Rethinking the automobile II

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

We need to agree to a social contract in regards to driving. One idea would be to have people agree to not file law suits when involved in minor fender benders while the state would then agree to pay for damage sustained to vehicles during such accidents, and hospitals and doctors would agree to waive the cost of treating injuries in such accidents for the privaledge of operating within the state.
Another idea would be to develop weekend driving insurance for those people willing to give up driving on the weekdays.

[acptulsa]

Why the hell can't Americans just learn how to drive? In Europe, they won't let you drive unless and until you get a clue. They make you learn about Newtonian physics and the difference between static and kinetic friction before they stick you in heavy machinery capable of two miles a minute.

Is this too much to ask?

Our insurance companies rule us already in this department. We don't have to learn how to drive--in fact, we're lucky learning to drive well is semi-legal--but we can't buy a new car without heavy airbags which are well known for regularly causing more harm than good. And now we can't even let our kids ride in the front seat. You know what? I rode in the front seat when I was a kid and I liked it.

How many lives and how much money could we save by scrapping our heavy safety equipment and learning how to do this chore correctly? We have no clue, and so long as the insurance lobby has its way, we never will.

[roho76]

We need to agree to a social contract in regards to driving. One idea would be to have people agree to not file law suits when involved in minor fender benders while the state would then agree to pay for damage sustained to vehicles during such accidents, and hospitals and doctors would agree to waive the cost of treating injuries in such accidents for the privaledge of operating within the state.
Another idea would be to develop weekend driving insurance for those people willing to give up driving on the weekdays.

This doesn't sound like freedom.

-Mandatory service for Doctors for the privilege of work in the state.
-State paying for something they shouldn't even be involved in. Government revenue comes from taxes come from people which we all agree that taxes are bad.
-Driving restrictions for free Auto Insurance??? Who pays for the insurance? The government or do the Insurance have to take the hit or maybe their customers will split the bill.

I liked the original post about Automobile innovations better.

[acptulsa]

This doesn't sound like freedom.

Doesn't sound like personal responsibility to me, either. I know what the hell I'm doing behind the wheel. I pay attention. I take it seriously. Why the hell should I be in favor of this "no fault" type setup? Should I not be rewarded for doing something right? Or should only incompetence be rewarded in the new, improved, idiot-proofed America?

[torchbearer]

In Jamaica, there are no speed limits, no stop signs, nothing...
And they have very small, sub-standard roads... and a tons of cars...
Yet, no more accidents than here... and traffic flows just fine..

How do that do that?
They communicate. An organic langauge has evolved using horns and lights.

[acptulsa]

They communicate. An organic langauge has evolved using horns and lights.

Necessity is the mother of invention. No-fault insurance schemes are a way to short-circuit that process.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This doesn't sound like freedom.

-Mandatory service for Doctors for the privilege of work in the state.
-State paying for something they shouldn't even be involved in. Government revenue comes from taxes come from people which we all agree that taxes are bad.
-Driving restrictions for free Auto Insurance??? Who pays for the insurance? The government or do the Insurance have to take the hit or maybe their customers will split the bill.

I liked the original post about Automobile innovations better.

Gee. Poor doctors. In my opinion, all children should receive free healthcare until the age of 18 in place of implementing health insurance. Health insurance just gives big-daddy government more income to play with while free healthcare for minors gives the healthcare industry a way to serve the nation.
If the doctors don't want to do it, then let them go sale used cars.
Once again. A big wahh for the doctors. Wahhh!

The state already trains body-shop mechanics. Once again, let the body-shops fix certain accidents for free for the price of operating within the state. Schools can also do such work for free in order to train students. Let the poor drivers pay for most of it also. If the poor drivers don't like paying for it, then let them walk.

We always look at things from two extremes. In this case, its "free" enterprise versus socialism. But insurance is a third factor which depends on regulation and we need to weed out this hidious concept as much as possible. That is the reason for developing a concept of weekend insurance. If people would agree to drive on the weekends only, then they shouldn't have to pay for it when they don't drive on the weekdays.

[PatriotLegion]

You would not believe how many reckless people drive on the roads in NY. They change lanes with no blinkers with out looking, blatantly blow red lights and stop signs, right of way doesn't exist here if you are at an intersection first with right of way the jerk rolls through the stop sign and almost kills you. I learned that in order to not be hit where I live we need to drive offensively (not defensively - damn I would be hit many times if I tried that).

The road NYS Route 25 is the most deadliest road in the Country. The one mile stretch by my house has an accident on the road at least one a night...

All in all be careful out there on the road!

[Fox McCloud]

Isn't this, in effect, socializing car accidents? People may actually have more incentive not to drive carefully, as "why should it matter? The State will pay for it, and my medical care will be free if I do get hurt"....and most people think they're the ones who will never get hurt.

Free healthcare for children? Shut your trap, please ;) They tried it before in Hawaii by expanding SCHIP to all kids under a certain age...and covering any+all medical expenses...the result? Long lines, SCHIP losing it's money, and people with private insurance dropping it for their kids.....and again, even worse, if you extend it to just one particular age group, you're going to socialize problems with that specific age group.

Also, let's think about just universal healthcare in general and logically (try it sometime; it may do you wonders) if people can get medical attention, for free, no matter the cost or situation, what are they going to do? Have less incentive to lead a safe, healthy life-style....after all, big-daddy/momma government is paying for it....that is assuming you don't die first because you have to wait months on a long waiting list to get medical attention.

Engage brain, remove foot from mouth, methinks it'll help ;)

[acptulsa]

Gee. Poor doctors. In my opinion, all children should receive free healthcare until the age of 18 in place of implementing health insurance. Health insurance just gives big-daddy government more income to play with while free healthcare for minors gives the healthcare industry a way to serve the nation.
If the doctors don't want to do it, then let them go sale used cars.
Once again. A big wahh for the doctors. Wahhh!

You know, there's a Will Rogers quote that I won't be putting in my Will Rogers thread for fear of turning it into a flamefest. He was a great Oklahoman, but that didn't make him anything like 100% libertarian.

Anyway, he says that doctors ought to gig the rich and treat the poor for free, or words to that effect. And, you know, the more people help each other out of a sense of community, the less we are even tempted by big government solutions. They have a big advantage when they destroy our sense of community, just as insurance companies can gain a big advantage when they destroy our sense of responsibility. Just as soon as we're gigging many multiple faceless ratepayers or taxpayers (instead of gigging the person whose face we are looking into) with our irresponsible behavior, civilization deteriorates.

That's why charity works so very much better than socialism. When a person who is helping you face to face wants you to learn to fish, instead of just taking their fish, you tend to realize that you aren't worthless and you want to do better.

[angelatc]

We need to agree to a social contract in regards to driving. One idea would be to have people agree to not file law suits when involved in minor fender benders while the state would then agree to pay for damage sustained to vehicles during such accidents, and hospitals and doctors would agree to waive the cost of treating injuries in such accidents for the privaledge of operating within the state.
Another idea would be to develop weekend driving insurance for those people willing to give up driving on the weekdays.

No, the state doesn't need to pay anything. Here's the thing: no-fault insurance. If you want to drive a $100,000 car, then you can pay to fix it when you're in a crash.

If you're in a crash, have insurance to pay your own bills and be done with it.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No, the state doesn't need to pay anything. Here's the thing: no-fault insurance. If you want to drive a $100,000 car, then you can pay to fix it when you're in a crash.

If you're in a crash, have insurance to pay your own bills and be done with it.

You don't seem to understand that civilization, the concept of positive government and the nation state, began with a social contract. That *social contract planted the seeds that laid the foundation for teachers to teach the children of the slaves to improve their minds. Prior to this time, tyranny all around the world employed teachers to train the children of the master class to take their rightful place of their parents on the throne. This resulted in long established dynasties of tyranny.
In order to further civilization, we don't need freedom but we need social contracts. Freedom is just a prerequisite necessary for the people to be content.

*As is clearly depicted in Plato's dialogue entitled "Meno."

[Fox McCloud]

You don't seem to understand that civilization, the concept of positive government and the nation state, began with a social contract. That *social contract planted the seeds that laid the foundation for teachers to teach the children of the slaves to improve their minds. Prior to this time, tyranny all around the world employed teachers to train the children of the master class to take their rightful place of their parents on the throne. This resulted in long established dynasties of tyranny.
In order to further civilization, we don't need freedom but we need social contracts. Freedom is just a prerequisite necessary for the people to be content.

*As is clearly depicted in Plato's dialogue entitled "Meno."

methinks someone's brain needs more www.mises.org and less www.democraticunderground.com ;)

[angelatc]

methinks someone's brain needs more www.mises.org and less www.democraticunderground.com ;)

Whew! For a minute I thought I was losing my mind.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Isn't this, in effect, socializing car accidents? People may actually have more incentive not to drive carefully, as "why should it matter? The State will pay for it, and my medical care will be free if I do get hurt"....and most people think they're the ones who will never get hurt.

Free healthcare for children? Shut your trap, please ;) They tried it before in Hawaii by expanding SCHIP to all kids under a certain age...and covering any+all medical expenses...the result? Long lines, SCHIP losing it's money, and people with private insurance dropping it for their kids.....and again, even worse, if you extend it to just one particular age group, you're going to socialize problems with that specific age group.

Also, let's think about just universal healthcare in general and logically (try it sometime; it may do you wonders) if people can get medical attention, for free, no matter the cost or situation, what are they going to do? Have less incentive to lead a safe, healthy life-style....after all, big-daddy/momma government is paying for it....that is assuming you don't die first because you have to wait months on a long waiting list to get medical attention.

Engage brain, remove foot from mouth, methinks it'll help ;)

Please read post about social contract.

[roho76]

You don't seem to understand that

You don't seem to understand that what your talking about is Socialism plain and simple.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Whew! For a minute I thought I was losing my mind.

Okay, Angel. Let me see if I can explain this further for it is necessary in order to clearly understand the thought processes of our Founding-Fathers.

Plato in the dialogue entitled "Symposium" supposed that we can think of the term "beauty" as a verb. Example: "She sure is beautiful."
He then developed the term further by supposing that we can think of it in terms of a noun phrase. Example: "The workings of the females in all of God's creatures is an expression of His Beauty.

While the first informal example of the term beauty is outward and shallow, the second formal example is inward and deeper in substance. So, Plato supposed that we should recognize that special kind of beauty by presenting it in the higher case "Beauty."

In other words, the example "The workings of the females in all of God's creatures is an expression of His Beauty" is a noun phrase just short of the ultimate noun Himself -- God.

When our Founding Fathers declared a self-evident truth and a natural right that reduces down unalienably to be known equally by all human souls, they were speaking of an untimate noun phrase. One cannot narrow this noun phrase any further without arriving at God Himself.

Some might just declare a noun phrase as just another propositional phrase. What makes a propositional phrase a noun phrase is its inability to be reduced any further without the conclusion arriving at the ultimate noun Himself -- God.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You don't seem to understand that what your talking about is Socialism plain and simple.

If establishing a new government, a new marriage to a necessary tyranny, on a self-evident truth and unalienable natural right was an act of socialism, then so be it. Why over-complicate what it means to be an American?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

No, the state doesn't need to pay anything. Here's the thing: no-fault insurance. If you want to drive a $100,000 car, then you can pay to fix it when you're in a crash.

If you're in a crash, have insurance to pay your own bills and be done with it.

Okay. Maybe. My point is the 5/7th thing. If I'm not driving for 5/7ths of a week, then I don't have to worry about it regardless for that amount of time. For only 2/7ths of the time I would have to worry. This takes the business of insurance out of the loop.

[Fox McCloud]

Please read post about social contract.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_3/1_3_3.pdf

try that on for size.

[M House]

What the hell happened to the good thread we had on automobiles?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What the hell happened to the good thread we had on automobiles?

Politically speaking, the automobile has always represented freedom to Americans. This has changed a bit as people now move around on their computer. People even upgrade their computers just as they used to buy a new car every two years or so. So, we don't really need to drive as much as we used to. I would feel quite comfortable just driving twice a week while doing so would save thousands that would have been spent in maintenance and fuel.
Only paying 5/7ths for auto insurance would help free up money that people could use towards buying health insurance or life insurance. This new philosophy would also cut down on pollution and make the need for streets and freeways unnecessary.

[Fox McCloud]

Only paying 5/7ths for auto insurance would help free up money that people could use towards buying health insurance or life insurance. This new philosophy would also cut down on pollution and make the need for streets and freeways unnecessary.


not gonna happen; people will always enjoy and continue to enjoy traveling. ;)

Need I remind you this is what we all call the "Internet", which is composed of only about 1/8th (or less) of the planet's total population....there's some people that don't use the 'net, some people that likely never will, and others that are too old/young...or it's just no there thing.

Even if things were cut down, streets and freeways are always necessary.

[jkr]

if everyone could race karts as a "kid" they would be better on the road...

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

not gonna happen; people will always enjoy and continue to enjoy traveling. ;)

Need I remind you this is what we all call the "Internet", which is composed of only about 1/8th (or less) of the planet's total population....there's some people that don't use the 'net, some people that likely never will, and others that are too old/young...or it's just no there thing.

Even if things were cut down, streets and freeways are always necessary.

People will enjoy and continue to enjoy traveling. But just on the weekends. The idea is to set up the job to where one can walk, take a train, or a bus to work. When on vacation, the people could purchase a weeks worth or whatever they need of insurance. This is what people do when they travel into Mexico. They purchase the amount of insurance they will need for just the time they plan on spending in Mexico. So, it can be done.
Of course, there would be extensive lobbying against such an economic policy by the insurance industry.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

if everyone could race karts as a "kid" they would be better on the road...

I agree. This nation would be far better off if the subject of history were dropped in favor of teaching the subject of driving instead. History is like the subject of religion in that every professor has his and her own opinion. Yet, religion still perpetuates. So, put the responsibility of teaching history on the parents.
If the state would instead teach children how to drive from the first grade onward, then children would know how to do so when they reach legal age.

[cheapseats]

What the hell happened to the good thread we had on automobiles?

It happens every time, and it happens on every issue. The People dissolve into bickering over the fine print of a stupid premise, without questioning the premise. The days of a gazillion peons careening around in their own private coaches are OVER.

Beyond our beloved Exceptions To The Rule — Commercial, Emergency Response, Special Needs, in pretty much that order — WE SHOULD NOT BE ROLLING EVEN ONE OLD SCHOOL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE VEHICLE OFF THOSE LINES.

We have lots and lots that are JAM PACKED with lots and lots of perfectly serviceable cars, while we dig ourselves out of the fucking deepest hole this country has been in since Adolf Hitler had Winston Churchill backed up against the Atlantic Ocean and America’s Depression was EVEN GREATER, thanks to the vote-garnering meddling over FDR. Whose Spend-A-Thon example a FRIGHTENING number of people are encouraging this DIM-WITTED President Elect to emulate.

NOT ONE more of those cars do we need. Not one. Being American does NOT mean never having to drive second-hand cars. I know, I know that the Moneyed Classes crave new. The Moneyed Classes are a lot of the problem, nationally and internationally. It’s country first, or it isn’t. We’re in this together, or we’re not. I’m sick of this shit. Play-both-sides-of-the-coin-as-it-suits-your-purpose, thy other name is the Government-Commercial Complex.

FAR cheaper now and FAR better in the long run to pay unemployment benefits, and then some. EXTENDED unemployment benefits would be cheaper than bailing out ANTIQUATED AND FAILING BUSINESSES. Extended unemployment benefits, while people rearrange i.e. relocate themselves to where business IS happening…are you kidding me? THEN we’ll see some spending.

We’ll see house swapping, domestic mergers, use conversions, all kindsa creative stuff. Necessity = Mother of Invention = American Ingenuity.

Instead of throwing MORE of Other People’s Money at Detroit, AGAIN — as the Entrenched Interests who stand most to benefit would do and who, not coincidentally, have Authority to so decree — pump funds into excellent, affordable Mass Transportation. Stationery people? People who can’t afford to get up ‘n go? People who are trapped by the American Dream? That there’s whatcha call a Toxic Asset.

A country that cannot readily move it’s principal (in my view, also principle) resource –considering that Scarcity of Resources is a principle (in my view, also principal) tenet of Economics – must necessarily sustain that inflexibility by either contrivance or incompetence, or both. Obviously, for it defies the best interests of the People while defying neither science nor economics.

Read that, Powers That Be — some of whom I will argue belong in prison — are sustainedly working against the best interests of the People they purport to represent, or they are complete nincompoops. Both, in the sense that we HAVE both. A child can see it.

Like attorneys – the unscrupulous bloodsucking kind and the kindly ineffectual kind – politicos create and sustain a need for themselves. At top-notch prices, it bears continuous recollection. Think back only as far as GEORGE BUSH, DICK CHENEY AND BIG OIL to recognize the potential hazards of BARACK OBAMA, MICHELLE OBAMA, JOE BIDEN, HILLARY CLINTON AND BIG LAW.

America is being fleeced – ongoing, as I type and still as you read – but now, even though more rather than fewer people are wrapping their minds around the betrayal, the People are positively immobilized by bullshit. THAT’S whatcha call Analysis Paralysis.

http://www.peaceandcarats.com

[danberkeley]

At least Uncle Emanuel Watkins is the most civilized of the RPF socialists.

[Fox McCloud]

People will enjoy and continue to enjoy traveling. But just on the weekends. The idea is to set up the job to where one can walk, take a train, or a bus to work. When on vacation, the people could purchase a weeks worth or whatever they need of insurance. This is what people do when they travel into Mexico. They purchase the amount of insurance they will need for just the time they plan on spending in Mexico. So, it can be done.
Of course, there would be extensive lobbying against such an economic policy by the insurance industry.

I just love people who appear to have not lived a single second in the country or who comprehend what it's like to incessantly live out in the boonies; trains will never be viable for the country, and neither would a bus; there'd be far too many differing jobs in a wide geographical area; ultimately in order to get to the bus you'd have to get up and arrive to be picked up at the same time the earliest working person would have to get up.......all in all it would be unprofitable and unreliable for people in the country....those of us who live way out here in the boonies need our automobiles to go to and from work...there's just no way around that.

Sure, buying insurance for when you drive is great, so long as a company isn't forced to offer it (also, as you alluded to, it would be just as bad to also block it via the government)...but you have to take something into consideration here; nearly every State [u]requires[/i] insurance...which only drives up the price more....also, sadly (I blame this on the State as well), there isn't much innovation in the car insurance industry.......While they're not a very good Auto insurance company, I think Progressive has a great idea; mount a GPS device+modem in your trunk, and you're charged based upon your driving habits (how long you drive, how many miles, and likely other driving habits)....This is a very suitable option, IMHO...it just needs to be given time before it's adopted.......of course, there's privacy concerns too....just like pay-per-mile, it's a great idea, but once you get the State involved, it's a whole other bag of tricks.



I agree. This nation would be far better off if the subject of history were dropped in favor of teaching the subject of driving instead. History is like the subject of religion in that every professor has his and her own opinion. Yet, religion still perpetuates. So, put the responsibility of teaching history on the parents.
If the state would instead teach children how to drive from the first grade onward, then children would know how to do so when they reach legal age.

"those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" ;)

learning to drive is very important, but it should be up to the parents to decide that, and not the State---besides that, if you do this, then you'll eventually get some hair-brained person in Congress or the Senate who thinks the driving age should be lowered because "we have the best drivers in the world now". I don't care how much training a person has, hardly anyone under the age of 15 (and I question even that) has the maturity and state of mind to fully concentrate and understand driving.......of course, with privatized roads, this would be a no issue.

[youngbuck]

Gee. Poor doctors. In my opinion, all children should receive free healthcare until the age of 18 in place of implementing health insurance. Health insurance just gives big-daddy government more income to play with while free healthcare for minors gives the healthcare industry a way to serve the nation.
If the doctors don't want to do it, then let them go sale used cars.
Once again. A big wahh for the doctors. Wahhh!



Are you an idiot? Forced labor is also known as SLAVERY. Get a clue...:rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

At least Uncle Emanuel Watkins is the most civilized of the RPF socialists.

In this day and age when most of us need three jobs to get by, most of us can't find one. Why? Because when we work without a social agenda, we work ourselves out of business.
The thing I don't like about the word "social" is that it is a term created after the advent of the Founding Fathers, the civil document of The Declaration of Independence, and the legal document of The U.S. Constitution. Psychology, sociology and the other social sciences didn't originate until after our government was founded on the principles of natural law.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Are you an idiot? Forced labor is also known as SLAVERY. Get a clue...:rolleyes:

It is okay to die. One could suffer an injury and, after the healthcare industry refuses to treat him or her, not be the worse for it.
So, if it is okay to die, thus making it unnecessary to be saved by the medical industry, then what is their roles in society?

To be comforters. To make people happy and content.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I just love people who appear to have not lived a single second in the country or who comprehend what it's like to incessantly live out in the boonies; trains will never be viable for the country, and neither would a bus; there'd be far too many differing jobs in a wide geographical area; ultimately in order to get to the bus you'd have to get up and arrive to be picked up at the same time the earliest working person would have to get up.......all in all it would be unprofitable and unreliable for people in the country....those of us who live way out here in the boonies need our automobiles to go to and from work...there's just no way around that.

Sure, buying insurance for when you drive is great, so long as a company isn't forced to offer it (also, as you alluded to, it would be just as bad to also block it via the government)...but you have to take something into consideration here; nearly every State [u]requires[/i] insurance...which only drives up the price more....also, sadly (I blame this on the State as well), there isn't much innovation in the car insurance industry.......While they're not a very good Auto insurance company, I think Progressive has a great idea; mount a GPS device+modem in your trunk, and you're charged based upon your driving habits (how long you drive, how many miles, and likely other driving habits)....This is a very suitable option, IMHO...it just needs to be given time before it's adopted.......of course, there's privacy concerns too....just like pay-per-mile, it's a great idea, but once you get the State involved, it's a whole other bag of tricks.




"those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" ;)

learning to drive is very important, but it should be up to the parents to decide that, and not the State---besides that, if you do this, then you'll eventually get some hair-brained person in Congress or the Senate who thinks the driving age should be lowered because "we have the best drivers in the world now". I don't care how much training a person has, hardly anyone under the age of 15 (and I question even that) has the maturity and state of mind to fully concentrate and understand driving.......of course, with privatized roads, this would be a no issue.

Tis better that the people themselves decide what makes them happiest than to have the government step in to tell them that they have to do it in order to be responsible and equal.
In regards to history and the long standing traditions which have tormented countless souls, the people will always be doomed in what they do. But a self-evident truth and an unalienable natural right reduces as a natural law to supercede these long standing traditions as the greatest power. This greater power will exist regardless because evil destroys itself in the end. Because evil destroys itself, this frees up the people to enjoy their freedom.
So, perhaps a knowledge of history is not as important as we think it is?

[Fox McCloud]

Tis better that the people themselves decide what makes them happiest than to have the government step in to tell them that they have to do it in order to be responsible and equal.

now you're putting words in my mouth; I never stated the government should step in and tell anyone anything; as a minimal statist/ultra-conservative/Libertarian, I don't think the government has any business telling anyone to do anything....where in the heck did you get such an idea?


In regards to history and the long standing traditions which have tormented countless souls, the people will always be doomed in what they do. But a self-evident truth and an unalienable natural right reduces as a natural law to supercede these long standing traditions as the greatest power. This greater power will exist regardless because evil destroys itself in the end. Because evil destroys itself, this frees up the people to enjoy their freedom.
So, perhaps a knowledge of history is not as important as we think it is?

People's countless souls have been tormented for centuries because of sin, the State, and man's basic and innate evilness...it has nothing to do with long-standing traditions. Sure, it may add to it, but ultimately, at the end of the day, the person has to make a conscious choice of his or her actions. I'm also a bit perplexed as to why you're rambling on about natural laws and unalienable rights; what natural laws? What unalienable rights? Sure they exist, but within the context of your argument, it just sounds like you're trying to avoid the crux of this argument and wane philosophical.

Evil doesn't necessarily always destroy itself--it can and often does harm itself, but sometimes it just perpetuates itself on and on and on--some families have been in power for eons, and often times when a line fails, another arises to take its place; without any concept of history (or knowing of it) knowing about this fact, let alone, who these people are, would be impossible. What about scientific discoveries, learning about novels, learning about how/when genocide was committed...without a knowledge of these histories, we have absolutely no basis on current trends and how they're developing. Take WWII Germany, for example; if none of us learned history, we'd all be unable to generate the parallels between the current state of the US and that of Nazi Germany....not as useless as you think it is.

[danberkeley]

In this day and age when most of us need three jobs to get by, most of us can't find one. Why? Because when we work without a social agenda, we work ourselves out of business.
The thing I don't like about the word "social" is that it is a term created after the advent of the Founding Fathers, the civil document of The Declaration of Independence, and the legal document of The U.S. Constitution. Psychology, sociology and the other social sciences didn't originate until after our government was founded on the principles of natural law.

What do you mean?