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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2009, 06:00:15 AM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2009, 06:00:15 AM
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.
:mittens:
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.
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2009, 06:00:15 AMYou 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....
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.
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 02:05:40 PM
This is going to sound fairly simple-minded, but here goes...
Public Education and information.
:mittens:
this.
even if it doesnt turn out to be the complete solution, it would be a good beginning and a tremendous step forward.
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.
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".
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)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2009, 06:00:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 02:59:05 PMIn 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?
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.
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
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....
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/Sampler/Outcome/appa1.pdf
QuoteA 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.
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
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.
Of course people will complain "theres too many people flooding the job market", but if you sell education, a lot of those people will become teachers (and theres always a shortage of teachers), which means more people will become better educated, which means more people will become teachers....
Before you know it, we'll be exploring the surface of Mars with our new fusion technology soon after describing all species on earth and programming bacteria to cure AIDS and cancer.
Also, Iptuous, if the teachers give a shit the students end up giving a shit too. Having financial security is a good motivator.
Aw, shucks. Kai just outed me as an optimist. :wink:
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
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....
pfff i dont think so.
SOME kids in puberty may appear like they dont give a shit, but even they pick up some useful stuff from their education. and from what I've seen the amount of stuff they pick up is more related to their capacity for learning than whether they give a shit or not.
however, when you have shitty classrooms, old books and underpaid teachers, it becomes a whole lot easier to simply not give a shit and don't learn anything.
at least that's what I have seen in my own education. even the biggest rebels and not-give-a-shitters got to the level of education they were capable of, sometimes it took them a few years extra to account for not-giving-a-shit, but given quality education, they mostly got there. and if not a diploma, they learned a lot of useful stuff.
i can buy that... seems like a no-brainer...
why do the effects attenuate after 4th grade though? i'm guessing that's about the time that the kiddos figure out that they are forced to do this even though they don't want to anymore... so how do you fix that problem?
perhaps it has to do with the 'auxiliary education' that trip points out, and failure on the part of the parents to take an active role in the education of their kids...
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 03:39:01 PM
why do the effects attenuate after 4th grade though?
Where do you see that? I can't find the quote.
what age, generally, is 4th grade? (you have a different system than we do over here)
8 or so. However, I'm still trying to find where he got the quote that the effects decrease after 4th grade.
I can give an easy answer.
Middle School.
Or more universally and specifically,
Puberty.
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 03:41:25 PM
Where do you see that? I can't find the quote.
I guess i made a leap there on that one...
QuoteA 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.
i guess i just assumed that meant that the results showing positive link between classroom improvement and achievement after 4th grade was more contentious....
maybe that's just me reading into it what i expect?....
Kai, i do agree with you to a point about teacher motivation, but i've watched many of my mother's teacher friends come into the profession brimming with enthusiasm and getting worn down to the point of burnout because the fact is, some schools become a daycare where they also happen to be required to teach some standardized testing... (that's overstating and generalizing, i know) i went to many good schools growing up and if the students had a motivation for education instilled by their parents/community, the schools worked well. in crappy neighborhoods where this value on education wasn't present, the schools worked poorly. i don't think pouring money on them would change anything.... i guess that's all i was saying. (but teachers in general should make more than they do, i agree)
As to the pay teachers more thing, the median and average salary for teachers are both 40-44k (depending on position). The national median wage is about 26k.
Some states (IE Tennessee) are much worse of course.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 03:41:25 PM
Where do you see that? I can't find the quote.
I guess i made a leap there on that one...
QuoteA 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.
i guess i just assumed that meant that the results showing positive link between classroom improvement and achievement after 4th grade was more contentious....
maybe that's just me reading into it what i expect?....
Kai, i do agree with you to a point about teacher motivation, but i've watched many of my mother's teacher friends come into the profession brimming with enthusiasm and getting worn down to the point of burnout because the fact is, some schools become a daycare where they also happen to be required to teach some standardized testing... (that's overstating and generalizing, i know) i went to many good schools growing up and if the students had a motivation for education instilled by their parents/community, the schools worked well. in crappy neighborhoods where this value on education wasn't present, the schools worked poorly. i don't think pouring money on them would change anything.... i guess that's all i was saying. (but teachers in general should make more than they do, i agree)
Teachers ie community. If teachers are good they'll reach out to the community and to the parents. The motivation has to start somewhere, it isn't just a circle with no beginning and no end.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
Kai, i do agree with you to a point about teacher motivation, but i've watched many of my mother's teacher friends come into the profession brimming with enthusiasm and getting worn down to the point of burnout because the fact is, some schools become a daycare where they also happen to be required to teach some standardized testing... (that's overstating and generalizing, i know) i went to many good schools growing up and if the students had a motivation for education instilled by their parents/community, the schools worked well. in crappy neighborhoods where this value on education wasn't present, the schools worked poorly. i don't think pouring money on them would change anything.... i guess that's all i was saying. (but teachers in general should make more than they do, i agree)
Question1: Why do some schools become a daycare?
Question2: Why do some schools rely soley on standardized testing?
Answer1: Often because the classes are too large to engender actual education, combined with inadequate teaching materials.
Answer2: Because when reduced to Regulation of classes versus Education of classes, repitition of knowledge takes the place of learning.
Additional funds to reduce class size and supplement materials would help both situations.
Quote from: Requia on July 08, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
As to the pay teachers more thing, the median and average salary for teachers are both 40-44k (depending on position). The national median wage is about 26k.
Some states (IE Tennessee) are much worse of course.
Median wage for a college graduate is apparently 48k, so teachers do sacrifice somewhat.
Is this over their entire career?
Quote from: Requia on July 08, 2009, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: Requia on July 08, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
As to the pay teachers more thing, the median and average salary for teachers are both 40-44k (depending on position). The national median wage is about 26k.
Some states (IE Tennessee) are much worse of course.
Median wage for a college graduate is apparently 48k, so teachers do sacrifice somewhat.
Requia, is this a tight distribution or a broad bell with long tails? I'm guessing its the latter.
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 04:33:55 PM
Teachers ie community. If teachers are good they'll reach out to the community and to the parents. The motivation has to start somewhere, it isn't just a circle with no beginning and no end.
True. but, again, i've seen teachers that are good and motivated worn down pdq because the children have no desire to learn instilled in them by their parents, and the parents are aggressive to the teachers and are unwilling to work with them. i put more blame on them than the teachers is all i'm saying. go ahead and pay the teachers more(they deserve it), but don't expect that to have a dramatic effect on the education system unless the parents hold up their end...
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 04:35:30 PM
Question1: Why do some schools become a daycare?
Question2: Why do some schools rely soley on standardized testing?
Answer1: Often because the classes are too large to engender actual education, combined with inadequate teaching materials.
Answer2: Because when reduced to Regulation of classes versus Education of classes, repitition of knowledge takes the place of learning.
Additional funds to reduce class size and supplement materials would help both situations.
were in agreement...
it would help.
i guess my original point is horse/water/drink and the horse doesn't want to. People are unwilling to exert the necessary effort to educate themselves, because they are comfortable without it. this creates an uninformed population unwilling to become involved in self-governance, and the grand experiment comes to a close with the determination that we are shit flinging monkeys, with sporadic burts of decency brought on by crappy conditions that we ourselves create that motivate us to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps....
a 'victims of our own success' type cycle thing... wheel of fortune and all... i don't believe that we can create a stasis that doesn't suck.
I consider myself an optimist because i'm looking at the bursts of decency....
Well, that's why the original plan was that ONLY landowners could vote... they assumed that ONLY Landowners would have enough 'skin in the game' to be educated and vote for the best candidate. I'm all for equality, but I do think that giving every mouth breather voting privileges does have some drawbacks... mostly that they're easily swayed by smooth talking snake oil salesmen (or saleswomen in the case of Gov Palin).
i have always given the "education" answer to this question my self, but how do you make it happen? thinking and self responsibility just are not in the government's interest, a nation of American idol watchers making political decisions based on popularity contests are easier to deal with than mobs of jeffersonian minded citizens who see the risks of governments abusing every new power they wish to grant themselves.
the teaching of thinking and American civics may not even exist in the modern teach the test schools how do you force them to bring it back? (thinking may never have been a school curriculum)
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 04:35:30 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 04:29:52 PM
Kai, i do agree with you to a point about teacher motivation, but i've watched many of my mother's teacher friends come into the profession brimming with enthusiasm and getting worn down to the point of burnout because the fact is, some schools become a daycare where they also happen to be required to teach some standardized testing... (that's overstating and generalizing, i know) i went to many good schools growing up and if the students had a motivation for education instilled by their parents/community, the schools worked well. in crappy neighborhoods where this value on education wasn't present, the schools worked poorly. i don't think pouring money on them would change anything.... i guess that's all i was saying. (but teachers in general should make more than they do, i agree)
Question1: Why do some schools become a daycare?
Question2: Why do some schools rely soley on standardized testing?
Answer1: Often because the classes are too large to engender actual education, combined with inadequate teaching materials.
Answer2: Because when reduced to Regulation of classes versus Education of classes, repitition of knowledge takes the place of learning.
Additional funds to reduce class size and supplement materials would help both situations.
I'm jumping into this conversation late because I was in a stupid ethics training but I just wanted to start by saying LMNO is 100% on the mark with this one. And I say this from the experience of someone who has worked in and with about 20 individual school districts in Maine with a variety of situations. Some schools with the money to properly pay teachers, properly invest in educational infrastructre, and have low teacher/class ratios. Then you have the schools like the one in particular where you have 1000 kids from 5 different and spread out towns and little to no money to fund their education. That school is a hell hole with rampant drug use and all kinds of anti-social issues.
Kids, in schools, who form meaningful bonds with adults in their schools, i.e., their teachers, have a far better educational system and are going to absorb more knowledge and are going to be much more likely to be in a position where they can engage more critical thinking skills. Otherwise, you've got a bunch of robots teaching to little robots.
Quote from: fomenter on July 08, 2009, 05:27:15 PM
i have always given the "education" answer to this question my self, but how do you make it happen? thinking and self responsibility just are not in the government's interest, a nation of American idol watchers making political decisions based on popularity contests are easier to deal with than mobs of jeffersonian minded citizens who see the risks of governments abusing every new power they wish to grant themselves.
the teaching of thinking and American civics may not even exist in the modern teach the test schools how do you force them to bring it back? (thinking may never have been a school curriculum)
The current state of education as described above is why I consider my viewpoints, while presumably accurate, highly ideological and optimistic.
Quote from: Requia on July 08, 2009, 01:20:56 PM
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.
I thought about it some, and maybe a better thing to say would have been the economic motivations behind a good chunk of what was decided (ie, the bit where the landless weren't allowed to vote) should be left behind. They still color our national character in ways I don't like.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 02:59:05 PM
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)
I think the crux of the problem with the current model of education is that it's been nationalized. If we look back at when it wasn't (pre 1970s) we see better results because parents and teachers had more control and it's the parents and teachers to whom the education of children really matters. They can determine what a child needs better than some bureaucratic entity in DC.
Granted, there's a lot of parents who don't give a shit for whatever reason, so I think it would (and probably did) rely more on teachers to determine the path of education their students will take. Give a teacher more control over what they teach and how they do so and I think more of them will care. Teacher and parent control > anything state or national, as well as principals/school districts looking to meet a benchmark.
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 02:05:40 PM
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.
Problem: The same people that control the government control education and information.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
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....
You can make 'em give a shit. Oh, yes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2009, 06:00:15 AM
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.
I didn't see this until now...
I hate you so much right now, TGRR.
Okay, yeah; maybe I should stop calling myself a Libertarian now (Damn you Roger!)
It's okay, I'm over it. Here's why:
I've NEVER been comfortable with the model where Corporate interest takes precedent over The People. I mean; isn't that the antithesis of the intent of checks and balances?
Here's the deal: what many "Liberatians (I think willfully) overlook is the fact that this system of government was set up so that no one entity would have the capacity for power over the many, and people are kidding themselves if they forget that money (esp. metric fuckloads of it) = power.
I mean, how fucked is it that there's on average something like 177 lobbyists for each member of congress? ( :cn: )
Anyone who's ever worked for one of these profit-driven, efficient, better-managed-than-government-ever-could private sector companies knows that they don't continue to fund someone's six-figure income if that employee isn't saving the company ten times that by doing their job.
So I agree: something's hopelessly fucked. But I don't have any solutions. I don't think the other extreme: Government holding the keys to the safe is going to fix the problem.
So the solution is out-and-out hypocrisy: Say we stand for one thing, and do the exact opposite...Wait...no...Yeah, got it...wait...no...
But that's basically the suicide pact we have going now.
Why did I quit smoking again?
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 02:05:40 PM
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.
I apologize in advance if this point has been made because I'm catching up.
The problem is: upon whom do we rely for an education system where self-governance becomes priority? The Government?
We sure as fuck can't rely on the religious school system because while the acedemic level is good, and they do teach things like character and conviction, they also teach people to be subservient to something else.
Secular private schools are usually outstanding in this regard with most children going on to prep school but they are also :
1. Expensive
2. Exclusive
3. A microcosm of the very same "Capitalist pig" system we try to avoid in a free market: "Those who excel get the spoils and everyone else, get in line with your lunch tray and prepare to be ruled by your betters."
Just tossing that out there (and simultaneously ass-raping my own cherished beliefs)
EDIT: It seems TGRR already rented this motorcycle.
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 04:49:25 PM
Quote from: Requia on July 08, 2009, 04:40:25 PM
Quote from: Requia on July 08, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
As to the pay teachers more thing, the median and average salary for teachers are both 40-44k (depending on position). The national median wage is about 26k.
Some states (IE Tennessee) are much worse of course.
Median wage for a college graduate is apparently 48k, so teachers do sacrifice somewhat.
Requia, is this a tight distribution or a broad bell with long tails? I'm guessing its the latter.
I don't have enough data for that... I do know that I've heard of specific states paying as low as 25k (why I singled out Tennessee) or as high as 80k (get a teaching job in Maine, seriously). I would guess this would show as a long tail distribution. What I'd really like to see is state by state and city by city data adjusted for cost of living (I'd rather have the 25k starting wage in Tennessee than a 35k starting wage in new york city or Boston).
Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".
Quote from: Hawk on July 09, 2009, 03:37:30 AM
Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".
is it the selfishness, or the shortsightedness that bothers you? (or both)
how could you expect anyone to do anything that appears to the to be not to their personal advantage?
Quote from: navkat on July 08, 2009, 10:53:02 PM
I hate you so much right now, TGRR.
My work here is done.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 09, 2009, 03:52:38 AM
Quote from: Hawk on July 09, 2009, 03:37:30 AM
Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".
is it the selfishness, or the shortsightedness that bothers you? (or both)
how could you expect anyone to do anything that appears to the to be not to their personal advantage?
Here's the metaphor I've been struggling with:
Imagine the whole situation is a big, saltwater aquarium. There's a whoooole lot of fish in there and a few sharks.
There's only so much food to go around and the sharks are bigger so usually they eat their fill first, then the fish below get the crumbs, then the smaller fish below THEM get THEIR crumbs and so on.
All the fish get hungry pretty much constantly, so everyone goes hunting. Obviously; the sharks WIN at hunting and succeed in eating the smaller fish, pretty much anytime they want: Their mere size/power stacks the deck in their favor.
That sucks for the fish. "There needs to be some kind of solution to remedy that because it's fucked up and unfair," you say.
So what is the solution? Is it fair to tie down the sharks in a net and basically unleash the entire fish population on them to take little bites of their flesh until the fish are satisfied? No one will feel bad for the sharks because let's face it: they've eaten so many goddamned fish with no conscience about it that the little fish feel
entitled to eat the sharks alive.
But how fucked up is it to just tie them up? The little fish don't have to actually HUNT or anything, someone just takes the flesh off the sharks and hands it to the little fish to "even the playing field."
Also: once all the sharks are gone, the aquarium zoo-keepers stop throwing huge chunks of meat into the tank. Why bother? There are no sharks to feed. So the food supply problem doesn't really change, anyway. It's a voracious cycle with the largest fish taking over for the sharks as the "big guys" in the tank.
So what's the solution?
How do you keep the sharks from using their might to be the first ones to grab the meat when it gets chucked in the tank and then start feeding on the little fish when they've finished that?
What kind of rules can you set up that works as a "separator net" that keeps the sharks swimming freely (and free to keep whatever they can grab under those circumstances) but in check and not able to eat the little guy so easily?
What regulations?
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 05:23:59 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 09, 2009, 03:52:38 AM
Quote from: Hawk on July 09, 2009, 03:37:30 AM
Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".
is it the selfishness, or the shortsightedness that bothers you? (or both)
how could you expect anyone to do anything that appears to the to be not to their personal advantage?
Here's the metaphor I've been struggling with:
Imagine the whole situation is a big, saltwater aquarium. There's a whoooole lot of fish in there and a few sharks.
There's only so much food to go around and the sharks are bigger so usually they eat their fill first, then the fish below get the crumbs, then the smaller fish below THEM get THEIR crumbs and so on.
All the fish get hungry pretty much constantly, so everyone goes hunting. Obviously; the sharks WIN at hunting and succeed in eating the smaller fish, pretty much anytime they want: Their mere size/power stacks the deck in their favor.
That sucks for the fish. "There needs to be some kind of solution to remedy that because it's fucked up and unfair," you say.
So what is the solution? Is it fair to tie down the sharks in a net and basically unleash the entire fish population on them to take little bites of their flesh until the fish are satisfied? No one will feel bad for the sharks because let's face it: they've eaten so many goddamned fish with no conscience about it that the little fish feel entitled to eat the sharks alive.
But how fucked up is it to just tie them up? The little fish don't have to actually HUNT or anything, someone just takes the flesh off the sharks and hands it to the little fish to "even the playing field."
Also: once all the sharks are gone, the aquarium zoo-keepers stop throwing huge chunks of meat into the tank. Why bother? There are no sharks to feed. So the food supply problem doesn't really change, anyway. It's a voracious cycle with the largest fish taking over for the sharks as the "big guys" in the tank.
So what's the solution?
How do you keep the sharks from using their might to be the first ones to grab the meat when it gets chucked in the tank and then start feeding on the little fish when they've finished that?
What kind of rules can you set up that works as a "separator net" that keeps the sharks swimming freely (and free to keep whatever they can grab under those circumstances) but in check and not able to eat the little guy so easily?
What regulations?
Bad analogy. Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay. Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.
1. Limit the size of corporations. This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone. This only works if you follow #2.
2. Prevent corporations from owning other corporations. Period.
3. Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.
4. Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities. The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.
The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:36:25 AM
Bad analogy. Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay. Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.
1. Limit the size of corporations. This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone. This only works if you follow #2.
2. Prevent corporations from owning other corporations. Period.
3. Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.
4. Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities. The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.
The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.
YES. I am all about this.
Also: where do you stand on the whole "Audit the Fed" movement coming out of the Ron Paul set?
The Federal reserve being a private corporation, what's to be done about the issuance/control of currency under the above regulation? Who takes that over if not The Government itself?
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 05:49:28 AM
Also: where do you stand on the whole "Audit the Fed" movement coming out of the Ron Paul set?
The Federal reserve being a private corporation, what's to be done about the issuance/control of currency under the above regulation? Who takes that over if not The Government itself?
I think Ron Paul is the Dr Horace Naismith of this here reality tunnel. Make sure to contribute to the next money bomb. It's the only way to save America.
In what possible way is the federal reserve a private corporation. Its owned by the government and operated by the suits in Washington.
Quote from: Requia on July 09, 2009, 07:33:30 AM
In what possible way is the federal reserve a private corporation. Its owned by the government and operated by the suits in Washington.
What the fuck? No it fucking isn't. The only connection they have is that the president nominates the chairman. Other than that, it's completely fucking private.
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER VI > § 290
Use of earnings transferred to Treasury
"The net earnings derived by the ... Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury..."
So the federal reserves profits go to the government (or people we owe money to anyway) and the leadership is appointed by the president.
That seems like a government institution to me.
Quote from: Requia on July 09, 2009, 09:05:54 AM
TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER VI > § 290
Use of earnings transferred to Treasury
"The net earnings derived by the ... Federal reserve banks shall, in the discretion of the Secretary, be used to supplement the gold reserve held against outstanding United States notes, or shall be applied to the reduction of the outstanding bonded indebtedness of the United States under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury..."
So the federal reserves profits go to the government (or people we owe money to anyway) and the leadership is appointed by the president.
That seems like a government institution to me.
No sir. It's a lending institution. It has been found to be a private corporation at least twice in a court of law:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/334125/Kennedy-C-Scott-Appellant-v-Federal-Reserve-Bank-of-Kansas-City-et-al-Appellee
Quote"The Bank also does not constitute an federal agency based on any "proprietary interest" the United States possesses. The Bank is considered a separate corporation owned solely by commercial banks within its district distinct from the board of govenors."
I will look for and post the link to the 1994 case as soon as I find it.
EDIT: I found this instead:
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
Excerpts from a 1982 case where someone tried to sue the fed as part of the government and it was found (and precedent was set) that the fed is not
part of the Government.
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
Right. It used to NOT be that way. "Incorporation" was a state of doing business in the interest of The People which could be disbanded at will BY The People at which time the incorporated entity no longer served public interest.
That all changed in (I think) the 1930s when a corporation was judged to be "a natural person." (citation needed)
Let me fetch citation and dates. brb.
Okay; I'm bad with dates but I found a wiki on the corporate personhood debate and its history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate#History_of_the_debate_in_the_United_States
As always: take wikipedia with a huuuge grain of salt. When looking up the wiki on The Federal Reserve, I found that someone (I wonder who...?) had basically quoted the Fed's own FAQ site word-for-word which completely eschews the private corporation stuff.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 01:50:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
Right. It used to NOT be that way. "Incorporation" was a state of doing business in the interest of The People which could be disbanded at will BY The People at which time the incorporated entity no longer served public interest.
That all changed in (I think) the 1930s when a corporation was judged to be "a natural person." (citation needed)
Let me fetch citation and dates. brb.
This is what you're looking for:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/253/26/
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
Ah. Gotcha.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 08, 2009, 05:07:59 PM
Well, that's why the original plan was that ONLY landowners could vote... they assumed that ONLY Landowners would have enough 'skin in the game' to be educated and vote for the best candidate. I'm all for equality, but I do think that giving every mouth breather voting privileges does have some drawbacks... mostly that they're easily swayed by smooth talking snake oil salesmen (or saleswomen in the case of Gov Palin).
The problem with that is that in high-density areas many intelligent, educated people rent so that they are more free to travel, or because the city they live in is cost-prohibitive for purchasing a home, or because purchasing is cost-prohibitive. At the same time, property is inexpensive and readily available in poor, rural areas.
Tying voting to literacy might be a better idea.
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
Quote from: Nigel on July 09, 2009, 05:20:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 08, 2009, 05:07:59 PM
Well, that's why the original plan was that ONLY landowners could vote... they assumed that ONLY Landowners would have enough 'skin in the game' to be educated and vote for the best candidate. I'm all for equality, but I do think that giving every mouth breather voting privileges does have some drawbacks... mostly that they're easily swayed by smooth talking snake oil salesmen (or saleswomen in the case of Gov Palin).
The problem with that is that in high-density areas many intelligent, educated people rent so that they are more free to travel, or because the city they live in is cost-prohibitive for purchasing a home, or because purchasing is cost-prohibitive. At the same time, property is inexpensive and readily available in poor, rural areas.
Tying voting to literacy might be a better idea.
As someone that rents, I am well aware of that. My comment was on what the original plan was... and why. Most intelligent, educated people didn't rent until the 20th century. The majority of people in the 18th century that didn't own land were often illiterate, or had just immigrated and would likely not be well informed.
Times have changed, and land ownership is obviously not the same as it was... but the idea that everyone over 18 gets a vote was not originally part of the plan and I don't think that letting everyone with a pulse and a ID vote is necessarily good for the country.
Hell, I'd argue that most of the 'wedge' issues would disappear if it weren't for the hordes of uninformed, gullible voters.
Fomenting class warfare, ITT.
Quote from: Requia on July 09, 2009, 07:33:30 AM
In what possible way is the federal reserve a private corporation. Its owned by the government and operated by the suits in Washington.
Do you EVER look anything up before you type?
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 05:32:32 PM
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
I think a US Constitutional comprehension quiz would be chief.
IF it were Constitutional to do this at ALL, it would be reserved to state's rights.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:36:25 AM
Bad analogy. Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay. Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.
1. Limit the size of corporations. This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone. This only works if you follow #2.
2. Prevent corporations from owning other corporations. Period.
3. Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.
4. Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities. The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.
The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.
This would definitely go a long way toward solving the problem. Only hitch is that it'll never happen as long as corporate money rules Washington.
But corporate money is PEOPLE!
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 05:32:32 PM
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
I think a US Constitutional comprehension quiz would be chief.
IF it were Constitutional to do this at ALL, it would be reserved to state's rights.
that would prohibit our legislators from voting.....
Quote from: Iptuous on July 09, 2009, 06:30:32 PM
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 06:01:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 05:32:32 PM
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
I think a US Constitutional comprehension quiz would be chief.
IF it were Constitutional to do this at ALL, it would be reserved to state's rights.
that would prohibit our legislators from voting.....
Nice.
:lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
then let's break it down. corporate entities are scary as fuck.
In my philosophy about Emergence I described them as lifeforms. That doesn't mean I agree with their existence, just that I'm not surprised. They're not alive like humans are, either. Or dogs, or mice. If I were to place them on some sort of animal scale, I'd liken them to Amoeba. Primitive, shapeless and caring only for food and survival.
In that respect, I think corporations as a lifeform are barely touching the second circuit on the 8 Circuits Model. Nations and tribes might go a littlebit further.
ok enough sidetracking.
Corporations act like they're persons, but they are not.
Even without the law saying that they are, you can tell it is in their interest to appear as humans. To disguise themselves. Like this gloopy amoeba with a simile of a human face at the end of one of its tentacles. I noticed for the first time when I saw some ads on the street for a new energy corporation. The text on the ad was talking as if the corporation was a person, talking directly to me, saying something like "Actually, nothing changed." (EnergyCorpA is now named EnergyCorpB). But if nothing changed, why'd they change their name? Of course EnergyCorpA got eaten by the larger amoeba of EnergyCorpB, which was now extending one of its masked tentacles to keep up its appearance of humanity, while being a faceless megacorporate entity.
ok still sidetrakcing, sorry, I'll stop now
I agree with Trip... though maybe I'd call corporations "memetic entities"... but thats just semantics ;-)
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 09, 2009, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
then let's break it down. corporate entities are scary as fuck.
In my philosophy about Emergence I described them as lifeforms. That doesn't mean I agree with their existence, just that I'm not surprised. They're not alive like humans are, either. Or dogs, or mice. If I were to place them on some sort of animal scale, I'd liken them to Amoeba. Primitive, shapeless and caring only for food and survival.
In that respect, I think corporations as a lifeform are barely touching the second circuit on the 8 Circuits Model. Nations and tribes might go a littlebit further.
ok enough sidetracking.
Corporations act like they're persons, but they are not.
Even without the law saying that they are, you can tell it is in their interest to appear as humans. To disguise themselves. Like this gloopy amoeba with a simile of a human face at the end of one of its tentacles. I noticed for the first time when I saw some ads on the street for a new energy corporation. The text on the ad was talking as if the corporation was a person, talking directly to me, saying something like "Actually, nothing changed." (EnergyCorpA is now named EnergyCorpB). But if nothing changed, why'd they change their name? Of course EnergyCorpA got eaten by the larger amoeba of EnergyCorpB, which was now extending one of its masked tentacles to keep up its appearance of humanity, while being a faceless megacorporate entity.
ok still sidetrakcing, sorry, I'll stop now
I really liked this sidetrack.
Picturesque, metaphorical language speaks to my grey matter. ;)
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 07:44:04 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 09, 2009, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
then let's break it down. corporate entities are scary as fuck.
In my philosophy about Emergence I described them as lifeforms. That doesn't mean I agree with their existence, just that I'm not surprised. They're not alive like humans are, either. Or dogs, or mice. If I were to place them on some sort of animal scale, I'd liken them to Amoeba. Primitive, shapeless and caring only for food and survival.
In that respect, I think corporations as a lifeform are barely touching the second circuit on the 8 Circuits Model. Nations and tribes might go a littlebit further.
ok enough sidetracking.
Corporations act like they're persons, but they are not.
Even without the law saying that they are, you can tell it is in their interest to appear as humans. To disguise themselves. Like this gloopy amoeba with a simile of a human face at the end of one of its tentacles. I noticed for the first time when I saw some ads on the street for a new energy corporation. The text on the ad was talking as if the corporation was a person, talking directly to me, saying something like "Actually, nothing changed." (EnergyCorpA is now named EnergyCorpB). But if nothing changed, why'd they change their name? Of course EnergyCorpA got eaten by the larger amoeba of EnergyCorpB, which was now extending one of its masked tentacles to keep up its appearance of humanity, while being a faceless megacorporate entity.
ok still sidetrakcing, sorry, I'll stop now
I really liked this sidetrack.
Picturesque, metaphorical language speaks to my grey matter. ;)
It speaks to a lot of people's gray matter. In fact, picturesque, metaphorical language speaks so well to so many people's gray matter that well-reasoned arguments are only needed to convince the people to come up with new metaphorical language to persuade everyone else.
With a population that has largely never seen the inside of a formal logic classroom, much less actual critical thinking, all you need to mobilize a voting majority are vacuous animal based metaphors. See, corporations are like babies, so you shouldn't through them out with the bathwater of all the bad things that have happened to your government. Or they're like parasites, and while it's an interesting academic ethical dilemma if it's "fair" to wipe out a species just because that species happens to eat you, feet-on-the-ground salt-of-the-earth people like yourself with children to feed know that there's no reason to give 20% of your labor to tapeworms. Or they're like packs of wolves, an optimal grouping for efficient resource gathering, unfairly set upon by individual wolves who seem to think that it's unfair that other wolves should work together, and try to force every other wolf down to their level of social and organizational incompetence rather than forming packs of their own.
There's a reason the top religions of the world all rely on simple parables to teach complicated theology, rather than just teaching the skills needed to understand complicated theology.
(That said, I do like the image of a giant ameoba with a smiley face on it trying to convince people that it's just a really big, oddly shaped person.)
Quote from: Iptuous on July 09, 2009, 03:52:38 AM
Quote from: Hawk on July 09, 2009, 03:37:30 AM
Aside from the education issue it seems to me that everything is decided on tunnel vision. In other words, "What is good for me and mine right now?".
is it the selfishness, or the shortsightedness that bothers you? (or both)
how could you expect anyone to do anything that appears to the to be not to their personal advantage?
I never said it bothered me. I protect me and mine just as much as the next person.
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 05:32:32 PM
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
We had that once. They called it "Jim Crow".
Quote from: Nigel on July 09, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:36:25 AM
Bad analogy. Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay. Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.
1. Limit the size of corporations. This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone. This only works if you follow #2.
2. Prevent corporations from owning other corporations. Period.
3. Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.
4. Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities. The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.
The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.
This would definitely go a long way toward solving the problem. Only hitch is that it'll never happen as long as corporate money rules Washington.
So we eat the corporate money. It will take a while, but it will be worth it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2009, 03:00:02 AM
Quote from: Nigel on July 09, 2009, 06:02:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:36:25 AM
Bad analogy. Sharks do what they do because they have a brain about as complex as an analog relay. Enormous mega-corporations do what they do for reasons that cannot be explained without first having read Milton or Dante.
1. Limit the size of corporations. This can be done by taxing the dogshit out of C corps, and leaving S corps pretty much alone. This only works if you follow #2.
2. Prevent corporations from owning other corporations. Period.
3. Remove the corporate veil, then bust the shit out of anyone caught forming trusts.
4. Abolish the stock exchange, and all public trading in private entities. The stock exchange is one of the three reasons we are in the shape we're in today.
The above allows individuals to profit from their own hard work, but prevents corporations from assuming a life of their own.
This would definitely go a long way toward solving the problem. Only hitch is that it'll never happen as long as corporate money rules Washington.
So we eat the corporate money. It will take a while, but it will be worth it.
That's going to require a very large appetite.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2009, 02:58:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 05:32:32 PM
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
We had that once. They called it "Jim Crow".
Yeah.... i prefer the good old fashioned 'paper bag test'
.
.
..
.
..
bring a paper bag with a banker's/incumbent's head in it, and you can vote....
Quote from: GA on July 10, 2009, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 07:44:04 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 09, 2009, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
then let's break it down. corporate entities are scary as fuck.
In my philosophy about Emergence I described them as lifeforms. That doesn't mean I agree with their existence, just that I'm not surprised. They're not alive like humans are, either. Or dogs, or mice. If I were to place them on some sort of animal scale, I'd liken them to Amoeba. Primitive, shapeless and caring only for food and survival.
In that respect, I think corporations as a lifeform are barely touching the second circuit on the 8 Circuits Model. Nations and tribes might go a littlebit further.
ok enough sidetracking.
Corporations act like they're persons, but they are not.
Even without the law saying that they are, you can tell it is in their interest to appear as humans. To disguise themselves. Like this gloopy amoeba with a simile of a human face at the end of one of its tentacles. I noticed for the first time when I saw some ads on the street for a new energy corporation. The text on the ad was talking as if the corporation was a person, talking directly to me, saying something like "Actually, nothing changed." (EnergyCorpA is now named EnergyCorpB). But if nothing changed, why'd they change their name? Of course EnergyCorpA got eaten by the larger amoeba of EnergyCorpB, which was now extending one of its masked tentacles to keep up its appearance of humanity, while being a faceless megacorporate entity.
ok still sidetrakcing, sorry, I'll stop now
I really liked this sidetrack.
Picturesque, metaphorical language speaks to my grey matter. ;)
It speaks to a lot of people's gray matter. In fact, picturesque, metaphorical language speaks so well to so many people's gray matter that well-reasoned arguments are only needed to convince the people to come up with new metaphorical language to persuade everyone else.
With a population that has largely never seen the inside of a formal logic classroom, much less actual critical thinking, all you need to mobilize a voting majority are vacuous animal based metaphors. See, corporations are like babies, so you shouldn't through them out with the bathwater of all the bad things that have happened to your government. Or they're like parasites, and while it's an interesting academic ethical dilemma if it's "fair" to wipe out a species just because that species happens to eat you, feet-on-the-ground salt-of-the-earth people like yourself with children to feed know that there's no reason to give 20% of your labor to tapeworms. Or they're like packs of wolves, an optimal grouping for efficient resource gathering, unfairly set upon by individual wolves who seem to think that it's unfair that other wolves should work together, and try to force every other wolf down to their level of social and organizational incompetence rather than forming packs of their own.
There's a reason the top religions of the world all rely on simple parables to teach complicated theology, rather than just teaching the skills needed to understand complicated theology.
(That said, I do like the image of a giant ameoba with a smiley face on it trying to convince people that it's just a really big, oddly shaped person.)
Did you just call me a sheep with a lot of big words?
:wink:
Quote from: Iptuous on July 10, 2009, 04:06:11 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2009, 02:58:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 05:32:32 PM
I prefer passing a current-events quiz and/or basic economics.
We had that once. They called it "Jim Crow".
Yeah.... i prefer the good old fashioned 'paper bag test'
.
.
..
.
..
bring a paper bag with a banker's/incumbent's head in it, and you can vote....
THIS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A SYSTEM.
:mittens: to this whole thread.. I learned so much from all of you.
Quote from: GA on July 10, 2009, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: navkat on July 09, 2009, 07:44:04 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 09, 2009, 07:37:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2009, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 09, 2009, 01:41:15 PM
Another thing that would help is to remove the legal precedent that identifies a corporation as an "entity" entitled to pretty much the same rights as an individual.
That's the "corporate veil" I mentioned.
then let's break it down. corporate entities are scary as fuck.
In my philosophy about Emergence I described them as lifeforms. That doesn't mean I agree with their existence, just that I'm not surprised. They're not alive like humans are, either. Or dogs, or mice. If I were to place them on some sort of animal scale, I'd liken them to Amoeba. Primitive, shapeless and caring only for food and survival.
In that respect, I think corporations as a lifeform are barely touching the second circuit on the 8 Circuits Model. Nations and tribes might go a littlebit further.
ok enough sidetracking.
Corporations act like they're persons, but they are not.
Even without the law saying that they are, you can tell it is in their interest to appear as humans. To disguise themselves. Like this gloopy amoeba with a simile of a human face at the end of one of its tentacles. I noticed for the first time when I saw some ads on the street for a new energy corporation. The text on the ad was talking as if the corporation was a person, talking directly to me, saying something like "Actually, nothing changed." (EnergyCorpA is now named EnergyCorpB). But if nothing changed, why'd they change their name? Of course EnergyCorpA got eaten by the larger amoeba of EnergyCorpB, which was now extending one of its masked tentacles to keep up its appearance of humanity, while being a faceless megacorporate entity.
ok still sidetrakcing, sorry, I'll stop now
I really liked this sidetrack.
Picturesque, metaphorical language speaks to my grey matter. ;)
It speaks to a lot of people's gray matter. In fact, picturesque, metaphorical language speaks so well to so many people's gray matter that well-reasoned arguments are only needed to convince the people to come up with new metaphorical language to persuade everyone else.
With a population that has largely never seen the inside of a formal logic classroom, much less actual critical thinking, all you need to mobilize a voting majority are vacuous animal based metaphors. See, corporations are like babies, so you shouldn't through them out with the bathwater of all the bad things that have happened to your government. Or they're like parasites, and while it's an interesting academic ethical dilemma if it's "fair" to wipe out a species just because that species happens to eat you, feet-on-the-ground salt-of-the-earth people like yourself with children to feed know that there's no reason to give 20% of your labor to tapeworms. Or they're like packs of wolves, an optimal grouping for efficient resource gathering, unfairly set upon by individual wolves who seem to think that it's unfair that other wolves should work together, and try to force every other wolf down to their level of social and organizational incompetence rather than forming packs of their own.
There's a reason the top religions of the world all rely on simple parables to teach complicated theology, rather than just teaching the skills needed to understand complicated theology.
(That said, I do like the image of a giant ameoba with a smiley face on it trying to convince people that it's just a really big, oddly shaped person.)
Damn, you're fucking GOOD.
Cultivating virtù.
Dealing with the problem of hegemony.
Exposition sometime later
Quote from: navkat on July 10, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Did you just call me a sheep with a lot of big words?
:wink:
On an unrelated note, what do people have against big words? Big words are the ones that usually have several obvious roots in them, while short but uncommon words are much harder to figure out. "Multidisciplinary" isn't really any trickier than "discipline," despite being 7 letters and 4 syllables longer. "Antidisestablishmentarianism," despite not being a real word, is still easy enough for grade school students with the "my word is longer than your word" freudian complex to puzzle out what it means, despite never having heard it in context. "Arachnaphobia" and "Telecommunications" are likewise long.
Then you get words like "chordate", "waif", "ecrue", and "qat" (okay, the last one's foreign, but Scrabble-legal, so whatever) which, well, good luck figuring the first one out without serious greek/latin skills or the last without knowing anything about Yemen.
While I agree with you, that last post had you coming off like kind of a prick.
Quote from: GA on July 10, 2009, 03:35:23 PM
Quote from: navkat on July 10, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Did you just call me a sheep with a lot of big words?
:wink:
On an unrelated note, what do people have against big words? Big words are the ones that usually have several obvious roots in them, while short but uncommon words are much harder to figure out. "Multidisciplinary" isn't really any trickier than "discipline," despite being 7 letters and 4 syllables longer. "Antidisestablishmentarianism," despite not being a real word, is still easy enough for grade school students with the "my word is longer than your word" freudian complex to puzzle out what it means, despite never having heard it in context. "Arachnaphobia" and "Telecommunications" are likewise long.
Then you get words like "chordate", "waif", "ecrue", and "qat" (okay, the last one's foreign, but Scrabble-legal, so whatever) which, well, good luck figuring the first one out without serious greek/latin skills or the last without knowing anything about Yemen.
Big words make Ayn Rand cry.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2009, 04:25:05 PM
Quote from: GA on July 10, 2009, 03:35:23 PM
Quote from: navkat on July 10, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Did you just call me a sheep with a lot of big words?
:wink:
On an unrelated note, what do people have against big words? Big words are the ones that usually have several obvious roots in them, while short but uncommon words are much harder to figure out. "Multidisciplinary" isn't really any trickier than "discipline," despite being 7 letters and 4 syllables longer. "Antidisestablishmentarianism," despite not being a real word, is still easy enough for grade school students with the "my word is longer than your word" freudian complex to puzzle out what it means, despite never having heard it in context. "Arachnaphobia" and "Telecommunications" are likewise long.
Then you get words like "chordate", "waif", "ecrue", and "qat" (okay, the last one's foreign, but Scrabble-legal, so whatever) which, well, good luck figuring the first one out without serious greek/latin skills or the last without knowing anything about Yemen.
Big words make Ayn Rand cry.
Ayn Rand doesn't cry; she just picks herself up and strives for excellence in
spite of you with no regard for your silly sympathies and weaknesses.
Or, at least she writes a novel where she pretends to do so.
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2009, 04:34:14 PM
Or, at least she writes a novel where she pretends to do so.
But only after being raped by her ideal mate.
Nah, she's dead... just like every other spag with a political philosophy is, or will be at some point in their near future. Marx, Jefferson, Tucker, Spooner, Mao, Che, Rand, Hobbes, St. Augustine, Thoreau etc etc etc... all dead.
:fnord:
It's not rape if he was being OBJECTIVE.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 10, 2009, 04:50:53 PM
Nah, she's dead... just like every other spag with a political philosophy is, or will be at some point in their near future. Marx, Jefferson, Tucker, Spooner, Mao, Che, Rand, Hobbes, St. Augustine, Thoreau etc etc etc... all dead.
:fnord:
The fact that a woman happens to be dead would not stop John Galt.
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2009, 04:54:35 PM
It's not rape if he was being OBJECTIVE.
It's not rape if he gives her a thirty-page lecture before, after and during explaining how his urges justify the end and her resistance is oppressive.
Quote from: navkat on July 10, 2009, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2009, 04:54:35 PM
It's not rape if he was being OBJECTIVE.
It's not rape if he gives her a thirty-page lecture before, after and during explaining how his urges justify the end and her resistance is oppressive.
Damn Straight! Women should know their position as eternal cumbucket for every horny guy!
Quote from: navkat on July 10, 2009, 08:23:12 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 10, 2009, 04:54:35 PM
It's not rape if he was being OBJECTIVE.
It's not rape if he gives her a thirty-page lecture before, after and during explaining how his urges justify the end and her resistance is oppressive. yells "SURPRISE!"
Fixed.
OK, explanation:
Virtù is about, broadly speaking, the qualities necessary for civic society. Education is certainly one of these, as LMNO mentioned, but it also involves rewarding civic duty, active participation in society at large. Alienation is certainly a huge issue, and at least part of this would involve looking at how we live our lives now, mostly isolated and concentrated on work and personal pleasure to the detriment of everything else.
Hegemony is about undermining the existing system. The entire system. Major political parties, the minor ineffectual political parties (who through their ineffectiveness prop up the existing system, even while proclaiming themselves to be its enemies), the media, public intellectuals, businessmen etc etc All are part of an interlocking network bounded within a certain value range, and in a sense that makes them all on one side, albeit one with lots of infighting and factions vying for influence and dominance.
The two are complimentary in many ways, as theorists of hegemony often contend the best way to overcome it is to create a counter-hegemony, one which would be implicit in the idea of cultivating virtu and civic values, as an alternate society which works better, offers more and seems ethically superior to the present one.