Showing posts with label collectivist model. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collectivist model. Show all posts
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Iceberg by Bill Whittle
"But Progressivism is not progressive – it’s ancient. Cyclical. It’s circular. It is, in fact, the symptom and the eventual cause of impending collapse.
In fact, in all of human history, there has been only one genuinely progressive, genuinely liberating idea: a lightning bolt across the pages of history – the why in 1776, the how in 1787 – the idea of limited government, god-given rights, personal liberty and rule by the vast collective wisdom and industry of the common man, and not by the bored, pampered and self-hating elites that have run everything before and since. This is a once-in-history idea. This is why we have to conserve it. We have to conserve this fundamentally liberal idea.
I said that what we today call Progressivism is in fact ancient and circular. Don’t believe me? Well, the great roman orator Cicero, speaking in defense of his friend Sestius, around 55 BC, said – quote:
“Gaius gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The good men, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw the state treasury would be exhausted.”
When a society – after generations of hard work, sacrifice and hardship – reaches a certain level of prosperity, “Progressives” like Bill Maher, Janeane Garofolo, Rosie O’Donnell and Gaius Gracchus – that last Progressive died in 121 BC – assume that the prosperity is endless, and push for more and more people to get more and more goods and services for less and less work. Why? Because – as today, in America, as with the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, the Mongols, Rome, Greece, Eqypt, Babylon… They do it for political power. They live for political power. This “Progressivism” is ancient, recurring, tyrannical and ruinous.
And we voted for it. Just like the Romans did."
The complete essay appears in the link below:
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2010/07/02/the-iceberg/
In fact, in all of human history, there has been only one genuinely progressive, genuinely liberating idea: a lightning bolt across the pages of history – the why in 1776, the how in 1787 – the idea of limited government, god-given rights, personal liberty and rule by the vast collective wisdom and industry of the common man, and not by the bored, pampered and self-hating elites that have run everything before and since. This is a once-in-history idea. This is why we have to conserve it. We have to conserve this fundamentally liberal idea.
I said that what we today call Progressivism is in fact ancient and circular. Don’t believe me? Well, the great roman orator Cicero, speaking in defense of his friend Sestius, around 55 BC, said – quote:
“Gaius gracchus proposed a grain law. The people were delighted with it because it provided an abundance of food without work. The good men, however, fought against it because they thought the masses would be attracted away from hard work and toward idleness, and they saw the state treasury would be exhausted.”
When a society – after generations of hard work, sacrifice and hardship – reaches a certain level of prosperity, “Progressives” like Bill Maher, Janeane Garofolo, Rosie O’Donnell and Gaius Gracchus – that last Progressive died in 121 BC – assume that the prosperity is endless, and push for more and more people to get more and more goods and services for less and less work. Why? Because – as today, in America, as with the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, the Mongols, Rome, Greece, Eqypt, Babylon… They do it for political power. They live for political power. This “Progressivism” is ancient, recurring, tyrannical and ruinous.
And we voted for it. Just like the Romans did."
The complete essay appears in the link below:
http://pajamasmedia.com/ejectejecteject/2010/07/02/the-iceberg/
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Public School Test Cheating: Extend and Pretend?
“Atlanta: Award-winning gains by Atlanta students were based on widespread cheating by 178 named teachers and principals, said Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal on Tuesday. His office released a report from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that names 178 teachers and principals – 82 of whom confessed – in what's likely the biggest cheating scandal in US history.
This appears to be the largest of dozens of major cheating scandals, unearthed across the country. The allegations point an ongoing problem for US education, which has developed an ever-increasing dependence on standardized tests.”
‘The Atlanta cheating scandal also offers the first most comprehensive view yet into a growing number of teacher-cheating allegations across the US, reports of which reached a rate of two to three a week in June, says Robert Schaeffer, a spokesman for the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which advocates against high-stakes testing.
It's also a tacit indictment, critics say, of politicians putting all bets for improving education onto high-stakes tests that punish and reward students, teachers, and principals for test scores.
"When test scores are all that matter, some educators feel pressured to get the scores they need by hook or by crook," says Mr. Schaeffer. "The higher the stakes, the greater the incentive to manipulate, to cheat." ‘ (1)
Testing is a High-Stakes Political Bet that Punishes or Rewards?
Sounds very straight forward does it not? That tests are too monumental regarding rewards and punishments and hence cheating occurs. That the system and processes themselves causes the problem. Open and shut case: remove the testing rewards and punishment and hence remove the cheating.
The Counterintuitive Proposition
Public school K-12 education is a late stage collectivist model delivered through monopoly. Late stage collectivist models, by their very nature, suffer from rampant shirk, enrichment of the power purveyors, and abysmal results. Its the nature of the beast.
The beast has become a magnet for reports regarding its many, many problems. The mounting number of reports threatens the continuation of the collectivist model delivered through monopoly.
Given there is no way to reverse rampant shirk due to the base collectivist model in its late stage, and there is no way to reverse abysmal results due to the nature of late state collectivist models, and monopoly delivery is the only way to protect enrichment of the power purveyors……the natural result is final late stage collectivism and the process of making-up results.
The cheating or made-up results, rather than being a school system or teacher reaction based upon reward/punishment, may well be an entire model reaction. Stated alternatively, the US public school model, being a last stage collectivist model delivered through monopoly, in reaction to criticism and constant finger pointing, must raise results or else the model finally gets replaced by a free enterprise model with monies assigned to students [voucher proposition] rather than monies assigned to institutions.
Hence in order to extend, one must pretend.
Below is a link to an additional report: Investigation into APS cheating finds unethical behavior across every level - Atlanta Journal Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/news/investigation-into-aps-cheating-1001375.html
Notes:
(1) America's biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta - Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0705/America-s-biggest-teacher-and-principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-in-Atlanta/(page)/2
This appears to be the largest of dozens of major cheating scandals, unearthed across the country. The allegations point an ongoing problem for US education, which has developed an ever-increasing dependence on standardized tests.”
‘The Atlanta cheating scandal also offers the first most comprehensive view yet into a growing number of teacher-cheating allegations across the US, reports of which reached a rate of two to three a week in June, says Robert Schaeffer, a spokesman for the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, which advocates against high-stakes testing.
It's also a tacit indictment, critics say, of politicians putting all bets for improving education onto high-stakes tests that punish and reward students, teachers, and principals for test scores.
"When test scores are all that matter, some educators feel pressured to get the scores they need by hook or by crook," says Mr. Schaeffer. "The higher the stakes, the greater the incentive to manipulate, to cheat." ‘ (1)
Testing is a High-Stakes Political Bet that Punishes or Rewards?
Sounds very straight forward does it not? That tests are too monumental regarding rewards and punishments and hence cheating occurs. That the system and processes themselves causes the problem. Open and shut case: remove the testing rewards and punishment and hence remove the cheating.
The Counterintuitive Proposition
Public school K-12 education is a late stage collectivist model delivered through monopoly. Late stage collectivist models, by their very nature, suffer from rampant shirk, enrichment of the power purveyors, and abysmal results. Its the nature of the beast.
The beast has become a magnet for reports regarding its many, many problems. The mounting number of reports threatens the continuation of the collectivist model delivered through monopoly.
Given there is no way to reverse rampant shirk due to the base collectivist model in its late stage, and there is no way to reverse abysmal results due to the nature of late state collectivist models, and monopoly delivery is the only way to protect enrichment of the power purveyors……the natural result is final late stage collectivism and the process of making-up results.
The cheating or made-up results, rather than being a school system or teacher reaction based upon reward/punishment, may well be an entire model reaction. Stated alternatively, the US public school model, being a last stage collectivist model delivered through monopoly, in reaction to criticism and constant finger pointing, must raise results or else the model finally gets replaced by a free enterprise model with monies assigned to students [voucher proposition] rather than monies assigned to institutions.
Hence in order to extend, one must pretend.
Below is a link to an additional report: Investigation into APS cheating finds unethical behavior across every level - Atlanta Journal Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/news/investigation-into-aps-cheating-1001375.html
Notes:
(1) America's biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta - Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0705/America-s-biggest-teacher-and-principal-cheating-scandal-unfolds-in-Atlanta/(page)/2
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
A.V.Dicey
" If the progress of socialistic legislation be arrested, the check will be due, not so much to the influence of any thinker as to some patent fact which shall command public attention; such, for instance, as that increase in the weight of taxation which is apparently the usual, if not the invariable, concomitant of a socialist policy". - A.V.Dicey (1)
(1) Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion, (1914 ed.), p 302.
(1) Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion, (1914 ed.), p 302.
Monday, May 2, 2011
US Public Schools (K-12) and the Power Purveyor
The threat to public schools arises from their defects, not their accomplishments. - Milton Friedman
The US education system (K-12) is a collectivist based firm delivering their product through monopoly. In other words, it is the worst of all worlds as the collectivist based firm always suffers from shirk, enrichment of the central planners (bureaucracy), and output is abysmal.....and this abysmal output is your only selection as the consumer (monopoly delivery system).
Its worth one's attention and hence worth pointing out that collectivist based firms arise in part from the notion of: the consumer being "exploited". That is a political notion. However, in economic theory a collectivist based firm delivering its output through monopoly is the exact conditions for maximum exploitation of the consumer. Why? There is no choice. Orwellian huh?
An interesting question arises of: why does one want to be on the Board of Education given the above conditions? Stated alternatively, why would one want to be a power purveyor over a collectivist based firm delivering product through monopoly which creates the condition for maximum consumer exploitation?
Four basic choices exist: (a) they [candidates] are in fact collectivists, (b) they are free market oriented yet think they can create barking cats, (c) they are free market based oriented and want to replace the collective with a free market system, or (d) they have no clue that they are running for office to become a purveyor over a collectivist based firm delivering product through monopoly.
Choice four, have no clue that they are running for office to be a purveyor over a collectivist based firm delivering product through monopoly, is worth noting. F.A. Hayek made the argument that "socialism is what you get used to". That is, after a socialist program is introduced, and when several generations go by, the socialistic program becomes second nature or "the way its always been". One might say the socialistic program becomes institutionalized. There is no doubt that some Board of Education members come directly from this perspective. That is, they don't even bother examining what type/kind of system they oversee, its merely a system that has always been. Yet they have elected to become a candidate for, and elected to, the most insidious of all models regarding consumer exploitation.
The US education system (K-12) is a collectivist based firm delivering their product through monopoly. In other words, it is the worst of all worlds as the collectivist based firm always suffers from shirk, enrichment of the central planners (bureaucracy), and output is abysmal.....and this abysmal output is your only selection as the consumer (monopoly delivery system).
Its worth one's attention and hence worth pointing out that collectivist based firms arise in part from the notion of: the consumer being "exploited". That is a political notion. However, in economic theory a collectivist based firm delivering its output through monopoly is the exact conditions for maximum exploitation of the consumer. Why? There is no choice. Orwellian huh?
An interesting question arises of: why does one want to be on the Board of Education given the above conditions? Stated alternatively, why would one want to be a power purveyor over a collectivist based firm delivering product through monopoly which creates the condition for maximum consumer exploitation?
Four basic choices exist: (a) they [candidates] are in fact collectivists, (b) they are free market oriented yet think they can create barking cats, (c) they are free market based oriented and want to replace the collective with a free market system, or (d) they have no clue that they are running for office to become a purveyor over a collectivist based firm delivering product through monopoly.
Choice four, have no clue that they are running for office to be a purveyor over a collectivist based firm delivering product through monopoly, is worth noting. F.A. Hayek made the argument that "socialism is what you get used to". That is, after a socialist program is introduced, and when several generations go by, the socialistic program becomes second nature or "the way its always been". One might say the socialistic program becomes institutionalized. There is no doubt that some Board of Education members come directly from this perspective. That is, they don't even bother examining what type/kind of system they oversee, its merely a system that has always been. Yet they have elected to become a candidate for, and elected to, the most insidious of all models regarding consumer exploitation.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Automated “Shirk”?
Shirk: to evade (work, duty, responsibility, etc.).
“Shirk” in economics has the same definition that appears above. However, one component of shirk studied in the field of economics is shirk appearing in differing organizations of the firm. Collectivist firms suffer multi-stage shirk. Late stage collectivist models suffer from rampant shirk.
What if “shirk” becomes automated within a collectivist model? Automated shirk: data processing systems that automatically set the conditions for shirk. A completely automated and impartial shirk condition producer.
What if shirk goes beyond being embedded within the collectivist organization’s workers. Shirk goes beyond the collectivist organizational structure. What if shirk becomes embedded in the automated systems of the organization? What if data processing technological advances allow for ever increasing “automated shirk”?
Lets take an example. You visit your friendly local public school system. Records are not correct. You want the record to be corrected. What is the first thing you hear? “Well on the system it says……”. "You see, after two weeks the system....".
Does the problem then languish with you having to produce a mountain of paper work, tons of personal trips, numerous phone calls, speak to eleven different people, and maybe on a good day with the wind behind you solve the problem. That your cost is elevated as you must spend time/resources to overcome automated shirk.
In the example above the “system” creates the condition for shirk which sets off cascading conditions of shirk. Why did the system shirk? It didn’t. It is most likely the data system was merely produced with such central planning parameters its inflexibility creates the condition for shirk.
Hence we have an automated data processing system with design parameters set forth by the members/power purveyors of the collectivist firm. The "system" is designed rigid just like the rigid collectivist firm it serves. The data processing system becomes an integral part of the collective based firm. When a correction is needed the data system's design doesn't easily allow for change. Therefore each error creates a condition for "shirk". The collectivist based firm's members then display shirk regarding correcting the error as the data system has created the conditions for shirk. Blame the system and fail to solve the problem.
Given the condition presented by the rigidity of the automated data system, each member of the collectivist firm then has the opportunity to shirk their responsibility to correct the error as shirk conditions have been created/are present. One member merely shirks to another shirker. That is, as you climb the ladder of the eleven people, member one merely shirks to member two and so on. That is, shirk cascades. All the while you suffer the effects of shirk as the error remains. Automated shirk!
“Shirk” in economics has the same definition that appears above. However, one component of shirk studied in the field of economics is shirk appearing in differing organizations of the firm. Collectivist firms suffer multi-stage shirk. Late stage collectivist models suffer from rampant shirk.
What if “shirk” becomes automated within a collectivist model? Automated shirk: data processing systems that automatically set the conditions for shirk. A completely automated and impartial shirk condition producer.
What if shirk goes beyond being embedded within the collectivist organization’s workers. Shirk goes beyond the collectivist organizational structure. What if shirk becomes embedded in the automated systems of the organization? What if data processing technological advances allow for ever increasing “automated shirk”?
Lets take an example. You visit your friendly local public school system. Records are not correct. You want the record to be corrected. What is the first thing you hear? “Well on the system it says……”. "You see, after two weeks the system....".
Does the problem then languish with you having to produce a mountain of paper work, tons of personal trips, numerous phone calls, speak to eleven different people, and maybe on a good day with the wind behind you solve the problem. That your cost is elevated as you must spend time/resources to overcome automated shirk.
In the example above the “system” creates the condition for shirk which sets off cascading conditions of shirk. Why did the system shirk? It didn’t. It is most likely the data system was merely produced with such central planning parameters its inflexibility creates the condition for shirk.
Hence we have an automated data processing system with design parameters set forth by the members/power purveyors of the collectivist firm. The "system" is designed rigid just like the rigid collectivist firm it serves. The data processing system becomes an integral part of the collective based firm. When a correction is needed the data system's design doesn't easily allow for change. Therefore each error creates a condition for "shirk". The collectivist based firm's members then display shirk regarding correcting the error as the data system has created the conditions for shirk. Blame the system and fail to solve the problem.
Given the condition presented by the rigidity of the automated data system, each member of the collectivist firm then has the opportunity to shirk their responsibility to correct the error as shirk conditions have been created/are present. One member merely shirks to another shirker. That is, as you climb the ladder of the eleven people, member one merely shirks to member two and so on. That is, shirk cascades. All the while you suffer the effects of shirk as the error remains. Automated shirk!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)