Originally posted by no1marauderThe numbers incarcerated are a revolving door, getting early release, and most returning for a second and third stint. Others simply don't get caught. Enforcement and sentencing are across a broad spectrum, with no agreement from the public about what is right.
According to the numbers here in items 1, 2, 3 and 23, over 400,000 people are currently incarcerated solely or primarily for drug offenses and a further 1.25 million are either on parole or probation for the same.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.eXrUSl8i.dpbs
This amounts to "a society which embraces use of drugs" in Norm's BizarroWorld.
And the big thing is that there is no effective education or cultural adjustment going on, and I have no suggestion of what to do in this regard. The nation is split between let em do it, and throw em in jail crowds. And once in jail, there is a boisterous group crying for their release.
Originally posted by normbenignI do believe in the free market. My daughter loved fine art but knew if she wanted to work, she needed a degree in graphic arts design and marketing. She is employed. In China, the government determines your skill set and then aligns that with what sort of worker needs those skills and that's what you become. It's messier, but I believe it is up to each individual what they want to pursue as a major. Let the natural characteristics of supply and demand dictate what students decide to study. My friend's son majored in philosophy and went on to get a master's in electrical engineering. He has never regretted the BA major. Do not assume there will be fewer students in the trades. If you believe in supply and demand and individual rights, universal education should be what you support.
Down the page a bit, I saw where Bernie want to subsidize college education. The problem with this is that gradually a HS education keeps getting degraded, and the new college education replaces it. The result will be even fewer technically trained individuals for the job market. Typically, people who don't pay for education are not highly motivated to make the most of it.
Originally posted by normbenignThere is zero evidence that people who don't pay for education are not motivated. Just look at Western Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries. U.S. culture denigrates higher education.
Down the page a bit, I saw where Bernie want to subsidize college education. The problem with this is that gradually a HS education keeps getting degraded, and the new college education replaces it. The result will be even fewer technically trained individuals for the job market. Typically, people who don't pay for education are not highly motivated to make the most of it.
Originally posted by normbenignMake up your mind: does society embrace the use of drugs as you declared on the previous page or not?
The numbers incarcerated are a revolving door, getting early release, and most returning for a second and third stint. Others simply don't get caught. Enforcement and sentencing are across a broad spectrum, with no agreement from the public about what is right.
And the big thing is that there is no effective education or cultural adjustment going on, ...[text shortened]... throw em in jail crowds. And once in jail, there is a boisterous group crying for their release.
Of course, one can think that using recreational drugs is a poor personal choice but not want to throw those in jail who decide to do so. That would be a reasonable libertarian position (it is mine).
Originally posted by PhrannyMy experience tells me that students paying their own way are more connected and motivated. When I was in school, those kids whose parents were paying the freight, were almost universally as disinterested as they had been as High Schoolers the year previous.
I do believe in the free market. My daughter loved fine art but knew if she wanted to work, she needed a degree in graphic arts design and marketing. She is employed. In China, the government determines your skill set and then aligns that with what sort of worker needs those skills and that's what you become. It's messier, but I believe it is up to each ...[text shortened]... ieve in supply and demand and individual rights, universal education should be what you support.
Parental involvement is really big, and I don't mean just paying tuition.
Originally posted by no1marauderOur society is split. There are the arrest them and lock 'em up forever crowd.
Make up your mind: does society embrace the use of drugs as you declared on the previous page or not?
Of course, one can think that using recreational drugs is a poor personal choice but not want to throw those in jail who decide to do so. That would be a reasonable libertarian position (it is mine).
There are those who shrug and presume that the younger generation are at least pot heads.
I understand your position, and I'm not too different, but I'm still searching for an alternative. Is there a balance between punitive and free?
Originally posted by normbenignRegardless of the level of taxation, you need coercion to pull it off.
You can have much lower levels of taxation, and use taxation methods that are less invasive and less coercive, if you need less revenue. What consumes huge amounts of revenue, and increases the need for taxation are government programs supported by only minorities or threadbare majorities. Some are supported by almost nobody, but manage to survive.
Originally posted by no1marauderMuch opposition to taxation, is the perception of what government is doing with the money. For example, pacifists object to military spending, and some withhold paying that percentage of their taxes that fund the military.
As does enforcing contracts and other things necessary to make capitalism possible.
Originally posted by normbenign"Elections are said to be decided by those in the middle,"
The despise factor is big, and primarily why Bernie is within shouting distance. Hillary C has probably the highest negatives ever for a Presidential hopeful. Most people thought she was done after Benghazi and the Emails, but she's like heartburn after spicy food. Just keeps coming back.
Bernie seems a nice enough guy, but the further from Vermont ...[text shortened]... ddle, the undecideds or independents either 30% or 40% of those who cast ballots in the general.
only when all candidates are as interesting as an empty bag of chips.
there will be plenty of young people getting up and voting for sanders. if not that, at least plenty of people who will vote for clinton, no matter what baboon winds up as the republican nominee
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign"he'd be at a big disadvantage to anyone with more name recognition."
The despise factor is big, and primarily why Bernie is within shouting distance. Hillary C has probably the highest negatives ever for a Presidential hopeful. Most people thought she was done after Benghazi and the Emails, but she's like heartburn after spicy food. Just keeps coming back.
Bernie seems a nice enough guy, but the further from Vermont ...[text shortened]... ddle, the undecideds or independents either 30% or 40% of those who cast ballots in the general.
True, but Obama was an unknown as well, who also ran against Clinton.
Originally posted by vivifyObama was not quite an unknown, in fact he was widely viewed as an up and coming superstar.
"he'd be at a big disadvantage to anyone with more name recognition."
True, but Obama was an unknown as well, who also ran against Clinton.
That he is where he is is either testimony to his message, or to Mrs. Clinton's negatives and overall weakness.
