Re: interesting little tidbit about our cheap food

[Guest guest]

Chris-

On one hand, you'd seem to be right, but on the other, we've had the draft

and we may have it again.

>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.

-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

> >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.

>

> 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 to mention the apparent premise behind the idea, which is that the

state owns its citizens, and is perfectly within its rights to force

them into slave labor if it is deemed necessary for their or its

benefit. I find it absolutely appalling when people suggest that we

institute some sort of mandatory period of " national service " as an

" alternative " to the draft. It's one thing (although certainly not one

with which I agree) to require military service when it's essential for

national security, but quite another just to enslave people to teach

them a civic lesson (which begs the question of exactly what that lesson

is). It's a horrible mess from an economic perspective, too. You just

know that they're going to have the top students wasting their time

cleaning up graffiti or working in soup kitchens.

[Guest guest]

>Not to mention the apparent premise behind the idea, which is that the

>state owns its citizens, and is perfectly within its rights to force

>them into slave labor if it is deemed necessary for their or its

>benefit

In the case of the Swiss, I think it sprang from community

spirit. The Cantons are in these valleys with a narrow entrance

often -- easily defended. Historically, it is the job of the menfolk

to defend their town. Kind of like a militia. My teacher felt

it was the duty of every man to defend the passes -- they didn't

have the feeling they would ever fight unless it was to defend

their land.

Also, he felt he should know how to handle weaponry and

other equipment ... if a flood came, or whatever, the militia

would be the people who saved the town. I really like

the concept -- it's taking control of your own region

and defense, not relying on the " nation " . I'd think the Libertarians

would like the idea! The men in the town knew where the hidden

caches of dynamite were, to blow the passes, and each owned

a nice rifle at home just in case.

As for how voluntary it was, that's a good question. Like I said,

the whole country was a lot more structured than here,

and a lot of " duties " seemed taken for granted. More like the

Chinese guy, " What is personal opinion? "

I speak as a person who wasted the first two years of college

also -- I think a kid does better with some kind of structured

" thing " (be it a job, army, walkabout, exchange program, whatever)

for some designated period of time as a transition between

school and adulthood. In my day we were expected to go straight

to college, and as mentions, that I think can be a mistake.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> >Not to mention the apparent premise behind the idea, which is

> >that the state owns its citizens, and is perfectly within its

> >rights to force them into slave labor if it is deemed necessary

> >for their or its benefit

>

> In the case of the Swiss, I think it sprang from community

> spirit.

The implication of " it sprang from community spirit " is

that it was voluntary, and thus not as terrible a thing

as notes above, but if it were truly voluntary,

there'd be no need for laws to enforce it. More importantly,

whether _most_ Swiss willingly comply with such practices,

which the above also implies, or not, it's not possible that

_every_ Swiss citizen does, in which case those that do not

are being violated.

> The Cantons are in these valleys with a narrow entrance

> often -- easily defended. Historically, it is the job of the

> menfolk to defend their town. Kind of like a militia. My teacher

> felt it was the duty of every man to defend the passes -- they

> didn't have the feeling they would ever fight unless it was to

> defend their land.

>

> Also, he felt he should know how to handle weaponry and

> other equipment ... if a flood came, or whatever, the militia

> would be the people who saved the town. I really like the

> concept -- it's taking control of your own region and defense,

> not relying on the " nation " . I'd think the Libertarians

> would like the idea! The men in the town knew where the hidden

> caches of dynamite were, to blow the passes, and each owned

> a nice rifle at home just in case.

As a libertarian I do like the idea, though not as you report

it here - restricted to the men. I know you're just reporting,

but I have to wonder at your failure to betray even the least

indignation at the blatantly sexist division of labor.

> As for how voluntary it was, that's a good question.

I think it's the only question, and one to which we know the

answer, because it isn't possible that there aren't at least

a few people who do not voluntarily comply.

> Like I said, the whole country was a lot more structured than

> here, and a lot of " duties " seemed taken for granted. More like

> the Chinese guy, " What is personal opinion? "

Then I think Switzerland is not the ideal place it's often

made out to be after all.

[Guest guest]

> but quite another just to enslave people to teach

>them a civic lesson (which begs the question of exactly what that lesson

>is). It's a horrible mess from an economic perspective, too. You just

>know that they're going to have the top students wasting their time

>cleaning up graffiti or working in soup kitchens.

,

Do agree on this being void of choice. Don't agree that intelligence

somehow exempts some individuals from possibly learning basic life skills

like cleaning and cooking they may not have had prior experience doing. Not

only are there lessons in self and future family care. There are lessons in

the diversity and extremes of that culture.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/03 5:17:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

> Because you _ought_ to. If not you then, did not someone

> else in your class, at least, not call your teacher on his

> sexism?

Well I don't care either and all my teachers were feminists.

> >Do you think I am indignant they my DH does all the chainsaw and

> >gravel work at my house?

>

> Your _husband_ ought to be indignant if he truly is being

> assigned the worst jobs based on his gender.

How do you know he doesn't like those jobs?

> I'm very

> proud that I was raised this way, and think that every child

> deserves to be raised with such a neutral view of gender.

That only works if the man likes to iron and the woman likes to cut trees

down. Not every man likes cooking, and not every woman likes assembling hot

rods, and vice versa. I personally love to cook, so if I were married I'd

probably do at least half the cooking, but if my future wife hates to cook I'll

probably do almost all of it, or if I happened to hate cooking while she loves

cooking, she would probably do all of it.

If > there are some tendencies innate to gender, so be it, but why

> lend any more weight to those tendencies than " Nature's " own?

You can't attribute to " Nature " the observations you made with your own

parents. There may be no innate gender roles (unlikely), or your parents may

deviate from natural tendencies.

> Many of my nieces

> loved playing with toy guns and swords as much as with dolls.

> Two of my four-year old nephews, who are perpetually covered

> with bruises and scabs from wrestling each other all day, can

> often be seen playing gently with baby dolls, rolling them around

> in strollers, and combing their hair, as well.

And there are also people who try to raise their children to like these

things and they simply won't. I've talked to many a frustrated feminist who

tried

and failed to raise their kids gender-free.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>As a libertarian I do like the idea, though not as you report

>it here - restricted to the men. I know you're just reporting,

>but I have to wonder at your failure to betray even the least

>indignation at the blatantly sexist division of labor.

Hmmm ... why do you think I would have indignation at that? Do

you think I am indignant they my DH does all the chainsaw and gravel

work at my house? My basic " philosophy " if I have one is " pragmatic "

and I reallly to believe in biology. Having a Mom -- esp. one who breastfeeds

---

spending 2 weeks a year playing soldier just doesn't make sense.

Everything I read about the human race indicates that guys are

designed to be warriors (though having a little warrior-training for

girls isn't a bad thing).

I also believe gals " grow up " a lot faster and probably need

less imposed structure to fit into a group. But I'm basing this on

observations, not studies.

BTW I DO believe in equal work for equal pay, and in no way

does this betray my belief in pragmatics. Am I equal to, (or superior)

to most male programmers? You bet! And I'll battle keyboards any

day to prove it!

> > As for how voluntary it was, that's a good question.

>

>I think it's the only question, and one to which we know the

>answer, because it isn't possible that there aren't at least

>a few people who do not voluntarily comply. \

Yep, all the basic questions come down to power over others

and control over ones' own life. People try to get power over you,

and you try to maintain control. That's where small groups function

better than large ones. Though apparently even in chimps, the lower-ranking

males suffer more stress diseases.

> Like I said, the whole country was a lot more structured than

>> here, and a lot of " duties " seemed taken for granted. More like

>> the Chinese guy, " What is personal opinion? "

>

>Then I think Switzerland is not the ideal place it's often

>made out to be after all.

Depends what works for you. People who have strong ties

to their community and little need for " individuality " can be

happier than the " loners " in our culture. I read a great scifi story to

that effect. Basically a sheep is really, really, unhappy without

a flock, and has very little need to be different from other

sheep.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

> Hmmm ... why do you think I would have indignation at that?

Because you _ought_ to. If not you then, did not someone

else in your class, at least, not call your teacher on his

sexism?

> Do you think I am indignant they my DH does all the chainsaw and

> gravel work at my house?

Your _husband_ ought to be indignant if he truly is being

assigned the worst jobs based on his gender.

My mother has done some chainsaw work, and a lot of gravel

work too, as well as house repair, painting, carpentry, lawn

care, etc. My father has also done a lot of housework and

cooking in his day. In fact, in all my time at home I never

once heard my father ask my mother to wash or iron a shirt,

or to make him a snack. She would have to catch him at it

and insist on doing it for him if she did it at all. When

my father was working at lighter jobs and/or my mother was

also working outside the house, he always insisted on

helping with the housework and cooking, and when my father

had his own home-repair business, my mother and I always

helped him out on the bigger jobs. Neither was there ever

any impression that one or the other was the " boss " , they

made all decisions jointly. In fact, it was not until I was

six or seven years old that I had any idea that much of the

rest of the world did differently, and I was very shocked to

learn that many people thought women weren't equal to men.

My father certainly never, even jokingly, gave me such an

impression. My niece was at one point in her life

working two jobs at once, one as an electrician for her

father's company, the other as a fashion model! I'm very

proud that I was raised this way, and think that every child

deserves to be raised with such a neutral view of gender. If

there are some tendencies innate to gender, so be it, but why

lend any more weight to those tendencies than " Nature's " own?

> My basic " philosophy " if I have one is " pragmatic " and I reallly to

> believe in biology. Having a Mom -- esp. one who breastfeeds ---

> spending 2 weeks a year playing soldier just doesn't make sense.

Fine. Give them an exemption until their baby is weaned, then

off to camp with them.

> Everything I read about the human race indicates that guys are

> designed to be warriors (though having a little warrior-training

> for girls isn't a bad thing).

We should never submit to anybody else's design for our life

besides our own, including Nature's design, especially since

Nature has no real design but is merely the outcome of blind

physical processes. I also wonder if you'd still believe this

way if you met my sisters and nieces. Many of my nieces

loved playing with toy guns and swords as much as with dolls.

Two of my four-year old nephews, who are perpetually covered

with bruises and scabs from wrestling each other all day, can

often be seen playing gently with baby dolls, rolling them around

in strollers, and combing their hair, as well. Have you read

about the Sauromatian culture and its female warriors? In any

case, if there really is anything to what you say, then it's a

matter of using as " warriors " , only those people suited or

" designed " for it, and not one of gender, since there is at least

one man in the world not suited for it, and at least one woman

in the world that is. Let all things be decided on an individual

basis rather than on the basis of gender. Should the wrestler

Chyna be excluded from a job as a lumberjack, but not Pee-

Wee Herman, based on the excuse that women are generically

not suited to be lumberjacks? Finally, and most importantly,

why should I, as a male, ever submit to a military draft that

didn't include women?

> I also believe gals " grow up " a lot faster and probably need

> less imposed structure to fit into a group. But I'm basing this on

> observations, not studies.

Let us decide what our young need on an individual basis rather

than on gender. If in the end a greater number of males needs a

particular type of training than females, they'll not have been

denied that training, only the burden of expectations about how,

as males, they are supposed to act.

> BTW I DO believe in equal work for equal pay, and in no way

> does this betray my belief in pragmatics. Am I equal to, (or

> superior) to most male programmers? You bet! And I'll battle

> keyboards any day to prove it!

There was a time when women were believed to be not only

physically weaker than men, but also intellectually inferior,

and on that basis would have been excluded from jobs such

as yours. It's important that everybody be given a chance

to prove whether they can do the kind of job they want or

not, and not have it decided on the basis of their gender,

regardless of the abilities to which that gender might

_generically_ be inclined.

> >Then I think Switzerland is not the ideal place it's often

> >made out to be after all.

>

> Depends what works for you.

I guess anybody in Switzerland for whom it doesn't work has

to move.

> People who have strong ties to their community and little need for

> " individuality " can be happier than the " loners " in our culture.

Treasuring and defending one's individuality doesn't

necessarily make one a loner. A group that recognizes

and respects every member's individuality is in the

long run a stronger one, I think (Remember, the three

musketeers weren't just " one for all " , they were also

" all for one " ). But more importantly, why can't a

society be broad enough to allow the freedom to those

who wish to live in tight, structured communities and

be told when to eat, bathe, marry, etc., to do so, as

well as the freedom to do otherwise to those who don't?

Another point is that, although you speak of " our culture " ,

we don't necessarily belong to the same culture, or share

the same cultural values, nor should we. We merely live

on the same continent and within the same territory claimed

by the U.S. Why should that fact impose a common culture

or set of values upon us? I pity the Swiss if they're truly

that homogenous.

> I read a great scifi story to that effect. Basically a sheep is

> really, really, unhappy without a flock, and has very little need

> to be different from other sheep.

I'm so glad I'm not a sheep! I just wish I could get _your_

shepherd's crook off of my neck. :-)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/9/03 6:01:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,

liberty@... writes:

>

> I don't, thus the proviso " IF he truly is being assigned

> the worst jobs " .

Oh, I see. I thought you were implying that he *did* have the " worst " jobs.

> >That only works if the man likes to iron and the woman likes

> >to cut trees down. Not every man likes cooking, and not every

> >woman likes assembling hot rods, and vice versa.

>

> Neither my father nor my mother likes ironing, cutting down

> trees, or cooking, though my father used to build race cars

> as a hobby. Work is work and I doubt anybody really _likes_

> it. I certainly don't, so when it has to be done, I don't

> want to get assigned the worst duties based on my gender.

*shrug* I like working. I agree with this then and perhaps we were

misunderstanding each other. Men and women should share half and half the

" dirty

work, " in my opinion, but whether this dirty work is divided further in

gender-specific ways or each task is divvied up evenly, either is valid, IMO.

So long as

there is some consensus about it.

> >You can't attribute to " Nature " the observations you made with your

> >own parents.

>

> I didn't. Heidi attributed to Nature the rightness of women

> not taking up their fair share of the more dangerous and dirty

> duties such as combat.

It seemed implicit in your statement, which is not quoted, that the *lack* of

gender divisions you observed was " natural. " I think it's more likely that

your observations were on an extreme end of a bell curve in the " natural " zone,

but were not representative of the bell-shaped portion, if you will.

>

> >There may be no innate gender roles (unlikely), . . .

>

> There are almost certainly innate gender _tendencies_, but

> the degree to which any one person has inherited those

> tendencies varies.

I agree. The whole range of what naturally occurs is " natural " or else it

wouldn't naturally occur. I think it's kind of a bell curve. People who

deviate from the norm are still on the curve, and therefore " natural. "

Just as breast size varies from woman

> to woman, and hairiness, musculature, height, etc. varies

> from man to man. Nowadays people are beginning to accept

> themselves physically for what they are rather than trying

> to live up to how society thinks they should _look_, so why

> continue to impose upon a our children a social standard of

> the way a male or female is supposed to _act_?

How do you know what they were imposing or not? We really don't know enough

to criticize, I don't think, with the information provided.

> >. . . or your parents may deviate from natural tendencies.

>

> No, I think that my parents are among the few who don't

> deviate from what's natural, and that your sexist Judaeo-

> Christian culture is the one that is warped.

lol! Thanks. I laughed for nearly a minute at this.

> Don't encourage or discourage children from being or doing

> anything based solely on their gender, simply encourage them

> to be and act as _themselves_.

I agree.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 12/9/03 5:17:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> liberty@p... writes:

>

> > Your _husband_ ought to be indignant if he truly is being

> > assigned the worst jobs based on his gender.

>

> How do you know he doesn't like those jobs?

I don't, thus the proviso " IF he truly is being assigned

the worst jobs " .

> That only works if the man likes to iron and the woman likes

> to cut trees down. Not every man likes cooking, and not every

> woman likes assembling hot rods, and vice versa.

Neither my father nor my mother likes ironing, cutting down

trees, or cooking, though my father used to build race cars

as a hobby. Work is work and I doubt anybody really _likes_

it. I certainly don't, so when it has to be done, I don't

want to get assigned the worst duties based on my gender.

> You can't attribute to " Nature " the observations you made with your

> own parents.

I didn't. Heidi attributed to Nature the rightness of women

not taking up their fair share of the more dangerous and dirty

duties such as combat.

> There may be no innate gender roles (unlikely), . . .

There are almost certainly innate gender _tendencies_, but

the degree to which any one person has inherited those

tendencies varies. Just as breast size varies from woman

to woman, and hairiness, musculature, height, etc. varies

from man to man. Nowadays people are beginning to accept

themselves physically for what they are rather than trying

to live up to how society thinks they should _look_, so why

continue to impose upon a our children a social standard of

the way a male or female is supposed to _act_?

> . . . or your parents may deviate from natural tendencies.

No, I think that my parents are among the few who don't

deviate from what's natural, and that your sexist Judaeo-

Christian culture is the one that is warped.

> And there are also people who try to raise their children to

> like these things and they simply won't.

No one tried to raise them to like these things, and no one

should. They are simply allowed to be themselves, and they

seem to like fighting, playing with toy weapons, _and_

occasionally pretending to be daddies.

> I've talked to many a frustrated feminist who tried and failed to

> raise their kids gender-free.

Nobody's talking about trying to raise children gender-free,

but what does belonging to a particular gender by necessity

entail? Does it include everything that the dominant culture

happens to thinks it ought? What you're referring to here

in this last snip is no less of an imposition upon children

of preconceived ideas about what sort of behavior their gender

should entail than the traditional and sexist approach is.

Don't encourage or discourage children from being or doing

anything based solely on their gender, simply encourage them

to be and act as _themselves_.

[Guest guest]

>

>>

>> Hmmm ... why do you think I would have indignation at that?

>

>Because you _ought_ to. If not you then, did not someone

>else in your class, at least, not call your teacher on his

>sexism?

Well, where is the line between " sexism " and " biology " ? My DH couldn't

have a baby no matter what his political leanings.

>> Do you think I am indignant they my DH does all the chainsaw and

>> gravel work at my house?

>

>Your _husband_ ought to be indignant if he truly is being

>assigned the worst jobs based on his gender.

Sheesh. If you think I can " assign " him any work, you've never been here.

Well, I know you haven't been here. But really, he loves chopping down trees

and was ecstatic when he could finally had an excuse to own a chainsaw

and tractor. Similarly I love buying kitchen stuff. We talk about this a lot.

If you are in a relationship, the best think is to do what you love to do.

If I happen to love chopping down trees, or he wants to cook, we

are both free to do so. Actually I DO chop down small trees, but not

the big 'uns.

>My mother has done some chainsaw work, and a lot of gravel

>work too, as well as house repair, painting, carpentry, lawn

>care, etc. My father has also done a lot of housework and

>cooking in his day. In fact, in all my time at home I never

>once heard my father ask my mother to wash or iron a shirt,

>or to make him a snack.

I would never say I wasn't " equal " to anyone. But my mind works

differently from most guys, even most guy programmers. I was a mechanic

(watchmaking) for many years, and I can hold my own on a lathe,

saw, or most woodworking or metalworking equipment. And my DH does

dishes quite a bit. But we choose to do what we do and like best.

I have spent a fair amount of time studying mental states and brain

development, and guys ARE different from gals, in general.

> > My basic " philosophy " if I have one is " pragmatic " and I reallly to

>> believe in biology. Having a Mom -- esp. one who breastfeeds ---

>> spending 2 weeks a year playing soldier just doesn't make sense.

>

>Fine. Give them an exemption until their baby is weaned, then

>off to camp with them.

I'd love to talk to you after you have a baby ...

>> Everything I read about the human race indicates that guys are

>> designed to be warriors (though having a little warrior-training

>> for girls isn't a bad thing).

>

>We should never submit to anybody else's design for our life

>besides our own, including Nature's design, especially since

>Nature has no real design but is merely the outcome of blind

>physical processes. I also wonder if you'd still believe this

>way if you met my sisters and nieces. Many of my nieces

>loved playing with toy guns and swords as much as with dolls.

Certainly each person is different, and some women (Joan of Arc, for a

famous example) are just not " average " . I love freedom and the ability

to do what one does best. Some men don't fit " the mold " either. So let

everyone do what they do best.

But within that --- we have XY chromosomes and hormones and a lot

of research. " in general " guys are stronger, bigger, and more suited for

muscle work. " in general " women like emotion, fiber work, and caring

for kids. If one does not fit into the " in general " curve, FINE! be different!

That doesn't change the " in general " curve. I am speaking as a person

who does not fit the curve in most aspects.

The disconnect between " in general " and " this person " is always a

problem. Both viewpoints are useful.

> Two of my four-year old nephews, who are perpetually covered

>with bruises and scabs from wrestling each other all day, can

>often be seen playing gently with baby dolls, rolling them around

>in strollers, and combing their hair, as well. Have you read

>about the Sauromatian culture and its female warriors? In any

>case, if there really is anything to what you say, then it's a

>matter of using as " warriors " , only those people suited or

> " designed " for it, and not one of gender, since there is at least

>one man in the world not suited for it, and at least one woman

>in the world that is. Let all things be decided on an individual

>basis rather than on the basis of gender.

There is no need, IMO, to " decide " things based on gender. Women can make

great warriors. Once we have kids though, a LOT of our mindspace (for some, not

all) of us, is taken up by our kids. I can not travel like I used to, or work

the hours

I used to, because about a third of my mind is always working on " how are the

kids? " .

I don't mind this -- and I have plenty of people to back me up and do the jobs

I can't. I notice though, that in the old writings, they always refer to

" warrior

MAIDEN " . Once you have a kid, things CHANGE.

> Should the wrestler

>Chyna be excluded from a job as a lumberjack, but not Pee-

>Wee Herman, based on the excuse that women are generically

>not suited to be lumberjacks? Finally, and most importantly,

>why should I, as a male, ever submit to a military draft that

>didn't include women?

Personally, I would not exclude any woman from anything SHE wanted to do.

For a nationwide draft though, single males are the most easy. I might note

that when I was a student in Switzerland, I had to stipulate that I was an

UNMARRIED female (true -- I put off marriage until I returned).

Let us decide what our young need on an individual basis rather

>than on gender. If in the end a greater number of males needs a

>particular type of training than females, they'll not have been

>denied that training, only the burden of expectations about how,

>as males, they are supposed to act.

Fine enough, but how do you translate that into law? " Culture " is a set

of rules that people of a certain time and place all agree to. " Cultural " laws

do not necessarily account for every individual, they are 'broad strokes' that

hopefully encompass most of what is needed. Inside a marriage, the couple

can decide how to apportion work. If the woman likes chainsaw work, fine!

>There was a time when women were believed to be not only

>physically weaker than men, but also intellectually inferior,

>and on that basis would have been excluded from jobs such

>as yours. It's important that everybody be given a chance

>to prove whether they can do the kind of job they want or

>not, and not have it decided on the basis of their gender,

>regardless of the abilities to which that gender might

>_generically_ be inclined.

I totally agree.

> I guess anybody in Switzerland for whom it doesn't work has

>to move.

A lot of them probably ended up on America ...

> Treasuring and defending one's individuality doesn't

>necessarily make one a loner. A group that recognizes

>and respects every member's individuality is in the

>long run a stronger one, I think (Remember, the three

>musketeers weren't just " one for all " , they were also

> " all for one " ). But more importantly, why can't a

>society be broad enough to allow the freedom to those

>who wish to live in tight, structured communities and

>be told when to eat, bathe, marry, etc., to do so, as

>well as the freedom to do otherwise to those who don't?

Depends on the community. Historically, some communties are very

tolerant of individuality. Some are not. Now really, I am VERY MUCH

an individualist! But I've never found a " crowd " to hang with, though

I have lots of people in my life. We have a pretty nice community that is

not based on a " tight " structure. This is one of the things I'm trying to

figure out.

>Another point is that, although you speak of " our culture " ,

>we don't necessarily belong to the same culture, or share

>the same cultural values, nor should we. We merely live

>on the same continent and within the same territory claimed

>by the U.S. Why should that fact impose a common culture

>or set of values upon us? I pity the Swiss if they're truly

>that homogenous.

Why pity them? My goats I don't pity at all .. I kind of envy them. THEY have

their world figured out. I do not.

> I'm so glad I'm not a sheep! I just wish I could get _your_

>shepherd's crook off of my neck. :-)

Hmmm .... like I'm telling YOU what to do? Sheesh, for all I know you are

a Japanese transexual living in Australia because your Mom migrated there.

Well, probably not. But any shepherd's crook is purely imaginary. I'm

trying to figure out MY life, I don't have time or energy to figure out

anyone elses, much less tell them what to do. I'm happy to share

what works, in case it is helpful.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--- ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: >

> > I don't, thus the proviso " IF he truly is being

> assigned

> > the worst jobs " .

<snip>

> > >That only works if the man likes to iron and the

> woman likes

> > >to cut trees down. Not every man likes cooking,

> and not every

> > >woman likes assembling hot rods, and vice versa.

IMO the best relationship is where each person likes

doing something different. If you both hate cooking

and cleaning, it's bound to cause at least minor

arguments. I personally love cooking and cleaning,

and am inherently lazy. Ju on the other hand is a

workaholic, can't be bothered with what he sees as

menial, and is self employed. So he just sits at his

desk working, while I'm in the kitchen or out shopping

(when I'm not at work myself). He also does the

things that are traditionally perceived as the man's

job: cleans the cars, unblocks the sink etc, because I

have no interest in these at all.

> *shrug* I like working. I agree with this then and

> perhaps we were

> misunderstanding each other. Men and women should

> share half and half the " dirty

> work, " in my opinion,

What is " dirty work " to one person may not be to

another.

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]

One of my Chinese students gave a speech yesterday. In her speech she described

a city that she visited once in northern China that upholds what she said is an

ancient tradition. Siblings share the same mother but have different fathers.

She said that women change partners as they please and that the mother is the

head of the household. Pity it was only a short speech as I'd love to know

more about this city and this tradition!

Filippa

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, where is the line between " sexism " and " biology " ? My DH

> couldn't have a baby no matter what his political leanings.

The dividing line is between what simply is, based on our

gender, and what others impose upon us, based on our gender.

The fineness of dividing lines doesn't excuse us from trying

to find them, especially when morality demands.

> Sheesh. If you think I can " assign " him any work, you've never

> been here. . . .

Then your case isn't relevant. I'm protesting _imposed_

gender roles, especially by governments or societies.

> I have spent a fair amount of time studying mental states and

> brain development, and guys ARE different from gals, in general.

Yes, and there are real differences, at least physical ones,

in african-americans and euro-americans, but we saw what the

principle of " separate but equal " always boiled down to.

> I'd love to talk to you after you have a baby ...

There's nothing that the mother can do, besides nursing, that

a male can't do for a child, and even an acceptable synthetic

breast-milk substitute cannot be far away. If I did have a

child I would find objectionable the idea that the baby could

do without me but never its mother. That may be " natural " ,

but for me certainly not _good_.

> The disconnect between " in general " and " this person " is always a

> problem. Both viewpoints are useful.

Not really, at least not as far as ethical matters go, because

the _individual_ is the basic unit of moral reckoning.

> There is no need, IMO, to " decide " things based on gender. Women

> can make great warriors. Once we have kids though, a LOT of our

> mindspace (for some, not all) of us, is taken up by our kids.

> I can not travel like I used to, or work the hours I used to,

> because about a third of my mind is always working on " how are

> the kids? " .

I think that the father's mind should be no less so occupied.

I don't care whether it's natural or traditional that it be

otherwise, and since I don't support such, why should my tax

money support a government that imposes, or even just lends

aid to it?

> I don't mind this -- and I have plenty of people to back me up and

> do the jobs I can't. I notice though, that in the old writings,

> they always refer to " warrior MAIDEN " . Once you have a kid, things

> CHANGE.

That is true. There's evidence that once a Sauromatian girl

married she retired from military service. Herodotus reported

that a Saurmatian girl had to kill at least one man in battle

before she could marry.

> Personally, I would not exclude any woman from anything SHE wanted

> to do.

But for every woman not drafted, one man who doesn't want to

go into combat is thus forced to do what HE doesn't want to do.

I have to ask again, why as a male should I ever submit to such

an unjust arrangement?

> For a nationwide draft though, single males are the most

> easy.

My rights are not to be infringed upon, not even slightly,

for the sake of making government officials' jobs easier.

Curfews, checkpoints, the mandatory carrying of papers, etc.

all make their jobs easier too.

> Let us decide what our young need on an individual basis rather

> >than on gender. If in the end a greater number of males needs a

> >particular type of training than females, they'll not have been

> >denied that training, only the burden of expectations about how,

> >as males, they are supposed to act.

>

> Fine enough, but how do you translate that into law?

It shouldn't be translated into law. A truly secular state,

and no other sort should be tolerated, must be culturally

neutral, neither interferring with, nor assisting, any sort

of cultural system, except when and where those try to infringe

upon unwilling participants. It's not the government's place

to train our young males or females.

> " Culture " is a set of rules that people of a certain time and

> place all agree to. " Cultural " laws do not necessarily account

> for every individual, they are 'broad strokes' that hopefully

> encompass most of what is needed.

Culture, within the context of a truly secular society, is a

set of private and personal choices with which the government

and system of laws has no business interferring, at least

until such time, or when in such form, as it infringes upon

an unwilling participant. The U.S. is supposed to be a nation,

not a culture. I find many features of Anglo-Saxon culture

revolting, and have no intention of jumping into that melting

pot.

> Inside a marriage, the couple can decide how to apportion work.

> If the woman likes chainsaw work, fine!

We're already agreed on this, but the original complaint was

about Switzerland's, or any other government's, imposition of

civic duties based on gender.

> > I guess anybody in Switzerland for whom it doesn't work has

> >to move.

>

> A lot of them probably ended up on America ...

Yes of course, but the point is that they should not have

been compelled to move. The rights of the Swiss individual

who neither wants to comply, nor relocate, don't simply

supercede the rights of the Swiss government or Swiss

cultural continuum (?), because the latter has no rights

at all. Only individuals may have rights, collectives

never.

> Why pity them? My goats I don't pity at all .. I kind of envy them.

> THEY have their world figured out. I do not.

Yes, and we find goats and sheep both very amenable to

being milked, shorn and eaten. What does your shepherd

have in store for you?

> Hmmm .... like I'm telling YOU what to do? Sheesh, for all I know

> you are a Japanese transexual living in Australia because your Mom

> migrated there. Well, probably not. But any shepherd's crook is

> purely imaginary.

Taxes, and what happens to one if they don't pay them, are

not imaginary. It's coercion backed by the threat of

violence.

> I'm trying to figure out MY life, I don't have time or energy to

> figure out anyone elses, much less tell them what to do. I'm happy

> to share what works, in case it is helpful.

I know, and there's no harm done, but I'm also going to

jump in and share when I think what's being offered doesn't

_really_ work. :-)

[Guest guest]

Jo, It's funny that you say you love cooking and cleaning and then say you are

lazy in

the same sentence. Domestic tasks are work too but they are not valued by

society so

are not perceived as work. But I know what you mean. I feel guilty with my

hubbie

doing business work at night while I cook and grocery shop - things he would not

do

(he'd eat spaghetti every night). I find that although I'm mentally active I

really like

doing things that involve moderate physical activity rather than sitting at a

desk.

When not working my husband will play computer games for fun. To me that is not

fun. Reading these forums is fun mentally, but I hate the physical strain of

sitting in

front of a computer and typing. I wonder why some people can happily sit for

hours

while engaged in work or play, whereas others are restless and prefer to do

something - anything - that involves movement. Also I wonder if a more evolved

society could find a way to value domestic tasks and grant the person doing them

payment, social security, and health care as compensation for their efforts.

> IMO the best relationship is where each person likes

> doing something different. If you both hate cooking

> and cleaning, it's bound to cause at least minor

> arguments. I personally love cooking and cleaning,

> and am inherently lazy. Ju on the other hand is a

> workaholic, can't be bothered with what he sees as

> menial, and is self employed. So he just sits at his

> desk working, while I'm in the kitchen or out shopping

> (when I'm not at work myself). > another.

[Guest guest]

>

>The dividing line is between what simply is, based on our

>gender, and what others impose upon us, based on our gender.

Well, I don't think you are married, but marriage is complicated.

The FACT of being married changes you, whether you like it

or not. You come to agreements and negotiate a lot. A lot

of our agreements DO have to do with gender, in our case,

because we both believe that we are better at some things

than others biologically. Now he is tall, muscular, and can lift

150 lbs without thinking about it. I can't. Nor can I start the

generator or handle a chain saw, though I likely could learn.

>The fineness of dividing lines doesn't excuse us from trying

>to find them, especially when morality demands.

The basic morality in marriage is: staying married! If you can

still talk and raise a family, you win.

> > I have spent a fair amount of time studying mental states and

>> brain development, and guys ARE different from gals, in general.

>

>Yes, and there are real differences, at least physical ones,

>in african-americans and euro-americans, but we saw what the

>principle of " separate but equal " always boiled down to.

I think " law " needs to be open and based on what a person

can do. There is a fair bit of backlash against enforced

" fairness " also. I.e. should we force half the firefighters to

be women? When the average woman can not carry the

huge amount of equipment? I think not. And I consider

myself a feminist ...

>> I'd love to talk to you after you have a baby ...

>

>There's nothing that the mother can do, besides nursing, that

>a male can't do for a child, and even an acceptable synthetic

>breast-milk substitute cannot be far away. If I did have a

>child I would find objectionable the idea that the baby could

>do without me but never its mother. That may be " natural " ,

>but for me certainly not _good_.

Like I said, I'd love to talk to you after you have a baby.

Male and female brains are NOT alike. Though some males

have female brains and vice versa.

> The disconnect between " in general " and " this person " is always a

>> problem. Both viewpoints are useful.

>

>Not really, at least not as far as ethical matters go, because

>the _individual_ is the basic unit of moral reckoning.

Is it? By whose standard? I doubt a Chinese person would agree there. Or an

African. Historically the tribe's welfare precedes the individuals.

> I think that the father's mind should be no less so occupied.

>I don't care whether it's natural or traditional that it be

>otherwise, and since I don't support such, why should my tax

>money support a government that imposes, or even just lends

>aid to it?

It's a great ideal, but I'm not sure it jibes with biology. As for you

and your tax money .... that is the whole political debate.

> That is true. There's evidence that once a Sauromatian girl

>married she retired from military service. Herodotus reported

>that a Saurmatian girl had to kill at least one man in battle

>before she could marry.

Ha. Now there's a woman after my heart!

>> Personally, I would not exclude any woman from anything SHE wanted

>> to do.

>

>But for every woman not drafted, one man who doesn't want to

>go into combat is thus forced to do what HE doesn't want to do.

>I have to ask again, why as a male should I ever submit to such

>an unjust arrangement?

Well, the draft IS an interesting issue and one you may be forced to

face, unfortunately. I said I think a 17-year-old can benefit from

some structured time ... I didn't mean to imply that the military

was the best option. I can think of better options. The military

TYPE of thing isn't bad, for a lot of folks, but it's mainly good

if there isn't a war on. Asking you to go fight and potentially

lose your life isn't a good tradeoff for some " growing up " time.

I spent my " structured " time in rather benign activities (such

as learning watch repair).

> > For a nationwide draft though, single males are the most

>> easy.

>

>My rights are not to be infringed upon, not even slightly,

>for the sake of making government officials' jobs easier.

>Curfews, checkpoints, the mandatory carrying of papers, etc.

>all make their jobs easier too.

You feel that way, but if the draft gets reinstated, what

WILL you do? Move to Canada? (lots of young men in my

generation did!). If you are old enough to vote, you are

old enough to be politically active ...

> It shouldn't be translated into law. A truly secular state,

>and no other sort should be tolerated, must be culturally

>neutral, neither interferring with, nor assisting, any sort

>of cultural system, except when and where those try to infringe

>upon unwilling participants. It's not the government's place

>to train our young males or females.

Probably not, if you mean " GOVERNMENT " in the American

sense. In the tribal sense, young men did what the tribe

said. You have no tribe, nor do I, which is one of our problems.

If I really felt a sense of community with my community, I don't

think I'd have a problem being part of the " community defense

league " .

> Culture, within the context of a truly secular society, is a

>set of private and personal choices with which the government

>and system of laws has no business interferring, at least

>until such time, or when in such form, as it infringes upon

>an unwilling participant. The U.S. is supposed to be a nation,

>not a culture. I find many features of Anglo-Saxon culture

>revolting, and have no intention of jumping into that melting

>pot.

The US has no one " culture " and that is what makes

the " nation " part not work well. That and the fact we

were settled by all the misfits/independents that didn't

fit in the old country.

We're already agreed on this, but the original complaint was

>about Switzerland's, or any other government's, imposition of

>civic duties based on gender.

Sure, but I don't think you can equate a " canton " to " America " .

It's a different thing. A " Canton " is more like a tribe, and you

don't know what it is like to be part of a close-knit tribe.

It is a different kind of individual identity.

>

>> Why pity them? My goats I don't pity at all .. I kind of envy them.

>> THEY have their world figured out. I do not.

>

>Yes, and we find goats and sheep both very amenable to

>being milked, shorn and eaten. What does your shepherd

>have in store for you?

See, you are not a sheep. So you dislike sheep concepts.

But the majority of humans ARE sheep. They LIKE being

in the flock. Even if that means being eaten. So you have to

design a community that works for the " flockers " AND the

" individualists " .

>

>> I'm trying to figure out MY life, I don't have time or energy to

>> figure out anyone elses, much less tell them what to do. I'm happy

>> to share what works, in case it is helpful.

>

>I know, and there's no harm done, but I'm also going to

>jump in and share when I think what's being offered doesn't

>_really_ work. :-)

Sure, and the dialogue is the point, isn't it? I don't think

the Swiss system would work here, or for you in particular,

but it works for them AFAIK. Humans are not the same

worldwide.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

<I wonder why some people can happily sit for hours

while engaged in work or play, whereas others are restless and prefer to do

something - anything - that involves movement>

I always wondered myself about this because I am a fairly hyper person and

never thought I could function behind a computer all day. Well, the

financial benefit forced me into a cubicle 5 years ago, and I am really

surprised at how well I have managed. I do find that I have to do a couple

extra things that many around me dont........such as getting up every once

in awhile and walking around. I also HAVE to multi task. I usually have

2-3 programs running on my computer at a time and I jump back and forth

during processing times to stay busy. If I challange my mind enough I don't

get antsy sitting in front of the screen all day

_________________________________________________________________

Don’t worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.

Get MSN Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, I don't think you are married, but marriage is complicated.

I already countenanced partners dividing their duties in whatever

way they mutually agree upon. You've used the " you don't have

children so you don't know " ploy before, and now the " you're not

married so you don't know " ploy. You've never been a gay male

and been forced to finance other people's irresponsible reproductive

activity either. If one can never truly understand any circumstances

beside one's own, then all communication is pointless, and the world

is doomed. So let's just leave such tactics alone, shall we?

> The basic morality in marriage is: staying married! If you can

> still talk and raise a family, you win.

Not really. I don't see that there's any moral imperative that

couples stay married. Divorce is often the best solution for some

couples' problems. The most basic moral necessity as I see it is

that the human (or at least sentient) individual's rights over self

and property be kept inviolate.

I'm not really interested in your own marriage, as I've already

said, and probably shouldn't have brought up my parent's as an

example either. If societal expectations are not pressuring your

husband to do things he wouldn't otherwise do, then more power to

him. I'm concerned about socially _imposed_ gender roles.

> I think " law " needs to be open and based on what a person

> can do. There is a fair bit of backlash against enforced

> " fairness " also. I.e. should we force half the firefighters to

> be women?

The one doesn't logically follow the other, and I think you know

that since you already agreed to what I'm really saying on this

particular earlier in the thread. Enforcing fairness doesn't

entail forcing half the firefighters to be women, which itself

would be unfair. It would only allow each woman the _chance_ to

prove whether she was capable of working as a firefighter or not.

Although as a libertarian I need to add that I recognize the right

of private employers to be sexists and hire anybody they want, I

just hold such people in contempt, and probably won't patronize

them, which is _my_ right. The government and military though of

course have no such rights.

> Like I said, I'd love to talk to you after you have a baby.

That's ploy H.S.#2 again. In any case I have fifteen nieces and

nephews, and seventeen great nieces and nephews, so I've taken care

of alot of babies.

> Male and female brains are NOT alike.

They don't need to be to allow males to act as proper parents.

The whole process can be controlled from the higher level areas

of the cortex.

> Though some males have female brains and vice versa.

I don't have a female brain, if that's what you're implying, nor

would I be content with special permits being granted to male

homosexuals excusing them from society's " male " duties. I have

heterosexual relatives whom I love and am looking out for too.

> Is it? By whose standard? I doubt a Chinese person would agree

> there. Or an African. Historically the tribe's welfare precedes

> the individuals.

Tribalism is no less disgusting and immoral than communism,

nationalism, or racism. In fact they all have their roots in

the same regretable herd instinct, which is intensified in times

of danger, and in individuals with low self-esteem. Read " The

True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements " by

Hoffer. You may not have noticed but you've just stepped

onto the slippery slope of moral relativism here. By ancient

Mongol standards raping, pillaging, and killing outsiders was

acceptable. Throw female circumcision, suttee, slavery, foot-

binding, etc. into the mix and you shall have to concede that

there is some sort of universalistic standard against which all

activities and values can be measured. Also, what exactly is

" the tribe's welfare " , but the welfare of the individuals

comprising it? If any one member can be sacrificed for the good

of the group, then any one member has zero rights. That being the

case the group is also worthless since the addition of any number

of zeroes always results in zero. By such logical argumentation,

and more, the case for a universalistic moral standard of the sort

I've described can be made, and actually already has been. That's

the basis of libertarianism - rational ethics applied to political

questions.

> It's a great ideal, but I'm not sure it jibes with biology.

Who cares about jibing with biology? I already stated that I

didn't. I might like to change our biology for the better.

Have you already forgotten the " hydroponic meat " ? Just because

many attempts have failed, and many attempts have been claimed

successful that really weren't, doesn't mean that nature cannot

in principle be improved upon.

> As for you and your tax money .... that is the whole political

> debate.

I don't understand. I thought this _was_ a political debate.

> Well, the draft IS an interesting issue and one you may be forced

> to face, unfortunately.

I'm thirty-eight, so supposedly not. However I wouldn't allow my

nephews who are of age, to be drafted either. But to the point,

you've just admitted that " force " is involved, but have yet to

answer why I or anybody else should ever submit to such force.

Do I not have the right to resist coercion, including the use of

deadly force if necessary?

> I said I think a 17-year-old can benefit from some structured

> time ... I didn't mean to imply that the military was the best

> option. I can think of better options.

I would disown any member of my family who joined the military.

I consider it as an immoral institution.

> The military TYPE of thing isn't bad, for a lot of folks, but

> it's mainly good if there isn't a war on. Asking you to go fight

> and potentially lose your life isn't a good tradeoff for some

> " growing up " time. I spent my " structured " time in rather benign

> activities (such as learning watch repair).

I'm not even sure that your ideas about what kind of training males

or females need is correct. But in any case, all I see military

training inculcating is a collectivist mind-set, one which I

personally despise, and an indifference to impersonal killing.

> You feel that way, but if the draft gets reinstated, what

> WILL you do? Move to Canada? (lots of young men in my

> generation did!). If you are old enough to vote, you are

> old enough to be politically active ...

Moving to Canada is one option, but certainly not the only one,

and it's not even necessary to actually dwell in Canada to have

citizenship there. Their bureaucratic system is even more complex,

Byzantine, and corrupt than ours, thus offering all manner of

options to the clever. An enormous number of Canadian citizens

lives, works and retires within U.S. territory, while receiving

payments from their government no less! Our government is an

awesome juggernaut, but it is also blind and stupid, and intelligent

people can find many ways to work around it. I already have business

interests in Canada, and I like how the ridiculously high taxes there

has encouraged a trend of evasion, one accepted and embraced by a

large segment of the public. Read " Underground Nation - The Secret

Economy and the Future of Canada " by Diane Francis. I've been

thinking for awhile now of dividing my time between living in the

U.S. and living in Vancouver, and encouraging my family to join me

in doing the same. If war ever seemed imminent, all that would then

be required would be a little paperwork.

Also note that you've now shifted to insisting the draft is

unavoidable rather than trying to defend that it's morally right.

Do I find in this a tacit admission that it isn't?

> Probably not, if you mean " GOVERNMENT " in the American

> sense. In the tribal sense, young men did what the tribe

> said. You have no tribe, nor do I, which is one of our problems.

It may be one of your problems, but it's not one of mine. My

extended family is my tribe, and one that I freely choose to be

a member of. Any tribe or collective of any sort, of which I

were forced to be a member, and which gave itself the right to

sacrifice my personal interests, or even my life to those of the

group, would be the problem for me, not the lack of one.

> If I really felt a sense of community with my community, I don't

> think I'd have a problem being part of the " community defense

> league " .

What you're describing here doesn't involve coercion, and thus

falls outside the scope of what I'm complaining about. I feel

no sense of community with the millions of U.S. citizens with

whom I'll never be personally acquainted, or with the vast

geographical area claimed by the U.S., most of which I'll never

even _want_ to visit. So why should I give, or even risk my

life for them? Personally I'd love nothing better than to see

the U.S. and Canada both collapse, and the west coast from B.C.

to California reform into a new nation. It would be even nicer

if Hawaii, Australia and Japan were to join it too. Something

like " Pacifica " has a nice ring to it! (-:

> The US has no one " culture " and that is what makes

> the " nation " part not work well. That and the fact we

> were settled by all the misfits/independents that didn't

> fit in the old country.

The U.S. works better than most countries in the world, _due_ to

the fact I think, that it most closely approximates the libertarian

and multicultural ideal. What problems it does have are due to the

degree to which it falls short of it.

> Sure, but I don't think you can equate a " canton " to " America " .

> It's a different thing. A " Canton " is more like a tribe, and you

> don't know what it is like to be part of a close-knit tribe.

> It is a different kind of individual identity.

Addressed above.

> See, you are not a sheep. So you dislike sheep concepts.

> But the majority of humans ARE sheep. They LIKE being

> in the flock. Even if that means being eaten.

A libertarian system allows people to be sheep if they wish, but

a non-libertarian system allows nobody the right not to be. So

my system wins as being the one most inclusive of various interests.

It's also ironic that you say sheeplike people should be allowed

to remain so, even if it means being eaten, but most of the

rhetoric against libertarianism centers around the fear that

in a libertarian system sheep would be eaten.

> So you have to design a community that works for the " flockers "

> AND the " individualists " .

I could follow your lead and say " get the flock outta here! " .

In other words, let them move to Switzerland. (My apologies

to the _real_ Swiss, who I'm sure bear little resemblance to

those of our hypothetical model.)

> Sure, and the dialogue is the point, isn't it? I don't think

> the Swiss system would work here, or for you in particular,

But it's not a matter of a _place_ where it would work, it would

be wrong anywhere, since there are bound to be at least a few Swiss

who don't like the Swiss system, and even if there weren't, I might

want to have a house in the Alps someday myself.

> but it works for them AFAIK. Humans are not the same

> worldwide.

Humans are not the same across the entirety of Switzerland either,

nor does it really " work for them " , at best is works for _most_

of them, which is not acceptable. Besides, as I already said,

I myself, or someone like me, might want to move to Switzerland

someday, and I have no intention of bowing to such stupid laws.

[Guest guest]

>

> > So you have to design a community that works for the " flockers "

> > AND the " individualists " .

That's precisely what libertarianism is, and not what you're advocating. In

a free society, individuals are free to join or refraining from joining

various groups and communities as they see fit. What you're advocating is a

society in which individuals are forced to participate in the activities of

certain groups and communities as you (or TPTB) see fit.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/14/03 7:40:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Churches other than the Salvation Army in this area take care of their own

> people which is fine with me and likely keeps the peace with donators. Know

> this from where l worked by asking the 200 churches in the county for fuel

> donations for those that run out and homeless shelter overflow housing for

> three years. Response was 1 in 600. Salvation Army has the shelter.

> Some of what you talk about sounds in line with the book, The Vermont

> Papers.

I don't know what other churches do, but all the Orthodox Churches in my area

cooperate with a weekly food giveaway to anyone who comes regardless of their

religion or membership status in any church or whatever. This takes monetary

and food donations, and volunteer time. Also the members support the IOCC

which I mentioned recently, which is active all over the world doing enormous

charity work, and was credited by some organization as the number one charity

for keeping overhead costs down and delivering charity. Also, the work they do

in the third world involves not only giving them fish but teaching them to

fish too, if you will. One church in our area has a program where people go

down

to Mexico to build homes for people who live in shacks with no floors.

I'm surprised you didn't get a better response in your area. Of course, no

charity can donate to *every* cause. But the churches in my area do far more

than take care of their own.

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Joanne Pollack " <jopollack2001@...>

> > 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?

I don't agree that the typical entry-level job or apprenticeship

requires anywhere near as much responsibility as college. In my

experience, college is very much a sink-or-swim environment. In many

classes, homework is not collected and attendance is not taken, with

tests and long-term projects accounting for the entirety or majority of

the grade. Most of the work and studying is done outside of the

classroom, on the students' own time. It's very easy to fall behind, and

very hard to catch up. With most jobs, especially entry-level ones,

there's much more supervision, and you're usually expected to

demonstrate progress on a daily basis. There's often someone checking up

every once in a while to make sure that you're not slacking off, and

there's rarely any work to be done at home. When I got my first job

after college--and I had a significantly more independence and

responsibility than is usual for an entry-level job--it was a great deal

less stressful and more structured than what I was used to in college.

> 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.

There are a wide range of fields of study which will prepare a student

to be a productive member of society. I think that anyone should be able

to find at least one that interests him. If a student wants to study a

less practical field, that's fine, but I don't see why I should pay for

it.

> 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.

Again, there are hundreds of different fields from which to choose.

Shouldn't anyone be able to find one which is both interesting and

marketable? At worst, one will end up with a job he doesn't like, but

which is lucrative enough to allow him to fund his own education in a

field which he prefers.

> 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.

A good qualification for what?

> 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.

If this is true, and I overestimated the effect of field of study on

future earnings, then a good student should have no trouble obtaining a

loan to study whatever field he likes. Like most questions of value,

this one is best decided by the market process.

> 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.

Are you serious? That's less than twice the minimum wage, isn't it?

There are many fields in the US in which one can expect to make about

twice that fresh out of college.

> 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.

As mentioned earlier in this or a related thread, the high cost of

housing is due largely to the regulations imposed on it. In any case,

the changes of a graduate being able to buy a house before he's 35 are

much higher if his degree is in a field for which there is high market

demand, are they not?

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> 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.

No they don't. Anyone who wants to go to school and major in Near

Eastern Studies is perfectly free to do so, as long as he bears the cost

himself. Why should I pay for it?

> Why should investors make those decisions? Do they have a superior

wisdom

> in this regard?

I would argue that someone who is putting his own money on the line is

much more likely to make a wise decision than someone who is

putting someone else's money on the line.

> It almost sounds like a capitalst version of central planning.

Except that it's nothing at all like it. Central planning means that

there is one authority who gets to make decisions. There are literally

tens of millions of people in the US alone who have savings on which

they would like to earn interest, and many hundreds, if not thousands,

of companies which exist solely for the purpose of advising them on

how best to do so.

> 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.

1. I'm talking about direct loans to students. You're talking about

grants to schools.

2. If the pharmaceutical companies are donating money to medical schools

to push the cirriculum in a pro-drug direction, then why aren't

insurance companies donating money to push it the other way? Surely they

have an interest in keeping costs down.

3. Do you think that government subsidies to colleges don't affect the

cirricula?

4. Do you have any references to back up the claim that the

pharmaceutical industry is significantly affecting the cirricula? It's

not inconceivable, but I suspect that it's true to a lesser degree than

you believe.

> As far as charities go, we just simply disagree on how much they can

do.

Again, Americans made $240 billion worth of charitable donations in

2002. Assume that this would double (probably conservative) if the tax

burden were cut in half (and there's no good reason we couldn't cut it

by even more) and all social programs were scrapped. Supposing that 10%

of the people in the country could not support themselves, that gives

them each more than $17,000 (assuming a population of 270M) per year.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> This totally ignores the problems facing the country that created the

Great

> Society welfare programs. There was a huge amount of povery and

> devestation.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim? All the data I've seen

suggest that the poverty rate was falling and median income was rising

throughout the '50s and early '60s. In fact, the downward movement of

the poverty rate slowed in the late '60s and '70s, and the rate even

rose substantially in the late '70s and early '80s.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty99/pov99.html

> Without a minimum wage or social welfare, wages

> can go to obscenely low levels because there will be nowhere else for

some

> people to go.

And this? Where's your evidence for this? Real wages rose substantially

in the 19th century, when there were no such laws on the books.

> Of course now with GATT and NAFTA corporations can go

> anywhere in the world and pay $0.27 per hour or even per day.

Really? Where are people getting paid $.27 a day? And supposing for the

sake of argument that such a place really exists, what's your point?

We're

better off for getting cheap labor. They're better off for getting

higher

wages. Why should we fail to take advantage of this opportunity for a

mutually beneficial transaction?

> Of course, It is not really about whether or not we have big

governement.

> That is just hype. Unless you are advocating anarchy we will have

> government.

You understand the distinction between " government " and " big

government, " don't you?

> It is what kind of policy will we have and what are the

> priorities. The current belief is that it is most important to protect

> corporate profits and that is the road to prosperity.

Whose belief? It's not mine. It's not yours. In fact, I don't know of

anyone who believes that.

> The more money they

> make the more jobs and ivestment etc. That seems to me, to be driving

us

> to a third world economy.

On what do you base this belief? Is the median income falling? What

about per-capita GDP?

> I personally believe that protecting the lives

> of families is the first priority and the rest will follow. By

protecting

> families, I mean have a living minimum wage (which probably means

doubling

> it)

That's sheer economic insanity. Berkeley stuff. There are people,

especially young and unskilled workers, who simply are not employable at

that wage. Businesses would lose money if they tried. If you raise the

minimum wage to $10-12, they wouldn't be able to get jobs. Unemployment

would skyrocket, and we'd have a bunch of people sitting around

consuming resources and producing nothing, which would be very

bad for the economy.

> In this way corporations can make

> as much money as they want but not at the expense of driving wages

down

> which is what most of the boom in the 80's and 90's was about.

Look--we can't have a proper discussion if you're just going to make

things up. This never happened. Median incomes continued to climb during

the '80s and '90s.

> The higher

> the minimum wage is the less people will need the safety net thereby

> lowering the pressure to have more taxes.

They'll need it even more because they won't be able to find jobs.

> Also the more money people have,

> the more they buy which stimulates the economy.

This is wrong, and the whole idea of " stimulating " the economy is

horribly, horribly flawed, but I forgive you, because this particular

myth is popular even among many economists. In non-broken economic

theories, consumer spending is bad for the economy, and savings and

investment are good. Redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor

tends to increase consumer spending and decrease investment, having a

negative effect on the economy. I explained this briefly earlier, but if

anyone wants a more detailed explanation, I'd be happy to provide it.

> 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. One that can provide

decent

> jobs without going oversees and still make a profit.

First, that's not an argument. It's a mispunctuated question followed

(lexically, not logically) by a bizarre policy prescription. Seeing as

how I can't begin to comprehend the thought process that culminated in

you typing this particular sequence of words, I'm just going to move on.

> Because it is not big or small government. It is which policy the

goverment takes.

That's what " big government " and " small government " mean. " Big

government " means socialist and interventionist policies, while " small

government " means liberal policies. For the record, though, I don't

think that I use those terms often.

[Guest guest]

,

Is charitable donation amount from individual, corporate IRS itemization

and/or actual donations reported to IRS by non profits,churches? Former

would be less than latter due to those who donate and don't qualify to

itemize.

Social programs are interesting having worked in them(laid off because

governor ran for president and destroyed state budget neglecting)and gotten

grief from using them when you're told one thing and they do another. They

produce a job for the federal or state government, a job for an

administrating agency and whats left for the designees of the funds.

Churches other than the Salvation Army in this area take care of their own

people which is fine with me and likely keeps the peace with donators. Know

this from where l worked by asking the 200 churches in the county for fuel

donations for those that run out and homeless shelter overflow housing for

three years. Response was 1 in 600. Salvation Army has the shelter.

Some of what you talk about sounds in line with the book, The Vermont Papers.

Wanita

>Again, Americans made $240 billion worth of charitable donations in

>2002. Assume that this would double (probably conservative) if the tax

>burden were cut in half (and there's no good reason we couldn't cut it

>by even more) and all social programs were scrapped. Supposing that 10%

>of the people in the country could not support themselves, that gives

>them each more than $17,000 (assuming a population of 270M) per year.