I think the study of philosophy is infinitely valuable for the people of our society.
"Well, but in philosophy you don't really learn anything. It's not that applicable to life. Why is the practice of contemplating my existence really important?"
Here's the thing...previously before the advent of the Internet, people who knew a lot of facts were thought to be "smart". If you could recite the encyclopedia or the dictionary or pass off random facts, then you were "intelligent". Today it's different. What the hell does it matter if I know the capital of everyone country in the world? I can look it up in 2 seconds on Google. Today we have tons and tons of information at our fingertips. To me, in the evolution of our society, "intelligence" is going to change to be the ability to synthesize that information and use it effectively for one's use. Therefore, given a set of facts or information you need to use your logic (what a concept) to formulate a conclusion.
Philosophy is the basis of having a solid logical base in one's mind. If you cannot understand philosophy, then you cannot be logical. Everything in philosophy flows from a set of premises and arguments to a final conclusion. So if you cannot rapidly analyze an argument or a set of data to make an inference about it, you fail. Nobody cares anymore if you know tons of shit that you can look up on Google. It just doesn't matter.
So today in our high schools there is no philosophy. We're too busy teaching kids about math, reading, history, etc. Now some of those are important. You need a solid math base. A solid reading base. A solid writing base. But besides those basics, NOBODY REMEMBERS ANYTHING AFTER AWHILE. You just remember the general tidbits. I took a class on Texas history in 7th grade. I can't tell you jack shit from that class. Davy Crockett went to Texas somewhere in there. Other than that, I don't remember anything. And I actually paid attention in class. I can't imagine the people that don't.
So my proposal is that everyone needs to learn some philosophy. Because learning about philosophy is just learning about how to analyze an argument and be logical. That's it. That's a lot more useful than all these random ass facts that teachers make you memorize and somehow that's "learning." That is NOT learning. Multiple choice tests have fostered this culture of just cramming and then circling letters on a test to indicate learning. You need oral essays and presentations and writing compositions. Instead of shoving facts down kids throats and telling them to regurgitate them back, you need to ask them, "what do YOU think about it?" That's real learning. And we don't do enough of it.
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
7.08.2009
4.19.2009
On Capitalism
Lately I've been thinking a lot about the status of our economy and world. How did we get into this mess? How are we going to get out of it?
Barack Obama has been accused (by various media outlets and commentators including Fox News of course) of implementing "socialist" programs that are going to weaken our country in the long-run. "We can't have universal health care, because it's going to cost too much." "Why should we (the rich) have to pay for that?" However, there is a an inherent flawed assumption in any argument that says the US in becoming a socialist state. The assumption is that you can only have either capitalism or socialism -- nothing in between. It completely ignores the FACT that economies/governments lie on a spectrum or even a grid among different ideologies.
Enacting new government programs does not make us automatically a socialist society over night. Sure, maybe it's a step in that direction, but the way people talk about it these days, we will be like Cuba in no time. Therefore, calling the US "socialist" is irresponsible and ignorant at best. Secondly, let's address another inherently flawed assumption, that the US is a purely capitalist state. It's just not true. Purely capitalist states wouldn't have governing bodies over our markets (Securities and Exchange Commission), libraries so anyone can read (buy your own damn books), the public school system (why should I be paying for your kid to go to school), etc. In a capitalist state, everyone would fend for themselves. However, let's just get it out there....capitalism FAILS in the end. The market is not perfect....only in your economics classes. If markets were rational, then we wouldn't be in the financial mess that we're in. Markets cannot regulate themselves. So if you say that markets can fix themselves, ask yourself why someone would buy a house for $500,000 that is now worth $350,000. Sure, now the person has a $150,000 loss and that's their problem. But, if the market was actually efficient and rational, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. The market doesn't know everything.
Another thing -- people who think that capitalism is the be all, end all solution, apparently haven't looked around the world. They haven't looked at all the countries that have been looted for their resources, they haven't looked at all the people starving and hungry, they haven't taken a step outside of anything that they know. So while they drive their Hummers, drinking their fancy wine, and living in the McMansions, please just tell them to give one thought to the other people who didn't have the same opportunity. "Oh, but those people are just lazy" -- this is the classic line from the capitalist pig. People don't have opportunity around the world, they can't get credit, and most importantly, they dont have a good EDUCATION.
Education is the most important thing a person can acquire. But a comprehensive, (non-biased) education is not widely available around the world. Hell, in such an advanced nation such as ours, we still have people being influenced by wackos who tell us that condoms don't prevent AIDS and evolution is a myth. Former President Bush's Every Child Left Behind Act crippled our country for eight years. So while his friends at Exxon Mobil and Halliburton had windfall profits at taxpayer expense, the future of America was slapped in the face with a substantial level of education.
Coming back around, Obama is magically becoming a socialist in the eyes of the loony conservatives because he wants people to actually have a good education and have healthcare. A successful nation needs these two things to be successful in the long-run. Why is that hard to understand. More on the socialism at another time....
Barack Obama has been accused (by various media outlets and commentators including Fox News of course) of implementing "socialist" programs that are going to weaken our country in the long-run. "We can't have universal health care, because it's going to cost too much." "Why should we (the rich) have to pay for that?" However, there is a an inherent flawed assumption in any argument that says the US in becoming a socialist state. The assumption is that you can only have either capitalism or socialism -- nothing in between. It completely ignores the FACT that economies/governments lie on a spectrum or even a grid among different ideologies.
Enacting new government programs does not make us automatically a socialist society over night. Sure, maybe it's a step in that direction, but the way people talk about it these days, we will be like Cuba in no time. Therefore, calling the US "socialist" is irresponsible and ignorant at best. Secondly, let's address another inherently flawed assumption, that the US is a purely capitalist state. It's just not true. Purely capitalist states wouldn't have governing bodies over our markets (Securities and Exchange Commission), libraries so anyone can read (buy your own damn books), the public school system (why should I be paying for your kid to go to school), etc. In a capitalist state, everyone would fend for themselves. However, let's just get it out there....capitalism FAILS in the end. The market is not perfect....only in your economics classes. If markets were rational, then we wouldn't be in the financial mess that we're in. Markets cannot regulate themselves. So if you say that markets can fix themselves, ask yourself why someone would buy a house for $500,000 that is now worth $350,000. Sure, now the person has a $150,000 loss and that's their problem. But, if the market was actually efficient and rational, they wouldn't be in the situation in the first place. The market doesn't know everything.
Another thing -- people who think that capitalism is the be all, end all solution, apparently haven't looked around the world. They haven't looked at all the countries that have been looted for their resources, they haven't looked at all the people starving and hungry, they haven't taken a step outside of anything that they know. So while they drive their Hummers, drinking their fancy wine, and living in the McMansions, please just tell them to give one thought to the other people who didn't have the same opportunity. "Oh, but those people are just lazy" -- this is the classic line from the capitalist pig. People don't have opportunity around the world, they can't get credit, and most importantly, they dont have a good EDUCATION.
Education is the most important thing a person can acquire. But a comprehensive, (non-biased) education is not widely available around the world. Hell, in such an advanced nation such as ours, we still have people being influenced by wackos who tell us that condoms don't prevent AIDS and evolution is a myth. Former President Bush's Every Child Left Behind Act crippled our country for eight years. So while his friends at Exxon Mobil and Halliburton had windfall profits at taxpayer expense, the future of America was slapped in the face with a substantial level of education.
Coming back around, Obama is magically becoming a socialist in the eyes of the loony conservatives because he wants people to actually have a good education and have healthcare. A successful nation needs these two things to be successful in the long-run. Why is that hard to understand. More on the socialism at another time....
2.15.2009
On Universal Healthcare
One topic that has been on my mind recently is Universal Healthcare in the United States.
The United States, the most wealthy country in the world, is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Well, why not?
The philosophical side of the issue brings up some interesting points. If you as a person can rationalize paying for the public school system, then I don't understand how you could not rationalize universal health care. Is it fair to tell kids that the income of their parents is going to drive whether or not they get a decent education? Of course not. Here's the thing, we have a public school system that is free because many people would not be able to pay for it otherwise. If you don't like the public schools, then you are free to pay for the private school of your choice.
Interestingly enough, the public school system wasn't originally developed because everyone felt that kids had the right to learn -- they wanted a public school system so there would be smart enough people to have jobs in our society. If there were too many ignorant people, then society could not advance.
Coming back to universal healthcare, the argument for it follows a similar pattern. There are a lot of people who can't pay for healthcare in our country. Instead of getting the care that they need, people are forced to avoid treatment until they have a big crisis in their health. Maybe their employer doesn't offer an affordable healthcare plan. Maybe the insurance companies have denied their applications for coverage. Maybe they don't have enough money.
If this is the situation, then how can we solve it?
I think everyone should have a right to universal healthcare. Maybe you don't get 100% of the costs paid. In England, it costs around 10 US dollars for any prescription that you want. That is obviously a lot more afforable than the drug costs here in the United States. But what is cost for the people at large?
One of the big things that people who are against universal healthcare bring up is the idea that if there is universal healthcare, costs are going to spiral out of control and it is going to be a big burden on everyone. My answer to that is look at every other industralzied nation in the world. I don't see them spiraling out of control. But then they come back and say, "well why should I have to pay for people to smoke and get get sick and do all these other things that don't affect me." Here's the thing -- you're ALREADY DOING THAT. It's called insurance. You're paying for the healthcare costs of all the other smokers that are on your same insurance plan. You're paying for people who go to the doctor all the time for no reason. You're paying for the fat people who won't lose weight and have lifestyle diseases. Conceptually, you're already paying for all this, so why is universal healthcare any different?
My big theory is that universal healthcare will make costs go DOWN. In the United States, we don't focus on preventing illness. We focus on trying to get you better once you're already sick. But that's wrong way of approaching it. Why not focus on helping people living healthy lives from get-go? We need to focus on preventing illness. Not curing it once it's already too late. Universal healthcare removes some of the barriers that people have to obtaining the treatment that they need. You don't have to worry about your co-pays, are you in the network or out of the network, or whether you've met your deductible. And for people who don't have health insurance, they can finally get the correct treatment that they previously had to forego. So by preventing illness instead of treating illness, healthcare costs will inevitably go down.
I also found some other reasons why people are against it.
1. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
2. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
3. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
4. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
5. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
My responses:
1. Charge people a small, but afforable fee (like England) for prescription drugs. Focus on preventing illness and people won't need as many drugs.
2. If you have insurance, you're already paying for other people to be obese.
3. Fuck the insurance companies. They only thing they are good for is denying care from people. They reject people who apply to their plans for dubious reasons. In effect, you send them your money from your paycheck and then have to yell and scream to get the real care you need.
4. Put a cap on damages for malpractice lawsuits based on the injures.
5. Taxes are inevitable. For people who already have insurance, it is unknown how much the cost of insurance premiums that they currently pay will compare with the potential increase in taxes.
I think universal healthcare is imporant. So, if you agree that it is important to have a public school system, give me one good argument against universal healthcare.
The United States, the most wealthy country in the world, is the only industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Well, why not?
The philosophical side of the issue brings up some interesting points. If you as a person can rationalize paying for the public school system, then I don't understand how you could not rationalize universal health care. Is it fair to tell kids that the income of their parents is going to drive whether or not they get a decent education? Of course not. Here's the thing, we have a public school system that is free because many people would not be able to pay for it otherwise. If you don't like the public schools, then you are free to pay for the private school of your choice.
Interestingly enough, the public school system wasn't originally developed because everyone felt that kids had the right to learn -- they wanted a public school system so there would be smart enough people to have jobs in our society. If there were too many ignorant people, then society could not advance.
Coming back to universal healthcare, the argument for it follows a similar pattern. There are a lot of people who can't pay for healthcare in our country. Instead of getting the care that they need, people are forced to avoid treatment until they have a big crisis in their health. Maybe their employer doesn't offer an affordable healthcare plan. Maybe the insurance companies have denied their applications for coverage. Maybe they don't have enough money.
If this is the situation, then how can we solve it?
I think everyone should have a right to universal healthcare. Maybe you don't get 100% of the costs paid. In England, it costs around 10 US dollars for any prescription that you want. That is obviously a lot more afforable than the drug costs here in the United States. But what is cost for the people at large?
One of the big things that people who are against universal healthcare bring up is the idea that if there is universal healthcare, costs are going to spiral out of control and it is going to be a big burden on everyone. My answer to that is look at every other industralzied nation in the world. I don't see them spiraling out of control. But then they come back and say, "well why should I have to pay for people to smoke and get get sick and do all these other things that don't affect me." Here's the thing -- you're ALREADY DOING THAT. It's called insurance. You're paying for the healthcare costs of all the other smokers that are on your same insurance plan. You're paying for people who go to the doctor all the time for no reason. You're paying for the fat people who won't lose weight and have lifestyle diseases. Conceptually, you're already paying for all this, so why is universal healthcare any different?
My big theory is that universal healthcare will make costs go DOWN. In the United States, we don't focus on preventing illness. We focus on trying to get you better once you're already sick. But that's wrong way of approaching it. Why not focus on helping people living healthy lives from get-go? We need to focus on preventing illness. Not curing it once it's already too late. Universal healthcare removes some of the barriers that people have to obtaining the treatment that they need. You don't have to worry about your co-pays, are you in the network or out of the network, or whether you've met your deductible. And for people who don't have health insurance, they can finally get the correct treatment that they previously had to forego. So by preventing illness instead of treating illness, healthcare costs will inevitably go down.
I also found some other reasons why people are against it.
1. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
2. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
3. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
4. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
5. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
My responses:
1. Charge people a small, but afforable fee (like England) for prescription drugs. Focus on preventing illness and people won't need as many drugs.
2. If you have insurance, you're already paying for other people to be obese.
3. Fuck the insurance companies. They only thing they are good for is denying care from people. They reject people who apply to their plans for dubious reasons. In effect, you send them your money from your paycheck and then have to yell and scream to get the real care you need.
4. Put a cap on damages for malpractice lawsuits based on the injures.
5. Taxes are inevitable. For people who already have insurance, it is unknown how much the cost of insurance premiums that they currently pay will compare with the potential increase in taxes.
I think universal healthcare is imporant. So, if you agree that it is important to have a public school system, give me one good argument against universal healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
