Destroy the public school monopoly with vouchers so that the same forces of creative destruction that power the tech industry can modernize and make more productive the education industry.
“Objectivity is impossible,” Zinn once remarked, “and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”
troll much? Nothing, in any of his writing, and certainly not that quote, give any indication of a desire to "impose a marxist system". Sounds kind of like your the ideologue here. I fail to understand how relating the experiences of those who built the country you probably think you value would be such a threat to its survival.
And yet his son has been considered one of the celebrities of the economic crisis for predicting it so well and profiting from it. The line between crank and brilliant is blurry.
Although his son predicted the crisis, he might not have profited from it. Part of his investment strategy was based on the assumption that the US economy would decouple from the rest of the world. As it happened, foreign investments were also hammered in the crisis.
Throughout history people have refused to submit to immoral government controls and have suffered the consequences. They are to be admired by people who aspire to be free.
The income tax is an assertion that government owns the work of its citizens and has a right to take as much of it as it wants. The majority of citizens accept this claim because they don't want to be fined, imprisoned, or otherwise mistreated.
Taxpayers are slaves on the government plantation, forced to work for the government. When a slave protests and is punished, he should not be called a crank by the other slaves.
Among the "services" that (American) government provides: Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (countries that have not attacked us), military spending equal to what the rest of the world combined spends, social security and medicare (ponzi schemes in which workers today are forced to finance the retirement and healthcare of the elderly with no realistic expectation that their own retirement and healthcare will be similarly provided for), and of course law enforcement and prisons (a large part of which is devoted to punishing non-violent drug "crimes," i.e., people using illegal drugs themselves or suppling them to those who want to buy them).
Providing services does not justify the income tax, even if those services were useful or moral, which they are generally not (see above). The mafia and private slave owners also provide services (protection and employment) but this does not justify their robbery.
The sixteenth amendment to the American Constitution was only ratified in 1913. Somehow America survived until then without a general income tax.
The "Free to Choose" television series is really great, second that. They're all on google video, search for the obvious keywords and "long" duration (20+ mins) to find them easily.
I especially liked the debate segment in each show, where Friedman argues his points with both supporters and detractors. It struck me while watching it, you really can't find stuff like this on TV anymore.
I'll second the Econtalk podcasts. Russ Roberts does a great job of looking into everyday phenomena with a guest and looking at how economics influences so much. Really a good listen.
I meant that if he was given the opportunity to work under Stephen Hawking, his research must have been impeccable and unquestionable. I think there is a good correlation between being ethical and being a good researcher.
That Torquemada believed fervently was little comfort to those burned. He probably has convinced himself that the more effectively he grubs money the better the economy goes; why, doesn't he see every day billion-dollar innovations like a laser targeting mosquitoes?
I fail to see any reason why being a skilled researcher has any relevance to question of one's ethics. There's no logical connection between the two. A trivial case in point: according to social science research, conservatives -- under-represented in academia and thus less likely than liberals to be "skilled researchers" -- give more charity than liberals.
Destroy the public school monopoly with vouchers so that the same forces of creative destruction that power the tech industry can modernize and make more productive the education industry.