Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site pedsgd.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!pedsgd!bob From: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Experimentation and Danger Message-ID: <344@pedsgd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 16:16:59 EST Article-I.D.: pedsgd.344 Posted: Sat Nov 2 16:16:59 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Nov-85 09:07:41 EST References: <28200239@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) Organization: Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls, NJ Lines: 70 Summary: Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <28200239@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: { An assertion that social experimentation goes on continuously, } { a criticism of US education in the 60's and 70's, and } { a fairly sensible proposal for further experiments in response to } { Frank Adams assertion that social experimentation is DANGEROUS } I'd like to disagree with slighly about US education having lived through it. Mostly it wasnt too bad, alot of it was a waste of time, and anybody whos parents encouraged them to read and learn managed to do pretty well. >Let me list a few reforms that I feel would be both safe and >hopeful. They may not be *politically* realistic. > { the afore mentioned proposals - many deleted } >- change environmental protection rules on the highly successful > West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*. Would like you to define "highly successful" in this context. Personally I prefer "dont you dare pollute, but if you do pay in proportion". >- gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax. As long as consumption includes the buying of companies, stocks, bonds, or real estate, and exempts some minimal amount for food, clothing, and shelter, I'm all for it. What do you do about goods purchased in other countries? >- 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 Well spoken Jan. I would add a couple of restrictions here: - Require that all legislation include provisions for financing. This should be sufficient to overcome the *free lunch* mentality the libertarians harp about without dismantling the system completely. - Require that all legislation have a measurable goal and will become automatically void if it fails to meet that goal. Thus a proposal for education might state the goal is to raise the median SAT score 5 points per year, starting in 1988, measured every 2 years. If scores are not at least 10 points higher in 1990, the program is terminated. - Every citizen should recieve an accounting statement every year stating which laws where passed, who voted for and against them, which ones expired, how much tax he had paid, where it went, what the value of services he recieved in return, etc. Admittedly, some of these would have to be estimates, but the idea is to provide the citizen with enough information to decide if he is getting screwed, and who to blame if he is. The press currently does an inadequate job reporting these things because it doesnt sell many papers, but could probably do a great job of exposing fraud or inaccuracy in the estimates, which does. Very often I also think that legislators should be hired and that the vote should only be used to fire them, but that is for another time. -- Bob Weiler The odds against my opinions reflecting those of my employer are nearly astronomical.