Comments by "Ōkami-san" (@mweibleii) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. Jeremy Einbinder 1) Taxes are not all the same. I have no problem with requiring someone pay a tax (such as gasoline tax) because this tax is voluntary. IOWs, IF you want to use the roads with a car, and assuming you don't have the means to produce your own gasoline at home, then you must pay a tax when you volentarily purchase fuel. You pay the tax, because you don't own the fuel. The person who does not pay the tax is the gasoline station. They own the fuel. The same could be said of an apple seller. The farmer who grew the apple, owns the apple, and thus when a sale transaction is made, it will be YOU who pays for the tax (voluntarily) when you choose to buy the apple. This tax can then be used to maintain the fairgrounds (toilets etc...). Contrast these types of taxes with Income Tax/Labor tax. YOU own your body, why would YOU have to pay a tax when you perform actions with the body that you own??? You wouldn't. But you do. Because you no longer own your body's labor. The Pogressive Party of the 1800s stole it from you 100 years ago in the early 1900s. Your forced taxation of your labor is a form of slavery.  Of course, it was the Progressive Party who gave us the Labor Tax - together with the the Central Bank.  2) You claim taxation without representation is immoral AND at the same time support income tax?!? Just what are your ideas on 30 year T bonds or 50 year municipal bonds??? Do you think it's 'fair' that the State sold bonds 30 years ago, and used the money to buy votes 30 years ago - and even though those public services are long dead and gone (in many cases the infrastructure no longer exists) and yet YOU and I are being forced to pay. Why? We didn't get a vote - some of us weren't even born! In summery: Income Tax / Labor Tax is not like other taxes. It is immoral and fits like a hand in glove with the Central Bank. 
    1
  2. Jeremy Einbinder 3) RE: Representative Government In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the majority of 'Citizens' support forcing women to accept polygamous marriage. The majority of citizens support forcing women to wear a burka that covers their face. The majority of citizens support murdering gays. According to your 'Representative Government' theory this is perfectly okay so long as the majority of people in society are supportive of these immoral policies for their perceived notion of being 'Good for Society'.  Likewise, here in the USA, if you sold a 0.50 cent cigarette without paying the State it's tax, you could be strangled to death - and that's perfectly legal because this is the 'Will of the Majority'. Here in the USA, if you sold a drug to another adult, be it a medicine or recreational, and you didn't have the licence or the Will of the Moral Majority deemed it not 'Good for Society', then just like the gays murdered in KSA, you could be murdered. Here in the USA, if you committed the crime of performing work without paying the State it's due on your labor 'for the Good of Society', and resisted the State's militant arm, then you could be legally strangled to death.   We are NOT free people. We do NOT have free markets. Thanks to the Progressives we live in hyper-regulated markets and must (a) ask/pay the State for permission (ex: State licencing schemes) to conduct trade with one another, and then (b) pay the State for this privilege (income tax). All for the so-called 'Good of the Nation'. Well, using force against innocent people is NOT good for anything. Not in KSA and not in the USA. Not against gays. Not against laborers. Not against people selling 0.50 cent cigarettes. 
    1
  3. Jeremy Einbinder RE: In a true representative government, people consent to what goes into the collective pool. This is dangerously close to the No True Scotsman fallacy.  We live in a representative democracy/republic. If you don't like the society this has created, perhaps this is because we also live in an ocean of violence in the form of Government. Government regulates ALL aspects of our lives. To the paper we use to wipe our butts, to our Government Schools, to our medicine, to our money, to who can get married to whom, to what we eat, what drugs we can use, what medicines we can access .... everything. All of it.  This IS the Progressive Social paradise. The Police State and NSA you notice are simply needed to enforce Progressive socialism. Which is probably why it sucks. -- As I said, vote for whomever you like for the next few election cycles. That isn't going to change anything. The State is not going to shrink, it's going to grow. Oh, and IMO, we're getting much more State violence. Many more regulations. We'll lose more privacy. We'll be forced by the State to bail out the oligarchy. And in the end, we'll probably end up with something akin to a Dictator or a King complete with the Oligarchy becoming a permanent legal TBTF Aristocracy.  You'll see.
    1
  4. Steve G Firstly 'black' people didn't just poof into existence out of the void. This means that black people were somehow able to manage to buy and sell with other people, be they other blacks or white or yellow or etc....  and do so with enough extra calories to come into existence - for millions of years. As for your question. Interestingly, we actually have an example from our own history that answers your question. And, just like everything else, so-called Progressive liberals helped 'solve' that problem too.  In essence, blacks were discriminated against by whites. [note, in racist America circa 1910 the US census recorded blacks had a 85% literacy rate in Chicago. This is important for two reasons: (1) we can compare the same area of Chicago today and (2) back then, to attend Public schools, you had to be able to read and write BEFORE you were allowed to attend (just another way whites discriminated against the poor - particularly the poor blacks)].  Secondly, so? How did poor blacks deal with this discrimination? Well, simple enough. They lowered the price of their Labor-Hours. See, in a free-market, all it takes is ONE person to break and start buying the cheaper labor and guess what??? Everyone else has to as well ^ OR go bust. Because, at the end of the day, people want the best deal they can get. They will look the other way in regards to race in order to get that deal. IOWs, money trumps race.  Well.... how do you think whitey decided to deal with this little problem? Well well well, in steps the Progressive Socialist. And the Progressive socialist decided to set a 'minimum wage'. This prevented Blacks from under cutting whites in terms of labor hours. See, by the 1960s blacks had a lower divorce rate and were well on their way to becoming as rich, or richer, than the average white. In essence, blacks were like the Chinese of modern day. See, that's exactly what Chinese ARE doing - the only reason they get away with it, is because they don't live under the jurisprudence of the US Government. If ONLY American blacks were so lucky! And unlike the LIES of the Progressives about so-called slaver labor, Chinese are becoming RICH. Blacks were doing the same up to the 1960s. Here's a conversation with JFK: In a 1957 Senate hearing, minimum-wage advocate Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who just four years later would be President of the United States, stated: *Of course, having on the market a rather large source of cheap labor depresses wages outside of that group, too – the wages of the white worker who has to compete.  And when an employer can substitute a colored worker at a lower wage – and there are, as you pointed out, these hundreds of thousands looking for decent work – it affects the whole wage structure of an area, doesn’t it? Although probably no northern senator today would dare admit it, many who vote for increases in the minimum wage understand that one consequence will be to destroy jobs for the least skilled workers, a disproportionate number of whom are black.* Get it now?! The answer to your question is white business owners would hire Blacks or go bankrupt. THE Progressives KNOW what they're doing. They don't give a f*ck about the poor. Progressives are selling you wishful thinking, but it's all a lie. It's a scam to take power from one group and give it to another - many times with the implicit understanding of those that stand to gain.  Oh.... and as for the Chicago literacy rate 100 years later. After Progressive welfare estates and 'free' Government School - it's at less than 50%! Yeah, that's right, BEFORE government school it was 85%. After Government school and it's 50%! Right now, according to the department of education, Publicly funded progressive Government school GRADUATES have a functional literacy rate of 20%!!! That's 1 in 5 graduates are functionally illiterate. The USA spends much more than Japan in terms of GDP on education - yet does much much worse. Anyway, you needn't worry. We're getting more government, not less - more. And we're getting more Police State to enforce all this Progressive Socialism for 'The Good of Society'. Oh, and we're going to lose more civil liberty along with our right to privacy because 'you use the roads'. Just watch, you'll see.
    1
  5. Steve G RE ' If he was selling loose cigarettes, this would be a problem for the company that makes cigarettes (people get getting the company's cigarettes without buying them from the company).  So if the company cared about maximizing profits, its private security force would brutalize Garner just like the State did.' This is a question of property rights. Once Garner purchased the cigarettes they are his to sell. Of course, without a State tax, Garner probably wouldn't have had such an easy time under cutting the hyper regulated markets. He probably would have been doing some other, better higher paid, job. See, in a free market, people open businesses. This means there's demand for labor-hours. Someone like Garner was an entrepreneur. He'd had saved his money and opened a business and been a respectable member of society.  Of course, in our Progressive Nanny State with it's hyper-regulations, he was legally strangled to death for selling a 50 cent cigarette. This is a simple historical fact. No, they could NOT (and would not) strangle him to death, if anything, they'd have hired him if he was so good at moving their product. You just don't get it. In a free society there is law and it protects your body/your property. Once he owned the cigarettes they were HIS property to do with as he wished. Sell or smoke. And people WANT to trade. You can see this with the internet. The Music Industry wanted to strangle free music, but they couldn't get the State militant arm to do it because the State is so incompetent.... and guess what happened??? MORE money is being made from FREE trade. Get it in your head - freedom is GOOD. The government is EVIL.
    1
  6. Steve G RE: "And by removing regulations, you're basically letting the companies police themselves, which gives them even more power." You really have no idea WHO writes these regulations do you??? I'll give you a hint+THE SAME CORPORATIONS YOU WORRY ABOUT!! It's called Regulatory Capture and Rent-Seeking.
    1
  7. Steve G RE "the restaurant might have a financial incentive to check its food for poison, but maybe it gets away with negligence often enough that it doesn't care, so it prefers to save money instead of paying for more rigorous safety checks.  The only way that I can be reasonably sure that the fish isn't poison is to have an independent agency that can come into the store, inspect the food, and, yes, FORCE the restaurant to throw out the bad food and replace it if necessary" Do you have ANY idea how often restaurants are inspected?!?! I'll give you a clue - NOT OFTEN! Once a year at the most. And they almost always call ahead to let the owner know they are coming. They can easily take a kick back - and do. Want to know what regulations do? They make it hard for a poor person to open up a restaurant. This means the fast-food chains use regulatory capture to rent-seek the food markets and we get stuck buying USDA regulated as safe GMO off cuts with bone and snout washed in boiled ammonia and colored red then infused with HFCS and this 'FOOD' / pink slime is what we eat. You are insane if you think that shit is better than just see it before you eat it unregulated grilled food. I've travelled the world, I can tell you, Americans eat some of the worse shit there is on planet earth. It's not 'food' by any stretch of the imagination.  Just now I was watching a show here in Japan about some crap arse food sold in America and called Japanese. It was a big laugh here to see the sad pathetic so-called food being sold in the USA and called Japanese. Enough to make most Japanese cringe at the thought of eating that filth. Anyway, we're getting more regulations. Millions of regulations are added each year. And we're going to lose more civil liberties with each one that is passed into law. And we're getting more police State to enforce all these regulations 'for the Good of Society' - you'll see. Lucky for me, I don't have to live in the USA. I can come and go as I please. But, most Americans can not. They are tax chattel to the State. Trapped in the tax pen - just they way our Farmers like it. Expect more State - much more. And, you are NOT going to like it. You'll see.... 
    1
  8. Steve G Lastly, as to food safety. There ARE private companies trying to compete against the shit quality FDA and USDA and they do certify food as safe to consume. Often in niche markets - like organic foods (the USDA just agreed to make All Natural a legal label for GMO food... how f#cking nice of the State huh?) You ask WHY it's better to have a private company? Because you can refuse to do business with a private certification organization. In this way, as they get institutionalized and go to shit, they can also do us the favor of going bankrupt. Not so with Government - it just get's worse and worse until one day, it takes ALL of society down with it. Often through War as a last ditch effort at holding on to power. This is the cycle of civilization for the last 7000 years. Thus, the more Government, the more likely you are living in a State about to collapse. The less government (or limited) then the more likely you are living in a time period where the State is too small to steal from you and your children. We live in the former.  I fully expect to see a Dictator-lite in our lifetimes. Probably within 5 POTUS election cycles. 
    1
  9. Steve G I'm not saying that everything that 'comes from' government is evil - I'm saying government by definition is immoral. Therefore it's not a surprise that the stuff that comes from it, turns out to be less than satisfactory. I'd suggest the religious analogy is a strawman. In my opinion, if anyone here is thinking superstitiously, it is the Statist. The parallels with religion are uncanny. Instead of a Pope, we have a POTUS. Instead of Bishops. We have Senators. Instead of defining our lands as Christiandom and ourselves as Christians, we have States and Citizenships. Much like when the Catholics ruled Europe, we must ask our Rulers/Regulators for permission to trade, to marry, etc... and our State has even steps in and passes 'moral' laws (like the Drug War) as it attempts to use violence for the 'good of society'. I agree that McDonalds sells crap food because this is what the highly regulated unfree market place has to offer. What I'm suggesting is that, in a free-market, McDonalds would have a hard time staying in business because cheaper food of higher quality we offer competition. The reason why we're stuck with all these fast food chains is because of regulatory capture and rent-seeking. Not to mention, our monetary system makes it much easier for low end fast food franchises who have proven they can use the State to ensure their competitive advantage are able to access the State's fiat currency. It's why when you cross the boarder poof magically it's a bunch of different chain shops within that State. You can drive 2000 miles across the USA and see the same bland crap, but cross a couple miles into CA and suddenly you're confronted with a different mix of the same shit.  What would happen in a free-market? No one knows. That's unknowable knowledge. What do know is what happens in a hyper-regulated market. Which is what we see. 
    1
  10. Steve G RE: It is the electorate's job to prevent regulatory capture in the first place, just like it is "the market's" job to to weed out bad actors in the Libertarian marketplace.  -- This is pretty much impossible. You're asking the electorate to prevent what in most cases it never knows of, or has too little at stake to make the time to do something about it. Death by a thousands cuts. Let's take the Flower Arrangement Licence. This is a clear case of regulatory capture and rent-seeking (on many levels). The people who want these regulations will spend day after day after day with a laser like focus looking for any and every means possible to capture this market. From suing for cases where poisonous flowers may have been sold, to getting jobs in the government and working hand in glove to ensure these regulations are passed. There are literally millions and millions and millions of lines in complex legalese / regulations passed every year. It's impossible for the electorate to prevent it. The only solution is less government. Make it illegal for the government to prevent adults from conducting trade (actually, this was the case at one time). Also, eliminate income tax and the central bank so as to remove the money needed to purchase the police State that enforces these asinine regulations. The only reasonable solution is less government.  The free market does a fantastic job, through competition, in ensuring bad players exit the market place. Even though M$ is a powerful tech firm, no one wanted their crappy Zune and it quickly and quietly left the market place. Hell, Windows 8 was such a flop that soon there may not be a Microsoft. Same with GM. No one wanted their crap, they went bankrupt - even though they were the largest company in the world at one time. Across 100 years, of the top 100 companies in 1910, only a few remain. Not so with Government. It sticks around and gets worse with each passing day. Just look at Government Schooling. In 1910 you had to know how to read to attend school. In 2010 one in five Government school graduates are functionally illiterate. Talk about rot. The Department of Education costs us $80 billion dollars each year! That dwarfs Apple Inc, or Google, yet look at all the goods the public actually want that these companies provide to us. Imagine if school was the same. No one would pay $30K a year to a business that passes functionally illiterates. The only solution is free-markets, which will probably start with Chartered Schools. The government is littered with these examples.  See, this the thing. People are people. The ONLY think that delineates Public employees from Private employees is the State has the legal right to use force against innocent humans. I'm fairly certain, that if the common electorate did not worship the State as their new religion, they'd be appalled at the notion a group of people can do this - yet here we are. A man was just strangled to death for selling a 0.50 cent cigarette to other adults. Only the State can legally do this.
    1
  11. Steve G Re: Pay for your own private inspector This isn't true. There's private companies that do certify food. If you want their certification, then you have to abide by their rules. The market place values these certifications, thus there's both an incentive for the company AND the private regulator to provide high quality food.
    1
  12. Steve G RE: Regulatory capture and the revolving door.  1) Government is transparent on most regulations. You can read them - and people do. Entire industries (mainly law) exist to read through the bullshit regulations passed each year. 2) Just how are you going to stop people from working in a company they used to regulate? Make it illegal for them to seek employment?? So, suppose you're a public servant one day, your department is downsized and you get the can. What then? You just starve on the street??? Obviously you'll need to work in the area you're trained in. Which will mean working in the industry you were taxed with regulating.  No, this is a can or worms. The solution is simple. Get rid of the regulators and replace them with free market companies. The internet self regulates and does a pretty decent job of it. If people want regulations, they'll pay for it.
    1
  13. Steve G RE: The left doesn't want BIG government. I'm sorry but Government IS defined as immoral. This is a fact. It is the only group of humans with the legal right to initiate force against innocent groups of humans. Does some good come out of government? Sure. But no where near enough. I'm sure North Korea provides some good services. But no where near the costs and loss of liberty. The same is true with our government.  Think of the trillions and trillions wasted on the wars. Of the $1.1 trillion budget, $600 billion was on the military. This is insane. The government made up an excuse to invade Vietnam and murdered millions of innocent people - many of whom were women and children. It did the exact same thing with WMD and Iraq. It's now spying on each and every one of us through the NSA. The State just built another $100 billion data collection center. The State just bailed out the richest 1% to the tune of generational debt.  Whatever tiny bit of 'service' the State provides, it is no where close to what it costs us in loss civil liberty, lost prosperity and lost privacy. And, we're getting more State. Not less - more. You'll see. The USA is shockingly like a Police State already, and it's only getting worse. Much worse. "DOD’s total budget request is therefore $601 billion: $496 billion for the base budget, $26 billion for the defense portion of the OGSI, and $79 billion for OCO. Including the portions of the congressionally requested unfunded priorities list that are distinct from the OGSI items would further increase the total request."
    1
  14. Steve G I'm not how much you've read regarding the philosophy of politics, but the State being an immoral institution is not a controversy. Nor has it been for hundreds of years. Immanuel Kant (in 1772) named four kinds of government: Law and freedom without force (anarchy). Law and force without freedom (despotism). Force without freedom and law (barbarism). Force with freedom and law (republic). Note the word 'force' in republic. That force is the 'immoral' use of force against innocent people. Using force against innocent people is, by definition, immoral. Monopoly on legitimate violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the definition of the state expounded by Karl "Max" Weber (1919) and in Politics as a Vocation he defines the State as having a monopoly on legitimate violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates). The State is defined as a single entity exercising authority on violence over a given territory (territory is characteristic of a State). Such a monopoly must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid to legitimise the State's use of violence. Oh, and in case you're wondering, this is how the USA legally defines itself. This is WHY it was limited. The US Constitution is here to protect us from the Government, not from big corporations, not from wealthy individuals, not to redistribute wealth, not to provide us with welfare or housing. It's to protect us from the State. The other services are up to US to provide to one another through trade. But, thanks to the Progressives of the late 1800s, we now have a Central Bank feeding the State money and we now have to pay the State for the privilege of working (income tax). The State regulates just about every aspect of our lives, from who we can legally marry, to what we can consume, to the paper used to wipe our arses. We have to ask the State for permission to perform work, we have to inform the State of just about any transaction we make. The State is now spying on us. It's wasting trillions in resources on never ending wars - which it lies the Government Schooled idiot electorate into supporting.  The fact that the State is immoral is not in dispute. It's a definitional fact. As for what's in store for us in the future? Well, the Problem of Induction (Hume) proves we cannot know. However, a Boolean analysis suggests we will be getting much more immoral government, we will lose many more civil liberties (the State passes millions of new lines of regulations yearly) and we'll lose our right to privacy.  Prosperity is defined as civil liberty + leisure time. We are losing both. Thus, we will become less prosperous. You'll see.
    1
  15. Steve G RE:  "Again, the Left are the strongest voices fighting against the banks taking unregulated risks and then bailing them out." Provide evidence that Clinton's deregulation led to the banking crises. Forbes: Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists (http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2012/11/12/why-the-glass-steagall-myth-persists/) You do understand that finance is one of the most regulated industries in the world? You do understand we did not NEED to bail out the banks? You do understand we have a Central Bank with Central Planners working hand in glove with our Political Masters to Centrally 'Regulate' our economy? You do know that in order to 'progress', industries must leave - GM needs to leave, banks need to collapse, the old must make way for the new.  Progressives talk a good talk, but in the end, Progress is the last thing they want. Humans hate change.
    1
  16. Steve G You complain NK is an unfair example of government (even though it IS a government) and then have the gall to use Somalia as an example of no government?!??! Wrong again, Somalia has plenty of Government - in the form of Warlords. As a matter of fact, at the end of the day, Somalian Warlords are really no different from US Police who legally strangle innocent adults to death for selling 0.50 cent cigarettes. In reality, those Somalians that are outside of governmental control are actually doing BETTER than the neighbouring tribes in Kenya. Why? Because a State 'official' doesn't come along and steal what little resources they've scrounged together. That analysis is published and the BBC did a peace on it as well. (http://mises.org/library/anarchy-somalia)
    1
  17. Steve G (1) You can't pick out a period of history and say, because of this period in time, therefor X. That's called Cherry Picking to support your argument.  (2) Lots of things happened from 1950 - 2006.  1. The rise of competition in the form of Japan and then China. 2 The loss of Christian superstition in the general population 3 The decoupling of gold from fiat paper by Nixon 4. The never ending Warfare State shifting society into the present Police State 5. Competition in Europe was obliterated after the war, that's no longer the case, nor will it ever be 6. The demographics in the US were reversed, not a lot of old and plenty of young 7. The Progressive Welfare State had just got started 8. Public liabilities we're on the hook for - that the Public Unions promised themselves were no where near what they are now ($80 - 100 trillion).  Any combination of above, or one, or none at all, or something else + one or two of the above could explain why we ended up with a banking crises. Also, we cannot repeat history. It's not possible. Cherry picking history is not making a valid argument.
    1
  18. Mirquella Santos Obama doesn't set the economic policies in the USA, that's the Congress and the Central Bank. He signs their budgets into law. You know, like the $600 billion in Warfare pork he signed for 2015. Must be that Europeans and Latin Americans love warfare or they're as ignorant as the typical American in regards to what the POTUS actually does and does not do. To give you a hint, Obama set raising one bridge in NJ 10 feet his "#1 National Priority" - he gave up two years ago. It's still not raised. 
    1
  19. Kevin Small The Federal Reserve's ability to raise interest rates is much 'more powerful' (whatever that means) than the POTUS ability to veto some pork from a Senate spending /vote-buying bill.  That aside, I understand this is a difficult concept for most of humanity to get, but the fact is, Dear Leader doesn't create prosperity. If that were the case, then there'd be no need for free-market capitalism and we'd have a history where Communist China, Cuba, the USSR and North Korea were all quite wealthy States. Dear Leader doesn't created prosperity- and so they we don't have that history. Note: You'll find this information in ANY basics Econ-101 course taught pretty much anywhere in the world. As for our Fed created stock market bubble - if you own equities (most Americans don't) then IMO, you're feeling pretty okay right about now. If you don't own any stock, well, you can thank the Federal Reserve for why your rent to your Banker slum-lord is going up.
    1
  20. HA! Welcome to PUBLIC Government Schools. LOL See those lunches? Keep that imagine in your mind, now add in a Public Housing Slum Project - THAT is ObamaCare in 25 years.
    1
  21. Adam Clark Thank you for your response.  I'd suggest this: What does the age of a document have to do with making an argument regarding it's contents? Some syllogisms are 2300 years old, yet these arguments are sound and valid. The age isn't what matters. It's the argument that matters. David is making a fallacious informal fallacy to suggest the age of an argument has any baring on the argument contents. Again, there is NO evidence that any ISP purposely slowed the internet. Exactly the opposite is true, the evidence shows they did NOT slow the internet.  http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/caused-web-slow-down-comcast-twc-verizon/ What people like David want is to use the State to ban their competition via the FCC. Regulatory capture is the Progressive's 'business model'. David's is simply looking to capture market share through FCC facilitated rent-seeking. IMO the LAST thing David cares about is anyone's personal freedom or civil liberty. And, IF he was being honest (or the FCC for that matter) he would NOT support using State violence as a means to regulate the internet. Lucky for David, most people lap up his demagoguery posing as an 'argument. Thus, we'll find our free market internet is regulated to the point you'll need a State licence to open a website, a State log on ID to use the internet and we'll pay a nice hefty tax to boot.  You'll see. The last thing the FCC cares about is maintaining a free and open internet. This is simply a power grab. I've worked in many large institutions in numerous countries, I can safely tell you, this IS the case with the FCC. As for David's motivation, maybe he's an imbecile, but I stated my personal opinion. That aside, I was invited to join Lesswrong late last year and I am interested in doing so. Unfortunately I have hardly any free time at all. If I recall correctly, Lesswrong is orientated towards Bayesian epistemology? 
    1
  22. I'm not really sure what to put The US Constitution can and is modified. The first 10 Amendments that were made to the US Constitution are often referred to as the Bill of Rights.  The problem I have with David's so-called reasoning is simple: David supports using violence as a means of social "Progress". The US Constitution protects innocent people in society FROM the Davids of the world. There is NO evidence Comcast or any ISP slowed the internet. Actually, the evidence shows exactly the opposite is true - they did NOT slow the internet. So? Why does David support the expansion of State violence into our lives? Why does he support the FCC? One reason is because David benefited from the free market internet we (until recently) had. But, free markets are quite competitive. One way to reduce competition is to use the State as a means of rent-seeking through regulatory capture. FCC licencing is a means for the David's of the world to reduce their competition and immorally make more money. Most regulation written is written for this purpose.  Lets see if in your lifetime you're required to pay the State a licencing fee to open an internet business, if you'll be required to follow FCC mandated guidelines, if you'll be required to pay an annual internet tax to obtain your State issued internet log on ID (probably your SS#). Now that the last free market is a 'public utility' this is baked in the cake. It's impossible to stop regulatory capture by rent seeker once you open the door to them. David knows this - he's one of them. So, when this happens, be sure to write a thank you letter to David thanking him for his propaganda and demagoguery and ending the last free market left to us. The US Constitution is not sacred to me. It's a document - one that used to work well at protecting us FROM the State by LIMITING it's influence over our lives. But make no mistake, those days are gone and I'm more than happy to see the people of the USA itself peacefully vote to end it. I 100% support peacefully ending Federalism and watching as smaller State's completely quit the USA and write their own differing Constitutions. I'd be happy to see such a thing happen in the next few decades. Who knows? Maybe the people over at LessWrong can write a State Constitution? One that's better than the current one available to us?
    1
  23. I'm not really sure what to put  While no one can predict the future, you can rest assured that the very LAST thing your Regulators at the FCC give a shit about is your 'internet freedoms' - that's so naive I must assume you have no experience working in a large institution (say 50,000+). Don't worry, these things don't happen over night, but you'll see a day when you log into the internet using your State licensed log on ID.  Secondly, there is NO evidence that any ISP purposely slowed the internet. Exactly the opposite is true, the evidence shows they did NOT slow the internet.  http://www.techpolicydaily.com/internet/caused-web-slow-down-comcast-twc-verizon/
    1
  24. Mike Bond You start your post suggesting Comcast, Verizon and AT&T where working together to slow the entire Internet. This sounds like a CT to me. Do you have credible evidence of this? Because it did not happen. You end your post suggesting the opposite, that a single type of traffic was throttled - in this case Netflicks. Well, this is false. As the link I posted shows. So, again, the FCC is NOT needed. We do NOT require State violence to 'solve' a problem that never occurred. As am aside, if you think paying a third party, in this case the FCC, is going to give you 'free' internet - which is basically what everyone wants. Think again.  IMO Americans are like children. Children who want mommy and daddy to give them a lifetime allowance. Children who never grew up and hate the very idea that they have to pay for the things they consume. Like little children they want Mommy State to give them it for free. Which is the real reason why the FCC is cheered on. They think they're getting free internet. As if it's not fair Comcast didn't give Netflicks more bandwidth than what they purchased and GASP required them to pay for what they were selling.  IMO Progressives like magic thinking. Which is what people like David pander too.  Well, I can promise you, you're not getting 'free' internet. And now that the FCC has gained the legal ability to 'Regulate' our access to the internet, it's only a matter of time before they'll require State issued log on IDs and licencing fees and higher taxes all to ensure no one uses more than their fair share of "The Commons" and that we're all Safe from one another. The Internet is 'dangerous' and needs to be "Regulated' by the State for the "good of society'.  Current market players (like David here) stand to gain big as rent-seekers thanks to FCC regulatory capture. With regulations and licencing we'll watch as innovation is slow. No more game streaming - that's using up too much of "The Commons". And, just like that, Regressive Socialists will have destroyed another free-market - the last one left. Which makes sense, Progressives absolutely hate free markets/freedom. Just read the tone of your "until they paid" in your response. In my ears, this sounds like childish naivety. Make no mistake, the FCC is State violence (see: Immanuel Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View) - using violence to take from one person and give to yourself generally doesn't work out in the long run. You'll see.  
    1
  25. Mike Bond  Do you mean 'free' as in free from violence or free as in stealing from one person and giving to yourself? Because these two uses of the word 'free' are mutually exclusive.  If you think the FCC is going to cost LESS then various ISP competing with one another, you're wrong. While ISP may attempt to 'nickel and dime' you, the FCC is going to tax hundred dollar bills from you. Only unlike with an ISP, you will NOT be "free" NOT to pay the thugs who run the FCC. So, instead of paying $60 a month for high-speed free and open internet, you are going to pay $200 a month for hyper-regulated slow internet where you are restricted in how much of "The Commons" you can use. It will be monitored by the FCC to ensure you do not break the law and you will require to fill in forms demonstrating need, have qualified degrees and pay licencing fees to access any business idea you might have had for the internet. You'll see. I know, I've worked for many of these institutions across many years.  IN short, you so-called Progressive "Socialists" just destroyed the last free-market/freedom in the world. AND for what? The 'promise' of something you will never get anyway. Oh well. Lucky for me I don't have to live in the USA. I'll tell you this much: I hope you're good at standardized testing - because that's the way forward in our Progressive Socialist paradise. Being a doctor, I actually do well at these sorts of tests. I think they're idiotic and wrong (thank the Gods I don't have to do any myself) but this is the way forward in State-run societies. Lots and lots and lots of MCQ and box ticking.
    1
  26. Mike Bond  1) I've re-read your first paragraph twice and it makes no sense. 2) I posted a credible source demonstrating ISP were not slowing the internet. You OTOH haven't provided a credible source of empirical data demonstrating anything. 3) Lets suppose that ISP were slowing speeds - this does not mean we 'need' or 'require' the FCC (which is to say, the threat of State violence) to ensure ISP do not in the future slow down speeds.  Where did you make THAT leap in logic?! Here's how your argument goes: I was going to ask her out on a date but she might say now. So, I'm going to pay someone to kidnap her instead. You know, just in case she might maybe say no to me. This IS David's argument. Just in case maybe an ISP might sometime in the future slow speeds to CrapFlicks, we're going to threaten them with State violence via the thugs who work over at the FCC. Who are, by all accounts, some of the worse people in the world. 
    1
  27. NOT wanting free market internet (which is to say people freely communicating with one another) is a great reflection on late stage Fascism. Not only is there no evidence of any problem having occurred, but just in case lets immediately jump to the use of violence to solve any potential future problem - that never happened and probably will never happen.  All that is required is contract law enforcement. Simply purchase your ISP via a contract that says they cannot legally reduce speeds. It's really pretty simple and costs a lot less too. It also requires zero violence or threats of violence. See Progressive Socialism rests on a bedrock of State coercion - which is to say: violence. In this case so called Progressives like David use the State (here the FCC) to threaten ISP. As of now there is ZERO evidence ISP slowed ANY service on purpose including the waste of bandwidth called Netflicks.  Lastly, if Netflicks had a contractual agreement with ISP to deliver a certain amount of bandwidth AND the ISP did not live up to this agreement, why didn't Netflicks sue them in breach of contract on services rendered? Oh, maybe because it never happened. The truth is ISP do not slow speeds. In summery, market paricipants like David will do very well as rent-seekers using FCC regulations to capture market share. This has happened in ALL markets the Government supposedly 'regulates'. Everything from finance and medicine to construction and farming. Assuming David isn't an idiot, and assuming he likes to make money out of his business, his implicit support for the FCC is because current market participants always gain as the new licencing structures are put in place and often help construction the very regulations giving themselves unfair market advantage. It's a story so f*cking old the US Constitution as a provision specifically outlawing it - not that anyone follows that antiquated toiletry. 
    1
  28. Oh Gods, MORE misinformed propaganda from David et.al. Let's hear a quote from John F Kennedy on the effects of minimum wage inceases on blacks in America. *John F. Kennedy:  “Although probably no northern senator today would dare admit it, many who vote for increases in the minimum wage understand that one consequence will be to destroy jobs for the least skilled workers, a disproportionate number of whom are black.”* That fact that people knew and understood this 60 years ago (actually for hundreds of years) and that David doesn't in the year 2014, suggests Aldous Huxley was correct and we would slowly become more ignorant as we became more prosperous because no one bother's to crack open a book on BASIC economics and READ IT. Why do that when magic talk is so much easier than reading. The FACT is it was WHITE democrats who passed minimum wage so that BLACK Americans could not compete by offering lower wages. You see, back 80 years ago Blacks were actually the Chinese of the South and they were out competing Whites and were (like Chinese today) getting rich. Something Whites didn't like. So Whites like JKF immorally passed minimum wage laws making it impossible for Blacks to compete. Blacks went from making good money and having strong families to living on poor in a generation. General Welfare and drug laws pretty much destroyed what minimum wage didn't.  Thank you Davids of the world. Thank you for your demagoguery and magic talk over that of information and actual news - all while the nation sinks into a cesspool of your propaganda. 
    1
  29. Cirrus J Attacking the person is not attacking the argument. I do not support government having ANY role in private corporations.  An example of Fascism in the USSA would be ObamaCare where Citizens are forced by the State/Public to buy goods/services from healthcare insurance/Private. Given your inappropriate message, any further messages from you will be sent to the Trash folder without my having read them. So, don't bother.
    1
  30. AJ Beamish (a) I also have dual citizenship and have lived in more than those two countries. One, of others, not being a Western English speaking country. (b) I'm not telling you TO emigrate. I'm saying, IF you like living in England, then move and live there. Pretty simple really. (c) I've been to England multiple times, the standard of living is really no different than the USA. England's government schools produce a functional illiteracy rate exactly the same as the USA: 1 in 5. (d) Just because truly free markets never existed, doesn't mean we should give up attempting to create societies where the legal initiation of violence against innocent people / government (see: War on Drugs as an example of this) is reduced to a minimum.  Your argument is akin to a 16th century person arguing Slavery has always existed and truly free modern countries have never existed and therefor.... (insert various normalization biases).... we should not eliminate Slavery. For progress to happen, yes, something gasp that has never happened in the past must come to pass. (e) RE: Chartered Schools The nice thing about Chartered Schools, is YOU are free to remain in, or put your children into, a Government School. We OTOH are free not to subject our children to such. See how simple this works? If Government schools are so wonderful, then parents will want their children to attend them.  Oh, and get this - you WILL lose this battle. Chartered Schools will replace Government Schools.  Those few decently run Government schools will become Chartered Schools.  Lastly, I know plenty of English who pay to put their children in English private schools. Those children tend to get the best spots in University. This is really unfair. At least with Chartered Schools low-income parents are given the chance to put their children into a Private School of their choice. Much like poor people can buy an iPhone6 no different from that of a wealthy person, the same will, one day, be true of education (thanks in large part to choice).  (f) Libertarians don't argue for free markets. They argue for limited government and regulated markets. So, take your strawman elsewhere.  Again, if you think opportunity awaits in England - move there and take it. Overall, England isn't much different than any other multicultural Westernized country. I've lived in four and not noticed much of a difference in  any off  them. The differences are slight, and usually due to the community you reside in and what you happen to be doing there and the time you happen to arrive in what part of the economic cycle they are in.  
    1
  31. AJ Beamish World Literary Foundation:  http://www.worldliteracyfoundation.org/ Measured 1 in 5. National Literary Trust: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/adult_literacy/illiterate_adults_in_england Measured 1 in 6.
    1
  32. AJ Beamish The monopoly on legitimate violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, which has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy. It defines a single entity, the state, exercising authority on violence over a given territory, as territory was also deemed by Weber to be a characteristic of state. Importantly, such a monopoly must occur via a process of legitimation, wherein a claim is laid to legitimise the state's use of violence  Max Weber (1919)
    1
  33. AJ Beamish The truth is, it was State Government's that incinerated Jews, enforced human Slavery, developed and dropped nukes on civilians in Japan. It was State Governments that built the armies used to eradicate native population during colonization (and are still doing so to this day in neo colonization).  You crap on about so-called Robber Barons?!? You mean in the late 1800s during the Second Industrial revolution? That time period? The one that saw humanity increase in wealth and population like no other period in history? You use a couple criminals as your examples? You think Jessie James was a Libertarian? Talk about a pathetic straw man. Libertarians are AGAINST the use of violence you dolt. The Chinese Government starved 10s of millions of humans to death.... and you toss of a pathetic straw man of a few criminals in the West of the USA? Jesus H Christ... how myopic can you be??? The USA government imprisons more non violent humans than any other government in history. The USA government has nuked cities of civilians. The USA used radioactive ammunition in Iraq. The USA government made up lies to invade Vietnam, Iraq, etc... The USA government is the largest polluter on the planet - in history and consumes more oil than any other entity. Much of it wasted. And you want this same institution to provide you with education???? Even when it produces a 1 in 5 functional illiteracy rate?!?!?! All I can say is Government Schooling is doing one thing right: brainwashing. It's probably WHY the State hates the very notion of Chartered/Private Schools. 
    1
  34. MusicMakeYouLoseControl I was just in Japan last month. 1) I watched a news article complaining that children are only being taught to memorize and regurgitate (which they do, do well).  2) Japan has a culture of shamming people who do not work up to their best. We OTOH are still paying Detroit Government School Teachers a 13 month bonus - even though many of these teachers can, themselves, barely speak proper English. My guess is, most American teachers would never be hired in Japan. 3) Japanese mothers stay home and actually teach their children how to read and write and do math. Whereas, in the West, it's not uncommon for Western mothers to put their children into Lord of the Flies / Day "Care" where they never get the individual attention (not even close) to a Japanese child. It's not uncommon for Japanese children to learn the English alphabet before the age of 2. I just listened to a Japanese child 1 year 8 month recite the ABCs up to the letter P. Sure, the pronunciation wasn't native English perfect, but, pretty good.  4) I personally feel Japan had more child "things" in society compared with in the USA where I find there's more stuff for adults to have fun. It's more child focused then in the West. IMO.  5) While not Japan, I did read part of a PhD thesis where the authors found Korean children adopted into Belgium families, who were IQ tested, had an average IQ score of 117 +/- 5. So, it may be that E. Asians are more adapt at standardized testing. 6) Japanese public schools are much different than Westernized schools. It used to be they didn't even start school until age 7 (which is actually the ideal age) and when at school it's a different learning environment. Most children are taught to read and write at home as well as at school.  8) Private cram schools are quite common. My cousin would go to school from 8AM-4PM and then attend cram school from 6PM - 11PM with a half day on Saturday and Sunday off. There's no 3 month summer vacations either. While she never did a logic course, but when she was hired at an English company they said she scored the highest according to their London records of any person ever at the company on it's logic test. I'd say she's a slightly above average Japanese - but no where near the top.  In summary, the Government schooling in Japan is currently considered unsatisfactory to producing creative thinking and there's a large private component to education - both at home and in private schools. Even Japanese are saying we need to change education and this isn't working. Which, giving their homogeneity, means they might have a shot at changing Government schooling into something better.  That said, Japanese schools are no where near as good as some of our private Chartered Schools. It's simply a matter of modern education being unsound. It simply doesn't work. Also, one Chartered schools pedagogy may not work for "ALL" children. Each child/person is different - which is why we need the variety in education.  How many can tell me what the Log10 of 1000 is? Obviously 3. Any child could tell you. If you didn't know, then this is an example of the bulimic learning that is modern education and has been for 60-100 years. And, it's getting worse.
    1
  35. kazooga 1234 I'm not quite sure what you're talking about?  Finland spends around 30% LESS per student compared against the United States. Removing your child out of Government schooling doesn't harm the Government school as then your child is no longer taking resources away from other children leaving more time and energy for them. Private schooling and homeschooling OTOH actually costs parents a lot of money which is why Chartered Schools is much fairer. 
    1
  36. MusicMakeYouLoseControl We agree that the bases of modern education lay in the industrialization of society.  As for daycare, I don't think you appreciate just how horrible abusive long-term day care is to children. From age 0 - 4 is the most rapid time of neural development in a child'd life. Changes that occur to the brain during this time period will have life-long and lasting effects. To take a pre-verbal child out of a caring family and into a long-term (sometimes 6AM - 7PM) supervision center is, in my opinion, totally insane. So insane, that no one would do this IF it weren't normal. It's THAT insane. Further, mo one knows what the long term effects may be to these children.  It's now not uncommon to place 6 WEEK old infants into these supervision clinics. It's likely this is negatively and permanently effecting children's neural development. The Gods only know how this is going to turn out.  As for the Private component to Japanese education. Well, formally there's cram school and that's quite common. Also, private schools are also present in Japan - though they are considered lower and less reputable than public schools. Most kids who get good grades would not want to attend a private school.  That said, we can't really measure the parental effect. But, I can say this, most mother's do not put their children into long term daycare in Japan. And the thought of putting a 6 week old infant into daycare would be akin to physical child abuse. This personal care that Japanese parents take in personally educating their children may not be quantifiable, but from my experience, Asian mothers make the time to read to and educate their children more so than Western mothers - who on average focus more on their career. Yes, that's a generalization and my personal opinion - but it is what it is. As evidence, again I point to day care centers that take in 6 week old children that are not uncommon in the West but would be considered child abuse in Japan. The future will look back at this and see it as child abuse. It's literally insane. As for Government school - this is a nature extension of the same society that condones long-term day supervision centers. Little concern is paid to the education of children. They are treated like cogs in a machine. These children graduate from long term day supervision to longer term Government school. It's no wonder that 1 in 5 graduate functionally illiterate. Unable to master a simple 26 letters.  Japanese has two phonetic alphabets each with a base set of 46 letters. The 26 roman letters are learned as well. Then there's an additional 2500 basic Chinese characters that must be mastered for basic literacy. Another 2000 should be added for a deeper appreciation of the language. Did I mention we're also pretty decent at math too :)  AND YET, I still maintain that some Chartered schools in the USA are better for some students - particularly the creative learners who will invent the devises of the future. 
    1
  37. kazooga 1234 The USA spends 30% more than Finland. 
    1
  38. MusicMakeYouLoseControl I suppose this is a matter of perspective. See, to me the last 60 years of daycare + 100 years of Government schooling has pretty much altered society so as to make it nearly unrecognizable to the people who would have lived back then. It's anything but normal.  To me it's normal to have the freedom to buy wine, beer, cigarettes or even Jack Danial's from a vending machine (I don't smoke, but, I like the personal liberty). To me it's normal to see children walking through any part of the city without fear. It's normal not to see graffiti anywhere. It's normal to feel safe at night in the city. It's normal to see someone open a bar that seats 3 people. Or a person set up a little restaurant out of the back of their house in the city. None of these places would come close to passing building and zoning codes in the US.  To me it's not normal to see mother's put their 6 week old infants into day supervision centers - which are no where near the same as a personal family member. On average a child needs contact with their parent (preferably mother) once ever 3 minutes. Day carers are 1 to 20 and it's literally impossible to show the love and attention of a mother to this many (unknown) children. Not to mention day care workers typically last only 18 months - the gods only know what this pseudo-parental bond breaking is doing to these children's long term ability to form relationships or their sense of security. That's nothing like the way tribes raise children (which also doesn't delineate children by age, another unhealthy "normal' aspect to Government schooling).  It's not normal to me to see children put on anti-depressants because they want to go outside and play. See, to me, going outside and playing appears normal and sitting in a neat little row and raising your hand to ask permission to pee while taking SSRIs designed for adults is actually... well, insane. So, I'd just suggest not confusing what's normal with what's virtuous. 
    1
  39. kazooga 1234 You needn't shout. To be specific I could explain to you the exact fallacy in your reasoning is called "denying the antecedent" The incorrect reasoning is in the form: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q. What's happening is you think more money equals to better educational outcome and that therefor less money means that there should be a reduction in educational outcome. However, as I stated, Finland spends 30% less than the USA (per child) and does a much better job of educating their children.  This is because the American Government Schooling is unsound and does not work.  More money often makes the problems worse.
    1
  40. MusicMakeYouLoseControl RE: "While I agree that it would be ideal for parents to be able to take care of their kids full time during the early years, in some cases that simply isn't possible" The answer to this is simple. If you cannot afford to properly raise a family, then don't have a family. It's not fair to children as they have no say in who their caregiver is. It's immoral to bring a conscious being into this world and not care for them. That's immoral.
    1
  41. kazooga 1234 I just provided you with the formal proof of your fallacious reasoning. I then provided you with the amount spent per pupil in the two countries in YOUR example showing Finland spends 30% less than the USA.  Thus, I've provided you with deductive reasoning and inductive evidence yet you're still holding to your superstitious belief in the State. I"ll post an article I read below, other than that, I"m not responding to you again.  ---------- An Article I read: *For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it. Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.* ------
    1
  42. MusicMakeYouLoseControl I'm not quite sure why you think your tribal society is evidence that leaving children in daycare is not harming their neurodevelopment.   (a) In your tribal society the mother"s are the one"s who remain with the children.  (b) Just because a tribe did it, doesn't mean this is the most healthy manner to raise a child. It may be, it may not be. (c) Different people live differently. Europeans with wheat farming is not the same as Asians with rice farming and this has lead to different child rearing practices. Europeans were often family units and Asian mothers often carry children with them to work in the rice fields. Incidentally, A Stanford University study found daycare is harmful towards child development. I can try to look up the study if you like.  Suggesting I have a 1950s version of reality is a strawman argument. I do not. I have a 2015 version of reality because some areas in the USA (particularly mid-west) were still as I described modern day Japan minus the over regulations (which many small towns simply ignore).  Yes, I agree, all societies change. Many aspects of ours is changing for the worse. Some for the better (violent crime is lower) but many for the worse (over regulation and woefully under-educated population).  One suggestion I think will gain traction in the coming decades, possibly without our lifetimes (say the next 60-70 years) is State succession. Smaller States are easier to manage and provide feedback to the people who live in them more efficiently. In the meantime, I would like to see Chartered schools expanded as options in the coming decades - eventually replacing all Government schools. 
    1
  43. MusicMakeYouLoseControl It's irresponsible to knowingly have a child at a time in your life when you know you do not have the resources or family there to properly raise the child.  I'm sure if I said, women A wants to have 19 children but has no way to raise these children you would agree. I'm just applying this to all children - universalizing. 
    1
  44. kazooga 1234 Oh my goodness, you responded to me calmly and in a manner that would say I agree. Play groups are opportunities to socialize. While most socialization is between parents and  play is good opportunities to, under the supervision of parents, put social skills learned at home into practice.  Also, agree that children should not begin formal education until much later - age 7 is ideal.  Lastly, yes, it's not ideal to teach children superstitious ideas like creationism. However, with a 1 in 5 functional illiteracy rate, I don't see that as the real problem. Anyway, I know superstitious people (a Muslim friend comes to mind) who are mathematical geniuses and are very productive. So they believe in some fairytale stories? Not that big of a deal to me. 
    1
  45. MusicMakeYouLoseControl Have you ever spoken to people from tribal societies? Are you sure there's no negative impact? I mean, how can you be so sure there's no negative impact? Maybe there is. While not a study, here's an interesting article. You can read the studies as they're cited. http://www.parentingscience.com/preschool-stress.html
    1
  46. MusicMakeYouLoseControl RE: 6 months academically ahead Now, this is interesting. I do agree that learning to take standardized tests at a younger age will increase your scores on said tests (one of the reasons why Asia is leaving Finland in the dust). But is this a good thing? I'd maintain the Finish educational system is still a better approach to learning EVEN though they're falling behind on international test scores. Also, how do we know that learning to read and perform math 6 months earlier is better? Maybe it's a stress response? Maybe being away from parents is stressful and release of stress hormones like cortisol causes children's brains to function better under duress? I mean, we simply do not know the answers but it's important not to just accept the data as if it were the be all to end all. Have you ever heard of Unschooling? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unschooling While "radical" today. In the past the greatest minds, like Aristotle to Descartes learned this way. For some children this should be an option. Chartered schools would give more children these options. Others, who perhaps like a structured environment can attend a Chartered School that used to be a Government school. That's the point. As for tossing 2 more years of 'free' education - this is simply vote buying and paying off Government teachers unions. Pretty much everything that's wrong with Government in one Slogan: Free Education.
    1
  47. MusicMakeYouLoseControl What's wrong with the Wild West? Not that I agree we're ever going to have a Wild West. But, if you're talking about self-regulation, then yes - count me in. If people ever want to live freely - or at least somewhat freely, then States will most likely need to succeed. Either that or the Nation goes broke. Because those in power (Government or Private) are never giving it up. I know this first hand. Private power used to be gained in the market place and so it could be lost. Now, with TBTF, they're an unofficial Aristocracy. As for Public Servants giving up power. Not on your life. Well, maybe on your life. But it'd take a revolution and that's not something anyone wants to see happen.  Peaceful legal State succession is the obvious answer.
    1
  48. MusicMakeYouLoseControl 1. Yes pregnancies can happen unplanned. However, in todays day and age, with both male and female contraception as well as abortion, there's no need to bring a child into the world when you know full well you can not afford to care for the child and don't have a family there to provide the support needed. If you'e that down and out, don't take a chance and do something else that won't involve getting pregnant.  2. Losing one's job I completely sympathize with. In a decently run society (unlike ours) both job insurance and a thriving market would make this a non-issue. But yes, in our world, no one can be blamed for this. 3. Marriages failing I have less sympathy for. 
    1
  49. MusicMakeYouLoseControl I would strongly advise not putting a child into a day supervision center / daycare. Not only could the child be harmed, threatened, groomed and molested, but the child will not have the individual attention of a parent, the child will be stressed being away from a parent, the child will pick up the habits of the children around them - of which 1 in 50 are statistically likely to be molested by someone.  It's simply insane to put a child into such a dangerous situation.  A play group is perfectly reasonable - supervised by the parents. Many tribal societies are actually quite violent. I'm not sure of any that aren't to be honest. As for the instance when simultaneously the pill fails, condom breaks and abortion was not available. AND the mother knows she cannot afford to raise the child then the answer is simple: adoption. There's plenty of families who would love a child, have the resources, but cannot have children.  I feel like this has gone a bit off the rails. We'll have to agree to disagree to the topic of day care.  I will say this, I know of a woman who works in the federal government in a highly paid high level position. She doesn't have time for a partner, is getting old (40s) and wants a child. So she did IVF. Due to her schedule she had a cesarean and delivered 3 weeks early. At exactly 6 weeks old (3 weeks if by natural birth) this infant was put into long term day care from 6am - 7pm five days a week. She needs some 'me time' and so the child also spends some Saturdays in day care. The carers in this child's life will be her parent. Statistically they will leave her once every 18 months. Growing up in a day care center will be this child's memories of her childhood. Then she will graduate on to Government school. Oh, and the Government not only legalized and regulated long term day care, it also provides tax rebates and credits to pay for it. The Government pays parents to put their children into day care. Not because it cares for them, but because then they can get back to work paying tax to the government.   IMO this is child abuse. 
    1
  50. MusicMakeYouLoseControl Government Unions are not the same as Private Unions. Government unions are servants of the People. They agree to serve the people when they accept the job as a public servant. They do not need a Union as they are servants. Private unions work for companies and are not servants to the public. They are out to sell labor to buyers and can form unions if this increases the price of labor by lowering supply. That's perfectly moral. Public unions on the hand are actually immoral. As in, Kantian Ethics show Government unions are immoral. 
    1