Arguing with Idiots by Glen Beck

There is a natural tenancy to hate this guy. He sounds like a simple minded idiot. On his show, he has a tenancy to focus on trivial, arbitrary, BS things that don't matter.

...but I'd be intellectually dishonest if I just said he was full of crap and couldn't be bothered to read anything he's written. After all, books seem like the only place where people cut through the crap nowadays.

So, I've started reading his book, and to my surprise, he actually has some good criticism. It's proof again that you can learn things even when reading from the worst of people. He has a lot of points that are very good on left-wing political positions.

But, sadly, good criticisms are all he has. When focusing on what should be done about problems, his only conclusion is to fall back onto half-baked right-wing politics and methodologies. Thus, he makes no real contribution other than to point out what everyone already subconsciously knows in a well-presented, reaffirming guide.

It reminded me of something Noam Chomsky said: (Loosely paraphrased) "These people have real grievances, and these people like Rush Limbough, Michael Savage are giving answers. They're crazy answers, but they aren't getting any from anywhere else."

Once I'm done with the book, I will post the issues that Beck brings up. Maybe we can discuss and consider ideas, fresh perspectives and better initiatives that Beck failed to bring to the table.

...that is if anyone even cares. I've always been fascinated with politics, but am aware enough to notice that I'm an incredibly small minority.

Originally Posted by zensunni

Once I'm done with the book, I will post the issues that Beck brings up. Maybe we can discuss and consider ideas, fresh perspectives and better initiatives that Beck failed to bring to the table

I'd be very interested to hear what positive criticism Glen Beck could possibly have, so I really hope you read fast.

Okay, here goes. Keep in mind that I do not 100% agree with some of these arguments. But, some, I will argue to be the devil's advocate.

Gun control
Just as marijuana, gun prohibition doesn't work. In fact, prohibition will only take guns away from normal people and not the criminals who don't care about the law.

Additionally, the second amendment exists to make the government afraid of it's people. The right to bear arms is in the constitution so that it's population can retaliate if any abuses occur. This liberty seems quite compatible to the betterment of human rights because civilians cannot be pushed around too much.

So, what are the consequences for this? The biggest (and only?) consequence is death by accident. So, to solve this, people should need a license to own a gun, just as a car. The test would require an aptitude of being literate and understanding how most guns work, as well as thier safety procedures and protocols.

As an added benefit, this aptitude test would actually bar the illiterate idiots in the southern part of the US from getting guns; people who have no business owning a gun in the first place. So, the added benefit is to provide incentive for them to, at least, become literate.

Failures of socialism
Socialist systems suffer from terribly complacent bureaucracy. Even with the most positive and idealistic solutions, they all degrade and become complacent. In a comparison of any government run service to it's private-run counterpart, you will always see a huge difference in efficiency. Everything from employee productivity to logistics systems are incredibly surpassed in the private sector.

Another point against social bureaucracy is the excuse it provides for otherwise charitable people. Many people simply won't give to causes that already have bureaucracies there to help. What mostly ends up happening is these bureaucracies get so bad at dealing with the job they are supposed to do, they end up being ineffective at solving the problem they're there to solve. What's worse is that charity does not intervene because the bureaucracy is already on the job.

The destructive factor in all these systems is that there is no fear of loss. When future income/funding depends on your ability to provide a good service, and can stop at any time, it puts people on their toes and creates a financially minded organization.

So, what's wrong with privatization...?

There are three problems with privately run sectors: indoctrination, public access (or lack thereof), and bad regulation.

When companies can indoctrinate the public, they bypass criticism and create obedient consumers. 1/3 of all the TV you watch is advertising. All roads are filled with banners. Public transit systems are littered with ads and the internet is non-stop advertising. Every medium you watch is polluted with advertising that constantly regurgitates identifiable logos and suggestions to buy things. Although you can always point to a few counter-examples, the vast majority will be indoctrinated. This is why the advertising industry is such a beast. It allows sub-par products and services to gain profits, even when they are terrible compared to their competition. It typically doesn't matter how much better your product is if you are fighting a well-known brand, which has been burnt into the minds of people repeatedly.

Lack of public access is another roadblock to a healthy private sector. This is where the government needs to step in. The population simply needs access to the rules, procedures, laws and practices of creating a business. Companies are naturally anti-competitive so they won't give information away. This is why the government needs to step in and inform the public of their options. Want to create a radio station? Want to know how to ship stuff internationally? Want to have access to a marketplace of suppliers? Want to know the law on a specific subject? These questions need answers, but these resources are very lacking. Government agencies who do nothing but help small businesses are very greatly needed. Sadly, this is one of the most important things that gets overlooked.

Bad regulation is also terrible. It is something that is never covered by media and is most destructive to fair competition. For example, a new foundation law in Canada makes non-profit organizations have to adhere to a whole bunch of VERY tedious laws in order to receive or give funding to other non-profits with foundation status. A huge list of organizations are kicked from foundation status each year, leaving them to have to re-submit an application and crawl their way back to approval. This foundation status also give big advantages to the non-profit organization. Since the big companies have no trouble keeping the tedious regulations with their deep pockets, it effectively weeds out small organizations and bars them from funding. While lobbying organizations like the CRIA easily adhere to the regulations with funding from deep pocketed media conglomerates, grassroots organizations have to fight tooth and nail to keep the status. This is only one example. Don't even get me started on goods transport regulations.

There is an underlying theme here. The problem is the disconnection of the public and it's government and the integrated connection of private industry and government. Government should not be involved with private sectors and private sectors should not be involved with government. The only role government should play in the private sector is setting policy with regards to unacceptable private activities.

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with privatization itself. The problem is how it's implemented.

Unions
When there are no civilian protection laws, capitalism has a field day with it's abuses. We can see this in lots of scenarios in the 1950's. But, now we've got employee laws such as minimum wage (which should be at least $8/hr) and worker's rights. In our current employee legislature, is there any need to protect workers with unions and such? What about teachers and blue-collar workers unions? Wouldn't it be better to just put a minimum cap on how low you can pay a protected career and maybe some rules on what they can and can't be forced to do?

Labor boards were great when there wasn't anything stopping employers from subjecting their workers to anything they wanted. But with current situation, what are legally-backed unions good for?

Privatizing schools
This is a hot-button issue. But is a government run school system really needed? If testing is done on a federal level and funding is provided by government based on student capacity and student grades, is there any need to create a school run by the government? As long as there is strict policy, schools should operate, by and large, the same. They would be ten times more efficient as well. If a parent doesn't like one school, they can move them to a better one. This creates competition and fosters excellence.

Unions
Unions do work...but it depends on it's people:

Cinematographers, Stagehands, Pyrotechnicians, etc.: Local 1 is in New York City. Others locals extend to Canada, Europe and Territories. Most people call us "roadies". We're trained to do things the safest way to ensure the safety of those attending concerts, festivals and even the actors who film. (as well as our own safety)
Public Servants: CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees). teachers, trash guys, some nurses in hospitals, etc.

These are two examples of unions that keep the corporations and the business of fair labour in check. SO often business will cut safety & standards firsts and leave the worker at risk. Zensunni, you are Canadian, surely you've heard of CUPE.

Workers have become disabled for life or worst died, because their non-union shop/boss fail to do inspections, fail to adhere to codes & standards set in place but the ministry or labour board. Because the worker had no rights they didn't have the voice to bring it to the attention of the labour board or ministry. These bosses are the ones who have the money to paid legal eagles to protect the company all the while firing the employees who speak out.

Unions gives workers a voice. Unions are often misunderstood. BUT having said that some unionized groups take advantage of this ability and strike till their hearts content and put a very bad name on unions. My local has never been on strike. Unions work. It all depends on their President and their board of executives to do what is in the best interest of the local, what is best for their employers (and the community) by getting their members involved in votes and meetings. Those locals who don't do this are the ones who are ALWAYS on the front page.

Private Schools
I have three kids in Texas where my ex is (go ahead and play the song: all my ex's live in texas). anyways. Two of those kids came to Canada for a short bit and attended public school here. Having attended and been apart of both education systems, i have to say that Canada has a much higher standard of education then that in Texas. (can't speak for ALL schools in the US) but stats have shown that privately funded schools have a lower drop out rate. Higher percentage of graduates. AND involve religion less and science more. I mean to say. The 3 basics are there reading, writing, and math. Science is science, Art is art, History is History, etc.

I don't agree 100% with everything in society or the way things are done regarding education of kids so i ask this. ( i do agree with your post, just bringing more items of consideration to the table) So i ask: what you think of those parents who pull their kids from school (public or private) and decide to "home school" them?

Before I start, I just want to point out that this is completely speculative. Looking back at my previous post, I find that the whole thing is laughable, noting that there are zero references to actual statistics and studies.

Anyways, onward with the baseless speculation!

Unions

The alternative to unions is to make laws which cover workers. But as you pointed out, there is a big disadvantage for laws: they are not reflexively smart.

Corporations with deep pockets can hire people to find loopholes and scrutinize laws. But unions have people who are not fooled by corporate trickery.

But, I think in the case of today, we see unions used to solve so many problems that the choice of whether or not to use unions results in either too little power for the worker, or too much.

I think that laws need to be created to manage tasks that are typically handled by unions, so there is less bureaucracy needed. In addition, these laws would apply to everyone, creating solid, ubiquitous standards.

For example, I think it's more than fair to require that employers give notice in advance of layoff/dismissal equal to 10% of the time that the employer has been in employment. Alternatively, the employer can dismiss the employee, opting to pay the costs of the 10% continued employment immediately.

Something like this ensures that employees have enough time to find a job, strengthen bridges with their co-workers, dispute any foul play against them and plan for unemployment. If the employee is too problematic, the employer can opt to dismiss the employee immediately. But, they still will have to pay the same amount of money.

My example is just a sample, and hasn't been scrutinized. But, the point is that there are worker's rights that could be made ubiquitously for all employees. But, it seems that unions stand in the way of this, because they are viewed as an existing solution (if it ain't broke, don't fix it..).

Private Schools

Originally Posted by MiCK

Having attended and been apart of both education systems, i have to say that Canada has a much higher standard of education then that in Texas.

Was the Texas education system private or public? You could be comparing private schools to private schools. In fact, if there is such a huge difference in various private schools, it could be a sign that the public vs private variable is irrelevant and arbitrary to success.

Originally Posted by MiCK

(can't speak for ALL schools in the US) but stats have shown that privately funded schools have a lower drop out rate. Higher percentage of graduates. AND involve religion less and science more. I mean to say. The 3 basics are there reading, writing, and math. Science is science, Art is art, History is History, etc.

I would love to see these stats. I know that hunting this stuff down on the interweb is tedious, but if you can find them easily enough, I'll like to go over them.

Originally Posted by MiCK

what you think of those parents who pull their kids from school (public or private) and decide to "home school" them?

Actually, Glen Beck had a good argument for this, and, provided his stats check out, I agree with him.

From the stats, we learn that kids who are home schooled:
a) are more confident
b) have a better sense of security
c) are better learners

This is because they are in a safe (no bullies), comfortable, sensitive environment. Personally, I actually think schools are way too hard on kids. So much so that they destroy their self-confidence and ability to reap success. Students endure the most extreme social pressures they will ever experience at an age where they are very impressionable and ill equipped to handle them. Many people carry memories, hurt, and conflicts from school well into the rest of their lives.

Glen had stats to back this up (as well as the many examples of personal testimony, a credit-less argument). So, if his stats are legitimate, than I completely agree with him.

Illegal Mexican immigrants

Here is also another unpopular position that Glen Beck brings up an argues: cracking down on illegal immigrants, tightening up on border security and cracking down on unlawful illegal-immigrant employment.

I won't argue Glen's case, because he only offers solutions that create other problems.

In order to continue with this conversation, you have to acknowledge that the situation goes beyond obvious solutions. For example, if you were to follow real priorities regarding humanity, you would be far better off denying Mexicans completely and opting to avert the outreach to the people of Africa (especially places like Sudan), and many parts of the Arab world. Not only that, but you should also take a tax hike for foreign aid that helps the rest of the world. On top of that, you would need to enlist people to go to unfortunate countries, etc, etc.

Many of these things are too much to put on our shoulders. To immediately enforce humanity would tear everyone else down. It takes time.

So, with this in mind...

One of the arguments is that Mexican people are taking jobs and working illegally for pennies. The problem is that legitimate workers cannot get these job even if they wanted to, since, by law, they cannot be paid less than minimum wage. If people cracked down on illegal wages given to Mexicans, then they would have to compete at a minimum wage level of competency. This would give the American worker a fair shot at the job. I can't see a legitimate rebuttal to this.

Another argument is that Mexican people are putting strain on our systems like welfare and other government services. They also do not pay taxes. They take the benefits of society and don't give back. This argument is really just the concept of us vs them. It's a matter of limited resources. But like I said before, if we are going to go down this path, then there are more urgent priorities. It's important to realize that burdening a good society to give for charity won't help a bad one in the long run.

Originally Posted by Lao Tzu

Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.

There's an argument I've never heard, but came up with it a long time ago. And, it's the best one I've known. With third-world countries, a big reason they stay in the dark is because whenever it's citizens get smart enough to make a difference, they get the hell out of there. So, the good people in society never shine their light on everyone else. This creates a moral/intellectual vacuum that makes it harder and harder for good things to come out of. Eventually, nobody wants to be there and whatever good happens to come out of it goes over the border.

Many people who immigrate to the US proudly assert their heritage. They think of themselves as better in many ways, showing hubris. But, they fail to acknowledge that they abandoned it. They are traitors to their home.

The real heroes are the ones that stay in their country and work to make it a better place.

I think the best solution for this is to create a re-integration program. This would allow people short stays in the US for educational purposes. They would then be sent back to Mexico, where establishments would be waiting for them to put their skills they've learned in the US to good use helping the Mexican state. The benefit is that they are not permanent residents and that they bring the greatly needed help back with them into their own borders.