Why regulate capitalism? Did you not notice what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?
Did you not notice what happened with the banks in 2008/09???
I still don't understand why. I know what happened; I'm not ignorant of history. But how much must our government regulate the markets? How deep do you want to go?
Okay, I'll show you.
If a 4 year old kid throws the ball up in the air, whose job is it to catch it? Chances are the 4 year old won't be able to catch it, they just haven't learned to do that yet.
However, when the child learns to catch it, he no longer needs to rely on the teacher, or someone else to catch it for him. When he becomes proficient, it becomes second nature.
Thus, when you get out on your own, you no longer need your government to coddle you. For example, I am an autodidact. I learn through self teaching, just like my dad does. So the idea that one must learn from the government through their idea of education is...inaccurate. I also had speech impairments as a child. I only learned words at half the pace normal children did, my 50 words to another child's 100-150. However, my grandmother taught me to read, and helped me get a grasp on my vocabulary. I took it the rest of the way. When I got bored, I read dictionaries. I now know at least 25-40,000 words based on the last estimates I received back in high school, though the art of calculating such is a bit imprecise. However, here I am still searching for more words to learn.
The irony here is that I don't have access to a college education right now either, so that means I have to give myself or rather rely on myself for an education. Instead of lamenting the lack of same, I make do with what I have at my disposal. The internet is a vast cornucopia of knowledge.
So it's the job of the parents to teach them to do this, right? What if the parents don't teach the kid?
Parents and government are completely unrelated. Like I said, when the child does learn, the need for the parents tutelage diminishes. There is no need for them to continue teaching it to him. If they do, whatever progress the child makes will be lost, since he will remain reliant on them instead of himself.
For example. When I first started typing with a QWERTY style keyboard, I taught myself how to do it on my own. My grandmother was a professional typist, but she preferred I learn the layout on my own. And so I did. I can type almost 110 words per minute, faster than her. I didn't have to rely on anyone to learn something, just like I don't need my government coaching me on everything.
There are two ways of looking at this. From the parents with kids point of view, or the kids with parents point of view. The latter shows that the kid is ******* screwed in life with your attitude.
Huh? So, you expect the child to rely on his parents the rest of his life? Is this what I'm reading? So, are we preaching dependence or independence?
Isaac Newton said that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", he meant that what he had done would not have been done without all those who had gone before him. That is what science is. You can't learn science without learning from those who came before you.
Sure, but science, or physics in Newton's case, was founded and improved on by people, not by government regulation. Newton happened to be one of those giants. Einstein was another, Edwin Hubble another, and so on.
They didn't require assistance from the government, they learned from teachers, or were in fact their own teachers, not government. Government is no substitute for ingenuity.
Imagine a successful businessman in the US. Now imagine the same person having been born in Mogadishu in Somalia and imagine how rich this businessman would be in Somalia compared to in the US.
I don't understand how that has anything to do with what our Government in the US should do. Let Somalia handle its own economy how it sees fit. The businessman in the US naturally has more upward mobility and room to succeed than if he were born in Mogadishu. If he were born in Somalia, all he would need to do is... wait for it... emigrate here, learn our language, learn the ways of business and venture out into the sea of capitalism.
How much regulation? I can't answer that. I don't want too much regulation and I don't want too little regulation.
You want small and big business to thrive. Too much regulation stops this, too little stops small businesses from thriving.
For your second point. Yes, once a child has learnt to catch it, they no longer need the teacher.
So, what does this mean? It means that kids need to be taught the skills required for the modern world. They need to be taught how to learn, how to do things. Part of this comes from parents. Part comes from an education syllabus which is designed to make kids able to do this.
Even your example. Without your grandmother's help, perhaps you wouldn't have done well. However not everyone has the ability to read a dictionary, or to do certain things without being shown how to do them, or shown how to enjoy things. People often have natural curiosity and ability, but they need more than this in the real world. They need other stuff.
Yes, the internet has a lot of knowledge. People can learn from others. However, if you look around a message board like this, you see people using such tools, not to improve themselves, not to learn from other people, but to reinforce their prejudices, to reinforce their assumptions and so on.
Why are there so many people on a message board like this, who have gone through the education system, have had parents or guardians who could have taught them, and yet they're incapable of putting together a decent argument and it all descends into a big fighting match?
It's because no one taught them the skills required to make a decent argument. They didn't just learn to do it, because it's not their natural default. Their natural default is to save face, if they think they're "losing" then they attack, warrior nature, not debating nature.
This is one of those examples that shows us that people simply don't make it on their own. They need help. The more help they get the better it is. Some will still fail. Oh well. People are always going to fail. But at least it was fair, everyone had a chance. In the US right now, many just don't stand a chance.
You say the need for teachers diminishes as a child gets older. Sure, diminishes, but doesn't go away. My father started to learn Latin at the age of 65, then a year later began to teach it to others. He had the ability and the time and the desire to learn Latin. Others did too but needed a push in order to do this. Everyone is different.
I, for example, have a concentration problem. When I was doing written assignments of some length, like 2,000 -10,000 words (or more) I'd struggle to make sense of what I had written, to organize it properly, to see what was going on. I'm a visual person, and the words simply didn't make a picture and I'd struggle to keep 2,000 words inside my head, or even a page inside my head. It's a big turn off for things, especially writing. Other people just write. I'm reading a biography of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and he just wrote and wrote and wrote without being turned off.
I'm never going to be like him. So if I wanted to be a writer, I'd need help, whereas he didn't need help, he just needed the time to do it. All people are different.
No, you are not reading that a child will rely on their parents for the rest of their life. A child need to be given the support and learning in order to be able to go out into the world as an adult and compete.
The point I was making was that you can look at a child and understand that they had incapable parents so the child didn't learn enough to be able to go out and fulfill their potential, and realize that many children need teachers and education from others who aren't their parents.
Or you can look at the parents and blame the parents and say the parents should have done this or that or the other. Just blame the parents. Don't help the child. It's the parents' fault.
Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.
One of the reasons that many countries did well in things like sciences and arts was because a monarch decided they wanted to invest in these things.
A scientist couldn't live of just playing with science.
Isaac Newton was sent to school. Why? His parents were rich. Had he not been born rich, he'd never have been a scientist. He'd have been a worker unable to read or write.
His mother wanted him to be a farmer, like his father. But his school master convinced her to send him back to school.
Newton had a scholarship to Cambridge University for 4 years where he learned about what had gone on in science before him.
He then elected a fellow of Trinity.
Who paid for him to have this job where he could research and learn from others?
In 1660, just after the restoration of the Monarchy, Charles the II set up the Royal Society
Royal Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This received a grant-in-aid from the Parliament.
Isaac Newton was a part of this.
So, he got money from the government to help him do his research.
