My daughter is going through it now. Some of it is very good such as doing long division. It's so good that I've adopted it in the rare times that I need to do long division.
_ _ _
40 | 970 -- now we (as adults know that 40 goes into one thousand 25 times and the answer is one less (24) with 10 left over.
Let's look at it from a child's perspective who doesn't know what we know.
I had a good ascii representation but Slashdot's filter prevented it.
Who created it? Why? Surely not to reduce the human population. Even the death totals from WWII was only a blip in the chart. You would need something along the line of 1918 flu epidemic - and it would have to hit the whole world at roughly the same time - for there to be something that *may* affect the population.
Put it another way. Even 100,000,000 deaths spread out across the world would do little to population figures.
At 7 billion people 70,000,000 is one percent of the total population.
I guess you don't understand the concept of investment.
During hard times stores like Walmart do better and stores like Bloomingdales do worse (making things very simple here).
Are making "money off of people's misfortunes" buy selling your Bloomingdales stock and buying Walmart? NO.
Then why is buying Monsanto (if it does indeed sell products that would help in Zika infected areas be an examples of "money off of people's misfortunes"
That's a purposeful misunderstanding of the situation. In capitalism you don't have entrenched failures that survive on other peoples taxes for generations..
There is a gray area in which pro-freedom people debate the merits of government involvement in cutting edge exploration. (Space travel).
Take a look at Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to see how moochers off the government teat are considered.
Most libertarians I know are opposed to war and torture (and consider water boarding to be torture).
They also consider foreign aid to be wrong because it fosters a client-patron relationship.
So, you need to rethink your position. Or are you just making sh!t up?
There is a lot in common between people who think that:
1. individuals cannot produce or trade items without government consent.
(The means of production are owned entirely by the government. No individual can hire another in a private endeavor.) The more progressive you are the less you believe that private entity has legitamcy; the more you feel that profit is theft; and the more justified you feel that proponents of such an endeavor are evil and lackies of the "rich."
2. That wealth is bad. That wealth is the result of theft. That taxation ought to be punitive in addition to providing basic services.
3. I have never seen (and I could be mistaken) but I have never seen any socialist, communist, or progressive philosophy which advocated a restriction on government.
4. I have never seen (and could be mistaken) any socialist, communist or progressive literature that extolled the virtue of dissent. Oh, progressives are fine with dissent when it comes to contradictory views but dissent to basic progressive values? NO.
Are you so foolish as to think that the property taxes are passed on to the tenant? Really?
Regressive, in this case, means taxing the people least able to afford it. You think that water and sewage increases aren't passed on to tenants?
This lack of analytical thought is the reason that big government progressives areas are not doing as well as their adherents think they should. "If we raise taxes then "X" will happen (And that is good). Oops they forgot that negatives such as "Y" and "Z" also happen.
The best solution is a flat tax with no looopholes (or as few loop holes as possible). And, if you want to go further, have a floor.
Example: 20% tax rate and no taxes on the first 20,000 dollars.
People making $20,000 pay 0 tax.
People making $100,000 pay$16,000 (20% of $80,000)
As people make more then then tax rate gets ever and ever closer to 20%.
Then, as the code is simple and transparent, we can argue the merits of raising or lowering the tax rate.
Laissez-faire capitalists were not anarchists nor anarcho-capitalists. Conservatism, as you describe it, is fairly close to laissez-faire and I doubt there would be great disagreement between the different factions (again using an 18th C term).
What does that have to do with being in favor of for-profit fake schools.
Taking your statement at face value it shows one more group of political elites who game the system. It's called patronage. The only political philosophy which opposes patronage as a matter of principal is laissez-faire capitalism. In fact laissez-faire rose up in opposition to mercantilism which was the 18th C word for corporatist.
What is conservative? Is conservative free market? or social conservatives?
Patrick Buchanan was a conservative who was greatly opposed to free markets.
Ayn Rand is considered a "right-wing conservative" and she was an atheist.
Milton Friedman is also considered a right-wing conservative and he was for free markets
The term "right-wing" or conservative does not make sense if it encompasses the above three individuals. And the term makes even less sense if it includes Hitler.
Whenever we use the words conservative, libertarian, liberal, progressive we generalize a bit. It's not like geometry where there is a clear distinction between a rectangle and pentagon and a hexagon.
I wish liberals, in general, believed in individual freedom. A few specifics become very important but the general principal is ignored.
The general principal comes from answering the following question: "Who / what has sovereignty over your body?" (Sovereignty is an 18thC - and older - term signifying rule (think like kings) or ownership.)
If you do then what are the corollaries. If it's the government / society / God then what are the corollaries?
If you have ownership over your own body (which I think we do) then seat belt laws are to be opposed. We did not grant such powers to the government.
Do you believe the bull$h!t that comes out of your mouth?
Do you actually think you're clever?
Nobody who is for free enterprise is for this nonsense. You don't have to want to live in a free society but it would help if you would educate yourself. At the very least watch some Milton Friedman videos and, after watching a few, ask yourself if he would condone such nonsense.
No. The word liberalism (up until the late 19th C) meant individual liberty (as opposed to being part of the collectivist herd). By the late 19th C and early 20th C progressives started appropriating the term. Why? That may be a matter of debate. But progressives are clearly anti-individual liberty. See their reactions to anybody who disagrees with them. See the contradictions in their arguments.
"I'm pro-choice because women own their own body."
"So if you own your own body you can chose to take drugs. You can chose whether or not to wear seat belts, etc..."
How many of these so-called liberals do you know say that the state shouldn't have the power to force you to wear seat belts or wear helmets?
I don't think it's a straw man. I've read many marxist and underdevelopment writers and I saw no respect for individual rights. No respect for freedom of speech. Furthermore take a look at leftists of all stripes and see how willing there are to shut down the speech of those who differ from them.
Shouting down opponents is an attempt at thought-control.
In addition we all know how caring the Stalin, Mao, and Che were to individual rights.
I belong to food coops and when I say that I don't like any of the organic chocolates I've found - people whisper to me that they agree. But these avowed leftists are too brow-beatened to dare say it openly.
No. It's not a straw man. The left (as a whole) has contempt for any speech, any thought that contradicts its sacred cows. In this fashion leftists are no different than religious fanatics. And as there are members of a faith who are not irrational fanatics there are members of the marxist faith who are not irrational fanatics. You may, or may not be among them.
There seems to be nothing involved in Marxist theory that calls for the removal of centralized planning and thought control. There will always be people who think differently (counter-revolutionaries) who will need to suppressed and culled from the herd if necessary.
There are variations on a theme - but socialism has the means of production under government control and promotes (to various degrees) a collectivist social order in which individual freedom is subordinated to state needs.
I'm not a social conservative so I'll let them define traditional. But "traditional," as you well know is term that means "expected" norms, and it's a very subjective. And, as you pointed out, only goes back so far.
as an atheist, libertarian, Tea Party person I can tell you that Trump is so NOT tea party by any stretch of the imagination EXCEPT by people who lump everyone together who disagrees with them. The only tea party people who back trump are those that want to take down the republican establishment at any cause.
that's like the media saying Todd Akin was a tea party candidate. He was not. He was a social conservative darling.
Interestingly enough the Todd Akin candidacy is one of the reasons many tea party people want to take out the republican establishment. The republican establishment funded a candidate with no chance for winning simply to split the vote and allow Akin to win. They preferred to lose the Senate seat rather than have a tea party candidate win.
I'm an atheist libertarian and I get called conservative all the time.
Right-wing and conservative are synonymous to many people.
Right-wing is a meaningless term - it simply means not left. That's why Patrick Buchanan, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are all lumped together.
Conservative may mean something but it does not cross national boundaries. A conservative is Russia is not a conservative in Saudi Arabia and is not a conservative in the US. However a socialist means roughly the same in all places.
I think the proper term for the US is "social conservative" to describe a desire to use the law to stick to traditional moral codes.
"Conservative" in the US means "entrenching Christianity as being the highest authority with the ability to control the lives of others according to that".
So why do people call Milton Friedman "conservative"?
Slashdot Mirror
My daughter is going through it now. Some of it is very good such as doing long division. It's so good that I've adopted it in the rare times that I need to do long division.
_ _ _
40 | 970 -- now we (as adults know that 40 goes into one thousand 25 times and the answer is one less (24) with 10 left over.
Let's look at it from a child's perspective who doesn't know what we know.
I had a good ascii representation but Slashdot's filter prevented it.
Where is this other country that you speak of?
Who created it? Why? Surely not to reduce the human population. Even the death totals from WWII was only a blip in the chart. You would need something along the line of 1918 flu epidemic - and it would have to hit the whole world at roughly the same time - for there to be something that *may* affect the population.
Put it another way. Even 100,000,000 deaths spread out across the world would do little to population figures.
At 7 billion people 70,000,000 is one percent of the total population.
I guess you don't understand the concept of investment.
.
During hard times stores like Walmart do better and stores like Bloomingdales do worse (making things very simple here)
Are making "money off of people's misfortunes" buy selling your Bloomingdales stock and buying Walmart? NO.
Then why is buying Monsanto (if it does indeed sell products that would help in Zika infected areas be an examples of "money off of people's misfortunes"
If you think that then why are you posting as an AC?
That's a purposeful misunderstanding of the situation. In capitalism you don't have entrenched failures that survive on other peoples taxes for generations. .
There is a gray area in which pro-freedom people debate the merits of government involvement in cutting edge exploration. (Space travel).
Take a look at Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to see how moochers off the government teat are considered.
Exhibit A?
Most libertarians I know are opposed to war and torture (and consider water boarding to be torture).
They also consider foreign aid to be wrong because it fosters a client-patron relationship.
So, you need to rethink your position. Or are you just making sh!t up?
There is a lot in common between people who think that :
1. individuals cannot produce or trade items without government consent.
(The means of production are owned entirely by the government. No individual can hire another in a private endeavor.) The more progressive you are the less you believe that private entity has legitamcy; the more you feel that profit is theft; and the more justified you feel that proponents of such an endeavor are evil and lackies of the "rich."
2. That wealth is bad. That wealth is the result of theft. That taxation ought to be punitive in addition to providing basic services.
3. I have never seen (and I could be mistaken) but I have never seen any socialist, communist, or progressive philosophy which advocated a restriction on government.
4. I have never seen (and could be mistaken) any socialist, communist or progressive literature that extolled the virtue of dissent. Oh, progressives are fine with dissent when it comes to contradictory views but dissent to basic progressive values? NO.
Exactly. No difference between Bernie, Hillary, Cruz and Trump.
Their policies are all the same.
Are you so foolish as to think that the property taxes are passed on to the tenant? Really?
Regressive, in this case, means taxing the people least able to afford it. You think that water and sewage increases aren't passed on to tenants?
This lack of analytical thought is the reason that big government progressives areas are not doing as well as their adherents think they should. "If we raise taxes then "X" will happen (And that is good). Oops they forgot that negatives such as "Y" and "Z" also happen. The best solution is a flat tax with no looopholes (or as few loop holes as possible). And, if you want to go further, have a floor.
Example: 20% tax rate and no taxes on the first 20,000 dollars.
People making $20,000 pay 0 tax.
People making $100,000 pay$16,000 (20% of $80,000)
As people make more then then tax rate gets ever and ever closer to 20%.
Then, as the code is simple and transparent, we can argue the merits of raising or lowering the tax rate.
Laissez-faire capitalists were not anarchists nor anarcho-capitalists. Conservatism, as you describe it, is fairly close to laissez-faire and I doubt there would be great disagreement between the different factions (again using an 18th C term).
What does that have to do with being in favor of for-profit fake schools.
Taking your statement at face value it shows one more group of political elites who game the system. It's called patronage. The only political philosophy which opposes patronage as a matter of principal is laissez-faire capitalism. In fact laissez-faire rose up in opposition to mercantilism which was the 18th C word for corporatist.
What is conservative? Is conservative free market? or social conservatives?
Patrick Buchanan was a conservative who was greatly opposed to free markets.
Ayn Rand is considered a "right-wing conservative" and she was an atheist.
Milton Friedman is also considered a right-wing conservative and he was for free markets
The term "right-wing" or conservative does not make sense if it encompasses the above three individuals. And the term makes even less sense if it includes Hitler.
Whenever we use the words conservative, libertarian, liberal, progressive we generalize a bit. It's not like geometry where there is a clear distinction between a rectangle and pentagon and a hexagon.
I wish liberals, in general, believed in individual freedom. A few specifics become very important but the general principal is ignored.
The general principal comes from answering the following question: "Who / what has sovereignty over your body?" (Sovereignty is an 18thC - and older - term signifying rule (think like kings) or ownership.)
If you do then what are the corollaries. If it's the government / society / God then what are the corollaries?
If you have ownership over your own body (which I think we do) then seat belt laws are to be opposed. We did not grant such powers to the government.
Do you believe the bull$h!t that comes out of your mouth?
Do you actually think you're clever?
Nobody who is for free enterprise is for this nonsense. You don't have to want to live in a free society but it would help if you would educate yourself. At the very least watch some Milton Friedman videos and, after watching a few, ask yourself if he would condone such nonsense.
No. The word liberalism (up until the late 19th C) meant individual liberty (as opposed to being part of the collectivist herd). By the late 19th C and early 20th C progressives started appropriating the term. Why? That may be a matter of debate. But progressives are clearly anti-individual liberty. See their reactions to anybody who disagrees with them. See the contradictions in their arguments.
"I'm pro-choice because women own their own body."
"So if you own your own body you can chose to take drugs. You can chose whether or not to wear seat belts, etc..."
How many of these so-called liberals do you know say that the state shouldn't have the power to force you to wear seat belts or wear helmets?
I don't think it's a straw man. I've read many marxist and underdevelopment writers and I saw no respect for individual rights. No respect for freedom of speech. Furthermore take a look at leftists of all stripes and see how willing there are to shut down the speech of those who differ from them.
Shouting down opponents is an attempt at thought-control.
In addition we all know how caring the Stalin, Mao, and Che were to individual rights.
I belong to food coops and when I say that I don't like any of the organic chocolates I've found - people whisper to me that they agree. But these avowed leftists are too brow-beatened to dare say it openly.
No. It's not a straw man. The left (as a whole) has contempt for any speech, any thought that contradicts its sacred cows. In this fashion leftists are no different than religious fanatics. And as there are members of a faith who are not irrational fanatics there are members of the marxist faith who are not irrational fanatics. You may, or may not be among them.
There seems to be nothing involved in Marxist theory that calls for the removal of centralized planning and thought control. There will always be people who think differently (counter-revolutionaries) who will need to suppressed and culled from the herd if necessary.
There are variations on a theme - but socialism has the means of production under government control and promotes (to various degrees) a collectivist social order in which individual freedom is subordinated to state needs.
I'm not a social conservative so I'll let them define traditional. But "traditional," as you well know is term that means "expected" norms, and it's a very subjective. And, as you pointed out, only goes back so far.
as an atheist, libertarian, Tea Party person I can tell you that Trump is so NOT tea party by any stretch of the imagination EXCEPT by people who lump everyone together who disagrees with them. The only tea party people who back trump are those that want to take down the republican establishment at any cause.
that's like the media saying Todd Akin was a tea party candidate. He was not. He was a social conservative darling.
Interestingly enough the Todd Akin candidacy is one of the reasons many tea party people want to take out the republican establishment. The republican establishment funded a candidate with no chance for winning simply to split the vote and allow Akin to win. They preferred to lose the Senate seat rather than have a tea party candidate win.
Most people have no clue what a VM is. This includes highly intelligent and educated people.
I'm an atheist libertarian and I get called conservative all the time.
Right-wing and conservative are synonymous to many people.
Right-wing is a meaningless term - it simply means not left. That's why Patrick Buchanan, Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are all lumped together.
Conservative may mean something but it does not cross national boundaries. A conservative is Russia is not a conservative in Saudi Arabia and is not a conservative in the US. However a socialist means roughly the same in all places.
I think the proper term for the US is "social conservative" to describe a desire to use the law to stick to traditional moral codes.
"Conservative" in the US means "entrenching Christianity as being the highest authority with the ability to control the lives of others according to that".
So why do people call Milton Friedman "conservative"?
Progressives have already hijacked the word liberal. Liberalism is antithetical to socialism and communism and any other collectivist sect.