Re: Re: OT libertarian demographics

[Guest guest]

>Similarly, there's nothing antilibertarian about loans--just about taxpayer-

>funded loans.

Right. But everyone I've KNOWN who has gotten a loan, got a taxpayer-funded

loan, and the payback rate isn't great.

Now in Sweden, for instance, if you passed a test that said you were smart

enough to be a doctor, you could go to doctor school, and not have loans

at all. Which leads to lower medical costs. So it is a cost-effective solution

to affordable medical care. Doctors get paid less, but they don't have loans

to pay back.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Move to Europe, don't pay your taxes, and see what happens.

Move the the US, don't pay your taxes, and see what happens.

Try that 200 years ago in England, and you might be shot.

Try that 200 years ago in China, and you might be imprisoned.

So what? If we have " government " , we have taxes. Otherwise

we can go back to a tribal system, which something tells me

isn't gonna happen.

Actually someone did a comparison of salaries, taxes, vacation,

and benefits, and the Swedes come out WAY ahead. They get more

vacation, cheaper housing, paid childcare and healthcare, and don't

worry so much about being laid off. Shoot, for that I would GLADLY

pay higher taxes! But their actual " after tax income " was pretty

close to the US.

--- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Since Sweden

>gets a free ride from US research and doesn't have those other expenses

>that I mentioned, their economy should be growing much faster than ours.

I'm not sure about that anymore. To the degree they get translated, it seems

more and more of the good " studies " are coming from Europe. They are even

thinking about creating their own GPS satellite system (which, unlike ours,

doesn't withhold data from people it doesn't like and gives more info). In the

field of nutrition, they are ahead of us in at least one area I know of ...

because, they want to catch diseases early (so they don't have to pay for them

later). Our studies tend to be funded by drug companies, to find expensive

cures. They do studies for stuff like " which herb works the best? " -- looking

for cheap cures.

Historically, the US has been ahead. But we are losing that edge.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

wrote:

>Now Heidi, admitt it, being a mother of young kids as you say, don't

>you find that most of your day you just sit around and eat those bon

>bons?

Yeah, that's it, you caught me. I sit and watch soap operas and yell

at the little beasts ;-)

>Coming from a mother of 3 little kids at one time. The best

>questions I think was, what do you do all day anyway????

Yeah, right. Well, if you worked for a GOOD daycare, you would be

caring for 5 kids and getting paid $5 an hour.

Actually my situation is VERY different in that I have help daily.

My goal was to set up a sort of community -- it isn't, quite, I don't have

the social skills for that, but the kids have LOTS of adults, not just me,

My Mom was a lot like me, and she wasn't " enough " -- so having other

adults, I figure my kids can take " the best of " .

(and I'm trying to do less chatting on email lists, but there are two

factors that constrain me:

1. I'm testing a report that takes 1/2 hour to run, so what do I do

in 1/2 hour? and

2. I learn more here than anywhere else, about how to live the

REST of my life.

So there, Suze!).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>This is a question of ultimate respect for a human being and his or

>her right to his or her own life.

>

>DMM

That is it in a nutshell: individualism vs. " the tribe " .

Imagine you were living in a group of 50 people out

in the Plains somewhere, in an Indian tribe. The warriors

are strong and have horses. The elders sit around a lot.

The women search for food and tan hides. The kids play.

If someone is lacking a foot, or is blind, they do

what they can to help out, which might not be much.

If food is scarce, such people may in fact be left to

starve, but in general the practice seems to have been

that everyone shared what they had. The medicine doctor

did not refuse to treat people who couldn't pay him.

Now, no one tells the horseless women " you should go

hunt! Why should I bring YOU buffalo when you are too

lazy to earn a horse or learn to ride! " . No one suggests

the elderly men starve because they are no longer useful.

I'm not suggesting communism here, but the point is

that the emphasis is not on " one person earning their way "

nor " forcing others to support them " . In a true community,

everyone supports everyone, and in most of those communities,

an " individualist " is regarded with the same fondness as

we regard sociopaths in our society.

In a tribe, there was in fact little freedom to do something

other than what the tribe was doing. Culture was mandated,

and people who were TOO different might be cast out or

punished ... though in general people didn't think to

be too different or to rebel because that's the only system

they knew, and there was a LOT of social support for conforming.

If a guy wouldn't hunt, he'd be ridiculed, and a lazy woman

who tanned hides sloppily didn't get praised and was

gossiped about and lost social status.

So were those people committing the most greivous sin

by " forcing " everyone to help the least-able members of

the tribe? I would say not. I would say that algorithm was

the " normal " way humans lived for a long time. Now we

are trying to adapt that to much, much larger groups.

European-style socialism is the closest anyone has

come. It takes some resources away from those who

have more (not ALL their resources, and the system costs

less than our military, which is also non-voluntarily

supported) and supports the old, infirm, children,

and jobless, and makes sure everyone can get medical

care. It makes for a kinder society with few homeless

people.

Libertarianism is more like the Old West --

each individual out there with his/her gun trying

to shoot down dinner and hopefully everyone helps

out people who need helping, but since everyone

lives alone there is little social constraint on

a daily basis, so in fact very few people actually

help out others, in fact the average white middle

class person never SEES a lower-class person during

the day unless that person is the maid at the hotel.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

OK I am just curious how do you envision that help happening? I am not wild

abouit government programs because I think they are not very efficient. I

just haven't heard a good suggestion for a substitute.

Irene

At 07:02 AM 9/5/03, you wrote:

>As I've said

>before I AGREE with supporting these folks who are less fortunate.

>I AGREE. Sorry but I just don't get how we can justify helping

>people by stealing from others.

[Guest guest]

Ok I see your point I just am unclear how this will happen. The theory is

great but how does it work? I mean for instance how does the libertarian

philosophy hanle other public welfare issues like the police force, fire

department, military. There are lots of people who don't like the war in

Iraq and would not like to pay for it. Isn't it justas immoral to force

them to pay with their tax dollars? How do libertarians envision handling

that?

Irene

At 08:05 AM 9/5/03, you wrote:

>Instead lets start with yes these people need help and we are going

>to find a way to help them come hell or high water however NO WAY

>are we going to violate others in order to get them helped. Even

>the people who need the help who have even a shred of pride would

>agree.

[Guest guest]

(and I'm trying to do less chatting on email lists, but there are two

factors that constrain me:

1. I'm testing a report that takes 1/2 hour to run, so what do I do

in 1/2 hour? and

2. I learn more here than anywhere else, about how to live the

REST of my life.

So there, Suze!).

------------->LOL! well, i, for one, am thrilled that you're spending your

" free " time here among us! :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>>>One of the most annoying fallacies I run into when trying to explain

libertarianism is the notion that because we oppose being forced to do

something, we must be opposed to doing it at all. This just isn't true.

We're not opposed to charity--it's just that we think that it's something

that should be left up to voluntary contributions from families,

communities, and churches.

>>>>I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to believe

without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

communities.

------->so then...you give to charities and/or volunteer for charitable

organizations?

>>>there are too many people going to college these days,

----->yes, ain't it a shame! what's wrong with people these days?????

wasting their time and money on higher education. sheesh...<g>

>>>>>Furthermore, colleges are wasting too much money on

nonessential (to put it tactfully) departments like

Women's/Black/Chicano/Queer/Asian/Canadian/Whiteness studies. The reason

that they can do this is that not enough of the cost is being borne by

students.

----->this statement clearly reflects your own value system - not

necessarily that of the majority of college students, so i'd take issue with

your argument that these depts. wouldn't exist is students were paying for

them.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

I am also one of those that does not fit the demographics. I am white and middle

class, but am a homosexual female in a monogamous relationship with 2 small

children.

I agree that the best demographic to describe libertarians that I know is

intelligent and

educated.

One reason that alot of white middle class males are libertarians may just be

because they are more optimistic that such a system could be brought about.

Most gays I know agree that libertarian views are the best for society, but are

very pessimistic that government could ever be removed from our lives.

Having children is one big reason I would always want to be libertarian. I want

a

society in rewards for hard work much like I reward my children for hard work.

Even in small societies/ groups the ones that perform the most beneficial tasks

for

the group get the greatest rewards, where as, the others are taken care of only.

Re: Re: OT libertarian demographics

Quoth Suze:

> It is interesting that, according to a poll by liberty magazine,

> the vast majority of people in the US who call themselves

> libertarians are white (95%) heterosexual (90%) males (90%) who

> are in monogamous relationship (70%), have a college degree (71%),

> are middle to upper-middle income (72%) and do *not* belong to

> a community group (74%).

Here's the link again:

http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/72demographics.html

First of all, from the figures on general population that I'm pulling out

of thin air, but which I'm guessing are more or less correct, homosexuals

and bisexuals are significantly overrepresented among libertarians, which

makes sense, and I don't think that those in monogamous relationships are

heavily overrepresented, either (although this is not actually what the

question was).

You may disagree, but I think that there is a direct causal link between

being more intelligent/educated and being a libertarian. Income, as well,

is roughly correlated with intelligence and education, so I would expect

those with higher incomes to be overrepresented among libertarians. Also,

people in their prime earning years are overrepresented, which would drive

up the average income.

As for women, I don't know. Single women, especially single mothers,

definitely tend to lean towards leftist politics, but married women, I

think, tend to be split more or less evenly between right and left, so your

explanation that they're turned off by the libertarians' economic program

doesn't hold water. It could be that women are simply less likely to have

enough interest in politics to investigate alternative movements like

libertarianism.

As for why libertarianism is white-dominated, part of it is that, as Chris

said, most alternative political groups are white-dominated, but I think

that this is a particularly true of libertarians because of the persistent

leftist big lie which states that minorities cannot and will not succeed

without government help.

There is, I think, a kernel of truth in your explanation. It's not that

white, middle class males will benefit the most from libertarianism--in

reality the poor would benefit the most, at least in the long run. However,

for the upper and middle classes, the benefits are much more obvious. Last

year, I spent as much money on taxes as I did on everything else put

together. I assure you that I am not getting my money's worth. Sure, there

were some services worth paying good money for, but the actual value

differed from the price by a factor of about ten. If we go libertarian, I

benefit immediately from the tax cut, and then the rapid economic growth

and rising standard of living are gravy. On the other hand, the poor don't

pay much, if anything, in taxes, so they don't see the immediate benefit,

and they also don't see the rising tide that will lift them out of poverty

(they do, however, hear shameless leftist demagogues telling them that tax

cuts are what's keeping them poor). They get the greater benefit in the

long run, but if they were perceptive enough to see that, then they

probably wouldn't be poor.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

As someone who at one point became very ill and struggled to take care of

my basic needs, I can tell you that there was no line of people at my door

wanting to help. The basic assumption was that I must be lazy or stupid or

just a shirker or I would not have been in the situations that I was in. I

lived in fear of losing my job and health insurance. I did have two friends

who helped out sometimes but they worked full time and had families of

their own so they really didnt have the time or resources to help me much.

I eventually found a competent doctor (doctor number 7) and got better but

it took years and every penny I had and then some. Even then every ounce of

energy I had went to going to work and doing the things to keep able to

work. Which meant tons of vitamines, cooking everything that I ate. I had

time for nothing else. I usually got up at 430 am to cook all my food for

the day, came home at 7 or 8 PM and read all I could about alternative

healing My coworkers saw me as some sort of pathetic wierdo looking for

sympathy. Some went out of their way to make my life difficult.

The good news is that i did get better, I eventually went from being the

office leper to winning awards. But I shudder to think what would have

happened to me if I had lost my job and couldn't pay for the medical care,

or if I hadn't found that doctor, or if I had children to take care of at

the time. So when I see someone in dire straights, I don't automatically

assume that they are lazy or stupid, I think " there but for the grace of

God (or luck for atheists) go I.

Irene

At 09:11 AM 9/5/03, you wrote:

> >>>>I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

>faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to believe

>without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

>have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

>communities.

[Guest guest]

Actually I am not crazy about government programs either and I certainly

don't think all libertarians don't have hearts. However I have not heard a

credible solution from the libertarians so far. Just sort of a " trust us it

will work out " . Catholic Charities is a wonderful organization. I have even

given them money. But those organizations don't even come close to

fulfilling the need. Most of those kind of organizations really only help

the most desperate, who are able to get there for help, and only enough

help to get through the day. I did a ride along with an organization that

gives food to people on skid row. You would just be amazed at what I saw.

So many people. Mostly men but some women and children as well. They got a

sack lunch but otherwise had no access to water, toilet facilities, medical

care. Really frightening. Even if they were able to look for a job they had

no way of getting there. Horrible situation. I see the point

of programs to hopefully keep people from getting that far down.

I agree with Heidi that Nickle and Dimed is a must read for anyone

interested in this question at all.

Anyway, bottom line is if charible organizations were really able to

address the need I would agree with you. It is better to do things without

a huge the beurocracy. However if it doesn't then what? Theories are great

but the devil is in the details.

At 08:33 AM 9/5/03, you wrote:

>We

>don't support government programs because we think they are

>ineffective and dangerous. Not because we don't think people

>should help each other. Please give us credit for having hearts.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:09:26 -0000

" Dr. Marasco " <mmarasco@...> wrote:

> Oh boy, I can't believe I'm biting on this one and I admittedly

> deserve whatever I get...

It was a good bite . I appreciate your comments. Let me know when

you want to go one on one in basketball. And I dare anyone to come out

on the court and try to level the playing field, LOL!!

But IIRC, didn't Spud Web win the NBA slam dunk contest at 5'5? or was

it 5'9? Either way pretty amazing feat.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:14:01 -0400

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

> >>>>but I do believe there are genetic differences in men and women and

> between races.

>

> ---->thomas, the notion that there are different *races*, is a *social*

> construct, not a biological one. biologically, there is only one race - the

> human race. this is widely accepted in scientific circles. the social

> construct that divided humans into different racial groups was created to

> justify slavery, and unfortunately, is still perpetuated by some folks

> today.

Ms. Suze,

I'm not sure I can go with you on the justification for slavery argument.

I mean that has been a justification by some people at some point in

time but slavery has been with us for a long long time, and nearly every

people group at some point in their history has practiced slavery.

It is not a popular notion but slavery was rife on the African continent

at the time of the American slave trade and many slaves were *bought*

from other Africans.

It is also not a popular notion that in early colonial times there were

black slaveholders, but there were.

And while slavery is to be deplored everywhere, some of the most horrifc

slave trading practices were the enslavement of blacks by Arabs, but no

one ever mentions that.

And historically speaking the 400 year enslavement of the Hebrews

matches any other groups slave experience. In other words, the claim

of many black americans of a unique experience simply isn't true, and in

fact such a mentality is quite detrimental.

Slavery is a peculiar institution, and its practice has known no

boundaries whatsoever.

>

> as far as biological differences among human beings go, i believe they are

> all or just about all morphological - rather superficial adaptations to

> different environments. these morphological differences " divide " humans into

> different *ethnicities*. however, biologically, all ethnicities belong to

> the same race.

It is interesting to note that Christian Tradition speaks of " peoples,

nations, tribes, and tongues. " It never speaks of race in the sense many

understand it today, despite some who try to read racialist ideology

into the Bible (for example claiming it forbids interracial marriage).

The conception of race we have today is definitely a *modern* construct.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 11:43:28 -0700

Irene Musiol <irene@...> wrote:

I did a ride along with an organization that

> gives food to people on skid row. You would just be amazed at what I saw.

> So many people. Mostly men but some women and children as well. They got a

> sack lunch but otherwise had no access to water, toilet facilities, medical

> care. Really frightening. Even if they were able to look for a job they had

> no way of getting there. Horrible situation. I see the point

> of programs to hopefully keep people from getting that far down.

> I agree with Heidi that Nickle and Dimed is a must read for anyone

> interested in this question at all.

> Anyway, bottom line is if charible organizations were really able to

> address the need I would agree with you. It is better to do things without

> a huge the beurocracy. However if it doesn't then what? Theories are great

> but the devil is in the details.

>

Rather than interact with the whole of this post, I just have one

question, if this huge bureacracy is so helpful and necessary, why did

you see such a frightening situation in front of a *private* charity.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

[Guest guest]

>Rather than interact with the whole of this post, I just have one

>question, if this huge bureacracy is so helpful and necessary, why did

>you see such a frightening situation in front of a *private* charity.

>

>

A lot of the current " homeless " situation came about in Reagan's

time, and I'm old enough, unfortunately to remember it!

To make for " smaller government " a lot of the mental institutions

were closed. Up to that time, folks with major mental problems

could be fed and clothed and live in protected surroundings.

They were essentially dumped on the street.

Now, I don't know if any of you personally know anyone with

a major mental problem, but I had a friend who was bipolar.

She ended up on the street. But not before every one of her

friends tried to take care of her. Certainly no church would

have her ... she was profane, to say the least! When she was

sane, she was a wonderful person. When she didn't take her

meds, no one could handle her.

What I'm saying is, well-meaning people are not enough.

Private organizations are not enough. To handle MAJOR

problems (like drug addiction, schizophrenia, violent

mental illness, retardation) it takes money and large

institutions and major committment of the sort that

can maintain a standing army. Today many of those

folks are institutionalized ... in prison, at a much

greater cost. A large percentage of the rest are on the

street, or they commit suicide or do a drug overdose,

which I guess gets them out of the gene pool?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/03 1:15:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> A lot of the current " homeless " situation came about in Reagan's

> time, and I'm old enough, unfortunately to remember it!

> To make for " smaller government " a lot of the mental institutions

> were closed. Up to that time, folks with major mental problems

> could be fed and clothed and live in protected surroundings.

> They were essentially dumped on the street.

Re-reading Price's intro to NAPD would offer some insight on how this problem

can be solved without gov't mental institutions, and much more effectively.

I think the libertarian idea is a good one, but also think that doing anything

small reforms to get there just because they make gov't smaller is utterly

reckless.

But without big gov't I don't think we'd ever have had the same degree of

awful food changes we've had. Notice the VERY POINT they all started taking

place! Post civil war!!! This is the perfect connection between the political

and food part. When people lived in small communities like I described before

they ate well. Too much sugar, sure, but they ate much better.

More to the point on the mental issues though, when people were truly

disabled if their family couldn't take care of them, the town would pay a

family, the

lowest bidder, to personally take care of them for a year.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>More to the point on the mental issues though, when people were truly

>disabled if their family couldn't take care of them, the town would pay a

family, the

>lowest bidder, to personally take care of them for a year.

>

>Chris

But that is the point. A family cannot take care of a truly mentally handicapped

person. Really. Paid or not. I would not have believed it until I saw how my

friend changed, but it was like taking care of a 2-year old that is your size

.... someone who might just drink the drain cleaner, or punch out the window, or

steal your car and crash it into a wall. Ditto with folks on drugs. Drug

treatment programs work, at least for some time period, but unless you are Mrs.

Ford or a Bush girl, they are hard to get into, and if you are addicted to them

it is next to impossible to get a job, thanks to all the drug testing. Further,

health insurance doesn't pay much for mental or drug problems, so the problem

ALREADY rests on the family, and the family's response (for anyone other than

those top 5% who truly have power) is often to kick the person out of the house.

Now I DO believe that nutrition could solve a lot of these problems -- about

half of the folks with " mental problems " are also gluten intolerant, and I

personally know a family whose schizophrenic son is doing fine as long as he is

on a special diet. But there is zero motivation for anyone to study that ...

even if the government was small, the corporations would still advertise, and

who would fund studies besides the drug companies? In our country, the health

system is run for profit, so where is the motivation to make people well? In

Europe, with a single payer system, they are VERY motivated to find cheap

solutions to diseases and in fact they are!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 08:01:47 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/7/03 1:15:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> heidis@... writes:

>

> > A lot of the current " homeless " situation came about in Reagan's

> > time, and I'm old enough, unfortunately to remember it!

> > To make for " smaller government " a lot of the mental institutions

> > were closed. Up to that time, folks with major mental problems

> > could be fed and clothed and live in protected surroundings.

> > They were essentially dumped on the street.

>

> Re-reading Price's intro to NAPD would offer some insight on how this problem

> can be solved without gov't mental institutions, and much more effectively.

> I think the libertarian idea is a good one, but also think that doing anything

> small reforms to get there just because they make gov't smaller is utterly

> reckless.

Yes the ideal situation would be transitional in nature, not just

automatically cutting folks off. I agree. That is reckless.

But the funny thing about Reagan is that under him the gov't *didn't*

become smaller. In fact every Republican president has " grown " the gov't

while simultaneously preaching smaller gov't. Yet I can't think of any major

entitlement program since Nixon that wasn't signed into law by a Republican

president. And not since Lyndon has there been a spender like

Jr.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/7/03 6:58:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> i think the value of such depts, though, is subjective. some folks are

> happy

> with an exclusionary version of learning, while others believe it is

> limited, and that an inclusive version is far more challenging and valuable.

> the rigorousness of any given college dept. though, i'd imagine would be

> dependent on the administrators and professors who run it or teach in it.

> that's been my experience in *every* discipline i've ever studied in all the

> colleges/universities (6) where i've studied, ranging in size from 100

> students to approx. 20,000 and from state school to ivy league. still, i

> realize it's anecdotal (and hopefully not immodest sounding).

I think the most important point is that the purpose of the University is

education-- not activism, not " empowerment. " So if these programs are getting

used for real scholarship and are open to anyone who wants a course in the

subject, and the course is designed to teach the person about that subject,

that's

fine. But all to often leftist professors (most professors?) take an

" activist " approach to learning, which simply does NOT belong in the university,

PERIOD. The purpose of a class on feminism, for example, is to teach people

about

feminism, not to empower women. If someone wants to use their education for

their empowerment, all the power to them, but the teachers job is the education

part, the rest is secondary. I think that's where the danger of these

departments can come in.

That said I didn't major in one of these majors... but I did have friend in

the radical movement who ended up teaching a class on the " street movement and

globalization " or something like that, which was obviously just an excuse to

use taxpayers money for political propaganda.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:55:27 -0400

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> >>>Whatever it might say about , from my experience, the women's

> studies and the black studies dept. on college campuses

> are...ummm...well lets just say I have never been exposed to such poor

> scholarship in my life. Even when I was agreeing it was a sad state of

> affairs.

>

> ----->just curious, how extensive is your experiences with black and women's

> studies depts that you base your opinion on?

More than I wish unfortunately. I ran the black studies gamut (after all

Jodie , who I used to think was very hot at the time, had a Black

Studies *degree,* so just in case we ever met....hehehehe); a portion of

the woman's studies, a good chunk of the women's studies philosophy in

philosophy, two of my sisters did the women studies things, another did

black studies.

I dated a woman who has a PhD in woman studies. She is one of the most

highly educated and intelligent people I have ever known. Even she

acknowledged, much to her chagrin, that woman studies was standing on

some very shaky ground. Other than that I just started comparing notes

with others who had run the gauntlet, read books, heard other speakers.

Yikes! It was a nightmare.

> my own experience is limited in that i've only taken one course in each

> discipline, both at the same university, so i don't have much of an idea

> about how these depts. rate in terms of scholarship in a broader sense. most

> of my knowedlge on black and women's studies were done " in my spare time, on

> my own dime, while I was earning a living. " <g>

>

> i think the value of such depts, though, is subjective. some folks are happy

> with an exclusionary version of learning, while others believe it is

> limited, and that an inclusive version is far more challenging and valuable.

The problem was and remains that many of these depts. are just thinly

disguised propaganda mills for left wing ideology I'm sorry to say as there

is some valuable information to be had. But there was just to much

activism being espoused, not enough education, and just a rather loose

approach to the facts.

I think pointed out that many university teachers are very

activist in their approach, and it really detracts from that which is

very useful. Not only that, but the material is very self-selected. Want to

learn about feminism? Better do it on your own if you want to interact

with the *full* spectrum of feminist thought.

Any discipline that wants serious respect in the long run will gain it

by rigorous scholarship, not politically motivated flights of fancy.

Of course, according to some of the more radical stuff I was exposed to,

rigorous scholarship was a male thing...or a white thing.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

[Guest guest]

Chris-

I've been skimming through hundreds and hundreds of messages to catch up,

all the while thanking my lucky stars I wasn't around for this argument,

but then, blast it all, you had to go and suck me in! <g> Correlating the

change in diet with the post-Civil War increase in the size of government

ignores a gigantic factor: industrialization. In fact, the fundamental

motivation behind the Civil War was economic, not philosophical. The

Emancipation Proclamation, as admirable as it was, was devised to keep

Britain and other foreign powers from allying themselves with the

South. It was not the cause of the war any more than slavery itself was.

Industrialization was a force unto itself, and was responsible for both

modernity (and progress) and the divorce of people from the land, which is

what led to adverse dietary changes. Blame the government all you want,

but government was merely one of many players in the game of political and

social evolution.

>Notice the VERY POINT they all started taking

>place! Post civil war!!! This is the perfect connection between the

>political

>and food part. When people lived in small communities like I described

>before

>they ate well.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/03 11:36:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Idol@... writes:

> How, then, do you account for the presence of big business during times of

> small(er) government?

I'm not sure where that happened... I'm not saying big government causes big

business, it may well be the other way around. It seems to me they trended

together .

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>You're ignoring the fact that Lincoln was an anti-slavery activist before he

>ran for President, and that unpopular positions need to be " sold " and when

>they are sold to realists, they are sold in terms of power plays.

I'm not ignoring that at all, but the whole war engine was long underway

before slavery became a focal issue, and it was employed specifically to

prevent foreign powers from entering the war on the South's side.

>Anyway, I'm not ignoring industrialization, I'm pointing to the fact that big

>government and big business go hand in hand. One can't survive without the

>other.

How, then, do you account for the presence of big business during times of

small(er) government?

-