[jerf]

I honestly don't even know which side it is that you think is "far more effective" at solving social problems. Do you think it's the Democrats? Because "big government and taxes" are also far more effective at creating social problems that local charities. Have you read about the corrosive effects of welfare on black communities? Have you ever joined in complaining about the inability of public school systems to successfully adapt and harness changing technologies? Have you noticed that our biggest social problems just "happen" to also be located right where Democratic policies were enacted (i.e., the policies preceded the social degradation)? All of these things are certainly at least debatable, but they are also certainly not so obviously false that they can simply be discarded without consideration.

"Big government and taxes" may theoretically be more capable of solving problems, but there's a big gulf between theory and reality.

And back on point so this is at least less an off-topic diversion than it otherwise would be, are you A: inclined to agree that hierarchies are bad for cooperation even as B: you declare that the largest hierarchy in the world, "government", is better at solving social problems than distributed non-hierarchical networks? I don't know, because you, mozumder, personally didn't say, but I rather suspect there's a lot of people here holding both those beliefs simultaneously without noticing the profound philosophical conflicts they have.

[mozumder]

Have you read about the corrosive effects of welfare on black communities?

No. I have read about welfare reducing poverty. I'm sure you have, too.

Have you ever joined in complaining about the inability of public school systems to successfully adapt and harness changing technologies?

No. I have read about public schools outperforming private charter schools.

Have you noticed that our biggest social problems just "happen" to also be located right where Democratic policies were enacted (i.e., the policies preceded the social degradation)?

No. I have read about liberal policies solving social problems, as usual.

All of these things are certainly at least debatable, but they are also certainly not so obviously false that they can simply be discarded without consideration.

Why not? I just discarded them without consideration, and you can, too.

The question isn't whether or not liberal policies solve problems far more effectively than Republican policies. The question is how quickly you will accept that truth.

[bobby_9x]

"No. I have read about welfare reducing poverty. I'm sure you have, too."

Only in the short-term. In the long-term, it creates generations of people completely dependent on the government, never really getting the chance to get themselves out of poverty.

All of my extended family are like this. They don't work because the government gives them enough to live.

"No. I have read about public schools outperforming private charter schools."

Where is the proof of this? In my area, the public schools are terrible. It sickens me that I have to pay taxes to support them when they just continue to spiral downward. It's also impossible to get rid of bad teachers, because whenever some sort of solution is suggested (for measuring effectiveness), the unions come back and say it isn't possible.

"The question isn't whether or not liberal policies solve problems far more effectively than Republican policies. The question is how quickly you will accept that truth"

Most liberal solutions that I've seen leave out human nature and a history of complete failure and re-dress it as something 'new'.

[mozumder]

it creates generations of people completely dependent on the government

Where are these magical people that aren't dependent on government?

Are you one of those? How do you travel? Do you build your own roads? What do you do for mail? Do you use UPS for all mail, and they use their own roads?

Did your employees learn literacy from private schools? Or did government teach them? How did they learn to follow work instructions?

I would like to find these magical people that aren't dependent on government. They sound like they are awesome people. Maybe they also have guns to defend themselves from invading armies, and have fire-proof houses?

You are dependent on government. You can ignore your ego that actively harms you by telling you that you aren't dependent on government. The quicker you learn this, the better off you will be.

[bobby_9x]

I'm receiving services in return for the incredible amount of money, in taxes, I pay into the system.

In reality, the government is dependent on me.

Our goal should be to encourage more people to be like me (pay more into the system than I will ever use) so people that truly need it can use it.

Welfare and an abundance of social programs encourages just the opposite: live on welfare and never make enough to give back into the system.

[kazinator]

In defense of grandparent, let me point out that you ignored the adverb "completely". There is "dependent on government" and then there is "completely dependent on government".

[orthecreedence]

> It sickens me that I have to pay taxes to support them when they just continue to spiral downward.

This is a feedback loop. I'm not saying that throwing more money at public schools will help them get better, but taking money away will certainly make them worse.

> Most liberal solutions that I've seen leave out human nature and a history of complete failure and re-dress it as something 'new'.

Actually agree. Most liberal policies are somewhat naive. But on the other end you have the free market people crowing about benefits of deregulation and wanting to disassemble public services because "I don't want my tax dollars going to [parks, buses, schools, etc etc] I don't even use!!"

There's a medium ground here. The point of society isn't to preserve your tax dollars or to give everyone welfare. The point is that when we all live together as a group, we all do a lot better than we did when it was six of us in a group starving out on the tundra.

There are some public services that we just shouldn't live without, especially if we want to stay competitive as a country. However, some of them need complete overhauls or just shouldn't exist in the first place.

[bobby_9x]

I agree with you here. We shouldn't be taking away money from our public school systems. We should be fixing the current situation and making people accountable for the wasted money.

My parents grew up near detroit and they told me about how the state poured money into the school system for years.

They are now some of the worst in the nation, with abysmal graduation rates.

[mozumder]

How much did they pay into the public schools? Did they spend as much as public schools around the Washington DC area (best in the country?) And, how much was it compared to what they would pay to private schools?

Yah they didn't pay enough into the system.

A real system is a lot more expensive than what they think.

The solution to the education problem is: spend more money.

[bobby_9x]

See: detroit. 5x was spent for 30 years until the entire system collapsed when enough tax payers fled the city.

This is the result of your plan.

[randallsquared]

> I honestly don't even know which side it is that you think is "far more effective" at solving social problems.

...and I really hope that it was intentional. :)