Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 That is a good point but it is not so simple. It presupposes that people are in such situations because of decisions and choices of their own making and it is therefore their own fault. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. But sometimes people end up in bad circumstances because of things that have nothing to do with them. For instance, who has the responsibility when a factory closes in a one factory town? It is usually not the workers, the decision to close rarely has anything to do with them. But a town can rarely recover in such a situation. It would not be fair to say well they should have made better choices. Is it the factory, CEO? Stock holders? Is it the legislators that voted for GATT and NAFTA or those of us who voted for them? It is certainly reasonable to think a group of such people should fight to keep from losing their jobs but what about the rest of us? Are we shirking our responsibility when we ignore these economic issues because they don't affect us directly? Some people think it is fine to export jobs to countries paying $0.25 per day so the rest of us can have cheap T-shirts. But if that is really a policy we support, can we really say that the workers situation has nothing to do with us? Irene At 10:32 AM 12/4/03, you wrote: >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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 >> 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 So is gov't funding for college something you consider " good " or " bad " ? Should a communty create and provide it's own college? -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 4, 2003 Report Share Posted December 4, 2003 Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>: > So is gov't funding for college something you consider " good " > or " bad " ? Should a communty create and provide it's own > college? I can't speak for but as I mentioned before, it's something that I consider bad, not only because of its unfairness, but also because of its disastrous consequences. College education can be very rewarding, but it's not for everyone. It's very expensive, and it takes the student out of the workforce for as much as 10% of his productive life. For many people, the increase in productivity and income potential justifies this investment, but for just as many people, it doesn't. Furthermore, at the age of eighteen, many people just aren't mature enough to make the most of college. For the ambitious young adult who isn't cut out for college, or who just isn't ready, a trade school or apprenticeship may be much more appropriate. There are many well-paying and perfectly respectable occupations which don't require a college education, including plumbing, electrical installation, auto mechanics, computer repair, and high-end food preparation. The problems with government funding of college are numerous. First, because students are often not bearing the full cost of their educations, they're less apt to take it seriously and put in the full effort necessary to do well. Furthermore, this reduces the incentive for schools to keep costs down. It also reduces the incentive for students to choose majors which will give them marketable skills. I've brought up this point before--how many students do you think would be majoring in Ethnic Studies or Linguistics if they were footing the bill themselves? It's not that I necessarily think that these are useless subjects--it's just that we really don't need that many experts in Art History, and many students choose these majors not because they are serious about them and have something to contribute, but because they want to avoid the rigors of the more practical subjects. For those students who can't pay for college out of pocket, there are loans available. I know that government subsidies makes student loans cheaper and more accessible. I strongly disagree that this is a good thing. Students who do well in high school and can demonstrate that their college plans will ready them for productive careers--that is, those in whom banks would be wise to invest--should have no problems finding loans on the free market. Those who cannot do this, or who do not think that the education is worth the debt, need to think long and hard about whether they're ready for college, and we, as taxpayers, need to think long and hard about whether expending the tremendous resources necessary to send these students to college is a wise investment. Of course, there are some fields of study, many of which have great social value, which simply cannot be justified as commercial investments. I submit that rather than government paying the tuition for those who choose to study these fields, which brings us back to all the problems I mentioned above, scholarships for these students be funded through charitable donations. This system would ensure that the resources needed to fund education in these fields are diverted to the best students, who have the most to contribute to these fields and who are most likely to put in the effort necessary to get the most out of it. We may disagree about the importance of a steady supply of Social Welfare majors, but I think we can all agree that there are better uses of taxpayers' money than paying for a mediocre student to major in Peace and Conflict Studies (I swear I'm not making this up--they have it at UC Berkeley) because the high workload of the electrical engineering cirriculum interfered with his busy party schedule. -- Berg bberg@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 >(I swear I'm not >making this up--they have it at UC Berkeley) because the high >workload of >the electrical engineering cirriculum interfered with his >busy party >schedule. I worked with a lot of engineering majors at UMass. It seemed they were all disproportionately acid-heads tripping out every weekend. I don't know how they pulled off the good grades, but they seemed to party more than everyone else, and still land $50,000/yr jobs right out of undergrad with the company paying for grad school. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 You idea however gives a lot of power to the " investing class " . I mean they get to decide who gets to go to college and to some degree what they study. Why should investors make those decisions? Do they have a superior wisdom in this regard? It almost sounds like a capitalst version of central planning. We actually have this situation to some extent. Pharmceutical companies give huge amounts of money to medical schoos as grants. This isn't money directly to med students but does subsidize their studies indirectly. Of course by giving so much money to schools, they want (and get) a say in the curriculum. This is in large part why MD's are so focused on drugs and biased against non drug therapies. As far as charities go, we just simply disagree on how much they can do. Irene At 11:46 PM 12/4/03, you wrote: >Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>: > > So is gov't funding for college something you consider " good " > > or " bad " ? Should a communty create and provide it's own > > college? > >I can't speak for but as I mentioned before, it's something that I >consider bad, not only because of its unfairness, but also because of its >disastrous consequences. College education can be very rewarding, but it's >not for everyone. It's very expensive, and it takes the student out of the >workforce for as much as 10% of his productive life. For many people, the >increase in productivity and income potential justifies this investment, >but for just as many people, it doesn't. Furthermore, at the age of >eighteen, many people just aren't mature enough to make the most of >college. > >For the ambitious young adult who isn't cut out for college, or who just >isn't ready, a trade school or apprenticeship may be much more appropriate. >There are many well-paying and perfectly respectable occupations which >don't require a college education, including plumbing, electrical >installation, auto mechanics, computer repair, and high-end food >preparation. > >The problems with government funding of college are numerous. First, because >students are often not bearing the full cost of their educations, they're >less apt to take it seriously and put in the full effort necessary to do >well. Furthermore, this reduces the incentive for schools to keep costs >down. It also reduces the incentive for students to choose majors which >will give them marketable skills. I've brought up this point before--how >many students do you think would be majoring in Ethnic Studies or >Linguistics if they were footing the bill themselves? It's not that I >necessarily think that these are useless subjects--it's just that we really >don't need that many experts in Art History, and many students choose these >majors not because they are serious about them and have something to >contribute, but because they want to avoid the rigors of the more practical >subjects. > >For those students who can't pay for college out of pocket, there are loans >available. I know that government subsidies makes student loans cheaper and >more accessible. I strongly disagree that this is a good thing. Students >who do well in high school and can demonstrate that their college plans >will ready them for productive careers--that is, those in whom banks would >be wise to invest--should have no problems finding loans on the free >market. Those who cannot do this, or who do not think that the education is >worth the debt, need to think long and hard about whether they're ready for >college, and we, as taxpayers, need to think long and hard about whether >expending the tremendous resources necessary to send these students to >college is a wise investment. > >Of course, there are some fields of study, many of which have great social >value, which simply cannot be justified as commercial investments. I submit >that rather than government paying the tuition for those who choose to >study these fields, which brings us back to all the problems I mentioned >above, scholarships for these students be funded through charitable >donations. This system would ensure that the resources needed to fund >education in these fields are diverted to the best students, who have the >most to contribute to these fields and who are most likely to put in the >effort necessary to get the most out of it. We may disagree about the >importance of a steady supply of Social Welfare majors, but I think we can >all agree that there are better uses of taxpayers' money than paying for a >mediocre student to major in Peace and Conflict Studies (I swear I'm not >making this up--they have it at UC Berkeley) because the high workload of >the electrical engineering cirriculum interfered with his busy party >schedule. > >-- > Berg >bberg@... > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 Irene wrote: >You idea however gives a lot of power to the " investing >class " . I mean they >get to decide who gets to go to college and to some degree >what they study. >Why should investors make those decisions? Do they have a >superior wisdom >in this regard? They may or may not have superior wisdom (though if the person's goal is to make a choice that will maximize their potential to earn money, yes, they probably have vastly superior wisdom), but they do have an incentive to offer loans to people who will use them. As it is now, as pointed out, many or most folks are sloppy with their education, go to college before they have a clear idea what they want out of it, probably even graduate under the same condition, and choose majors that offer both them and society comparatively little benefit. Part of the reason " they " should have this power is because they have the money for it. As it is now, money is extracted by force and more or less thrown away. I think education is valuable, and most people do, and yeah, I'm willing to pay some money for eveyrone to have the chance, but I'd prefer my money not be wasted, and I think it essentially is when anyone can go to college for whatever they want with whatever kind of performance they want. Most people go to college for the social atmosphere and spend their time getting drunk. I mean literally most. That's fine, but why should we finance it for tax dollars? Why can't they sneak behind their parents while living at home, save their own money for kegs, find their own over-21-year-old to assist them, and have their parties in the woods like the rest of us had to do? > It almost sounds like a capitalst version of >central >planning. Not really. Have you ever looked at a directory of scholarships? Scholarship providers must number in at least the tens of thousands, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were hundreds of thousands. Now their offered through internet directories. Private money provisions for education are very, very decentralized. >As far as charities go, we just simply disagree on how much >they can do. Charities obviously can't do much when people who would otherwise donate to them are forcefully required to donate an entire half of their income to the government, compared to otherwise. But I think people are overlooking that people in any of the given " unnecessary fields " have an interest in providing the continuance of that field. For example, art. Numerous kinds of artists make enormous sums of money, and artists will generally provide funding to blooming artists if they have the opportunity to do so. There are lots of foundations to give scholarships to people within the fields that the donators/organizers work in. Writers for example have writing contests for writing scholarships, etc. It seems a reasonable assumption that if people a) had more disposable income available to donate and saw a need for these donations, rather than believed someone else was taking care of it, even more of this sort of support would occur. Granted, it would be more merit-based than the current system. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 In a message dated 12/5/03 4:24:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > As for the emotional maturity > of 18 year olds, I agree with you there. I started college when I was 16. No wonder I wound up with a useless history degree :-P Or maybe that was the vegetarianism. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2003 Report Share Posted December 5, 2003 >For those students who can't pay for college out of pocket, there are loans >available. I know that government subsidies makes student loans cheaper and >more accessible. I strongly disagree that this is a good thing. Students >who do well in high school and can demonstrate that their college plans >will ready them for productive careers--that is, those in whom banks would >be wise to invest--should have no problems finding loans on the free >market. That can be an argument against public loans ... but i misses the point. Back before the gov't got involved, ONLY rich kids went to school. Private schools are immensely expensive, and student loans are really risky. I'm not sure there are any universities or colleges that do NOT use gov't funds now. Surely their research departments do. I went to school on " corporate money " (my employer paid for it) but it was also at a Comp Sci dept that was heavily gov't funded, and one of the best in the world. Of course if the Universities are only funded by corporations, that will be REALLY good for the corporations. They can crank out all kinds of studies about why saturated fat is bad and soy is good and why Mc's is the best choice for working Moms. Anyway, it's been a great investment for the US -- we have some of the best scientists and researchers and doctors etc. in the world, and that's why folks from other countries come here to study. I sure can't see how it is " disasterous " . As for the emotional maturity of 18 year olds, I agree with you there. I like the Swiss system where everyone serves 2 years in the army (or other useful work that is very structured) before they do anything else. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 --- ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > In a message dated 12/2/03 8:01:15 PM Eastern > > But thanks to all for the descriptions, as I was > initially wondering how > people end up not living near family, not just > making a political point. I left home to go to University, and stayed there - been here 11 years now. My brother stayed fairly local to home, and lives in london (200 miles away from me). But, my dad is a contractor, and moved to where the work was. He lived away a lot while I was a teenager, just coming home at weekends, or less if he lived abroad. When my youngest brother left home, my mum moved to be with my dad: Munich in Germany. Then my younger bro. moved to Munich to live with them, and is still there. Meanwhile, my dad retired, and for tax reasons, can't return to the UK so my parents moved to France. There are disadvangtages to this familial situation: when my Nan fell ill and was housebound, I was her closest relative - a 3 hour drive away (my older bro. was living in Canada for a year at that time). My mum visited her from Munich once or twice a month, and felt tremendously guilty that she couldn't be there more. It's 6 years since all 5 of us spent Christmas day together. This year, I can't afford to go to France where everyone else will be, and that makes me very sad because in my 30 years, I've never had Christmas away from my parents. Some time in the next year or 2, I'd like to start a family. I won't have my parents to rely on for babysitting, so will have to make the choice between childcare with strangers, or giving up my way of life which is only possible because I work. It also means being much more tied to the home as I don't have family to babysit if I want to go out with my husband on an evening. So yes, it's a pity that we all live so far apart, but each of us is happy where we are. Jo ________________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger now for a chance to win Live At Knebworth DVDs http://www..co.uk/robbiewilliams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 At 09:09 PM 12/6/2003 +0000, you wrote: > --- ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > In a message >dated 12/2/03 8:01:15 PM Eastern >> >> But thanks to all for the descriptions, as I was >> initially wondering how >> people end up not living near family, not just >> making a political point. Myself and my 3 siblings have not moved away from the county we were born in. l was the only college material then, 20 years back for all of us. Could have gone to private prep high school for just the cost of books as l passed the test and tuition was waived for residents. Parents couldn't afford them even though l worked summers starting at 12 picking cucumbers so l could buy my own school clothes and help parents toward other 3. Was supporting a family when my schoolmates graduated from high school. Thats an education in itself. We've all been able to find jobs in this area that give us ample support to our standards, basic dignities of life. Wasn't about being near family, more where comfortable and none have gone to college. Oldest daughter and stepdaughter are first college graduates. It seems that in a lot of cases following the work even after a college education is common because specialties aren't available everywhere whereas multiple abilities leave more advantage in one area. Somewhat of a New England jack of all trades quality. Not so common anymore. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 --- Berg <bberg@...> wrote: > > Furthermore, at the age of > eighteen, many people just aren't mature enough to > make the most of > college. Surely it also follows then that they are not mature enough for the world of work/career where they will have a great deal more responsibility put on them than they have in college? It also reduces the incentive for students to > choose majors which > will give them marketable skills. I've brought up > this point before--how > many students do you think would be majoring in > Ethnic Studies or > Linguistics if they were footing the bill > themselves? It's not that I > necessarily think that these are useless > subjects--it's just that we really > don't need that many experts in Art History, and > many students choose these > majors not because they are serious about them and > have something to > contribute, but because they want to avoid the > rigors of the more practical > subjects. One of the KEY mistakes that 18 year olds make when choosing a degree is to choose one which they believe gives them marketable skills, rather than one on a topic which they enjoy and are good at. I made this mistake. My brother made this mistake too. We both left our courses without entering the second year (I did start a new course which I followed full term). There are so many first-year drop outs because people realise they made the wrong choice. (It's not the only reason of course). And choosing a career such as plumbing, computer repair, electrical installation etc which doesn't need a degree carries the same risk: if you are just not suited to this type of practical work and are bad at it, then you will not be successful or happy, regardless of whether everyone else makes a success of it or not. Art History and Linguistics may not be vocational, but if people choose them because they are very interested in the subject, they will work hard at them and leave university with a good qualification. Many employers are more interested in the ability of a graduate to apply themselves, and the transferable skills learned, rather than the actual topic of the degree being an exact match for the job anyway. A quick note about the higher education system in the UK: most students finish university (3 or 4 year courses) with a debt of around £15,000. That's the likely wage they'll receive in their first job. It can take several years to get a wage that is significantly more than that. ATM, students pay £1000 per year in fees. This is about to go up to £3000 per year in some universities. So the debt will be significantly higher. The average price of a house for first time buyers is £104,000 (or thereabouts IIRC). The chances of a graduate being able to buy a house before he's 35 is pretty low. Unless he buys a house with his partner, and between them they can afford a mortgage to buy a house at this price. But then, if it takes 2 salaries to afford a mortgage to buy a house, when they start a family they will both have to continue working, putting the children in childcare. Which ties in nicely with the other topic in this thread.... Jo ________________________________________________________________________ BT Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. http://uk.rd./evt=21064/*http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 Heidi- > I'm not sure there are any universities or colleges >that do NOT use gov't funds now. Surely their research >departments do. In fact, the use of public money in university research is a shining example of what's wrong with the pure libertarian viewpoint: in the last ten years, university research into pharmaceuticals has declined enormously, the pharmaceutical industry has taken to using CROs (contract research organizations), which are companies explicitly set up to give industry the research it wants. The result is a decline in public health and increased health care costs. An industry even further unchecked by government and civilian oversight would be even worse, not better. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 ote: >Surely it also follows then that they are not mature >enough for the world of work/career where they will >have a great deal more responsibility put on them than >they have in college? I like the Swiss system: put the kids in a REALLY structured environment for a couple of years while they grow up, away from their parents. Actually I've heard that for inner-city kids, the army is wonderful for " character " -- they tend to escape the drug/gang problems of their home town. Of course the army would be a better choice if we didn't go fighting these darn wars. > The average price of a house for first time buyers is >£104,000 (or thereabouts IIRC). The chances of a >graduate being able to buy a house before he's 35 is >pretty low. Unless he buys a house with his partner, >and between them they can afford a mortgage to buy a >house at this price. But then, if it takes 2 salaries >to afford a mortgage to buy a house, when they start a >family they will both have to continue working, >putting the children in childcare. Which ties in >nicely with the other topic in this thread.... That is one of the bigger differences between the US and Europe. Here there is a much bigger gap between the highest paying and lowest paying jobs. So my friend the engineer, lived at home while going to college, and bought a house his first year on the job. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2003 Report Share Posted December 6, 2003 >An industry even further unchecked by government and civilian oversight >would be even worse, not better. > >- I completely agree. I really don't like the gov't in my business either, and I like streamlined regulations and all the rest and I used to think I was a libertarian. But recent events have convinced me that the real danger is the robber-baron, the power grab ... the Founding Fathers had it right, you need to balance all the folks in their self-interest! Some of those corporations are funding " think tanks " now to come up with the appropriate " spin " on some of these issues, and they are doing a darn good job of it too. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jo, In response to your comparison of student loan debt and housing costs, a decent education costs at least as much as a decent home. That would be clear in student loan costs in Britain if the government didn't pay for most of the school. In America, you'd get out of a state university with $20,000 in debt providing you made enough money not to get government grants, and perhaps $6,000 if you did, and if you got grants and lived and home rather than in a dorm, you might get out with no debt at all or maybe $3,000. But, also in America, if you go to a private college, without grants or scholarships, you'll get out between $120,000 and $160,000 in the hole, the former of which is the cost of a decent home in a decent neighborhood. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 In a message dated 12/7/03 4:11:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > the Founding Fathers had it right, you > need to balance all the folks in their self-interest! Heidi, I'm not sure to what you are referring. Most of the Founding Fathers seemed to me to have a pretty " libertarian " view. The views they expressed while forming the Constitution were the exact OPPOSITE of what you say above. They were very afraid of such " balancing " and mistakenly thought Shay's Rebellion was an attempt at land reform. The Constitution was explicitly derived solely for the sake of preventing various forms of property redistribution, and protecting the commercial class from the " oppression " of the " landed class, " which they saw as being composed of most of the population. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 In a message dated 12/7/03 4:40:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, heidis@... writes: > I mean Congress, Judicial, Administration. They were very much > afraid of having a king, Actually, quite a few of those " Fathers " who formed the Constitution wanted to have as close to a king as they could get. Popular opinion wouldn't allow one, though. Others, like Madison, were definitely anti-king. or of having the Church have too > much influence. They didn't really have the issues with mega-corporations > at the time, but they tried their darndest to " separate and balance " powers, > between the 3 arms of gov't, and between state and nation, and > between church and state. They didn't have corporations, but they certainly had rich people and commercial interests. Many of the agrarian folks were against the commercial interests, and complained of being oppressed by them, like people do now, but the Founding Fathers were primarily concerned with what they thought were attempts at redistributive justice which amounted, to them, to oppression of the haves by the have-nots. This was the single driving force behind the Constitution. If there was no Shay's Rebellion, there would be no Constitution. Shay's Rebellion in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with redistribution of property and in fact was NOT participated in by indebted farmers, (lots of rich people though! inlcuding all of emily dickinson's family), but was a rebellion against the Massachussetts Constitution which was fraudulently adopted against the will of the people, and the Rebels favored smaller gov't and more local control. The state of MA lied and made a propaganda campaign saying it was indebted farmers looking for land reform, and Henry Knox convinced Washington to attend the Constitutional Convention because these rebels were going to get rid of private property. That's the only reason Washington went, and it was considered vital to the passage of the Constitution that he be there. There were definitely concerns about balances of power, but that was primarily driven by fear that " an excess of democracy " such as they'd seen would take place through the House of Representatives, which would favor oppression of " the minority of the opulent " by the majority, so the balances had to be there to prevent the kinds of things you are advocating, such as redistributive mechanisms and regulations. > They might have been libertarians in the sense I used to believe > in, but they certainly wouldn't have allowed corporate control > of the government. Nor would any modern-day libertarian, which is quite clear if you read anything whatsoever they write. Just read the Wall Street Journal. They bash corporations all the time. > I don't think you would either, actually, No, I don't think I would. I just think that's the danger of some of the current thinking. > I keep hearing the extremes espoused, between the " nanny state " > and basically " no " state, and really, what I think works is a kind > of middle ground. I dont' have very strong opinions either way, but I lean somewhat towards no state. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 In a message dated 12/7/03 4:41:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, jopollack2001@... writes: > Not sure what they do in Switzerland, but in the UK we > used to have National Service - all men had serve in > the armed forces for a year. It was abolished in the > 70s. However, they were 18 or more before they signed > up. We can't do that hear because it violates the Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Heidi- I don't know anything about the Swiss system, but I couldn't support a universal (even if temporary) removal of kids from their parents, and people will never accept that en masse either. It's just not in line with human nature. >I like the Swiss system: put the kids in a REALLY >structured environment for a couple of years >while they grow up, away from their parents. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Heidi- Those think tanks are big business all by themselves, and the lines between " think tanks " and lobbying organizations are blurring to the point of nonexistence. >Some of those corporations are funding " think tanks " now >to come up with the appropriate " spin " on some of these >issues, and they are doing a darn good job of it too. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 In a message dated 12/7/03 5:45:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Huh? The fourth is about searches and seizures and whatnot, and by any > reasonable standard the seizures part is being violated left and right > nowadays. Oh geez, was I way off. I'd looked this up six or seven years ago, and somehow jumbled this up in my mind to being a memory of the fourth ammendment. Just took a look, and I was thinking of the 13th ammendment! lol! Well, " involuntary servitude " would presumably be prohibited in the public sphere as well as the private. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 >Most of the Founding Fathers seemed >to me to have a pretty " libertarian " view. The views they expressed while >forming the Constitution were the exact OPPOSITE of what you say above. I mean Congress, Judicial, Administration. They were very much afraid of having a king, or of having the Church have too much influence. They didn't really have the issues with mega-corporations at the time, but they tried their darndest to " separate and balance " powers, between the 3 arms of gov't, and between state and nation, and between church and state. They might have been libertarians in the sense I used to believe in, but they certainly wouldn't have allowed corporate control of the government. I don't think you would either, actually, I just think that's the danger of some of the current thinking. I keep hearing the extremes espoused, between the " nanny state " and basically " no " state, and really, what I think works is a kind of middle ground. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 --- Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > Heidi- > > I don't know anything about the Swiss system, but I > couldn't support a > universal (even if temporary) removal of kids from > their parents, and > people will never accept that en masse either. It's > just not in line with > human nature. > Not sure what they do in Switzerland, but in the UK we used to have National Service - all men had serve in the armed forces for a year. It was abolished in the 70s. However, they were 18 or more before they signed up. Jo ________________________________________________________________________ BT Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be. http://uk.rd./evt=21064/*http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Jo- Universal military service for adults is a separate issue, though, not like taking young kids away for years. >Not sure what they do in Switzerland, but in the UK we >used to have National Service - all men had serve in >the armed forces for a year. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2003 Report Share Posted December 7, 2003 Chris- Huh? The fourth is about searches and seizures and whatnot, and by any reasonable standard the seizures part is being violated left and right nowadays. >We can't do that hear because it violates the Fourth Ammendment to the >Constitution. - 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.