Educated/erudite citizens know the law is rotten to the core with not one redeeming feature. That's not to say all people working in the law are rotten but a good many are damaged in one way or another.
The populous see the law as some sort of high point of civilization. Somehow vital to life. Impossible to conceive of a system of justice that does not involve in some combination the law/judiciary/enforcers/punishment.
'Compulsory schooling is, at least in theory, for the students' own good.'
Rubbish. Schooling is for the good of society. Schooling != Education. Nothing in school benefits the student. Everything is about preparing the student for the workforce. The main subject taught in school is obedience.
You should probably read John Gatto to get a clearer picture how and why schools came about. It most certainly was not to educate the working class.
I'm quite familiar with Gatto's thesis, and, having been through the public school system myself, I consider it self-evident. The phrase "at least in theory" was meant to communicate my skepticism of the surrounding claim; sorry if that didn't come across. I mean that most members of society believe they are acting in children's best interest by requiring them to attend school, while the primary motivation for keeping prisoners in prison is to protect the safety of others. I agree with you that practical distinction between schools and prisons is much smaller than what most people delude themselves into believing it is.
How much time did you spend in Europe to get the idea that the health care systems are good?
Having lived there for 25+ years and now 10+ in the US I can discern no difference. Both systems are broken with a capital F.
I consider myself a libertarian so I would love to see a simple health care option e.g. provides low level emergency care, low level preventative measures.
So you get a busted bone set, colds/infections treated, child birth and pre/post natal, annual check up etc.
But major stuff is not covered e.g. you have a heart attack you're on your own, you need a lifetime of expensive drugs no chance, hip replacement nope.
The idea being that costs are minimized and a clear directive can be written. Like all things you want better treatment you need to put your hand in your pocket.
Thank you ajmoir. So what do I do? I have diabetes and a couple of heart attacks in my history. I can't get health insurance now or under your system. If I have another my choices are die, go bankrupt, or live in poverty for the rest of my life. Thanks a bunch.
One option is charity. Keep in mind that the government pulls in $1.2 trillion from personal income taxes per year (ironically enough, that's the size of Obama's proposed stimulus package).
Anyway, in a libertarian USA, most if not all of that $1.2 trillion would stay in the hands of the people; that fact, along with a few other libertarian ideals, would mean a more prosperous people.
A more prosperous people, with the knowledge that the government no longer provides inefficient health care to others with their hard-earned money means... you guessed it. Also, a libertarian USA would mean cheaper /everything/ (including health care) because of the Austrian economic, free-market principles.
I truly believe it. I've got some excellent ideas based around for-profit charities. Imagine famous, fancy restaraunts situated in the big cities. The bottom floor sells wonderful food to the celebrities and rich folks. The rest of the building houses and feeds homeless people. Of course, it doesn't even have to be a fancy restaraunt, and it doesn't have to house homeless people.
The US is going to be in a world of hurt. With Europe not far behind in the pain stakes. As always the countries with the most open markets will recover first.
Un-fettered markets are not the end solution but they are far better than the current politically controlled markets.
The handouts are damaging on two fronts. Firstly, it rewards poor businesses and stops better firms entering the market. Secondly, Joe Public who made dumb financial decisions are not punished but instead everything is done to allow them to make more damaging decisions later on.
The current debt loading of the US currency is not sustainable at the current levels of productivity. The US looks more and more like the USSR of the late 80s, running as fast as it knows and still sliding into bankruptcy.
I rather think we are looking at the end of the US as a going concern.
I'm hopeful that a short civil war will ensue and that out of that there might be the chance for a small Capitalist/Anarchist state to be founded.
Feudalism, Democracy, Fascism, Socialism and Communism have all failed the acid test. What other forms of government do we have? It would seem that Karl Marx was the last political thinker to offer a new idea for governmental organization.
You may be correct on some of this but I hope the results you are hopeful about do not happen. If you think things are painful and make no sense now, try projecting how painful and lost things would be with a civil war and following small Capitalist/Anarchist state reality. The dreamy "small Capitalist/Anarchist state" you imagine would be the minority, the Switzerland's. The majority of the world would be an uglier place.
Not that there aren't plenty of dumb people around, but the ignorance part is practically unavoidable. Even smart people have little incentive to be well-informed when there are a large number of voters. This "rational ignorance" is a basic defect of democracy.
Sounds like the Richard Feynman stories about sitting on the board that chose the math/physics books for highschool students. He was the only one reading them while the others were just judging the book by the cover or what the publisher had said. It just goes to show that even brilliance can be overruled.
so is systematic irrationality. Turns out that according to polls, people has systematically irrational beliefs when it comes to voting (probably because they have no immediate personal stake). Poll here: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/1199-econgen.cfm
58 percent of the general public think that tax cuts are good for the economy, while 37 percent of economists do. So, the lesson learned is.....the general public is more qualified to set policy than experts.
Uh, whoa? Tax cuts in the United States are generally done without corresponding decreases in spending, leading to a massive deficit, leading to an unpayably large national debt.
You can't simply say 'tax cuts are good' and call it a day- that's a gross oversimplification. "Tax cuts are good when accompanied by a decrease in government spending such as that we have a large surplus" I can agree with.
I don't even want to agree with that. The function of government is to provide essential services to society, and I don't think you can just say that it's better for the economy if you cut spending so it doesn't. I doubt the economy would be improved in a total anarchy, which is essentially your suggestion seen to its ultimate conclusion.
For example, even the Economist agrees that a market economy won't function without clear rules that everyone plays by. And they are also of the opinion that carbon taxes are better than cap-and-trade, because taxes provide better long-term stability so businesses are able to plan and adapt.
Economists are often consulted by politicians wrt govt spending, so they have a more specific interest in govt funding. Average Joes may see a benefit or two but every paycheck has deductions, so they have a different interest.
Because time and time again people with a formal education in computer science have turned out to be useless in the commercial arena.
Let's face facts most programming is not rocket science and could easily be automated. The reason it has not been automated is that programmers by and large are Luddites. They can admire new gadgets but not seismic changes in their work environment.
Anybody who has had the where with all to study for a BSc/MSc/PhD then most work in a commercial setting is going to be far far beneath their intellectual capabilities.
In short Compu Sci is best for a research role and commercial dev experience is best for producing a product. The two are widely different beasts.
Personally, I have BSc in CompuSci and work in the commercial sector. I think both Academia and Commercial use of computers is abysmal. The last big step forward was in the 1960s for Academia and 1980s for business. Since then it's all been downhill.
I have recent compu sci grads who cannot design a simple 8 bit cpu, what's an ALU. This is just plain wrong. I also have witnessed commercial developers who don't know how to treat clients. In both cases why are these people even bothering to work in computing?
Most devs still think inheritance is more important than interface. Just how far forward can we move with these fools slowing us down.
I think what it will take to move forward is a company saying if we do IT better we can rule the market. Then finding some devs and ops with long experience and fresh ideas.
When a billion dollar company shows it can run it's IT with 20 people then we have progressed. Not when some dweeb says he has a new programming language that goes to 11.
When a billion dollar company shows it can run it's IT with 20 people then we have progressed. Not when some dweeb says he has a new programming language that goes to 11.
Well, billion dollar seems a little excessive. Let's say $100m.
In which case, 37signals is, imho, the closest thing today.
The freedom to develop code I want to in the manner I wish to. Enough of the usual crappy corporate tools/procedures/apathy.
To be judged on what I produce not how many hours I'm in the office.
Rewards equal to my contribution, this is where corporations fall down completely. If I'm ten times more productive than my team mates why am I not rewarded in such a manner OR to be more truthful I will not put in any more effort than is needed to secure my position in the corporate hierarchy. So I dutifully do what I consider a mediocre amount of work and yet am rewarded in the top 10%
I couldn't care less for the crappy soda and chips or a paid lunch. Pay me the money and I'll decide how I wish to spend it.
