Exactly, a caste system will become more apparent in the US. The whole concept of free will and choice is a fallicy. Old families control the nation and they determine what happens, how it happens and for how long. They only choice anyone has is to leave. Classism and rankism run rampant here in the states. You make less thanI do ... you are inferior. Your job is a blue collar one ... you are infierior. I have better stuff than you do ... you are inferior, etc etc. What the Nanny state did was ensure that the rulling families stayed in power and have a larger pool of consumer/plebs. Neo fuedalism and globalization are running in parralel because it is a simple way to control the masses. It will last for some time and will most likely change to a new information golden age. The growing pains for the global society are being minimized. The is no talk of a third wolrd war as has happen before in periods of severe global economic distress. If the Chinese can build out Africa even faster it will create a new continent of consumers which should lift up the global economy. Welcome to Planet Misery, Akuma BUY GOLD!!!
All you've done is make an argument for SOME of the things that are currently done by the state. Extrapolating from that some to all of the things it does is a big stretch. Unless we somehow are spending $4 trillion dollars on vaccinations, schools, labor law enforcement and housing codes, which, if we are, that seems to be a bit overpriced. It's hilarious to watch every defender of the state begin the argument with "schools, roads, fire and police" as if that were the sum of the total spending, rather than a sliver of it. OK, great, we agree on 4 things (not that most of the budgets for schools, fire and police aren't actually local government responsibilities), and we can add vaccinations to the list. Now, can we get rid of the 20 bajillion other things that the state does? The primary source of disagreement is over the definition of "public goods". Some people want everything under the sun included in the definition, while some want only those goods which meet the strict definition included. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
Riiigghht. In the wiki article on vaccines, there are places in the US that are losing their immunity because so many people claimed a "religious exemption" from being vaccinated. There's a suspicion that not a few of them were fraudulently claiming this. You guys have spent 40 years pushing back the frontier of what's defined as stuff that's good for society, and act like there's no nuts amongst ya that go off on fluoridation of the water, or vaccinations, or any one of a thousand other things - like right here in this thread the guy arguing for child labor - that 95% of the people would consider uncontroversially good, but that you guys dispute. Like, laws against monopolies, anti-sweatshop laws, minimum wage laws, and on and on. Just a little while ago there was a societal consensus on Social Security. No more. So please, do not argue that the stuff that's uncontroversial today will be tomorrow. I've lived long enough to know that's not true. The Internet has loosed a thousand thousand utter loons on the world with ideas that in prior times would have had the person laughed to scorn by most people. Now, instead, you have entire forums like this one where crazed nonsense gets spouted every day of the week and 95% of the responses are in agreement. In Economics, I didn't realize the wack jobs had won. It seems that to say anything that remotely smacks of agreement with Keynes these days is a ticket to an end to your career in most Economics departments outside the immediate vicinity of the Ivy League. When I was growing up, Keynes was the orthodoxy. While obviously not perfect, it's not perfect in the same sense that Newton's physics wasn't: it didn't account for a lot of things. But in the realm of getting out of a depression or near-depression, it's far superior, as Europe keeps finding out and then keeps studiously ignoring, to ever more hysterical bouts of austerity in the name of "sound" finances, whatever that is. You guys have won, and an entire continent is sinking under the weight of your silly ideas as I write this. Why? Because stuff that was uncontroversial became controversial. This thread wants to take us back to the nineteenth century. Sorry, but most of us would rather not.
Hey, easy solution is to split the country into two countries. If you think that your ideas are so superior, you should be in favor of this solution. I know I am. Put your money where your mouth is.
just curious, when do think they will ever invent sarcasm in what ever century or place you come from?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68729.html Newt: Fire the janitors, hire kids to clean schools By: Maggie Haberman November 18, 2011 08:15 PM EST Via POLITICO's Reid Epstein, Newt Gingrich tonight said at an address at Harvard that child work laws "entrap" poor children into poverty - and suggested that a better way to handle failing schools is to fire the janitors, hire the local students and let them get paid for upkeep. The comment came in response to an undergrad's question about income equality during his talk at Harvard's Kennedy School. "This is something that no liberal wants to deal with," Gingrich said. "Core policies of protecting unionization and bureaucratization against children in the poorest neighborhoods, crippling them by putting them in schools that fail has done more to create income inequality in the United States than any other single policy. It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid. "You say to somebody, you shouldn't go to work before you're what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You're totally poor. You're in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I've tried for years to have a very simple model," he said. "Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising." He added, "You go out and talk to people, as I do, you go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation. They all started their first job between nine and 14 years of age. They all were either selling newspapers, going door to door, they were doing something, they were washing cars." "They all learned how to make money at a very early age," he said. "What do we say to poor kids in poor neighborhoods? Don't do it. Remember all that stuff about don't get a hamburger flipping job? The worst possible advice you could give to poor children. Get any job that teaches you to show up on Monday. Get any job that teaches you to stay all day even if you are in a fight with your girlfriend. The whole process of making work worthwhile is central." The former House Speaker acknowledged that it was an unconventional pitch, saying, "You're going to see from me extraordinarily radical proposals to fundamentally change the culture of poverty in America and give people a chance to rise very rapidly.
We have fifty states, so guess what, already done. You can live in some backwoods in Louisiana or central Florida or Arkansas or any other third-world state in the US with no unions and minimal state services and all the rest - you could probably even make your own moonshine - and do whatever you want. I'll stay over here in Joisey. If you get a particularly good batch o' that 'shine, PM me, I might come over for a taste.
I just read that 1/2 an hour ago. Spot on and proves my point fwiw. I doubt anything will happen. Two of my kids during hs worked on a summer paid project cleaning a school. Scraping gum off desks for hours each day. lmao, they didn't put gum on desks any more after that. Making kids a janitor will teach them "ownership" among other civic values. I say go for it, Newt.
The problem with that is that federal law still supercedes state law in many cases, so simple geographic boundaries such as state lines don't provide legal exemption from whatever Ponzi scheme the Feds dream up next. Figures you're against it. I would be too if I had the crap ideas people like you espouse. You know that what you'd end up with on your side of the fence would be a bunch of deadbeats and the would-be kommissars who'd rule them.