There is an obvious reason the government has such a large reach: they think they can fix everything with just the right laws, programs, and agencies. For the most part, it seems most citizens agree with them. Think about any government program or agency and there will be someone who doesn't want it to be cut. It's easier to add more things to make people happy than to remove some and anger people.
It seems that the longer a government exists, the more bloating it will become, which would probably be why most countries only last for about a maximum of three hundred years. Seems the United States is past it's expiration date.
One could also argue that religion is not lack of applied thought at all. Maybe, it's just a different conclusion people come to after considering everything they know. Maybe, just maybe, it is a valid conclusion. Because, honestly, no one has all the information to say that all religion is objectively true or false.
No, but he was pressured to quit, by people who didn't think he should be able to express his own views (and only what's popular this decade), despite the fact that he made them known out of the workplace and that he promised never to associate it with his job.
Frankly, this "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech" is crap. When did Eich ever supress other people's views at Mozilla, or even elsewhere?
AFAIK, the tenth amendment prevents the federal government from making such a law: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The constitution doesn't seem to say anything about teaching finance in public schools.
No, the less government crowd wants people to make a company and gain money. There is no, "Let's make it so that only some people have the chance to create a corporation." It's more like, "Let's let everyone start pretty much in the same spot, then allow them to fail or succeed based on their own merits." This is in contrast to the progressive, "Let's make sure everyone finishes in the same spot, we don't care where they started or how hard they worked. You succeeded? Great! Now give away all your work."
Also, there is not a "delicate balance of free enterprise". The whole idea behind conservatism is that "capitalism will find a way to make it work".
The whole thing has a "progressive" ring to it. Come to think of it, colleges are already "progressive" enough.
Examples of "We know how to spend your money better" (by the government or the college): Non-Merit Scholarships (ethnicity, income, etc), administration costs/Overhead, professor salaries, and federal student loans.
Creating a tax through contract on graduating students is bad enough, but what making people have to pay a tax through the government? Horrific. Colleges should individually decide whether to switch to this system. Students should also be allowed to make their own choice about which college (and so, which payment system) to go to. Let the market handle it. This would also take care of your concern about money an engineer is paying going to basket weaving students. Honestly, I think it would be great if the government retracted completely from the University system and allowed the private sector to handle everything. No federal intervention - less expense in total.
Also, quick note: this would be beneficial for buisiness owners. Just keep all your money in the company and don't pay your tax. Even if your company is extremely successful, just pay yourself 80k.
It seems you forgot there would be this capitalistic incentive called competition. Where there are multiple providers competing for customers, quality increases and price decreases (unless the voucher already covers the whole price. In that case, that's basically the bottom limit for lowest price). Unless the industry became regulated to the point of destroying most businesses (your comment about "get lawmakers to enact barriers to entry, preventing smaller schools from being able to get by": see Insurance and ISPs) there would be competition, pushing educators to cut wages (you make that sound like a bad thing!), provide an excellent education, and even help the economy in the meantime.
Yes, school might be a little harder. Yes, teachers would be paid less (they're overpaid as it is). But no, the quality of education would not suffer, unless the industry became highly regulated.
You're referring to the fact that both groups like to stick to their values? I may not agree with one of them but they both have a very good record of not switching sides in the middle of a debate.
Yet somehow, this "corporate propoganda" is happening in California, the number one anti-capitalist, anti-corporation state. Somehow, this doesn't fit.
Maybe, just maybe, it's the government who's really pushing this agenda. The RIAA and MPAA obviously have an agenda here too, but if the great liberal Californian government is the one implementing it...
That may be true, however I fail to see how conservatives would like strong government involvement in the economy. If they do, they aren't real conservatives.
Conservatism is opposed to controlled economies and collectivist programs such as public schooling.
Facism, seems to align more with the liberal/progressive ideologies like social welfare, forced public education, state controlled economy, and giving more power to the state.
Therefore, facism is more like progressivism than it is like conservatism.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the Anonymous Coward is talking about the United States, which has a considerably higer ratio.
There is an obvious reason the government has such a large reach: they think they can fix everything with just the right laws, programs, and agencies. For the most part, it seems most citizens agree with them. Think about any government program or agency and there will be someone who doesn't want it to be cut. It's easier to add more things to make people happy than to remove some and anger people. It seems that the longer a government exists, the more bloating it will become, which would probably be why most countries only last for about a maximum of three hundred years. Seems the United States is past it's expiration date.
One could also argue that religion is not lack of applied thought at all. Maybe, it's just a different conclusion people come to after considering everything they know. Maybe, just maybe, it is a valid conclusion. Because, honestly, no one has all the information to say that all religion is objectively true or false.
Tolerance only runs one way.
More like: input == password or re.match('^ +$', input)
What if your pin is a palindrome?
No, but he was pressured to quit, by people who didn't think he should be able to express his own views (and only what's popular this decade), despite the fact that he made them known out of the workplace and that he promised never to associate it with his job. Frankly, this "Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech" is crap. When did Eich ever supress other people's views at Mozilla, or even elsewhere?
Inflation is a big part of it.
a. Less than 90% of Americans claim to believe in God (and even less actually do)
b. You're assuming everyone on Slashdot thinks God is a myth. Rather than just claiming, "God is a myth," tell us why he's a myth.
"Regular the hell out of it" and "Let it be" are contradictory.
Just because you don't like his signature doesn't mean his comment is bad. For the record, I like his signature.
AFAIK, the tenth amendment prevents the federal government from making such a law: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The constitution doesn't seem to say anything about teaching finance in public schools.
No, the less government crowd wants people to make a company and gain money. There is no, "Let's make it so that only some people have the chance to create a corporation." It's more like, "Let's let everyone start pretty much in the same spot, then allow them to fail or succeed based on their own merits." This is in contrast to the progressive, "Let's make sure everyone finishes in the same spot, we don't care where they started or how hard they worked. You succeeded? Great! Now give away all your work." Also, there is not a "delicate balance of free enterprise". The whole idea behind conservatism is that "capitalism will find a way to make it work".
Employers
Examples of "We know how to spend your money better" (by the government or the college): Non-Merit Scholarships (ethnicity, income, etc), administration costs/Overhead, professor salaries, and federal student loans.
Creating a tax through contract on graduating students is bad enough, but what making people have to pay a tax through the government? Horrific. Colleges should individually decide whether to switch to this system. Students should also be allowed to make their own choice about which college (and so, which payment system) to go to. Let the market handle it. This would also take care of your concern about money an engineer is paying going to basket weaving students. Honestly, I think it would be great if the government retracted completely from the University system and allowed the private sector to handle everything. No federal intervention - less expense in total.
Also, quick note: this would be beneficial for buisiness owners. Just keep all your money in the company and don't pay your tax. Even if your company is extremely successful, just pay yourself 80k.
It seems you forgot there would be this capitalistic incentive called competition. Where there are multiple providers competing for customers, quality increases and price decreases (unless the voucher already covers the whole price. In that case, that's basically the bottom limit for lowest price). Unless the industry became regulated to the point of destroying most businesses (your comment about "get lawmakers to enact barriers to entry, preventing smaller schools from being able to get by": see Insurance and ISPs) there would be competition, pushing educators to cut wages (you make that sound like a bad thing!), provide an excellent education, and even help the economy in the meantime. Yes, school might be a little harder. Yes, teachers would be paid less (they're overpaid as it is). But no, the quality of education would not suffer, unless the industry became highly regulated.
Talking about money, would it not be easier (and much cheaper) to just drop the public schools themselves? Vouchers always sounded like a good idea.
You're referring to the fact that both groups like to stick to their values? I may not agree with one of them but they both have a very good record of not switching sides in the middle of a debate.
News for nerds? I don't think so. What's happened to slashdot lately? All kinds of political (and biased) posts.
Yet somehow, this "corporate propoganda" is happening in California, the number one anti-capitalist, anti-corporation state. Somehow, this doesn't fit. Maybe, just maybe, it's the government who's really pushing this agenda. The RIAA and MPAA obviously have an agenda here too, but if the great liberal Californian government is the one implementing it...
Helpful link: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/378261932148416512
If I had any mod points left, I would mod this golden post up.
Which, of course, would be why you would not trust the government to do anything of this sort.
That may be true, however I fail to see how conservatives would like strong government involvement in the economy. If they do, they aren't real conservatives.
Conservatism is opposed to controlled economies and collectivist programs such as public schooling. Facism, seems to align more with the liberal/progressive ideologies like social welfare, forced public education, state controlled economy, and giving more power to the state. Therefore, facism is more like progressivism than it is like conservatism.