education and AC

[MyTurn2Raise]

just a huge sidetrack:

I'm thinking someone should get started on
YouTeach . com

Why isn't their a collective set of lessons up on the web for K-12 learning? Teachers upload lessons, etc. Children/parents/etc watch from home.

With a parent/guardian supervising, it seems as though education can come down to an internet connection and a few hours per day.

The nation's best teachers giving lessons. One-on-one reinforcement from the one person who knows the child intimately and enforces the child's moral code, ie the parent.

this should already be done

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a different type of equality. It may very well be that people with skin color X are smarter or faster or dumber or slower than people with skin color Y. I don't care about that. I'm talking about moral equality - the same rules must apply to all people. Totally.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two things don't work together do they? If we can show that people A will never be able to do things as well or as productive as B, then the case could be made that B has a "moral" obligation to help further them. I'm not saying I agree, but it's all a circular argument.

[ QUOTE ]
But since you don't believe in inconsistent moral systems, and you don't believe in multi-class moral systems, can you explain your support for government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall ever offering a moral support for government, I have neither intrest nor belief in it.

[ QUOTE ]
The price of a particular picasso, for example, could be said to be fixed, since one person has a "monopoly" on it, but nobody is forced to buy it. Similarly with, say, diamonds. It's theoretically possible that DeBeers could somehow gain control of a large percentage of diamond mines without using government force. Extremely unlikely, but possible. The price for diamonds might be "fixed" higher than it would if the mines were owned seperately. Oh well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Diamonds and paintings aren't equal to water and medication, DUCY.

(I don't ever use DUCY so this is fun for me).

[ QUOTE ]
And perhaps IP won't be protected (even though several voluntary means of protecting some forms of it have been put forward).

[/ QUOTE ]

I've yet to read anything that even approaches a real explaination of IP, just "contracts will handle it". I don't buy the idea that an endless stream of litegation can fix IP issues (just look how bad those same endless streams work now). Pleased to be giving a link if you've got something because...

[ QUOTE ]
But that's not the answer you want to hear.


[/ QUOTE ]

No sir, I'd very much like to hear it.

If you were referencing the fact that it wouldn't be protected, the no, that's not something I want to hear, and neither, I'd imagine, do you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to dinner at a friend's house. I ask my wife "what are they cooking?" She says she doesn't know, maybe hamburgers. But I want steak. So I ask again "what are they cooking?" I don't accept "maybe hamburgers" as an answer. But the problem is that my wife has no way of knowing the answer. We'll just have to get there to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, confusing specifics with systemic answers. I'm not asking for the names of companies, more a working model (however simplistic) of the system you're advocating.

[ QUOTE ]
And if we don't like it, when we get there, we can always ditch and go to Outback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I don't know if I can make my own avi for this, but Outback-capitalism...don't tempt me.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we discount the fundamental theorem of poker because sometimes people (even, perhaps, sklansky himself) do things that the FTOP says are "mistakes"? Does the fact that Sklansky occasionally plays sub-optimally have *anything* to do with the soundness of the FTOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're always on me about trying to apply my scientific knowledge or criteria to a moral problem, and now you're trying to apply morals to a clearly scientific situation. Doesn't work, DUCY (sweet, two-fer).

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's a different type of equality. It may very well be that people with skin color X are smarter or faster or dumber or slower than people with skin color Y. I don't care about that. I'm talking about moral equality - the same rules must apply to all people. Totally.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two things don't work together do they? If we can show that people A will never be able to do things as well or as productive as B, then the case could be made that B has a "moral" obligation to help further them. I'm not saying I agree, but it's all a circular argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

You *could* make an argument that such an obligation exists, but you don't *have to*. You're adding circularity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But since you don't believe in inconsistent moral systems, and you don't believe in multi-class moral systems, can you explain your support for government?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall ever offering a moral support for government, I have neither intrest nor belief in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You constantly worry that someone's IP is going to get ripped off without it, but you don't have any interest in it? You need numbers and data before you can "support" AC, right? You may not think the status quo is the best thing ever, you may not support *as much* government as we have now, you may not support anything that looks remotely like any currently implemented government, you may support less government than any other statist on this forum, but you support it.

Until you let go, you support it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The price of a particular picasso, for example, could be said to be fixed, since one person has a "monopoly" on it, but nobody is forced to buy it. Similarly with, say, diamonds. It's theoretically possible that DeBeers could somehow gain control of a large percentage of diamond mines without using government force. Extremely unlikely, but possible. The price for diamonds might be "fixed" higher than it would if the mines were owned seperately. Oh well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Diamonds and paintings aren't equal to water and medication, DUCY.

(I don't ever use DUCY so this is fun for me).

[/ QUOTE ]

No I DNCY. They are all resources. They are all scarce. In fact, picassos are decidedly more scarce than water.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And perhaps IP won't be protected (even though several voluntary means of protecting some forms of it have been put forward).

[/ QUOTE ]

I've yet to read anything that even approaches a real explaination of IP, just "contracts will handle it". I don't buy the idea that an endless stream of litegation can fix IP issues (just look how bad those same endless streams work now). Pleased to be giving a link if you've got something because...

[/ QUOTE ]

"IP issues" is way broad. Copyright or patent? Trade secret? Patents are obviously incompatible with any voluntary society. Copyrights are not. This has been discussed ad naseum.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But that's not the answer you want to hear.


[/ QUOTE ]

No sir, I'd very much like to hear it.

If you were referencing the fact that it wouldn't be protected, the no, that's not something I want to hear, and neither, I'd imagine, do you.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's "it"? Again, there are lots of different forms of intellectual "property" nowadays. Some of them are coercive and some are not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to dinner at a friend's house. I ask my wife "what are they cooking?" She says she doesn't know, maybe hamburgers. But I want steak. So I ask again "what are they cooking?" I don't accept "maybe hamburgers" as an answer. But the problem is that my wife has no way of knowing the answer. We'll just have to get there to find out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, confusing specifics with systemic answers. I'm not asking for the names of companies, more a working model (however simplistic) of the system you're advocating.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not advocating any system! I don't know what's for dinner. But something is cooking. Wait till we get there and we'll find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can go cook your own dinner.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And if we don't like it, when we get there, we can always ditch and go to Outback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I don't know if I can make my own avi for this, but Outback-capitalism...don't tempt me.

[/ QUOTE ]

bloomin onion...mmmm

Also, you could make an take-off on the OC logotype.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we discount the fundamental theorem of poker because sometimes people (even, perhaps, sklansky himself) do things that the FTOP says are "mistakes"? Does the fact that Sklansky occasionally plays sub-optimally have *anything* to do with the soundness of the FTOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're always on me about trying to apply my scientific knowledge or criteria to a moral problem, and now you're trying to apply morals to a clearly scientific situation. Doesn't work, DUCY (sweet, two-fer).

[/ QUOTE ]

What morals, and what scientific situation? I don't see why. Explain.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
You constantly worry that someone's IP is going to get ripped off without it, but you don't have any interest in it? You need numbers and data before you can "support" AC, right? You may not think the status quo is the best thing ever, you may not support *as much* government as we have now, you may not support anything that looks remotely like any currently implemented government, you may support less government than any other statist on this forum, but you support it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I don't support governemnt, I've made my views fairly well known. What I said was that I've offered no moral support for government.

I use and view morals more as a personal issue. I don't kill you because I don't want you to kill me. I hope you don't steal from me because you don't want me stealing from you. In general, I think the soverignty of the individual should be first and foremost (this is nothing new, I've said it before), and there are very few positions I'd consider letting something trump that right.

[ QUOTE ]
No I DNCY. They are all resources. They are all scarce. In fact, picassos are decidedly more scarce than water.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are indeed more scarce then water, but we don't need them to live. You always say "I'm addicted to food", it's a bit off, but you're right, you do in fact need food to live. So me hording all the food and not letting you eat, and me hording all the Rembrants and not letting you into my gallery are two very different things. Other things fall in this list, Medications, food, etc.

Paintings-Want
Food-Need

[ QUOTE ]
"IP issues" is way broad. Copyright or patent? Trade secret? Patents are obviously incompatible with any voluntary society. Copyrights are not. This has been discussed ad naseum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been discussed plenty, but the closest I've seen to an answer is "Well people will invent because it's good for mankind". I hope we're so altruistic, but I'd like a little better explaination of how things would (hell, gimmie a "might") work out.

Again, if you have a link, please share. The podcasts on FDR were absolutely awful on IP ("Let's talk about songs" Uhh no thanks, I'm more worried about science and innovation).

By the way, this topic for me is one of the biggest roadblocks on my path to AC (see, I'm trying to be cooperative) so any links would be greatly appriciated.

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm not advocating any system!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok quick aside, this needs to stop. ACists are in fact advocating a system. Anything, government or lack, is a system of interaction. You can say you aren't advocating coersion, but you're still advocating a system.

Goes back to that 3rd grade "Not making a choice is still making a choice *giggle*" stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what's for dinner. But something is cooking. Wait till we get there and we'll find out what it is. If you don't like it, you can go cook your own dinner.


[/ QUOTE ]

No a better analogy would be saying "Let's go out for dinner" "Ok where too" "Hell I don't know, I don't even know if there are restaurants out this way, but what the hell let's give it a whirl"

I'm not asking for what companies are going to spring up to make roads or grow crops, I'm talking about the lack of issues in the system (or lack of system) that might, in the example of IP, stunt innovation.

[ QUOTE ]
What morals, and what scientific situation? I don't see why. Explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're asking if we can say Sklansky's FTOP is wrong because he occasionally makes mistakes, in much the same way that I said morals are incorrect (actually, not applicable) because we can't be consistant. The answer is that these things aren't alike. We can test the theory of power and see that over any sample set, decisions made with 100% knowledge are better then those made with incomplete knowledge. Our moral discussion doesn't work like that. Morals aren't science, so they can't be put to the same test. Ergo, the two examples are comparible.

Cody