# How are you going to fix the United States? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474 "2010-01-11T04:03:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/101 "2010-01-19T02:48:15Z")
1. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Go back to the Senators being appointed by the state legislatures. Replace the income tax with the [Fair Tax](http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). 2. Slam the borders shut. Build the fence. Round up and run out the illegals in the country already. 3. Term limits on the House and Senate - maximum of 12 years in Congress, period. Two terms as a Senator, 6 terms as a Rep, or a combination thereof. 4. Congress is not exempt from its own laws. No retirement fund for them. 5. Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. In any fiscal year, Congress cannot spend more than 99% of the figure collected in revenues for the preceding fiscal year, unless at war or severe national emergency. That’ll do for a start. I’ll be back later with 6-10. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/102 "2010-01-19T05:46:09Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 1. Slam the borders shut. Build the fence. Round up and run out the illegals in the country already. How are you going to pay for that? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/103 "2010-01-19T13:51:21Z")
Wow, where does one start? My first inclination is to address the accountability of our elected officials, but that would be a terabyte worth of typing. I’ll start simple and add more as time goes by. 1. Repeal the Patriot Act and it’s progeny. 2. Stop the collection, storing and dissemination of private information of a non-criminal nature belonging to the people. (Surprisingly, WE are not the enemy.) 3. Cease the implementation of acts such as the REAL ID Act, the PASS Act and make no future attempts at instituting a national ID card or authorizing any funding associated with said acts. 4. Repeal all laws that collect blood, fingerprints, or DNA upon birth. Basically start by repealing any law that is repugnant to the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments. I’ll add more later. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/104 "2010-01-19T14:26:08Z")
Oh, and repeal US Code 2385. This is a direct example of how our rights (actually our duties as citizens) have been undermined. > [@](#): > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Sounds obvious right? If government is screwing up, we the people have the right to alter or abolish it. Now here is US Code 2385: > [@](#): > > Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or > Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or > Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— > Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. > If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. > As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons. I can’t imagine anything more contradictory. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/105 "2010-01-19T14:37:22Z")
> [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](#): > > 1. Cease the implementation of acts such as the REAL ID Act, the PASS Act and make no future attempts at instituting a national ID card or authorizing any funding associated with said acts. Why? > [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](#): > > Sounds obvious right? If government is screwing up, we the people have the right to alter or abolish it. The Declaration of Independence is not part of the body of US law. You already know that the Founders did not actually believe that “all men are created equal” anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/106 "2010-01-19T14:46:00Z")
> [@](#): > > The Declaration of Independence is not part of the body of US law. Are you suggesting that the people do not reserve the right to abolish or alter government? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/107 "2010-01-19T15:04:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > How are you going to pay for that? Pass a law that allows for the harvesting of illegal’s organs. No need for a fence and you help sick people. Everyone wins. ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/108 "2010-01-19T15:14:06Z")
What do you think this is, Israel? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/109 "2010-01-19T15:20:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Pass a law that allows for the harvesting of illegal’s organs. No need for a fence and you help sick people. Everyone wins. Disturbing. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/110 "2010-01-19T15:26:01Z")
> [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](#): > > Are you suggesting that the people do not reserve the right to abolish or alter government? They do not have a constitutional right to _violently overthrow_ it, except in New Hampshire. That’s not a bad thing - nine violent revolutions in ten end up with the installation of military juntas or other forms of equally unpleasant dictatorship. Anyway, the principle of violent overthrow of government is inherently undemocratic. The Founders had to do a lot of politico-philosophical tap dancing to create a stable and lasting system of government while acknowledging the fact that they had just destroyed the existing system of government. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/111 "2010-01-19T15:34:22Z")
Really Not All That Bright: I agree with you. And I agree that a ‘violent overthrow’ should not be considered. I just looked up the definition of ‘seditious treason’ and see the difference. I suppose to abolish or change the government SHOULD be a peaceful act. (But… ALWAYS be vigilant of tyranny. In any form.) But when you say inherently ‘undemocratic’, I thought our Founders set us up as a Republic, and not a democracy. Wasn’t it democracy they were trying to avoid? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/112 "2010-01-19T15:51:21Z")
“Democratic” and “undemocratic” don’t necessarily refer to true democracy as a system of government, but of any form of government in which the power is vested in the people. Call it inherently unrepresentative if you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/113 "2010-01-19T16:20:46Z")
Really Not All That Bright: Here’s a conundrum. US Code 2385 states that it is unlawful to use violence OR force. But The New Jersey Bill of Rights expressly states: > [@](#): > > 1. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it. But what does it mean when the term ‘force’ is applied? How could the people of the state of New Jersey exercise this right without force, if needed? Wouldn’t they be violating the US Code? Should it only be interpreted as in using the power of voting only? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/114 "2010-01-19T16:38:28Z")
> [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](#): > > Disturbing. That’s why it would work.😉 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/115 "2010-01-19T16:42:30Z")
Well, with enough people, you can create political upheaval and change without force. See Indian independence, MLK, Mandela, etc. Whether that was what the Founders intended I couldn’t say. Hopefully, it won’t come up. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/116 "2010-01-20T00:15:35Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 1. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments. Go back to the Senators being appointed by the state legislatures. Replace the income tax with the [Fair Tax](http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). > > 2. Slam the borders shut. Build the fence. Round up and run out the illegals in the country already. > > 3. Term limits on the House and Senate - maximum of 12 years in Congress, period. Two terms as a Senator, 6 terms as a Rep, or a combination thereof. > > 4. Congress is not exempt from its own laws. No retirement fund for them. > > 5. Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. In any fiscal year, Congress cannot spend more than 99% of the figure collected in revenues for the preceding fiscal year, unless at war or severe national emergency. > > That’ll do for a start. I’ll be back later with 6-10. This is the standard mix of the useless & the unworkable that’s been passing for populism on the right since I was a young rightie. You’ll never get rid of direct election of Senators, even if would accomplish anything you wanted. The national sales tax would be ashes in your mouth (yes, this one would actually be counterproductive). My state has had term limits since the mid-1990’s; voters still don’t pay attention to their state legislatures enough to hold anyone accountable. The balanced budget is a nice idea, but stops short of actually storing up surpluses in good times. #4 is a small thing but one worth pushing for–too bad in the real world it’s unenforceable. ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/117 "2010-01-20T00:32:43Z")
> [@](#): > > #4 is a small thing but one worth pushing for–too bad in the real world it’s unenforceable. It’s not an either/or proposition. You can still make a huge difference by enforcing e-verify and cutting benefits for illegals. When the money source dries up they leave on their own accord. Failure to do anything is killing California. > [@](#): > > Perhaps the most disingenuous myth about illegal immigrants is that they do not impose any cost on society. The reality is that even those who work and half do not, according to the Pew Hispanic Center cannot subsist on the wages they receive and depend on public assistance to a large degree. Research on Los Angeles immigrants by Harvard University scholar George J. Borjas shows that 40.1 percent of immigrant families with non-citizen heads of household receive welfare, compared with 12.7 percent of households with native-born heads. Illegal immigrants also increase public expenditures on health care, education, and prisons. In California today, illegal immigrants’ cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be $13 billion half the state’s budget deficit. > > The state should stop providing welfare and other social services to illegal aliens as existing statutes demand and severely punish employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants. This would immediately remove powerful economic incentives for illegal immigration, and millions of illegal aliens would return to their countries. Instead, with President Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling Congress, an amnesty for the country’s 13 million illegal immigrants may be soon to come. > > Milton Friedman once said that unrestrained immigration and the welfare state do not mix. Must we wait until California catches up with Mexico to realize how right he was? [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023) ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/118 "2010-01-20T00:39:35Z")
> [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](#): > > Are you suggesting that the people do not reserve the right to abolish or alter government? Can’t they do that by actually amending the Constitution, you know, the body of law? ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/119 "2010-01-20T12:28:09Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > What actual evidence do you have that the public is not now being presently served by the need to license , and served sufficiently? That the public is not being served sufficiently is based on introductory microeconomics. First semester stuff. The effect of barriers to market entry on market power, consumer surplus, and deadweight loss is well understood. What I’m advocating is a new balance between ensuring the competence of professionals, and not creating excessive deadweight loss from the process. Markets generally have the presumption of effectiveness. They’ve earned that much. You can either take the Friedman route and argue that their presumption of effectiveness is so great that we shouldn’t have licensing at all (an argument which I mentioned, but did not personally advocate myself), or alternatively you can argue that if you want to have licensing, it’s best to make that regulation as unburdensome to new entry as possible, for the sake of economic efficiency, even while keeping the original policy goals of that regulation in mind. It’s a balancing act, and there’s a different fulcrum which would work better than what we have now. The policy goal here is to ensure competent professionals. It is not to give excessive market power to those professionals. And so my point is, in reality, quite limited: The testing procedure should be not be excessively complicated, and in order to make that so, we should test those who already have qualifications as stringently as we test new applicants. The reason for this is to better guide the incentives of the test writers. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Given the failure rate of the existing exams, the intensity of the study put in now, the distribution past passing, and the arbitrary nature of the passing cut-off, what makes you sure this would be a rare occurence? Because the evaluation process would not be specifically designed in a way to maximize the failure rate, as is the case now. Who do you think writes these things, anyway? There is no heavenly delegation of perfectly impartial saints who are trying to sift the wheat from the chaff. Instead, they’re written by people who are already knowledgeable in the field, because knowledgeable people are the only ones qualified to create an evaluation process. The necessity of relying on professionals to test new entrants thus results in the perverse incentive of those professionals having the authority, with the full coercive powers of the government backing them up, to restrict their own potential competition for no reason other than to make it financially easier on themselves. It’s a sad truth of public finance (public sector economics) that industries have a tendency to “capture” the regulatory bodies that were initially designed to bring them to heel. Captured regulatory agencies then proceed to crush new entrants for the sake of old established interests. In the case of licensing, though, it didn’t even require capture. Professionals are just handed the power without question. It is an absurd system. It is never efficient, because their primary motive is not the lofty ideal to fairly and impartially test the trainees, but the much more human desire to reduce the number of future competitors. Inevitably, most of the hurdles that they put up are unnecessarily complicated. They don’t primarily test competence. That gets subsumed in the effort to reject as many new applicants as is feasible. But these perverse incentives could be countered. If you mandate that professionals periodically retake their own test, you will balance their incentive to maximize the failure rate with their incentive to make sure that they will be able to pass. They will still want a difficult test to keep out the competitors, but it will be no more difficult than it has to be for currently practicing professionals to demonstrate their own most commonly used and essential knowledge, the sort of knowledge they rely on most regularly, the sort of knowledge that is most relevant to the successful practice of their field. They will see to that themselves. So yes, revocations of the license would be rare. The writers of the evaluation process would ensure it would be difficult enough to adequately test the highly technical skills they most directly rely on (and wouldn’t have to study so much for), while not making it unnecessarily burdened with irrelevant material which they would have trouble understanding themselves, but are happy to dump on new entrants in the present system even though it isn’t necessary for their jobs. They would cut the crap and leave the core material if they had to repeat the process themselves. If your counsel was competent, they would be able to pass. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Then why not simply eliminate the need to go to law school and let anyone who thinks they can pass the test take it? > > CA does not require law school, e.g. they have alternate requirements before you can take it, but I think it is the only state where law school is not needed. > > If you equate qualifications with “pass a test” recently, then why not start there “and let the market forces do their work”? It’s already there. I already wrote that. But it’s not enough on its own. You have to mandate the same burdens for the current population of professionals as for new applicants, or the people already in the club will be sure to make their evaluation process more convoluted than it needs to be by including hurdles that aren’t actually necessary to perform competently in their profession. Their normal perverse incentive is to put up a high wall. This happens every single time, without exception. This is the basic law of monopolies and other monopoly-like organizations, such as cartels and, yes, the guild system. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Yeah, all those attorneys around to help us navigate the court system, and no one is benefiting! That is not what I wrote. That is not even close to what I wrote. That is, in fact, _exactly the opposite_ of what I wrote. I’ve seen asinine straw arguments before, but they’re usually stupidly off topic. I don’t ever recall seeing one which was so perfectly contrary to what I actually argued. Lawyers do benefit the common good by providing the grease that makes the gears turn. I specifically noted that. I wrote those words. You ignored them. Still, even though the law benefits us, the guild system is not synonymous with the practice of law. They are not the same thing. They are different things. They happen to coincide here, yes. That they coincide does not make them the same thing. That the current practice of law uses a guild system does not mean that the guild system as it is used in law _contributes_ to the common good. It does not. It is a detriment. > [@not\_alice](#): > > So your problem is not really lawyer’s licensing, but that our laws encourage protection of intellectual property? > > You do realize that is actually written in the Constitution itself, don’t you? > > It is one thing to say that the purpose as described is not being served, as I believe Lessig does (a while since I have read his works). It is another thing to suggest the problem lies in how we license lawyers. They didn’t make the laws, and they are obligated in our adversarial system to do the best they can _for their client_. > > How would your proposal change the facts of that case one single iota? All of this is unrelated to my point. I cited the single case at the beginning of chapter 3 to get an example of costs, not to open a debate on copyright. What I said in a previous post: “The kid did not copy music. The kid did not pirate music.” That is entirely true. But my point still didn’t relate to the specifics of the case. The specifics don’t matter to me, except as a demonstration of the costs of litigation, even for potentially innocent defendants. But for a brief rehash: He did not pirate music. He altered a search engine. He didn’t create the engine, but he did alter it. And that act, which he was doing to practice his IT skills, might indeed have been an infringement of US law. His gain from the search engine was not illegal pirated tunes, nor any money since he wasn’t paid for his tinkering. His benefit was simply the attempt to learn a trade. Perhaps that was an infringement of a statute, but that still wouldn’t be music piracy, just as publishing a crack of the encryption on a DVD is a violation of the DMCA, but is still not an actual act of movie piracy until the crack is actually used. This college student did not copy or use the illegal files himself. He was busted for the search engine, according to the complaint. I do think that case was highly unjust, yes, and said so, but I did not comment on the legitimacy of the RIAA’s suit based on the current law, other than noting, correctly, that his alleged violation was not in fact music piracy. My specific complaint was that the defendant could not afford to spend _a quarter of a million dollars_ in order to defend himself, when the only charge (whether it was actually a violation based on the law or not) was that he had tinkered with his college search engine. Regardless of the statutorily determined violation, the student’s actions were relatively simple to outline, and any system that would require a quarter mil to determine his fault in the case, if fault it was according to the relevant statutes, is a miserable system. I don’t know if the student was in the right based on the law, but _even if he had been in the right, he couldn’t defend himself_. Even if he had been in the right, defending himself in the case would have bankrupted his family. That was the point. My cite didn’t prove that the student had been unlawfully sued. I made no comment about how lawful the suit was. But my cite did demonstrate that his entire family would have been bankrupt _even if he’d been in the right_. And yes, there is something fundamentally indecent with such a system. > [@not\_alice](#): > > I suppose with feeling like that you never really looked at the from where our intellectual property laws are derived and found them in the Constitution itself. You have now proceeded to the _ad hominem_. You pile fallacy on fallacy. This isn’t even about intellectual property. As I’ve demonstrated, the cost to a potentially innocent civil defendant can be exorbitantly high, so much so that it’s beyond their ability to defend themselves. This is true regardless of whether we’re talking about the RIAA bruising up the youngsters, or a tech start-up with barely sufficient capital for operating expenses getting hit with a false patent infringement claim that it can’t afford to fight, or any other situation where the big money players can level strategic lawsuits against their enemies, _not necessarily because they have the better case, but simply because the defendant can’t afford the legal defense_. If the student did violate a statute with his tinkering with the search engine, then that is a bad statute and should be changed. And if OP gives us a hypothetical with 15 changes instead of 10, I would, after considerable deliberation, think about reform of such potential problems in intellectual property. For now, though, that’s off topic. What’s on topic is a more efficient legal system generally, one in which potentially valid legal defenses can be argued without it costing 250,000 dollars to those who can’t afford to pay such ludicrous fees. And as I stated from the beginning, I don’t know for sure how to solve this particular problem. For now, I just have ideas to throw out there. > [@not\_alice](#): > > You must not be aware how many very solid engineers are walking around with MIT educations but without the degree. It is not a hindrance really, even in people who were enrolled. Yes, firms will hire non-degreed labor with technical skills. That does happen, and I never said or implied otherwise. Neither of my parents have any formal education beyond high school, and yet both of them managed to work their way up to the upper income-brackets. But you’d have to be living in a cave not to realize that, on average, degreed people earn significantly more than those without the fancy piece of paper. Giving people free online education is well and good, and I’m fully supportive of it. But giving people an opportunity to earn their degree more cheaply will also help. It will not only provide useful education, but it will also provide the parchment with the university seal that demonstrates proof of that education, which will in the average case lead to much higher remuneration. This is especially important in a time when the costs of higher education, _degreed_ higher education, are increasing faster than inflation. For whatever reasons, the cost for that fancy piece of paper is rising quite quickly, and because of the salary advantages of people who have it, we’d be wise to come up with ways to bring that price back down, so that even poorer folks have an opportunity to get their degree more easily and thus have a better chance of gaining access to higher paying jobs. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Well, you muight be unlcear ionthe concept of “status marker” - if everyone has it, then it is not marking anything. What I said: A degree as “status marker” was the belief of _some libertarianish types_ that I’d read. It was, as I quite explicitly stated, not my own opinion but the opinion of other people. If I failed to develop their arguments enough for you to follow, that should be somewhat understandable since their arguments are not my own. I sometimes offer other people’s arguments to provide a basis of comparison, but that doesn’t mean my summary will be comprehensive. You’re right, though, that it is not a status marker if everyone is the same. And this is (in _their_ opinion) why more people are now pushing to get even higher degrees, as markers of extra super status, instead of all of us actually concentrating on future needed skills. I don’t agree with them, but their argument is at least consistent, as far as I understand it. > [@not\_alice](#): > > What you mean is you want to raise the minimum bar on what is an acceptable level of education to have in the workforce, I think, right? I want to bring down the costs of degreed higher education, whose price has been increasing faster than the rate of inflation. I want to do this because a degree, regardless of whether it’s a demonstration of real value or an empty status marker, gives the opportunity for people to earn significantly higher wages, on average. I want to subsidize an experiment in which this sort of education is to be more available to more people in a better format at a lower price than is currently being provided. > [@not\_alice](#): > > So is he really Friedman-eqsue, or just pseudo- ? I’m not sure I quite get what you’re implying, but here’s what I wrote: “I’m not here making a Milton Friedmanesque argument that these licensing procedures should be done away with completely…” Not. That is, I was _not_ claiming to follow in Friedman’s footsteps. He would advocate that the government completely remove itself from licensing, which would mean that I could, if I so wanted, open a new law firm tomorrow out of the trunk of my car. That’s Friedman. As with the vast majority of people, I happen to believe that the balance is a more toward the government regulation side of things–only more efficiently implemented than it is now, which is a markedly minority view. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4bbf92/32.png) [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Hamsandwich)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474/120 "2010-01-20T13:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Can’t they do that by actually amending the Constitution, you know, the body of law? Amending is a pretty huge leap from abolishing. The right to abolish has been a maxim of law since before the Magna Carta (signed in 1215) that “the creator is always more powerful than the created”. We the People created Congress, and we can obviously disband it to try something else. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-you-going-to-fix-the-united-states/524474.md?page=7)