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