andrel wrote:
> On 25-12-2009 21:20, somebody wrote:
>> Humans are too rational to
>> "fall for" maximizing benefit to all to their own detriment.
> 
> Again you should replace 'humans' with 'US citizens'. You'd be surprised
> how many people think different all over the globe. Don't make the
> mistake that because all humans you know think in a certain way that
> will be the case for all humans.

Not even with 'US citizens' as I have seen people in the USA "fall for"
that. Other things they "fall for":

Benefit of a group they hope to one day be a part of, but to own
detriment now.
Benefit of all by detriment to most.
Benefit to group they feel sorry for, but detriment to self.
Benefit to self, but detriment to group they dislike.

Face it, no individual is 'too rational' to 'fall for' something, all
the time. People are going to do things I disagree with, for reasons
that I will find irrational. I am sure that applies for all values of
'I' and 'people'.

Post a reply to this message

Private schools shouldn't be banned...
because little girls look cute in school uniforms.

Post a reply to this message

Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I think
you're headed on the wrong track with this.

Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is indeed a
direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of jealousy but
of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.

In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from one high
school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the bad
district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
> something illegal is no indication of its morality.  That is where I think
> you're headed on the wrong track with this.
> 
> Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is indeed a
> direct cause of public schools deteriorating.  It's not a matter of jealousy but
> of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.
> 
> In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from one high
> school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
> Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the bad
> district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.
> 
Sadly, in the US, schools are part of the culture war going on. There 
are people on boards, like the one in Texas, that **admit** to having 
gotten elected so they can destroy the public system. The only 
"standards" are set by the same state boards, who are often unqualified, 
and make choices about what and how things are taught that have 
*nothing* to do with what works. This is in contract to private schools, 
which take on of two tacks - The ones that care at all have the teachers 
work out what needs to be taught, and hire from a pool that is *noted* 
for doing well. The ones that are ideology driven use the old school 
"Rote" learning system, which sidesteps the need to understand the 
ideas, by satisfying the only thing that can be easily tested, "Whether 
or not the can give the right answers, whether they understand why they 
are right or not, even even, sometimes *if* they are right or not (in 
the case of those things that fall into the 'stuff we want them to take 
as truth' category)."

There is a strong rise in the US of institutions like Liberty 
University, and "home schooling", the former of which will let you turn 
in dissertations on biology, which contain nothing but whining about 
god, gods creation, and the vast global conspiracy of Darwinists. The 
later.. You can buy specialized "pro-creationist" texts for, which 
teach, "How to answer the questions the way other schools and the 
government want you to, without corrupting yourself with belief in those 
things." Its the #1 best selling "home schooler" kit in the country, 
last I heard. Which should tell you, right off, who is doing 90% of the 
home schooling in the US. Their reason for it? Most of them buy the kits 
because they are a) not close enough to, b) can't afford, or c) don't 
trust the *type* of private school closest to them (FSM forbid a 
Protestant land in a Catholic school, and actually have to learn 
something, for example), to teach the *truth (tm)*.

Their torpedoing the public schools via *intentional* sabotage, neglect, 
and defunding, even as most of the new "private" schools have been fundi 
in nature recently, and most of the people sinking the public schools 
don't even **have** kids in the program, since they are busy teaching 
them, at home, how Jesus invented toothpaste.

To the original question... I think we need stricter guidelines as to 
what sort of BS happens, and not based on more "multiple choice" tests 
to assess what is being taught, no matter what country is involved. The 
moment you make something private, it creates a gap between what is 
"intended" and what is actually happening, from the perspective of 
anyone believing it should be "universal". But, whether or not they need 
to be banned is **hugely** dependent one which country you are talking 
about, or even, as in the US, which *state* its in. In some places, the 
only difference between the public and private schools are that the 
public ones could *theoretically* be sued for the things being taught in 
them, if you ever got a federal judge to look at it, since the local 
ones don't think there is a single thing wrong, and support what is 
being taught in them. Its that bad, in some places.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, 

I think the whole "unequal opportunities" thing is confusing. It *used* to 
be that kids didn't get equal opportunities. (E.g., in the USA, the black 
kids were prevented from going to the same schools as the white kids by 
law.) Now people have equal opportunities, and the complaint is actually 
that it's unfair that everyone who succeeds has to *work* at it.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> did not noticably affect ordinary people, 

Well, unless you were in a third-world country relying on freon refrigeration.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
> opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned. When all the
> wordy argumentation is distilled down to its very basics, it comes down
> to be, basically, "it's unfair that some children are getting a better
> education solely because their parents happen to be rich; this kind of
> elitist snobbery is completely inappropriate to the modern world we are
> living in".
>
>   This got me thinking: *Why* shouldn't at least some children get a better
> education, if their parents can afford it? What's so wrong with that?
>
>   The complaint would make sense if *all* children could be given a much
> higher level of education if the private vs. public schooling system was
> dismantled and replaced with a public-schooling-only system. However, given
> that children in private schools form a very small minority, and the reason
> why they get a better education is because these private schools have better
> funding (because the rich parents are funding them), banning the private
> schools is not going to increase the funding of public schools in any
> significant way. (In other words, even if the funding/student which now
> goes to private schools was distributed among public schools, the overall
> funding/student in public schools would not increase significantly.)
>
>   So basically what this teacher wants is to deny a better education from
> these children and force them to go to public schools which have lower
> funding for the sole reason that it's more "fair", basically forcing *all*
> children to the same lower level of education, insted of having at least
> *some* of them in better schools.
>
>   Given that a significant majority of children who go to private schools
> end up going to Universities and becoming university-level professionals
> (such as teachers, doctors, surgeons, etc.), deliberately dumbing down
> their basic education just for the sake of "fairness" feels completely
> counter-productive.
>
>   Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
> of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp



I agree with warp.
When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
effort of acquisition then both die.
Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.
I have what I have because I did what it took to have it. Why should my hard
work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? It sounds like socialism is
becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
equal.
In the US in the past we understood the starting point was all the same but what
you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
the myths of socialism.

Post a reply to this message

On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
[snipped warp text]
> 
> 
> I agree with warp.
> When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
> effort of acquisition then both die.

American?

> Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.

Yes I think so

> I have what I have because I did what it took to have it. Why should my hard
> work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? 

Quite confident now

> It sounds like socialism is
> becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
> equal.

Definitely American

> In the US in the past we

Yes \o/ I knew it.

>  understood the starting point was all the same but what
> you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
> the myths of socialism.

Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US 
propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it 
makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
> It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US 
> propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it 
> makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.

  Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
(after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.

  Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
everyone's life in average.

  Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
invention which makes everyone's life easier.

  Socialism, on the other hand, deters innovation and progress. There's
nothing personal to be gained by making new inventions or bettering your
own quality of life. You can't sell your invention to others for money
because the government owns whatever you make. So why bother? There's nothing
to be gained, and everything to be lost: All your hard work will be
"hijacked" by the government and you get nothing.

  What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.

  It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
entrepreneurship.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29-12-2009 21:46, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
>> It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US 
>> propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it 
>> makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman 
>> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
> 
>   Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
> enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
> and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
> equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
> (after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
> mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
> regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
> are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
> point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
> which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
> 
>   Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.
> 
>   Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
> or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
> succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
> the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
> invention which makes everyone's life easier.
> 
>   Socialism, on the other hand, deters innovation and progress. There's
> nothing personal to be gained by making new inventions or bettering your
> own quality of life. You can't sell your invention to others for money
> because the government owns whatever you make. So why bother? There's nothing
> to be gained, and everything to be lost: All your hard work will be
> "hijacked" by the government and you get nothing.
> 
>   What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
> keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
> comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
> so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.
> 
>   It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
> in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
> entrepreneurship.
> 

In general I agree with you, as would almost anybody in the first world. 
A few remarks: you mention "best technological innovations" this (and 
some of your other statements) imply that innovation is or can be good. 
This is an assumption not shared by everybody everywhere*.
Second, socialism (in the standard sense, not the one used by m1j) does 
not work because, as you said, it goes against human nature. OTOH pure 
capitalism does not work either. Although sometimes somebody gets rich 
by doing something beneficial, in most cases the easiest and fastest way 
to get rich is finding a way to make money in a way that somebody else 
pays the bill. Either in money or in reduced lifetime or in a broader 
sense the environment. You need to have rules to weed out the parasites 
without killing the good entrepreneurs. Anybody remembers the money crisis?

Slightly related: we have a discussion here on raising the retirement 
age to 67. For jobs that require physical labour it should stay at 65. 
Which raises the question which jobs are the hardest. A couple of lists 
circulate and most people are convinced that they should be on that 
list. A labour organisation proposed to simply use a monetary cut off. 
Everybody earning less than a certain amount should be able to retire at 
65 because most of those jobs are below that. What does it say about a 
society when there is a negative correlation between working hard and 
income?

* There is that parable of a man sitting under a tree that catches just 
enough to feed himself and family. A man comes by and says: why are you 
lying under that tree. You could be cathing more fish and make money. 
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: so you can buy a bigger boat and catch more fish
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: in a few years you get still a bigger boat and make even more 
money.
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: Then after a couple of years you would be so rich that you 
would not have to work again and sit the the whole day under a tree
man under tree: ...

Post a reply to this message