Re: interesting little tidbit about our cheap food

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>> 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

[Guest guest]

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@...

[Guest guest]

>(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

[Guest guest]

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@...

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

--- 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- 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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

--- 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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

-