It is saddening to see that there is a non-trivial amount of people who treat their post-secondary education as another mountain to cross in a taxi instead of participating in the planning and preparation of the hiking trip to enjoying the learning experience(s) that they might otherwise miss during the hike across said metaphorical mountain.
My sister-in-law is a junior high school gym teacher - which in my state requires a masters degree. How in the FUCK can we justify making someone go to school for 6 YEARS in order to teach junior high school gym?
As an ideal I also prefer a free market. But I will never put my ideals over people. People are more important than ideas.
Your last paragraph shows me where we are missing each other. You see the cost as fixed. I do not. You see things in terms of fairness, where everyone should pull their own weight. I see people's behavior in terms of statistics. There will always be a certain percentage of people who are parasitic on the rest. This is life, and life is not fair. If we acknowledge these realities and deal with them efficiently and effectively, we can solve them at lower cost. Instead of concerning ourselves with how things should be, we should concern ourselves with how things are.
In terms of medical care, if the goal is to provide it to everyone who needs it, the single cheapest way to do so is to determine how much said care costs, and to pay the fucking bill. Any other method of payment - and by this I mean insurance - is inefficient. It adds costs to the system without adding value. We have already determined as a society that it is immoral to deny life saving emergent medical care to those who need it. By denying preventative care, we make the emergent care more expensive - an emergency room visit is tens or hundreds of times more expensive than a doctor's office visit - and we all pay more because of it. If it is our moral belief that denying emergent care is unacceptable, we should seek to make that cost as low as possible to society. This means covering everybody. It just so happens that the moral thing to do here is also the most cost effective - the United States pays more than 4 times the amount on health care than any nation in the world, and our infant mortality rate is behind Singapore.
I apologize for the insult. You have shamed me by your better behavior.
I do not believe that the free market exists. A truly free market tends towards monopoly, which destroys the free market. In order for a "somewhat" free market to exist, government intervention is necessary. Once you acknowledge the need for government, we can debate what type. I do not accept the notion that "smaller" government is always better. I believe in "necessary" government - enough government to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. Libertarianism seeks the solution of the least government possible, believing the free market will ultimately seek the best solution - but the free market doesn't exist. I will not throw out a better solution (such as single payer health care, which would be cheaper for everyone concerned, with a better outcomes) just because it is a "big government" solution. I find Libertarianism to emphasize moral correctness - individuality and liberty - over effectiveness. If I force you to give me $25 for your medical care, aren't you better off than if you willingly paid $100? I believe that the efficiencies saved by forcing your hand outweigh the immorality of doing so. You can hate my guts all you like, but you'll do so with $75 dollars in your pocket.
Yes, that's why it is a fairy tale. We've been taking the wealth of the "producers" for hundreds of years, and everything keeps moving merrily along. If you want to give up, fine, but there is always someone out there who'd be happy to eat your lunch. I am quite familiar with the work of Ms. Rand. I find the people who are fans of it to either not be very bright or not have thought it through. Which one are you?
They may have paid 44.3/61% percent of the taxes, but THEY CONTROL OVER 90% OF THE WEALTH. The way I'm looking at it, I'm still getting screwed. They have 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes. Hell, I'd be satisfied to go back to the way it was under Reagan, when they paid 70%. But this 44% is bullshit.
Or to one where safe sex education consists of more than just a video of Brystol Palin screaming "DON'T DO IT!"
Any parent who relies on school provided "sex education" to teach their kids the facts of life deserves what they get. Here is the biggest thing people get wrong - you don't have "THE TALK" about the birds and the bees. You have a conversation. One that starts when they can speak, and lasts the rest of their lives. Never lie to your kids about this. Always tell them more than they can understand, and they will come back and ask questions when they are ready.
You'll be sorry in 10 years, when your daughter is the one screwing all the guys because she's bored.
One, I don't have any daughters, and two, I'm not some fundie prude who would have a problem with it if I did. I expect teenagers to have sex. I did. Everyone I know did. You probably did too. It's natural, and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I'd prefer said fictional daughter be screwing every guy in town rather than do some of the other stupid shit kids in the boonies get up to (meth comes immediately to mind).
You're right; to an 18 year old, the boonies suck. To a 35 year old, the peace and quiet and the lower cost of living are hugely attractive. So what if there is no night life? I've got a four year old. I'm too fucking tired to go out.
A piece of advice, from an older parent to a new parent: you are not raising a child. You are raising an adult. You should spend your daughter's entire life as if you will drop dead when she turns 18. When you look at things from this perspective, things completely change. You are not protecting your child from the world; you are preparing them for it. They can handle a lot more than you think they can - including falling off a couch.
You are confusing the subject matter with the tool. We do not use slates and chalk anymore; the pencil was a vast improvement. We no longer teach calligraphy with a fountain pen; the ball point was a vast improvement. We no longer teach cursive anymore (at least in our district); typing is a vast improvement. We should be teaching with the tools appropriate for the task. My 7th grader gets all of his assignments by email, and turns them all in via web. This has more in common with what work is really going to be like for him than traditional methods, so I have no problem with it.
Should we give elementary students computers for the sake of them having computers? No way. Should we be teaching them how to write letters in longhand? Hell no. That's why we have Facebook.
Or we could have just forced him to pay the 75 in taxes, and saved ourselves a bunch of money. Instead we all get to take responsibility for his mistakes. What about this do you not understand?
They didn't stand by and watch someone die. They didn't fail to provide medical services to the injured. They simply refused to provide a service he failed to pay for. A service to save his personal property.
This fucktard failed in his responsibility to his family. Why the fuck should everyone else be required to take care of this, quite capable. freeloader?
Responding to the AC...crazy...
I'll tell you exactly why. Because you idiots don't think the consequences through. Now we have a family, who is homeless. If they have insurance that would pay out in this situation, we are all going to pay a little more because of this claim. This family is now going to need somewhere to live. There is a cost to society associated with that - whether it is welfare for this family, lost property taxes, or increased crime if this family turns to stealing to survive. The neighbor's property was damaged; this has a non-zero cost. Plus the fact that they let three animals die. That was nice.
What would have been the cost of putting out the fire? The cost of the water. Maybe some depreciation on equipment. That's it. Now which do you think is cheaper in the long run?
I think the biggest problem that Republicans and Libertarians have is that under progressive policies, somewhere, someone might be getting something for nothing. When are you guys going to figure out that it is often cheaper to do it that way than your way? If we have to let thousands of families suck off the government teat, but have to build half as many prisons, isn't that for the better? It is cheaper to feed people than feed them in prison.
I respect your reasoned tone. I apologize for my slander. We've been getting a whole lot of it from people calling liberals socialists, some of whom happen to be named after your heroes.
However, I do not respect your beliefs. I'm sorry. I find them to be completely divorced from reality. You maintain that "any initiation of force is illicit and contrary to natural law". I maintain that the application of force is how the world turns. All life attempts to benefit at the expense of other life through the application of force. It is LITERALLY part of our DNA. To want to live in a world like that is understandable; it is a Utopian ideal. But it ignores the fact that all of biology is working against you. Libertarianism is a lot like Communism - great on paper. Too bad they both ignore human nature.
Your political philosophy does not work. At one time, all fire departments operated under these terms; there were no municipally supported fire companies. You know what the number one cause of fires was during those times? Fire departments. Give me some good old fashioned socialism any day. Libertarian philosophy - or as I like to call it, "Fuck you, I've got mine", has already been tried. We rejected feudalism hundreds of years ago. Why go backwards?
Not really. We have a nanny state that is hell bent on protecting the idiots and children from all the evils of the world,while neglecting to remember that the nanny state itself is evil.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that requiring match book manufacturers to put the striker on the back of the pack of matches instead of the front, while an EBIL INTRUSION OF GUBMINT INTO TEH FREE MARKETS (all hail basement cat!), it also prevents a non-zero amount of fires. Our insurance costs are lower, our fire protection costs are lower, and some mothers can still hug their children because of the evil government.
Personally, speaking as a parent, I am eternally grateful that the government takes at least token steps to make sure products intended for my child are not coated in lead paint, have easily detachable parts that are likely to cause choking, nor have a tendency to explode because some sociopath capitalist CEO decided that the money he will pay out for the few lawsuits he gets because of dead kids is a lot less than buying paint not riddled with poison. And god bless the bottom line. Remember Ford?
So to all you Libertarian free market dipshits out there - I give a hardy FUCK YOU. You assholes created this mess when you conveniently forgot the whole "positive contribution to society" part of the corporate charter. You want your companies to behave like amoral money making machines, fine. We will treat them as such. That means always believing that you would have no problem slaughtering your customers if it would make you a buck. You have lost all trust. You made your bed. Lie in it.
You know, last time I checked, no matter how much I busted my ass, I'm not going to get more than my 3% raise in my non-Union IT shop. I might someday get promoted, but not until I've lost tens of thousands in potential wages by not moving to another company for a higher wage. And that's all collective bargaining's fault, right?
Congratulations! You figured out how to use the internet at 12 years old! We're so proud of you! But remember, it's not polite to refer to things you disapprove of as "gay". People will think you are an idiot. Run along now.:)
Slashdot Mirror
My sister-in-law is a junior high school gym teacher - which in my state requires a masters degree. How in the FUCK can we justify making someone go to school for 6 YEARS in order to teach junior high school gym?
Are you familiar with the term? If you were, you wouldn't have to ask.
Regarding your .sig...if you want a truly fair tax, you really want APT. http://www.apttax.com/. Fair Tax is regressive. APT is not.
In the final analysis, liberals always win. If we didn't, we'd still be living in caves. Always remember that.
Your last paragraph shows me where we are missing each other. You see the cost as fixed. I do not. You see things in terms of fairness, where everyone should pull their own weight. I see people's behavior in terms of statistics. There will always be a certain percentage of people who are parasitic on the rest. This is life, and life is not fair. If we acknowledge these realities and deal with them efficiently and effectively, we can solve them at lower cost. Instead of concerning ourselves with how things should be, we should concern ourselves with how things are.
In terms of medical care, if the goal is to provide it to everyone who needs it, the single cheapest way to do so is to determine how much said care costs, and to pay the fucking bill. Any other method of payment - and by this I mean insurance - is inefficient. It adds costs to the system without adding value. We have already determined as a society that it is immoral to deny life saving emergent medical care to those who need it. By denying preventative care, we make the emergent care more expensive - an emergency room visit is tens or hundreds of times more expensive than a doctor's office visit - and we all pay more because of it. If it is our moral belief that denying emergent care is unacceptable, we should seek to make that cost as low as possible to society. This means covering everybody. It just so happens that the moral thing to do here is also the most cost effective - the United States pays more than 4 times the amount on health care than any nation in the world, and our infant mortality rate is behind Singapore.
I do not believe that the free market exists. A truly free market tends towards monopoly, which destroys the free market. In order for a "somewhat" free market to exist, government intervention is necessary. Once you acknowledge the need for government, we can debate what type. I do not accept the notion that "smaller" government is always better. I believe in "necessary" government - enough government to get the job done in the most efficient manner possible. Libertarianism seeks the solution of the least government possible, believing the free market will ultimately seek the best solution - but the free market doesn't exist. I will not throw out a better solution (such as single payer health care, which would be cheaper for everyone concerned, with a better outcomes) just because it is a "big government" solution. I find Libertarianism to emphasize moral correctness - individuality and liberty - over effectiveness. If I force you to give me $25 for your medical care, aren't you better off than if you willingly paid $100? I believe that the efficiencies saved by forcing your hand outweigh the immorality of doing so. You can hate my guts all you like, but you'll do so with $75 dollars in your pocket.
Yes, that's why it is a fairy tale. We've been taking the wealth of the "producers" for hundreds of years, and everything keeps moving merrily along. If you want to give up, fine, but there is always someone out there who'd be happy to eat your lunch. I am quite familiar with the work of Ms. Rand. I find the people who are fans of it to either not be very bright or not have thought it through. Which one are you?
Thanks, I've had enough of fairy tales for the year.
I am all in favor of a transaction flat tax - every time money moves, the government takes a cut. Sales tax, not so much.
They may have paid 44.3/61% percent of the taxes, but THEY CONTROL OVER 90% OF THE WEALTH. The way I'm looking at it, I'm still getting screwed. They have 90% of the money, they should pay 90% of the taxes. Hell, I'd be satisfied to go back to the way it was under Reagan, when they paid 70%. But this 44% is bullshit.
If you're Canadian, you might have a problem, but Americans can tell this douche to stuff it.
Any parent who relies on school provided "sex education" to teach their kids the facts of life deserves what they get. Here is the biggest thing people get wrong - you don't have "THE TALK" about the birds and the bees. You have a conversation. One that starts when they can speak, and lasts the rest of their lives. Never lie to your kids about this. Always tell them more than they can understand, and they will come back and ask questions when they are ready.
One, I don't have any daughters, and two, I'm not some fundie prude who would have a problem with it if I did. I expect teenagers to have sex. I did. Everyone I know did. You probably did too. It's natural, and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I'd prefer said fictional daughter be screwing every guy in town rather than do some of the other stupid shit kids in the boonies get up to (meth comes immediately to mind).
You're right; to an 18 year old, the boonies suck. To a 35 year old, the peace and quiet and the lower cost of living are hugely attractive. So what if there is no night life? I've got a four year old. I'm too fucking tired to go out.
A piece of advice, from an older parent to a new parent: you are not raising a child. You are raising an adult. You should spend your daughter's entire life as if you will drop dead when she turns 18. When you look at things from this perspective, things completely change. You are not protecting your child from the world; you are preparing them for it. They can handle a lot more than you think they can - including falling off a couch.
Should we give elementary students computers for the sake of them having computers? No way. Should we be teaching them how to write letters in longhand? Hell no. That's why we have Facebook.
Or we could have just forced him to pay the 75 in taxes, and saved ourselves a bunch of money. Instead we all get to take responsibility for his mistakes. What about this do you not understand?
Responding to the AC...crazy...
I'll tell you exactly why. Because you idiots don't think the consequences through. Now we have a family, who is homeless. If they have insurance that would pay out in this situation, we are all going to pay a little more because of this claim. This family is now going to need somewhere to live. There is a cost to society associated with that - whether it is welfare for this family, lost property taxes, or increased crime if this family turns to stealing to survive. The neighbor's property was damaged; this has a non-zero cost. Plus the fact that they let three animals die. That was nice.
What would have been the cost of putting out the fire? The cost of the water. Maybe some depreciation on equipment. That's it. Now which do you think is cheaper in the long run?
I think the biggest problem that Republicans and Libertarians have is that under progressive policies, somewhere, someone might be getting something for nothing. When are you guys going to figure out that it is often cheaper to do it that way than your way? If we have to let thousands of families suck off the government teat, but have to build half as many prisons, isn't that for the better? It is cheaper to feed people than feed them in prison.
However, I do not respect your beliefs. I'm sorry. I find them to be completely divorced from reality. You maintain that "any initiation of force is illicit and contrary to natural law". I maintain that the application of force is how the world turns. All life attempts to benefit at the expense of other life through the application of force. It is LITERALLY part of our DNA. To want to live in a world like that is understandable; it is a Utopian ideal. But it ignores the fact that all of biology is working against you. Libertarianism is a lot like Communism - great on paper. Too bad they both ignore human nature.
Your political philosophy does not work. At one time, all fire departments operated under these terms; there were no municipally supported fire companies. You know what the number one cause of fires was during those times? Fire departments. Give me some good old fashioned socialism any day. Libertarian philosophy - or as I like to call it, "Fuck you, I've got mine", has already been tried. We rejected feudalism hundreds of years ago. Why go backwards?
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that requiring match book manufacturers to put the striker on the back of the pack of matches instead of the front, while an EBIL INTRUSION OF GUBMINT INTO TEH FREE MARKETS (all hail basement cat!), it also prevents a non-zero amount of fires. Our insurance costs are lower, our fire protection costs are lower, and some mothers can still hug their children because of the evil government.
Personally, speaking as a parent, I am eternally grateful that the government takes at least token steps to make sure products intended for my child are not coated in lead paint, have easily detachable parts that are likely to cause choking, nor have a tendency to explode because some sociopath capitalist CEO decided that the money he will pay out for the few lawsuits he gets because of dead kids is a lot less than buying paint not riddled with poison. And god bless the bottom line. Remember Ford?
So to all you Libertarian free market dipshits out there - I give a hardy FUCK YOU. You assholes created this mess when you conveniently forgot the whole "positive contribution to society" part of the corporate charter. You want your companies to behave like amoral money making machines, fine. We will treat them as such. That means always believing that you would have no problem slaughtering your customers if it would make you a buck. You have lost all trust. You made your bed. Lie in it.
Um, have you been to a Wal-Mart parking lot? That description doesn't seem too far off the mark to me. I avoid my local one like the plague.
Defense. That shit is out of control.
You know, last time I checked, no matter how much I busted my ass, I'm not going to get more than my 3% raise in my non-Union IT shop. I might someday get promoted, but not until I've lost tens of thousands in potential wages by not moving to another company for a higher wage. And that's all collective bargaining's fault, right?
Congratulations! You figured out how to use the internet at 12 years old! We're so proud of you! But remember, it's not polite to refer to things you disapprove of as "gay". People will think you are an idiot. :)
Run along now.