Thread: Palin: Man and Dinosaur Existed at Same Time

Originally Posted by sasquash

Well wait, are you saying that our goal in educating people is to make them better workers (which sounds almost, I don't know, Stalinist or something), are you saying that you achieve that improvement in efficiency through happiness from education, or are you saying that the goal is to make the people happier, which we hope will also lead to increases in efficiency?

I have to say, I'm not sure that happiness always leads to efficiency.

For the last fuckign time, the purpose of education is to improve the productivity of the population.

Originally Posted by sasquash

What's with the fixation on states? We have 50 states, whose populations range from the size of a medium sized city to bigger than many countries. They aren't somehow the perfect size to determine these things, because they are very different sizes. Many states are comprised of many different regions and sub-cultures, as well, making the same problems as you see at a national level.

They are the most-local unit of government that can apply to the entire country with the least inefficiency. I have said multiple times I would prefer the individual decide, but since every state already has the means in place to make and enforce the decision, it is most practical.

Originally Posted by sasquash

I think I addressed some problems with parents deciding everything in my post above. You didn't reply to any of what I wrote about protecting kids from ignorant or fanatical parents, or about the lack of viable options for a good marketplace in many situations.

A permit-trading system would work just fine for this.

Originally Posted by sasquash

Nor did you address my concern that many states are still very backwards on the whole, and that the education of their children can suffer if only the state or local governments determine what is taught.

So what you are saying, here, is that the federal government's inefficiency has failed certain states, but because of that failure, those states do not deserve the opportunity to correct themselves?

Originally Posted by sasquash

You seem to be under the impression that most employers give a shit if their employees are happy, fulfilled people. I promise you that just about any successful company would prefer miserable drones to happy, empowered employees, if the drones are better for the bottom line.

Companies think on the margin, too. Which explains why some of the most successful companies in the world (See: Google) provide a myriad of services to their employees to minimize the impact of negativity in their non-work lives from affecting their work performance.

Do you study management? I do. And meaningful empowerment of employees almost always results in an increase in productivity. Perhaps you'll find this counterintuitive, but cash is actually one of the worst motivators.

Originally Posted by sasquash

I'm pretty sure there is already enough red tape. The point would be to make the red tape we already have work better.

Do you have a different definition of red tape? Did you make it dumber on purpose?

Originally Posted by sasquash

Okay, that's an interesting thought. I'm not sure I share your love of proximity, though. I grew up near some pretty stupid fuckers. The last thing I'd want is for many of them to have any say in my life or education.

I would want to determine for myself, because I have the best information available with which to make a cost-benefit analysis. Which is what I fucking said

Originally Posted by sasquash

Ah, that was mostly a rhetorical comment. You were complaining about someone's logical fallacy in the same section as you said "Everything falls under the commerce clause", so I jumped on it and made a somewhat tenuous connection. But I'll explain what I meant.

You know how when you say that every little kid is special, you actually dilute or destroy the meaning of special (because if everybody is "special", then "special" loses its meaning of being something not everybody does or has)? Same idea here - if you try to apply one clause to every situation, then you make the clause meaningless, because it doesn't specify anything. Get it?

Except that this isn't a fucking argument in rhetoric, this is a historical application of the Commerce Clause. It's clear you're neither a student of law, business, or economics, so I'll make this simple. Congress has interpreted, with the aid of the Judiciary, that it has the power to do almost anything because practically any activity can be said to have an impact on interstate commerce.