Re: interesting little tidbit about our cheap food

[Guest guest]

:

>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

That's my boy right there!!!

--- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...>

wrote:

>

> alot of smart stuff about economics ...

[Guest guest]

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???

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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@...

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

<<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.

[Guest guest]

<<> 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

[Guest guest]

Quoting Kathy <kacheson@...>:

> Incidentally getting pregnant while in the military is very very common.

Especially for women.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

--- 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. :-)

[Guest guest]

>>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

----- 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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

<<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.

[Guest guest]

<<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

[Guest guest]

----- 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.

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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