L.H., I enjoyed the discourse. Take care my friend. I leave you with a goodbye video.
Posts
Anonymous [Part 1]
2 months ago
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
L.H. [Part 16]
L.H. wrote… If the knowledge presented in the public education system is without bias, and American society is otherwise free to the individual so long as he does not violate the base laws of humanity (which have been outlined numerous times during the course of this discussion), what reason is there to oppose it?
I render to agree with you here. If the education system teaches without bias, the ultimate goal and that in which the curriculum is based upon; freedom. If we begin by teaching kids that what they want and where they want to shop is completely up to them. That capitalism is driven by the needs or wants of those who choose to consume and exchange values for values. That is the most important thing to teach them. That comes before teaching them about the pro’s and con’s of shopping at different stores such as Walmart and the Mom and Pop stores. Their right to choose where they go is what needs to be the emphasis. Then you can go and teach them about what the pro’s and con’s are of shopping at numerous places. Liberty needs to come first in education.
In regards to Sierra’s class, I believe as much as you want to disagree with me, that he objectively taught AP Government. He threw his spin on it, there is no doubt. He wants everyone to see his Objectivism with an open mind. There is no denying that fact. I called the Department of Public Schools to get the records on AP History and AP Government passer ratings for the AP exam. I still have not received a call back from them, but the ones who at McGavock that I have spoken with about the two test, say that Sierra’s number of students that pass the AP test are well over and above Mrs. Wix (Brunette’s) passer ratings. And I don’t want to get into the well who is the better teacher and bashing the two, because that gets no where. What I can say looking at the statistics, is the Sierra’s class would be one in which I would put students if I could. Regardless if you agree or disagree with Sierra, you have to at least give the man credit where credit is due. That being his ability to teach kids the material in the course and prepare them for the AP test. Even Eric Taft of all people who you know as well as I do, disagrees with Sierra, admits that he is a good Government teacher. That is teaching style is unique and that that is why so many were able to pass the AP Test. There is no denying that. If I was putting my kids in a class to have a shot at college credit and it came down between Mrs. Wix and Sierra, there is no doubt where I would put them. I want my kids in the class that has the best chance of passing with college credit. Just as I did, when I graduated. I refuse and will refuse to discuss these two individuals any longer, because I don’t feel appropriately qualified to judge their teaching.
I render to agree with you here. If the education system teaches without bias, the ultimate goal and that in which the curriculum is based upon; freedom. If we begin by teaching kids that what they want and where they want to shop is completely up to them. That capitalism is driven by the needs or wants of those who choose to consume and exchange values for values. That is the most important thing to teach them. That comes before teaching them about the pro’s and con’s of shopping at different stores such as Walmart and the Mom and Pop stores. Their right to choose where they go is what needs to be the emphasis. Then you can go and teach them about what the pro’s and con’s are of shopping at numerous places. Liberty needs to come first in education.
In regards to Sierra’s class, I believe as much as you want to disagree with me, that he objectively taught AP Government. He threw his spin on it, there is no doubt. He wants everyone to see his Objectivism with an open mind. There is no denying that fact. I called the Department of Public Schools to get the records on AP History and AP Government passer ratings for the AP exam. I still have not received a call back from them, but the ones who at McGavock that I have spoken with about the two test, say that Sierra’s number of students that pass the AP test are well over and above Mrs. Wix (Brunette’s) passer ratings. And I don’t want to get into the well who is the better teacher and bashing the two, because that gets no where. What I can say looking at the statistics, is the Sierra’s class would be one in which I would put students if I could. Regardless if you agree or disagree with Sierra, you have to at least give the man credit where credit is due. That being his ability to teach kids the material in the course and prepare them for the AP test. Even Eric Taft of all people who you know as well as I do, disagrees with Sierra, admits that he is a good Government teacher. That is teaching style is unique and that that is why so many were able to pass the AP Test. There is no denying that. If I was putting my kids in a class to have a shot at college credit and it came down between Mrs. Wix and Sierra, there is no doubt where I would put them. I want my kids in the class that has the best chance of passing with college credit. Just as I did, when I graduated. I refuse and will refuse to discuss these two individuals any longer, because I don’t feel appropriately qualified to judge their teaching.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
L.H. [Pt. 15]
L.H. wrote…A.) Government intervention has nothing to do with Wal-Mart's success, not that I'm advocating that B.) Wal-Mart is bad for the America's economy C.) The people aren't doing anything despite their legal freedom to do so D.) The people don't know the first thing about economics, as well as a wealth of other things E.) In the vein of Epictetus, I don't believe a person is truly free if they are ignorant F.) People should be objectively educated about as many things as possible - particularly in various forms of social studies and communication, although all subjects are due for improvement G.) Such an education will not only free people to discover their true selves through their education, but it will allow for an economy that is more intelligently run by the people - makes sense, right? If the socially-run economy is run by the people, it will be run more intelligently if the people are more intelligent H.) There must not be bias in the curriculum - children will be given objective information and will be allowed to reach their own conclusion without impediment from the school so long as their actions do not violate the sparse laws of humanity - do not murder, steal, et cetera. I.) It is not the means to a specific end. It is not leading children to a specific ideology - it is providing them with knowledge of the world in the hopes that they will reach their own sophisticated conclusion, and that said sophisticated conclusion will be a good one.
L.H., in our current system I would accept your argument. That we should objectively teach people the essential foundation for capitalism. (F.- H.) That is only because we have public education. It’s because we have already lowered ourselves to a level of the responsibility to educate people. I disagree with public education. But in the system now, I think it would be a great idea to objectively teach them about pure capitalism(laissez-faire). I agree with you there. Where we differ is, that while teaching them the essentials, you must first teach them that capitalism is based on freedom. It’s based on the liberty to go and to choose any good or service that you would like, that you are able to trade values for values. That they can choose freely who they wish to trade with. Not that they should not go to this place or not go to that place, but that they have the freedom to choose where they go. People go where they choose to go. They do as they want to do. They do not need someone who is telling them not to go to Wal-Mart because of its so called “bad business practices.” Or as you say in (I.) “… sophisticated conclusion, and that said sophisticated conclusion will be a good one.” They should be free to choose what they want and where they go, L.H. Free to choose what is best for their life. That is what needs to be taught in light of a teaching towards capitalism. That is what laissez-faire capitalism is about.
Freedom. Choice. Competition. Value for Value.
In conclusion, public education needs to be a Sierra type class. Where it is laid out that you are free to make your own decisions for your life. That you know what is best for your life. Not necessarily the religion aspect as much, but more of the champion of the constitution and of freedom. I wish everyone in the world could take Sierra’s class, and I know I am probably looking like I am just gloating about Sierra, but you will agree that Sierra was a man that promotes freedom for all individuals. That is what public education needs to be about.
L.H., in our current system I would accept your argument. That we should objectively teach people the essential foundation for capitalism. (F.- H.) That is only because we have public education. It’s because we have already lowered ourselves to a level of the responsibility to educate people. I disagree with public education. But in the system now, I think it would be a great idea to objectively teach them about pure capitalism(laissez-faire). I agree with you there. Where we differ is, that while teaching them the essentials, you must first teach them that capitalism is based on freedom. It’s based on the liberty to go and to choose any good or service that you would like, that you are able to trade values for values. That they can choose freely who they wish to trade with. Not that they should not go to this place or not go to that place, but that they have the freedom to choose where they go. People go where they choose to go. They do as they want to do. They do not need someone who is telling them not to go to Wal-Mart because of its so called “bad business practices.” Or as you say in (I.) “… sophisticated conclusion, and that said sophisticated conclusion will be a good one.” They should be free to choose what they want and where they go, L.H. Free to choose what is best for their life. That is what needs to be taught in light of a teaching towards capitalism. That is what laissez-faire capitalism is about.
Freedom. Choice. Competition. Value for Value.
In conclusion, public education needs to be a Sierra type class. Where it is laid out that you are free to make your own decisions for your life. That you know what is best for your life. Not necessarily the religion aspect as much, but more of the champion of the constitution and of freedom. I wish everyone in the world could take Sierra’s class, and I know I am probably looking like I am just gloating about Sierra, but you will agree that Sierra was a man that promotes freedom for all individuals. That is what public education needs to be about.
Friday, January 1, 2010
2010
As I look back on my life and the 18 years on planet earth I can recall memories that I will hold forever. From my granddad passing away to election 2008. I will remember not only this past 18 years but this decade. RIP Michael Jackson. I love you my fellow friends and followers.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
L.H. [Part 14]
Another view I found about Wal-Mart.
"Have you listened to your countrymen lately? What are they asking for when they ask the government to punish Wal-Mart? Wal-Mart’s success is destroying mom and pop’s corner store, they cry. We must protect moms and pops from the evil mega store! These same people tried to stop Henry Ford from mass producing cheap automobiles because of the devastation his success was reaping upon the horse and buggy business. Nathaniel Brandon calls this sort of thinking “the divine right of stagnation.” American workers are led by their unions and political leaders to believe they have a right to a job, the same job for thirty years or more. Thinking of this kind squats on the face of reality in a free market economy. Change in a capitalist economy is not determined by the needs of the workers: the skill sets of the workers must change to meet the needs of a changing economy.
I pulled the following off a John Edwards' Why Wal-Mart Must Change website:
Wal-Mart has become much more than just a small corner store in rural America. In the past 10 years, Wal-Mart has grown into the largest retailer in the world -- number 1 among the Fortune 500 -- and is America's largest employer. With more than 1.4 million employees and over $10 billion in profits, Wal-Mart is a giant company with giant responsibilities. First and foremost, Wal-Mart has a responsibility to all Americans to set the standard for customers, workers and communities, and to help build a better America.
Wal-Mart has no responsibility whatsoever “to help build a better America.” Wal-Mart is not a government-owned or financed enterprise. Wal-Mart is a creation of what’s left of free enterprise in this country. Its board of directors has a responsibility to its shareholders…period. A better America will be built by free individuals acting in the pursuit of their own happiness, one Sam Walton at a time. The greatest threat to that future is a cannibal politician with a “vision” and a club.
The truth is that Wal-Mart has let America down by lowering wages, forcing good paying American jobs overseas, and cutting costs with total disregard for the values that have made this nation great. Wal-Mart has needlessly exploited illegal immigrants, faces the largest gender discrimination lawsuit in history, forced workers to work in an unsafe environment, and -- incredibly -- broken child labor laws.
There is no such thing as an “American job.” The who, what, when, where, and why of a cooperation in a free world is nobody’s business but there’s. Nobody is forced to do business with Wal-Mart. Nobody is forced to work at Wal-Mart. Every employee signs on willingly. Every employee can give notice and leave at any time. If wages are low in this country [and I believe they are], the principal cause for this problem is government interference in the first place. The minimum wage laws artificially hold down wages across the economy. It’s an arbitrary, government-created benchmark that enables companies to start employees at ridiculously low wages. “Everybody starts at the minimum wage…you’ll have a review in six months.” Wages and benefits are a private matter between the employee and the employer. If both parties agree to terms they have a contract. If the employee believes his work is worth more than he is currently being paid, he can try to renegotiate that contract. If the employer disagrees and refuses, the employee is free to leave and find better work elsewhere. An employee’s PRODUCTIVITY is what gives him leverage with his employer. Great companies can not afford to lose their most productive workers."
-Donn (donnblogdonn.blogspot.com)
Sunday, December 6, 2009
L.H. [Part 13]
L.H. wrote.. "But government intervention has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why Wal-Mart has grown at such a dangerous rate - the government has NOT impeded on their progress whatsoever, and yet here they are, destroying our economy. They are literally lowering our GDP by billions BECAUSE no one has stepped in."
L.H. what you just stated is ludicrous. The idea that the government has not impeded on their progress is ignorance, let me just give you a few regulatory agencies that are constantly controlling Wal-mart: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Consumer Product Safety Commission, Drug Enforcement Administration, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Employment Standards Administration (ESA),Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC),Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I just gave you 10 examples of the actual agencies, what I didn't provide you were the infinite actual polices that these agencies administer and implement. You don't think that these agencies have impeded on their growth? Absolutely they have. (Might I note that those are just federal agencies. I did not including state and local agencies that also regulate the market. For a more in depth on these federal agencies visit, http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/B.shtml.
L.H. wrote..."Here's why your system worries me, Chris. The very society which you point to as "ideal" occurred more than 200 years ago; for us to move back to that society, we would have to move every facet of our society back 200 years. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is like Communism, Chris. It works on a small scale, but when it's working on the national circuit it's highly destructive."
We would not have to move anything back 200 years, what we would have to do is cut every government regulation and legislation that was passed during the time, that grew the size of government and regulated the economy. Let me clarify, capitalism and communism hold nothing in common. Capitalism is based upon freedom. Communism is based upon slavery. People are not free to make their own decisions on what is best for themselves in communism. They are forces to work for the same wages as everyone else, regardless of the occupation. What use to kill me in high school was when a teacher would state, "Communism looks good on paper." I use to want to stand up and yell, "YOU FOOL!! Does liberty and freedom mean nothing to you?!" What is a scary thought is that you think freedom, what capitalism is based upon, on large scale is destructive.
Capitalism, is about trading value for value. Trading with one another. Trading your goods or services for the someone else goods or services. Let me re-iterate something again, capitalism is based upon freedom, the freedom to choose what is best for them. Its about choice. Education is not needed, what is needed is liberation from a government who wants you do what they think is best for you.
L.H. what you just stated is ludicrous. The idea that the government has not impeded on their progress is ignorance, let me just give you a few regulatory agencies that are constantly controlling Wal-mart: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Consumer Product Safety Commission, Drug Enforcement Administration, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Employment Standards Administration (ESA),Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC),Food and Drug Administration (FDA). I just gave you 10 examples of the actual agencies, what I didn't provide you were the infinite actual polices that these agencies administer and implement. You don't think that these agencies have impeded on their growth? Absolutely they have. (Might I note that those are just federal agencies. I did not including state and local agencies that also regulate the market. For a more in depth on these federal agencies visit, http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/B.shtml.
L.H. wrote..."Here's why your system worries me, Chris. The very society which you point to as "ideal" occurred more than 200 years ago; for us to move back to that society, we would have to move every facet of our society back 200 years. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is like Communism, Chris. It works on a small scale, but when it's working on the national circuit it's highly destructive."
We would not have to move anything back 200 years, what we would have to do is cut every government regulation and legislation that was passed during the time, that grew the size of government and regulated the economy. Let me clarify, capitalism and communism hold nothing in common. Capitalism is based upon freedom. Communism is based upon slavery. People are not free to make their own decisions on what is best for themselves in communism. They are forces to work for the same wages as everyone else, regardless of the occupation. What use to kill me in high school was when a teacher would state, "Communism looks good on paper." I use to want to stand up and yell, "YOU FOOL!! Does liberty and freedom mean nothing to you?!" What is a scary thought is that you think freedom, what capitalism is based upon, on large scale is destructive.
Capitalism, is about trading value for value. Trading with one another. Trading your goods or services for the someone else goods or services. Let me re-iterate something again, capitalism is based upon freedom, the freedom to choose what is best for them. Its about choice. Education is not needed, what is needed is liberation from a government who wants you do what they think is best for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
