As I said last week, I think the government is too big and it should be smaller. The primary reason government constantly gets bigger is because politicians keep passing more laws. The problem is, we already have way too many. A Game of Thrones novel is 1000 pages, which is considered huge. The Federal Register, the listing of all the laws in the federal government, is over 81,000 pages long. And of course, it grows almost every year. And that doesn’t include any state or local laws; those are in addition to that.

So I don’t want any more laws. I would rather politicians start repealing (and not replacing) laws. Laws mean restrictions, and we’re already restricted quite enough, especially considering we in the West are considered “free” (which, of course, we are not).

However, there is one strong exception to this. There is one time, and only one time where it makes sense to pass new laws. That is when laws are enacted to restrict politicians, those running to become politicians, and government employees. Those are good restrictions.

When the government restricts you, the private citizen, that’s bad. But when the government restricts (or at least tries to restrict) those who have power over you (politicians and government employees) or those who seek power over you (those who are running for political office), that’s good. Actually, it’s great. The less power government politicians, candidates, and employees have, the less they can abuse you and restrict your personal freedoms.

Unsurprisingly, having this opinion puts me at odds against both left-wingers and right-wingers. The left and the right love laws that restrict government entities or people on the other side, but when it restricts government entities or people they like, they get upset.

Here are a few examples. Because I favor more restrictions on government politicians, candidates, and employees…

1. Am 100% against unions in government. Left-wingers hate that viewpoint. Unions in the private marketplace are fine. Unions in the government are a terrible idea (unless your goal is socialism). It ensures government spending grows for invalid reasons. Also, incompetent government employees should be able to be fired instantly if they do a shitty job, just like they can in the free market.

2. I am for much more restrictions against police officers. Right-wingers hate that viewpoint. Tough shit; if a police officer has that much power over me, including the right to actually kill me if he feels threatened, then he needs a lot of restrictions. If cops don’t like that, they shouldn’t become cops and get less dangerous jobs.

3. Donald Trump should have been forced, by law, to reveal all of his tax returns as a condition for running for president. Trump supporters hate when I say that. They argue, “Fuck the government! They have no right to look into a private businessman’s personal financial affairs! I LIKE that Trump told them to fuck off!”

The problem is that Trump was seeking (and now has) vast power over you via big government. The minute he became one of the final two candidates for president, he was not a private citizen anymore. He loses the right to be treated like a normal citizen. If he wants the power to literally kill me by starting a nuclear war, then tough shit, he needs to have lots of restrictions and safeguards placed on his life and his behavior. (That’s sort of what the entire Constitution is all about.) Otherwise, he skip running for president, remain a private citizen, and keep his right to privacy.

Trump aside, anyone who runs as a final candidate for the Presidency must turn over not only tax returns for the last many years, but medical records, business records, school records (Obama always kept these hidden, and I didn’t like that either), divorce records, results from a full physical given to him by a panel of three independent doctors (not the one doctor the candidate chooses, but a panel chosen for him), and various other data. All of this stuff should be public information so the voters can make an informed decision on the man who (or woman) who will spend their tax dollars and wield vast power against them and their children.

If you’re against this idea, you want less restrictions on the people who run the government; thus, you want bigger government and less freedom for the individual citizen. Which I suppose is fine, but America was founded on a different set of principles.

4. I am opposed to the entire concept of tenure with teachers in public schools. If a teacher starts doing a shitty job educating students, that teacher should be fired. It doesn’t fucking matter how long that teacher has worked there. Oh, it drives left-wingers insane when I say things like this.

I could give many more examples but you get my point.

Whether it’s public teachers, cops, politicians, normal citizens running for office (especially for President!), government employees, or government bureaucrats, laws passed to restrict these people are usually a good thing. Those are only laws that make sense to enact (beyond the basics of don’t kill other people, don’t steal someone else’s stuff, etc).

44 Comments on “The One Time More Laws and Regulations Make Sense

  1. What about judges (specially supreme court judges) should they get any special restriction?

    Many. The biggest ones is that you must eliminate lifetime appointments, which is INSANE (limit all judges’ terms to 2 to 40 years and disallow re-appointment) and allow them to be easily fired / removed from office if they clearly show bias or stupidity.

  2. I agree 100% on those requirements for presidential candidates, except I’d go further. I think they should apply to Senate and House candidates too, and every odd year a non-partisan panel should create a ~100 question exam on history, the Constitution, economics, foreign governments, etc., that these candidates would need to take and with the results made public. They should also come up with ~20 of the most important issues facing the country and have the candidates write a minimum of 1,000 words describing their stance on each one.

    For tenure, it makes sense for college professors as it encourages free speech and therefore new ideas. You have to remember most of these tenured professors only teach one or two classes, and even those are typically graduate level. They’re main job is to do research.

    I also agree on the lifetime appointment of judges, especially for the Supreme Court. I believe federal judges should have a single 10 year term, that way you’re not replacing your own guys and won’t have somebody like Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by a Reagan, a guy most people alive today weren’t old enough to vote for. Also if the Senate doesn’t vote on them within 30 days they will be automatically approved, preventing a majority opposition party from stalling until they get their guy in office like the Republicans just did.

  3. I agree 100% on those requirements for presidential candidates, except I’d go further. I think they should apply to Senate and House candidates too

    Agree.

    For tenure, it makes sense for college professors as it encourages free speech and therefore new ideas.

    For 100% private colleges that get no government funding, sure.

    For any college that relies on taxpayer funds, no. Taxpayers should not be forced at gunpoint to subsidize shitty teachers.

    Also if the Senate doesn’t vote on them within 30 days they will be automatically approved, preventing a majority opposition party from stalling until they get their guy in office like the Republicans just did.

    Agree.

  4. Many. The biggest ones is that you must eliminate lifetime appointments, which is INSANE

    For the record, there are no lifetime appointments for judges. The Constitution says nothing about life terms. According to Article III, federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for good behavior.

    What is “good behavior?” Anything that the Senate says it is. So any federal judge may be impeached by the Senate for behavior which the Senate deems to be politically outrageous, such as interpreting the Constitution in an unfaithful way according to the majority opinion of the Senate.

    allow them to be easily fired / removed from office if they clearly show bias or stupidity.

    The Constitution already provides for that – Senate impeachment via simple majority vote for “bad behavior.”

    Also, federal judges may be impeached for criminal felonies, but not misdemeanors or infractions. And it is illegal to arrest a federal judge for anything, even a felony, if they haven’t been impeached yet. Judges are also legally immune from all lawsuits, unless the lawsuits pertain to their personal lives that have nothing to do with their work as judges or the cases they decided.

    Here’s where things get interesting though:

    1. Federal judges serving during “good behavior” don’t have to always serve on the same court. So if Congress wanted to take a judge off the Supreme Court and put him or her on a lower federal court, they can do that every two years or however many times Congress wants to.

    2. The number of federal judges on any specific court is controlled by Congress. Congress may increase or decrease their number, as long as it is an odd number. So on the Supreme Court, we have 9. If Congress wanted, it could lower that number to 1. This means, the other 8 judges would be literally fired, despite them doing nothing wrong.

    3. Congress may currently strip the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) of its legal jurisdiction over a particular case or subject area by passing a simple law. Here is that portion of Article III of the Constitution:

    “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    Translation: The Supreme Court’s legal jurisdiction is untouchable when it comes to cases “affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state is a party (involving those ambassadors, etc…)” But in all other cases, Congress may pass a law declaring that the Judicial Branch has no legal right to even review this case on this subject. So, for example, if Congress wants to pass a law forbidding the Judiciary from hearing First Amendment cases or whatever, it may actually do so!

    5. All lower federal courts (both the district courts and the intermediate circuit courts of appeals) are “creatures of Congress” which appear nowhere in the Constitution. Congress then may pass a law by a simple majority vote literally abolishing any federal court they want to abolish, as long as it’s not the Supreme Court (and obviously Congress has no jurisdiction over state courts). This means that Congress can simply abolish the entire federal judiciary system and reduce the Supreme Court to just one judge, while stripping that judge of all his or her legal jurisdiction to hear any case on any subject, except the above stated subjects which the Constitution has given the Court “original jurisdiction” over (involving those ambassadors, etc…) if Congress were so inclined!

     

     

     

     

  5. divorce records,

    Or we can just abolish, or privatize, marriage.

     I am opposed to the entire concept of tenure with teachers in public schools.

    I am opposed to the entire concept of public schooling, as well as all compulsory education laws.

    For 100% private colleges that get no government funding, sure.

    For any college that relies on taxpayer funds, no. Taxpayers should not be forced at gunpoint to subsidize shitty teachers.

    97 percent of private colleges receive some type of federal and/or state funding. The remaining 3 percent are religious colleges.

     

  6. For the record, there are no lifetime appointments for judges. The Constitution says nothing about life terms.

    As always, I don’t care about words written on paper. I only care about what actually happens in real life, and in real life, they’re lifetime appointments (until retirement) or close to it.

    The Constitution already provides for that – Senate impeachment via simple majority vote for “bad behavior.”

    You know it’s not that simple. There are many more restrictions, and even trying to bring about such a vote would be damn near impossible. I said easily fired, not fired if the entire fucking Senate votes on it. That’s not easy.

    Since you’re an attorney, you put too much weight on the written word (a common mistake college educated left-wingers make). Raise your eyes from the paperwork and evaluate the real world instead.

    Or we can just abolish, or privatize, marriage.

    Agree, but it will never happen.

    I am opposed to the entire concept of public schooling, as well as all compulsory education laws.

    Agree, but it will never happen (post-collapse that is; maybe after though).

    97 percent of private colleges receive some type of federal and/or state funding.

    Yup. That’s the problem.

  7. I would love to see more restrictions for police.  Yes, I appreciate the men and women in blue… but… I don’t think they need to carry guns on their person during routine traffic stops in the middle of the day, or while they’re doing security at a whole foods in the suburbs.  A cane should suffice with the soccer moms, I’d think.   If they’re not chasing a suspect that’s armed and dangerous, I don’t think they should mind leaving the weapon in the car.

    A schoolmate in my neighborhood was shot to death by 3 cops while lighting off fireworks.  Another friend of mine got a gun in his face in front of his whole family during a “failure to use turn signal”  traffic stop.  In Ohio where I grew up, they are incentivized to reach a quota for DUIs, and pull people over nonstop, getting angry if you’re sober.  Every run in I had with a cop I felt demeaned and insulted.  We had genuine fear of police, and it wasn’t a bad neighborhood.

    I never really researched it in depth, but I’ve seen some articles showing that 20 times more Americans get killed by police, than vice versa.  I know police dramas make them out to be death-defying dangerous jobs, and risking their lives daily, but a very small percentage ever experience those kinds of dangerous shootouts.

  8. I don’t think they need to carry guns on their person during routine traffic stops in the middle of the day, or while they’re doing security at a whole foods in the suburbs.

    Precisely.

    Most cops don’t need guns with actual metal bullets at all. Modern day tech offers them so many other nonlethal options. Tasers, rubber bullets, sonic weapons, pepper spray, mace, etc. The fact so many cops immediately leap to the one lethal option whenever there’s a problem shows there’s something very wrong.

  9. Since you’re an attorney,

    Retired.

    you put too much weight on the written word (a common mistake college educated left-wingers make).

    I know you didn’t just call me a left winger. Them be fightin words, buddy. 🙂

     

  10. Regarding those medical stuff. Would you include medical records on that (I think this is a bit too private to make it public), or what kind of information do you mean exactly? Standard thing like white blood cell count or also the medications they take?

  11. I know you didn’t just call me a left winger. Them be fightin words, buddy. 

     

    Sometimes I think Caleb is messing with you on purpose lol.

  12. Would you include medical records on that (I think this is a bit too private to make it public), or what kind of information do you mean exactly? Standard thing like white blood cell count or also the medications they take?

    I’m not a doctor so I can’t give you specifics. I’m taking about full lifetime medical history and the results of a full, comprehensive physical given by a panel of 3 independent doctors that the candidate does not choose.

    And if you want to be President of the United States and have that much power over the world, then fuck you, you wave your right to privacy (at least in terms of medical and finances). If you don’t like it, stay a private citizen.

  13. ‘When the government restricts you, the private citizen, that’s bad. But when the government restricts (or at least tries to restrict) those who have power over you (politicians and government employees) or those who seek power over you (those who are running for political office), that’s good. ‘

    The problem with this is that more often than not when new regulations like this are issued it is with the intent of established politicians to prevent any other competing parties to acquire political power. Since they raise new barriers of entry to the political game these just create a stronger establishment that can get away with more. Which falls into the problem of the fox keeping the chicken, the wolves keeping the sheep, etc.

    The typical example would be that of a Middle Eastern, African or Latin American Banana Republic dictator trying to perpetuate himself in power and even try to establish a family dinasty. In democracy this kind of games happen the same, just more covertly.  See: The Clinton and Bush families, the latter had two presidencies in two generations and even tried to place a third (Jeb) as a president; the Clintons almost achieved two presidencies too.

    You could argue that mob rule, direct democracy, is demential and a terrible idea, but so are any regulations that enable politicians to get away with more because they control (read: restrict) who can get in the game and under which conditions to his convenience.

    Of course I can’t give you a solution to this since I’m not a minarchist nor I believe in democracy. For me, ideally, national sovereignty should be gradually replaced by individual sovereignty (private property) and the free association of private properties in private law covenants, but I won’t persuade you to believe in such a system.

  14. I am opposed to the entire concept of public schooling, as well as all compulsory education laws.

    Hear, hear!

    I feel bad for my teacher buddies, who are clinging and clutching to the concept of tenure. What many don’t know is that its because of tenure that education in the west is asinine.

    This is also why I am an anarcho-capitalist. If there WAS no Department of Education, schooling would be cheap instead of free, families of students would get their money’s worth, the vast majority of teachers wouldn’t be phoning things in, and there wouldn’t be stupid testing that the state thrusts onto both teachers and students.

    I fucking hate public education.

  15. And the children born in families with low income would get a mediocre education, continuing the cycle of poverty. I am ok with the idea of decently funded public school. It is not fair that only the rich get to give their children a good education.

    We should be focusing on making education cheaper instead of privatizing it.

  16. The problem with this is that more often than not when new regulations like this are issued it is with the intent of established politicians to prevent any other competing parties to acquire political power. Since they raise new barriers of entry to the political game these just create a stronger establishment that can get away with more.

    That’s only if there are restrictions for candidates but little restrictions for office holders; you need both, not one or the other.

    For example, there should be strict terms limits for everyone (one term), political parties should be abolished, office holders should have very little power, etc. Under that system it would be very hard for current office holders to game the system (they still would to some degree, but not nearly as badly as they do now).

    And the children born in families with low income would get a mediocre education, continuing the cycle of poverty. I am ok with the idea of decently funded public school. It is not fair that only the rich get to give their children a good education.

    Utterly incorrect. Privatizing education would drive the cost of education down to low levels that society hasn’t seen in over 60 years. Under the current system, low income people are forced at gunpoint to put their kids in the worst schools. Under a private system, they could send them to all kinds of different, inexpensive types of schools (including online schools).

    We should be focusing on making education cheaper instead of privatizing it.

    Privatizing is exactly what would make it cheaper. Keeping it as a government monopoly ensures high prices.

    I strongly suggest you do more research on this issue, from all political angles, before forming a final opinion.

  17. What many don’t know is that its because of tenure that education in the west is asinine.

    It’s not just tenure. It’s because the public school economy is modeled after the economy of the former Soviet Union. School unions are a cancer. There are actually teachers who have been convicted in a court of law of sexually molesting, or sometimes brutally raping, their 6 or 7 year old students, so now they are not legally allowed anywhere near a classroom. But, at the same time, they can’t be fired because of the school union. So everyday they come to school, sit in the library, drink coffee, and play board games, while getting paid with our tax money for it!

    Communism doesn’t work and the only word to describe public schools is “Communist.”

    This is also why I am an anarcho-capitalist.

    Oh jesus, not this shit again! How could anyone be an “anarcho-capitalist?” You know that’s an oxymoron right? You do realize that the existence of government is the only thing which secures the existence of private property, right? In a state of anarchy, there is, by definition, no private property!

    I can understand being an “anarcho-communist.” As retarded as that is, at least it has some logic to it. But “anarcho-capitalist?” So you want to take a vacation to Hawaii for two weeks. Are you going to pay a private security firm 10,000 dollars to guard your shit for two weeks? Dude, the government’s only job is to protect you and your shit from physical violations! Without it, kiss your private property goodbye! Anarcho-capitalist. LMAO!

    If there WAS no Department of Education, schooling would be cheap instead of free,

    Actually, the U.S. Department of Education was created in the 1970s, thus federalizing the public education system. Before that public schools were owned by the individual state governments (ever since the 1840s). They still sucked, but now they suck more.

     

  18. And the children born in families with low income would get a mediocre education, continuing the cycle of poverty.

    HAHAHAHA! Are you suggesting that they don’t get a mediocre education now from public schools? Public schools aren’t about education. They are about indoctrination into politically correct beliefs and attitudes! They teach children that welfare is good and that they can’t make it on their own. They want to disempower the next generation and destroy their ruggedness (calling it “toxic masculinity”), dope them up on psychiatric poison, and teach them that there are 78 genders! The goal is to inculcate a philosophy of helplessness and dependence on the government in order to create reliable Democratic Party voters, not to educate them in anything. You want education? Read a fucking book!

    I am ok with the idea of decently funded public school.

    Then you’re okay with the idea of decently funded brainwashing into disempowerment, dependence, and slavery to the State.

    It is not fair that only the rich get to give their children a good education.

    Again, you’re saying that public schooling is “good education.” It’s not. It’s PC brainwashing designed to create social justice warriors.

    And why do we even need private education? How about you educate your own kids for free? How about you teach them to harness the power of Google and the Internet. There is virtually nothing you can’t learn online. As for hard skills, like becoming a doctor, learning how to perform brain surgery, or becoming an engineer, there can be special private trade schools for that.

    But the existence of “elementary school, middle school, high school, college, and graduate school,” is just horseshit! Even in the private sector, these things aren’t needed. The reason we need them now is because private employers have been brainwashed by the concept of “credentialism.” They want to see an “official” and “formal” type of education on your resume or they won’t hire you. So it’s not about empirical merit, but about bullshit paperwork!

    Did you know that much of what I learned in law school wasn’t applicable to the real world? And do you know how much fucking money I wasted?

    In the 14th century, if you wanted to be a lawyer, you didn’t have to spend a penny. Just move in with a lawyer, become his apprentice, do chores for him in exchange for his knowledge, and when he feels he has taught you everything, you’re a lawyer. No paperwork or any of that crap. Just announce that you’re a lawyer. People will then hire you. If you suck, word will spread and the free market will crush you!

    But because of “credentialism” the amount of money I had to spend for college and law school was absolutely insane. This isn’t how things should be in a free society.

    We should be focusing on making education cheaper instead of privatizing it.

    Uh, dude, you know that public schools are…..free, right? You know that they are universally accessible to everyone right? The reason college is so expensive is because the government guaranteed student loans, which jacked up tuition prices, since the customers won’t object if they’re not the ones paying. Privatizing education WILL make it cheaper! But right now, it’s not education. It’s government propaganda brainwashing children with PC trash!

    In any case, education is already cheap (assuming you pay your monthly Internet bill). The problem is our worship of paperwork and bureaucratic credentialism (which cuts poor people out) at the expense of merit and real qualification!

     

     

  19. Of course I can’t give you a solution to this since I’m not a minarchist nor I believe in democracy. For me, ideally, national sovereignty should be gradually replaced by individual sovereignty (private property) and the free association of private properties in private law covenants, but I won’t persuade you to believe in such a system.

    So you’re another anarchist?

     

  20. Well, as far as I know, private schools tend to be quite expensive. Thats why I say that only the rich and privileged would have access to top education.

    You state that if education was privatized, all kinds of cheaper alternatives would appear, such as online schools. The question is, what would companies think of these schools? The entire point of education is to get a future job. I bet a lot of companies (more exactly, those who do the hiring) would be biased against those people who had an online education.

    Online education has a lot of issues anyway. Fot example, how do you test applicants if they are allowed to take an examination from home? Cheating on tests would be much easier.

  21. Well, as far as I know, private schools tend to be quite expensive. Thats why I say that only the rich and privileged would have access to top education.

    And that’s exactly why you’re wrong. Instead of making a detailed analysis before forming your opinion, you pop your head up, look around at what you see in front of your face, and then instantly make a make a completely uninformed opinion based on that limited information.

    To help with the analysis you never made, private schools are expensive now because there are so few of them. Moreover, they appeal to higher-income people since lower-income people use government schools.

    If there were no government schools and all schools were private, per the laws of competition and economies of scale, the prices would drop dramatically. Most schools (though not all) would also try to cater to lower and middle income families.

    You’re welcome to keep posting on this blog, but if you keep stating viewpoints that are clearly inaccurate  because you haven’t done the research, which something you seem to do a lot, I won’t be responding to you (other commenters are always welcome to do so).

  22.  The question is, what would companies think of these schools? The entire point of education is to get a future job. I bet a lot of companies (more exactly, those who do the hiring) would be biased against those people who had an online education.

    You’re assuming they aren’t already biased against low income people who were forced to attend awful public schools. The bar isn’t that high.

    Online education has a lot of issues anyway. Fot example, how do you test applicants if they are allowed to take an examination from home? Cheating on tests would be much easier.

    Interestingly, they were experimenting with this when I was in college. You could take an online course and study on your own, and then sign in to a secure testing facility with your name, ID, photo, etc… and simply take a test on a locked-down computer with a general-purpose proctor monitoring the room. A very small investment in space/personnel and you can handle thousands of students who each only spend a few hours there per semester.

    Probably pennies on the dollars compared to full time teaching with print material, specialized teachers, student facilities, etc. It was also incredibly flexible for scheduling purposes.

  23. I don’t “pop my head” and respond based on what is in front the screen. Rather, I write my posts based on my experience and what I know about economy and human nature.

    1. I have lived in and traveled across several third world countries. These countries tend to have a lot of private schools and they nearly always cater to rich people. Your assumption that private schools for poor people would be created is just that, an assumption. You can not sure that prediction would be true.

    2. You state that this cheapening of education would take place because of certain laws of economics. Where are this laws written? Are they set in stone somewhere? The laws of economics are not inmutable like the laws of physics. They change just as society changes; and society nowdays is changing faster and faster. To give an example, a lot of pundits predicted Hillary Clinton would win the presidency according to what they considered “laws of politics” and look what happened.

    3. There are people in America that are extremely poor. So poor they may not even be able to access the cheapests schools for their children.

    If you decide not to respond to me anymore I would be very sad :'(

  24. I have lived in and traveled across several third world countries. These countries tend to have a lot of private schools and they nearly always cater to rich people.

    Correct. I already answered why.

    There are people in America that are extremely poor. So poor they may not even be able to access the cheapest schools for their children.

    As I’ve said before, I’m willing to discuss local government options for the bottom 5% of the population. But that’s it, the bottom 5%. No one else.

    You state that this cheapening of education would take place because of certain laws of economics. Where are this laws written? Are they set in stone somewhere? The laws of economics are not inmutable like the laws of physics. They change just as society changes

    All incorrect. If there is more a of a thing available to consumers, the price goes down. If there is less of a thing (while all other factors remain more or less the same), the price goes up. The law of supply and demand. This is not my “assumption.”

    If you are ignorant of basic economics yet want to have a debate regarding it, you’ll have to debate someone else. You sound like a really young guy and with lots of opinions but very little knowledge. This is my last response to you, ever. Please, for the love of god, do some heavy reading and research, and from all political viewpoints (not just the left), before making strong opinions that you state on the internet. You’ll be a happier and better man for it.

  25. Since Mr Blackdragon won’t respond to me ever, would anyone be kind enough to show me a REAL LIFE example of a country that completelly tore down its public education system, replaced it with a COMPLETELY private education system, and ended up better afterwards?

    There is even a prize to whoever does that: I will make a drawing of whatever you want (as long as it is not super complex or obscene)

  26. Not to fan the flames, because I don’t think walter is intentionally trolling… but walter. Seriously.

    Requesting that kind of evidence is akin to supporting the US wars in the middle east with the following:

    “…show me a REAL LIFE example of a modern superpower that completely stopped military action in the Middle East, engaged entirely in peaceful diplomacy, and ended up better afterwards?”

    You could play the same game with any policy that hasn’t been enacted in the most extreme form already. It could also have been used to stop PUBLIC education in its tracks before it was instituted the first time. Just a non-argument really.

    Not even saying you’re wrong, because public vs private education could be a great discussion with a lot of room for opinion. But your argument sucks.

    And since you were talking about private schools in the developing world, I took 2 seconds to google it and learned that:

    “Most private schools in the developing world are single operators that charge a few dollars a month” – http://www.economist.com

    Oh, and..

    This is my last response to you, ever. Please, for the love of god, do some heavy reading and research, and from all political viewpoints (not just the left), before making strong opinions that you state on the internet.

    Seconded.

  27. Requesting evidence is not the same as making an argument Chuck. I suggest you look at the definition of “argument” before saying my argument sucks.

    On a related note, Germany has a robust public education system and also the strongest economy in Europe. (This is not an argument either Chuck, it is a FACT.)

  28. Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but I can only stand so much PC and retarded rationalizations before I must either jump in or hang myself. So here I go…

    Requesting evidence is not the same as making an argument Chuck.

    But you did make an argument, Walter! Your argument is that public schools are awesome and should be expanded, Walter! Your argument is that public schools give “robust” and competent education, Walter! Your argument is that abolishing these government reeducation camps and making all schooling private (and therefore, responsive to the needs and demands of the customer) would benefit only the rich at the expense of the brainwashed poor, Walter!

    You got your argument from CNN and the mainstream media, Walter. And your argument is completely retarded, Walter!

    I suggest you look at the definition of “argument” before saying my argument sucks.

    And I suggest you look up the definition of “political correctness” and compare and contrast it to what these government concentration camps are teaching our children, and then tell us with a straight face that public “education” is good.

    On a related note, Germany has a robust public education system and also the strongest economy in Europe.

    Oh dear lord! Is the economy all that matters to you? Open your eyes. Germany is not Germany anymore. It’s Germanistan. Germany is dying! It is dying culturally, socially, ethnically, and in terms of self esteem and competence. And why? Because the children’s government concentration camps that you call “schools” taught them “tolerance” and how “love is war,” “war is peace,” “truth is fiction,” and “diversity is strength.”

    Thanks to these tax payer funded reeducation centers, the Germans have been brainwashed with white guilt and are allowing Muslim savages and rapefugees to turn their once beautiful country into a third world trash dump while women are told to “dress modestly” in order to avoid gang rape from the religion of peace!

    Who brainwashed these Germans? Your “robust” public education system! And you want such trash expanded here???

    (This is not an argument either Chuck, it is a FACT.)

    Yes Walter, it’s a FACT! Here’s another FACT – No government will ever erect schools to teach children to be skeptical of government! In order for a child to grow up a patriot, he or she must be taught that government should be afraid of the people and that it is WE THE PEOPLE who need to be educating our government. Government has no business educating our people!

     

     

  29. Hey Caleb, just curious: When your kids were children, did you send them both to public or private school? I think you mentioned it before but I forgot.

    Also, are they both in college now? If so, public or private?

     

  30. When your kids were children, did you send them both to public or private school? I think you mentioned it before but I forgot.

    Yeah. We lived in a good neighborhood for most of the marriage so the public schools weren’t as horrible as most other public schools. My kids went to public school for the lower grades, a (semi-public) charter school for the mid-grades, and private high schools.

    Also, are they both in college now? If so, public or private?

    My son is 25 so he’s been out of college for quite a while. He went to a state college, UofO. I refused to pay for it so he got loans, grants (he had fantastic grades), and a little help from his mother and grandmother. He busted his ass there and later admitted it was a mistake to go. (Just as I warned him.)

    My daughter is 19, out of high school, and will not be going to college (even though she went to a college-prep private high school for smart kids; funny). She may go to beauty school later. Not sure. (Doesn’t matter to me.)

  31. Your argument is that public schools are awesome and should be expanded

    Incorrect. I never said or implied that.

    Your argument is that public schools give “robust” and competent education

    Not necessarily.  Public schools provide a bare minimum of education. Whether is “robust” or “competent” depends on how you define those terms.

    Your argument is that abolishing these government reeducation camps and making all schooling private (and therefore, responsive to the needs and demands of the customer) would benefit only the rich at the expense of the brainwashed poor

    I am not implying anything remotely similar to that. What I am saying is you can’t just abolish the entire education system at once. It would cause massive chaos and problems. You have to find a way to fix it without negatively affecting anyone.

    Online schools are very promising but young children need a person to oversee their learning and telling them what to do. Good luck telling a 6 yeard old kid to sit in front of a computer for 8 hours and “study”.

    As I’ve said before, I’m willing to discuss local government options for the bottom 5% of the population. But that’s it, the bottom 5%. No one else.

    So you create a system where those in the 6% have it worse (they make just a bit more than those in the bottom but have to pay for the education of their kids)

     

  32. Hooray, JOTB is raging again.

    In a state of anarchy, there is, by definition, no private property!

    If there is no government, everything is private and no one forces anyone to do anything. CJ is right about how people would form governments all over again, but hell at least they would be smaller. I’ll admit that anarcho-capitalism is a far fetched concept that triggers nearly everyone. That’s because it revolves around the concept of being self aware and self accountability. People who believe in government generally don’t possess those qualities, or at most possess haphazard variations on those qualities.

    I can understand being an “anarcho-communist.” As retarded as that is, at least it has some logic to it.

    I can’t. That’s what Sanders nuthugging SJWs want, is for government to have complete control over economic structures while leaving other structures alone. I know quite a few AnComs and I have to very gently tell them that government can take away anything it gives you. Which it does, and always has.

    So you want to take a vacation to Hawaii for two weeks. Are you going to pay a private security firm 10,000 dollars to guard your shit for two weeks?

    If I absolutely have to, sure. Or I would have trained guard dogs or other animals who will kill anything that they see as a threat. But I don’t have much shit to guard. Nearly all of my possessions fit neatly in my car.

    Dude, the government’s only job is to protect you and your shit from physical violations! Without it, kiss your private property goodbye! 

    Have they ever done this, with any efficiency? Have they? If you want the government to “protect you and your shit from physical violations,” move to Israel. There are plenty of IDF troops patrolling the streets who are ready, willing, and able to kill any non-Jew who they see as suspicious.

    And as much as I like Petersen, standing up to SJWs by being a different variation of SJW isn’t standing up to SJWs, bro. Laci Green is pulling that shit and everyone can see right through it. Ignoring SJWs and avoiding places that are chock full of them (if they are that “threatening” to you, to me they are annoying at best) is how to stand up to SJWs, bro.

    I think we agree on lots of things, but I don’t really think the belligerence is necessary.

  33. I’m bored. I’ll take on Walter too.

    It is not fair that only the rich get to give their children a good education.

    Meh. I’m getting real tired of this “only the rich hurr hurr hurr” argument. Rich people are obscenely dumb and bored nowadays. The most intelligent people have always been the middle class. You know, the class that government wants to eliminate? Yeah, that one. Also, “rich” is one of the most suspect measurements of anything right next to “happy.” Its literally one of the most subjective measurements in human history. I can make $25000 a year and feel rich because I don’t care for having a lot of things and don’t have a family and stuff. Someone else can make six figures and be broke because they foolishly decided to start a family really young, buy the biggest house, and the newest car. This “only the rich” thing is hot air.

    We should be focusing on making education cheaper instead of privatizing it.

    And how in the purple blue hell is this possible without privatizing it?

    The entire point of education is to get a future job.

    That’s what the point WAS, before it became public. And even then education was about teaching physical skills (apprenticeships) and decorum/manners/etiquette (what most “schools” did). Now its about satisfying the credential fetish, which is what JOTB was talking about (which I completely agree with). Education has also been about making sure that collectivist philosophies (no matter the side) are coded into our DNA just like narcissism is being coded into our DNA. They still teach etiquette as well. This is why I laugh when alt righters are just now noticing this. However, its been that way for millennia, ever since organized religion became a thing, soooooo…..

    how do you test applicants if they are allowed to take an examination from home? Cheating on tests would be much easier.

    Maybe…not have testing at all? Especially at such a young age. Doing well on tests is deceptively easy: Memorize a whole bunch of things, take the test, then forget it all the next day. I literally slept through school with this strategy. I’m a proponent for initiations, auditions, and active tutorials over lectures. For a young person, education should be for learning skills and etiquette, not memorizing obscure facts that you’re gonna forget a week later.

    Germany has a robust public education system and also the strongest economy in Europe.

    You need some serious lessons in objectivity vs subjectivity. “robust” is a suspect phrase here. One person’s “robust” is another’s “ineffective.” To an AnCom who wants government to tell them how to spend their money but not tell them how to live their lives (streams which eventually cross, AnComs get psychotically triggered when I mention that), “strongest” entails a whole universe of different qualities than what AnCaps think the “strongest” economy is.
    Germany has a robust education system and is the strongest economy in Europe because they represent things that you like. If Germany was completely AnCap, you would despise it, because there would be a clash.
    I’m not surprised CJ chose not to respond to you.

  34. And how in the purple blue hell is this possible without privatizing it?

    Gradually increase Student-Teacher ratio, replace traditional textbooks with E-books, etc.

    I’m not surprised CJ chose not to respond to you.

    Why?

  35. Hooray, JOTB is raging again.

    You bring it out of me.

    If there is no government, everything is private and no one forces anyone to do anything.

    This is an insane statement on the level of a utopian Disney fantasy. Or just on the level of someone who never saw the movie the Purge! Google it and watch it.

    If there is no government, then everyone forces everyone to do everything, because there is no government to restrain anyone’s force, whether we’re talking about murder, rape, or whatever. Without government, there is nothing but force, nothing but murder, nothing but theft, etc…

    That’s why we need government – to restrain the force. Unfortunately, this necessitates giving the government a monopoly on force. Solution: Keep the government small and its powers limited to protecting only you and your shit from human rights violations. In other words – Libertarianism!

    And no, nothing is private without government because it is government, and only government, which precisely secures your privacy, both in terms of people breaking into your house and in terms of your personal dignity (private acts which you want to keep private from others). Without government, all your privacy (both behaviors and property) would not be private anymore, not even in the smallest degree.

    CJ is right about how people would form governments all over again, but hell at least they would be smaller.

    That’s exactly what I favor. Very small government. Just big enough to protect people’s human rights, but too small to do anything else.

    I’ll admit that anarcho-capitalism is a far fetched concept that triggers nearly everyone. That’s because it revolves around the concept of being self aware and self accountability. People who believe in government generally don’t possess those qualities, or at most possess haphazard variations on those qualities.

    More insanity!

    So I don’t possess self-accountability or self-awareness because I’m not an anarchist? I don’t possess personal responsibility or maturity because I don’t think people should have to pay thousands of dollars to private security firms simply to protect their basic human rights from murderers, thieves, and child molesters? Are you fucking shitting me?

    I can’t. That’s what Sanders nuthugging SJWs want, is for government to have complete control over economic structures while leaving other structures alone.

    Actually, an anarcho-communist wants no government at all, hence the “anarcho” part. He just wants collective ownership of literally everything after government is gone, which is pure evil because it violates the human rights of private property and all the personal autonomy that comes with it, but that is at least more realistic because in a Communist anarchy, no one can stop me from stealing your shit, but that’s ok, because, under Communism, that shit is mine as much as yours. But if you’re a capitalist AND an anarchist, you have zero security over your private property, so your capitalism, in a state of anarchy, becomes a sad joke on you.

    If I absolutely have to, sure. Or I would have trained guard dogs or other animals who will kill anything that they see as a threat. But I don’t have much shit to guard. Nearly all of my possessions fit neatly in my car.

    Goodie for you. What about those of us who do have lots of shit to guard. You actually expect me to pay money to private companies to secure my basic human right to not be robbed? This is insane! Human rights are NOT for sale! Human rights do NOT have price tags.

    I believe it was actually George Washington who said, “It is just as immoral to compel a man to pay ransom for the preservation of his natural rights as it would be to compel him to pay the same ransom for the blood to continue to flow through his veins.”

    Human rights are absolute. They depend on zero money! No one may be denied protection from murder just because he can’t pay ransom! Shame on you! Shame on all anarchists! The preservation of human rights without ransom is why we need government. It is also the only reason we need government. Every other job causes the government to become illegitimate.

    As Penn Gillette said, “The only point of government is to do things which I would do if I had a gun and there were no government. I’d use that gun to stop a murder, to stop a rape. I would not use that gun to build a school.”

    Have they ever done this, with any efficiency? Have they?

    With way more efficiency than in a state of anarchy. Anarchy = zero efficiency.

    If you want the government to “protect you and your shit from physical violations,” move to Israel. There are plenty of IDF troops patrolling the streets who are ready, willing, and able to kill any non-Jew who they see as suspicious.

    Now you’re just trolling. First of all, the government already protects me and my shit from physical violations here in the United States, so I’m good. Second of all, in Israel, I’d probably be the non-Jew that they’d kill, since the first thing I’d probably do there is unzip my pants and piss all over their pathetic “wailing wall.”

    And as much as I like Petersen, standing up to SJWs by being a different variation of SJW isn’t standing up to SJWs, bro.

    How is he a different variation of them?

    Laci Green is pulling that shit and everyone can see right through it.

    I was under the impression that Lacy is gradually becoming an anti-SJW because she decided she wants some dick in her snatch and realized that Chris Raygun, or any other normal male, wouldn’t fuck her like she craved if he were to find out that she’s an SJW loonytoon. Her need for sex trumped her need to say that sex is “problematic.”

    Ignoring SJWs and avoiding places that are chock full of them (if they are that “threatening” to you, to me they are annoying at best) is how to stand up to SJWs, bro.

    And when a Black Lives Matter terrorist steals your car, takes out a gun, and “polar bears” your ass, will you still think that ignoring them and hoping they’ll go away was a smart strategy? You sound like a mother who tells her son who is being bullied, “just ignore them honey. They’ll go away if you just ignore them.” No they won’t. That’s out of touch old generation shit. Bullies will leave you alone on one condition only – if you fight back and make yourself a hard target. Bullies go after easy prey. They are cowards by nature. You’ll never stop being tortured unless you stand up to them. Ignore the advice of mommy and learn how to FIGHT! Cry bullies must be fought against, not “ignored.”

    I think we agree on lots of things, but I don’t really think the belligerence is necessary.

    When I see arguments as utopian, naïve, and Disney as yours, I can’t help but be belligerent. You’re not living in the real world. At least watch the Purge movies if you want to know how anarchy would look like.

    Louis CK said it the best – If murder were legal, the people who already murder would murder more. The people who don’t already murder would start murdering. A third group of super sensitive pussies would only murder occasionally, like on Christmas, Labor Day, and Black Friday. And then there would be a fourth group of people whom no one would trust and everyone would think of as freaks and uptight prudes. Those would be the people who wouldn’t murder at all. Today, we call them Mormons!

    Fuck anarchy! Long live laws against murder!

     

     

  36. Why?

    You are asserting your observations as facts. You can’t just scream that your observation is a fact, which is what you did when you said that Germany had such a great system.

    You’re the same person who thinks that sex and masturbation are the same thing as well, on a different post and asked if sex could be replaced with masturbation.

    And to top this all off, you’re bribing and shamelessly self promoting, something that I am SHOCKED CJ hasn’t called you out on.

    There is even a prize to whoever does that: I will make a drawing of whatever you want 

    That’s why.

  37. you’re bribing

    Who am I bribing?

    There is even a prize to whoever does that: I will make a drawing of whatever you want 

    Ok, the contest is cancelled.

  38. I was under the impression that Lacy is gradually becoming an anti-SJW because she decided she wants some dick in her snatch and realized that Chris Raygun, or any other normal male, wouldn’t fuck her like she craved if he were to find out that she’s an SJW loonytoon. Her need for sex trumped her need to say that sex is “problematic.”

    At least we agree on this. Its a phase for her. I’ll bet that after they have sex she’ll accuse him of rape or something. Poor guy. But hell, that’ll be his fault. Its his funeral.

    arguments as utopian, naïve, and Disney as yours,

    Anarcho-Capitalism is Disney and naive? Utopian I’ll admit, and I’ll admit that it is idyllic. But its still better than what we have now or even what libertarians suggest, which is small government. Again, to not give government any agency is to be completely self aware and self accountable. And its like I said those who believe in government have either:

    Have no sense of this which is what we see with progressives (want Sanders and his ilk to have government give them free things) and alt-rights (who want Trump and his ilk to build pointless walls and attack other nations without provocation)

    Or they have a haphazard sense of self accountability and self awareness, meaning you aren’t totally self accountable. This is on full display when you say stuff like this:

    First of all, the government already protects me and my shit from physical violations here in the United States, so I’m good.

    They actually don’t, they would rather conspire with BLM and other “movements” to create a police state, but whatever. You also say this:

    The preservation of human rights without ransom is why we need government.

    Governments don’t work that way. They don’t affect you and you only. You can’t just magically “hire” public servants to protect you and you only. Unless…wait for it…they were…you guessed it, other private citizens. What a concept.

    Government was never interested in human rights unless said rights make them money. Then as soon as they get the money (which they have been psychotically good at, they even convinced leftist AnComs haha), They will violate said human rights as soon as they are provided. This has never not happened in history, it is what Sanders nuthugging leftists and Trump nuthugging alt-rights will soon find out, which is why CJ and others who can predict this are moving.

  39. Sorry, you’re simply wrong here. Might be a good idea to make it law that politicians show their taxes but Trump was still a private citizen when he was one of the last two candidates for the presidency. Only after you’re elected you become a member of the government. And even if you are right that he was already a member of the government , there was simply no law yet that required him to show his taxes. Other politicians, sheep that they are, show their taxes anyway, but Trump is an alpha male who doesn’t give a shit about what the media demands of him and simply told everybody to fuck off. Inspiring example for all of us!

  40. In Trump’s case, it’s double good that he didn’t show his taxes. Suppose his taxes showed some shady dealings, that could have swung the vote to Hillary Clinton. In that case we would have an extreme left winger on the Supreme Court instead of Gorsuch, we would have more regulations instead of less, we would have much more third world immigration , we would have regime change in Syria instead of defunding Al Quada in Syria, we would have a cold or hot war with Russia instead of deescalation. We would still have the Paris agreement. We would have all the energy regulations that Trump abolished, etc etc.

  41. Might be a good idea to make it law that politicians show their taxes but Trump was still a private citizen when he was one of the last two candidates for the presidency. Only after you’re elected you become a member of the government.

    Current or past status is irrelevant if you’re one of the final two people to become the most powerful person in the world. Voters need to have all the information they can about such a person before they hand that person that kind of power.

    And even if you are right that he was already a member of the government , there was simply no law yet that required him to show his taxes.

    I know. That’s what I said. That’s the problem.

    Other politicians, sheep that they are, show their taxes anyway, but Trump is an alpha male who doesn’t give a shit about what the media demands of him and simply told everybody to fuck off. Inspiring example for all of us!

    An inspiring example only if he didn’t have the power of life, death, taxation, and regulation over all of us. If he was just a CEO of a company I would celebrate his decision.

  42. In Trump’s case, it’s double good that he didn’t show his taxes. Suppose his taxes showed some shady dealings, that could have swung the vote to Hillary Clinton.

    The only reason you think that is because you liked Trump and disliked Hillary. At some point in the future, there may be a left-wing Bernie Sanders / Hillary type that runs for office, refuses to show tax returns because of unethical doings or crimes, and wins because of it… and you’ll be fuckin’ furious. That’s why all candidates should show them.

    I’m speaking here of long-term solutions; you’re engaging in very short-term thinking.

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.