Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Experimentation and Danger
Message-ID: <28200239@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 23:06:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200239
Posted: Wed Oct 30 23:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 08:35:50 EST
Lines: 132
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:28200239:000:6835
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 30 23:06:00 1985


[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka]
> The world would be much better off if a good world government could be
> established.  That is a large if.  Social experimentation is DANGEROUS.

Given the if, in the *short* run it would be. But by the time the
government  stopped being good, it would not stop being a govern-
ment. And all your eggs would be in one basket.

Social experimentation *is* dangerous; so is social drift. Willy-nilly,
we all *are* in a social experiment. So how do we minimize the danger ?
I suggest, by diversification. That means, no global government; also,
less national government. 

E.g., during the 60's and 70's USA public education was  all  but
ruined by "experimentation". I put the word in quotes because the
basic scientific rules  of  experimentation  were  not  observed.
Rather,  the  changes were introduced by true believers who would
not take NO for an answer from  nature.   Some  of  the  "experi-
menters"  were politicians, some judges, some members of the edu-
cational establishment, and it is hard to say who was worse.
And the *same* kind of changes were made  all  over  the  nation.
Where  was their goddamn control ? 

Of course, the package clearly and miserably failed. It  was  our
milder  version of the Cultural Revolution. Now things are creep-
ing back, in some ways, to prerevolutionary days and  the  SATs
are  creeping back up. But experiments in education were sorely
needed ! They are still needed. To some insufficient extent, they
are conducted. But how much *could* be done and cannot be tried.

Personally, I believe what  is  worth  learning  in  the  12-year
course,  could  easily  be  taught  in  2  or 3 years. Get rid of
tenure, hire 4 times fewer teachers at 4 times the  price.  Don't
teach  kids how to live: you don't know it yourself. Don't entertain
them: if you are any good, the learning itself  will  be  fun.
Don't discipline them: if you have to, you should be fired.
Don't  teach  basketball  or  basket weaving.  All this will save
time. Let lecturing be done  on  TV,  by  the  best  lecturer  in
school:  that  will  free  teachers' time for question-and-answer
sessions and working with individuals. Never adapt to the slowest
students,  teach  the brightest and let them explain to the rest.
That will save *lots* of time. Using that time, teach them to en-
joy  reading. That will save more time. Never rebuke or punish
or grade anyone; flatter a lot, but mainly keep them absorbed and
fascinated  by  the  wonders  of  the subject itself, like Mr.
Wizard.  (It takes talent; an untalented teacher  is  engaged  in
the  worst form of child abuse, destroying mind and soul forever.
Pay for the talent, whatever it takes).

I've digressed; the point is, suppose I'm wrong,  still  somebody
else will be right; as likely as not, her ideas will sound *more*
eccentric than mine, and *she won't  be  allowed  to  try  them*.
[I've changed my mind on the generic she].

For the central government, the state governments  and  the  cen-
tralized  educator  associations,  wielding government power, are
the chief enemies of experimentation and progress in  education
-  because  they are the enemies of pluralism.  Instead they gave
us the "experiment" of the American Cultural Revolution.

Now consider taxes. Forget about them being theft, just  consider
the  optimal  ways  to  steal.  We had the '81 tax package rushed
through congress without being read  by  most  congressmen,  much
less the public. A large "experiment" if ever there was one, made
on the body of the whole nation. But the accumulations of  previ-
ous  decades  of  tax  laws which that package sought to correct,
were an even larger "experiment",  made  with  even  less  aware-
ness.

Compare this to the "free enterprise zones" idea.  It  would
let  *true* experimentation, by private people, into these zones.
It has the support of the administration *and* of black and hispan-
ic  leaders  (in  both  cases lukewarm).  Almost no one is openly
against. If successful, it could solve the most  festering  prob-
lems:  inner city decay, ghetto youth unemployment.  The "tax ex-
penditures" are small. Yet  something  invisible  is  in the way;
enough to block the thing for five years, and no end is in sight.

The question is *not* whether we can afford social experimentation.
If we could freeze the status quo in every respect, that would
be the largest "experiment" of all, and one certain to be fatal.
The question is, can we curb, at least in some areas, the
wholesale "experimentation" by the state, and make way for some
true experimentation, much safer and much more productive.

Let me list a few reforms that I feel would be both safe and
hopeful. They may not be *politically* realistic.

- phase in free enterprise zones.
- phase in education vouchers.
- abolish tenure in public schools ; compensate the teachers.
- reduce the  rules for teacher and school certification : if students
  score high  on tests, this should be enough.
- gradually allow paramedic practitioners an almost equal status with
  doctors ("almost" - as a sop to professional self-respect).
- same for paralegals and lawyers.
- make things easier for para-police organizations like Guardian Angels.
- change environmental protection rules on the highly  successful
  West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*.
- abolish all affirmative action laws and regulations (no need
  to phase out, internal corporation rules take care of that).
- abolish minimum wage (no need to phase out, inflation took care
  of that).
- legalize all illegal immigrants, with the proviso
  that if they commit a crime or draw too much welfare benefits, they 
  can be deported.
- make immigration free to anyone who (a) passes an easy
  English test; 
  and (b) agrees to be deported under the conditions
  of the previous item.
  This can be phased in by gradually relaxing the English test.
- legalize marijuana.
- allow condemned prisoners the option of suicide.
- gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax.
- in view of successful office automation, and the accumulated 
  effects of Parkinson's law, require by law
  a yearly reduction of civil service staff of, say, 10%.
- similar rule for clerical defense personnel.
- make government financially responsible for unfair damage
  to private persons (e.g. judicial error  resulting  in  a  prison
  term).  
- limit the length, in letters, of new laws.
- let jury, not judges, decide what a law means. (This would 
  promote a rule of law instead of the rule of lawyers).
- make any new law pass revision by a jury who must unanimously
  agree they understand it.

- adopt a sunset law for all government agencies, regulations,
  and laws (except for the constitution and the sunset law).

		Jan Wasilewsky