Republicans were able to stand up and beat a Washington insider in a primary in a safe seat. Will Democrats ever be able to do that? Or are Democrat incumbents in safe seats guaranteed lifetime reelection?
That something occurs locally, doesn't mean that it is efficient to govern it locally.
Just because something occurs, that doesn't mean it needs to be governed at all. For the most part, people can live their own lives without a government mommy watching and second guessing everything they do.
And are you really trying to claim our huge central government is "efficient"? It must be really, really efficient for all that efficiency to outweigh the corruption.
Good luck running an economy with people that have diplomas like 'Smartest kid in the world. Signed, mom' or getting trains to run on railways with different widths.
Economies aren't "run". Individuals make individual choices.
Standardization regularly happens without government edict. The government didn't write the standard for email, for example, but there's still a more-or-less universal standard. It was all done without threats, without police, without graft, without government hearings, without bailouts for the losing technologies, and without paying an email tax.
The Romans...
...died and their empire crumbled. Their centralized government didn't save them.
Also, you should appreciate what centralized government has already done for you personally instead of taking it for granted.
I do appreciate what they do. It's just not worth the cost. I appreciate a good hamburger. I don't want to pay $2000 for a good hamburger. I don't appreciate being policed and regulated and threatened and spied on and otherwise oppressed in return for the opportunity to get on a waiting list buy a good hamburger for $2000.
How much more valuable is the 6th or 7th or 8th year of experience? If the students learn more, then teachers would be happy to be paid based of student test scores.
Would you hire an experienced surgeon to operate on you or one just out of school?
Teaching isn't surgery. If a surgeon has done a procedure 300 times, is it really a lot more valuable to have done it 600 times? I'm pretty sure most surgeons get paid at the same reimbursement rates for a procedure whether it's their 300th surgery or their 600th.
So why the question with experienced teachers?
Because teacher salaries are divorced from the value of their teaching.
I said "drastically smaller". That's not the same thing as "without".
A drastically smaller government, for example, wouldn't include a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing is a personal, or at most, a local problem.
A drastically smaller government wouldn't include a Department of Education. Education is an individual or family issue. Teaching and learning are simple, harmless transfers of knowledge. They should not be governed or policed. Central government has no legitimate role in education.
Agriculture is local. Unless there's a pandemic, Health and Human Services are local. Transportation -- at least road and train transportation -- is local. Street crime is local. Central government is mostly not needed for these things.
Central government has legitimate roles: national defense, minting a currency, international diplomacy, etc. If central government stuck to doing things we really need the central government for, it would be drastically smaller, much less expensive, and there would be a lot fewer opportunities for corrupt officials and congressmen.
Your "due process" was depriving poor kids of the chance to get a basic education. That's why you lost. Come up with a way to have "due process" without cheating poor kids out of an education.
Why should older teachers be (more than a little) higher paid? Is their productivity higher because they teach a larger number of students in a year? Do they teach the students who have the hardest time learning? Is "older" equivalent to more effective?
Do public schools exist to provide teacher paychecks? Or are they there for children to learn?
Believe it or not, many places in the world have gotten money out of politics...
North Korea and Cuba? Or were you thinking of other places? Please tell us where.
Perhaps this may be surprising to you, but it actually is possible. I can only hope that my other fellow Americans aren't as defeatist as you are.
Even if a few places have had good government for a few years, it's not normal. Good government has been extremely rare throughout history. It's not defeatist to understand and learn from history.
I read their FAQ. "Reform" can mean anything. Anyone can pledge to support "reform". Later if there's a bill, they can say they're against the bill because of specific items but they still support "reform". Without specifics, it's meaningless.
Drastically smaller government. When the government can't do much of anything for (or to) anyone, there's very little to gain by corrupting it and very little harm when it gets corrupted.
Take the money out of politics by taking the money and the power out of government.
They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that spending money to print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech. So how "fundamental" can any reform actually be? Are they planning to amend the Constitution so the government can arrest people for making videos or publishing books?
I can't believe people are giving money to these guys.
The roads where I live are in a terrible state of disrepair. The money gets spent on pensions instead. Pensions don't help anyone who needs a road. Nor do they keep the peace, nor do they teach children, nor do they fight fires.
6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio. You know it is actually 6:30 because the National Institute of Standards and Technology keeps the official time.
Because if it were actually 6:28 AM, the world would end. And also, because the government invented time and timekeeping.
6:35 a.m. Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma.
Nope. Clean air is good though. Government, like any tool, is best used only when needed, and only when it's a good fit for the task. No need to use it always, for everything.
6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink.
Partly because I filter it. But mostly because I wouldn't drink it if it weren't safe. I'd make it safe, then drink it.
And a large part of my water bill goes for pensions for people who don't do anything to keep my water clean and safe. But they get paid. Because... government.
6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why?
Because if there were a short, I'd have fixed it.
And because if fire hazards were common, my insurance provider would have required an inspection before selling me fire insurance.
--
It's interesting that I pay a water bill for water, I pay permit fees to cover the cost of electrical inspections, polluters pay pollution fees to cover pollution costs and broadcasters pay huge prices for radio spectrum. But the government still wants an additional 30-40% of every dollar I earn. Where's that money going? Not to NASA.
Why should every advantage go to large investors? Markets only work correctly if there are a lot of different people with a lot of different investing strategies and trading patterns.
I don't think markets should be "fixed" to only benefit mutual fund and pension fund investors. These guys already have more information about the companies they invest in than individuals do.
The guy from the Royal Bank of Canada might want to break his trades up into smaller lots. Or use limit orders and accept the risk that they won't be executed.
Arbitrage is super helpful. If my stock is going down and I want to dump out of it before I lose any more money, frequent trades mean I'll find a buyer. I won't be stuck in a position that's losing more and more money every minute.
Who does high frequency trading hurt again? Who are the victims?
It's just standard conspiracy theory stuff. You've never seen it? Then you're in on it, or part of the cover up, or "that's what they want you to think", or you're just clueless, or you're just insensitive, or any other thing. It's "true", regardless of anything. Because it satisfies an emotional need for the theorists/advocates.
Last week's fires are specifically mentioned. How is that not cherry-picking one week?
Alarmists: Global warming makes wildfires happen, like the ones from last week. Non-alarmists: Last week's fires were caused by weather and (probably, in one case) arson, not climate. Alarmists: No one was talking about last week's fires specifically. We were talking about statistically averaged fires over time.
If you're not talking about last week's fires, then please stop talking about last week's fires. If weather is not climate, a few weather-related fires are not climate-related fires.
If they can cherry-pick one week with fires to promote global warming alarmism, then it's equally valid to cherry-pick a month with no fires to refute the alarmism. The lack of fires is no more or less caused by global warming than the fires.
Slashdot Mirror
Free markets are the opposite of totalitarianism. Tea Party supports free markets vs. Republican allegiance to big corporate donors.
The balance of power between Washington vs. the rest of America has improved slightly.
Republicans were able to stand up and beat a Washington insider in a primary in a safe seat. Will Democrats ever be able to do that? Or are Democrat incumbents in safe seats guaranteed lifetime reelection?
That something occurs locally, doesn't mean that it is efficient to govern it locally.
Just because something occurs, that doesn't mean it needs to be governed at all. For the most part, people can live their own lives without a government mommy watching and second guessing everything they do.
And are you really trying to claim our huge central government is "efficient"? It must be really, really efficient for all that efficiency to outweigh the corruption.
Good luck running an economy with people that have diplomas like 'Smartest kid in the world. Signed, mom' or getting trains to run on railways with different widths.
Economies aren't "run". Individuals make individual choices.
Standardization regularly happens without government edict. The government didn't write the standard for email, for example, but there's still a more-or-less universal standard. It was all done without threats, without police, without graft, without government hearings, without bailouts for the losing technologies, and without paying an email tax.
The Romans...
...died and their empire crumbled. Their centralized government didn't save them.
Also, you should appreciate what centralized government has already done for you personally instead of taking it for granted.
I do appreciate what they do. It's just not worth the cost. I appreciate a good hamburger. I don't want to pay $2000 for a good hamburger. I don't appreciate being policed and regulated and threatened and spied on and otherwise oppressed in return for the opportunity to get on a waiting list buy a good hamburger for $2000.
Because they are more experienced, duh!
How much more valuable is the 6th or 7th or 8th year of experience? If the students learn more, then teachers would be happy to be paid based of student test scores.
Would you hire an experienced surgeon to operate on you or one just out of school?
Teaching isn't surgery. If a surgeon has done a procedure 300 times, is it really a lot more valuable to have done it 600 times? I'm pretty sure most surgeons get paid at the same reimbursement rates for a procedure whether it's their 300th surgery or their 600th.
So why the question with experienced teachers?
Because teacher salaries are divorced from the value of their teaching.
I said "drastically smaller". That's not the same thing as "without".
A drastically smaller government, for example, wouldn't include a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing is a personal, or at most, a local problem.
A drastically smaller government wouldn't include a Department of Education. Education is an individual or family issue. Teaching and learning are simple, harmless transfers of knowledge. They should not be governed or policed. Central government has no legitimate role in education.
Agriculture is local. Unless there's a pandemic, Health and Human Services are local. Transportation -- at least road and train transportation -- is local. Street crime is local. Central government is mostly not needed for these things.
Central government has legitimate roles: national defense, minting a currency, international diplomacy, etc. If central government stuck to doing things we really need the central government for, it would be drastically smaller, much less expensive, and there would be a lot fewer opportunities for corrupt officials and congressmen.
You've removed due process
Your "due process" was depriving poor kids of the chance to get a basic education. That's why you lost. Come up with a way to have "due process" without cheating poor kids out of an education.
That's your argument? It's OK to cheat poor kids out of an education because ... religious bogeymen might do scary things?
Why should older teachers be (more than a little) higher paid? Is their productivity higher because they teach a larger number of students in a year? Do they teach the students who have the hardest time learning? Is "older" equivalent to more effective?
Do public schools exist to provide teacher paychecks? Or are they there for children to learn?
Believe it or not, many places in the world have gotten money out of politics...
North Korea and Cuba? Or were you thinking of other places? Please tell us where.
Perhaps this may be surprising to you, but it actually is possible. I can only hope that my other fellow Americans aren't as defeatist as you are.
Even if a few places have had good government for a few years, it's not normal. Good government has been extremely rare throughout history. It's not defeatist to understand and learn from history.
It's more like "the dog that bites me every day and eats my food is sick". Getting rid of it solves multiple problems.
I read their FAQ. "Reform" can mean anything. Anyone can pledge to support "reform". Later if there's a bill, they can say they're against the bill because of specific items but they still support "reform". Without specifics, it's meaningless.
Drastically smaller government. When the government can't do much of anything for (or to) anyone, there's very little to gain by corrupting it and very little harm when it gets corrupted.
Take the money out of politics by taking the money and the power out of government.
They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that spending money to print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech. So how "fundamental" can any reform actually be? Are they planning to amend the Constitution so the government can arrest people for making videos or publishing books?
I can't believe people are giving money to these guys.
The roads where I live are in a terrible state of disrepair. The money gets spent on pensions instead. Pensions don't help anyone who needs a road. Nor do they keep the peace, nor do they teach children, nor do they fight fires.
6:30 a.m. You are awakened by your clock radio. You know it is actually 6:30 because the National Institute of Standards and Technology keeps the official time.
Because if it were actually 6:28 AM, the world would end. And also, because the government invented time and timekeeping.
6:35 a.m. Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma.
Nope. Clean air is good though. Government, like any tool, is best used only when needed, and only when it's a good fit for the task. No need to use it always, for everything.
6:38 a.m. You go into the kitchen for breakfast. You pour some water into your coffeemaker. You simply take for granted that this water is safe to drink.
Partly because I filter it. But mostly because I wouldn't drink it if it weren't safe. I'd make it safe, then drink it.
And a large part of my water bill goes for pensions for people who don't do anything to keep my water clean and safe. But they get paid. Because ... government.
6:39 a.m. You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why?
Because if there were a short, I'd have fixed it.
And because if fire hazards were common, my insurance provider would have required an inspection before selling me fire insurance.
--
It's interesting that I pay a water bill for water, I pay permit fees to cover the cost of electrical inspections, polluters pay pollution fees to cover pollution costs and broadcasters pay huge prices for radio spectrum. But the government still wants an additional 30-40% of every dollar I earn. Where's that money going? Not to NASA.
Maybe we shouldn't put our greatest dreams in the hands of government.
Why should every advantage go to large investors? Markets only work correctly if there are a lot of different people with a lot of different investing strategies and trading patterns.
I don't think markets should be "fixed" to only benefit mutual fund and pension fund investors. These guys already have more information about the companies they invest in than individuals do.
The guy from the Royal Bank of Canada might want to break his trades up into smaller lots. Or use limit orders and accept the risk that they won't be executed.
Arbitrage is super helpful. If my stock is going down and I want to dump out of it before I lose any more money, frequent trades mean I'll find a buyer. I won't be stuck in a position that's losing more and more money every minute.
Who does high frequency trading hurt again? Who are the victims?
It's just standard conspiracy theory stuff. You've never seen it? Then you're in on it, or part of the cover up, or "that's what they want you to think", or you're just clueless, or you're just insensitive, or any other thing. It's "true", regardless of anything. Because it satisfies an emotional need for the theorists/advocates.
Antarctic average temperature is -57C (-70F). It won't be thawing very soon.
How can anyone expect to move anything in only 86 years?
Understood. But relating it to last week's fires breaks the "weather is not climate" rule.
Last week's fires are specifically mentioned. How is that not cherry-picking one week?
Alarmists: Global warming makes wildfires happen, like the ones from last week.
Non-alarmists: Last week's fires were caused by weather and (probably, in one case) arson, not climate.
Alarmists: No one was talking about last week's fires specifically. We were talking about statistically averaged fires over time.
If you're not talking about last week's fires, then please stop talking about last week's fires. If weather is not climate, a few weather-related fires are not climate-related fires.
If they can cherry-pick one week with fires to promote global warming alarmism, then it's equally valid to cherry-pick a month with no fires to refute the alarmism. The lack of fires is no more or less caused by global warming than the fires.