Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 : >Of course it is. Until Reagan pushed through his tax cuts, the top >marginal tax rates were absurdly high (70%, and at one point they were >as high as 93%), and they made it very difficult for anyone to break >into the upper class. Depends who you listen to. The tax laws are so convoluted it's hard to know how much people actually get paid or pay in taxes. A lot of the wealth now is offshore or hidden, or part of " corporations " who pay no taxes. There is no pie. It's a leftist myth which bears no resemblance >whatsoever to the way the economy actually works. One of the most >fundamental principles of economics is that the economy isn't a zero-sum >game. Wealth isn't just divvied up--it's created. If someone invents >some great new product and makes billions of dollars from it, he hasn't >just taken our share of the pie--he's made us all richer. That was the >entire point of my example--by hiring an Indian programmer to do the >same job for 60% less, Macrosoft makes the " pie " $30,000 bigger, and, >try as they might, they can't keep it all for themselves. Except the offshore programmer has made some folks HERE poorer. The basics of life -- food, land, water -- ARE zero-sum at least currently. In our country, wealth=power, so those who control wealth also control the government to a huge degree (voters count, fortunately, but lobbiests count more, and donors count the most). So if you want raw milk, for instance, you have to out-lobby the big dairy producers. If you want clean salmon streams, you have to out-lobby the lumber companies. The corporations rarely look beyond the next quarter. What does that mean? What is a strong middle class? And how do you know >that you don't have it backwards? Is it not more reasonable to suppose >that prosperous societies tend to give rise to large middle classes, or >that societies with free economies tend to give rise to prosperity and >large middle classes? If the middle classes are what cause prosperity, >then where do they come from? They often come from small businesses, who are exactly who is getting squeezed in the current situation. Esp. by health care, or lack thereof, and by the establishment of monopolies. Macrosoft has been noted for squishing competition ... the OTHER bootstrap companies like it once was find themselves facing the MS juggernaut of lawyers or just getting bought or in a few cases having their products outright stolen. The government is supposed to level the playing field and prevent that sort of thing. They aren't. And a place like ours has a really difficult time getting health insurance for our workers, and while the larger corporations can hide their wealth and not pay taxes, we can't. >Besides, there is no historical model to >which the modern-day US can be compared. Even our poor are quite well >off by historical standards. What other society has had morbidly obese >poor people? Well, the obesity is likely from poor nutition, so it's a moot point. But yeah, they aren't dying in the streets. A lot of the reason they aren't dying in the streets though are the social programs that were put in earlier in the century. The " chicken in every pot " rally actually worked. Society didn't magically change to help poor folk -- programs were put in place and they worked. Now said programs are being gutted, and you'll see the results. Pre-Reagan we really didn't HAVE street people to any great degree. >Another thing that you're overlooking is the fact that there is >tremendous social value in having a large amount of wealth concentrated >in the hands of the upper classes. Hmmm. Like the old kings? Sure it's good ot have investments, but usually when a guy (even in the modern world) or corporation gets too much power he uses to make himself stronger and generally to make life miserable for others. I think of Gates, Saddam, South American dictators, Enron, etc. Now in Japan it's considered just a good idea to have savings, and they do, not just the rich. > The middle class was strongest in the 50's >> and 60's, now society is polarizing. > >Can you provide the statistics to back this up? It's not inconceivable, >given the draconian regulations and high levels of government spending >which have burdened the US for the past several decades, but I don't >believe that it's true. I can look them up. It's considered a basic fact my most economists I've read, though the REASONS for it they disagree on. >> that allow corporations to skip paying taxes > >IMO, everyone has a moral obligation to pay as little in taxes as he >legally can, and to pay even less if he can get away with it safely. >Anyway, corporations don't pay taxes. People do. Well, if you are smart then you make the corporation own your wealth to avoid taxes. Ok, so you want no taxes. Then we are back to the Middle Ages, no government, probably back to robber-barons (the strong guys who take control when there is no gov't, as in Afghanistan). Humans without strong gov't do NOT settle into utopias, at least not anywhere that experiment has been tried. They devolve into warring tribes. >> Concentrating on how hard the folks at the bottom >> work, or don't work, misses the point. We are all >> competing for a smaller and smaller pie. > >No we're not. Now you're just making stuff up. Look, if 1/4 jobs pay low wages, and 3/4 pay better wages, the workers are competing for the 3/4 jobs. The reason there are more low-paying jobs (those are the ones that are being created) largely has to do with decisions to build stuff in cheaper countries and to automate. There are union jobs which pay better, and of course the GOP is trying to get rid of those too. So yeah, they are competing for a smaller pie. The money they can EARN. > > The folks at the top don't all work hard ... > >Most do. Harder than a mom with kids working 2 jobs? Hah. They might work hard, but it's nothing like the scut jobs at the bottom. > >First, the Bush daughters haven't really done anything that bad, as far >as I know. I didn't drink in college, but I suspect that I may have been >the only one. Second, what does the behavior of children have to do with >how hard their parents work? Maybe they act up because their parents are >always busy working. Well, they seem to have substance abuse problems, which isn't " that bad " in my book except that their family has been pushing for hard jail time for drug offenders. You don't see that as a little hypocritical? Ditto with Rush L. Pushing on air for harsh time for drug offenders (and less money for drug rehab) while YOU have a drug problem is just a *little* in denial? -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 >Much of the debate centers on whether or not people in dire straites should >be able to " make it " . But there is another argument that you rarely hear. >And should a corporation be able to pay decent wages and benefits and still > " make it " . If not then perhaps it should have its charter revoked and a >more efficient company should take its place. Amen. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 That's my boy right there!!! --- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...> wrote: > > alot of smart stuff about economics ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Chris- While there are arguments in favor of and against that liberation, there's not necessarily any inconsistency. If we decide that children need to be taken care of AND that adults need their liberty (and bear in mind, I'm not arguing either way here) then it's not impossible to conclude that in order to balance those interests we have to diffuse the responsibility throughout society so that it falls on everyone but more lightly, to maximize both child care and adult liberty. >But for the fiftieth time, if we morally liberate grandma and auntie to >live the life *they* want to live without regard to their family's needs >or in grandma's case the consequences of their own actions (you can't >expect to be a parent without being a grandparent), how can we possibly >morally require the rest of society to take responsibility? Does no one >else see the inconsistency here??? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 wrote: >>I'm all for cutting back on subsidies, regardless of whether they're >>going to multinational corporations or unwed mothers. Heidi wrote: >How about wed mothers with a handicapped kid? Or when a husband and father gets permanently injured by a " legally uninsured corporation " . Gets the Social Security disability he worked and paid for pulled at their whim. He's got a wife, 3 children. Two oldest their other biological parents, male and female ex spouses never paying a cent to support. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 At 04:16 PM 12/3/2003 -0500, you wrote: > wrote: > >>>I'm all for cutting back on subsidies, regardless of whether they're >>>going to multinational corporations or unwed mothers. > >Heidi wrote: >>How about wed mothers with a handicapped kid? > >Or when a husband and father gets permanently injured by a " legally >uninsured corporation " . Gets the Social Security disability he worked and >paid for pulled at their whim. He's got a wife, 3 children. Two oldest >their other biological parents, male and female ex spouses never paying a >cent to support. > >Wanita Correction underinsured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 In a message dated 12/3/03 8:39:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, kacheson@... writes: > I see > no moral responsibility for this or for a society to shoulder the burden. > After kids grow up and have their own kids i would place the moral > responsibility of their care where, to me at least, it belongs - on the > parents, not granny, auntie, brother or anyone else I agree that, bottom line, it's the parents responsibility. However, I think anyone with some common decency and sense of family would help out with their family when needed. That's not to say that parents have the right to absolve their own responsibility and simply transfer it to their family. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Chris- > > While there are arguments in favor of and against that liberation, > there's not necessarily any inconsistency. If we decide that > children need to be taken care of AND that adults need their > liberty (and bear in mind, I'm not arguing either way here) But there is no " we " to make such a decision. What you decide needs taking care of might not be what I decide needs taking care of. By each of us separately having the right to choose to have children or not, along with the properly concomitant responsibility if we do, we each get what we want in this regard. The only problem is for those who want children, but can't afford them. It's understandable why many of the latter would deceive themselves, and try to deceive the rest of us, into thinking that the rest of us owe them some sort of assistance. It's the same reason socialism appeals to so many. > then it's not impossible to conclude that in order to balance those > interests we have to diffuse the responsibility throughout society > so that it falls on everyone but more lightly, to maximize both > child care and adult liberty. Why should I bear _any_ responsibility, no matter how well diffused, for someone _else's_ choice? It's morally wrong and socially disastrous to diffuse responsibility. Once when I was in junior high someone stuck their gum under a shelf on a book rack. We were told that everyone in the class had to write an essay of so many words on the matter as punishment unless someone stepped forward and took responsibility. I of course refused since it wasn't my gum, but what kind of moral and social attitudes do you suppose that punishment inculcated in children who didn't already have a strong value system in place like mine? I'm sure it's a perfect way to program people for collectivism, and note that the military uses the same system. Not all choices are sound, and if the same person making the choice doesn't bear the responsibility for the results of that choice, then there's no proper check left on bad decisions. The more " we " take responsibility for the bad decisions of others, the more bad decisions will be made, and the more for which we'll all have to take responsibility, in what would necessarily become an exponentially increasing problem. Of course it won't be, and never has been, allowed to go that far. Instead the government steps in and limits our choices, and given the premise that we're all responsible for each other's actions, they can make a very good case for doing so. The second leg of the argument for taking away our freedoms is in fact the very point I'm trying to make, that is that freedom and responsibility must go hand in hand. So if one wants to give up personal responsibility, one must also expect to lose personal freedom. If I'm responsible for your medical expenses when you break your leg, then should I not also demand the right to stop you from climbing trees? How could it be otherwise? It's the natural and proper parent- child relationship, but I'm not a child and I don't want the government acting as my parent. Do you? Having children is a choice, and not necessarily a good one. The world is grossly overpopulated and a properly working social and/or economic system _ought_ to transmit that fact in the form of economic difficulty back to those prospective parents who are either intellectually unaware of, or just indifferent to, that fact. The easier we make it for people to have children, the more children they will have, and the greater that shared responsibility shall become for each of us, no matter how well you manage to diffuse it. The only way left to control it would be for the government to step in and tell us how many children we are each allowed. Do you really want that? Society already offers too many incentives to have children as it is, and what's worse, at the expense of those of us who have chosen not to. No offense to those who want children, but personally I don't want to see it made any easier for you to have children. If anything I'd rather it were made much more difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 >In a message dated 12/3/03 12:40:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, irene@... >writes: > >> Still holds true. Many people without job prospects join the military. The >> enlisted ranks get paid quite poorly. Some even qualify for food stamps. >> > >I don't know what you're saying. I agree the military vastly underpays its >folks, though its a perfect opportunity for advancement if you have any >ambition. But it seems totally aside the point. I don't think anyone gets pregnant >in the military too often, and it's not a permanent move, but a temporary one. >But it comes down to this: If you decide to move away from your family, then >you are making a choice to move away because the job offers some greater >opportunity that outweighs the benefits of living near your family. If it doesn't, >it wasn't a very sensible choice. > Chris Lynch wanted to be a kindergarten teacher, needed a job to put herself through college, Mc 's wasn't hiring so she went in the military. Ended up in the Nasariya ambush. Now with her book out can become a kindergarten teacher. She hasn't forgot her best friend, Lori Piestawa, killed there. She was a single mother of two, and the first Native American woman to die in any war since WWI. She wanted to be able to feed her children. Parents took the children. Father was unemployed with the others, more than 50% on the Hopi reservation. A man killed there was from Mexico and not a U.S. citizen. He was given posthumous citizenship. Since Vietnam this is descriptive of the general conditions for entering the military. Most of this was in The Guardian, London newspaper. None intend imo to leave their families forever or to return less complete and healthy than when they left home. There are quite a few families with both husband and wife in the military as well as wives/husbands living on base. News recently said there were increasing child care problems with both parents being sent to Iraq. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Quoting Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...>: > She hasn't forgot her best friend, Lori Piestawa, > killed there. She was a single mother of two, and the first Native > American woman to die in any war since WWI. Who was she, and how did she die? I wouldn't have thought that there would be an aboriginal woman in the military during WWI. > She wanted to be able to feed her > children. Parents took the children. Father was unemployed with the > others, > more than 50% on the Hopi reservation. Speaking of which, the Hopi, and other aboriginal tribes, are a perfect example of the horribly destructive power of government stewardship. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 At 04:34 PM 12/3/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Quoting Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...>: > >> She hasn't forgot her best friend, Lori Piestawa, >> killed there. She was a single mother of two, and the first Native >> American woman to die in any war since WWI. > >Who was she, and how did she die? I wouldn't have thought that there would >be an aboriginal woman in the military during WWI. In the Lynch movie Lori was driving the lost Humvee ambushed in Nasariyah. Lynch was in it too. The Humvee hit another vehicle so there was an accident during the ambush. Lori was one of the 7 bodies killed and found buried behind the hospital Lynch was rescued from. I worded this specifically with WWI because anyone who knows history here would know there were aboriginal women killed here prior to then. In comparison here's a paragraph from National American Indian Heritage Month, 2003 by the President of the United States of America a Proclamation American Indians and Alaska Natives have a long tradition of serving with pride and accomplishment in the United States Armed Forces. Today, their patriotism is reflected in the more than 13,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives serving on active duty and the more than 6,400 reservists. In Iraq, Specialist Lori Piestewa of the Army's 507th Maintenance Company and a member of the Hopi tribe, was the first American servicewoman killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the only known American Indian woman killed in action in any conflict. Her bravery, service, and sacrifice are an inspiration to our men and women in uniform and to all Americans. > >> She wanted to be able to feed her >> children. Parents took the children. Father was unemployed with the >> others, >> more than 50% on the Hopi reservation. > >Speaking of which, the Hopi, and other aboriginal tribes, are a perfect >example of the horribly destructive power of government stewardship. Will leave it at " ain't that the truth! " Wish that steak thats been being talked about here could find its way to reservation commodity foods. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 <<I think you're referring to me, although this somewhat misrepresents what I said. What I said was to *ask* why this was NOT occurring>> It was not my intent to misrepresent what you said. I was just quoting the part i wanted to refer to. <<But for the fiftieth time, if we morally liberate grandma and auntie to live the life *they* want to live without regard to their family's needs or in grandma's case the consequences of their own actions (you can't expect to be a parent without being a grandparent), how can we possibly morally require the rest of society to take responsibility? Does no one else see the inconsistency here???>>> But that is what i was trying to show - by telling my upbringing i mean... In theory i like the " It takes a village " line but in reality most times it just doesn't work. I don't have kids but my thoughts would be that i would help with the grandkids if/when it fit into my life and schedule. I see no moral responsibility for this or for a society to shoulder the burden. After kids grow up and have their own kids i would place the moral responsibility of their care where, to me at least, it belongs - on the parents, not granny, auntie, brother or anyone else. Expecting society to accept responsibility is a sticky wicket. I resent being told that i have to care for (taxes etc) for kids when i have absolutely no control over any of it, and there seems to be no end to it. Of course the other side is that i can't or maybe we can't as a country stand by and watch kids go hungry. Kathy A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 <<> Still holds true. Many people without job prospects join the military. The > enlisted ranks get paid quite poorly. Some even qualify for food stamps. >> Maybe the military has changed in the last decade since i was there but i do remember this same argument and stats way back then and it is not quite that easy. The pay really is not that great at the lower levels but by the time you make a few advancements it is not all that bad. Single people can live on base for free and normally eat for free or very cheap too. In essence they have only the bills that they make. A married person or even a single person that has qualified to live off base gets extra money for that expense. If your lucky enough to get military housing it is free or dirt cheap. You shop at the exchange at much lower prices and all your medical/dental expenses are taken care of. From the time i was an E -2 till i was discharged as an E-5 I was single, lived off base and did just fine. Incidentally getting pregnant while in the military is very very common. Been there done that. Military i mean- not pregnant Kathy A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 Quoting Kathy <kacheson@...>: > Incidentally getting pregnant while in the military is very very common. Especially for women. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 --- In , Berg <bberg@c...> wrote: > Quoting Kathy <kacheson@q...>: > > Incidentally getting pregnant while in the military is very > > very common. > > Especially for women. Careful there ! Humorous references to specifically female body functions are not looked kindly upon here. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 >>Wanita > >Correction underinsured. Actually I took it as is regarding there are some legislations going through now to hold some corporations not liable for damages they cause. Cute. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2003 Report Share Posted December 3, 2003 >That's true if society decides as a whole to hold these values, but it >hasn't. The question was whether society, through government, has the >responsibility to change economically, willingly or not, due to the perceived rights of a >minority. > >Chris But from the debate here, it may not be the " rights of a minority " . MOST kids in the past really were " raised by the village " , not by one nuclear family. Folks belonged to a tribe of 50-200 folks, and responsibility was shared. The tribe was likely at war with another tribe, and the guys were " warriors " a lot, or at least hunters, and they died a lot. Women held down the fort and life was pretty collective. Young women were like as not to be gathering food, kids stayed in camp with the elders and older kids, so a " mom " wasn't full time except when nursing (and by some accounts, they swapped kids for nursing too). So isn't the " state " or the " city " kind of the only extension we have of that? Really, the " family " isn't enough to be stable, you need a larger group. Taxes are the dues we pay, because most guys don't want to be warriors OR road builders and the women don't want to be nurses, so we pay our dues and supposedly a lot of the infrastructure is provided for us. I certainly accept this when I go camping at a " co-owned " campground ... you pay a yearly fee, they upkeep the camp. I pay taxes, and I expect decent schools for my kid. Same thing. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...> > So isn't the " state " or the " city " kind of the only extension > we have of that? No. Community is the logical extension. The reason that this sort of thing worked back then is that everyone knew everyone else. People helped each other out and traded favors, and this strengthened the sense of community. > Really, the " family " isn't enough to be stable, you need a larger group. It was for my family, and for Chris's, and for most of my friends', and for countless other families. If it's not good enough for you, and you want to ask your friends and neighbors for help, that's fine. If you and some of your neighbors want to pay the old lady next door to watch your children after school, I think that's great (just watch out for the zoning Nazis). If you were in a bad situation through little or no fault of your own and asked nicely, I'd be happy to pitch in, especially if I weren't already being robbed blind by the state (just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I spend as much money on taxes as I do on everything else combined). But if some self-righteous loser tries to tell me that he has a right to force me to help him deal with the consequences of the poor choices he's made in his own life, then I'll tell him to go to Hell. I reserve the right to be charitable on my own terms. > Taxes are the dues > we pay, because most guys don't want to be warriors OR > road builders and the women don't want to be nurses, > so we pay our dues and supposedly a lot of the infrastructure > is provided for us. I certainly accept this when I go > camping at a " co-owned " campground ... you pay a yearly > fee, they upkeep the camp. I pay taxes, and I expect > decent schools for my kid. Same thing. Just out of curiosity, why do you go camping at a private campground instead of a public one? Anyway, it's not the same thing. I'm a big supporter of use fees, because they're the only truly fair way to pay for services, but taxes aren't use fees. First of all, you have no choice regarding which services you want to purchase from the government. They make you an offer you can't refuse, and you take what they give you. Second, what you pay has no relation whatsoever to what you receive. They just take whatever they think they can get away with. Moreover, only a small percentage of my taxes go towards things which I actually consider worthwhile. All in all, government is a huge net loss for me. The Mafia's protection racket is a far more accurate analogy. Aside from issues of justice and morality, there's also the issue of effectiveness. If you want to see a true testament to the effectiveness of all these great government programs, all you need to do is visit an Indian reservation or an urban housing project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 I wrote: >That's true if society decides as a whole to hold these values, but it >hasn't. The question was whether society, through government, has the >responsibility to change economically, willingly or not, due to the perceived rights of a >minority. > >Chris Heidi wrote: >But from the debate here, it may not be the " rights of a >minority " . Sure it is-- you were referring to the 1/4 of the population with low-paying jobs. 1/4 is a minority. Moreover, the percentage of that 1/4 who are people trying to raise families makes it an even smaller minority. >MOST kids in the past really were " raised by the village " , >not by >one nuclear family. Child-rearing patterns have varied widely across time and space but I don't see the point. *WE* have a culture and society based on the idea of the family unit as the fundamental unit. Most people subscribe to that. Could it be changed? Sure. But most people aren't interested in changing it, and people have a right participate in society in the ways they see fit, providing they aren't infringing on anyone elses right to do so. > Folks belonged to a tribe of 50-200 folks, >and responsibility was shared. The tribe was likely at war >with another tribe, and the guys were " warriors " a lot, or >at least hunters, and they died a lot. Women held down the >fort and life was pretty collective. Young women were like >as not to be gathering food, kids stayed in camp with the >elders >and older kids, so a " mom " wasn't full time except when >nursing (and by some accounts, they swapped kids for >nursing too). Of course we don't gather food or participate in tribal warfare anymore... >So isn't the " state " or the " city " kind of the only extension >we have of that? I think they aren't even remotely comparable. States arose when the type of society you're talking about declined. > Really, the " family " isn't enough to >be stable, you need a larger group. Well, I'll defer to 's answer. It suffices for many, and there are all sorts of other " larger groups. " I participate in non-state " larger groups " all the time. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 <<Especially for women. -- Berg bberg@...>> Oh thank you !! I really needed a laugh and that was a good one. I suppose that i should have seen it coming but didn't. Kathy A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 <<I agree that, bottom line, it's the parents responsibility. However, I think anyone with some common decency and sense of family would help out with their family when needed. That's not to say that parents have the right to absolve their own responsibility and simply transfer it to their family. Chris>> I agree with the common decency. As common decency If possible I would take a neighbor kid in an emergency so a parent could work, give anyone needing a ride to work or even give some gas money. This is not the same as placing the " moral responsibility " that we have been discussing on society to shoulder the load of a problem that is not of their making and of which they (we) have no control. Kathy A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 ----- Original Message ----- From: " Berg " <bberg@...> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...> > > So isn't the " state " or the " city " kind of the only extension > > we have of that? > > No. Community is the logical extension. The reason that this sort of > thing worked back then is that everyone knew everyone else. People > helped each other out and traded favors, and this strengthened the sense > of community. I forgot to finish my point here. With the state and city, you have many thousands or millions of people most of whom have never met each other, which is nothing at all like a tightly-knit commnunity. Also, even the rights of the individual have traditionally been ignored, that's no reason to continune doing so. Many societies traditionally practiced cannibalism, slavery, and, as you mentioned, tribal warfare. That doesn't mean that we should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 >From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...> >> So isn't the " state " or the " city " kind of the only extension >> we have of that? > >No. Community is the logical extension. The reason that this sort of >thing worked back then is that everyone knew everyone else. People >helped each other out and traded favors, and this strengthened the sense >of community. " Community " works when it is small. The cantons in Switzerland work like that. The cities in Switzerland don't. So if you REALLY want community, you need to go to a city/state and get rid of so much dependence on cars. Actually, rezoning towns would help a LOT. I have not seen any real communities spring up in the city though. Have you? I mean communities that actually help each other through difficulties? There are some communes around here that work like that, usually religiously inclined. But they are usually built around car-less designs. I just KNOW you are going to blame the breakdown of community on government handouts. But this ignores history. The first slums came into being with the first cities and the first sweatshops. The cities became horridly infested places, and this started well before " big government " , even Dickens complained about it. People were dying in the streets, tuberculosis was rampant. Slums existed in ancient times too, whenever people got too crowded. So if you really want a community, make a plan to get some folks living in a small, rural community with land to farm, and get rid of cities. >> Really, the " family " isn't enough to be stable, you need a larger >group. > >It was for my family, and for Chris's, and for most of my friends', and >for countless other families. If it's not good enough for you, and you >want to ask your friends and neighbors for help, that's fine. If you and >some of your neighbors want to pay the old lady next door to watch your >children after school, I think that's great (just watch out for the >zoning Nazis). This would work in the old days. Every single person (even the old ladies) are pretty much " at work " now during they day, or else they are ill or taking care of the ill. Back when I was a kid, yeah, there were neighbor ladies at home. But we were just talking about how low-paying jobs require 2 incomes, right? BTW Mcs is hiring retirees now. When I was having problems, my Mom was nursing my grandma (90+) for 6 years and couldn't leave the house for any length of time. Then she nursed my Dad for 6 years. Everyone else was working. >If you were in a bad situation through little or no fault >of your own and asked nicely, I'd be happy to pitch in, especially if I >weren't already being robbed blind by the state (just to give you an >idea of where I'm coming from, I spend as much money on taxes as I do on >everything else combined). But if some self-righteous loser tries to >tell me that he has a right to force me to help him deal with the >consequences of the poor choices he's made in his own life, then I'll >tell him to go to Hell. I reserve the right to be charitable on my own >terms. Spoken like a true self-starter. I hope when you do get disabled by something or another you have lots of folks willing to pitch in and have extra time or money to do so, and that you have savings to make your rent/house payments. > >Just out of curiosity, why do you go camping at a private campground >instead of a public one? Actually, I don't, but I have a friend who does. She has a timeshare. Because it has a swimming pool, community center etc. We have other friends that do public camping. I used to do backpacking in woods, which is more my speed, prior to having little kids to deal with! The private campgrounds are nice for the RV/Trailer crowd -- it isn't really " camping " in the sense I think of it, but a lot of people enjoy it (maybe because of the community? It's like being in a village, sort of). >Anyway, it's not the same thing. I'm a big supporter of use fees, >because they're the only truly fair way to pay for services, but taxes >aren't use fees. First of all, you have no choice regarding which >services you want to purchase from the government. They make you an >offer you can't refuse, and you take what they give you. Part of that is the SIZE of our govt. When it started out, it was small. Like the Cantons in Switzerland. So people felt like they had more control, which is really the whole issue here. If everyone can vote, and everyone knows everyone, you can be a community. Something the scale of our country can't be a community. But something the scale of a Canton can't negotiate trade agreements or build superhighways either. There certainly needs to be a balance. But again, if the government isn't controlled by " the people " then the government will be controlled by corporations, oligarchies, or warlords. You want control: well guess what, the oligarchies and corporations want control too! Human history is about guys jostling for power, and the founding fathers understood that, having suffered under a crazy king or two and some religious power struggles. This ideal of " small government " will create a power vacuum and the biggest and baddest will step in to take it. Which is really what " small gov't " means to the groups funding it's promotion. It means power to the international corporations. >Second, what >you pay has no relation whatsoever to what you receive. They just take >whatever they think they can get away with. Moreover, only a small >percentage of my taxes go towards things which I actually consider >worthwhile. All in all, government is a huge net loss for me. The >Mafia's protection racket is a far more accurate analogy. Well, I keep hearing people say " I'm not involved in politics " or " I don't know anything about politic " . Cute. So yeah, you get what you get. In this area a lot of citizens DO make their voices heard, get stuff on the ballot, and change things. Some Internet groups are doing that too. If YOU aren't out lobbying, Enron and Darigold and Butterball and all the rest of them sure are, so you get what they lobby for. >Aside from issues of justice and morality, there's also the issue of >effectiveness. If you want to see a true testament to the effectiveness >of all these great government programs, all you need to do is visit an >Indian reservation or an urban housing project. Well, there have been successes and failures, but the Indians were a case of pillage straight out! Still are, in fact. One could make the case that the " urban poor " weren't handled well in part because white folk don't understand black folk very well too. Programs that help white folk, for some reason, always work better amazingly enough. If you want to see some successes, look at the current lack of people dying in the streets, massive tuburculosis outbreaks, lack of starving people, ghetto kids who get into college, preschool programs, public libraries, parks, national parks, the highway system and streets (compare them to those in any other part of the world), the police and fire departments (when was the last time a whole city burned?) earthquake laws (we had a NASTY earthquake and only 50 people died, where similar ones took out 10,000 people or more in India, Turkey, or Russia). Actually I also see successes in my son's progress (who gets a therapist weekly, something I would never have even THOUGHT of) and the fact the power comes on in 5 hours or so after a tree falls on the line. You might also consider that this " Net " we are communicating on was funded by the government (and still is, largely, using university computers). And the technology for the " computer age " was largely developed by NASA as part of the " race to space " and therefore was public property which industry snapped up, free, and launched the US as the leader in " technology " . And, if you went to college, that was probably funded at least in part by tax dollars. I go to the library a lot, and that is all funded by tax dollars (I don't pay a cent for that). We also go to a nice park by the lake, even though I can't afford lakefront property and probably never will, and we fish (stocked by the city) and BBQ. I used to hike on trails kept up by tax funds too, and we do go to tax-funded beaches. I use tax-funded websites to get all kinds of information and check on traffic conditions. My energy-efficient home was built with gov't tax loans too. So if you take advantage of any of those things, and don't pay taxes, then who is the moocher here? -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 >Heidi wrote: >>But from the debate here, it may not be the " rights of a >minority " . > >Sure it is-- you were referring to the 1/4 of the population with low-paying jobs. 1/4 is a minority. Moreover, the percentage of that 1/4 who are people trying to raise families makes it an even smaller minority. Ok, it's a minority. A big minority though. Do you really think 1/4 of the folk in the US are high school kids living with their parents? Even if they were living on their own WITHOUT kids, those jobs are just skimming by, esp. in high-rent areas. > Child-rearing patterns have varied widely across time and space but I don't see the point. *WE* have a culture and society based on the idea of the family unit as the fundamental unit. Most people subscribe to that. Could it be changed? Sure. But most people aren't interested in changing it, and people have a right participate in society in the ways they see fit, providing they aren't infringing on anyone elses right to do so. The point is, that it's next to impossible for it to really work without gov't intervention. It will work IF you are lucky and nothing bad hapens. There is no safety net. The nuclear family is a historical aberration just like grain fed beef is. We have chosen to do both, but that doesn't mean the WORK. > >>So isn't the " state " or the " city " kind of the only extension >>we have of that? > >I think they aren't even remotely comparable. States arose when the type of society you're talking about declined. States arose, historically, when one warlord got bigger and badder than his competitors, and took their kids or relatives " captive " in court. The communities survived a long time, until people moved to the cities, where they couldn't grow food. Of course the people in the countries had problems too, because the warlords took a lot of their produce in " tribute " . The warlords didn't provide much in the way of " government " -- people could do what they wanted, mostly -- but they didn't get schools or police departments and they still had to pay taxes, and provide sons for cannon fodder. Then you have the pre-new-deal era, which is really what a lot of folks are thinking of when they say " small government " -- and you have the robber barons, sweat shops, and slums. Is there an example of a country with " small government " and local rule and no " programs " and no taxes? I can't think of any. Switzerland is as close to an ideal as I can think of, but they DO have plenty of taxes and programs. Well, I'll defer to 's answer. It suffices for many, and there are all sorts of other " larger groups. " I participate in non-state " larger groups " all the time. Hmm. Who is paying for your college, may I ask? Is it completely privately funded? Is you family paying all the tuition? Is it private or public? -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 In a message dated 12/4/03 7:17:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > Hmm. Who is paying for your college, may I ask? Is it completely privately > funded? Is you family paying all the tuition? Is it private or public? Nope I think it's pretty much fully funded by the government, sort of. They don't like funding college anymore. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.