That's weird to say there was any one "intent" of the federal government under the Constitution, given the differing intents of the various people who contributed to it, but your viewpoint is certainly not consistent with that of, say, Alexander Hamilton. Nor is consistent with the views of John Marshall, who established judicial review in what was essentially a power vacuum. Nor is it consistent with the fact that we're discussing the modern validity of speculative viewpoints on optimal government from 227 years ago as if they're automatically relevant in a world of outsourcing, petroleum politics, derivatives, and beheadings for international ransom on YouTube, as if we can roll back to a scope and manner of government that was established partially to appease a slave-holding, cotton-plantation-economy South before it tried to secede anyway. You're talking about 25 years before we decided to invade Canada, for the glory of the Republic, to strike back against (among other things) British forced conscription of American sailors! A lot of things have changed since then! So has the government.
Profound analysis. By your logic, why don't we just give up on anything requiring centralized government then?
Ah, yes. What a trenchant explanation!
I love how you accuse him of an ad hominem attack (against no one in particular) right after you said:
Your entire post is one bitter rationalization of how you don't really want the things you don't have money to buy.
Was that not supposed to be an ad hominem attack, or is it just that it's OK when you do it?
The history of education consists of many long traditions of direct interaction between teacher and student (and to a lesser extent between students). MOOCs undermine that, so really it would be more surprising if in any permutation they did work for any more than the small minority of autodidacts.
In the future, will the government also have the freedom to interact with (and send a symbolic message to) dogmatic free-marketeers by cutting off their access to the publicly owned roads on which they carpool, at least until they demonstrate at least a passing knowledge of the history of how markets and monetary systems were created by heads of state? That would be my utopian fantasy and I think it's better than yours.
Are you saying that judges are inherently less corruptible than regulators? If you're referring to the fact that US judges can be voted out of office, that's the sort of unusual feature that leads to more politicization of the judicial process, not less. Unelected bureaucrats wrote our constitution, don't forget!
When they pay- when they are the owners, they tend to take better care of things. It's because when it breaks and comes out of your pocket, you notice it more than when someone just replaces it. If more people paid federal income taxes (Not social security or medicaid taxes), they might have more of an interest in their governance.
This strikes me as a presumption — got any data to back up that assertion? In my mind the causality could just as easily go in the other direction: When people are sufficiently financially shafted by the society they live in such that any kind of income tax is officially considered a hardship, they have less of a chance of believing (or of having the educational wherewithal to believe) that taking an interest in their governance could make two shits of difference in their lives.
What you're describing might make perfect sense for a lawn mower, but government isn't a lawn mower. If you can find any similarities, they aren't by default meaningful unless you can prove them so.
And how are you going to do that? Make bicycling illegal because it inconveniences you? By what right do you get special privileges just because you're in a car?
I don't know why you're calling big cities with lots of jobs and cultural opportunities "hellholes." You have the choice to live in the suburbs or a smaller city, and clearly that's the one that makes sense for you. But why do you tell one person how limited their worldview while yourself attacking people different from you?
That sounds like that's more about bad public trans, not the necessity of cars. Don't know where you are where it's -20C all winter, but it does drop that low in Chicago, and waiting 5 minutes for the L under heat lamps isn't particularly worse than any other means of getting around. Much better than having to scrape ice off your windshield if you ask me.
Plus, who takes the bus to get groceries? I don't know anyone who'd say that wouldn't suck. If you're going to live by choice without a car, you make sure you've got a grocery store within walking distance. Just common sense. The family home thing is trickier (I haven't been in that situation) but it doesn't take so much imagination to see how people in parts of the world with better trains might have a different opinion. A lot of us have to fly to visit family anyway.
How do cyclists not contribute to gridlock on city roads? normally they're the cause of it because they move so slowly more people have to stop from them and city roads tend not to have room to pass them.
If the traffic is already congested enough to cause gridlock, bikes can move as fast as, if not faster than, the cars around them. Acceleration isn't quite as good but that doesn't make much of a difference when it's just a race to pile up to the next intersection you can't clear.
As for much of the other stuff you talk about, this is really about bad cyclists rather than cycling as a mode of transport. As a cyclist who puts in effort to share the road graciously, I would love any solutions that make people better cyclists. Which is, I think, part of the point of changing stop sign laws: When you make the laws easier to follow, you're more likely to get more people willing to put in the effort to follow them. Even better if, as is the case here, the new laws have the potential to improve the situation for motorists (less time waiting for those cyclists who feel they ought to stop even though they don't have to, less uncertainty as to whether a cyclist will come to a complete stop or not).
I don't see what the point of worrying at this moment about cyclists not paying road tax. I doubt there are enough people on either side of the pond who neither drive nor take public trans to actually make a difference in the road maintenance fund. But if we get to a point where 30% of the population is exclusive cyclists, it seems likely that a lot of the tenor of the conversation will change by then, doesn't it?
To you and the GP: don't know about other states, but in California it's just a hair over two months off during the summer, not three. (There are of course winter and spring breaks as well.) It's very common for teachers to have their paychecks spread out across 12 months rather than 10, but it's the individual's choice how to do it.
Also: when you see the averages, take into account that they include both teachers a year before retirement and those fresh out of college. From what I've seen, the pay is usually quite all right when you start off, especially if you enter with a master's (not uncommon these days), but the raises are laughable. When you consider that high school teachers effectively work at least 50 hours a week (unless they've been teaching the same subject for at least ten years or so), pulling in $50k/year or less gets old pretty fast, especially if you're living in an area with a high COL that leads to much higher private sector salaries for the highly educated. Doubly so if you're teaching at a crappy, dangerous school in the ghetto or its suburban equivalent, which is where the vast majority of job openings are in said areas. Stress in the tech sector simply cannot compare. Two months off seems like the only humane option come June when that's the case.
(Smaller cities and rural areas are a whole 'nother kettle of fish, I know. But I don't think I hear as much complaining about teacher salaries in those parts, at least not in states where teachers are unionized.)
No, that's what would make sense as a current teacher. As a former teacher, he's got perspective without conflict of interest. As a former teacher myself, I can tell you there's a lot of spending on useless shit. Where's your perspective coming from? (And I say this as someone who agrees with everything else you said!)
What, pray tell, is it about countries with capitalist economic systems that makes them immune to takeover by angry nutjobs? Or are you confusing capitalism with democracy? Just wondering.
Also, are you of the opinion that capitalism was designed to fit human nature better than any other system possible, or was this just an accident? While we're at it, it would be nice if you could explain how you're determining what human nature is and what steps you're taking to avoid having your bias in favor capitalism affect your view of human nature.