male goose.
--
JimFive