1. So is every other job.

2. It's an acquired skill like anything else. Also, let's not equate private tutoring with teaching a class, they are different things entirely and while some teachers certainly fill that role it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that most students will either demand this kind of attention or that most teachers will provide it (outside of what their job entails). I should probably disclose that my mother is a teacher too.

3. I'm not sure what you mean here. What I'm saying is people who don't want stress in their job and potentially don't want to put in a great deal of effort work in more secure positions, typically government related. I am not saying that all government employees are lazy and unmotivated, I'm simply saying that the obvious and apparent perks they provide attract certain kinds of people disproportionately.

4. This is why I would argue there needs to be a way to evaluate performance and reward teachers that do well. Rewarding them will allow the wages of teachers who are good at what they do rise and encourage more talented individuals who want to teach into a field they would otherwise not consider. As I said in my previous comment as far as I'm concerned the primary skills that schools should be teaching are reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. These are also easily able to be evaluated with standardised tests. The same standardised tests that determine university enrollment. As far as I'm concerned I see no reason a test like this cannot evaluate a teacher's capability in improving year upon year results of students. Yes, it cannot be a primary measurement and it is certainly not perfect, but if your intention to increase the standards of teaching and you accept the impractically/implausibility of vastly increasing the teaching budget, you have to accept that improvements have to come from improved efficiency and effectiveness. You can't begin to address that unless you have some way of measuring it.

5. No skilled or academically minded industry is a factory. Yet everything from engineering to consulting to scientific research companies thrive in a competitive economy. Am I suggesting privatising and cutting funding? Not at all. I think poor neighborhoods need to be subsidised to encourage good teachers to teach there. I have no particular issue with public schools although I see no reason charter schools should not receive eligible to such government assistance and what currently exists where the funding is there to serve the common good of creating an educated and knowledgeable society. My problem is entrenched union interest groups who by virtue of the campaign contributions they endow to their elected representatives, block any capacity to reward good teachers and who in effect keep teacher wages depressed and a whole bunch of talented individuals who would have otherwise genuinely considered teaching out of schools.

My point is not that I don't think art/music/drama are valuable aspects of schooling. Rather that schools in poor neighbourhoods are failing to endow students with the basic skills they need to enter a skilled job or for that matter to enter university. I think when people make arguments like this (which if I recall one of the people in this video did), they fly in stark contrast to reality that many simply do not even grasp the basics of education.

Schooling at it's base is not rooted in wishy washy concepts of creativity, expressing individuality or character, they are part of growing up but not the function of school at its core. Math and reading skills are ultimately rooted in effective teacher instruction followed by repetition. No amount of related activities will dress up the fact that if you want to function in modern society you need to go through these trials and tribulations. Until all schools can do that, the last thing I want to listen to is some guy at a rally preaching about abstract skills.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^RedSky:
Pretty much all their answers are half truths or platitudes. They're impassioned rather than particularly fact backed.
1 - It is hard to get a teacher fired in a private school in the US, the job security is markedly better than in other private jobs.
2 - Not all teachers go into teaching because they are necessarily passionate about it. The work hours are only long if you put in the hours to prepare for classes. The mandated aren't very long, yes you have to cover supervise sports, participate in events which all adds up but they're still undoubtedly shorter than the 8-6 + every other weekends I'm doing now.
3 - A portion of all professions are bad at what they do, and yes it is more likely that with increased job security that there are more lingering in teaching than other professions.
4 - Teaching is not free and the amount of taxpayer money it is apportioned at least partially depends on the reputation it has for delivering results. Particularly given the mood in most rich economies right now of debt reduction that's a terrible attitude if you want to improve the results of students with limited money.
As far as I'm concerned, schools should be focused primarily on teaching the skills that will enable them to achieve in a workplace. Yes arts/music are great, but only if the school is already achieving good standards on the core learning that is required in most jobs like reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. Having these core skills will ultimately allow them, coming from either a rich or poor background to make a living comfortably and ultimately spend money on developing any number of those skills later in life.

1. I'm not Usasian, I don't know. What I do know is that teaching is immensely stressful. Having to worry about your position would only add to that.
2. Imagine having the responssibility of teaching 30 different, growing individuals per class times the amount of classes you have, correct and test 30 times x people on sth different every week/month. This is no job in which you have to do routine. Routine is easy.
3. Why would they want to work an insecure underpaid job? Isn't it more likely that the benefits outweigh the lingerers?
4. True. American education needs an overhaul. Which will cost money, which is why it doesn't happen.
5. Schools are not factories which educate to produce workforce robots. They impart the whole cultural knowledge of a society. Art helps your brain to think abstractly and understand what you are reading. Music gives you a sense of aesthetics. Would you play computergames which are badly written, have horrible graphics and have no music? No? Well, then you need a culture which teaches these things.
Why do I even have to tell this to someone? Have you painted your profile picture yourself?

>> ^RedSky:

Pretty much all their answers are half truths or platitudes. They're impassioned rather than particularly fact backed.
1 - It is hard to get a teacher fired in a private school in the US, the job security is markedly better than in other private jobs.
2 - Not all teachers go into teaching because they are necessarily passionate about it. The work hours are only long if you put in the hours to prepare for classes. The mandated aren't very long, yes you have to cover supervise sports, participate in events which all adds up but they're still undoubtedly shorter than the 8-6 + every other weekends I'm doing now.
3 - A portion of all professions are bad at what they do, and yes it is more likely that with increased job security that there are more lingering in teaching than other professions.
4 - Teaching is not free and the amount of taxpayer money it is apportioned at least partially depends on the reputation it has for delivering results. Particularly given the mood in most rich economies right now of debt reduction that's a terrible attitude if you want to improve the results of students with limited money.
As far as I'm concerned, schools should be focused primarily on teaching the skills that will enable them to achieve in a workplace. Yes arts/music are great, but only if the school is already achieving good standards on the core learning that is required in most jobs like reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. Having these core skills will ultimately allow them, coming from either a rich or poor background to make a living comfortably and ultimately spend money on developing any number of those skills later in life.


1. I'm not Usasian, I don't know. What I do know is that teaching is immensely stressful. Having to worry about your position would only add to that.

2. Imagine having the responssibility of teaching 30 different, growing individuals per class times the amount of classes you have, correct and test 30 times x people on sth different every week/month. This is no job in which you have to do routine. Routine is easy.

3. Why would they want to work an insecure underpaid job? Isn't it more likely that the benefits outweigh the lingerers?

4. True. American education needs an overhaul. Which will cost money, which is why it doesn't happen.

5. Schools are not factories which educate to produce workforce robots. They impart the whole cultural knowledge of a society. Art helps your brain to think abstractly and understand what you are reading. Music gives you a sense of aesthetics. Would you play computergames which are badly written, have horrible graphics and have no music? No? Well, then you need a culture which teaches these things.

Why do I even have to tell this to someone? Have you painted your profile picture yourself?

Pretty much all their answers are half truths or platitudes. They're impassioned rather than particularly fact backed.

1 - It is hard to get a teacher fired in a private school in the US, the job security is markedly better than in other private jobs.

2 - Not all teachers go into teaching because they are necessarily passionate about it. The work hours are only long if you put in the hours to prepare for classes. The mandated aren't very long, yes you have to cover supervise sports, participate in events which all adds up but they're still undoubtedly shorter than the 8-6 + every other weekends I'm doing now.

3 - A portion of all professions are bad at what they do, and yes it is more likely that with increased job security that there are more lingering in teaching than other professions.

4 - Teaching is not free and the amount of taxpayer money it is apportioned at least partially depends on the reputation it has for delivering results. Particularly given the mood in most rich economies right now of debt reduction that's a terrible attitude if you want to improve the results of students with limited money.

As far as I'm concerned, schools should be focused primarily on teaching the skills that will enable them to achieve in a workplace. Yes arts/music are great, but only if the school is already achieving good standards on the core learning that is required in most jobs like reading, comprehension and rudimentary maths. Having these core skills will ultimately allow them, coming from either a rich or poor background to make a living comfortably and ultimately spend money on developing any number of those skills later in life.

The base score. Pedestrians are 10 points.

Bicycles +25 points. In spandex +30 points. Hipster on a bicycles +100 points and several free rounds of drinks at the local bar

Babies: triple score

Crippled babies: quadruple score

Toddlers: double score

Chavs(England)/Wiggers(U.S.A): +5 points, additional +3 for each piece of sterotypical clothing.

Old People: double score (Zimmer frame +10, Wheelchair +8, Flat cap and/or pipe +12, Generally funny-looking +10)

Clowns: +8 points, additional +3 for unicycle.

Mimes: +26 points

Hikers: double score

People who don't look before they cross: +5 points

People who can't tell the difference between a road and a footpath: +7 points

Roadworkers: +5 points for each man 'supervising', +20 points for the one man actually working.

Walking a pet: +1 point

French-speaking: +5 points

Non-natively French-speaking: additional +10 points

Looks like Charlie sheen: +5 points

Is Charlie sheen: +60 points and a pat on the back and maybe a book deal.

Wearing bright/clashing colours: +5 points

Carrying shopping bags: +N points, where N is the number of meters the bags travelled.

The base score. Pedestrians are 10 points.

Bicycles +25 points. In spandex +30 points. Hipster on a bicycles +100 points and several free rounds of drinks at the local bar.

Babies: triple score

Crippled babies: quadruple score

Toddlers: double score

Chavs(England)/Wiggers(U.S.A): +5 points, additional +3 for each piece of sterotypical clothing.

Old People: double score (Zimmer frame +10, Wheelchair +8, Flat cap and/or pipe +12, Generally funny-looking +10)

Clowns: +8 points, additional +3 for unicycle.

Mimes: +26 points

Hikers: double score

People who don't look before they cross: +5 points

People who can't tell the difference between a road and a footpath: +7 points

Roadworkers: +5 points for each man 'supervising', +20 points for the one man actually working.

Walking a pet: +1 point

French-speaking: +5 points

Non-natively French-speaking: additional +10 points

Looks like Scott Bakula: +5 points

Is Scott Bakula: +60 points and a pat on the back

Wearing bright/clashing colours: +5 points

Carrying shopping bags: +N points, where N is the number of meters the bags travelled.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Hmmm I downvoted... kids see this & kids are dumb = Dead kids
The glorification of violence by smiling kids 'killing' each other... There are kids right now in armies, killing each other. And they are not happily smiling, unless they're drugged out of their mind to keep theam attached to their army by addiction.
Edit: The kids smile, there are no consequences seen for their actions, to me, this is glorification. And yes, it's not aimed at children, but they'll see it. And they know where their dad has his hunting rifle.

I respect your downvote... I'm cool with that. But I think you're highly exaggerating how "dangerous" this video is. Unless they are very young children (i.e. under the age of 6) they know the difference between make-believe and reality. If kids were truly that impressionable (i.e. gullible) there should be a slew of kids murdering each other in the streets after watching violent movies or playing violent video games. Yet, the FBI reports that violent crime stats have gone down this year--yet again. It's been on the decline for years now, even as violent games, movies, and TV shows--and childrens' access to them--have been on the rise.
As to dad having a hunting rifle... anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house).


I agree, I should have set the focus more from the video to the society which sees no problem with the video. By no means I want to say that this video leads to streets littered with dead kids, but:
In my opinion, it contributes to the view of a society in which guns are presented as toys. It's not a great leap from toy to the real thing.

Children learn late in their development about death as an ever-present 'danger' to themselves and others, about 8-10 years of age. But the concept of action and consequence grows only with education.
If education is lacking, the lack of this concept can last up into the middle teens. This can lead to kids playing with guns, pointing at their friends or parents and sometimes pulling the trigger. Young Kids not properly educated don't see the seriousness in the relation of gun -> trigger -> bullet -> wound -> death ; until it has happened or they grow up. (I tried to find a good source, but atm i have only my german pedagogy lessons about child development; so you may disregard what i said about the action/consequence thing by the rules of good debate.)

"anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house)."

Yes, but what about the kids whose parents do not own firearms? Are the kids of firearm-owners tested on their knowledge about guns? Are the firearm-owners tested on the fact that they have taught their children? Has every owner of a gun also received a mandated education on the subject?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Hmmm I downvoted... kids see this & kids are dumb = Dead kids
The glorification of violence by smiling kids 'killing' each other... There are kids right now in armies, killing each other. And they are not happily smiling, unless they're drugged out of their mind to keep theam attached to their army by addiction.
Edit: The kids smile, there are no consequences seen for their actions, to me, this is glorification. And yes, it's not aimed at children, but they'll see it. And they know where their dad has his hunting rifle.


I respect your downvote... I'm cool with that. But I think you're highly exaggerating how "dangerous" this video is. Unless they are very young children (i.e. under the age of 6) they know the difference between make-believe and reality. If kids were truly that impressionable (i.e. gullible) there should be a slew of kids murdering each other in the streets after watching violent movies or playing violent video games. Yet, the FBI reports that violent crime stats have gone down this year--yet again. It's been on the decline for years now, even as violent games, movies, and TV shows--and childrens' access to them--have been on the rise.

As to dad having a hunting rifle... anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house).

I can agree with you on your brother (And his son.) I was just noting that there are different levels of conservatives. This congressman is a raging blowhard because he is a hypocrite. Hands down.

As for how much your father makes---it depends what he did, the risks, the level of supervision and all. It is not for me to judge--but I get your point. If he wasn't a 24/7 man, or held a position of high liability, then it is welfare. If his bones don't ache, or his lifespan look shorter, than it's welfare... But some do earn their pensions. Most (As I assume you will agree here,) however, do not.

>> ^bareboards2:

I should have given more details on the unemployment "insurance." His son, who is more conservative than he is, lost his job along with hundreds of others when a company collapsed. His industry was flooded with people looking for remaining jobs. His response was to get a job delivering ice cream until "his" industry recovered/absorbed the sudden influx of capable --- computer technicians.
Now THAT is walking the walk.
My brother making vague attempts at half-assed jobs for three years (he got laid off twice, wasn't consecutive) while collecting unemployment and a military pension? That's bullshit. That's welfare for the wealthy and he took it because it was there. His son was more honest.
If I told you how much my father collects each month, you would not be saying what you are saying. All from the government. Believe me, there is nothing "disingenuous" about the amount of money my dad collects each month.
My point was to highlight their hypocrisy. Just as that Congressman blathers on about being self reliant while grasping what is offered.
If you believe in self reliance, then be self reliant.
Hypocrites.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^bareboards2:


I will kind of have to disagree with you on this number--not because your wrong, but because it's a slight bit disingenuous.
Unemployment Insurance is like Health Insurance. It is there, paid by you and me, for you and me. I may not agree with most food stamps programs, etc. but there is nothing wrong with using Unemployment Insurance.
As far as pensions... They are there for a reason. Like the Military pensions, for example... Your body typically is fucked by the time you reach old age. The second part of pensions is that government employees' pay (compared to say the private market employee with a master's degree) is a lot less than the private sector... Remember, higher up positions are like Managers or even CEOs. So even if an E8 makes 100K in benefits and such a year, he is sorely behind, say, a CEO, which he is the equivalent of.
Did you know the average age of a retired military or law enforcement officer is 5 years? That isn't shit for a benefit if you ask me...
Now pensions for a County Admin, Mayor, Senator, etc., yeah, that's bullshit. If the job doesn't have shit pay and demanding physical labor, it shouldn't have a pension.
I think nobody cared about this in good times, and only scapegoat when times are bad due to jealousy.
(As far as the union part, your 100% right. I didn't mind when our union was disbanded; they risked forcing layoffs in trade for pay raises...)

so my divorce decree gave us joint managing conservatorship, then we added an addendum later that gives me "primary managing conservatorship" and he has "posessory managing conservatorship" the words "sole custody" are never mentioned. it lists things we each have the right/responsibility to... basically "posessory managing conservatorship" means that he can make decisions only while he has possession of them... which is never and he was granted supervised restricted court visitation only.. meaning he can only see his kids every other saturday for one hour with 2 police officers and a social worker present.... so as a posessory who doesnt even show up for his supervised visits, he basically retains the right to be notified in the event of a terminal illness, injury or death. but it doesn't say shit about passports or travel or blah. i do have a "can't move farther than 100 miles away" restriction though......

i was trying to explain this to the people on the phone and they said that unless my decree specifically spells something out, i have to have a notarized form from him in order to obtain their passports and take them out of the country.

but they don't give out "supervised restricted visitation" like that unless there is a serious and documented history of domestic violence, contacting him would be bad for him because of his fragile mental state, and bad for me and the kids because of his fragile mental state and history of psychotic violence. so apparently that may fall under things that give me an exemption.

fuck the state department. >> ^rasch187:

Unless you have sole legal custody both parents have to appear in person.
See this for further information: http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/minors/minors_834.html (especially step 7).

>> ^blankfist:

It would be very hard for businesses to get as large as corporations do today without the unfair support of government. This means more competition, and logically as a result more small businesses would sprout up, and therefore more jobs could be created.

I think taking away the liability limits ultimately raises the barrier for creating a new business, since it increases the potential downside risk of any new investment, and worse, makes predicting the worst case scenario nigh impossible.

The knock on effects of that would be that investors would be more reluctant to invest, meaning that interest rates would go up, and the tolerance for risk would go down.

In some sense I think we'd see companies that are larger, but also "flatter" in a sense. I'm thinking more McDonalds, Best Buy, and Amazon, and a lot less heavy industry with big, expensive, dangerous, illiquid capital investment.

I sorta say "so what, it's more fair, and restrains corporations' flagrant disregard for safety and the environment".

However, for people who want to see a bazillion small businesses, I think you want the limited liabilities there to help people simplify their risk assessments.
>> ^blankfist:

I don't see why we'd need regulatory requirements or unionization. Most of the responsibility would be held at the top levels, such as CEOs or COOs or supervisors or whomever. And this can all be decided by some form of conflict resolution whether that be the courts or arbitration.

Well, courts are guided by law in those sorts of determinations, arbitration is more guided by the relative strength of the bargaining positions of the participants (i.e. little people get reliably crushed).

Which is to say, we'd need to set some sort of standard on how accountability works, or it'll only be the guy following orders who gets the short end of the stick.

>> ^blankfist:
But my point was that people couldn't escape liability just because they're employed. If your boss told you to murder someone, for instance, you know that to be wrong and would hopefully not follow through. But if you did murder someone, obviously you'd be held accountable, right? kind of the same idea. Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough.

For something as serious and obvious as murder, sure.

But say my boss tells me not to order the scheduled maintenance for critical safety equipment because "it's not in the budget"? If things go wrong later, am I to be held responsible because my idiot boss didn't budget for proper maintenance? Do I really need to constantly present my boss with waivers from legal liability for every decision I think has a potential risk? Can he fire me for demanding them too often?

>> ^blankfist:
If a business spilled oil like BP did, then all the parties involved would be liable within reason. If you were hired to clean the toilets on the rig, then you're probably not going to be responsible in any direct or indirect way. But if you are hired as a professional to do a specific job like supervising the boom or drilling or whatever, and that contributed somehow to the spill, then you're probably going to inherit some substantial responsibility. And I think that's more than fair.


I agree with that, but in my experience as a technical professional, I have to say that unsafe shit is almost exclusively something that happens when management refuses to pony up the cash to do things the right way.

But let's look at the other side of the coin. For the sake of argument, let's pretend management didn't do anything obviously wrong on Deepwater Horizon, and it was just some guy out on the rig who just made a stupid mistake and caused the whole thing to happen.

Should that guy bear all of the financial liability alone, while the CEO's, shareholders, and the company itself are held blameless?

I say even in that case, the blame needs to go upward -- management hired the guy, and someone higher up approved the process that was susceptible to massive damage coming from one guy's human error. They're the ones who put the oil rig in his hands, they're the ones responsible for the damage he did with it.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree with what you're proposing there. I tend to think we'd have fewer companies as a result, not more, but I do think it'd be more fair overall.


It would be very hard for businesses to get as large as corporations do today without the unfair support of government. This means more competition, and logically as a result more small businesses would sprout up, and therefore more jobs could be created.


>> ^NetRunner:
Well, to be honest the people who do that today just get fired.
I'd like to see people empowered to do that, but in practice that either means a raft of regulatory requirements about what people can be fired for, or strong unionization.
I also hear that the reason CEO's (and managers generally) get paid so much is because they're responsible for whatever happens underneath them, whether they personally did it or not. That was certainly the case for me when I've been in management roles in the past.


I don't see why we'd need regulatory requirements or unionization. Most of the responsibility would be held at the top levels, such as CEOs or COOs or supervisors or whomever. And this can all be decided by some form of conflict resolution whether that be the courts or arbitration. But my point was that people couldn't escape liability just because they're employed. If your boss told you to murder someone, for instance, you know that to be wrong and would hopefully not follow through. But if you did murder someone, obviously you'd be held accountable, right? kind of the same idea. Maybe not exactly, but it's close enough.

If a business spilled oil like BP did, then all the parties involved would be liable within reason. If you were hired to clean the toilets on the rig, then you're probably not going to be responsible in any direct or indirect way. But if you are hired as a professional to do a specific job like supervising the boom or drilling or whatever, and that contributed somehow to the spill, then you're probably going to inherit some substantial responsibility. And I think that's more than fair.

I don't and can't advocate violence when it comes to bully's - but what do you do when no one will step in and help you - this is a classic response to abuse of any kind.

I work with kids on a volunteer basis and sometimes have to help manage groups of up to 100 kids. One thing I've noticed is that there are always one or two kids (boys) who are small (or under-sized) for their age who use bullying tactics just to gain stature in the group. Stomping (hard) on other kids feet when lining up, hitting, pinching and more - little things but they ad up and it gains them status in the group.

Girls usually don't get physical but use words to hurt other girls, things that might seem subtle but again builds up to more in the child being bullied.

I've also noticed that these smaller kids are often the instigators. Other kids join in to become a group (3-4) who in turn, turn on other kids because "It's fun and kind of funny" (to them) and it saves face in front of their peers. Other kids would rather join in than become the next target. They align themselves with the one aggressor that is trying to become the Alpha-male/female of the group in order to maintain their own stature and stay at the top of the pack. This attitude is instinctual and most of them don't even notice they are doing it. It may be an instinctual survival skill dating back to our animal instincts in the caveman days (conjecture).

As an adult, the big thing is to address it as soon as it's mentioned by sitting down all parties involved. Let them know you are going to be checking in with them and will continue to do so. every time it is mentioned that "it happened again" or is "still happening". then you meet with them again. We make it clear with a yellow card system. (second card is a call home, third card is a meeting with the parents to discuss the situation in person.) It's not the cards that are important, it's that they know things are happening and will continue to happen - if they don't revise the behavior, then the situation will get worse for them.

If I was to pick someone at fault here, I'd choose the parents, the teachers and the system that is place for these kids. Kids who bully have other issues that are not being addressed such as being bullied themselves or bad home situations. Kids who get bullied are kids who don't have parents that engage them in meaningful discussions so the kids can confide in them various bad situations that they may be in.

Schools, it seems have cut back on supervision when the kids go outside - they become free to do what ever they want and that's the best time for "positioning" amongst the kids. If the school doesn't provide a comprehensive plan for dealing with this and involve the kids with what the plan is from day one and then continue to remind them throughout the year, how will they control the situation and stop it before it starts. The teachers are part of that system and should be standing up for the kids and a solid set of guidelines (not saying this school didn't have guidelines).

This situation should have been diffused long before it got to this point. I feel bad for both boys. No one should have to be bullied and where was the support for the boy who did the bullying. His situation should have been identified early on and given some attention.

Just a quicky, but is being ill due to food poisoning really the fault of the FDA? Isn't the FDA there to stop potentially toxic and life threatening food/drink substances entering the market? I'm fairly certain that an FDA representative doesn't have to supervise every cook in every kitchen both public and private. If you need someone to supervise your cooking to ensure you don't give yourself food poisoning you really shouldn't be anywhere near a kitchen.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Peroxide:
>> ^ridesallyridenc:
He lost me at "raise my taxes."

Taxes are an investment in your country's future.
Do you drive on roads? Did you attend a school? Do you expect the food at the grocery store to be free of E.coli? Do you expect someone to answer and emergency services to respond when you dial 911?
When Americans were paying taxes to a foreign state, or the head of the empire, for their imports and exports, that was when taxes were theft. Think of the Actual Boston Tea Party, they were protesting paying tax to a different nation state.
"Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives." -wiki.
I repeat, their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.
I personally think your view on taxes says a lot about your ability to empathize with the community within which you reside. Think about employment insurance and programs for the poor. Of course, maybe you live in a gated community out in the suburbs and the poor are forcibly segregated from you.
Of course, I must add that I do think governments must be held accountable for the manner in which they spend/invest the people's wealth. But frankly I'm sick of egocentric, ill informed people decrying the taxes that are necessary for their way of life, and necessary for to sustain the community of humans beings within which they live.
their is some good discussion over here.
http://videosift.com/talk/Taxes-and-theft

News flash. Income tax doesn't pay for roads. Also, I've gotten sick TWICE in the past year from food poisoning. Um, I think during that period of time we still had the FDA, right? And the Supreme Court has upheld in every single case that has been brought to them when police refused or failed to protect the people that the government has zero obligation to protect it's citizens.
Not an investment in the country's future, thank you very much. It's just theft.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Your confusing the meaning of big. Big here is referring to scope. Like the thought experiment, the scope of the police force went from local to national...that is the size difference he was talking about.
How do you address the claim that large central government misrepresent larger portions of the populations due to their non-regional considerations?
US airports are not government facilities.
It is foolish to assume that local governments are more corrupt than distant ones. If the people right under your nose are muxing things up, how about the people 1400 miles away...how much more corrupt can they be without your constant eye? And when they are corrupt, they do it with a larger portion of pie. Granted, that pie might add up to the same pie that would be lost to local corruption of the whole system...but like the video suggests, you are more likely to catch and correct it on the local level.
Also, can you name one super large corporation that isn't also highly regulated, I can't. Microsoft is protected by intellectual property laws, the news giants all started as legal monopoly telco and cable providers, Energy has been quazi-government/private for decades, Rail roads where publicly sponsored then privately owned. Can you name one truly organic natural monopoly that arose from someones good business practices and not its status with government and regulations?

>> ^vaporlock:
I haven't finished watching this yet but hasn't everything been "getting bigger"? Our population, corporations, number of consumer products, number of food items in a supermarket, number of schools, number of airline flights, number of roads, etc, etc. Has government really grown at a rate greater than everything else? Can I really believe that my local town can regulate or even protect itself from big corporations? For example if a BP gas station leaks fuel into the water-table. Mind you my hometown has a problem even cutting the grass on the side of the highway.
I'm all for controlling how the government exploits the rest of the earth, but the airports, national parks, national laboratories, and roadways in the US are some of the best in the world. These were done partially by our "big government". You just have to look at the small governments in the South and local communities across the US to see real corruption.
OK... rant over... start video
After watching. I can say that I agree with the analysis but not the conclusion. Government is not the problem, it's corporate control over government. When you consider the growth of the military alone, his point about the growth of the government is mute. How big was the military in 1907, how big in 2007. The military is a huge percentage of the government, even bigger when you consider government contractors and corporations with contracts, etc. I'm guessing that the growth of the "military industrial complex" alone accounts for much of the 30% difference between 1907 and 2007.
Cut the military, stop f'cking with the rest of the world, guarantee civil rights for everybody, protect the environment, make sure the food and other consumer products are safe, maintain the roadways, support science and education, and I'm all for a big atheist government of the people.




I'm guessing he meant without federal funding of infrastructure our airports, for instance, wouldn't be as good as they are. example Yes, there are private options to this, but when you want to take a global edge in something at a large scale, the only option is the federal option.

The video is ostensibly true in that smaller governments are more efficient, with greater accountability in their daily minutia. However, there is a certain efficiency in extending 'good' programs to the entire country at once rather than requiring every small subsection to enact it independently. It's also pointless at this point(I'll do it anyway) to even mention that many inefficient programs are as a result of undue influence of special interest groups. Public campaign funding, greater transparency and more effective dissemination of information from watchdog groups are all ways of making the federal government more efficient. In this age, it should be possible to catch more of the bullshit happening, which the political media coverage consistently fails to do for various reasons.

Of course, there are many watchdog groups that examine the inner workings of the federal government, because it's large, centralized and presents a larger impact on the country. They often detect corruption but don't have the platform to spread their findings to the larger public unless a larger media conglomerate picks up on it. The geographic distance from a centralized government is not a significant factor in detecting corruption as it is balanced by the large number of eyes focusing on it. If you mean local populaces remaining unaware of how terrible their national representatives are, then you have a point. But this factor will hopefully be alleviated in the future through continuing improvement in getting information to the public.

Don't pretend oversight at the local level isn't without it's problems, though they tend to take a different form from the federal level.

Yes, I'm deeply concerned with the government handing out monopolies like candy. I favor copyright/patent reform.

tl;dr Government requires constant supervision and representatives should be treated like children and changed when they crap themselves. But we love them anyway because they're essential for society to continue.

>> ^MaxWilder:
I remember a couple weeks ago I was channel surfing and came across a show about what would happen to the world if all the humans disappeared suddenly. Instead of getting on to the interesting parts about how long it would take cities to decay or what power plants might do without any supervision, they kept going on and on doing bullshit shots of people having lunch and disappearing, or cars all suddenly crashing into each other or running off the road, and planes falling out of the sky. They really were more interested in showing people suddenly disappearing than in what would happen to the planet afterward. It was as stupid as this video, and I had to turn it off to prevent brain damage.


It's a series actually. It gets better.

http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people