Yet, where are scientists typically employed? In military industries. Shouldn't scientists be made aware of this? And of the ethical conflicts this may result in?
Out of every scientist ever, more scientists are employed at schools, rather than for the military.
Sure, and scientists should now realize there are ethical aspects to their chosen profession that should be considered.
So you're saying, theoretically, if I made an all new type of knife that easily cuts through my steaks and spreads butter over toast; that i should also be blamed for murder if someone took that knife and killed someone with it? Please answer this time (this is atleast the second time i posted a question similar to this and you not answer, but that's to be expected i guess).
And scientists should take responsibility, if it's likely they'll they work on something that will obviously be used to kill babies, like any weapon of mass destruction by definition is constructed to do. This is a valid concern. Taxpayers fund the studies of scientists who then develop weapons that endanger the lives not only of babies, but of all of us. If you deny that this was a valid concern, then come up with arguments
What is your obsession with babies? The scientists should not be held at fault, the one who used it should. Einstein should'nt be blamed for dropping the bombs on Japan, The US military should.
A doctor who knowingly and unnessecarily does harm to a patient should
> be held to account. Same with scientists.
Doctors, when graduating, make a pledge not to harm people in the course of exercizing their profession. Should a similar pledge be demanded from scientists? This is no silly matter!
This is all yours, i never typed any of it. You copied from your own post and argued with yourself, hahaha.
I don't think your posts do contribute much to this group. If you have something to say, then say it!
As opposed to coping and pasting the same stuff. All my posts are original and to the point. I do say what im arguing. e.i. there is a God, the Bible is true, etc.... What is it that you are arguing again?, the fact that you think killing babies is totally wrong (got that, i think everyone does, seeings how it is in almost every post of yours).
Sam Carana wrote: > Should scientists take personal responsibility, if their theories turned out > to harm a lot of people? Should politicians, if their views did harm? Should > a cleaner who uses the wrong cleaning product be held liable in court, but > should scientists, doctors and politicians be indemnified? > Sam
I see the word 'should' a lot in these posts. I consider 'should' to be the most worthless word in the English language. People cannot be influenced to change their behavior just because they should. There has to be a perceived advantage in order to cause change. You can rattle on about what people 'should' do until the cows come home, but if you cannot produce a reason for them to do it you are just pissing in the air.
On 6/2/05, shughart7 <shady_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Out of every scientist ever, more scientists are employed at schools, > rather than for the military.
The education system and the industrial-military complex form a cartel that hides behind scientific independence, commercial and military secrecy to escape public accountibility. Scientists have a key role in all three areas, playing the same card all the time, i.e. that their supposed access to "secrets" of nature justified their taking of decisions without public scrutiny. It's just like the old religious elite who claimed exclusive access to god's word to justify their sole rule over society. These scientists hold the world to ransom in order to increase their power and increase the share of public funding going to education and the military without allowing people to look into what happens with this money, even worse, while claiming indemnity for the terror thes weapons they develop are intented to impose on society.
So you're saying, theoretically, if I made an all new type of knife
> that easily cuts through my steaks and spreads butter over toast; that i > should also be blamed for murder if someone took that knife and killed > someone with it? Please answer this time (this is at least the second time i > posted a question similar to this and you not answer, but that's to be > expected i guess).
I'm talking about weapons of mass destruction.
What is your obsession with babies? The scientists should not be held at
> fault, the one who used it should. Einstein should'nt be blamed for dropping > the bombs on Japan, The US military should.
I have no obsession with babies. But, while your bible suggests that killing of babies was justified, I maintain that babies should not be put to death for sins they had supposedly committed. This is a question of values and ethics and the pledge I propose encourages scientists to consider ethical questions more closely.
As opposed to coping and pasting the same stuff. All my posts are original
> and to the point. I do say what im arguing. e.i. there is a God, the Bible > is true, etc.... What is it that you are arguing
> again?, the fact that you think killing babies is totally wrong (got
> that, i think everyone does, seeings how it is in almost every post of > yours).
I'm proposing to introduce some ethics and moral values into an education system that appears to lack any. Sam
> I see the word 'should' a lot in these posts. I consider 'should' to
> be the most worthless word in the English language. People cannot be > influenced to change their behavior just because they should. There has to > be a perceived advantage in order to cause change. You can rattle on about > what people 'should' do until the cows come home, but if you cannot produce > a reason for them to do it you are just pissing in the air.
Who says "should"? I'll rephrase what I just said in my previous post. The education system and the industrial-military complex form a cartel that is led by scientists who hold the world to ransom in order to increase their power and increase the share of public funding going to education and the military without allowing people to look into what happens with this money, even worse, while claiming indemnity for the terror these weapons they develop are intented to impose on society. Sam
OK I don't disagree with your view of what is, but making someone sign a pledge is not going to change it. Making a law is not going to change it. The "Iron Triangle" - the military, congress and defense contractors - have us in a strangle hold from which there appears to be no way out. [Remember what Eisenhower said?] The universities get much of their funding from one or another of this triangle, so they dance to the tune as well. Please! If you have a solution let me in on it!
> OK I don't disagree with your view of what is, but making someone sign a > pledge is not going to change it. Making a law is not going to change it.
It's a step in the right direction, because it makes scientists think about what they're doing. The system currently selects the nerds, those who have been deprived of social contact. The system deliberately keeps children occupied from a young age with maths exercizes, to prevent them from developing social and ethical conscience.
> The "Iron Triangle" - the military, congress and defense
> contractors - have us in a strangle hold from which there appears to be no > way out. [Remember what Eisenhower said?] The universities get much of their > funding from one or another of this triangle, so they dance to the tune as > well. Please! If you have a solution let me in on it!
> Dave
As said, the pledge is one little step in the right direction and we do have a long way to go. Indeed, we need structural reform across all sectors of society. Most urgently, the military needs to be split up into multiple pieces, each of which is to compete in all areas for clients seeking security services. Clients should choose and pay for the security services they want directly. Security firms that seek to develop weapons in secrecy should be exposed by the media and by whistleblowers, which is where the pledge comes in. Sam
Please, puleeze, Oracle Sam I humbly beseech YOU! Give us ordinary folks a SiGN that you know how to educate ALL members of society into "independent thinkers' . In your system, how do you propose to deal with stubborn teachers who insist that real knowledge is gained by standing on the shoulders of our intellectual predessors. How do you convince them that learning to think 'independently"is not a discipline but a 'natural' phenomena available to every individual, no matter their circumstance? Sammy, Sammy, sooner or later, you must PUT UP or SHUT UP! You really are making a fool of yourself! I know that this will hurt you to the quick, but I am beginning to question your integrity/intelligence. Your choice!. Please reassure me with a straight answer to my questions in this and other posts.
> Please, puleeze, Oracle Sam I humbly beseech YOU! Give us ordinary folks a > SiGN that you know how to educate ALL members of society into "independent > thinkers' .
"Independent thinker" isn't a degree that should be enforced upon everyone, zinnic. That's the old system that has proven not to work. Independent thinkers can to a large extent figure out what they want to learn themselves, zinnic, they don't need disciplinary masters who pretend to have exclusive access to "real knowledge", but who in the real reality turn out to have only false ideas and values! What people need instead are good ideas, people who help by example rather than discipline, role models with moral values and with real skills and presence. Teachers fail in all respects.
In your system, how do you propose to deal with stubborn teachers..
Well, for starters, let's stop these guys from collecting payments for holding our kids at ransom! Let's invoke anti-racketeering laws against these practices!
.. who insist that real knowledge is gained by standing on the shoulders of
> our intellectual predessors.
Their predecessors must have been despots and terrorists. Real knowledge... com'on! Teachers stand on the gates of a protection racket, designed to imprison our beautiful children and to twist our children's mind into robotims. Teachers falsely appropriate the inventions and artwork of others and present this as if it was theirs. Teachers exploit the privileges in copyright laws to build up a monopoly. The values associated with that system are evil. Teachers stand on a pile of horror!
How do you convince them ..
They should be sacked. What they think about it is pretty irrelevant. This entire education system is based on false values and should be wiped off the soil of the earth!
> that learning to think 'independently"is not a discipline but a 'natural' > phenomena available to every individual, no matter their circumstance?
Independent thinking may require more than what comes naturally, zinnic, but school is pretty detrimental to it.
Sammy, Sammy, sooner or later, you must PUT UP or SHUT UP!
> You really are making a fool of yourself! I know that this will hurt
> you to the quick, but I am beginning to question your
> integrity/intelligence. Your choice!. Please reassure me with a
> straight answer to my questions in this and other posts.
You're not making any sense, zinnic. I've answered your questions ad nauseum. I've given it to you as staright as possible. Let's shake up the system and don't leave anything standing. We'll have to start from scratch, because the whole system is rotten to the bone. If, after the shake-up, there are any teachers left with integrity, then they shouldn't fear the future. But the parasites who sit there in their ivory towers, designing new schemes to force honest people to give up their hard-earned cash for a load of nonsense, they deserve all that's coming to them. Sam
No! you have not answered. You repeatedly rant ..."Let's shake up tthe system and don't leave anything standing. We'll have to start from scratch, because the whole system is rotten to the bone." We have got this message from you ad nauseum. Now pulleeze! Just a teey weeny detail as to how you propose that we start from scratch.
What makes you think that we would ever want to rebuild the very system that we opposed? You keep asking: "How are we going to rebuild the system?" Obviously, the answer is: "Not at all!" The education system is a predatory system that systematically forces children into the hands of those who seek to feed on this! Without these predators, society will be so much better off. Families will finally be able to live in piece as the children can finally develop their talents to their fullest extent and can reach their full potential. How exactly parents want their children educated is, first of all, in their own hands. Parents may take advice in this decision and they may make arrangements acting on this advice. But the decision how their children are to be educated remains, first of all, a decision that parents make. You may continue to insist that this decision should be taken out of the hands of parents. If so, I can only conclude and repeat that this reflects bad values, values that are the very opposite of the values we want our children to learn. This is not just a matter of opinion. We have the right and the duty to protect our children from predators and to see that our children are educated in accordance with values we believe in. Sam
On 6/8/05, zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> No! you have not answered. You repeatedly rant ..."Let's shake up the > system and don't leave anything standing. We'll have to start from scratch, > because the whole system is rotten to the bone." We have got this message > from you ad nauseum. Now pulleeze! Just a teey weeny detail as to how you > propose that we start from scratch.
You are being patently dishonest! You, and all readers of this thread, know very well that I keep asking for some general information about the NEW system you believe should replace the current "evil" education system that you are so eager to totally tear down. Will your new system teach your "beautiful" children to deliberately avoid/distort legitimate questions? Quite a role model are'nt you? You insist that the parents decide! And if parents see fit that their children not waste their time learning to read and write when they could be 'slaving' in some menial occupation? What then? The Devil take the hindmost? People! Meet Sam....the Closet Elitist!.
You, and all readers of this thread, know very well that I keep asking for
> some general information about the NEW system you believe should replace the > current "evil" education system that you are so eager to totally tear down.
New system? Who wants a systematic approach that would lead to the same centrally controlled bureaucracy? What makes you think I wanted to rebuild the education system? Parents have and should have the first decision as to what they want their children to be taught, not the system!
Will your new system teach your "beautiful" children to deliberately
> avoid/distort legitimate questions? Quite a role model are'nt you?
> You insist that the parents decide! And if parents see fit that their
> children not waste their time learning to read and write when they
> could be 'slaving' in some menial occupation? What then? The Devil take > the hindmost? People! Meet Sam....the Closet Elitist!.
If parents strongly feel that their children should spend more time on learning honest skills, rather than to waste time with things they don't need, then that's not something to ridicule. Who are you to dictate to people what they should learn anyway? Where is the evidence that school was any good in teaching these things in the first place? I just told you that homeschooling is far more successful than school anyway, so you haven't got a leg to stand on!
No, I seem to remember you saying things like "home schooling and
vouchers are a good start, but we need big changes" over and over. So,
I think zinnic is just asking what big changes you, as the one who
claims to understand education better than those who went or those who
are there now, have planned out to replace what you are advocating we
toss aside.
On 6/9/05, Sardonic Witt <sardonic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, I seem to remember you saying things like "home schooling and vouchers > are a good start, but we need big changes" over and over. So, I think zinnic > is just asking what big changes you, as the one who claims to understand > education better than those who went or those who are there now, have > planned out to replace what you are advocating we toss aside.
Education is just one part of the picture. We need reform across the board. Most urgently, the military should be split up into pieces that compete for clients in the supply of security services as poeple want them. Sam
This is NOT good work Sam--you must try to be more disciplined in expressing yourself. Please clarify the following points and resubmit your post.
"Honest skills" -such as?
"things they don't need" -such as reading and writing?,
"Who are you to dictate....?"---provide a quote from any of my posts in which I dictated what people should learn! .
"Where is the evidence that school was any good in teaching these things in the first place?" --what things?
"I just told you that home schooling is far more successful than school...." -- Sam! You must not use assertions in the place of evidence. You should have learned in school that this is not rational!
Try harder Sam. I know you can do better, so I will grade your post when you submit your corrections!. Eve L. Teecha.
Sam, this raises so many questions. Do you mean home security or national security? Will it be COD or will they take a check? Will there be service to go? etc. etc. etc.
> Sam, this raises so many questions.
> Do you mean home security or national security?
> Will it be COD or will they take a check?
> Will there be service to go? etc. etc. etc.
Education reform should not be looked at in isolation from reform elsewhere. Currently, government controls who can practice as doctor, surgeon, lawyer, judge, teacher, lecturer, scientist, etc, through its control of the education system. If we're going to separate "School and State", as we do with "Church and State", then this will have great impact on other sectors of society, which should be properly addressed. Reform must come as a package and one of the areas where reform is most urgently needed is security services. This includes security services in all areas, such as security inside homes, on the street, in the woods, in airplanes and on ships, security against attacks by fists and by missiles. People should have more choice in what kind of security services they want from what suppliers. There are many arguments in favor of this reform. As Deborah likes to say, allowing people more choice better reflects the rights of people to have a say in matters of security, which - after all - should be of the utmost importance to anyone. Furthermore, the current monopolization of security services by the police and military doesn't give much incentives to innovation, efficiency and improvement of services levels. What makes this one of the biggest issues in epistemology is that scientists have one foot in the education system, another foot in the military-industrial complex and a third foot popping out for their recognition as experts in many fields. How can scientists give honest advice that has led to the situation we're in? Scientists should take away their eyes from their microscopes for a change and recognize their duty to listen to their conscience. For scientists, the first step is to recognize the influence they have in this process and their duty to get us out of this mess. Sam
Prologue: The Constitution starts- "We the people...'' We have a government of the people. Enactment of compulsory education for all children by the people (government), and introduction of school taxes to afford it, was a tremendous step forward in the advancement of children (and IMO the nation) whose parents had no interest in, or were unable to afford, their children's education. Neither of my parents were 'educated' beyond the 8th grade but recognized that we, their children, should advance beyond what their 'home schooling' could offer. They made the economic sacrifice, that many parents do not, of insisting that we stay in state school, rather than working to obtain money that would have alleviated their rather desperate financial circumstances. We had great parents! What of those who do not? Is it not in our interest, as a community, to do all we can to help "school' all children who are born to "unenlightened' parents?
Now addressing your post- First, explain how the education system controls the practice of 'elected' judges? Then clarify your position as to whether or not you believe that anyone, regardless of their lack of education, training or community-accepted qualifications, should be free to practice as doctors, surgeons, lawyers, teachers and lecturers (I presume you mean college lecturers)? Would you disqualify all 'dependent thinkers' who have been 'brainwasheding' by their formal education?
Currently, we already have the opportunity to select from many competitive agencies offering security services inside homes, on the street, in the woods, and against personal attacks. In your envisaged reforms, will "people" be allowed to opt out of paying for security in airplanes, or on ships or against missiles and attacks by terrorists and other nations?. Selecting this option, do not they give up their right to protection ( by 'We the people') as American citizens?
You assert that there are many arguments in favor of your reforms I assert (for what it is worth without specifics) that there are many arguments as to why your reforms are impractical, and would be deleterious to the safety and prosperity of our nation. Do you recognize that assertions are no more persuasive than 'you said as opposed to I said?
To continue.. Does Deborah (whoever she is)like to say that "allowing people more choice" in disposal of their waste in an urban area (for example) would be better than the community's legal requirement that they use the sewage system? I think not! Should there be restricions on the disposal of toxic waste or would you allow it to be left to the choice of your 'independent thinkers". Sam- why do you not realize that your generalizations raise infinitely more questions than they address?
Your claim that the "police and the military monopolize security" is absurd. Monopoly- the EXCLUSIVE control or possession of something. Is it your contention that the military 'polices' the nation with the monolithic involvement of ALL the local police jurisdictions throughout the nation?. Ask your local police jurisdiction! They will be horrifed by the suggestion that they do not aswer to their local community.
Please address at least one of the questions posed in this post! Oh! dear! I forgot! You see no need to provide evidence or justification of your assertions.
> Prologue:
> The Constitution starts- "We the people...'' We have a government of the > people. Enactment of compulsory education for all children by the people > (government), and introduction of school taxes to afford it, was a > tremendous step forward in the advancement of children (and IMO the nation) > whose parents had no interest in, or were unable to afford, their children's > education.
> Neither of my parents were 'educated' beyond the 8th grade but
> recognized that we, their children, should advance beyond what their 'home > schooling' could offer. They made the economic sacrifice, that many parents > do not, of insisting that we stay in state school, rather than working to > obtain money that would have alleviated their rather desperate financial > circumstances. We had great parents! What of those who do not? Is it not in > our interest, as a community, to do all we can to help "school' all children > who are born to "unenlightened' parents?
Interesting discussion, is it "we the people" or is it "we the government bureaucrats"? Why do you add government between brackets, without making an effort to discuss such issues? Compulsory school has been a huge failure. It's a common myth that homeschooling was only good for pre-schoolers and early-levels of education. I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should do homeschooling, but homeschooling is much more successful than school at all levels, i.e. at higher levels as well. Typically, homeschoolers are parents who care most about the education of their children, while parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school.
Now addressing your post-
> First, explain how the education system controls the practice of
> 'elected' judges?
Isn't that obvious? The education system controls what is taught and who gets degrees, i.e. who enters certain professions.
> Then clarify your position as to whether or not you believe that anyone, > regardless of their lack of education, training or community-accepted > qualifications, should be free to practice as
> doctors, surgeons, lawyers, teachers and lecturers (I presume you mean > college lecturers)?
Instead of government bureaucrats, free markets should decide who is good in certain occupations. Free markets will also expose who is not. Finally, free markets will offer consultancy services for those who want more details on this. In all these (and further) areas, free markets are superior to government controlled systems.
Would you disqualify all 'dependent thinkers' who have been 'brainwasheding'
> by their formal education?
As I said, free markets should decide who is good in certain occupations.
> Currently, we already have the opportunity to select from many
> competitive agencies offering security services inside homes, on the > street, in the woods, and against personal attacks.
The military operate on a monopoly basis as a conglomorate. The police, coast guards, customs and border control officers operate in the same way. There's no competition between service providers, which means security services are provided less efficiently and with less innovation that what people are entitled to.
In your envisaged reforms, will "people" be allowed to opt out of paying for
> security in airplanes, or on ships or against missiles and attacks by > terrorists and other nations?
Free markest will work out what kind of services are offered and people will decide what services they want.
Selecting this option, do not they give up their right to protection ( by
> 'We the people') as American citizens?
This "protection" is part of a range of security services that should be offered by multiple companies, organisations and individuals in free markets.
You assert that there are many arguments in favor of your reforms. I assert
> (for what it is worth without specifics) that there are many arguments as to > why your reforms are impractical, and would be deleterious to the safety and > prosperity of our nation. Do you recognize that assertions are no more > persuasive than 'you said as opposed to I said?
Practical experience in many areas has shown that free markets provide increasingly better services at ever more affordable prices. By contrast, central control in services that are controlled by government and run on a monopoly-basis (or through cartels) causes economic stagnation and waste without much innovation and growth. A monopoly exploits a captive market and drives up prices, while getting away with lower quality services, resulting in inevitably more government control and bureaucracy, as people start complaining about it. The proven solution is to let such services be provided in free markets. I see no reasons why the same wouldn't apply to security services.
To continue..
> Does Deborah (whoever she is) like to say that "allowing people more > choice" in disposal of their waste in an urban area (for example) would be > better than the community's legal requirement that they use the sewage > system? I think not!
Allowing people to use, e.g. sceptic tanks, is more in line with our rights than forcing a communist-type sewage system upon all. Deborah typically articulates the "rights" argument, which would apply in this case as well. My argument is the above-mentioned concern about monopolies.
Should there be restricions on the disposal of toxic waste or would you
> allow it to be left to the choice of your 'independent thinkers". Sam - why > do you not realize that your generalizations raise infinitely more questions > than they address?
My proposal is to start addressing concerns about toxic waste from a much earlier stage, i.e. with the scientists who come up with ways to produce things that result in toxic waste.
Your claim that the "police and the military monopolize security" is
> absurd. Monopoly - the EXCLUSIVE control or possession of something. Is it > your contention that the military 'polices' the nation with the monolithic > involvement of ALL the local police jurisdictions throughout the nation?. > Ask your local police jurisdiction! They will be horrifed by the suggestion > that they do not aswer to their local community.
The military may claim to look after certain security services, such as against attacks from abroad. The point is that these operations are controlled by government bodies on an exclusive basis. This is paid for by tax money. In a more competitive environments, people can choose more directly what is to happen with their money, rather than to put all their eggs in the hands of one president.
> Please address at least one of the questions posed in this post! Oh! dear! > I forgot! You see no need to provide evidence or justification of your > assertions.
You make quite a few assertions yourself, zinnic, without even putting forward an argument in favor of your claims. Sam
What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach. I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they are adults? How do they prepare for an engineering major?
Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have any reason for us to agree with you?
Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many places. No degrees required.
And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night school. Public education has nothing to do with it.
And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made, etc.
So you want to return to return to frontier medicine?
You say alot about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not good enough.
What "practical experience" are you talking about? That's just gibberish without support.
And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ...
On 6/13/05, Sardonic Witt <sardonic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We ARE the government.
We are the people! Government consists of a number of people who claim to represent us. That's the problem!
What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that
> parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach.
It's a myth. Homeschooling is far more successful than the teachings of those "learned" teachers.
I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early
> knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their > parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they > are adults?
You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those "resources" in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer model of the learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't very effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is far more effective.
> How do they prepare for an engineering major?
High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in that direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good engineer.
Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have any
> reason for us to agree with you?
Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school.
Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and county
> levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many places. No > degrees required.
> And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from
> where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night > school. Public education has nothing to do with it.
Are you saying that the education system gives everybody equal chances? What chances does a poor, black kid have to become a judge? Just check the figures, man, before you make silly remarks. Kids from rich families end up in far higher proportions in professions like law and medicine, while kids from a poor, black family end up in prison in far higher proportions. These poor families are forced to cough up the very taxes that pay for the rich kids to get their degrees and convict the poor. The whole system is geared towards keeping a small elite in their position of power. Don't come up with this "equity" rhetoric in a vain effort to defend a system that has class written all over it!
> And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at
> healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only
> driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about
> techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no
> advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and > increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made, > etc. So you want to return to return to frontier medicine? You say alot > about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason > why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not > good enough.
There are plenty of arguments, but I'll mention just two that have been put forward repeatedly:
1. When government operates schools and hospitals, it typically does so on a monopoly basis. There is plenty of evidence that monopolies stagnate innovation and result in bad services. More competitive environments result in lower prices and at the same time more efficiency and better services. Experience shows that, once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves. 2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to work this argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle are discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.
> What "practical experience" are you talking about? That's just
> gibberish without support.
Only those who close their eyes for the evidence will insist the opposite. Were the hospitals operated so much better in the old Soviet Union? It seems to me that the denail of the obvious results from a political leaning towards socialism that clouds your vision.
> And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free
> seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of > ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will > sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ...
The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.
On 6/13/05, Sardonic Witt <sardonic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >We ARE the government. > We are the people! Government consists of a number of people who claim to represent us. That's the problem!
We do elect those people ...
>>What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach. > It's a myth. Homeschooling is far more successful than the teachings of those "learned" teachers.
Um, any facts? Any evidence at all?
>>I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they are adults? > You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those "resources" in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer model of the learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't very effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is far more effective.
Oh, you have GOT to be kidding? There is so much crap on the Internet that means nothing! And I don't think I want my kids raised by Microsoft and Google ...
>> How do they prepare for an engineering major? > High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in that direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good engineer.
Many schools do prepare students for specific college programs. Have you ever been to a prep school? Or a magnet school centered around an industry? Or even a public high school with a good shop class or an active internship program? All of these would seem to be better than sitting at home with mom and reading a book or watching a video ...
>>Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have any reason for us to agree with you? > Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't care much about educating their children will send them to school
Well, the difference you're stating seems to be splitting hairs. But sure, how about providing some support for THAT crazy assertion?
>>Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many places. No degrees required. > >And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night school. Public education has nothing to do with it. >Are you saying that the education system gives everybody equal chances? What chances does a poor, black kid have to become a judge? Just check the figures, man, before you make silly remarks. Kids from rich families end up in far higher proportions in professions like law and medicine, while kids from a poor, black family end up in prison in far higher proportions. These poor families are forced to cough up the very taxes that pay for the rich kids to get their degrees and convict the poor. The whole system is geared towards keeping a small elite in their position of power. Don't come up with this "equity" rhetoric in a vain effort to defend a system that has class written all over it!
OK, 1: don't call me man. I never said I was male. 2: What "figures" are you asking me to check? 3: Kids from rich families wind up in better professions because they can afford better EDUCATION. Duh. And they pay for most of it themselves. Ivy League schools do not receive public funds.
The sad thing is that I don't disagree that our system helps a small minority stay in power. But I think it's because they have money and can buy their way into power. Killing off the public services only makes it cheaper for them to keep their dominance.
>> And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only driver in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about techniques (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no advancement of treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and increasing rise of "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made, etc. So you want to return to return to frontier medicine? You say alot about "free markets this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason why we should agree? Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not good enough. > There are plenty of arguments, but I'll mention just two that have been put forward repeatedly: > 1. When government operates schools and hospitals, it typically does so on a monopoly basis. There is plenty of evidence that monopolies stagnate innovation and result in bad services. More competitive environments result in lower prices and at the same time more efficiency and better services. Experience shows that, once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves.
Except that companies and organizations compete with one an other to win those government contracts. You always seem to leave this part out. The government is not some external force. It's us, deciding what to find FROM the marketplace.
> 2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to work this argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle are discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.
But I'm not talking to Deborah. I'm talking to you. Don't being other people into this. ("My friend Chuck says different? So WHAT?!)
And I read some of those old posts. The "better reflect our rights" stuff seems like gibberish anyway.
>> What "practical experience" are you talking about? That's just gibberish without support. > Only those who close their eyes for the evidence will insist the opposite.
Well it might help if you ever presented any of this evidence you refer to ...
Why are you holding out, Sam? If you have the evidence that will convince us, why aren't you sharing?
>Were the hospitals operated so much better in the old Soviet Union? It seems to me that the denail of the obvious results from a political leaning towards socialism that clouds your vision.
Well, I have no "denail" of anything, but I am certainly not a socialist. And I saw where you accused others of this when you ran out of arguments.
Not me. I am a capitalist through and through. And enough of one to understand the difference between my government buying contracts out of a competitive marketplace and the USSR creating industry in a noncompetitive world.
Keep your slander to yourself.
> >And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free seriously undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of ethics. It's the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will sell whatever the discover to the highest bidder ... > The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.
Yeah, that was worthless too. So you think education should be free from constraint, but those who have it should be restrained? What a fascinating paradox you have there ...
On 6/14/05, Sardonic Witt <sardonic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >We ARE the government.
> > We are the people! Government consists of a number of people who claim > to > > represent us. That's the problem!
> We do elect those people ...
While we are offered a choice to get bitten by the cat or the dog, we prefer to make our own decisions.
>>What "myth" are you talking about? Zinnic was simply pointing out that > parents have a natural limit to their ability to teach.
> > It's a myth. Homeschooling is far more successful than the teachings of > those "learned" teachers.
> Um, any facts? Any evidence at all?
I'm convinced that homeschooling works better, but I do not suggest that all families should be forced into homeschooling. The onus is not on me to justify homeschooling, since I'm not saying that everyone should be doing homeschooling. Government, on the other hand, does force children into public school and because of that, the onus is on government to justify this move by tabling unbiased research. The absence of the latter proves my point.
>>I'm sure homeschooling is VERY successful for replicating early > knowledge-building, but how are children supposed to learn more than their > parents if they limit their education to the resources at home until they > are adults?
> > You are ignorant of the learning process. It does work like a shop where > the shop has the "resources" and the customer ends up with those "resources" > in their basket. But even if we did use this incorrect transfer model of the > learning process, then listening to a teacher in a classroom isn't very > effective as a method. Obtaining information over the Internet is far more > effective.
> Oh, you have GOT to be kidding? There is so much crap on the Internet
> that means nothing! And I don't think I want my kids raised by
> Microsoft and Google ...
It must be you who is kidding. There are more resources on the web that any school library can ever dream of. In many schools, the Internet is an essential part of learning. Correspondence school has proven to be very successful as well.
>> How do they prepare for an engineering major?
> > High school certainly doesn't deliver skilled engineers. To gain the > necessary practical experience, people with a serious interest in that > direction would be better off working as an apprectice with a good engineer.
> Many schools do prepare students for specific college programs. Have
> you ever been to a prep school? Or a magnet school centered around an
> industry? Or even a public high school with a good shop class or an
> active internship program? All of these would seem to be better than
> sitting at home with mom and reading a book or watching a video ...
As I said, school doesn't deliver good engineers, because school cannot give the necessary practical experience.
> >>Homeschooling parents care more than other parents? Proof? Do you have > any reason for us to agree with you?
> > Don't try and put words into my mouth! I said that parents who don't > care much about educating their children will send them to school
> Well, the difference you're stating seems to be splitting hairs. But
> sure, how about providing some support for THAT crazy assertion?
People who do care for their children are not crazy at all.
> >>Uh, and your conclusion about judges is just wrong. At the local and > county levels, there is no prerequisite for being elected judge in many > places. No degrees required.
> > >And in the places that do require a law degree, it doesn't say from > where. Someone could go to a community college or get licensed at night > school. Public education has nothing to do with it.
> >Are you saying that the education system gives everybody equal chances? > What chances does a poor, black kid have to become a judge? Just check the > figures, man, before you make silly remarks. Kids from rich families end up > in far higher proportions in professions like law and medicine, while kids > from a poor, black family end up in prison in far higher proportions. These > poor families are forced to cough up the very taxes that pay for the rich > kids to get their degrees and convict the poor. The whole system is geared > towards keeping a small elite in their position of power. Don't come up with > this "equity" rhetoric in a vain effort to defend a system that has class > written all over it!
> OK, 1: don't call me man. I never said I was male.
1. I suspect that you are male. Furthermore, I suspect that your name is jrichard stevens.
2: What "figures" are you asking me to check?
I'm not asking. I'm telling you that the idea that anyone can become a judge is absurd.
3: Kids from rich families wind up in better professions because they can
> afford better EDUCATION. Duh. And they pay for most of it themselves. Ivy > League schools do not receive public funds.
So much about public school and free education.
The sad thing is that I don't disagree that our system helps a small
> minority stay in power. But I think it's because they have money and
> can buy their way into power. Killing off the public services only
> makes it cheaper for them to keep their dominance.
The current system institutionalizes thuis. Things cannot get much worse. It's an elitist system that fools some people into believing that it protected the poor. The reality is that the poor are forced into inferior public schools. The fact that public school is "free" makes it hard for commercial alternatives to compete with it. The irony is that it's not free at all, since we've all got to pay for the inferior education that public school gives.
>> And here comes the "free market is better" junk. Just looking at > healthcare exposes the problem in your logic. If demand is the only driver > in the selection of doctors, we'll have less agreement about techniques > (some hacks will have little techniques at all), no advancement of > treatment, no collaboration or knowledge-sharing, and increasing rise of > "proprietary knowledge" claims when discoveries are made, etc. So you want > to return to return to frontier medicine? You say alot about "free markets > this" and "free markets that.' Do you have any reason why we should agree? > Any sources? Any examples? Any proof? Your word is not good enough.
> > There are plenty of arguments, but I'll mention just two that have been > put forward repeatedly:
> > 1. When government operates schools and hospitals, it typically does so > on a monopoly basis. There is plenty of evidence that monopolies stagnate > innovation and result in bad services. More competitive environments result > in lower prices and at the same time more efficiency and better services. > Experience shows that, once monopolies are opened up, the situation > improves.
> Except that companies and organizations compete with one an other to
> win those government contracts. You always seem to leave this part out.
> The government is not some external force. It's us, deciding what to
> find FROM the marketplace.
Government is not us, it's the opposite, it's alien to us, as it represents the very opposite of what we believe in. The cartels that feed on government do not represent competition in the market. That is not what free markets are about. Government is not a marketplace, it's a monopoly. As I said, experience shows that once monopolies are opened up, the situation improves.
> 2. More direct choice by the people better reflects out rights. Deborah > came up with the argument and it is probably better for Deborah to work this > argument out on more detail, specifically where matters of principle are > discussed. Nevertheless, the argument as it stands is strong.
> But I'm not talking to Deborah. I'm talking to you. Don't being other
> people into this. ("My friend Chuck says different? So WHAT?!)
> And I read some of those old posts. The "better reflect our rights"
> stuff seems like gibberish anyway.
You can close your eyes for this argument, but it remains a strong argument, whether or not you like it. The strength of an argument does not hinge on the approval of those who oppose it for political, rather than rational reasons. The fact that you appear unable to refute this argument can only add to its strength.
Not me. I am a capitalist through and through. And enough of one to
> understand the difference between my government buying contracts out of a > competitive marketplace and the USSR creating industry in a
> noncompetitive world.
It's government that is the monopoly and it creates cartels of collaborators around it to cement its position of power over society. There may be a bit more competition, but it only goes that much further than the situation in the USSR.
> >And my goodness, your plan to turn everything over to the free seriously > undermines your drive to have all scientists sign an oath of ethics. It's > the exact opposite. Scientists will have no standards and will sell whatever > the discover to the highest bidder ...
> > The contrary, as discussed in more detail under the pledge thread.
> Yeah, that was worthless too. So you think education should be free
> from constraint, but those who have it should be restrained? What a
> fascinating paradox you have there ...
The issue is principle, it's listening to your conscience. Here's the real paradox: How much conscience is there in science and without conscience, isn't science just a con?
Sam
|
