When they mention "vouchers" for public education, why don't they talk about how much those vouchers must buy?
A lot of people are advocating privatizing American public education, but they don't seem to be interested guaranteeing that vouchers will buy education for everybody. How are they going to be sure to set the value of the voucher high enough so that every child can afford an education? And what about tuition inflation? Are vouchers just a clever way to slowly relieve the government of its responsibility for education?
When they claim that eliminating campaign spending limits will produce more "freedom of speech," why won't they subsidize your speech?
Arguing before the supreme court, lawyers for the wealthy claim that limits on campaign spending are throttling freedom of speech and advocacy. Eliminating these limits will certainly give yet another break to the rich, but everybody else's voice will be comparatively reduced. Why don't they advocate vouchers for the 99% to spend on their own political campaign and advocacy?
When they advocate letting the States be a testing ground for any progressive idea, why don't they ever follow through?
Every time a progressive program (such as healthcare) is proposed, certain people oppose it as an untested idea that ought to be proven at the state level before the Feds impose it on everybody. However, when a state program (such as the Massachusetts Obamacare model) is successful, you never hear them advocating for its implementation nationwide.
When they suggest cutting "discretionary spending," why is military spending never mentioned?
With only 5% of the world's population, the US spends 50% of the world's military budget. The military is the biggest welfare system we have to offer, giving countless people guaranteed income for a life of simply following orders. Most of the contractors that the American military hires sell to nobody else but the government. How much worse could direct military rule be?
When they propose solutions to environmental problems, why don't they ever suggest population control?
I think I know the answer to this question and it's not a happy one. People who are not obsessed with reproduction, do not reproduce, and so only those "crazy" enough to have children pass on their genes to the next generation. In other words, people will reproduce if they are genetically programmed to ignore the fact that every environmental problem is worsened by higher human populations. We hear of many creative ideas to help our environment, even consumption control (conservation), but population control is taboo.
When they debate how to change the English language, why don't they mention the disadvantages of language change in general?
When we say Mumbai instead of Bombay and BCE instead of BC, we are undoubtedly pleasing vocal minorities with a perceived grievance. But what about the history we are wiping away, by making what was written the old way incomprehensible to future generations? With so many words coming into the language (apps, dot-com, etc. ) and so many other words leaving (busy signal, telegraph, etc.), do we really need to change the survivors as well? Don't expect the linguistic legacy you leave behind to be respected if you don't respect the one you receive.
What about all those jobs that Americans are unwilling to take?
No comments:
Post a Comment