their inalienable right; then a person should be able to commit suicide. Like the inalienable right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as strange as it may seem, the taking of one’s own life is guaranteed as an in inalienable right. It is your life, you have the liberty to end it if so desired, and if death is more pleasant than living, then to the suicidal person it is their form of relative happiness. Thus, anyone who assumes the responsibility to thwart such an attempt should be prepared to offer to the suicidal individual supported care, alternatives and valid reasons why that individual should chose life over death; otherwise they are responsible for denying someone their inalienable right.
A valid case of suicide is someone who suffering unimaginable pain and anguish to a point that death is actually a relief. The pain may be real physical pain or even mental anguish; it does not really matter to the individual who is the one suffering. All they know is that they wish to be free of the anguish and death is a welcome relief; and sometimes they need help.
Committing suicide is difficult and many things can go wrong. So having someone else to help can be of great value and punishing those individuals who do help makes no more sense than punishing the messenger bearing bad news. The classic example is Dr. Jack Kevorkian who publicly championed a terminal patient’s right to die via physician assisted suicide. Unfortunately, the media focused on the “doctor of death” instead of focusing on the issue of suicide. Without such assistance, a person in anguish who desires death, now is faced with even more anguish in that they must do it without help; how cruel is that?
Granted, many safeguards should be in place if someone receives help committing suicide. You cannot simply rely on someone’s word that that individual wanted to commit suicide and you obliged them. There should a personal confession, witnesses and even a required minimum time period; but in the end, as much assistance as possible should help those who desperately desire the end their own lives; providing them with as much comfort, support and dignity as possible.
Judicial System
When was the last time you heard of a legal case going through the judicial system quickly? Our judicial system is obviously complex, inefficient, and costly – but all in an effort to be as equitable and fair as possible – mainly because the stakes or so high. But is it really worth it?
Simple rules are designed to be universal; but by their nature cannot fit all situations. For example the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” was not written as “Thou shall not kill* (*except in self-defense, or as punishment, or as an act of mercy, or in times of war, or to enforce the law, or for medical reasons, or and so forth and so forth). It was a simple law useful for 98% of the time; not necessarily for 99.98% of the time. It assumed there was judgment involved with its application. A simple tax code gives the rich people no place to hide. Simple laws similarly give lawbreakers few places to hide. Simplicity, despites in inherent appearance of iniquities, does more often than not, actually exposes the flaws of complex solutions and thus provides sometimes even better equality.
Just think of our legal system. Who do you think fairs better under a complex legal system? The ones who can afford legal counsel obviously fair better. The rich do not want a simplified set of laws because you cannot manipulate them as easily.
Imagine for a moment a simple judicial system, with simple laws and simple enforcement. Imagine the savings to society in just attorney fees and court costs alone. Those against a simplified judicial system are not the private individuals worried about unfair treatment; it is the individuals who profit the most from a complex judicial system. The simplification of laws only helps to improve the quality of life for everyone, even with its potential for inequalities.
Three Semester School
Students learn at different rates. When presenting new information to a class, the instructor is always challenged as to what level to teach the new material. Go too fast and you lose most of the audience. Go too slow and likewise you lose most of the audience due to boredom. Teach somewhere in the middle and you lose both the bright students (because it is still too slow) and the not-so-bright students (because it is still too fast). So what to do?
A reasonable solution is to adopt a three semester school year where the entire year’s core subject matter is taught in just one-third of the year. The instructor covers a lot of material very quickly. Now some students pick up things quickly, they may only need to hear the information once. They should deal well in the class. At the end to the first trimester all are tested and that group of students who passed the “final” exam are no longer required to attend class. Hopefully, this should be about one-third of the entire class. They are “rewarded” to take other elective classes or extracurricular activities..
In the second trimester, the entire course is taught again; but this time to only the remaining students, approximately two-thirds of the entire class. This group is now hearing the material for a second time; and they also have an idea of what information is to follow. This second hearing and hindsight view generally helps most people learn more effectively. The instructor, with less students and no longer a fear of “losing” the brighter students is able to tailor their time and instructions on a second run-through; perhaps focusing more on the trouble areas. Ideally, at the end of the second trimester, when tested, approximately half of the students (or about one-third of the entire student body) should be able to past the “final” exam. The students, like the first group, are no longer required to attend class. They too are rewarded to take other elective classes or extracurricular activities.
The remaining students, approximately one-third of the class now attend the third presentation of the subject matter. This is now their third time learning the material and in a setting where the teacher is able to spend even more time with them because of the lower teacher to student ratio. The “not-so-bright” students are also in an environment with less peer pressure from other students. The teacher is able to present at a rate a level that is best for them.
The teachers still teach the same amount of time; however, the students have a strong motivation to learn as quickly as possible because it gets them out of class and taking classes or doing activities they would prefer. The bright students (who are often the trouble makers) are not bored. The average student gets two changes to learn the same material. And the “not-so-bright student” is given a maximum amount of time and attention to learn.
At no additional cost to the school system, a three semester school format could provide a significant improvement in the learning environment.
Summary
While you cannot fix stupid, you can at least minimize its effect. This book describes the logic behind such arguments and goes to apply that thinking to a variety of social and economic problems which currently plague our society in the hope that someone who reads this book also has the authority and ability to implement these solutions and in doing so raise the quality of life for all.
And if you have read through this entire manuscript to this point, I congratulate you for perseverance and having at least an open mind. It is very probable that one or more of the divisive issues presented in this book may have struck a raw nerve with you. If so, I challenge you to contact me and feel free to either point out the flaws in my logic or present an alternative solution, My telephone number is 321-698-5739 and my email is [email protected]. I claim no mystical knowledge or divine inspiration – but rather from experience, observation and thought believe that the simple solutions to these complex problems are the best possible solutions, all things being considered.
The END.
ter>
You Can't Fix Stupid. Page 13
