Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The history of science certainly hasn't been a steady march towards some "truth". It's been full of all sorts of crazy ideas and wacky people doing less than scientific things. For instance, probably not that many people know that Newton wrote more on theology than he did on science.

I think both have their strengths, and both have their weaknesses. Science can't really seek to address philosophical issues, and it also can't address what to do with itself and the uses of science. Religion, or perhaps more broadly, philosophy, takes over there.

Different people may regard one thing to be more important than another, but I don't think one can say that one is necessarily stronger or more important. It's also important to note that whilst a lot of atheists make all sorts of claims about religion being superstition and so on, I wonder how many of them have a really thorough understanding of science and could explain key concepts and/or apply them. In that regard, this whole debate either becomes non-sensical, since people operate largely in ignorance either way, or else this strong belief in science (without fully understanding it) becomes a dogma also. It would be absurd of me to argue for science since I am quite ignorant of a lot of it.

There is also a third way that doesn't fit into traditional religion, yet certainly isn't science either. It's mysticism, gnosticism, or whatever else you want to call it.

At the end of the day, for most people, I don't think this issue is of relevance, and the truth of the matter may require a synthesis of both science and religion/philosophy to have a better understanding of life and the world.

I really wish this thing had some sort of edit function. Damn it. I lost part of what I wrote because I cut the wrong bit and I hate having to post a third time for this.

I was saying that your idea that "However, until children reach the point where they want to learn, they will have to be taught" is strange. I think this implies some sort of dogma.

Something being strange does not imply a dogma, something being repeated without thought implies a dogma and you, in reponse to my views, quoted the views of a school of thought at me. Who is to say they are right?

The Montessori philosophy may indeed be wrong, although it does seem to fly in the face of research.

The point, which I don't think explained well, is not that I think something being strange implies it is dogma. I found the view that children either don't want to learn naturally (and so must be taught), or don't until a certain age (and so must be taught until then) to be odd with relation to human nature and research.

I would be interested to see your definition of the word "taught".

Here's what seems to be common:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=taught

They all imply a transmission from the teacher to the learner, who receives the information. Where this is problematic is that the traditional idea of the word taught (and since you didn't define it, I have to assume you were taking it to mean its common usage) involves that, and rather than a system whereby the individual learns for himself, any system that "teaches" will naturally indoctrinate its members into the same philosophy, whilst narrowly defining the parameters of any critical thinking so as not to challenge that system. That is precisely what we have, and that's precisely what's wrong with the system. Dogma may be a harsh word to use, but then again, so much of what is or was taught either now or in the past is little more than dogma. Critical thought simply isn't on the curriculum.

You believe in a bloated and powerful government for the following reason: you believe in welfare.

Why must you assign beliefs to me? While I could argue the point that welfare isn't necessarily leading to a "bloated" government, I won't - it is irrelevant. I believe in local provision - in local government with only a small centeral government.

Well say so then and stop hedging your bets. When I criticise central government for whatever, you then argue against that. If you're playing devil's advocate, fine, but let it be known.

Regarding teachers, bullshit.

I do find it interesting though, that since you believe capitalism is so bad, and so far reaching in its badness, that you wouldn't also extent it the credit that it would want to extend that right into the very process of indoctrinating teachers and students into buying into the whole capitalistic system in order to promote and maintain it.

If, as you claim, teachers are so unorthodox within a capitalistic society, you'd think people who had unfettered access to the minds of children (the future proletariat no less) for approximately half their waking lives for most of their childhood and adolescence, would be breeding the next revolution.

Unorthodoxy comes in many forms, who is to say that all teachers are communists?

I'm not saying all teachers are communists. I'm merely saying they're hardly challenging the system in any way. There don't seem to be a lot of anarchists or libertarians or Nazis or whomever out there either. The revolution wouldn't necessarily have to be a Marxist one.

Anyhow, teachers are not the only factor at work on the young, what about the influence of the media - of tv - on children. Surely the TV - full of capitalist propaganda and commercialism - has a much more powerful hold over children.

Possibly, I am not sure. I think TV most certainly does have a very, very powerful influence over children, which is why I don't think I'll expose my kids to that. However, whether TV or school is more influential, school is still incredibly influential and there'd have to be some level of inner conflict or confusion.

At 9/2/04 10:45 AM, Slizor wrote:

I don't understand how you attempt to say capitalism is exploitative except in an economic sense, and therefore, that money making is integral to that.

That is all I have said (although an argument could be made about capitalism being linked with sexual exploitation.) Why have you gone off on a rant?

You never explained this at all. I didn't simply go off on a rant.

It is voluntary though. If you deny the concept of free will (necessary for something to be voluntary),

It is not voluntary. For something to be voluntary there must be choices put before someone (a choice between shit jobs is essentially, a non-choice.) In Capitalism, especially free market capitalism, the only choices are be exploited or starve and while they are choices the human desire to live generally means there is effectively no choice involved.

Again, you're taking it as self-evident that all work within capitalism is exploitative. I reject this premise entirely.

Exploitative implies the presence of ethics

Why does exploitation require ethics? I would say that the exploitation we are talking about is an entirely mathmatical affair.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too there. Here are various definitions of exploitation:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exploitation

If you take the first one regarding land useage, and apply it to people, without any moral comments, then aren't you just objectifying people in the very way that you would seem to be against? If you take the second definition, about treating people badly, then this does indeed involve ethics. So, which is it? Those are the two common usages of the word exploitation in the English language.

However, to then extrapolate that into a situation whereby everything that affects me (man-made or natural) is out of my hands is completely fatalistic and pointless. People need to just take responsibility for some of their lives.

I'm not saying that your life is entirely out of your hands, however, you suggest that humans have a lot more control over their lives then they actually do.

No, I'm not. They do have that level of control. It's too easy to make excuses for people when clearly, there are people who, through their own determination and hard work, rise above their "station" in life.

It is also more efficient for something to be done collectively (like a collective pension plan) then for everyone to do it for themselves.

I'm not saying it isn't effective for people to work together in numbers. However, I am saying that should be done with freedom, ie. through private companies, not under a compulsory system. Government pension plans in the west simply can't compare to non-government pension plans. They're grossly inefficient, and the whole system will collapse within one or two generations at the current rate. You picked a really bad example there.

I am for cutting off stupid bitches who can't keep their legs together and take some fucking responsibility.

Don't you think improved sex education would help?

Yes, it would, and I'm certainly in favour of moving away from the heavily censored, Christianised attitudes to sex that we still retain in English speaking countries, but that's not the whole thing. At the end of the day, it doesn't take a genius to realise sex leads to pregnancy. Putting it all back on what someone else isn't doing for the individual is just another cop out.

Deadly Spoon: Whilst I agree with the sentiment of your post, it's not just US companies that profit from the military industry. A lot of other countries do too. I'm not sure if it's the same with the Czech Republic now, but back in the day, manufacturing weapons was Czechoslovakia's major industry I think. Now it's probably porn and stag nights for drunk Brits.

Quanze: So you don't care about the domestic climate of fear and rampant attacks on civil liberties caused/justified by these colour coded alerts?

Deadly Spoon: I'm just a big cynic from way back. Being Australian has little to do with it. Actually, you'd be surprised. There are a lot of Americans who are really disenfranchised with things right now. Some make a song and dance of it. Others dig in for the winter and/or try to slip through the net. Others flee the country. I have met plenty of the last group in the past year.

I don't know about the risk of planting the evidence. I'm sure they could get away with it, even if they had to assassinate a few journalists. Not that the journalists would expose it anyway. They're all a bunch of government whores.

Tal-con: You know what I've never understood? The whole Olympic flag. The rings are supposed to represent the continents, right? There are seven continents though. Even excluding Antarctica, that still leaves six. Who gets left out? Okay, maybe a tenuous argument could be made for grouping North and South America together as one land mass based on a pre-Panama Canal date (was this before or after the Olympics started? Besides, the Olympic flag wasn't used until the 20s I think, which was definitely after the canal was built). However, if that's the case, then Europe, Asia and Africa should be considered one (since they were before the Suez Canal was built), or at least Europe and Asia should be. I don't think it makes sense to leave Australia out either, since it's been there pretty well from the beginning, and has hosted two Games (while the games have never been to South America or Africa). Whatever the case, there are either too many or too few rings. Does this sort of thing worry anyone else, or do I simply have too much time on my hands?

Truth: Regarding taking 50 years to set up a government in Germany, what are you talking about? Otto Von Bismark unified Germany in 1871 for Wilhelm I, taking him just nine years to do so.

Quanze: Whether a pro or anti PM is voted into power in Britain may not truly affect Britain's relationship with the US. Of course, it might, but it might also be the case that Britain can't afford to turn its back on the US without embracing Europe, which it seems equally (and perhaps more) reluctant to do. The third option, that it go it alone, is simply not possible.

Phineus: Russia is in both Europe and Asia. Everything west of the Ural Mountains is in Europe. Some 80% of the population lives in the European part. The issue of whether Russia is European or Asia has never been fully resolved though, especially at a cultural level.

Truth: Again, you're wrong on the issue of terrorism in Russia. The situation with the Chechens goes back about one hundred and fifty years when Russia annexed the whole Caucasus region under the pretext of defending Orthodox Georgians. The Chechens (amongst others) weren't too happy about that and the subsequent "Russification" enforced upon them. It wasn't helped by the fact that significant numbers were also sent to Siberia (where many died) in the 20th century. Whilst the Chechens aren't exactly the good guys, Russia's current terrorist woes are much of its own making.

As for thinking the Europeans are wrong for selling weapons to Saddam, sure, but I think there's a very large dose of hypocrisy there given America's efforts in funding and training terrorist groups all over the world, especially in Latin America, particularly to overthrow democratically elected governments. Actually, come to think of it, didn't the US back Saddam against Iran and sell him a lot of the weapons they're now looking for?

Furthermore, your attitude of simply fighting them to the last man simply won't work without genocide. The British tried that for decades in Northern Ireland.

antiklaus: How about a "War on the Number of Hot Chicks" then? Hehe.

John Kerry: What the fuck? How the fuck did Spain and Russia deserve it? Are you saying people deserve to die in terrorism? Even by your logic that's wrong. An argument might be made for saying that about Spain, but Russia has been running a brutal war in Chechnya for a decade now. It certainly hasn't turned its back on terrorism. Quite the opposite actually.

Angry Hatter: Are you serious? Terrorism has been around for a lot longer than 911. That wasn't the defining moment of terrorism. Some countries in this world have been dealing with it for decades and have a massive casualty count.

I don't think that this War on Terror can be won. It's too nebulous a concept, and even if it were better defined or able to be defined, I still think people are going about it in the wrong way. That having been said, I think the people who are terrorists are usually opportunistic wackos trying to manipulate others. I don't think the US and the west are right on a lot of things, but I hardly think terrorist organisations, whether we're talking Al Qaeda, IRA, ETA, etc. are righteous in any way.

What I find more interesting than "can it be won?" though is the question of whether anyone actually wants it to be won. Okay, that seems like a weird thing to say. However, I really don't think the powers that be want this so-called War on Terror to end, which is perhaps why it's so nebulous to begin with. They'll never catch Osama, or perhaps I should rephrase that and say they'll never come out and say they've caught him. He's more use at large than in captivity. If, for instance, he were caught and shown captive on TV, a lot of people would believe that the War on Terror was somewhat over, and they'd expect a lowering of the hype and a return of civil liberties. Likewise, they'd also wonder why there's so much money and effort being poured into the military and the friends of politicians in such industries. As long as Osama is at large though, and as long as there's someone, anyone (who cares who it is, just give us someone to fear and hate), in some place, any place, that's plotting something, anything, well then, it's business as usual and the contracts and kickbacks roll in.

So no, I don't think this war can be won because it's not meant to be won. How cynical of me, I know. What I actually find incredibly surprising is that weapons of mass destruction and explicit documents linking Osama and Saddam weren't found in Iraq. I was sure they'd be found even if they had to be planted there in the first place! I don't understand why the US and British governments would take so much crap for this when it would have been so much easier for them to do this. The media being the whores that they are would have run with it and no one would have been any the wiser. The public would have bought it wholesale in the main. The whole thing makes no sense to me at all.

These guys aren't really very good at what they do. Hell, I say kick Bush out for no other reason than the fact that he's a pretty piss poor despot. If you're going to get someone, don't be half-arsed about it. Get someone who's really Machiavellian. Make Cheney the president so people can really have someone to bitch about.

Dr_Arbitrary: I'm not tryint to hijack anyone's thread, and it's not like anyone "owns" any thread. If people want to debate something else, they can debate something else and simply choose to ignore whatever side debate I am having. Besides which, even if I had "my own" thread, I wouldn't care what people wanted to discuss. It would be none of my business and it would be their freedom of speech.

Jlop985: Well, of course it can. Nothing is certain in life, and I'm not claiming that there would necessarily be any situation were people were perfectly safe. However, in the US, that's one part of where the 2nd Ammendment comes in. Also, under a rational and ethical society, the majority of people would make it socially undesirable to go around preying on each other. Aside from perhaps retaliating against anyone who caused trouble, people would cut that person off economically pretty quickly. Force might not even be necessary.

I reject your claim that we need government to protect us, and that it must steal from us (tax us) to do so. Freedom is inherent to man, as is the right to protect himself. He doesn't need anyone else to take care of either of those things. This is where I think so many people have it wrong-- they expect the nanny state to hold their hand with so many things. There comes a point where the cure is worse than the disease.

Slizor: What other form of exploitation is there then? Okay, maybe sexual, spiritual, etc. However, since we're talking about economic systems, we're talking about economic exploitation, and therefore, that we're trying to deal with a situation in terms of its economic consequences. Maybe I've got you wrong, but I thought you put everything down to the nefarious influence of capitalism.

How is capitalism exploitative if not economically? It doesn't make any mention of other factors than economics as such. If you want other factors, look at a different social science and theory.

I don't understand how you attempt to say capitalism is exploitative except in an economic sense, and therefore, that money making is integral to that.

If something is mutually beneficial, how can it be exploitative? Okay, I know where you're going with that, but I don't agree. It is voluntary though. If you deny the concept of free will (necessary for something to be voluntary), then the whole idea of something being "exploitative" is non-sensical. Exploitative implies the presence of ethics, but ethics cannot exist without free will. The only situation in which someone can be exploited then is if that person is forced against his or her free will. There we are talking about slavery, and that's a completely different system to capitalism.

Sure, we don't have control over a massive system. A meteor could fall from the sky, or I could get eaten by a pack of dogs, or I could catch some weird disease. I have no control over a whole lot of things. However, to then extrapolate that into a situation whereby everything that affects me (man-made or natural) is out of my hands is completely fatalistic and pointless. People need to just take responsibility for some of their lives.

Indeed, I won't disagree with you that the working class, including the middle class (hence why I call it the productive class) is the one getting poorer. The middle class pays the most taxes. They get screwed from both ends by people getting government handouts and welfare without working. I'm as much for cutting off the farm subsidies giant corporations get as I am for cutting off stupid bitches who can't keep their legs together and take some fucking responsibility.

You believe in a bloated and powerful government for the following reason: you believe in welfare. For welfare to exist, the government must be able to fuck with the average, productive citizen regularly enough and nefariously enough from a young age that not only is the citizen unable to do anything about it, but he actually thinks it's justified and necessary. As to why it's bloated, any such system needs a bureaucracy that serves no practical function for its citizens other than to leech off them. Such bureaucracies always tend towards getting bigger and less accountable since they have to protect their own interests and expand upon them.

Regarding teachers, bullshit. The majority are brain dead stooges of the state. In that regard, they actually don't think about much other than following orders. Perhaps the only way in which they are unorthodox is that they believe in extending the power and influence of the status quo.

No, I would, on average, recognise a qualified teacher to be worse simply because such a person has invariably been indoctrinated into towing the party line on education. It's almost a requirement in getting through an education course that all critical faculties be either suspended or completely destroyed. I do find it interesting though, that since you believe capitalism is so bad, and so far reaching in its badness, that you wouldn't also extent it the credit that it would want to extend that right into the very process of indoctrinating teachers and students into buying into the whole capitalistic system in order to promote and maintain it. If, as you claim, teachers are so unorthodox within a capitalistic society, you'd think people who had unfettered access to the minds of children (the future proletariat no less) for approximately half their waking lives for most of their childhood and adolescence, would be breeding the next revolution. Yet within your contradictory set of beliefs, you also claim that people are being exploited more and becoming poorer and poorer. This simply doesn't make sense given the power teachers have within our society.

Hmm...the whole contentious thing you wrote doesn't make any sense. It's a tautology.

I was saying that your idea that "However, until children reach the point where they want to learn, they will have to be taught" is strange. I think this implies some sort of dogma. Furthermore, I'm not really sure where it leads if in fact such children should be "taught" within the system, given that the system is capitalistic and would seek to produce more capitalists. I'm not sure how that helps your situation.

There are a few things to note here, which have already been mentioned, but I'll restate them anyway.

Firstly, disarming the average person only makes it easier for the criminals.

Secondly, yes, guns can be abused. So can a lot of things. Why punish responsible owners though who have not committed a crime? All the Americans I know who own lots of guns seem like pretty reasonable people. They're intelligent, articulate, and think a lot about philosophical and political issues. They're hardly reckless. They know what a gun can do and they take that seriously.

Thirdly, high levels of gun ownership in some places (like Vermont) seem to actually coincide with low rates of armed crime/violent crime. I wonder if it is really a coincidence though. An armed society is a polite society as they say. In fact, some people argue that had people been packing heat on 911, it would never have happened. The terrorists were only able to do what they did because people were disarmed.

Some places outside the US, such as Switzerland, also have very high rates of gun ownership, yet low rates of violent crime or murder. That's because the people who own the guns are responsible people, and so is everyone else (who also owns guns).

Fourthly, people have the right to defend themselves and their property. This is a right natural to man.

However, what really interests me about this topic (and related to my fourth point, but in a wider context) is the fact that only one person actually commented on the real reason guns are such a big deal in the US, with only one person replying to him.

Historically, the Founding Fathers of the US made the right to bear arms an important one for one simple reason: the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution protects the other nine Ammendments in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Without the ability to defend oneself and to organise into a paramilitary force, ie. a militia, freedom is as good as gone. Basically, a militia keeps the government honest.

Why is it so important for the government to have access to weapons that the citizens (who supposedly are the government) could only dream of, and why is the government keen to disarm the populace, as well as keep tabs on various segments of it?

Maybe nothing will ever come of it, but maybe something will. The Founding Fathers lived through such times and were trying to prevent a repeat of that.

Slizor: I don't want to enact my beliefs through the electoral process since I believe that to be immoral. All I want, at the end of the day, is for people to leave me alone. I don't want to make them believe what I want to believe. I don't want my ideas (and their practical consequences) forced upon them. If they come around to my way of thinking, well good for them. If they don't, well also good for them. They have their own lives to lead and they have to come to any positions they ultimately take of their own free will, not just because I believe I should "force" them (because that's what voting is, it's force, it just appears more civilised) to become "free". What a contradiction that would be.

The UN does indeed play funny games with the US. I don't know why the US puts up with it. Maybe it still wants to keep its finger in the pie. Maybe it gets something out of it. Maybe it doesn't want to piss everyone else off immensely by pulling out. I think it should though, for its own good.

The UN will never go into Zimbabwe. From my understanding of it, Mugabe has been quite good at playing the "any intervention is neo-colonialism" card with other African nations to get them onside, or at least more offside with the west, on this issue. It's such a lovely continent though, isn't it?

France has always been good at courting dictators. Didn't they even take in your lot when Cromwell was having a go? That having been said though, other western nations (including the US) have been good at propping up various other dictators around the world, so I think it's just more of the same, although they usually just do it within the country at hand in some attempt to keep it from their public eye. Still, all those armaments must have come from someone.

I'm not at anyone's throat. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion. Slizor and I used to throw mud at each other a long time ago, but I'm trying to avoid that now.

Your idea that capitalism is inherently based upon exploitation is as flawed as the notion you're supposedly against. It presupposes that every interaction between two humans is done with the sole, or at least main, purpose of making money. It also presupposes that this is not voluntary or mutually beneficial to both parties. It's analagous to the "heterosexual sex is rape" argument and actually belittles both parties in the scenario.

Again, I re-iterate: I'm not saying people lose all power over their lives when they are taxed, merely some power, somewhat proportional to the taxation. Actually, welfare is not empowering. It creates a cycle of dependency that is anything but empowering.

I know where you're going with your question about people having more economic choices and being more empowered. I should have been more precise. People who create their own economic choices are empowered. Those who choose not to, yet expect a handout are gaining power in one sense, but sacrificing it in another.

I'm not disagreeing with you that some people are getting poorer. However, it is the productive classes (especially what would traditionally be considered the middle class), the people who actually work for it and pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. Of course, it's also because they buy into consumerism (if you'll pardon the pun) in a big way, which is a big problem. Just because I'm a capitalist does not mean I'm materialistic. I think it's possible to get by without all the latest consumer goods, and they're not even my objectives in life. There's also the issue of government (which goes hand in hand with big business, and I think you mistake me for being pro-big business here) becoming more bloated and powerful, which you failed to address.

Having done a teaching course myself, and worked within that system, I am quite sceptical of the quality of educational courses and the people within them, including myself at times. I am not saying there aren't things to be learnt, but merely that they are not the be all and end all. There are many paths to becoming a good teacher (and perhaps some of it is to do with things you're born with, I don't know), and the official one is not always successful. For one, it breeds a certain orthodoxy and acceptance of the status quo.

Still, you didn't answer my question, are you implying that because someone is not a qualified teacher that he or she cannot teach?

Your idea that children have to be taught until they reach an age where they want to learn is contentious. In the Montessori philosophy, for instance, it is believed that children naturally want to learn and all that is required is a decreasing level of guidance to help them reach their potential. The Montessori system is opposed to the idea of "teaching" in the traditional sense of receiving information. Even the youngest children are encouraged to actively explore their own world and take charge of their own learning.

The resources of which I am talking are not hard to obtain or find within western nations like the USA, UK and Australia. There are networks available, and these days, with the internet, it's easier than ever before.

Slizor: What I am talking about is far removed from the current system we actually have, which isn't capitalistic anyway. I'm not in favour of the idea of humans as drones any more than you are I think. We're coming from vastly different angles on this I am sure, but I believe it's a waste of man's higher potential. Work should be skilled and enjoyable. I think a large part of what is wrong with our current society is that people don't lead meaningful lives. They're dislocated from themselves, families and communities. They also don't participate in any of the great forms of human expression of existence such as art, music, story telling, etc. like they used to.

So, to get to my point, what I am saying is that any work that is done well should, and will, be valued to some extent (how Marxist of me, I know), yet there's also more to a human than work. The problem I have with both the so-called capitalists and a lot of Marxists is they both reach the same conclusion from equally absurd, yet different, directions-- that man's only value is as a worker/employee. As humans, we actually do all have the capacity for lots of different things, it's up to us how we choose to market ourselves and define ourselves.

To some degree, the market is not fair. That's life and nature too though. Sometimes, the secret is in making what you can with what you've got.

Finally, I'm not going to be goaded into some mud slinging match with you. You start off well, but it seems your real intent in this discussion is to derail it and me. I don't know whether that's because you lack the ability to just debate me, or whether it's based upon you trying to project a certain vision of who I am or should be (perhaps based upon someone I may or may not have once been) based upon your own inadequacies with yourself.

Well, I don't know what the libertarians on wikipedia did or didn't write. I can't vouch for them. Nor can I vouch for that objectivist you mention. I can vouch for myself though, and the fact that you seem to have this real thing of playing the man and not the ball. I know that in the past I could be really dogmatic and I also had some really stupid beliefs, which I have tried to overcome over the past few years. If you want to bear a grudge with me for that, fine. That's understandable. Personally, I'd rather discuss the topic at hand.

I'm against politics in the sense of the process, not the discussion. Just because I want to discuss certain ideas does not mean I want to actually be involved in enacting those or other ideas within the present system. Your appraisal of me in this regard is like saying that because I don't want to be a film director I can't discuss movies.

Okay, so I'm against freedom because I'm for private property. Great. Expand upon that if you choose and I'll get into that with you if you like.

Thanks for that.

Slizor: I think what you will find about supply and demand is two things. Firstly, people can influence supply and demand. Governments do this all the time. If someone is good at what he does, he can influence the demand for it. If he's bad, there won't be much demand. People who are good at what they do will do well. Those who are not will not. It will always be in a state of flux, but there should be a rough equilibrium. Secondly, as you suggested, the thing to do might be to aim towards an area with high demand and low supply. Of course, others will probably also do so, which brings it back to the first point- those who do what they do well will do well from it, those who are bad at it will do badly from it.

Whilst I don't mind discussing this particular point with you, I do think it's interesting that what you added to this thread actually had no direct bearing on the topic at hand. Maybe that's because you're bad this line of work? ;P

Illustrious: Perhaps I shouldn't be bothered by such people, nor have to preface anything I write, but it seems there are a lot of people here who will jump all over you and label you an uneducated idiot as soon as you even look like you're about to depart from the status quo and bring anything different to the discussion. I thought I'd defend myself there than have the rest of this thread constantly de-railed by such circus acts.

There are problems with any system. The problem I struggle with is the idea that there are some people out there who would run amok without external controls, yet I am also opposed to the idea of anyone telling me how to run my life, since I'm relatively rational and ethical. I don't know how to resolve it, nor do I think it's an easy matter.

I don't think the US system of government is the best system. It is open to all sorts of abuses, particularly behind the scenes. It's incredibly vulnerable to money, and in many ways, it's almost aristocratic or oligarchical.

I have no problems with someone else delegating reponsibilities to others. They could do that to some private organisation(s) aside from government. What I have a problem with is that our system is not voluntary. You're not really given the option of not doing as the government says. If you want to take personal responsibility, you still can't.

The reason I don't cast an empty ballot (I used to when I was younger) is because that still gives the system an endorsement. An empty ballot truly would be a waste of time and a wasted vote, if that makes any sense. I get around it by simply not being on the electoral role. That will probably change in the future though, so I will end up getting a fine, unfortunately.

Slizor: Since taxation is involuntary, it is theft. Theft is not empowering. People shouldn't be made to feel grateful that they get whatever is inefficiently handed back to them. Cut out the ravenous middle man.

I wasn't saying people were completely disempowered. I was saying that they lost the amount of power that was taken from them. What I was saying was that more choice is more power.

Why can't people afford to teach their kids? Why is it that two or three generations ago, one family income was sufficient, often with more children? Why is it that back then, kids weren't put into daycare at three months old? That's partly to do with people deciding to work more, and that's often to do with greed for more consumer goods. However, it's also because government has become steadily more bloated, requiring a greater slice of what people have, requiring them to make more money to begin with. I'm not just talking about income tax, but all the hidden or not-so-hidden extras such as sales tax and various registrations and licences, etc.

Are you implying that because someone is not a qualified teacher that he or she cannot teach? Are you saying that a piece of paper suddenly makes the difference? Are you implying that everyone who does have a piece of paper to teach is a good teacher? It's got nothing to do with competency and everything to do with control. If you really want to get into it, look at how homeschooled kids do compared to those in the system though.

Furthermore, your notion of homeschooling is a little inaccurate. For instance, just because I may not be able to teach X or Y, but can teach A or B, it does not mean that I can't be part of a network whereby someone who can teach X or Y teaches my kids that, while I teach his or her kids A or B. Or it could even be that I don't teach my own children much at all, but provide some other service for them or other children or adults. There's also the possibility of the children (and this is going to come as a shock to anyone raised on the teat of government education!) might be both willing and able to control and direct their own learning after a certain point. Come on, think outside the box here. I'm not talking about living in isolation. I'm talking about utilising different alternative resources within an alternative educational community.

Finally, the required materials are not that expensive anyway. Firstly, if you had that money back from the educational bureaucrats, you'd be able to afford it easily and then some due to you being able to spend your money more efficiently on your own kids to meet their needs. Secondly, you just simply don't need a lot of expensive equipment. What's important is what is taught and how, not the budget behind it. This is as true of alternative schooling and conventional teaching. Throwing money at the problem won't necessarily fix it. Look into homeschooling though and you'll find that it's quite affordable on modest incomes.

Shorbian propoganda? Perhaps. However, it's interesting to note that within my own family, there are four completely different political and religious sets of beliefs. My father, despite having very strong religious and political beliefs himself, always pushed open dialogue and critical thinking over dogma. That's the approach I would take too. It's an approach that I don't think occurs within the traditional education system anyway. That is so heavily laden with dogma it is ridiculous, which, to get this back on track, seems to be the very reason for this topic.

Slizor: Ah. My response was a little ambiguous. I did not mean to imply that preferential voting had to be compulsory. I meant that it was in the Australian case.

That's right. I don't want an electoral system. I'm (quasi-)libertarian.

Nice to know you love me Slizor.

I was replying to the post before my last one.

Yeah, oh brother. Fancy that, someone who actually affords politicians the degree of respect and importance they deserve: none.

Spanish: It's also supposedly the responsibility of the government to hold up the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Actually, funny that, given the Tenth Ammendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The government shouldn't even be involved in the business of education in the first place. I could go into a whole lot of the other Ammendments also, but that would be a major digression, so I won't.

Okay, so now let's get in the real world you say. I agree. Given that the government shouldn't be doing a whole lot of things it is doing, what makes you think it's going to play fair when it does those things it shouldn't be doing? What, it's going to tell people the truth so they can lose their faith in it? Not likely! Why would it use your tax dollars that it took from you in the first place to actually empower you? Surely, if they wanted to do that, they wouldn't take that money from you in the first place. They'd actually just empower you by letting you decide how to spend your own money to begin with.

See, here's why I have a problem with your whole line of thought. On the one hand, you want to surrender power to someone else virtually unconditionally, yet then you complain when they abuse that power and feed you a line. Of course they will; that's their job!

Instead of relying on the nanny state or Big Mother/Big Brother to run your life for you and provide you with all the information you need, why not get it yourself? Of course, to some degree, you'll have to suffer these morons, but then, short of starting the next revolution, that's something you'll just have to accept and try to live your life around.

Why aren't you asking the bigger questions such as "why do I need the government to teach me history?" to begin with?

I'm in a different situation since I'm neither American, nor do I live there, but I'm still asking those questions and that's why I'm planning on homeschooling my own kids. At least that way I will know what's going into my kids' heads.

There is also the Libertarian option, with their candidate Michael Badnarik. http://www.lp.org/

They do/did just as well as Nader and co. yet no one knows a lot about them apparently.

While I'm talking about them, let me say how the whole "Nader takes votes from Kerry" argument is flawed.

Firstly, if Kerry were so good, he wouldn't be losing those votes. That's Kerry's fault, not Nader's.

Secondly, given that the Libertarians do about as well as Nader, and that most Libertarians would probably vote Republican if they didn't vote Libertarian (if they voted at all, and maybe some of Nader's followers wouldn't vote at all either they're so disgusted with the big two parties), wouldn't that mean they're taking votes from Bush? So, in other words, if both the major parties are having votes taken away from them in roughly equal numbers, doesn't the whole thing cancel itself out anyway?

The Democrats need to stop whining. Perhaps they should look at having policies people like and actually go for winning the election, rather than a philosophy of "not losing the election".

That having been said, I don't endorse any parties or candidates, or even the decision to vote, so frankly, I don't care. I just find it interesting to watch.

Okay, I'll take up the challenge and tell you why I don't vote, even though it's compulsory in this country (Australia). By the way, how's that for fascist-- they make you vote and fine you if you don't (and jail you if you don't pay the fine).

For the record, before you all start getting into me about how much more intellectual you are, I did an honours degree in philosophy and I've travelled a lot (five continents and counting) and lived in five countries (Australia, USA, England, Hungary and Slovakia). I was raised in a very political family too and I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and discussing/arguing it with various people. This has nothing to do with either apathy or stupidity.

Anyhow, onto my reasons for not voting.

I don't believe in voting, not only in my own particular case, but for everyone. Voting implies that someone else has the right to tell me how to live my life by virtue of the fact that he has more people on his side than me (or, that I have the right to tell him how to live his life because I have more allies). That's all it comes down to. It's tyranny of the masses. It's three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. It's the person who has the bigger club, in both sentences of the word if you like.

At no point will what is moral or sensible necessarily win out (and indeed, one might ask how can there be a moral outcome from an immoral process, but that's a whole different topic).

Besides, there's a major contradiction in the whole idea of voting. If people are indeed incapable of running their own lives, then why the hell would they be any better at making decisions on a national scale? That logic says that two bad decisions made by themselves are bad, but made in tandem, they're good, and that a small mistake magnified is no longer a mistake. That's absurd. In that sense, either have libertarianism or have fascism, but democracy is an absurd attempt at a compromise.

Doesn't it bother people that they've internalised a lie fed to them that they are so incapable and untrustworthy to run their own lives that someone else must tell them how to do it?

Of course, what happens if you don't vote? Well, crazy things may happen. However, I still can't make myself choose the lesser of two evils because that is still an evil, and I won't choose an evil. I am not a pragmatic person.

Yes, it's ridiculously idealistic. Yes, the world will go on regardless. Yes, I will be affected by that. However, I want no part in what I consider a grossly immoral concept. Rather than try to enforce my will on others, I try to influence them in ways like this that involve voluntary interaction and exchange, or to interact at a small, local level, all the while trying to avoid the influence of the political circus, because that's what it is.

Finally, I would say that society functions as well as it does despite politicians, not because of them and all their best attempts to interfere in our lives. Ultimately, I believe most people are relatively rational, intelligent and moral, and they want to make things work. Yes, they do make mistakes and they're not perfect, but with the absence of free will anyway, a decision ceases to have moral weight anyway, and we lose something human. The most civilised societies are those where people are able to embrace these ideas of rationality, intelligence and morality at the level of personal responsibility without someone else telling them how to run their lives. I think if people minded their own business a bit more and worked on getting their own acts together there'd be a lot less strife on this planet.

That's why I don't vote.

Yeah, every nation writes its own history to make itself look good. Yes, history books may be biased (but how can history be unbiased anyway? It's always going to be written with a slant), but DUH! Why would the government use books that made students hate or mistrust it? Come on. At the end of the day, don't blame the government. I'm not arguing in favour of the government here. I'm quite opposed to the very notion. What I am saying is take some personal responsibility and go out there and investigate for yourself. Don't just accept everything you're told and then complain when you've been lied to.

The system you are talking about is called preferential voting and is used in the House of Representatives in Australia, and also in two other countries in the Pacific (I think they are Fiji and Vanuatu, but I could be wrong). It's an absurd system, made even more absurd by the fact that voting is compulsory. Basically, if you hate the two major candidates, but your candidate will not win, you're effectively forced to vote for someone you hate. Crazy.

Anyhow, my answer to the question? In a sense, I really don't care who wins an election. I don't believe in democracy and I don't believe in politicians (so I would say no one should win). However, they will exist regardless of what I think, so it's immaterial. I try to live my life despite them and by getting around them as much as possible.

Well, the UN is so corrupt and turns a blind eye to all sorts of things. Also, as a bureaucracy, it's self-serving largely. Personally, I'm not in favour of any form of government, let alone a world one. I don't think the UN should have any right to tell a nation what to do, be it some tin pot dictatorship or the US It's the same difference, I know. (Now watch the feathers fly over that comment! Hehe.)

Then there's Switzerland where all adult males MUST have guns (as part of their citizen militia to defend the country). I don't think you could get a more ordered place (perhaps too freakishly ordered one might suggest).

Zero: An armed society is a polite society as they say.

From what I understand, states such as Vermont where more people pack heat than most places (and where they have very lax gun laws), have very low rates of gun violence and gun related crime.

I think every nation acts out of self-interest generally speaking. Some are just better at making it look like they're being altruistic.

Also, regarding the whole "but the French and Russians threatened to veto" argument, I'd be interested to see how many times each of the five permanent nations on the Security Council has used the veto, especially entirely by itself, and especially when doing so has been grossly unpopular. I have no idea who it would be, but it would be interesting to see.

Also, it's my understanding that the US has vetoed pretty well anything regarding Israel. If that is true (I don't know if it is), what is the position of people on that who bitch and moan about France using the veto?