The situation would improve if we succeed in abolishing
the government school system, which is much more responsible
for dumbing down that is prosperity.

For life and liberty,
David Macko

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: mark robert 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:39 AM
  Subject: RE: [Libertarian] "If you are explaining, you are losing"


  Jon,

  IMO, it's the old conundrum of prosperity in a high-tech society.
  Some of the results are counterintuitive and not so pretty. For
  those who wish, prosperity enables higher education; but for
  those who don't, prosperity enables a "dumbing down". In a large
  way, most people consist of the latter. Since technology improves
  the standard of living for everyone, including those who are less
  motivated, previous competence that was required for living in
  earlier times is no longer essential. In other words, as society
  progresses, more people can slack off without such severe
  negative consequences to them. A more prosperous society supports
  more incompetence because it can; OTOH, it is no longer
  "incompetence" since it's no longer essential. So there is
  nothing particularly wrong with most people no longer knowing how
  to milk a cow, but it might help explain a lot of frustrating
  social issues (esp political / constitutional ones). 

  Some might call it an increase in "specialization" and
  "complexity". Others might call it an increase in "stupidity".
  The younger generation is generally dumber than the older,
  regarding basic knowledge and fundamental competence. Depending
  on how you look at it (or who you talk to), it's both the goal of
  civilization and its downfall. For most, the goal of the pursuit
  of happiness is NOT to work and study; it is to PARTY. It's one
  of those perfect dualities (if I'm using the word right), like
  the galactic black hole that is responsible for both "creating"
  and "destroying" everything. 

  -Mark

  ************
  {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
  "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
  case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
  There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
  unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
  its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
  unjust lawsuits.
  See www.fija.org 
  [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }

  --------------------------

  In a 2002 interview, retiring congressman J.C. Watts said,
  "Here's the problem 
  with Washington: If you are explaining, you are losing." He was
  saying that public 
  policy is being made on the basis of bumper-sticker slogans
  rather than careful, 
  detailed deliberation, and not just among the electorate, but at
  the highest 
  levels. If our survival ever depends on adopting complex
  solutions, we are doomed.

  This has an implication for candidates for public office. No one
  gets elected on 
  platform planks that have to be explained, or that contain more
  an half a dozen 
  words. People don't make their electoral decisions on the basis
  of issues, but on 
  personalities or a sense of how the herd is moving. People don't
  want to have to 
  think.

  -- Jon

  ----------------------------------------------------------



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to