Thoughts on a Conversation With NavCat

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Based on a recent conversation with Navcat, I think I can agree with the libertarians on a couple of things.  I'd like to explain these things, and then give some thoughts on what it all means, in the great scheme of things.

First, our nation is not following the constitution.  This is fairly self-evident to anyone who can get their heads out of the piggie-trough long enough to look around.  WHY this is happening is not so self evident.

Second, Government spending is absolutely ridiculous.  If you or I ran a business the way the US government runs itself, we'd be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.

Now, what the Libertarians don't realize is that the very things they espouse (the mythical "Free Market", etc) are the very causes of the US government belonging to someone other than The People.  Refusing to see that the government is now nothing more than a wholly-owned subsidiary of a collection of conglomerates, they seek to "cure" the problem by removing the very last few constraints on those corporations.  The reason, of course, is that the Libertarians are just as programmed as the dems and republicans, but they are programmed in such a way as to view the profit margin of a company as more important than the people around them. 

Sure, they claim that it is these very corporations that give people jobs...but let's examine that, shall we?  Most of the new jobs created by these corporations go straight to Asia.  Also, there was a time when these corporations were not the major employers of the USA.  Are we better off now, in terms of being a republic, or worse?

As far as government spending goes, that is the nature of the beast.  Government WILL tax you, and they WILL waste those taxes.  This is how it has worked since Hammurabi, and it ain't gonna change tomorrow.  However, I will agree that the method by which they waste the tax money (corporate giveaways and no-bid contracts) has approached the level of intolerability.  But what to do? 

You can't "restore" the constitution, because either these things are constitutional already, or we are cheerfully ignoring the constitution, and will do so again.  Chew on that for a moment...Either the constitution allows this travesty of a government, or it is powerless to prevent it.  As uncomfortable as it may make me, I must therefore state that the constitution is not fit to exist.  It was a valiant first effort, but it simply doesn't work.

But where does that leave us?  I don't know.  You tell me.

Or kill me.

[Corvidia]

However, I will agree that the method by which they waste the tax money (corporate giveaways and no-bid contracts) has approached the level of intolerability.  But what to do? 

Scrap the system and rebuild. I have no idea how to do that, short of a violent revolution. We're too big and far too decentralized for that to work. If we topple D.C., the state capitals will still go on. Shakily, but they'll manage.

You can't "restore" the constitution, because either these things are constitutional already, or we are cheerfully ignoring the constitution, and will do so again.  Chew on that for a moment...Either the constitution allows this travesty of a government, or it is powerless to prevent it.  As uncomfortable as it may make me, I must therefore state that the constitution is not fit to exist.  It was a valiant first effort, but it simply doesn't work.

At the very least, downplay the economic part. It should be there because property IS important, but it should take a backseat to people and their rights. I'd say we re-write it to reflect that idea, but I don't think that would go down well with very large, very powerful actors in US politics.

[Requia ☣]

The economic part of the constitution is pretty minimal.    Print some money, regulate (or don't) interstate commerce, write lawsa bout copyright (or ignore it).  Don't take people's shit away without a really good reason.  The huge amount of government involvement in the economy exists independently of that.

[Elder Iptuous]

You can't "restore" the constitution, because either these things are constitutional already, or we are cheerfully ignoring the constitution, and will do so again.  Chew on that for a moment...Either the constitution allows this travesty of a government, or it is powerless to prevent it.  As uncomfortable as it may make me, I must therefore state that the constitution is not fit to exist.  It was a valiant first effort, but it simply doesn't work.

of course the constitution is powerless to prevent people from disobeying it....
the set of ideas that supposedly form the framework of a state are just ideas.  you speak as though it would only require that somebody came up with a better set of ideas, that the people would be compelled to abide by them... and not only comply with them, but comply with the spirit of them.
nope.
you have a set of ideas, and then you require an informed and involved populace to actually practice them...
but, as you are fond of pointing out, we're a bunch of shit throwing monkeys, so that type of experiment is usually short lived, before the upright become overrun by a monstrous state.
hence jefferson's quote about the tree of liberty requiring periodic watering by the blood of patriots and tyrants....

[LMNO]

This is going to sound fairly simple-minded, but here goes...

Public Education and information. 

From what I can gather, the "masses" have relinquished the idea of self-government because they have no idea how to self-govern.  The thread regarding fascism seem to relate to this point: When Authoritarian structures are removed via revolution or resolution, the society flounders about until a dictator with a strong fist takes control.  And the People let him.

So, it seems obvious that in today's society, no-one is learning self-regulation/self-reliance.  And apparently, it does not come naturally.  So the "masses" need to be educated, as much as possible.  Only a fully informed populace will not only want to do away with Authority, they'll know what to do when it's gone.


Pipe dream?  Sure.  But I also think it cuts to the heart as why the introduction of new political philosophies won't give us a better government.

[Triple Zero]

This is going to sound fairly simple-minded, but here goes...

Public Education and information. 

this.

even if it doesnt turn out to be the complete solution, it would be a good beginning and a tremendous step forward.

[Elder Iptuous]

i would amend that...
if, by public education, you mean compulsory education, then I think that has already demonstrated itself to be insufficient.  It would require private and personal education.  IOW, it would require voluntary actions... that's the rub, because you can't compel the voluntary sacrifice required for liberty.

[LMNO]

Considering the state of "Public education", I would disagree... Compulsory EDUCATION has for the most been abandoned in favor of Compulsory REGULATION.  Add to that the fact that public education is notoriously under-funded, and it's obvious to see why it's not "working".

[Elder Iptuous]

true....
but it seems  inevitable that compulsory education would degenerate in the way that it has....  (and i base this on absolutely nothing. just a hunch, i guess)

i dunno. i would disagree that it is underfunded, unless you are looking at it from the perspective that the level of funding necessary is dictated by the results (then, of course, it would be underfunded)....  In past generations, the level of education attained was sufficient (exemplary by current standards) and achieved with significantly less than is currently spent.  how? because there was a desire to be educated.  it costs buckets o' cash to cram knowledge into a closed mind, it seems.... (and compulsory attendance doesn't do much for opening minds, imo)

[Richter]

Based on a recent conversation with Navcat, I think I can agree with the libertarians on a couple of things.  I'd like to explain these things, and then give some thoughts on what it all means, in the great scheme of things.

First, our nation is not following the constitution.  This is fairly self-evident to anyone who can get their heads out of the piggie-trough long enough to look around.  WHY this is happening is not so self evident.

Second, Government spending is absolutely ridiculous.  If you or I ran a business the way the US government runs itself, we'd be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.

Now, what the Libertarians don't realize is that the very things they espouse (the mythical "Free Market", etc) are the very causes of the US government belonging to someone other than The People.  Refusing to see that the government is now nothing more than a wholly-owned subsidiary of a collection of conglomerates, they seek to "cure" the problem by removing the very last few constraints on those corporations.  The reason, of course, is that the Libertarians are just as programmed as the dems and republicans, but they are programmed in such a way as to view the profit margin of a company as more important than the people around them. 

Sure, they claim that it is these very corporations that give people jobs...but let's examine that, shall we?  Most of the new jobs created by these corporations go straight to Asia.  Also, there was a time when these corporations were not the major employers of the USA.  Are we better off now, in terms of being a republic, or worse?

As far as government spending goes, that is the nature of the beast.  Government WILL tax you, and they WILL waste those taxes.  This is how it has worked since Hammurabi, and it ain't gonna change tomorrow.  However, I will agree that the method by which they waste the tax money (corporate giveaways and no-bid contracts) has approached the level of intolerability.  But what to do? 

You can't "restore" the constitution, because either these things are constitutional already, or we are cheerfully ignoring the constitution, and will do so again.  Chew on that for a moment...Either the constitution allows this travesty of a government, or it is powerless to prevent it.  As uncomfortable as it may make me, I must therefore state that the constitution is not fit to exist.  It was a valiant first effort, but it simply doesn't work.

But where does that leave us?  I don't know.  You tell me.

Or kill me.

Whenever I start thinking about this, I tend to get frustrated and try to write it all off as time to water the Liberty Tree, lay down a bed of corpses, and grab revolution for an angry screw.  It's the tried and true method.  If the one that got the USA where it is can serve as a guidleline; it is not happening without proving to the big money participants that there'll be some good ecomonic advantage for them when it all clears up.  It will be a hard sell, the USA not being the fatted calf is was 300 years ago.  The support will not come from wealthy landowners with shipping concerns looking for greater freedom of commerce, and I could easily see multinational corporations taking their place.  The rhetoric pitched to boards of directors, slogans being churned out by advertising departments, and the uniforms of the New Continental Army branded with the sponsor's trademarked logos are things we may well expect to see.  Freedom, peace, and brotherhood, brought to you by Phillip Morris.  

Enough salesmen pitching it right, and it could work.  (Biff Lowman is still a dime a dozen, after all.)  We'd have a bloody old time of it, the people economically on top would stay on top, and most of us would go home feeling good about the shiny new coat of BS on the same stinking game.  Those ones who were doing it right would have to bug out in the Che Guevara and Thomas Paine tradition.  (The new regime doesn't want to hear how it ISN'T living up to the dream.)

Want out of the cycle?  We all have to be interested, participating, and demanding consumers of the government and country we're getting for our money.  The more we elect other people to do so for us, the more we will attract the sort of greedy fuckups who see a niche they can milk at the expense of the population at large.  Just changing the water with the toilet handle of revolution won't change that.  Shit will attract flies, let's not go putting the shit on the titular head.

I'm angry that this is the best Earth's apex predator / tool user can be expected to pull off.  I'd like to see that the average people are something worth reason and conscience, deserving of more than just control.    

Fuck you monkeys at large for being the social pathics that accept it all.
Fuck this brain sack I am for not seeing a way out of it.

[LMNO]

true....
but it seems  inevitable that compulsory education would degenerate in the way that it has....  (and i base this on absolutely nothing. just a hunch, i guess)

i dunno. i would disagree that it is underfunded, unless you are looking at it from the perspective that the level of funding necessary is dictated by the results (then, of course, it would be underfunded)....  In past generations, the level of education attained was sufficient (exemplary by current standards) and achieved with significantly less than is currently spent.  how? because there was a desire to be educated.  it costs buckets o' cash to cram knowledge into a closed mind, it seems.... (and compulsory attendance doesn't do much for opening minds, imo)

The majority of inner-city and lower-income schools have outdated materials, overcrowded classrooms, collapsing infrastructure, and teachers make salaries only around $35k/year.

And even then, they are forced to cut sports and arts programs because they can't afford it.


Fix the roof, buy new books, install a computer network, institute a 10/1 student/teacher ratio, and pay teachers at a level you would expect to pay someone who was building the future you're going to live in, and see what happens.

[Triple Zero]

In past generations, the level of education attained was sufficient (exemplary by current standards) and achieved with significantly less than is currently spent. 

even accounting for inflation and such?

i dunno if it's a question of money entirely, but also depends on what is being taught.

people are also being taught--involuntarily--by the media, TV, news, internet, etc.

maybe traditional education is being pushed into a corner?

[LMNO]

Also, considering what my point is about self-regulation, do you really think that the people educated 50 years ago learned that? 

To clarify my point, while the things that are taught in school are necessary, public education still hasn't taken the step of teaching people to self-govern. 

[Elder Iptuous]

The majority of inner-city and lower-income schools have outdated materials, overcrowded classrooms, collapsing infrastructure, and teachers make salaries only around $35k/year.

And even then, they are forced to cut sports and arts programs because they can't afford it.

Fix the roof, buy new books, install a computer network, institute a 10/1 student/teacher ratio, and pay teachers at a level you would expect to pay someone who was building the future you're going to live in, and see what happens.

Don't get me wrong, that would be nice... and my mom's been a teacher for 35 years, so i understand the problems there too, but....
I have no proof (although i'm sure there's some 'pilot program' out there that has done just that), but i would suspect that you would get a classrom with a nice roof, shiny books (with updated maths and spelling and such), whizbang computers, lots of well paid teachers, and 10 students who still don't give a shit....

[LMNO]

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/Sampler/Outcome/appa1.pdf

A consensus of research indicates that class size reduction in
the early grades leads to higher student achievement. Researchers are more cautious about the question of
the positive effects of class size reduction in 4th through 12th grades. The significant effects of class size
reduction on student achievement appear when class size is reduced to a point somewhere between 15
and 20 students, and continue to increase as class size approaches the situation of a 1-to-1 tutorial. The
research data from the relevant studies indicate that if class size is reduced from substantially more than
20 students per class to below 20 students, the related increase in student achievement moves the average
student from the 50th percentile up to somewhere above the 60th percentile. For disadvantaged and
minority students the effects are somewhat larger. Students, teachers, and parents all report positive
effects from the impact of class size reductions on the quality of classroom activity.