It is a sad reality, but this is the way it must be. Maybe not dying of hunger, but poverty is inevitable. If everyone had plenty of money, then the money is simply worth less. The world will always have poverty stricken people.
You've revealed the hidden truth in any system based on economy. Moneyism relies on this disparity, or it won't work.
If it were possible for everyone to assume the role of the impartial spectator, we might see the futility of assigning so much value to something that is naturally and intrinsically worthless. Money is merely a means of assigning privilege to people: those who may have what they need (and more), and those who may not, based on the very arguable supposition that there can't possibly be enough for everybody. We hope, with our politics, to make this assignment in a just and equitable way, but moralists and philosophers have always told us that everyone is more or less equal -- an indication that there is no real justice in such a system.
It is true that the poor are always with us, but this is mostly an artificially contrived situation. I suggest that if we return to a system of free enterprise where the means are the goods and the ends are flesh and blood, rather than the opposite of this (as in the current moneyism), that although a certain number of poor would remain, their situation wouldn't be so hopeless.
I hear arguments that the system as it stands is constantly improving the situation of even the poorest people. This is true enough; and for the supporter of such systems, it is evidence of great success. In this case, the measure of success consists of the material goods which the person can afford to possess. On the other hand, such people have very little hope of changing their situation if they are not already perfectly content with it. In this regard, the present moneyism is very much akin to the concepts espoused by socialism (not in means, but in effects). People are taught their place, and they remain there. Only the most strenuous exertions, usually against the system, can produce the desired changes.
The appeal of early America was not in pop culture or in material wealth as much as it was in the potential for self-sufficiency and in the dream of pursuing it according to one's own inclinations, talents, virtues, and interests. America fulfilled the ambitions of the soul more than it did the comforts of the body.
The modern American lives in comfort, but he has a vague uneasiness about the twists and turns of the economy (upon which he knows he is completely dependent). He subconsciously realizes that the company he works for has no conscience at all. He knows that the only thing that distinguishes him from his peers can be quantified as efficiency, and it is on this account that he competes. He no longer learns for the sake of knowledge itself, but for the financial benefit that knowledge will yield. He feels doubtful that he is fulfilling his destiny in the way that he chooses, but covers his discomfort with prescription medication and superfluous recreation. He is filled with artificial needs, the fulfilling of which, he is told, entails the consummation of the American Dream and the ultimate happiness. He spends most of his time away from those individuals which Nature once intended to be his family (the moneyist society finds artificial replacements for this) and he lives in something resembling a community, but lacking the humanity of it -- he now talks with more ease into dumb machines than with other human beings. He can't make his own clothes, his own food, his own shelter.
We have almost arrived at that wonderful utopic state envisioned by the likes of Hobbes and Marx. This is the era of the Artificial Man, where Leviathan reigns supreme.
America didn't even use the American style for more than a century. In reality, it probably only lasted until the Civil War.
The original American system was a huge success, allowing all kinds of different people to create their own communities where they were free to hate each other all they wanted to. Most of the time they were able to settle their differences all by themselves, without any sort of Federal interference. And where they could never find the middle ground, they got over it. It was OK, in those days, for people to have their own bigoted opinions of each other. The laws of the land were based on natural, rights which were understood to NOT be granted by the government or even by the common consent of the people.
Unfortunately, rich men needed us all to be very predictable. There is no way to support a mass-production economy unless artificial needs can be instilled in everyone. How can that be done unless the population is secularized with economic dogmas, political correctness, and layers of bureaucracy?
Americans have lived in an artificial humanity for so long, we don't even know what natural rights feel like any more. Our 18th century impartial observers of humanity would be horrified to know what we think our "rights" are today.
James Otis knew that America's torch had been lit on the flames of Great Britain. John Locke was English. Adam Smith was Scottish. Their ideas, among others, fueled the American revolution.
Make no mistake - we still have our Tories. Ever since the revolution, they've been begging to get back into the good ol' boys club (a.k.a class system) that we left when we turned our back on the old Empire. We're nearly there.
The part to be careful of is the part that entails "minor diversions into fantasy-land." Sometimes this is where the future addict gets hooked.
When people develop compulsive habits, or addictions, they no longer have control. They can't just decide to stop without some sort of intervention.
While it's always best for people to provide their own prevention, you have to realize that we are a society that has embraced artifical needs (it's an important component of the present moneyism). People are no longer rational; we do not live self-"examined lives," nor do we know ourselves. We are expected only to contribute to the economy, which in its turn, is supposed to care for us.
When the addictions of gaming begin to tax more from the economy than is replaced, then will be the time for regulations. An addicted populace is useful until it becomes dysfunctional.
The most useful tactic of such a society is the pretense that individuals still have their agency to choose. Once programmed into the new managed utopia, we simply fall back on traditional morality when something goes wrong: it was his fault. He took the bait. He made poor choices. The product is designed to be as addictive as possible, yet we are expected to practice temperance and moderation when partaking of it.
What you said is still true - in a perfectly human, perfectly civilized society. In a society such as ours, where we rely on external providence for all of our support (we work for someone else, get clothes, food, and shelter from someone else, and have very little or no idea at all how to produce these things in a self-sufficient manner), we can hardly be expected to be accountable for a good portion of the choices we make. A dependent people can carry very little blame.
We're beginning to see a little of that in some American cities again, but mostly in areas where there are lots of young and single people (around universities, etc.). The mixed use is nice, but hasn't been as helpful to larger families, who are still living in the residential suburbs and would have previously been engaged in local agrarian enterpises. These constitute the bulk of the middle class and will probably suffer most when the markets have to re-adjust once foreign economies outpace us. Then we'll wish we had the corner baker back in our neighborhood.
When this little fact will be understood by the thousands chambers of commerce, there will be serious moves toward better transit. In addition of lowering the expenses of employers, it will free the roads from millions of otherwise useless vehicles, leaving a free way for what cannot be transacted without a truck, thus cutting down on the time lost in traffic, furthering even more the savings.
A good post, and I appologize in advance for my over-length and idealistic reply.;)
People in many "3rd world" countries get along fine without automobiles because their economies are local ones. They walk to the corner-market to get what they need; have tailors, butchers, shoemakers, and every other trade or commerce (in which they often participate) available within a fairly short distance. The transit system only helps them where there is something that can't be had in the neighborhood already, or in the sad cases of urbanization where the people become dependent upon bureaucracy or else live in poverty.
In America, if our fossil fuels dried up, we'd all starve to death. We are entirely dependent on the working poor (those in China, Bangladesh, etc.) who make the things for us that we can't make for ourselves. And that, today, is everything. These "refined foreign resources" then get shipped over seas, where they are ultimately delivered to our retail outlets where we get them at the inflated prices that to us are still remarkably cheap. Efficient? No, only economical. The new way of life works like this: Pay someone as little as possible to create the goods, then sell them at the highest price somewhere else. Live on the difference. We call this parasitic sort of living "capitalism" and fully expect that it will raise everyone's standard of living everywhere. The whole key to this moneyism is the difference between the cost of making goods from raw materials and the price of the finished goods on the market.
I propose that it will become more of a prosperity-depression cycle. Where moneyism is concerned, there are two motivators: First, the intense need created by abject poverty in which any little amount of money is better than none; and second, the sort of greed that drives people to get as much of it as they can. It absolutely requires the people in the middle, and these must necessarily become consumers, but you can't have them all piling up there or the economics won't work. Moneyism relies on concentration of wealth, but it has to get redistributed from time to time, and then you start over again. That is what our globalization is now leading us to - a new market of poor people to exploit. When those have been raised sufficiently from poverty (and we will correctly attribute this to our virtues of moneyism and enlightened self interest), then the system will finally collapse, for there won't be any poor enough to provide commodity goods. This collapse will create a new class of poor people from among the previous middle class, and they will be ready for the exploitation that will eventually be praised as their savior once again.
Before we can have a working mass transit system, we need to return to independent lifestyles that will bring the economy back into the neighborhood - and it will be a free enterprise economy, not a moneyist one (in my estimation, there is no free enterprise unless the makers of goods are also the entrepreneurs. Truly free enterprises can't sustain much parasitic middle-management). Ultimately, we can't have a mass-production, centrally controlled industrial bureaucratized and globalized economy where everyone works for someone else.
Perhaps in the future, the present "globalization" will be seen as it is: brutish and inhuman. Then people might return to reliance on each other for what they need. That's a difficult scenario for me to visualize and I don't expect anything short of catastophe to change our current culture (which, in spite of its inhumanity, has provided us with amazing technologies that would have bee
The bad things are done not by inherently bad people, but by people who think they are doing good, but lack the capacity to doubt themselves, their convictions, and their methods.
(Good post, btw)
It's not that we lack the capacity, only that our culture becomes invisible to us. Capacity is no longer a part of the equation once we lose sight of it. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether or not we are still "free" in America now that our culture has removed any desire for rational debate and replaced it with artificial needs. This problem transcends traditional religion; it's also a hallmark of modern Capitalism and any other system where humans serve an ideology instead of each other.
Adam Smith noticed that things seemed to move along of their own accord, as if there were some invisible hand pushing us to our inevitable destinies. Of course, it really doesn't work that way unless you subscribe to the system and serve the machine. Conspiracies, it turns out, don't even need conspirators. The good people who are doing their best to grease the weels and oil the cogs might occasionally step back and realize, with horror, that their machine doesn't really have a care for flesh and blood after all. We just assumed that if we served it, it would also serve us. In those moments, it is the secular prophets who assure us, upon recognizing our terrible situation, to just give it more time. The ends will eventually justify the means.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
Northern Canada once had a tropical climate because it used to be much further south than it is currently. It turns out that there is quite a lot of really good evidence indicating that continents haven't always been where they are today. Unfortunately, tropical Canada is much better explained by Plate Tectonics than by theories of past climate changes.
This sounds to me more like Objectivism - Ayn Rand stuff. I realize that a lot of self-styled "Libertarians" subscribe to the theories of Objectivism, but I don't think that the two are exactly the same. Or perhaps this is what Libertarianism has become. I've personally favored Libertarian ideals, but if these have become tainted by business and by Objectivism, then I will re-think the next time I consider supporting them.
The writer of TFA is whining that computers no longer ship with a BASIC interpreter. That's been true since Microsoft shipped Windows 95--and at the time (which, er, was 1995) a number of columnists (including me) noted the loss, and wondered what impact it would have.
Every modern Windows OS that I have tried in the recent past has shipped with the Windows Script Host, which can be used via the command-line "cscript" command, or the "wscript" command for GUI mode. The script host interprets VBScript programs, which is where BASIC can be found on Windows today.
I think you need to look deeper than that. This kind of rotten behavior is practically a permanent fixture in moneyism, and it has been ever since businesses dumped the ideal of free enterprise in favor of a new ideal of maximum profits and the power those bring to the people in charge. This invisible hand operates equally well on government and business alike.
Wow. Are you on the Beef council? While the two researchers whose publications I've read (Dr. Aldana & Dr. Campbell) haven't agreed on the extent of the meat problem, both of them, without exception, group red meat into the candy and junk food category. Dr. Campell collected extensive data from human populations, over nearly 30 years, demonstrating the numerous health risks associated with meaty diets. Neither of these researchers are associated with agrobusiness industries that buy research for the purpose of marketing to consumers. Where do your data come from?
While few in America are "starving," how many earths would it take to feed the whole world an American Beef diet? On the other hand, how much of the world's hunger problem could we solve today if we shipped the grain we feed our cattle to humans who need it? You say less meat now than ever... where did you get that from? And by the way, the large and powerful animals we make into burgers traditionally get all of their protein from vegetable sources.
I never suggested in my response that you said that ethics were not subjective and important. I fully realize that is not your argument at all, and I agree with you. However, you must have expected an antagonistic reponse, because you hardly spent a minute thinking about what I wrote before shooting off your rebuttal. Perhaps you should more accurately read my response.
I was merely responding to your assertion that a firm foundation in science is necessary _before_ ethics can be really useful. I agreed with your idea that an understanding of science can contribute to the sense of ethics, but I disagreed that understanding objective reality has to come _first_.
That doesn't mean arts and ethics aren't important, they are, but they don't map reality in the same way science importantly does. In order to fully utilize the subjectivity enhancing insights of ethics we must FIRST have the firm grounding in empirical reality provided by science.
No, we just need to be able to let go of limiting beliefs when it becomes sufficiently clear that they are most likely incorrect. Subjective ethics and intuition must necessarily come before objective reality because humans aren't able to empirically test all things all of the time. Most of us have never personally conducted the research that produced our modern understanding of objective reality, yet we accept this science based on intuition, trust, and logic.
Otherwise, what you say is true. Real science gives us a commonly accepted mapping of reality in accordance with those physical aspects that humans know how to quantify. But it doesn't tell us how to behave in relation to those things, or whether or not they are right or wrong. What scientific knowledge can do is bias our intuition, and hopefully refine our ethics, which must have preceded the objective evidences.
This doesn't tend to be the case, though. On the one hand, zealous theocrats put down science by subjective judgement, and on the other hand, zealous objectivists reject the notion of ethics because it can't be quantified at all. So we tend toward either oppressive theocracy, or law-of-the jungle selfish-ism where anything goes, so long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to be selfish.
Where are you from that tremendous work ethic is not something to be admired?
The prefrontal cortex in the human brain puts him on an etirely different level from the workers of the animal kingdom who spend their existences fighting for survival. This difference is so enormous that I wonder why anyone thinks that man's destiny ought to be the same as that of the industrious worker-ants. While it's true that political and economic conditions compel the man to live below his real capacities, the mere existence of a "work ethic" simply proves that we've given in to the kind of cultural thought that drives these oppressive business practices.
Your Korean friend has an independent livelihood, works with his family, and enjoys the fruits of his own labor. His work ethic is far more justified than any wage slave in a Chinese sweat-shop. If he lived in a small community of like-minded entrepreneurs, they could probably together produce a local free-enterprise economy that allows more time for intellectual and personal pursuits. Man ought to be able to put some of his work ethic into something other than survival. In fact, I would call that a natural right: It seems that man is equipped for it.
Your argument is predicated on the concept that there is no difference between religious and secular matters.
My argument is that philosophical axioms and theistic dogmas require the same kind of religious belief. The evidence for the existence of natural rights is based on intuition; no one can experimentally prove that we have rights at all. Therefore, those who subscribe to the teachings of John Locke, Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand, do so under a sort of religious persuasion. I use the term religion in this sense: as a concept, not an organization.
As for the Constitutionality of the idea of separation of church and state, it is disingenuous to say that it is not found within the Constitution, for "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is clearly the foundation of separation.
Whether this is the foundation of the separation doctrine espoused by Jefferson is beside the point. It is clear from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that this phrase was meant in the same context as the establishment clause (i.e. that the federal government would not subsidize or endorse the Congregationalist church). Note that the Constitution is very clear in its use of "an establishment" when referring to organized religion. It does not refer to religion as a movement or ideology. This also does not refer to "the act of establishing;" this is not how they used the language. Christianity isn't an establishment of religion, neither is Islam or Mysticism, etc. The constitution is very specific that it means "Church."
Anyway, you've totally disregarded my point -- not addressed it at all. Yes, States and Churches sometimes share a lot of characteristics. But they are not the same thing at all, and to conflate them trivializes their differences.
'Belonging' to a State requires only that you meet the legal definitions of a citizen of that State; as one who belongs to that state, adherence to the rules is compulsory. 'Belonging' to a Church requires not only that you are formally recognized and adhere to the rules, but also that you Believe.
I think we agree that a church is "an establishment of religion." That is, a religion administered by a common government that claims authority over those who presume membership in the church (whether or not the individual was born into passive church membership, or "baptized" later on as a true believer).
My thesis is that natural rights philosophy, secularism, communism, materialism, objectivism, etc., are all forms of religion. When such political philosophies are organized to form States, there becomes no practical difference at all between them and the other organized churches. The differences are entirely theological and procedural, but these same kinds of differences also exist between denominations of any established religion.
We only separate the two because one is based on secular religion, which we call politics, and the other is based on theistic religion, which we simply call "religion." Language semantics and cultural biases aside, both require a measure of faith. And, as it turns out, there is a very blury line that separates political philosophy from religious philosophy.
Of course, my whole point is to "trivialize their differences" because these differences are trivial:
1) Differences in philosophy (what are the "core values" and beliefs) 2) Differences in administration (what are the rules, how do you get in, how do you leave)
These same differences exist between Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists. Speaking in terms of ontology, the only logical conclusion is that church and state are the same type of entities. They both exhibit the same properties within the same limits of variation. The only difference is the label that we give to them.
Also, just to note -- there is quite a difference between a religion and a Church. A religion is a concept, not an organization, so to imply that "secularists" are trying to ensure that "
In my opinion, you have failed to answer the argument of the parent post, but instead have bolstered his thesis with your own comments.
In The Federalist, John Jay claimed that at least some of one's "natural rights" had to be ceded to the government. In fact, this is what makes government possible at all. Unfortunately, when you enter the realm of "natural rights" (upon which the U.S. Constitution was at least partly established) -- whether or not people really have rights, what exactly these are, which rights one must submit to the government, how this is done, (etc.) -- you also enter the realm of subjective philosophy where specific axioms must be accepted by everyone. The concept of "rights" is an ideology, just like anything else religious that people choose to believe in.
But, like you said, indulgence in the state religion is compulsory. If Olympian judges rule that a new Right exists that no longer defers to the established order of government, then we are all inducted into this new faith whether we like it or not. Just like in colonial times!
The extra-Constitutional idea of "separation of church and state" is a ruse used mainly by secularists to ensure that theirs is the only true religion administered to the people.
Adam Smith suggested that this self-interest is actually derived from the natural tendency toward fellow-feeling, something that he called "sympathy." I like to think of Adam Smith as the father of Free Enterprise. Of course, his theories have been utterly revised by Ayn Rand, who came to the conclusion that "self" is really all there is. I like to think of Ayn Rand in connection with Capitalism. Some people think those two things, Free Enterprise and Capitalism, are really the same, but they're not.
Today's Free Software is a kind of Free Enterprise. Under the Free Enterprise model, the product is released because it possesses some quality of cleverness or utility, and the author wants this quality to be known. Perhaps he desires the recognition it will bring him, or maybe he feels altruisic, needed, or even has a sense of duty because he realizes that he also relies on the production of others. Whatever the reason is (whether it seems selfish or not), it came from the ability to project or anticipate the feelings of others, and is therefore sympathetic in nature. This is Adam Smith's thesis, upon which he developed his moral philosophy.
Under the capitalist model, the product isn't released to the public for its utility, only for its potential to generate maximum capital (a.k.a. greed). Only those who can pay the price up-front are included in the deal. The author of the product releases the product if it makes good business sense. And in fact, under modern capitalism, the "self" in "self-interest" isn't even human anymore. It is business. The idea is that, if business prospers, then so do those who serve business (think Leviathan, only in terms of the Invisible Hand instead of the Monarch-God). There will always be those few who are left out of that equation, hence the need to redefine "self" strictly as a business entity, but such unfortunates are statistically insignificant...
If the Free Software ideology espouses Capitalism, then it is doomed to irrelevance. Capitalism is in the business of making junk. It turns raw-resources into products as quickly and cheaply as possible, which then fill up our landfills in time for the next version to be released. Free Software that is produced with the intent that it might later be a source of revenue is done under the pretense of bait-and-switch. That's why the GPL has protections against such things. Free Software that is produced because it might make the author famous (and hence possibly also rich), is simply bad business sense.
Free Software that is developed in the good old-fashioned community spirit (i.e. the spirit of Free Enterprise) will retain its integrity and continue apart from the commercial software world.
The only kind of "self-interest" that capitalism even considers is "financial gain" at the business entity level. That's why it's called capitalism. There are other kinds of self-interest that will serve Free Software much better.
Seriously, I think science and the scientific method is a very important part of what makes people free from irrationality. The simple belief that you can try things to see what works and what doesn't often seems trivial and unimportant, but it's amazing how the lack of that simple concept can totally cripple someone's ability to live freely.
And I would say that philosophy produces the best thinkers.;) Scientists tend to be dogmatic and closed minded, only experimenting with things easily observed in the known objective realms. Mathematics - that abstract reasoning which provides the basis for concrete science - can be used to experiment in many areas not yet directly open to empirical observation.
The American obssession with employment is a result of the Great Depression. It became the goal of the United States to prevent such a man-made catastrophe from ever happening again. It became the national goal to ensure that there would always be jobs for the people, and it shapes the major policies of the U.S. government. It's all about the economy because it's what produces the jobs. Every great empire has a mission, a goal, an ideal. For the United States as a whole it has been getting as close to 0% unemployment as feasible since the 1930s.
I think work towards that goal was in motion long before the Great Depression, probably since post-civil-war economists determined that if capital couldn't be spent on slave labor, it could at least buy wages. Rich men have always been afraid of what might happen if they couldn't fit everyone into a bell-curve and thus predict revenues for the indefinite future. Americans were once a people with independent livelihoods who lived in local economies and enjoyed free, unrestricted (well, not artificially restricted) enterprise between themselves. Hired labor was culled largely from among the youth (apprenticeships) until they could establish themselves in their own local economy. In those days we had literate people who didn't feel that candle making was beneath them (e.g. Ben Franklin's dad). Education didn't necessarily translate into occupation. People educated themselves because it was the mark of liberty to expand the mind and soul - for the sake of knowledge alone. In the 21st century, it's inconceivable that any highly educated individual would fill an occupation "beneath" his education. We have learned that work and school are one and the same.
America had the lowest unemployment rate when there were fewest jobs. The man-made problem is the idea of a "job." In order to have plenty of jobs, Leviathan must consolidate and legislate, and all must be willingly subjected to the King's order. Businesses don't really mind this non-free enterpirse (Capitalism it's called now) because it provides such wonderful predictability.
We had a clear glimpse into this in 1934 when William Wirt testified to Congress that he had been party to a plan authored by some in the Roosevelt administration to prolong - on purpose - the Great Depression. Why? So that government control over banking and lending could be permanently secured. Did the administration admit to this? Yes! But it was just a joke, they told us, and Wirt was laughed out of town by the media (who, he had testified earlier, were at the beck and call of the Roosevelt propaganda machine). That's the shape of the memory hole in America.
This same sort of thing already happened in America in the early 1900's. President Wilson is on record for having said that America already had enough smart people, and what we really needed were more highly-trained automatons to serve the economy. That's one reason why our colleges are designed to get us good jobs working in a mass production economy - as MBAs and managers mostly. Colleges and universities in America don't produce highly literate individuals, only highly trained individuals. The ability to read words is only the first tiny step toward actual literacy.
An interesing side note to all of this is that our English word "Liberty" comes from the latin, "liber," meaning free. Liber is also the latin word for book.
If you consider that books and literacy contribute to the idea of liberty, you will understand why world economies can't actively promote such things as higher education (i.e. Liberal Arts eductation). How will the economy survive if the population can't be endowed with artificial needs? How would marketing possibly work on individuals in possession of the ability to reason? How could employees be recruited for a mass production economy? How can a mere one or two political parties hold sway over millions and millions of individuals who know how to think for themselves?
In America, the idea of liberty was replaced with a "way of life," which is really just another way to say "the economy." Unfortunately, we still think of "liberty" and the "American way of life" as the same thing. This confusion (born of illiteracy) is unfortunate because it becomes a tool for some politicians to build rhetoric to support their view of America as an exporter and protector of liberty - but I digress.
America's economy needs lots of MBAs and managers. China's economy doesn't. Both are equal servants under the Invisible Hand.
I laud your efforts to benefit our fellow human beings in the way you see fit. Certainly I have no criticism for you on that count.
What you suggest, by way of your post, troubles me:
1) Children must be taught, or compelled to learn 2) Material must be dumbed down because children aren't capable of assimilating it in its original format. 3) Teachers will only accept this abbreviated "curriculum," perhaps due to their own incapacity to teach directly from the masters, or because teachers must be mass-produced and don't have time for deep learning. 4) Learning doesn't happen without a curriculum.
The $100 laptop is merely a tool - one capable of providing access to the greatest library that the world has ever seen.
I'm reminded of a story that Richard P. Feynman told, about how he used to check books out of the library when he was a boy. One day he brought a book about calculus to the librarian, with the intent of checking it out. He then related the criticism that he received from this librarian, who couldn't conceive how a book on calculus could possibly be useful or interesting to a mere boy. You remind me very much of that librarian. That a child should step out of the commitee-mandated curriculum and pursue advanced topics of interest is inconceivable!
It may be that much important literature is written in language foreign to many people. The mind would necessarily need to be expanded in order to understand the principles of those great individuals who originally thought them. And what is wrong with that? You discount the power of human passion, once that desire to learn has been ignited. We have classics suitable for all types of people, and need only the right access to them. Instead of teachers, they need mentors to inspire them.
I'm sure we can find a place for "school" somewhere. Unfortunately, most of us waste too much time in that pursuit for entirely economic reasons. When has school ever produced a master artist or statesman? Instead we make employees and complacent citizens.
It may be that your ideals are realistic in our estimation - we live in a mass-produced utopia every day thanks to our state-mandated curriculum and business-sponsored systems of bureaucratic education. Having all found good jobs, we're now too busy to pursue our real interests (recreation makes us feel better about this sad loss), and certainly there is no time left for reading classics. Let's not export these chains to our neighbors who we wrongly consider less fortunate.
If anything, access to the world's literature is a prize worth more than many a mediocre teacher.
Just my opinion on the matter. As it is, the $100 laptop might end up becoming yet another way to export our Western excesses and vices (gambling, porno, etc), and not be used as a learning tool at all. I'm worried about it in that regard.
By the way, project Gutenberg hosts a good portion of the world's classic literature online. Why settle for "schoolbooks" when you can read the original works of Newton, Darwin, Hobbes, et al.?
Meh, it was just a clone of a Roland AdLib music card with a cheap 8-bit DAC slapped onto it...
Ah, vintage sound cards.
BTW, Roland didn't make the AdLib music card. The AdLib card was made by AdLib, Inc. I remember that it was an inexpensive upgrade (about $99) that gave marginally better results than the PC speaker - at least you got some polyphony, some FM modulated sine waves, and a plug for an external speaker.
I don't think Roland had a sound card until the LAPC-1 came out in the early 1990s, and this purported "consumer-grade" sound card cost maybe 10x the price of the AdLib, putting it out of the range of most casual consumers; but the LAPC-1 did include Roland's advanced LA synthesis and a bank of ROM PCM sounds that could be used to create more complex timbres. It was basically an MT-32 on a card, with 33 extra sound effects and an integrated MIDI interface. The LAPC-1 had a 16-bit DAC, but it could only use the onboard ROM as a source.
The AdLib card used a simple OPL2 FM synthesizer, manufactured by Yamaha, same as the original SoundBlaster.
So you're right that the SoundBlaster was more or less equivalent to the AdLib card, with the exception of the added DAC, which allowed crude samples to be played (a worthwhile feature at the time). Of course, in those days, some enthusiasts made their own serial-port DACs from Radio Shack parts, so it was nothing spectacular even then.
The hardcore gamers usually combined an MT-32 or LAPC-1 (for the decent music synthesis) with the SoundBlaster (for its sound effects and limited voice playback abilities), or else migrated to the Gravis Ultrasound later on.
I'm not sure whether its been beaten out of kids by their brainless parents, or whether they were born that way, but a large proportion of the current adult population really can't think analytically at all.
Come now. You suggest that the capacity to know how to think has been beaten out of children by their own parents. You mean, those same parents who send their children off to be instructed by strangers at an institution where the curriculum is determined by bureaucrats and business interests? Where they are interrupted every 45 minutes by a signal indicating when it's time to think about something different? Where they learn the skills they need to "get a good job" working for sombody else?
You don't watch TV, do you. If you did, you would notice the incessant ADHD-inducing interruptions every five minutes where we all get advertised to. In whose interest is it that we all think for ourselves? What kind of consumer thinks for himself? What kind of marketing campaign works on people who know how to think for themselves? How can a mass-production economy possibly work?
When the tides of "education" were turning in America, President Wilson stated that we don't need any more smart people, only highly skilled people. You see, it's a competition. We have to be better than China, better than India, better than everyone. Knowledge is now an economy. We don't learn for the mere human interests of mind and soul. We serve the social machines of business and government.
I guess parents are to be blamed for a part of that equation, but it's hard to see it when there is an "invisble hand" of economy pushing everything to its inevitable commoditized conclusion. We are born into a mindless culture and yet we want to blame our parents because we're stupid. We need to look back further than that.
I've tried the Atlas pre-release on both IE 6 and the latest Firefox. It worked pretty well in both browsers (so far). The samples they have aren't very polished, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You've revealed the hidden truth in any system based on economy. Moneyism relies on this disparity, or it won't work.
If it were possible for everyone to assume the role of the impartial spectator, we might see the futility of assigning so much value to something that is naturally and intrinsically worthless. Money is merely a means of assigning privilege to people: those who may have what they need (and more), and those who may not, based on the very arguable supposition that there can't possibly be enough for everybody. We hope, with our politics, to make this assignment in a just and equitable way, but moralists and philosophers have always told us that everyone is more or less equal -- an indication that there is no real justice in such a system.
It is true that the poor are always with us, but this is mostly an artificially contrived situation. I suggest that if we return to a system of free enterprise where the means are the goods and the ends are flesh and blood, rather than the opposite of this (as in the current moneyism), that although a certain number of poor would remain, their situation wouldn't be so hopeless.
I hear arguments that the system as it stands is constantly improving the situation of even the poorest people. This is true enough; and for the supporter of such systems, it is evidence of great success. In this case, the measure of success consists of the material goods which the person can afford to possess. On the other hand, such people have very little hope of changing their situation if they are not already perfectly content with it. In this regard, the present moneyism is very much akin to the concepts espoused by socialism (not in means, but in effects). People are taught their place, and they remain there. Only the most strenuous exertions, usually against the system, can produce the desired changes.
The appeal of early America was not in pop culture or in material wealth as much as it was in the potential for self-sufficiency and in the dream of pursuing it according to one's own inclinations, talents, virtues, and interests. America fulfilled the ambitions of the soul more than it did the comforts of the body.
The modern American lives in comfort, but he has a vague uneasiness about the twists and turns of the economy (upon which he knows he is completely dependent). He subconsciously realizes that the company he works for has no conscience at all. He knows that the only thing that distinguishes him from his peers can be quantified as efficiency, and it is on this account that he competes. He no longer learns for the sake of knowledge itself, but for the financial benefit that knowledge will yield. He feels doubtful that he is fulfilling his destiny in the way that he chooses, but covers his discomfort with prescription medication and superfluous recreation. He is filled with artificial needs, the fulfilling of which, he is told, entails the consummation of the American Dream and the ultimate happiness. He spends most of his time away from those individuals which Nature once intended to be his family (the moneyist society finds artificial replacements for this) and he lives in something resembling a community, but lacking the humanity of it -- he now talks with more ease into dumb machines than with other human beings. He can't make his own clothes, his own food, his own shelter.
We have almost arrived at that wonderful utopic state envisioned by the likes of Hobbes and Marx. This is the era of the Artificial Man, where Leviathan reigns supreme.
America didn't even use the American style for more than a century. In reality, it probably only lasted until the Civil War.
The original American system was a huge success, allowing all kinds of different people to create their own communities where they were free to hate each other all they wanted to. Most of the time they were able to settle their differences all by themselves, without any sort of Federal interference. And where they could never find the middle ground, they got over it. It was OK, in those days, for people to have their own bigoted opinions of each other. The laws of the land were based on natural, rights which were understood to NOT be granted by the government or even by the common consent of the people.
Unfortunately, rich men needed us all to be very predictable. There is no way to support a mass-production economy unless artificial needs can be instilled in everyone. How can that be done unless the population is secularized with economic dogmas, political correctness, and layers of bureaucracy?
Americans have lived in an artificial humanity for so long, we don't even know what natural rights feel like any more. Our 18th century impartial observers of humanity would be horrified to know what we think our "rights" are today.
James Otis knew that America's torch had been lit on the flames of Great Britain. John Locke was English. Adam Smith was Scottish. Their ideas, among others, fueled the American revolution.
Make no mistake - we still have our Tories. Ever since the revolution, they've been begging to get back into the good ol' boys club (a.k.a class system) that we left when we turned our back on the old Empire. We're nearly there.
This is true.
The part to be careful of is the part that entails "minor diversions into fantasy-land." Sometimes this is where the future addict gets hooked.
When people develop compulsive habits, or addictions, they no longer have control. They can't just decide to stop without some sort of intervention.
While it's always best for people to provide their own prevention, you have to realize that we are a society that has embraced artifical needs (it's an important component of the present moneyism). People are no longer rational; we do not live self-"examined lives," nor do we know ourselves. We are expected only to contribute to the economy, which in its turn, is supposed to care for us.
When the addictions of gaming begin to tax more from the economy than is replaced, then will be the time for regulations. An addicted populace is useful until it becomes dysfunctional.
The most useful tactic of such a society is the pretense that individuals still have their agency to choose. Once programmed into the new managed utopia, we simply fall back on traditional morality when something goes wrong: it was his fault. He took the bait. He made poor choices. The product is designed to be as addictive as possible, yet we are expected to practice temperance and moderation when partaking of it.
What you said is still true - in a perfectly human, perfectly civilized society. In a society such as ours, where we rely on external providence for all of our support (we work for someone else, get clothes, food, and shelter from someone else, and have very little or no idea at all how to produce these things in a self-sufficient manner), we can hardly be expected to be accountable for a good portion of the choices we make. A dependent people can carry very little blame.
We're beginning to see a little of that in some American cities again, but mostly in areas where there are lots of young and single people (around universities, etc.). The mixed use is nice, but hasn't been as helpful to larger families, who are still living in the residential suburbs and would have previously been engaged in local agrarian enterpises. These constitute the bulk of the middle class and will probably suffer most when the markets have to re-adjust once foreign economies outpace us. Then we'll wish we had the corner baker back in our neighborhood.
When this little fact will be understood by the thousands chambers of commerce, there will be serious moves toward better transit. In addition of lowering the expenses of employers, it will free the roads from millions of otherwise useless vehicles, leaving a free way for what cannot be transacted without a truck, thus cutting down on the time lost in traffic, furthering even more the savings.
;)
A good post, and I appologize in advance for my over-length and idealistic reply.
People in many "3rd world" countries get along fine without automobiles because their economies are local ones. They walk to the corner-market to get what they need; have tailors, butchers, shoemakers, and every other trade or commerce (in which they often participate) available within a fairly short distance. The transit system only helps them where there is something that can't be had in the neighborhood already, or in the sad cases of urbanization where the people become dependent upon bureaucracy or else live in poverty.
In America, if our fossil fuels dried up, we'd all starve to death. We are entirely dependent on the working poor (those in China, Bangladesh, etc.) who make the things for us that we can't make for ourselves. And that, today, is everything. These "refined foreign resources" then get shipped over seas, where they are ultimately delivered to our retail outlets where we get them at the inflated prices that to us are still remarkably cheap. Efficient? No, only economical. The new way of life works like this: Pay someone as little as possible to create the goods, then sell them at the highest price somewhere else. Live on the difference. We call this parasitic sort of living "capitalism" and fully expect that it will raise everyone's standard of living everywhere. The whole key to this moneyism is the difference between the cost of making goods from raw materials and the price of the finished goods on the market.
I propose that it will become more of a prosperity-depression cycle. Where moneyism is concerned, there are two motivators: First, the intense need created by abject poverty in which any little amount of money is better than none; and second, the sort of greed that drives people to get as much of it as they can. It absolutely requires the people in the middle, and these must necessarily become consumers, but you can't have them all piling up there or the economics won't work. Moneyism relies on concentration of wealth, but it has to get redistributed from time to time, and then you start over again. That is what our globalization is now leading us to - a new market of poor people to exploit. When those have been raised sufficiently from poverty (and we will correctly attribute this to our virtues of moneyism and enlightened self interest), then the system will finally collapse, for there won't be any poor enough to provide commodity goods. This collapse will create a new class of poor people from among the previous middle class, and they will be ready for the exploitation that will eventually be praised as their savior once again.
Before we can have a working mass transit system, we need to return to independent lifestyles that will bring the economy back into the neighborhood - and it will be a free enterprise economy, not a moneyist one (in my estimation, there is no free enterprise unless the makers of goods are also the entrepreneurs. Truly free enterprises can't sustain much parasitic middle-management). Ultimately, we can't have a mass-production, centrally controlled industrial bureaucratized and globalized economy where everyone works for someone else.
Perhaps in the future, the present "globalization" will be seen as it is: brutish and inhuman. Then people might return to reliance on each other for what they need. That's a difficult scenario for me to visualize and I don't expect anything short of catastophe to change our current culture (which, in spite of its inhumanity, has provided us with amazing technologies that would have bee
The bad things are done not by inherently bad people, but by people who think they are doing good, but lack the capacity to doubt themselves, their convictions, and their methods.
(Good post, btw)
It's not that we lack the capacity, only that our culture becomes invisible to us. Capacity is no longer a part of the equation once we lose sight of it. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether or not we are still "free" in America now that our culture has removed any desire for rational debate and replaced it with artificial needs. This problem transcends traditional religion; it's also a hallmark of modern Capitalism and any other system where humans serve an ideology instead of each other.
Adam Smith noticed that things seemed to move along of their own accord, as if there were some invisible hand pushing us to our inevitable destinies. Of course, it really doesn't work that way unless you subscribe to the system and serve the machine. Conspiracies, it turns out, don't even need conspirators. The good people who are doing their best to grease the weels and oil the cogs might occasionally step back and realize, with horror, that their machine doesn't really have a care for flesh and blood after all. We just assumed that if we served it, it would also serve us. In those moments, it is the secular prophets who assure us, upon recognizing our terrible situation, to just give it more time. The ends will eventually justify the means.
Just my opinion.
With fossils unearthed recently showing _tropical_ weather in Northern Canada, I think it's safe to say that the Arctic ice cap is a temporary feature.
Northern Canada once had a tropical climate because it used to be much further south than it is currently. It turns out that there is quite a lot of really good evidence indicating that continents haven't always been where they are today. Unfortunately, tropical Canada is much better explained by Plate Tectonics than by theories of past climate changes.
This sounds to me more like Objectivism - Ayn Rand stuff. I realize that a lot of self-styled "Libertarians" subscribe to the theories of Objectivism, but I don't think that the two are exactly the same. Or perhaps this is what Libertarianism has become. I've personally favored Libertarian ideals, but if these have become tainted by business and by Objectivism, then I will re-think the next time I consider supporting them.
The writer of TFA is whining that computers no longer ship with a BASIC interpreter. That's been true since Microsoft shipped Windows 95--and at the time (which, er, was 1995) a number of columnists (including me) noted the loss, and wondered what impact it would have.
Every modern Windows OS that I have tried in the recent past has shipped with the Windows Script Host, which can be used via the command-line "cscript" command, or the "wscript" command for GUI mode. The script host interprets VBScript programs, which is where BASIC can be found on Windows today.
I think you need to look deeper than that. This kind of rotten behavior is practically a permanent fixture in moneyism, and it has been ever since businesses dumped the ideal of free enterprise in favor of a new ideal of maximum profits and the power those bring to the people in charge. This invisible hand operates equally well on government and business alike.
Wow. Are you on the Beef council? While the two researchers whose publications I've read (Dr. Aldana & Dr. Campbell) haven't agreed on the extent of the meat problem, both of them, without exception, group red meat into the candy and junk food category. Dr. Campell collected extensive data from human populations, over nearly 30 years, demonstrating the numerous health risks associated with meaty diets. Neither of these researchers are associated with agrobusiness industries that buy research for the purpose of marketing to consumers. Where do your data come from?
While few in America are "starving," how many earths would it take to feed the whole world an American Beef diet? On the other hand, how much of the world's hunger problem could we solve today if we shipped the grain we feed our cattle to humans who need it? You say less meat now than ever... where did you get that from? And by the way, the large and powerful animals we make into burgers traditionally get all of their protein from vegetable sources.
I'm not personally a vegetarian, but very close.
I never suggested in my response that you said that ethics were not subjective and important. I fully realize that is not your argument at all, and I agree with you. However, you must have expected an antagonistic reponse, because you hardly spent a minute thinking about what I wrote before shooting off your rebuttal. Perhaps you should more accurately read my response.
I was merely responding to your assertion that a firm foundation in science is necessary _before_ ethics can be really useful. I agreed with your idea that an understanding of science can contribute to the sense of ethics, but I disagreed that understanding objective reality has to come _first_.
That doesn't mean arts and ethics aren't important, they are, but they don't map reality in the same way science importantly does. In order to fully utilize the subjectivity enhancing insights of ethics we must FIRST have the firm grounding in empirical reality
provided by science.
No, we just need to be able to let go of limiting beliefs when it becomes sufficiently clear that they are most likely incorrect. Subjective ethics and intuition must necessarily come before objective reality because humans aren't able to empirically test all things all of the time. Most of us have never personally conducted the research that produced our modern understanding of objective reality, yet we accept this science based on intuition, trust, and logic.
Otherwise, what you say is true. Real science gives us a commonly accepted mapping of reality in accordance with those physical aspects that humans know how to quantify. But it doesn't tell us how to behave in relation to those things, or whether or not they are right or wrong. What scientific knowledge can do is bias our intuition, and hopefully refine our ethics, which must have preceded the objective evidences.
This doesn't tend to be the case, though. On the one hand, zealous theocrats put down science by subjective judgement, and on the other hand, zealous objectivists reject the notion of ethics because it can't be quantified at all. So we tend toward either oppressive theocracy, or law-of-the jungle selfish-ism where anything goes, so long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's right to be selfish.
Where are you from that tremendous work ethic is not something to be admired?
The prefrontal cortex in the human brain puts him on an etirely different level from the workers of the animal kingdom who spend their existences fighting for survival. This difference is so enormous that I wonder why anyone thinks that man's destiny ought to be the same as that of the industrious worker-ants. While it's true that political and economic conditions compel the man to live below his real capacities, the mere existence of a "work ethic" simply proves that we've given in to the kind of cultural thought that drives these oppressive business practices.
Your Korean friend has an independent livelihood, works with his family, and enjoys the fruits of his own labor. His work ethic is far more justified than any wage slave in a Chinese sweat-shop. If he lived in a small community of like-minded entrepreneurs, they could probably together produce a local free-enterprise economy that allows more time for intellectual and personal pursuits. Man ought to be able to put some of his work ethic into something other than survival. In fact, I would call that a natural right: It seems that man is equipped for it.
Your argument is predicated on the concept that there is no difference between religious and secular matters.
My argument is that philosophical axioms and theistic dogmas require the same kind of religious belief. The evidence for the existence of natural rights is based on intuition; no one can experimentally prove that we have rights at all. Therefore, those who subscribe to the teachings of John Locke, Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand, do so under a sort of religious persuasion. I use the term religion in this sense: as a concept, not an organization.
As for the Constitutionality of the idea of separation of church and state, it is disingenuous to say that it is not found within the Constitution, for "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is clearly the foundation of separation.
Whether this is the foundation of the separation doctrine espoused by Jefferson is beside the point. It is clear from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists that this phrase was meant in the same context as the establishment clause (i.e. that the federal government would not subsidize or endorse the Congregationalist church). Note that the Constitution is very clear in its use of "an establishment" when referring to organized religion. It does not refer to religion as a movement or ideology. This also does not refer to "the act of establishing;" this is not how they used the language. Christianity isn't an establishment of religion, neither is Islam or Mysticism, etc. The constitution is very specific that it means "Church."
Anyway, you've totally disregarded my point -- not addressed it at all. Yes, States and Churches sometimes share a lot of characteristics. But they are not the same thing at all, and to conflate them trivializes their differences.
'Belonging' to a State requires only that you meet the legal definitions of a citizen of that State; as one who belongs to that state, adherence to the rules is compulsory. 'Belonging' to a Church requires not only that you are formally recognized and adhere to the rules, but also that you Believe.
I think we agree that a church is "an establishment of religion." That is, a religion administered by a common government that claims authority over those who presume membership in the church (whether or not the individual was born into passive church membership, or "baptized" later on as a true believer).
My thesis is that natural rights philosophy, secularism, communism, materialism, objectivism, etc., are all forms of religion. When such political philosophies are organized to form States, there becomes no practical difference at all between them and the other organized churches. The differences are entirely theological and procedural, but these same kinds of differences also exist between denominations of any established religion.
We only separate the two because one is based on secular religion, which we call politics, and the other is based on theistic religion, which we simply call "religion." Language semantics and cultural biases aside, both require a measure of faith. And, as it turns out, there is a very blury line that separates political philosophy from religious philosophy.
Of course, my whole point is to "trivialize their differences" because these differences are trivial:
1) Differences in philosophy (what are the "core values" and beliefs)
2) Differences in administration (what are the rules, how do you get in, how do you leave)
These same differences exist between Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists. Speaking in terms of ontology, the only logical conclusion is that church and state are the same type of entities. They both exhibit the same properties within the same limits of variation. The only difference is the label that we give to them.
Also, just to note -- there is quite a difference between a religion and a Church. A religion is a concept, not an organization, so to imply that "secularists" are trying to ensure that "
In my opinion, you have failed to answer the argument of the parent post, but instead have bolstered his thesis with your own comments.
In The Federalist, John Jay claimed that at least some of one's "natural rights" had to be ceded to the government. In fact, this is what makes government possible at all. Unfortunately, when you enter the realm of "natural rights" (upon which the U.S. Constitution was at least partly established) -- whether or not people really have rights, what exactly these are, which rights one must submit to the government, how this is done, (etc.) -- you also enter the realm of subjective philosophy where specific axioms must be accepted by everyone. The concept of "rights" is an ideology, just like anything else religious that people choose to believe in.
But, like you said, indulgence in the state religion is compulsory. If Olympian judges rule that a new Right exists that no longer defers to the established order of government, then we are all inducted into this new faith whether we like it or not. Just like in colonial times!
The extra-Constitutional idea of "separation of church and state" is a ruse used mainly by secularists to ensure that theirs is the only true religion administered to the people.
Adam Smith suggested that this self-interest is actually derived from the natural tendency toward fellow-feeling, something that he called "sympathy." I like to think of Adam Smith as the father of Free Enterprise. Of course, his theories have been utterly revised by Ayn Rand, who came to the conclusion that "self" is really all there is. I like to think of Ayn Rand in connection with Capitalism. Some people think those two things, Free Enterprise and Capitalism, are really the same, but they're not.
Today's Free Software is a kind of Free Enterprise. Under the Free Enterprise model, the product is released because it possesses some quality of cleverness or utility, and the author wants this quality to be known. Perhaps he desires the recognition it will bring him, or maybe he feels altruisic, needed, or even has a sense of duty because he realizes that he also relies on the production of others. Whatever the reason is (whether it seems selfish or not), it came from the ability to project or anticipate the feelings of others, and is therefore sympathetic in nature. This is Adam Smith's thesis, upon which he developed his moral philosophy.
Under the capitalist model, the product isn't released to the public for its utility, only for its potential to generate maximum capital (a.k.a. greed). Only those who can pay the price up-front are included in the deal. The author of the product releases the product if it makes good business sense. And in fact, under modern capitalism, the "self" in "self-interest" isn't even human anymore. It is business. The idea is that, if business prospers, then so do those who serve business (think Leviathan, only in terms of the Invisible Hand instead of the Monarch-God). There will always be those few who are left out of that equation, hence the need to redefine "self" strictly as a business entity, but such unfortunates are statistically insignificant...
If the Free Software ideology espouses Capitalism, then it is doomed to irrelevance. Capitalism is in the business of making junk. It turns raw-resources into products as quickly and cheaply as possible, which then fill up our landfills in time for the next version to be released. Free Software that is produced with the intent that it might later be a source of revenue is done under the pretense of bait-and-switch. That's why the GPL has protections against such things. Free Software that is produced because it might make the author famous (and hence possibly also rich), is simply bad business sense.
Free Software that is developed in the good old-fashioned community spirit (i.e. the spirit of Free Enterprise) will retain its integrity and continue apart from the commercial software world.
The only kind of "self-interest" that capitalism even considers is "financial gain" at the business entity level. That's why it's called capitalism. There are other kinds of self-interest that will serve Free Software much better.
Thanks for the reference. Gatto is indeed one of my primary sources. Others include Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes and Oliver DeMille.
Seriously, I think science and the scientific method is a very important part of what makes people free from irrationality. The simple belief that you can try things to see what works and what doesn't often seems trivial and unimportant, but it's amazing how the lack of that simple concept can totally cripple someone's ability to live freely.
;) Scientists tend to be dogmatic and closed minded, only experimenting with things easily observed in the known objective realms. Mathematics - that abstract reasoning which provides the basis for concrete science - can be used to experiment in many areas not yet directly open to empirical observation.
And I would say that philosophy produces the best thinkers.
The American obssession with employment is a result of the Great Depression. It became the goal of the United States to prevent such a man-made catastrophe from ever happening again. It became the national goal to ensure that there would always be jobs for the people, and it shapes the major policies of the U.S. government. It's all about the economy because it's what produces the jobs. Every great empire has a mission, a goal, an ideal. For the United States as a whole it has been getting as close to 0% unemployment as feasible since the 1930s.
I think work towards that goal was in motion long before the Great Depression, probably since post-civil-war economists determined that if capital couldn't be spent on slave labor, it could at least buy wages. Rich men have always been afraid of what might happen if they couldn't fit everyone into a bell-curve and thus predict revenues for the indefinite future. Americans were once a people with independent livelihoods who lived in local economies and enjoyed free, unrestricted (well, not artificially restricted) enterprise between themselves. Hired labor was culled largely from among the youth (apprenticeships) until they could establish themselves in their own local economy. In those days we had literate people who didn't feel that candle making was beneath them (e.g. Ben Franklin's dad). Education didn't necessarily translate into occupation. People educated themselves because it was the mark of liberty to expand the mind and soul - for the sake of knowledge alone. In the 21st century, it's inconceivable that any highly educated individual would fill an occupation "beneath" his education. We have learned that work and school are one and the same.
America had the lowest unemployment rate when there were fewest jobs. The man-made problem is the idea of a "job." In order to have plenty of jobs, Leviathan must consolidate and legislate, and all must be willingly subjected to the King's order. Businesses don't really mind this non-free enterpirse (Capitalism it's called now) because it provides such wonderful predictability.
We had a clear glimpse into this in 1934 when William Wirt testified to Congress that he had been party to a plan authored by some in the Roosevelt administration to prolong - on purpose - the Great Depression. Why? So that government control over banking and lending could be permanently secured. Did the administration admit to this? Yes! But it was just a joke, they told us, and Wirt was laughed out of town by the media (who, he had testified earlier, were at the beck and call of the Roosevelt propaganda machine). That's the shape of the memory hole in America.
This same sort of thing already happened in America in the early 1900's. President Wilson is on record for having said that America already had enough smart people, and what we really needed were more highly-trained automatons to serve the economy. That's one reason why our colleges are designed to get us good jobs working in a mass production economy - as MBAs and managers mostly. Colleges and universities in America don't produce highly literate individuals, only highly trained individuals. The ability to read words is only the first tiny step toward actual literacy.
An interesing side note to all of this is that our English word "Liberty" comes from the latin, "liber," meaning free. Liber is also the latin word for book.
If you consider that books and literacy contribute to the idea of liberty, you will understand why world economies can't actively promote such things as higher education (i.e. Liberal Arts eductation). How will the economy survive if the population can't be endowed with artificial needs? How would marketing possibly work on individuals in possession of the ability to reason? How could employees be recruited for a mass production economy? How can a mere one or two political parties hold sway over millions and millions of individuals who know how to think for themselves?
In America, the idea of liberty was replaced with a "way of life," which is really just another way to say "the economy." Unfortunately, we still think of "liberty" and the "American way of life" as the same thing. This confusion (born of illiteracy) is unfortunate because it becomes a tool for some politicians to build rhetoric to support their view of America as an exporter and protector of liberty - but I digress.
America's economy needs lots of MBAs and managers. China's economy doesn't. Both are equal servants under the Invisible Hand.
I laud your efforts to benefit our fellow human beings in the way you see fit. Certainly I have no criticism for you on that count.
What you suggest, by way of your post, troubles me:
1) Children must be taught, or compelled to learn
2) Material must be dumbed down because children aren't capable of assimilating it in its original format.
3) Teachers will only accept this abbreviated "curriculum," perhaps due to their own incapacity to teach directly from the masters, or because teachers must be mass-produced and don't have time for deep learning.
4) Learning doesn't happen without a curriculum.
The $100 laptop is merely a tool - one capable of providing access to the greatest library that the world has ever seen.
I'm reminded of a story that Richard P. Feynman told, about how he used to check books out of the library when he was a boy. One day he brought a book about calculus to the librarian, with the intent of checking it out. He then related the criticism that he received from this librarian, who couldn't conceive how a book on calculus could possibly be useful or interesting to a mere boy. You remind me very much of that librarian. That a child should step out of the commitee-mandated curriculum and pursue advanced topics of interest is inconceivable!
It may be that much important literature is written in language foreign to many people. The mind would necessarily need to be expanded in order to understand the principles of those great individuals who originally thought them. And what is wrong with that? You discount the power of human passion, once that desire to learn has been ignited. We have classics suitable for all types of people, and need only the right access to them. Instead of teachers, they need mentors to inspire them.
I'm sure we can find a place for "school" somewhere. Unfortunately, most of us waste too much time in that pursuit for entirely economic reasons. When has school ever produced a master artist or statesman? Instead we make employees and complacent citizens.
It may be that your ideals are realistic in our estimation - we live in a mass-produced utopia every day thanks to our state-mandated curriculum and business-sponsored systems of bureaucratic education. Having all found good jobs, we're now too busy to pursue our real interests (recreation makes us feel better about this sad loss), and certainly there is no time left for reading classics. Let's not export these chains to our neighbors who we wrongly consider less fortunate.
If anything, access to the world's literature is a prize worth more than many a mediocre teacher.
Just my opinion on the matter. As it is, the $100 laptop might end up becoming yet another way to export our Western excesses and vices (gambling, porno, etc), and not be used as a learning tool at all. I'm worried about it in that regard.
Hi there.
What is a "properly" educated teacher?
By the way, project Gutenberg hosts a good portion of the world's classic literature online. Why settle for "schoolbooks" when you can read the original works of Newton, Darwin, Hobbes, et al.?
Meh, it was just a clone of a Roland AdLib music card with a cheap 8-bit DAC slapped onto it...
Ah, vintage sound cards.
BTW, Roland didn't make the AdLib music card. The AdLib card was made by AdLib, Inc. I remember that it was an inexpensive upgrade (about $99) that gave marginally better results than the PC speaker - at least you got some polyphony, some FM modulated sine waves, and a plug for an external speaker.
I don't think Roland had a sound card until the LAPC-1 came out in the early 1990s, and this purported "consumer-grade" sound card cost maybe 10x the price of the AdLib, putting it out of the range of most casual consumers; but the LAPC-1 did include Roland's advanced LA synthesis and a bank of ROM PCM sounds that could be used to create more complex timbres. It was basically an MT-32 on a card, with 33 extra sound effects and an integrated MIDI interface. The LAPC-1 had a 16-bit DAC, but it could only use the onboard ROM as a source.
The AdLib card used a simple OPL2 FM synthesizer, manufactured by Yamaha, same as the original SoundBlaster.
So you're right that the SoundBlaster was more or less equivalent to the AdLib card, with the exception of the added DAC, which allowed crude samples to be played (a worthwhile feature at the time). Of course, in those days, some enthusiasts made their own serial-port DACs from Radio Shack parts, so it was nothing spectacular even then.
The hardcore gamers usually combined an MT-32 or LAPC-1 (for the decent music synthesis) with the SoundBlaster (for its sound effects and limited voice playback abilities), or else migrated to the Gravis Ultrasound later on.
I'm not sure whether its been beaten out of kids by their brainless parents, or whether they were born that way, but a large proportion of the current adult population really can't think analytically at all.
Come now. You suggest that the capacity to know how to think has been beaten out of children by their own parents. You mean, those same parents who send their children off to be instructed by strangers at an institution where the curriculum is determined by bureaucrats and business interests? Where they are interrupted every 45 minutes by a signal indicating when it's time to think about something different? Where they learn the skills they need to "get a good job" working for sombody else?
You don't watch TV, do you. If you did, you would notice the incessant ADHD-inducing interruptions every five minutes where we all get advertised to. In whose interest is it that we all think for ourselves? What kind of consumer thinks for himself? What kind of marketing campaign works on people who know how to think for themselves? How can a mass-production economy possibly work?
When the tides of "education" were turning in America, President Wilson stated that we don't need any more smart people, only highly skilled people. You see, it's a competition. We have to be better than China, better than India, better than everyone. Knowledge is now an economy. We don't learn for the mere human interests of mind and soul. We serve the social machines of business and government.
I guess parents are to be blamed for a part of that equation, but it's hard to see it when there is an "invisble hand" of economy pushing everything to its inevitable commoditized conclusion. We are born into a mindless culture and yet we want to blame our parents because we're stupid. We need to look back further than that.
I've tried the Atlas pre-release on both IE 6 and the latest Firefox. It worked pretty well in both browsers (so far). The samples they have aren't very polished, though.