Burning off the useless eaters

[Thomas Shaddack]

> In a free society, nothing stops an employee from seeking a lower
> stress, less demanding, lower profit margin employer, lower-paying job.
> In America, these low-paid employees are called "public teachers."

Lower stress? In the job where you can get shot? (Well, luckily not in all
locations.)

Teaching is a very sensitive job, especially with the younger students.
The initial state of child's mind is inquisitive curiosity; it can be
either reared, or killed. Bad teachers, which is the majority of them, are
literally murderers of minds. If there has to be any major change, it has
to become in schools. But I digress.

> And our teachers in public schools are similarly free to not operate at
> their full potential, or even close to it, and yet be paid a moderate
> salary. They can even steal stuff the way your father did.

Most of the parts were batches that didn't make it through entry-level
tests. Tesla wasn't making exactly stellar things, so reliability tests
had to be performed on the batches before they were put into production.
There were regulations about destroying the batches considered defective.
But stealing something that's scheduled for destruction anyway is not
stealing in its true sense - depriving the owner of enjoying the object.

> > Hightech books were cheaper.
>
> Probably because they were either pirated or were rehashes/copies of
> Western books.

Not all. But often yes.

> Not in all cases. I have a few Soviet physics and math texts written by
> some of the greats of Soviet physics and math. Printed on cheap paper,
> with the authors barely compensated, they were certainly cheap. And, of
> course, often prone to having ideology inserted by the commisars.

Soviets had also great compilations. As they didn't pay the royalties, the
cost was no issue for including an article into the book. Naturally, they
were more complete than their Western counterparts. I was too young to
enjoy it back then; but a friend with more experiences mourned the demise
of these editions couple months back.

> Which is OK, but understand that your country was operating as a
> Napster country.

Yes. However, I prefer students learning from napsterized books now than
risking the lack of qualified people tomorrow (and having to import them
from Napster countries). I say this as a potential writer myself.

> Do you think American schools do not have such clubs? I was in a dozen
> of them, and President of several.

I am not surprised. :) How expensive they were to attend?

> > to consuming, disturbs me a lot.</RANT>
>
> You seem to be pining for central control, for state subsidies, for
> communism.

Not really. Just comparing and remembering... And was too tired and talked
too much.

I am not for state control. I am against both the government- and
megacorporate-instilled control. This is an important difference.

Capitalism is a good idea, as long as it has the form of a lot of small,
widely varying subjects. The current trend of consolidation brings away
both the competition and the choice, and with high-enough barriers to
entry there will be no new small subjects to disrupt the balance. Of
course it will collapse later, but human lives have finite length, so
longer-term waiting isn't the option I'd be exactly happy to take.

> I doubt you'll like what we have to offer on this list.

You work with ways to rehash the situation. The corporations, over certain
size, aren't as that different from the governments. Especially when they
get enough power to buy the governments.

> But your rant above says you would probably be happier under state
> socialism, which makes this list your absolute worse enemy.

Not necessarily. I just dislike the situation when money are the
beginning, the center, and the end of virtually everything, and where
people are degraded to mere replaceable "human resources".

I don't know what approach will handle this; if I'd know, I'd suggest. I
don't know what should be done, nor if anything can be done at all. I am
just afraid. Very afraid.

Besides, preaching to the choir rarely brings the counterarguments telling
me when I am wrong.

> Free markets are often rough. They mean there is no one to provide food
> for those who have no skills to offer.

Contemporary free markets (we'll leave aside the fact they aren't really
free) are driven by short-term profits. Higher investments aimed to
distant future are rare and far between. Basic research suffers, like
virtually everything with no immediate profitable application.

> Think of it as evolution in action. The burnoff of useless eaters will
> be glorious.

...if they won't rise up instead and steamroll over everything. And, as
nobody paid enough care to the public education system, they are too dumb
to rebuild the society in any sensible way after then.

The most important thing to take care of, for the long-term future, is the
education system (we started with the teachers, so why not to end with the
teachers). If statistically significant amount of people will be able (and
willing!) to think for themselves, many problems (eg, sheeple) will
disappear or be reduced. Not only this is less stinky and more aesthetical
(though less spectacular) approach than an outright burnoff, it can also
be more effective.