Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 20

Who funded McVeigh?

Having just watched the special on Timothy McVeigh and seeing how much time and effort he put into his efforts, I wonder: where did he get the money? --Halcatalyst (talk) 03:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A rental truck full of fertilizer isn't all that expensive. It was presumably financed by the conspirators: McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Michael and Lori Fortier. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing#Gathering materials provides more detail on the funds required, suggesting the total budget was less than $5000. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialism and capitalism (USA vs. world)

USA is considered to be the richest country in the world, yet it is one of the very few countries (maybe even the only one) that never had socialists in power. Could it be argued that even though socialism in theory is more noble then capitalism, that in reality "little people" live better in capitalism? You often hear that capitalism is "cruel", "evil" and so on, while its never said of socialism... But could it be said that american capitalism, as an economic system, is superior to any socialist system in the world? Socialism is suppose to make things easier for the regular, hard-working people, but dont they live better in capitalism after all? --92.244.137.205 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. The US is the richest country in the world due to a high average per capita income and a fairly large population. The average per capita income of the US is comparable to many socialist nations in Europe. However, since each nation is smaller, the total GDP is lower. But, if the US is compared to the EU in total, then the EU is far richer.

Now, as to how well the "little people" do, there is more disparity in wealth between the rich and poor in the US than in socialists nations. This, along with a comparable average per capita income, means that the "little people" are poorer in the US, and the rich people are wealthier. Also note that poor people in the US have fewer government resources provided for them, such as health care, child care, high quality schools, job training, etc., than in socialist nations in Europe. This makes their quality of life much lower. StuRat (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "socialism." The only truly socialist state left in the world is North Korea. There is no question that ordinary Americans live better than ordinary North Koreans do, or for that matter ordinary people in any of the Communist block when it existed. If you are talking about countries with a more-developed welfare state than the U.S. has, which is not the same as socialism, the answer is less clear. Rich people are probably better off in the U.S. than in Europe. Poor people are probably better off in Europe. As for the people in the middle, Europeans are currently better off because their recession hasn't been as bad. Looking at it from a long-term viewpoint, American middle-class people tend to have bigger houses, bigger cars and more "stuff." Europeans have longer vacations, safer cities, healthier lifestyles and less fear of economic catastrophe should they lose their jobs or get sick. So pick your poison. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think many people would agree that North Korea is a "truly socialist state". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The No true Scotsman fallacy often rears its head in discussions of which states are or were "truly" socialist/communist. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. "No true Scotsman" applies when there is an initial, well-agreed upon definition of the class, which the speaker appears to accept, and then it turns out that the speaker changes his definition in order to be able to dismiss all counterexamples by excluding them "by definition", thus making his initial statement tautological "no true Scotsman is dishonest... and my definition of a Scotsman is a man from Scotland who is not dishonest". In the case of socialism, there is no such initial, well-agreed upon definition that socialists appear to accept ("any country that calls itself socialist", or "any country that nationalizes its entire economy"), and most modern socialists' definitions of socialism do exclude dictatorships from the start. So did the definition of most socialists before the October revolution; etymologically, "socialism" (from socius "partner", "associate") suggests something like "partnership", so it is about equals working together voluntarily for their common purpose, not about a tyrannical boss forcing them to do what he wishes for his purposes. Socialism was supposed to involve some form of democracy, and the dictatorships that described themselves as socialistic always claimed to be democratic. Thus, this is not a case of "No true Scotsman", but simply of people having different definitions of the same word. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a number of other reasons for the success of the US. Inheriting what amounted to a (as far as military/political power is concerned) nearly empty continent with unspoiled resources, right on the brink of the industrial revolution, and at a time when technology allowed this to develop into one fairly homogeneous nation is one point. Sitting behind a conveniently large ocean from all large technologically similar nations also provided a huge benefit - there has been only one serious war on US soil (not counting the War of 1812), and no credible threat of a conventional war destroying significant infrastructure since the US Civil War. Europe, on the other hand, had two world wars and a number of smaller (not small) wars, and, of course, maintained large and unproductive armies to fight them. WW1 killed 16 million, only 117000 of them Americans. WW2 killed some 60 millions, only 418000 of them Americans. In both cases, casualty rates for Americans are about an order of magnitude or more lower than for Europeans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Some European countries have a higher per capita GDP than the US - places like Switzerland or Luxemburg for example. My half-educated guess is that the large physical size of the US may have something to do with the wealth of the US - lots of land per person, hence lots of natural resources (ie wealth) per person. The large population size of the US means you have a large internal market which can support lots of fledgling products that would not get big enough sales to be viable in other smaller countries. In Europe the difficulties of the different languages, cultures, and regulations means that it is impractical for small or new companies to sell things Europe-wide. And I wonder if the comparative cheapness of real-estate in the US means that people's efforts resources are not wasted on the unproductive end of acquiring very cramped but very expensive housing. 89.241.47.121 (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

..."never had socialists in power" - really ? What about Roosevelt's New Deal ? Social security, minimum wages, empowerment of unions, central economic planning through agricultural subsidies and state funding of big engineering projects, increased regulation of banks ... surely that was a socialist administration in all but name ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that socialism, in theory, is more noble than capitalism. Capitalism (i.e., free market economics) is predicated on the assumption that people are fundamentally good and that, left to their own, they will work together in harmony. Socialism is predicated on the assumption that people are fundamentally evil and that, left to their own, they will devolve into chaos. Wikiant (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these is generally accepted. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, those are backwards. Capitalism assumes that people are lazy, yet greedy, and will therefore only work if they don't get paid, otherwise. Socialism, on the other hand, assumes that all will work for the good of society, without the need to be rewarded. StuRat (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No brand of socialism, even the craziest Maoist type, ever abolished rewards. The idea, even in the sickest dictatorships, has been to reward labour, materially as well as symbolically ("to each according to his labour"). Only in the future perfect society of absolute affluence ("communist society" as opposed to "socialist society" in Marxist parlance) would people start working without a connection with what they get and vice versa ("from each according to his capacity, to each according to his need"). Moderate, social capitalist ideology does assume that people will work in order to be able to buy nicer clothes or a newer car, even if there is a safety net ensuring that no matter how little they work, they won't starve to death, die without medicines, or see their children suffer that fate. More radical forms of capitalist ideology, on the other hand, consider these stimuli to be an indispensable bliss for the lazy animals.

As for the issue of which one is "nobler" in the sense of pre-supposing a nobler human nature: Strictly speaking, socialism is nobler, because proponents of a socialist economy, like democracy, expect the citizens to be capable of ruling their own society collectively and consciously for their own common good; proponents of a capitalist economy expect the common good to result as an emergent phenomenon, unconsciously, from people's individual selfish actions. But moderate pro-capitalists recognize that for this to work, there is a need for at least some rational and collective decisions made by the people for the common good; these are supposed to impose rules and restrictions, to create some legal framework for capitalist activities, and to make some convenient and humane additions to the overall system. Radical pro-capitalists of the kind we've been seeing recently tend towards denying all such needs. While that latter ideology does not always assert directly that it expects the rich to act consciously for the common good, it is often argued to pre-suppose this expectation, because it seems obviously impossible that the rich would avoid all noxious activities (use of force, ecological damage, child labour, subprime package machinations) or perform all the needed useful activities (regular and reliable charity) if they aren't forced. In this sense, it can be regarded as being even "nobler" than socialism - while socialism expects the citizens as a group to act in their own collective interest, radical capitalism expects individual rich people to act in society's interest without being forced to or having any profit from it. But again, other representatives of that ideology will argue that there is a good enough selfish motive for each of these things, so there is no need for conscious striving towards the common good even here. The only conscious striving for the common good endorsed by these idealists is then the one found in their own motives to advocate radical capitalism. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that size has anything to do with it. Russia is much bigger then USA, but its much poorer. Also, EU is not richer then USA, because EU is not a country. Every, or 9 out of 10 european countries, have had socialist in power at least once. I believe that Wikiant is probably closest with his answer. --92.244.137.205 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia is much bigger than the USA as a territory (so is Canada), but it is much smaller in terms of population.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether the EU is a nation has nothing to do with whether it has a higher total GDP than the US. It does, period. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look for a single cause in history, you will very rarely succeed. Russia is bigger than the US in area only. It's only half the size in population. Russia also was a backwater long before the October revolution, and had to bear the brunt of the most destructive war ever within less than a generation after the revolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

One cannot judge the quality of life in Europe as if it were one single country; each nation is different, and therefore has a different standard of living. For instance, can one compare southern Italy to Scandinavia, for example? The same goes for the USA. Can we honestly say that people living in West Virginia generally enjoy the same standard of living as those in Southern California? As regards the difference between capitalism and socilaism it boils down to two things: Capitalism offers a person more freedom to choose and it favours individuality, whereas socialism is about conformity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that "socialism is about conformity", I also disagree that "capitalism favours individuality" - it doesn't, it favours those with capital. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And how does a person acquire capital? In a socialist state there is more government control and regulation; it hinders the individual with the intelligence and/or diligence to open a business, start an industry, thereby giving employment to others. Socialism and it's heavy sidekick communism hinders free enterprise and the entrepeneur. Could Wikipedia, Facebook, etc., have been conceived and brought to fruition in a socialist state?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the WWW was invented in "socialist" Switzerland by a British employee of state-funded CERN. ARPANET was created in a government lab, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While nobody doubts that Switzerland (as well as other socialist nations such as Sweden, etc.) has given the world many wonderful things, I cannot help noticing that given a choice, the average European would choose to emigrate to brazenly capitalist Los Angeles or New York than Zurich or Geneva (My apologies to Swiss editors as I've no wish to give offence but we are talking governments not people).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

TomorrowTime (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"the average European would choose to emigrate to brazenly capitalist Los Angeles or New York than Zurich or Geneva". Yes. You often hear people say how american economic system is cruel, but still America have more immigrants then any socialist country. So it must not be that cruel after all? --92.244.137.205 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The WWW was not invented in Switzerland. The protocols that made it possible may have been, but the WWW is the sum total of individual contributions by hundreds of millions of bloggers, web designers, photographers, etc. In fact, it was not until ARPANET released control of the beast that the web developed. Wikiant (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As an American, the argument I generally hear against socialism has to do with individuality, which seems to us to be of more importance than it does to Europeans. The attitude about socialism seems to be "someone will take care of us", that "someone" being the government. The attitude about capitalism seems to be "no one will take care of you - least of all the government; you have to watch out for and stand up for yourself." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Baseball. It's interesting that most of the Europeans who chose to leave the safety of Europe for the uncertainties, risks, as well as opportunities on an undreamed-of-scale the New World had to offer, were the most daring, non-conformist members of their society.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The ones who left were the unsuccesful and poor ones, for whatever reason. The wealthy succesful people stayed at hom,e. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is hardly relevant. Neither European nor American society then was anything like it is now. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant as it serves to explain why so many Americans place a high value on individuality and mistrust socialism as a form of government interference.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Those perceptions are still there, though, at least to us Americans. Australia might be a better example of the American ideal in terms of individual freedom, though no place is perfect. But ultimately it comes down to what you want. I've worked with people who think Switzerland is wonderful because there's no crime. And from what I've heard, I would hate it, because it seems to be a highly conformist society. What's the state's interest in telling you what you can or cannot name your child? None, that's what. It's legalized nannyism. And while Americans are usually willing to obey rules that are agreed upon, some busybody government telling us how to run our private lives is highly offensive. That's just a symbol of something that Americans wouldn't stand for. But for those who like an authoritarian environment, that's just fine, I suppose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the heading for this section, by the way, as it illustrates my point perfectly. Rest of the world: "Conform!" USA (mockingly): "Sieg heil!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying all Europeans are conformists and all Americans non-conformists. I am originally from west Los Angeles, not far from the celebrated counter-culture of Venice Beach, where believe it or not there was a degree of conformity even among con-conformists. What I'm saying is socialism favours the common interest not the individual concern. In fact socialism reminds me of school uniforms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Groups certainly have their specific conformisms. You're touching on another core issue, by bringing up uniforms. If everyone looks the same, then everyone is the same, no one stands out from the crowd; and the American argument is that in such a system there is no incentive to produce anything new, because there's no reward. It's no accident that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of authors and inventors for a period of time. What's the point of inventing something if you won't be rewarded for it somehow? Remember what Michael Douglas' character said in one of his movies: "Greed is good. Greed works." That's a crass way of saying that appealing to people's selfish interests is the best way to stimulate progress; not by appealing to their supposedly good nature. That's the libertarian view of things, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What gets me is when I hear women praise the virtues of socialism, not seeming to realise that fashion and cosmetics are products of capitalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, under capitalism pretty much everything is a product of capitalism. Under slave-ownership it would be a product of slave-owning. As for the "anti-authoritarian" argument against socialism, it's funny how this argument completely rejects the possibility of democracy: it assumes the state could never be an instrument used by the people collectively to fix things and help each other, it is necessarily portrayed as an alien authority. Indeed, any form of collective action is branded as "conformism" or "tyranny against the individual" (except for anti-collectivist collective action, which is OK). This ideology may be OK for the strong and rich, but the weak and poor do need to work together. This argument also ignores the fact that authoritarian dominance relations develop perfectly well from the cleft between strong and weak everywhere in corporations, gangs, families and every walk of life without any help from the government, and flourish progressively as you abandon the possibility of collectively combating them through democracy. I'm afraid that the idea that "greed works", when left unchecked, to produce freedom and welfare is a utopia, unless your idea of freedom is working like a slave during all your waking hours or licking the boots of a boss in order to live another day. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice the OP and subsequent posters are talking about European countries or even "the world" being "socialist" as opposed to US capitalism. Please stop. There isn't a single country in Europe that isn't economically capitalistic - their economies are all market economies. A socialist economy is a command economy. Almost no country in the world is economically socialistic nowadays (and under most socialists' definitions, almost no country ever has been). What US right-wingers refer to as "socialistic" are just minor modifications or restrictions of capitalism intended to make it slightly more palatable and to prevent it from self-destructing. Help for the poor and sick, laws for at least minimal protection of labourers from their bosses, restricting certain dangerous business activities for the good of society as a whole, etc. have been part of every capitalist system to some extent during most of capitalism's history. The US is not categorically different from Europe in that respect, there is only a gradient difference (and many a Third World country has even less of these than the US). Calling these features "socialism" and describing them as mutually exclusive with capitalism means reviving the language of the Cold War in a completely inapt way; calling them "European / global" and describing them as opposed to "American" is similarly incorrect. The purpose is, of course, to destroy those small elements of non-capitalism on the basis of their being equated with something evil or feared such as Stalin, Hitler, absence of all economic prosperity, the "Other" alien enemy, etc.. Even the minimal rules that capitalism needs to avoid devolving into warfare and banditry between rival feudal clans have to be decided upon and enforced through some form of collective self-governance. If you call any such form of collective self-governance "socialism", then capitalism can't exist without socialism.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not so much all subsequent posters as only two of them patting each other on the back about how exceptional the US really is, and how the ancient Egyptians, a people with a flourishing cosmetics industry, apparently lived in a capitalist state. In other words, a lot of pointless soapboxing, but then with a question like this, that's to be expected... TomorrowTime (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that so many still want to come to the USA speaks for itself. And your implication, that this is not really an appropriate ref desk question, is likely on the mark. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by the view expressed here suggesting that many Europeans would like to live in the US. Not in my experience - we enjoy some of the products of its culture, but are bemused to the point of incredulity about others. There is no way many of us would want to live there. Of course, the view from other parts of the world, where the obvious differences in material living standards are much greater, is quite different. And just to comment on the differences between socialism and capitalism, my view is that "socialism" is essentially a set of structures necessary to enable people to help each other, while "capitalism" is the product of the underlying assumption that it is most important for people to be hostile to each other and try to outdo them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, most Europeans would not want to live in the US. The lack of universal health care and the guns and so on suggest that people are very selfish, and that those who cannot help themselves are considered not worth helping. This far outweighs the lure of cheap property or "real-estate". 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One factor to consider is that Protestantism tends to be more capitalistic and Catholicism tends to be more socialistic. I say again, the core difference is the notion that someone else will take care of you (socialistic) vs. you have to take care of yourself (capitalistic). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's true globally. Nearly everywhere in the world, Catholics are associated with more conservative parties and capitalist systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No question the Catholic Church is conservative to the point of being backwards in some ways. I'm saying that in a certain way the Church itself is more of a socialistic creature than the Protestant churches are, which tend more to encourage individual initiative and less reliance on someone else (perhaps other than God Himself) to help you. You've perhaps heard the term "Protestant work ethic"? I've never heard of a "Catholic work ethic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that idea goes back to the puritans, and is prevalent mostly in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Notably, the % of Protestants in Sweden is way higher than the US. Furthermore, in Sweden Lutheranism was state religion (and enforced in a rather brutal manner). Later, the 'Protestant Work Ethic' has been a key component of the Social Democratic welfarist project. The logic of Protestant Work Ethic is that productive labour is of greater ~(moral/ethical) value than earning money by speculation. --Soman (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The advantage of the European system is that people can take great risks in starting a business because even if they lose everything, they will still have health care and somewhere to live. The outpouring of creative artists from the UK, for example, may be for the same reason. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK, despite its health care system, is a capitalistic nation as well as the USA's staunchest ally. Yes many creative artists do come from the UK, and the music industry just happens to be one of the most blatantly capitalistic businesses in the world. That is why I find British pop stars who bleat on about the advantages of socialism while being a part of the lucrative entertainment industry makes me laugh to the point of gagging for their sheer hypocracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That proves that its possible to have capitalism and socialism combined. 92.29.113.160 (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say that most developed countries (including the US) have a mixture of the two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the three of you seem to understand what socialism is. It's capitalism with the government intervening in some areas.--92.251.214.205 (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could we please close this? As shown by 91.148.159.4 the premise of the question is faulty, and not ref desk material at all. Let us end this before it gets even more cringeworthy. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

US and Western Europe have many things in common politically & economically, but there are also differences. For many Europeans (Scandinavians in particular, I think) it is mind-boggling why many Americans prefer twice as much of their GDP for health care rather just so that insurance companies can harvest billions in profits whilst millions of Americans lack medical insurance, rather than having a cheaper, more efficent and ethically justifiable health care system. In Sweden, promising lower taxes doesn't win any election (compare the electoral platform of the rightwing in 2002 and 2006), whilst in the US the situation is the diametrical opposite. I heard once a theory, which I don't know if it is true: That the notion that the tax-collecting state is a vicious robber is a cultural inheritance largely from Irish immigrants, whose experience with the (British) state was universally negative. Would there be any truths in this? --Soman (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I have a vague feeling that we've had an identical discussion before, and that I have posted the same question earlier? --03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

America currently has a leader who would be regarded as "socialist" in a country like Germany in power. They have had many of them, most notably Lydon B Johnson. We are using 2 different definitions here, "socialism is communism" and "socialism is social intervention".--92.251.133.88 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Socialized schooling and policing in the US

Why are Americans content with a socialized school and education system, a socialized policing system, and socialized fire-fighting, but go bananas (some of them) about what they call "socialized health care"? 89.241.47.121 (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I surmise that those who oppose it either don't really understand what "socialized" means and so don't realise that those existing institutions are - to some degree - socialized, or they do understand but don't believe that health care falls into the category of services that should be socialized. Some, of course, will be lobbying for the retention of the existing setup because they profit from it. Apologies if this is too discussional: hopefully someone can come up with more referenced material on the topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

They already have all the other systems. It is change people don't like. I expect there was an outcry when each of those systems was introduced too, but people get used to them and realise they actually work rather well and stop complaining. The same will happen with health care. --Tango (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis of claiming that Americans are content with the current police, fire-fighting, and education systems? If you spend any time at all reading the news, you will find a daily dose of complaints about the police, fire-fighting, and education systems. Also note that there is a huge difference between systems that benefit society as a whole and systems that benefit a single individual. When police protect a city, they benefit the city. When fire-fighters protect a city, they benefit the city. The purpose of public education is to reduce the population of uneducated adults in the city, which has been proven to reduce crime (and education is required to make democracy function). When a doctor sees a patient, the patient is helped. Further, consider the need. If there was no police, how many people have their own police force? If there was no fire-fighters, how many people have their own fire-fighters? If there was no public school, how many people have their own school? Now, how many people have their own health insurance (including those who use Medicaid/Medicare, the VA, military medical benefits, or purposely refuse insurance and pay out of pocket)? You can go one step further in this argument by asking if people are against socialized health care (like Medicaid/Medicare and the VA) or if they are against a plan to introduce a completely new (and expensive) branch of the Federal government with the sole purpose of undercutting existing insurance companies to put them out of business and cause all of their employees to become unemployed. -- kainaw™ 13:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When a doctor treats a patient, society benefits. Ill people are less productive economically, they are less able to contribute to society through voluntary work, and they spread diseases. DuncanHill (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the basis for your assumption that Americans are content with a socialized education system? We have a robust (parallel) private education system. Pick up almost any newspaper on any given day and you'll see an article arguing that our public primary through secondary education systems are inferior. Wikiant (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think we have socialized firefighting? Where I grew up all firefighters were volunteers and the ambulance was run by the undertaker (he got your business either way). Where I live now the firefighters are city employees and are all paramedics but the ambulances are private companies. There are many different systems in use. Rmhermen (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even when firefighting is contracted to a private company, it is paid for by tax money. But, it still isn't socialized firefighting at a Federal level. People in Cuba, MO are not paying to fight fires in Enid, OK. Public schools are similar. Local taxes pay for local schools. There is a little Federal funding here and there, but not enough to make a big difference. It is more aid than socializing the system. -- kainaw™ 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What exactly the problem if itwas socialized? (So asks the rest of the world) Aaronite (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is taxes. Who pays for socialisation? The burdened taxpayers. Since 1980, I have been living in three different Europeam countries and I am still astounded at the amount of tax people have to fork out to the government. Here, in Italy a person has to pay for a stamp for every document! Then there's a TV tax, road tax, tax this tax that, everywhere you turn you are hit with a tax, yet my daughter was born in a private clinic because the wonderful socialised hospitals are rat-infested and full of incompetents.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society". The "burdened tax-payer" also is the one who profits from the services his tax money buys. Nearly all Italians manage to get born fine in "socialized" hospitals. It's quite possible that there are less-than-shining examples among these hospitals, but the same is true for private clinics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I think you get what you pay for, through taxes or any other means, except that when you pay a private corporation, a big chunk of your payment goes to generate profits and outsize executive compensation. Because of the imperative to generate profits and the claimed imperative to pay executives 8- or 9-digit salaries, it is a myth that private providers can provide similar services at a lower cost than public providers. On the specific question of healthcare, this study shows that the current privatized system in the United States is the most expensive in the OECD, but it delivers poorer results in terms of public health than the healthcare systems of most OECD members. Certainly, wealthy individuals in the United States have access to and can afford excellent healthcare. However, other countries offer better results to the general population at a much lower cost through "socialized" healthcare. Jeanne Boleyn is unhappy at the level of taxes she pays in Europe. If she is affluent, she can probably enjoy a similar quality of life in the United States with a lower tax burden, but with higher out-of-pocket costs for services she has to cover on her own. The U.S. and its state governments offer few good services, since they are starved of taxes. If she is not affluent, I invite her to move back to the United States and notice the absence of services to which she has grown accustomed in Europe. When I travel to Europe, I am in awe of the excellent public transportation services, the well-maintained roads, and the thought that everyone enjoys free healthcare. (When I hear Londoners complain about their public transport system, I try to tell them that it puts public transport in any US city to shame.) Those things cost money, which must come from taxes, though the healthcare does not cost as much as (lower-quality for most) healthcare in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is important to note that any current study of healthcare cost in the United States will not separate the cost of lawyers in the health care system from the cost of health care. Most of the cost of health care in the United States currently goes to lawyers. If not directly to lawyers, it goes to insurance companies to hold money to hand over to lawyers in the future. This is a snowball effect of continually increasing malpractice lawsuits. Socialized medicine will replace insurance companies with a Federal insurance company (one company to rule them all). It will not replace the lawyers. So, those who need care will still be in a system designed to take money that is supposedly going to health care and hand it over to lawyers who are only in the business of seeing how much money they can get from malpractice suits (and many other lawsuits such as "My doctor called me fat" or "I swear that nurse spit in my water"). -- kainaw™ 15:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits are problematic, yes, but they are also the only incentive medical providers and insurers have to provide good medical care, as regulatory agencies in the US mostly seem to have suffered from regulatory capture. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw, all reputable studies (as opposed to people like Rush Limbaugh flapping their jaws up and down) have shown that malpractice lawsuits are simply not the biggest factor (or anything near the biggest factor) in driving up U.S. healthcare costs. Some types of malpractice reform might be useful, but by themselves they would not remotely constitute a broad general solution to U.S. healthcare problems... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer the original question, not all Americans go bananas about "socialized healthcare". A minority are very unhappy about any publicly funded plan, a minority desire such a plan, and a third minority is in the middle, seeing some advantages to a public plan but concerned about possible disadvantages. I think that opposition to such a plan comes from three directions: 1) the small minority who benefit personally from the present arrangement; 2) another minority who are ideologically committed to laissez-faire capitalism and opposed to any role for the state, apart perhaps from policing and military operations; and 3) those who do not benefit from the present arrangement and expect the state to educate their children and provide for their retirement but who are not well informed beyond what they happen to see on TV and have been convinced by media propaganda generated by people in camps 1) and 2) that public healthcare is an evil plot designed by people who want to enslave Americans. Incidentally, the minority of Americans who fall into camp 2) are opposed to public education and sometimes to public firefighting as well. An alternative to public firefighting would be a private subscription service. If you don't pay, your house burns down. Marco polo (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Add that there are people who are against the plan that just went through Congress, but are not against Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA. They are against this particular plan. -- kainaw™ 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And the minority who are against passing legislation that has not been fully read by those passing said legislation as a general rule. Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that it is impractical for everyone to do a grass-roots study and survey of the primary data themselves, so they have to rely on what other people (in the media or politicians) tell them. These people already have opinions or agendas of their own. 92.24.59.3 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Turtles 1965 line-up

I have a question which the article on The Turtles does not provide the answer. Perhaps an editor can answer. I was watching on YouTube the clip of the Turtles on the programme Shindig! in which they are singing It Ain't Me Babe. It was recorded in 1965 and I'm curious as to the name of the good-looking guitarist who elicited the hysterical screams from teenage girls everytime his face appeared on the screen. The reason I wish to know is that I know a guy here in Italy who is the image of him (only much younger) and I'm curious as to whether there's a family connection. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the linked page, the guitarists are named as Al Nichol and Jim Tucker. So one of those probably. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I hadn't noticed their names listed at the bottom. Alas, I'm still none the wiser as to whether he was Al Nichol or Jim Tucker. He was the guitarist who stood in the back, but received all the screams!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a picture here that might help; it lists the names of the members in a photo left to right. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears he was Al Nichol. Thank you so much for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm mistaken.The photo line-up is wrong. I have just been searcing around various Internet sites and the photos say he was Jim Tucker. Can anyone please confirm this? He can be seen in the Shindig clip when all the girls burst into screams whenever the camera shows his face.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's the guy second from the right in this photo, it seems to be Jim Tucker - but I probably don't have any more evidence than you have. He was born 17 October 1946 in Los Angeles, but left the band in 1967, and I don't know any more about him. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he was Al Nichol. Jim Tucker is too skinny to have been him judging by the clip. All those bowl-cut hairstyles make it all very confusing. Thank you,Gmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GK Question

I am looking for city (place) A. its canal system is one of its greatest, yet mostly undiscovered assets B.Each and every year (more than once) its name is heard or seen on almost all media outlets worldwide. Would apptrciate anu help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.89.215 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Venice & St. Petersburg are both known for their canal systems. Googlemeister (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And there is Amsterdam which is also celebrated for its canals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer was Indianapolis, Indiana, but the $100 prize has already been won, see here.. I assume you intended to donate it to Wikipedia if we had been able to produce a winning answer for you? Karenjc 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"every year (more than once) its name is heard or seen on almost all media outlets worldwide" Really? I presume that's a reference to the Indianapolis 500. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but coverage certainly isn't ubiquitous in the UK.--Frumpo (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly "undiscovered" to this writer, but I don't live in Indy. Much bigger and likely better known is the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, although it doesn't make the news except when something goes wrong, like the carp infestation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk should stop aiding contestants in WorldAtlas GeoQuiz, as a matter of good form.--Wetman (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Either that, or answer the question and claim the prize, then tell the OP what the answer is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I considered that last time one of these came up ... and I would have donated, honest! Karenjc 08:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese ban against google and wikipedia.

While China warnings to block its citizens access to google from many different reasons (political, economical and etc)-some were publicated and some probably were not, I never heared that China have any intention to block the access to wikipedia (even if blocking google may have similar effect on wikipedia)-does it ever aired warnings against wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See blocking of Wikipedia by the People's Republic of China. China has frequently blocked Wikipedia, but they don't tend to air warnings about these things - Google was a rare exception. Warofdreams talk 16:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Do you know whether other countries have blocked wikipedia?--Gilisa (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

According to History of Wikipedia#Blocking of Wikipedia, the countries that have blocked a part or all of Wikipedia in the past are Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Thailand, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Karenjc 16:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The UK? Well that's interesting, run to read why!--Gilisa (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of a pic they thought was kiddie porn: Virgin Killers. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The cover of a Scorpions album contains a picture that the Internet Watch Foundation (a non-governmental body that many UK ISPs use to help the identify and block illegal pictures) decided was, or might be, illegal. Wikipedia wasn't blocked, per se, but the clumsy way they did the block and the dismal way they interacted with Wikimedia, the public, and the press made them look far more like moustache-twiddling tyrants than they needed to. A BBC story is here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia describes the affair in detail. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Why people live where they live

Earthquake zones, active volcanoes, and other locations prone to natural disasters in high numbers. I'm wondering why people ever chose to settle in such locations? Why did they consider these risks to be acceptable? Were the events too infrequent? I'm assuming the only reason people live there now is because of the infrastructure created by the settlers before them, but if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic ash can make for extremely fertile soil, which explains why people live near volcanoes. For other locations, it may be a different reason for each one. People live near the San Andreas Fault because gold was found there, for example. I think Earthquakes are only a serious problem in areas with high population density (a few mud huts collapsing isn't a big deal, a skyscraper collapsing is a a very big deal), so the earthquakes probably weren't a problem when people arrived in the area and they have become a problem gradually, so people have just got used to them. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The infrequency of major earthquakes in a given area is the main problem. Many areas were probably built up before the residents had ever experienced an earthquake there. Or, if they did, they just thought it was a random act of the gods, not a feature of that particular location. Very few places have been heavily populated only after plate tectonics theory was fully developed. So then, the Q becomes "why don't they leave, now that they know the danger ?". It just works out that the risk is worth the benefits of continuing to live there, I suppose. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving is an expensive hassle, and the probability of being killed by any particular disaster is pretty low. One could just as easily ask why midwesterners build farms in the flood plain of the Mississippi River, or for that matter why anyone lives in the midwest at all, given that it's "Tornado Alley". Or in the coastal regions, where hurricanes and typhoons can occur (as well as volcanoes, on the Pacific rim). Or in the tropics, where it's too hot, or the polar regions or the mountains, where it's too cold. The fact is, there's really no "safe" place to move to, and even if there was, you couldn't get there because everyone else would be going there too. Life itself is not safe. However, unlike animals, which are almost totally dependent on evolution for their adaptability (or lack thereof) to environments, humans are one species which can use its brains to create acceptable environments with risks that are considered acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is some risk anywhere, but the risk is by no means equal. For example, the risk along the banks of the Mississippi river is far higher than to any property in the central US (from tornadoes). Not building homes along the river is also far more practical than abandoning the central US entirely. The easiest way to get there from here is to not offer government subsidized insurance on such houses, and condemn the property once a disaster strikes. If the homeowner or private insurers choose to take the risk, that's fine, but the taxpayers shouldn't pay them off when the risk comes to fruition. StuRat (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

People mainly migrate for economic reasons. In the past people chose the land which had the most fertile soil, hence eastern Sicily (where Mount Etna is located) has a much higher population than western Sicily.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

have you considered that it is God's will that people live there? People simply could have gone to these locations after praying and receiving divine providence. As for leaving or staying, this, too, could be a decision made with divine help. 84.153.182.163 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I would never consider that. Vimescarrot (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to blame God for what people choose to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To expand on the points made by Tango, a recent BBC TV series along the themes of natural forces (Earth, Air, Fire and Water, though not in that order, and whose title I have regrettably forgotten - anyone?) asserted that easily exploitable mineral deposits are most often found close to geological faults, so from ancient times onwards, towns and cities preferentially grew in their vicinity, with occasionally tragic results. San Francisco was an example mentioned where the costs of rebuilding after earthquakes are calculably outweighed by the benefits of the location. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

How Earth Made Us, perhaps? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That indeed was it. Thanks, TammyMoet. (No Wiki article yet, but mentioned in Presenter Iain Stewart's, by the way.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

All useful info. Thanks for the input. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Rich and fertile lands tend to have some hazard accompanying the boon. Hawaii's soil produces high quality, high-cost goods (e.g. coffee, vanilla bean), but it's sitting on a volcanic hot spot. Iceland has great prospects for geothemal power -- because it's sitting on a volcanic hot spot over the Mid-Atlantic rift. Kansas is good for growing grains, but then there's the tornados. The west coast of North America is rife with salmon and seafood and verdant crop-growing lands, but there's the prospect of earthquakes and tsunami. Not much hazard in the desert, apart from the temperature issue. But there's not a lot to eat either. Vranak (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Deserts can have earthquakes, flash floods, sand/dust storms. I think the point is that all places on earth can be dangerous at certain times, some more so then others, but not really all that frequently. Googlemeister (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. One doesn't generally think of Ireland as being buffeted by the primal forces of nature in too severe a manner, but then that potato famine wiped out or displaced about a quarter of the population. So even when there's nothing obvious to cause ruin, there may be something insidious and subtle. Vranak (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

how do I develop a sense of rhythm?

how does someone who has absolutely no sense of rhythm (ie for dancing) develop one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.182.163 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First, understand how rhythm works with most Western music. Most rock and pop and blues is 4/4 time or 2/2 time. Waltzes are 3/4 time. Those are essentially all that are important for ballroom dancing. Then get some music with a strict rhythm and learn to count the beats. If you have difficulties, there are special dance recordings where an instructor counts the beat for you. Be warned that the music on those is often fairly atrocious, though. If you are interested in pair/group dancing, what is also important is a proper sense of balance and of knowing where your centre of mass is. Even if you know it's time to move your left foot, you cannot do so if you have any weight on it. This leads to an awkward pause while you shift your weight. That pause is often mistaken for a lack of sense of rhythm.-Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Before trying to count beats, you need to be able to find them. Can you clap in time to music? Learning to do that is the first step in getting to grips with rhythm (it's pretty easy from there, really). --Tango (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It helps to have someone show you. I'm thinking of a particular scene in Mr Holland's Opus, where a character helps another learn rhythm by playing music with a clear beat and rhythm, and clapping along with them, and tapping them on the shoulder or arm with the music, with the hope that you can connect it to something in the music. If you don't have someone to help you like that, what can be learned is to separate the bits of music that are the primary parts emphasising the beat. In modern popular music, this is usually (but not always) the drums. Listen for the bass drum. It often sounds on the strongest beat of a measure, so you can find it each measure. When you can hear that reliably, listen for alternating drum hits between them that are stronger than the others. In standard rock and roll (e.g. Rock Around the Clock), the strongest beat is the first one in the measure. Listen for it. Then listen for the third beat in the measure. It's the second strongest beat, half way between each of the strongest beats. Then fill in another one on either side of them, and you have four beats in a measure. It takes a while to get used to it, but classic rock and roll is usually good for hearing it. So is some club music, which has a very strong, regular beat. It's fast though. Steewi (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)