The work to live ideology results in 700 deaths per year from freezing. It is a major contributer to domestic violence as well as high divorce rates in the U.S. It is highly likely that it also is a major factor in illegal drug use. Of course, this does not even count the cases of starvation and other shelter related deaths. Frankly, this work to live thing is imposing what amounts to serious cruel and unusual punishment on around 600,000 people (the government claims that this is how many people are homeless each night on average).
This is a shame, in a country that produces almost five times what it consumes of nearly all basic necessities (shelter may be an exception). Even during the recent recession, we had a thriving economy, producing enormous amounts of nearly everything, and only a very small portion of that is necessary for survival. A vast majority of our labor goes into producing things that we do not need. We have too much of nearly everything (half of the food produced in the U.S. that is not exported gets thrown away), and yet, we are just letting people starve and freeze to death on the streets. Why?
The problem is "work to live." At the same time the U.S. is making great strides to abolishing the death penalty. Last year, there were only 35 executions in the U.S. total. The grand total since 1976 is 1,407. Each year, 20 times as many people as were executed last year die from freezing alone. It only takes two years for enough people to die from freezing to match the total number of executions since 1976. The death penalty is not a significant source of death in the U.S., and more innocent people die every year in accidents than the grand total of innocent people that have died to the death penalty in all of U.S. history. Why are we so vocal about the death penalty while huge numbers of people are dying constantly because of some outdated ideology that is based largely on a situation that never actually existed in known history? We are evidently hypocrites.
Domestic violence, divorce rates, and drug abuse all go together. These are all problems that are limited primarily to the lower class. Domestic abuse in middle or upper class households is extremely rare compared to those living in poverty. The most common cause of divorce is financial disagreements that stem from not having a high enough income. Drug abuse is far more common among the homeless and poor than any other class. In fact, crime in general (especially petty theft and violent crime) is most frequently committed by the poor. The worst part is that a vast majority of poor people are not poor by their own choice, but they are punished for it and treated as if it were. As with the death penalty, innocent people are being punished for not being able to work to live. They largely have no choice, and multiple studies have shown that giving them sufficient money, even straight cash with no strings attached (the opposite of work to live), will alleviate most of these problem, and it will give them the means and motivation to permanently escape them.
Work to live has become a toxic ideology on our society. It was the root cause of the recent recession, because even during the recession, goods were plentiful. It causes people to keep jobs they hate, preventing other people who want those jobs from getting them. It causes a great deal of death, far more than the death penalty. It causes economists to make nonsensical statements revolving around the idea that reducing unnecessary work is bad. It causes people to oppose valuable economic advances, again based on the idea that reducing necessary work is bad. It is a major factor in divorce, drug abuse, and crime. Eliminating the work to live ideology (with, for example, a basic income) would do far more to reduce unnecessary death than eliminating the death penalty, and it would likely reduce crime far more effectively than the death penalty or any other law enforcement ever has.
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
08 May 2015
10 December 2014
Tech for Teens
We will not be buying smart phones for our children. We will also not be allowing them unsupervised use of technology. In addition, we are teaching them good manners and responsibility.
The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half. Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices. Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization. The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value. They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety. Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.
Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students). This has become very common. Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects. This is a huge problem. In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult. Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.
Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone. I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it. The problem, however, is not the teens themselves. The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility. Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone. Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight. Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child. If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision. When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence. The default should not be permission. The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone. Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility. If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.
Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology. Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised. Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly. Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs. Is this an invasion of privacy? No! Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children. Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves. So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing. Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends. This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused. In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so. Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices. Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.
Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion: Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes). They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills. Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it. There are, however, alternatives. "Stupid phones" are still readily available. Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children. When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age). When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent. If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded. This will not be a social phone. It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible). The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all. If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device. Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive. Perhaps it is. As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job. If you are a parent, this is your job as well.
This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents. I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others. A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent. I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.
What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right. The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages. I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones. Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents. Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.
(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices. And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that. I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)
The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half. Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices. Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization. The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value. They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety. Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.
Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students). This has become very common. Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects. This is a huge problem. In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult. Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.
Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone. I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it. The problem, however, is not the teens themselves. The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility. Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone. Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight. Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child. If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision. When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence. The default should not be permission. The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone. Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility. If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.
Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology. Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised. Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly. Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs. Is this an invasion of privacy? No! Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children. Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves. So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing. Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends. This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused. In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so. Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices. Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.
Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion: Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes). They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills. Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it. There are, however, alternatives. "Stupid phones" are still readily available. Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children. When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age). When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent. If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded. This will not be a social phone. It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible). The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all. If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device. Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive. Perhaps it is. As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job. If you are a parent, this is your job as well.
This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents. I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others. A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent. I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.
What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right. The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages. I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones. Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents. Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.
(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices. And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that. I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)
07 November 2014
What Americans Care About
The job description of the U.S. government is to serve the people, largely by doing the will of the people. It is a Republic, and a Democratic Republic at that. What this means is that the government represents the people and is lead by people who are democratically elected to represent the people. Now that this is out of the way, let us consider what Americans actually worry about.
According to Pew Research, the second biggest concern of Americans is religious hatred. Obviously, this plays directly into religious freedom, and it is, in fact, one of the most major elements of religious freedom. Religious hatred is what ultimately caused our Founding Fathers to be so explicit in protecting religious freedom and in prohibiting preferential treatment of any religion by the government. As the second biggest concern, we should see a lot of discussion in Congress over this issue, given that it is the second most important thing Americans seem to care about. Sadly, Congress is more worried about things that Americans seem to find trivial. This is not the most disturbing part of the situation though.
The research indicates that the first biggest concern of Americans is income inequality. This subject has gotten some attention in Congress, with the most prominent result being a health care law that forces those at the middle and lower ends to spend a larger percentage of their income on health care insurance than those with much higher incomes. Technically, this is making income inequality worse, not better. While this subject seems to come up a lot in Congress and in Presidential press conferences and such, little is being done to actually address it. This is currently the most important issue to Americans, and Congress cannot be bothered to give it serious consideration long enough to actually do something about. Instead, Congress is doing things like harassing our (admittedly poor) education system, repeatedly forcing it to adopt untested techniques to improve test scores. Income inequality has consistently been proven to affect education outcome more than any other factor. Income inequality is the primary reason than a significant percentage of Americans cannot afford health care insurance (and making laws requiring them to purchase it does nothing to fix that problem). Income inequality is also very strongly linked to our recent and current economic problems. It also seems to have strong links to crime as well. Income inequality also has links to many types of self destructive behavior (drug and alcohol abuse, for instance). Income inequality is closely related to a vast majority of the big problems Congress keeps failing to fix.
There is a field of medicine that is starting to get more attention recently called "functional medicine." Traditional medicine treats symptoms. If there is pain, pain killers are administered. If there is skin dryness, lotions are administered. If there is depression, medications designed primarily to make a person feel good are administered. The catch with a vast majority of these treatments is that they treat the symptoms, but they do not treat the cause. Chronic headaches, which are often treated with ever stronger pain killers, are typically caused by something that can be treated to eliminate the problem entirely. Skin dryness, even chronic types, can often be cured by functional medicine, when normal dermatologists would prescribe a life time treatment of lotions and moisture buffers. Instead of treating symptoms forever, functional medicine aims to cure the underlying cause of the symptoms, eliminating the symptoms for good. Now, apply this to income inequality.
Income inequality is a known cause of many of the problems we currently face. It is a likely cause for many other problems that we have either not researched or have not gathered enough supporting evidence to constitute proof of a causal relationship with. The evidence indicates that this one thing could solve nearly all of the big problems Congress has been trying to fix over the last half century. It is also currently the biggest concern of Americans. Congress should be tackling income inequality head on, instead of skirting around it trying to cover up the symptoms. Congress needs to stop flirting with special interests and start taking care of its primary responsibility: The people it is sworn to serve.
According to Pew Research, the second biggest concern of Americans is religious hatred. Obviously, this plays directly into religious freedom, and it is, in fact, one of the most major elements of religious freedom. Religious hatred is what ultimately caused our Founding Fathers to be so explicit in protecting religious freedom and in prohibiting preferential treatment of any religion by the government. As the second biggest concern, we should see a lot of discussion in Congress over this issue, given that it is the second most important thing Americans seem to care about. Sadly, Congress is more worried about things that Americans seem to find trivial. This is not the most disturbing part of the situation though.
The research indicates that the first biggest concern of Americans is income inequality. This subject has gotten some attention in Congress, with the most prominent result being a health care law that forces those at the middle and lower ends to spend a larger percentage of their income on health care insurance than those with much higher incomes. Technically, this is making income inequality worse, not better. While this subject seems to come up a lot in Congress and in Presidential press conferences and such, little is being done to actually address it. This is currently the most important issue to Americans, and Congress cannot be bothered to give it serious consideration long enough to actually do something about. Instead, Congress is doing things like harassing our (admittedly poor) education system, repeatedly forcing it to adopt untested techniques to improve test scores. Income inequality has consistently been proven to affect education outcome more than any other factor. Income inequality is the primary reason than a significant percentage of Americans cannot afford health care insurance (and making laws requiring them to purchase it does nothing to fix that problem). Income inequality is also very strongly linked to our recent and current economic problems. It also seems to have strong links to crime as well. Income inequality also has links to many types of self destructive behavior (drug and alcohol abuse, for instance). Income inequality is closely related to a vast majority of the big problems Congress keeps failing to fix.
There is a field of medicine that is starting to get more attention recently called "functional medicine." Traditional medicine treats symptoms. If there is pain, pain killers are administered. If there is skin dryness, lotions are administered. If there is depression, medications designed primarily to make a person feel good are administered. The catch with a vast majority of these treatments is that they treat the symptoms, but they do not treat the cause. Chronic headaches, which are often treated with ever stronger pain killers, are typically caused by something that can be treated to eliminate the problem entirely. Skin dryness, even chronic types, can often be cured by functional medicine, when normal dermatologists would prescribe a life time treatment of lotions and moisture buffers. Instead of treating symptoms forever, functional medicine aims to cure the underlying cause of the symptoms, eliminating the symptoms for good. Now, apply this to income inequality.
Income inequality is a known cause of many of the problems we currently face. It is a likely cause for many other problems that we have either not researched or have not gathered enough supporting evidence to constitute proof of a causal relationship with. The evidence indicates that this one thing could solve nearly all of the big problems Congress has been trying to fix over the last half century. It is also currently the biggest concern of Americans. Congress should be tackling income inequality head on, instead of skirting around it trying to cover up the symptoms. Congress needs to stop flirting with special interests and start taking care of its primary responsibility: The people it is sworn to serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)