Education in the United States
We have a thread devoted to academic freedom at universities, and we have a thread devoted to whether higher education s
yes, using the monopoly of force to obligate others who disagree with you to act the way you want.laws should only exist when overwhelming majorities of the population think it's absolutely obvious that thing should be regulated in that way. and that support should be checked every once in a while (mandatory sunset clauses for all laws).if , when you ask the vast majority of pe
Maybe luciom “inaccurate” perception causes him to hold many controversial views ?
Here in Quebec for example :
https://fondationalphabetisation.org/en/....
19% of Quebecers are illiterate (literacy levels -1 and 1) and 34.3% have great difficulty reading and are at literacy level 2. The latter are often referred to as functionally illiterate. These are not fictional, but actual numbers. Illiteracy affects all countries, regardless of whether they are industrialized or not. Quebec is no exception to this reality.
Again we fall on Lucian expecting simple solution to complex issues wishing to live in a very simple world .
To the kind of political populism I was referring earlier …
Speaking of insanity, the idea of vesting the power to veto any possible law in the majority of people, who are on average of average intelligence, is insane to me.
+1
But hey public education is the enemy and should be ride off shrug .
yes rococo I understand that's what you think.
that's the normal position for people who believe "experts" should decide everything
I wasn't really commenting on your apparent views on expertise.
I was thinking primarily of your overwhelming tendency to be doctrinaire.
and when you do any job, the median IQ person in society should easily know ALL rules that apply to that job. The idea of needing lawyers to do your job implies too many rules exist for your job.
This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you are doctrinaire. You believe that the median IQ person walking down the street should know all the rules that pertain to disposal of nuclear waste, even though disposal of nuclear waste is something that almost everyone believes should be closely regulated and even though disposal of nuclear waste is a highly specialized job for which most people have no reason to learn the specifics of the rules.
I can say with almost total certainty that anyone involved in the business of disposing of nuclear waste would find your position laughable, no matter their politics and no matter what they think about the current rules.
This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you are doctrinaire. You believe that the median IQ person walking down the street should know all the rules that pertain to disposal of nuclear waste, even though disposal of nuclear waste is something that almost everyone believes should be closely regulated and even though disposal of nuclear waste is a highly special
sure nuclear waste when i talk about a job. In a nuclear plant there will be plenty of different jobs, and nuclear waste itself does require many different people doing many different things. Each one of them should be able to know all the rules that apply to their specific role inside nuclear waste management.
Meanwhile actual normal people like dunno barbers are overwhelmed by an insane number of rules, 99% of which didn't exist in 1900, when barbers already existed and operated just fine.
You want "median IQ among people qualified for that job" as a refinement? sure let's refine.
Let me do it from another angle, because you claim i am "doctrinaire" while my point is we are living a collective psychosis wrt regulation.
Can we take the top20 countries for human development index and operate a "minimum common denominator" kind of thing? like if at least one of them doesn't have rule X, that proves rules X is absolutely insane? can we at least agree the optimal amount of rules is the absolute bare minimum to achieve decent results? we can discuss what "decent" means, and haggle about "optimal" and whatnot, but the approach currently from everyone on the left, and a decent amount of people on the right, is rules are a hammer to try to put society into shape the way you would like outcomes to be.
And the automatic effect of that is having 50-100x the amount of rules that would make sense. You wonna argue it would be better to remove only 85% of rules instead of the 99% i think is proper? sure.
But how can you defend the current regulatory state as being reasonable at all? there are a ton of things that we could do in 1981 and we can't today, while a good trend would be the literal opposite.
Your nuclear waste example though is telling: you must be using the idea that increased complexity justifies more rules.
Which is why it takes longer to pave a road today than it took us to build actual skyscrapers 120 years ago with infinitely worse technology than we have today.
We have buildings from 800 years ago still standing built with 0 building codes in action in my city. They incredibly didn't even have payroll taxes at the time for workers.
"how is that even possible" in your model?
If we built the building X in Y years in 1900, normal progress would be building it in a fraction of the time today, pareto efficiently with a lot of better features.
That's what happens when the regulatory insanities don't strangle progress. And we have examples in manufacturing and farming.
The absolute hellhole disaster we are in wrt infrastructure and real estate development in general (regulatory wise) is just an example
Most of those rules are to do with health and safety. A lot more people got seriously injured and died on the job 100 years ago than do now, but I'm guessing you probably think that's a good thing - if they weren't strong/smart/lucky enough to make it out of the mine, we probably don't want their genes polluting our pool anyway.
Do you think there should be some rules against the below, or do you think that it should be allowed?
What are the insane rules that you believe apply to barbers? As far as I can tell, barbers operate today in exactly the same way they did in 1980, and probably in the same way they did in 1950, although I obviously wasn't alive in 1950. You sit in a chair. They use clippers and scissors. They hold up a mirror so you can confirm that the back looks OK. They brush the hair off your neck and collar when they are done. They sweep the floor periodically. They prefer that you pay in cash.
How does it work in Italy?
Most of those rules are to do with health and safety. A lot more people got seriously injured and died on the job 100 years ago than do now, but I'm guessing you probably think that's a good thing - if they weren't strong/smart/lucky enough to make it out of the mine, we probably don't want their genes polluting our pool anyway.Do you think there should be some rules against th
0 people died in the building of the Chrysler building in 1928. 0 people died building the Tour Eiffel.
/
HOW MANY WORKERS DIED BUILDING SKYSCRAPERS IN NEW YORK?
Although the Chrysler building stands out for having no fatalities, there were far fewer skyscraper worker deaths than you would expect in the early years, given the historical photos and footage of workers without safety equipment hundreds of feet in the air.
For example, how many people died building the Empire State Building? Five (5) workers died in slip-and-fall or struck-by accidents over the 13 months of construction (1929-1930). With 3400 workers total, that's a rate of 1.47 deaths per thousand.
Compare that to the World Trade Center in 1973, which had a similar total workforce but was a dozen times more deadly. The WTC is New York's most lethal construction project, with 60 fatalities.
I think in general the government shouldn't have (legally) a say in anything doing voluntarily among adults. There can be exceptions but personal risk in a job is clearly a private matter with no huge externalities so the state shouldn't be legally allow to even discuss the possibility of regulating it in any way
Most of those rules are to do with health and safety. A lot more people got seriously injured and died on the job 100 years ago than do now, but I'm guessing you probably think that's a good thing
A total of 39 workers died constructing the Golden Gate bridge and the Bay Bridge in the 1930s.
What are the insane rules that you believe apply to barbers? As far as I can tell, barbers operate today in exactly the same way they did in 1980, and probably in the same way they did in 1950, although I obviously wasn't alive in 1950. You sit in a chair. They use clippers and scissors. They hold up a mirror so you can confirm that the back looks OK. They brush the hair of
I think he's objecting that they have to put up the "wet floor" signs every time they mop up. Regulation gone mad.
I think in general the government shouldn't have (legally) a say in anything doing voluntarily among adults. There can be exceptions but personal risk in a job is clearly a private matter with no huge externalities so the state shouldn't be legally allow to even discuss the possibility of regulating it in any way
Ok, but most reasonable people would disagree. Does your principled stance on adhering to the wishes of the majority also apply when you're not part of it?
Adults just making decisions. All good. Right, Luciom?
What are the insane rules that you believe apply to barbers? As far as I can tell, barbers operate today in exactly the same way they did in 1980, and probably in the same way they did in 1950, although I obviously wasn't alive in 1950. You sit in a chair. They use clippers and scissors. They hold up a mirror so you can confirm that the back looks OK. They brush the hair of
Are you serious? the rules that apply to them are insanely more convoluted today than in 1980 or 1950.
In california they have a government board of barbering jfc.
Check the regulations
https://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/laws_regs...
Then ofc you have fiscal regulations as a barber, local city regulations, labour law regulations if you hire help.
In italy outside of luxury ones in expensive cities, they just all disregard regulations which is how we survive.
I wouldn't listen to what Rococo has to say about barbers, he hasn't had the need for one since 1985.
Ok, but most reasonable people would disagree. Does your principled stance on adhering to the wishes of the majority also apply when you're not part of it?
Within constitutional limits ; as i said i would like the constitution to ban that approach.
I am not saying it is illegal today to regulate as they do, but i am saying it should, i am expressing a preference about what i would like to see protected in the constitution.
I thought i made it clear that most leftist preferences should actually be banned constitutionally
Within constitutional limits ; as i said i would like the constitution to ban that approach.
I am not saying it is illegal today to regulate as they do, but i am saying it should, i am expressing a preference about what i would like to see protected in the constitution.
I thought i made it clear that most leftist preferences should actually be banned constitutionally
Seems like you just want a constitution that prohibits any sort of legislative activity short of changing the constitution itself.
Seems like you just want a constitution that prohibits any sort of legislative activity short of changing the constitution itself.
hm no? property rights and body autonomy have to be protected, contracts enforced, some taxation collected for the judicial system, jails, police, militaries, diplomatic presence outside the border and so on
I can't speak to California, but in NYC, there are a million barbers shops. I've never observed a barber shop being closed for regulatory violations. And the people who run your average barber shop don't strike me as regulatory experts.
hm no? property rights and body autonomy have to be protected, contracts enforced, some taxation collected for the judicial system, jails, police, militaries, diplomatic presence outside the border and so on
So, laws are fine, as long as they are laws you personally agree with, and laws you personally disagree with should be constitutionally barred. I don't see any problems at all with this approach, other than perhaps, how does one know a priori which potential laws you would personally agree when drafting this document?
So, laws are fine, as long as they are laws you personally agree with, and laws you personally disagree with should be constitutionally barred. I don't see any problems at all with this approach, other than perhaps, how does one know a priori which potential laws you would personally agree when drafting this document?
you know how the 1a works? if a majority wants to ban speech they dislike for whatever reason, they can't.
That's the model i propose to extend simply to all individual freedoms. How you work, who you hire, what substances you want to consume, what you want to do with your own building and so on.
Severely limiting the perimeter of what the state can do wrt individual freedom.
You know what, barber shops work pretty well in America in my experience. Whatever regulations are in place are working fine imo.
your lot reduced us to automatons, who have to spend hours per week dividing the ****ing trash to pretend we recycle while we don't. The cap on our bottles isn't removable anymore because "nuanced reasons". There is a 18 mph speed limit in my city, and lately men can get pregnant. You want to put warning labels on wine. I have to ****ing click away bull crap popups 300 times pe
Nope.
Or it could be that you define everything in politics you don't like as "leftism" or "Marxism". That is your prerogative, bit it renders the terms meaningless when it comes to any discussions with you.
Yup.
well given in the vast majority of cases doing absolutely nothing is by far the best thing the government can do...the idea itself of government as a tool to use violently to meld the world into a "better place" is the source of the worst man made disasters of the last couple of centuries.
yes rococo I understand that's what you think.
that's the normal position for people who believe "experts" should decide everything
Rococo is a Very Serious Person and that's how they think. And since they are very serious, people who don't share those views are seen as not serious, hence you being compared to a 13 year old.
Rococo is a Very Serious Person and that's how they think. And since they are very serious, people who don't share those views are seen as not serious, hence you being compared to a 13 year old.
I am a Very Serious Person in the eyes of who? I am 100% certain that my musings on politics are meaningless to the world. I have no more influence on public policy or the political opinions of others than a random person on the street.
I try to think things through in a rational way, but I assume that everyone here believes the same about themselves.
I tend to be hesitant about asserting what the right answers are to enormously complex questions and skeptical when others are overly confident in their ability to do so. If that makes me Very Serious, I'm cool with that.
