And that is one of the great flaws of the concept in Star Trek. Star Ships for example are scarce resources, as is Teleportation, Holodecks, and several others. All things that would have high demand by any sane assessment. All controlled by the government and used by its members and the military, and as money does not exist, the common people need government authorization to have access to any of these "privileges". This seems an awfully dystopic and unfree society to me not the utopia as which they try to paint it
Scarcity will always exist. Even if you can supply all the basic needs of humankind you will always have new scarce things to desire. And that is a good thing, because this desire is the only thing that moves humankind forward, fairy tales aside.
And although humankind did lived without formal money in the tribal past, there were always exchanges and some people always had more than others. Money came as a tool to facilitate those exchanges and nothing else.
Sure it was. Ancienty civilizations worked just like this. Currency has been anything from food, to tobacco, to sea shells. Some with intrinsic value some without it. Even in tribal society, there were goods useful enough to be universally accept and used as currency to facilitate trade.
He is saying that those schools are able to select their students, students who could choose to go anywhere else, because they are better. And no, the religious schools do no choose based on the religion of the parents, although some parents choose those schools based on their religion.
Education means giving to whoever is being educated the best education possible and not political indoctrination. Education never meant what you want it to mean, but for as long as the government provides education for the general population most of it won't ever grow out of ignorance or have equal opportunities.
Simple, they make it better because the schools that produce good results will have more demand and therefore will be able to charge more. So they have all the interest in the world in providing good results.
Private schools select their intake because they are better, not the other way around. The brightest students go to wherever they want. Any institution would accept them. If they choose to go to private schools and pay for it, it is obvious that those are better.
In most of the world the expense the government has by children with public education is in excess of the average fees of private schools and the quality is considerably worse. A good part of this money don't get there because of corruption, waste and misuse, as everything the government does.
The reason you are running out of money is because the government has grown too much, taxes too much, and expends too much. Education costs are certainly not the only cause and probably not the main one, but they are a significant parcel of the expenditure. Social security certainly is the bulk of it, as you said.
So I basically agree, to a point, with one of your statements, but education has degraded for the very same motives the economy have. You took the incentive for people to put effort in it.
You used to have entrepreneurs, researchers and a thriving economy a few decades ago, when government size was roughly half of what it is today. Nokia came from there as Ericsson from Sweden. You used to produce technology to innovate. Now you buy most of it from US. There are no new companies coming to replace Nokia and Ericsson in this generation. Your best and brightest are going elsewhere were they are properly rewarded for their abilities.
I truly hope you can reverse that, but at the moment you are the textbook example that there is such a thing as too much government.
Sure, but if you accept this proposition you have absolutely no right to be judgmental with someone because he happens to choose to be egoistical when it was convenient to him, like you did.
In your own words:
A doubtful view with a simplistic justification. It boils down to "I will be altruistic when it is convenient." and means that you are not serious about it.
And then:
Of course you can be altruistic some times when it is not convenient and still be egoistical at some other times. It is the balance that is key.
No matter how you see it you are still a dirty hypocrite, as basically every liberal I have ever met, but keep telling yourself you are not. I would be hard pressed to find a clearer example of doublethinking...
Sure they are. Unless you know one of those that is owned by a private company.
The word "public" has more than one meaning. In the context we are talking about it is related to ownership, and there is only two options: public and private.
In the context of "public places" it is related to accessibility, as in available for all. Public schools as they are in US would not fit in this context, because although there will always be, at least in theory, a school that will take your kids, you can't really choose which. Consequently a given school is not accessible to all, and thus it is not a public place.
Therefore the "public" in "public schools" is related to the former meaning and not the latter.
Sure it does. It is paid by the government, so it is public. The objectives are to make sure the brightest have the best possible education and become assets for the country, and it pays off.
The big government and high taxation required to make it this way (among other public services), given the state inefficiency, is why Finland and Swedish economies are breaking down for years now and its schools are already considerably worse than they were a few decades ago. Norway is not quite there yet, because of its oil reserves, but sooner or later it will join the club.
As Margaret Thatcher used to say: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people money."
If you really believe that idiocy you are spilling here, you either give away all your money to the poor, donate 90% of your salary every month, and never do superfluous things like watching moves, buying books, going out, travelling, etc, or you, my friend, is a complete hypocrite.
There is no middle ground for this line of thought, either you put your interests above the collective and is an "egoist shit" or you can't have anything better than the barest minimum until everybody does.
I am sick and tired of your kind of hypocritical "liberalism".
This never works. Public schools have been getting worse and worse in all countries that opted for having them in the world, despite increasing investments. It is a model that does not work and never will.
I do agree that Philosophy in the more general sense of the word (as in thinking about anything), is something important and even critical to mankind, but formal Philosophy has become a travesty. A sea of noise, full of fallacies, prejudices and misconceptions vehemently defended by people that are considered "intellectuals" despite their failure to understand even the most basic notions of logic.
Actually it can be argued that the philosophic conclusions about ethics, self-awareness and any other subject considered the scope of "pure" Philosophy that is created by people focusing in any other field, marginal as it may be, is actually considerably more important, and more consistent than that created by professional Philosophers.
Sure there are always exceptions like Hayek, Russell and Popper, but these exceptions are in their vast majority Philosophers and "something else", like Economists, Mathematicians, Historians, and the latter was their primary formation from where their philosophy derived. José Ortega y Gasset can be considered one of these very few pure Philosophers that were of any worth to this world, Rawls certainly cannot. Not even close. His "arguments" are mostly fallacies based on a fallacious and delusional ideology.
Oh, I am very found of History books and Philosophy. What I am not found of is modern Philosophy, which has very little to do with classical Philosophy or with anything remotely useful for anybody except for those who practice it and are paid for it, usually with academic funds.
The REAL reason modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists or Mathematicians is that those fields became subjects beyond their ability to comprehend without a lot of effort, and save for a few exceptions they are uninterested in putting on the necessary effort to accomplish this goal, even when the branch of the philosophy in question is something like epistemology whose objective is to analyze knowledge. That is what makes modern Philosophy so useless.
The answer is: you shouldn't, but another question is: why anyone should care about what you think is of value? Especially people who managed to make something that is of enough use to millions of others for them to voluntarily give their moneys to him...
Most games in the market are not feature completed as designed. In the design process the vast majority of games suffer cuts. And most never become feature complete. Minecraft being under development is a good thing, because unlike other games that cut features and never implement them, Minecraft will keep having lacking and newly thought features implemented for as long as it is maintained.
Slashdot Mirror
Not rare at all. Most outcomes in a free market fit this description.
And that is one of the great flaws of the concept in Star Trek. Star Ships for example are scarce resources, as is Teleportation, Holodecks, and several others. All things that would have high demand by any sane assessment. All controlled by the government and used by its members and the military, and as money does not exist, the common people need government authorization to have access to any of these "privileges". This seems an awfully dystopic and unfree society to me not the utopia as which they try to paint it
Because it takes energy, and raw materials to "magick" anything into existence, and those are finite resources, and will always be.
Scarcity will always exist. Even if you can supply all the basic needs of humankind you will always have new scarce things to desire. And that is a good thing, because this desire is the only thing that moves humankind forward, fairy tales aside.
And although humankind did lived without formal money in the tribal past, there were always exchanges and some people always had more than others. Money came as a tool to facilitate those exchanges and nothing else.
Sure it was. Ancienty civilizations worked just like this. Currency has been anything from food, to tobacco, to sea shells. Some with intrinsic value some without it. Even in tribal society, there were goods useful enough to be universally accept and used as currency to facilitate trade.
OK, some very restricted public schools whose acceptance is based on performance and not in welfare are the exception. So?
He is saying that those schools are able to select their students, students who could choose to go anywhere else, because they are better. And no, the religious schools do no choose based on the religion of the parents, although some parents choose those schools based on their religion.
Education means giving to whoever is being educated the best education possible and not political indoctrination. Education never meant what you want it to mean, but for as long as the government provides education for the general population most of it won't ever grow out of ignorance or have equal opportunities.
Simple, they make it better because the schools that produce good results will have more demand and therefore will be able to charge more. So they have all the interest in the world in providing good results.
Private schools select their intake because they are better, not the other way around. The brightest students go to wherever they want. Any institution would accept them. If they choose to go to private schools and pay for it, it is obvious that those are better.
In most of the world the expense the government has by children with public education is in excess of the average fees of private schools and the quality is considerably worse. A good part of this money don't get there because of corruption, waste and misuse, as everything the government does.
The reason you are running out of money is because the government has grown too much, taxes too much, and expends too much. Education costs are certainly not the only cause and probably not the main one, but they are a significant parcel of the expenditure. Social security certainly is the bulk of it, as you said.
So I basically agree, to a point, with one of your statements, but education has degraded for the very same motives the economy have. You took the incentive for people to put effort in it.
You used to have entrepreneurs, researchers and a thriving economy a few decades ago, when government size was roughly half of what it is today. Nokia came from there as Ericsson from Sweden. You used to produce technology to innovate. Now you buy most of it from US. There are no new companies coming to replace Nokia and Ericsson in this generation. Your best and brightest are going elsewhere were they are properly rewarded for their abilities.
I truly hope you can reverse that, but at the moment you are the textbook example that there is such a thing as too much government.
In your own words:
A doubtful view with a simplistic justification. It boils down to "I will be altruistic when it is convenient." and means that you are not serious about it.
And then:
Of course you can be altruistic some times when it is not convenient and still be egoistical at some other times. It is the balance that is key.
No matter how you see it you are still a dirty hypocrite, as basically every liberal I have ever met, but keep telling yourself you are not. I would be hard pressed to find a clearer example of doublethinking...
Market forces simply cannot operate effectively in an education environment.
Sure they can, and that is why private schools are generally better.
Publicly owned is, troll.
Sure they are. Unless you know one of those that is owned by a private company.
The word "public" has more than one meaning. In the context we are talking about it is related to ownership, and there is only two options: public and private.
In the context of "public places" it is related to accessibility, as in available for all. Public schools as they are in US would not fit in this context, because although there will always be, at least in theory, a school that will take your kids, you can't really choose which. Consequently a given school is not accessible to all, and thus it is not a public place.
Therefore the "public" in "public schools" is related to the former meaning and not the latter.
Sure it does. It is paid by the government, so it is public. The objectives are to make sure the brightest have the best possible education and become assets for the country, and it pays off.
The big government and high taxation required to make it this way (among other public services), given the state inefficiency, is why Finland and Swedish economies are breaking down for years now and its schools are already considerably worse than they were a few decades ago. Norway is not quite there yet, because of its oil reserves, but sooner or later it will join the club.
As Margaret Thatcher used to say: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people money."
If you really believe that idiocy you are spilling here, you either give away all your money to the poor, donate 90% of your salary every month, and never do superfluous things like watching moves, buying books, going out, travelling, etc, or you, my friend, is a complete hypocrite.
There is no middle ground for this line of thought, either you put your interests above the collective and is an "egoist shit" or you can't have anything better than the barest minimum until everybody does.
I am sick and tired of your kind of hypocritical "liberalism".
This never works. Public schools have been getting worse and worse in all countries that opted for having them in the world, despite increasing investments. It is a model that does not work and never will.
Public schools are only for those who are the best, those smart enough to be eligible to go to them.
I do agree that Philosophy in the more general sense of the word (as in thinking about anything), is something important and even critical to mankind, but formal Philosophy has become a travesty. A sea of noise, full of fallacies, prejudices and misconceptions vehemently defended by people that are considered "intellectuals" despite their failure to understand even the most basic notions of logic.
Actually it can be argued that the philosophic conclusions about ethics, self-awareness and any other subject considered the scope of "pure" Philosophy that is created by people focusing in any other field, marginal as it may be, is actually considerably more important, and more consistent than that created by professional Philosophers.
Sure there are always exceptions like Hayek, Russell and Popper, but these exceptions are in their vast majority Philosophers and "something else", like Economists, Mathematicians, Historians, and the latter was their primary formation from where their philosophy derived. José Ortega y Gasset can be considered one of these very few pure Philosophers that were of any worth to this world, Rawls certainly cannot. Not even close. His "arguments" are mostly fallacies based on a fallacious and delusional ideology.
Oh, I am very found of History books and Philosophy. What I am not found of is modern Philosophy, which has very little to do with classical Philosophy or with anything remotely useful for anybody except for those who practice it and are paid for it, usually with academic funds.
The REAL reason modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists or Mathematicians is that those fields became subjects beyond their ability to comprehend without a lot of effort, and save for a few exceptions they are uninterested in putting on the necessary effort to accomplish this goal, even when the branch of the philosophy in question is something like epistemology whose objective is to analyze knowledge. That is what makes modern Philosophy so useless.
I must disagree. The only value of formal education, which is what we are talking about, actually is earnings potential.
The answer is: you shouldn't, but another question is: why anyone should care about what you think is of value? Especially people who managed to make something that is of enough use to millions of others for them to voluntarily give their moneys to him...
Most games in the market are not feature completed as designed. In the design process the vast majority of games suffer cuts. And most never become feature complete. Minecraft being under development is a good thing, because unlike other games that cut features and never implement them, Minecraft will keep having lacking and newly thought features implemented for as long as it is maintained.