Re: Heidi: donations was: Party lines

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/03 8:03:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> More than 80% of all non profit donations come from those who's income is

> in the bottom third of all incomes. Came from non profit fundraising book.

> Can't remember full title but had for social change in title. Hope this is

> clearer.

The description of the book should raise at least a little skepticism, since

it is obviously an ideological book. Not to say that many books escape

ideology, but I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone has some straight statistics

on

this. Presumably there must be non-political orgs out there taking statistics

on this stuff, right? I did a little googling last night and couldn't find any

stats on it. Anyone else have some?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>Non profit donations range 80+% from the bottom third income level.

>>

>>Wanita

>

>Maybe it is just too late tonight, but I can't parse this one!

>

>-- Heidi

More than 80% of all non profit donations come from those who's income is

in the bottom third of all incomes. Came from non profit fundraising book.

Can't remember full title but had for social change in title. Hope this is

clearer.

Wanita

(with whatever box such reading puts me in)

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> In a message dated 12/10/03 8:03:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > More than 80% of all non profit donations come from those who's income

> is

> > in the bottom third of all incomes. Came from non profit fundraising

> book.

> > Can't remember full title but had for social change in title. Hope this

> is

> > clearer.

>

> The description of the book should raise at least a little skepticism,

> since it is obviously an ideological book.

As a general rule of thumb, I don't trust any organization, book, or web

site with one or more of the following words in its title: change,

equality, voice, fair, social, or justice preceeded by some sort of

modifier. This is why. Not only is this false, but it's patently

implausible. To account for 80% of the total charitable donations, the

bottom third of income earners would have to be donating 15-25% of their

incomes. I strongly suspect that the wealthy donate more both in absolute

terms and in relative terms, and the data I've been able to find support

this hypothesis:

Here are some numbers. Scroll down to page 4, where there's a table that

says that those making less than $100,000 last year donated 1.56% of their

incomes, compared to 3.29% for those who made more than $200,000:

http://www.gosw.org/articles/GivOr2002.pdf

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>More than 80% of all non profit donations come from those who's income is

>in the bottom third of all incomes. Came from non profit fundraising book.

>Can't remember full title but had for social change in title. Hope this is

>clearer.

>

>Wanita

Wow. That is almost like really regressive taxation. Also both

sad and heartening at the same time.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Assuming it's true, the fact that 80% of donations to non-profits come from

the bottom third pretty much demolishes the libertarian fantasy that in a

nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up the slack.

>Wow. That is almost like really regressive taxation. Also both

>sad and heartening at the same time.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 9:52:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> There is another problem also. Much of the giving at the higher

> tax brackets is to AVOID taxes. If you don't have taxes to avoid,

> what is the incentive?

Heidi,

This makes virtually no sense whatsoever, unless you are accusing rich donors

of fraud by being direct monetary beneficiaries of the charities they donate

too.

If you make $100 and are taxed on $50 of it, and you donate the $100 so you

get all your tax money back, you'll have spent a total of $150 and gotten a $50

rebate, versus spending $50 to get no rebate. You've put yourself an extra

$50 in the hole.

As has pointed out innumerable times with to my knowledge no

acknowledgement as yet, the empirical evidence indicates that lower taxation

gives the

incentive to increase charitible donations.

Moreoever, no one has supplied any citation for this seemingly outrageous

figure that is being discussed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>Assuming it's true, the fact that 80% of donations to non-profits come from

>the bottom third pretty much demolishes the libertarian fantasy that in a

>nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up the slack.

>

>

>-

There is another problem also. Much of the giving at the higher

tax brackets is to AVOID taxes. If you don't have taxes to avoid,

what is the incentive?

I do have some richer folks in my circle of friends. They

are much less inclined to help anyone else out, unless it

is family. As one of them says to me " why should I help

anyone out? After all, *I* made it on my own, they can too " .

I usually point out that said person did NOT make it

" on his own " -- he went to a subsidized college and his

relatives fed and clothed him until he graduated and he's

had a lot of loans to get started.

However, his company does give to charity both for

tax and advertising reasons.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 10:19:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> That was pretty much how Hitler felt about the handicapped

> and other social leeches. It's a Darwinian view ... logical

> to the extreme. It also means that economics is more

> important than humaness ... that you are valued according

> to what you can produce. So if you aren't productive,

> you are useless.

I would call it a Malthusian view, although Darwin did get his idea while

reading Malthus.

Malthus had a good point. When animals overpopulate, they starve to death.

When humans overpopulate, something will cut the population down, be it wars

or famine or what have you (BTW the CIA predicts wars for water will begin

before 2050). He said the poor laws just finance the overpopulation of humans.

He thought that food grew arithmetically while population grew exponentially.

He failed to foresee industrialization of agriculture, which produced

exponential food gains.

I find Malthusianism somewhat detestable emotionally, but logically, he's

basically right on. *Some* people have to die at some point. What way can we

possibly choose who will die that ISN'T emotionally despicable? What's worse is

that poor people have far more children than monied people, so financing the

survival of the poor is actually an exponential, rather than arithmetical,

addition to the population as well. So financing the support of these people is

essentially maximizing the total suffering all to the end of producing wars

that will hit all of us.

At the same time, I would hope that rapid increases in prosperity could bring

down the birth rate quick enough that we can avoid these disasters, and

perhaps ease into a better food-producing situation. Anyone with a shred of

humanity would hope for this, as it is somewhat less than moral to wish

suffering or

death on helpless people.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> Assuming it's true, the fact that 80% of donations to non-profits

> come from the bottom third pretty much demolishes the libertarian

> fantasy that in a nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up

> the slack.

There is no such libertarian fantasy, at least not on my part.

You all really miss the point. I don't have to direct a pick-

pocket to an alternative source of money before I can demand

he get his damned hand out of my pocket. It's _my_ money, and

I not only shouldn't be coerced to give it to anybody that I

don't want to, but I don't even have to justify that choice

to the self-designated saviors of the world. In fact I'm not

at all hoping or expecting that private sources will be able

to step in replace the government in many of these cases, but

rather that many of them will stop receiving any sort of support

altogether. For one thing I'm an atheist, so I certainly resent

my money going to support churches, and would happily see them

all fall. For another thing, I believe the world is grossly

overpopulated, so I definitely resent my money going to feed,

house, and educate the children of strangers. If one couldn't

expect welfare and free public education, many would think twice

about having children. The scraping off of some of these leeches,

and the starving off of some of these social tumors, are among

the things which I _most_ look forward to with the implementation

of libertarianism. It's not compassionate to shirk from cutting

off a gangrenous limb, and an honorable person prefers death to

being a parasite.

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Heidi-

>

> Assuming it's true, the fact that 80% of donations to non-profits

> come from the bottom third pretty much demolishes the libertarian

> fantasy that in a nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up

> the slack.

There is no such libertarian fantasy, at least not on my part.

You all really miss the point. I don't have to direct a pick-

pocket to an alternative source of money before I can demand

he get his damned hand out of my pocket. It's _my_ money, and

I not only shouldn't be coerced to give it to anybody to whom

I don't wish, but I don't even have to justify that choice to

the self-designated saviors of the world. In fact I'm not at

all hoping or expecting that private sources will be able to

step in replace the government in _many_ of these cases, but

rather that many of them will stop receiving any sort of support

altogether. For one thing I'm an atheist, so I certainly resent

my money going to support churches, and would happily see them

all fall. For another thing, I believe the world is grossly

overpopulated, so I definitely resent my money going to feed,

house, and educate the children of strangers. If one couldn't

expect welfare and free public education, many would think twice

about having children. The scraping off of some of these leeches,

and the starving off of some of these social tumors, are among

the things which I _most_ look forward to with the implementation

of libertarianism. It's not compassionate to shirk from cutting

off a gangrenous limb, and an honorable person prefers death to

being a parasite.

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> There is another problem also. Much of the giving at the higher

> tax brackets is to AVOID taxes. If you don't have taxes to avoid,

> what is the incentive?

Is there some loophole in the tax system which allows charitable

contributions to result in a net financial benefit for the contributor? If

so, would you please tell me how I can get in on this? If not, then how can

paying $100 in order to avoid paying $30 in taxes be considered a winning

proposition?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>The scraping off of some of these leeches,

>and the starving off of some of these social tumors, are among

>the things which I _most_ look forward to with the implementation

>of libertarianism. It's not compassionate to shirk from cutting

>off a gangrenous limb, and an honorable person prefers death to

>being a parasite.

>

>

Ah, such empathy! ;--)

That was pretty much how Hitler felt about the handicapped

and other social leeches. It's a Darwinian view ... logical

to the extreme. It also means that economics is more

important than humaness ... that you are valued according

to what you can produce. So if you aren't productive,

you are useless.

Really, do you think economics is the most important

part of humanity? If so, when did that happen? It certainly

wasn't true 200 years ago, much less 10,000 years ago.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> That was pretty much how Hitler felt about the handicapped

> and other social leeches. It's a Darwinian view ... logical

> to the extreme. It also means that economics is more

> important than humaness ... that you are valued according

> to what you can produce. So if you aren't productive,

> you are useless.

1. There's a difference between refusing to support people and killing them.

2. That's Godwin. You lose.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Church donations were excluded in the 80%, IIRC. Think because it falls

into what is thought of by most as charitable donating. Also income levels

of churchmembers wouldn't be public. Was written for 501c3 non profits.

Don't know if that would include CAP agencies like where l used to work

that run state and federal human service programs and are 501c3.

Wanita

>>Heidi-

>>

>>Assuming it's true, the fact that 80% of donations to non-profits come from

>>the bottom third pretty much demolishes the libertarian fantasy that in a

>>nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up the slack.

>>

>>

>>-

[Guest guest]

>

> Ah, such empathy! ;-)

My empathy is boundless, and though I don't know you well, your

compassion would have to be much greater than average to come

anywhere near the level of mine. However our differences on this

particular have nothing to do with a disparity in our respective

capacities for empathy, but rather one in our capacities for logical

thinking. I guess it's just one of those undeniable differences in

gender you keep insisting upon - men are naturally more logical than

women.*

> That was pretty much how Hitler felt about the handicapped

> and other social leeches.

It's not anything like the way Hitler felt. Hitler arbitrated and

imposed from above his own ideas about who had value and who did not,

something anathema to libertarians, and Hitler didn't allow the loved

ones of those handicapped he had murdered the option of caring for

them. In National Socialism all time and resources, even that of the

loved ones of the handicapped who freely chose to give it, belonged

to the state or collective. It's the exact opposite of

libertarianism. It is the collectivist, non-libertarian world view

that you are to some degree advocating which is actually closer to

Hitler's, one wherein one must justify their existence and their

possesion of property in terms of how well they use it to serve the

group. Also, comparing an opponent to Hitler or the Nazis is another

common argumentary ploy. When you descend to using these, it makes

it look as if you have no legitimate argument to use.

> It's a Darwinian view ... logical to the extreme.

I've heard this so many times, and it's so silly. It has nothing to

do with Darwin, who _described_ what was. He did not _prescribe_

what should be. I'm not trying to impose any personal idea about who

should survive and who should not, beyond that of where I want my

_own_ money to go.

> It also means that economics is more important than humaness ...

No, it means that human freedom is more important than economics, or

anything else. It means that freedom is the very essence of

humaness.

> that you are valued according to what you can produce. So if you

> aren't productive, you are useless.

No, in fact, and again, that is exactly what _you're_ advocating,

the idea that one must justify their existence in terms of what they

contribute to the collective, the idea that one doesn't belong to

oneself, but is merely a cog in the machine that is the nation,

state, tribe, or whatever. Under libertarianism there is no common

or governmentally imposed concept of value. Each is free to decide

upon and pursue their own values, unmolested by others, but of course

only at their own expense.

> Really, do you think economics is the most important part of

> humanity?

I think that the freedom and autonomy of the individual is the most

important requirement of human happiness, that it is sacred. When

you decide for another to what or whom they must give part of their

resources, based on your own ideas of deservedness, you usurp power

from them over their own person and property. That is morally

wrong. What is more, it is somewhat hypocritical, because you have

chosen to keep part of your own resources that could be helping

someone who needs it. I'm sure that you're living above the level of

mere survival, and yet today there are how many millions of people

suffering? You could give to those people, but you have decided that

you have the right to a certain level of comfort and so withold what

you could otherwise give, to maintain that level. What would you do

if someone decided you needed to be doing more, and forcefully took

all you had, leaving only enough for mere survival? Ideologically

you'd have no basis for complaining.

You neither know, nor have any right to adjudicate on, what another

person's minimal requirements for happiness are. One person may need

nothing but their daily bread, the next may be incapable of being

happy with anything less than daily baths in solid gold bathtubs.

So long as neither steals or leeches resources from any other to

attain their ends, so be it. It's none of our business, and not ours

to judge.

> If so, when did that happen? It certainly wasn't true 200 years

> ago, much less 10,000 years ago.

Again you cite tradition as an authority, but the further you go back

in time, the more horrible human existence was. We are instinctively

tribal because it served the purposes of the " selfish gene " , not

those of individual happiness. There was no Garden of Eden, and our

answers don't lie in our savage past, but in our intellectually

enlightened future.

*I don't believe the statement about women's capacity for logical

thinking. It's was merely " tit for tat " . (-:

[Guest guest]

>At the same time, I would hope that rapid increases in prosperity could bring

>down the birth rate quick enough that we can avoid these disasters, and

>perhaps ease into a better food-producing situation. Anyone with a shred of

>humanity would hope for this, as it is somewhat less than moral to wish

suffering or

>death on helpless people.

>

>Chris

Women who can afford birth control, tend to use it! Thailand has

had good results just by making birth control accessible and

socially acceptable.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

wrote - <<1. There's a difference between refusing to support people and

killing them.>>

if the end result is the same... where's the difference?...

is it that you don't like to get YOUR hands dirty?

Dedy

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/12/03 1:14:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> True, he only described. But he described pretty accurately

> the world where the stongest members of the herd survive,

> and the weakest get eaten by wolves. That paradigm is quoted

> by so many in current society (and it sounded that way in your

> original quote) that calling in " Darwinian " is an easy shortcut,

> since he first described it.

Heidi,

This is sort of backwards and kind of silly, because Darwin did NOT first

describe this phenomenon. Malthus did, in " On Population. " Moreover,

Malthus described the philosophy in regards to human societies AND was

PRESCRIPTIVE, not descriptive. Darwin was directly inspired by this text.

I really don't understand why people do not just properly attribute this

philosophy to Malthus, since it is exactly the philosophy he prescribed, whereas

Darwinism is not only an adaptation of Malthus's thoughts to biology, but it is

essentially an entirely different phenomenon.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>demolishes the libertarian

>>fantasy that in a nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up

>>the slack.

>There is no such libertarian fantasy, at least not on my part.

>You all really miss the point.

is right –charities picking up the slack- is not what the Libertarians are

saying.

Prier to us having a Social Services System, charities where not providing for

most of the needs of the poor or crippled …, who where without family able to

help them.

I am sure that most people in the Libertarian party already know this, so no

that is not what they are saying.

As for our money going to help churches with there charity works. That was tried

here in Texas when Bush was governor. And then STOPPED.

The incidence of abuse (not just of money) was too high. There was both

emotional and physical abuse of elderly and child. There was one child with

broken bones.

As an atheist and a Libertarian, I would suggest that you read some of what

Jerry Falwell has to say and other reconstructions. Specifically a book he wrote

that was published in 1979.

What the Libertarians have to say about the elimination of all social services,

and regulatory agencies, Is the same thing that he (Farwell) wants, and what all

reconstructions want.

And if they want it I DO NOT.

>The scraping off of some of these leeches,

>and the starving off of some of these social tumors, are among

>the things which I _most_ look forward to with the implementation

>of libertarianism. It's not compassionate to shirk from cutting

>off a gangrenous limb

As for padlocking your pantry or back pocket, which ever one you feel will do

you the most good. The French have shown how far you can take that. You can

only make poor people starve for so long before they plant them self’s at your

dinning table and tell you too pass the gravy. (Or your head)

Water wars; Mexico is already thousands of gallons in areas to the US. The US

may break treaties, but we sure get bent out of shape when some one breaks one

with us.

Schwarz

wtsdv <liberty@...> wrote:--- In ,

Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> Assuming it's true, the fact that 80% of donations to non-profits

> come from the bottom third pretty much demolishes the libertarian

> fantasy that in a nearly tax-free society, charity would pick up

> the slack.

There is no such libertarian fantasy, at least not on my part.

You all really miss the point. I don't have to direct a pick-

pocket to an alternative source of money before I can demand

he get his damned hand out of my pocket. It's _my_ money, and

I not only shouldn't be coerced to give it to anybody that I

don't want to, but I don't even have to justify that choice

to the self-designated saviors of the world. In fact I'm not

at all hoping or expecting that private sources will be able

to step in replace the government in many of these cases, but

rather that many of them will stop receiving any sort of support

altogether. For one thing I'm an atheist, so I certainly resent

my money going to support churches, and would happily see them

all fall. For another thing, I believe the world is grossly

overpopulated, so I definitely resent my money going to feed,

house, and educate the children of strangers. If one couldn't

expect welfare and free public education, many would think twice

about having children. The scraping off of some of these leeches,

and the starving off of some of these social tumors, are among

the things which I _most_ look forward to with the implementation

of libertarianism. It's not compassionate to shirk from cutting

off a gangrenous limb, and an honorable person prefers death to

being a parasite.

[Guest guest]

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

From: " Rundle " <Dpdg@...>

> wrote - <<1. There's a difference between refusing to support

people and killing them.>>

>

> if the end result is the same... where's the difference?...

> is it that you don't like to get YOUR hands dirty?

Will you die if I refuse to support you? You seem to have done all right

up until now.

I can always tell someone is out of arguments when he starts accusing me

of murder.

[Guest guest]

>> Ah, such empathy! ;-)

>

>My empathy is boundless, and though I don't know you well, your

>compassion would have to be much greater than average to come

>anywhere near the level of mine. However our differences on this

>particular have nothing to do with a disparity in our respective

>capacities for empathy, but rather one in our capacities for logical

>thinking. I guess it's just one of those undeniable differences in

>gender you keep insisting upon - men are naturally more logical than

>women.*

Women have a physically bigger connection between their

right and left brains, which seems to translate to more

awareness of emotions ... but when a person uses phrases

about being happy to get rid of social leeches another person

might perhaps be forgiven for inferring lack of empathy ...

>> That was pretty much how Hitler felt about the handicapped

>> and other social leeches.

>

>It's not anything like the way Hitler felt. Hitler arbitrated and

>imposed from above his own ideas about who had value and who did not,

>something anathema to libertarians,

Hitler IMPOSED his ideas and in your ideal, they are not imposed.

But the philosophy he was talking about was from the same

root as the way you were talking ... that large portions of society

are economic social leeches, basically. That philosophy was really

popular in the first part of this century, and the fact he carried

it to a logical conclusion (albeit not an empathetic one) I think

scared people away from that philosophy for awhile.

> It's a Darwinian view ... logical to the extreme.

>I've heard this so many times, and it's so silly. It has nothing to

>do with Darwin, who _described_ what was. He did not _prescribe_

>what should be. I'm not trying to impose any personal idea about who

>should survive and who should not, beyond that of where I want my

>_own_ money to go.

True, he only described. But he described pretty accurately

the world where the stongest members of the herd survive,

and the weakest get eaten by wolves. That paradigm is quoted

by so many in current society (and it sounded that way in your

original quote) that calling in " Darwinian " is an easy shortcut,

since he first described it. That happens in other areas too.

The idea of your " own " money reflects the " individualist "

world view, which is really common in the US. If you really

want the extreme of individualism, then you take your

dog and your horse and go live out in the wilderness

trapping. You survive by your wits, or don't survive, according

to the princibles Darwin described.

The other paradigm (leaving governments out of it) is

the " community " view. Here you belong to a group. Some

persons -- almost always women -- nurture you for the

first 10-15 years of your life, and if you are a guy, you

probably get a woman to wait on you for most of the

rest of your life and care for your kids (not advocating,

but this is reality in most of the world). You get a lot

of bennies for living in a community, not least of which

is people to care for you if you get ill. BUT -- there is

very little freedom in these groups. Behaviour is almost

always extremely regulated according to a set of taboos

and cultural norms. A woman does not have the choice

of caring or not caring for her ailing aunt, or of obeying

her husband (usuall). The husband does not have the choice of

going to war or not, if the rest of the tribe does.

People tend to be happy enough in paradigm 2, though

you would describe it as stifling. It IS stifling, esp. for

women, but it is also the norm. Humans never have had

much personal freedom, and they actually adapt

to structure (esp. after they grow past young adulthood,

when they rebel a lot).

Now, our current system is trying to implement #2,

while maintaining the freedoms of #1. So the compromise

is: taxes. You pay money -- but for the most part, you don't

have anyone telling you what to do (except maybe your

parents, roomates, or significant other) and you DO have

a lot of choices. And you get someone to take care

of you if you get really ill, without assigning the role

of " slave " to the women in your life.

Since I take it

you are a young man, you have probably had someone

taking care of you most of your life, cooking and cleaning

(and if you help out, major kudos to you!). You may or

may not have taken advantage of public schooling, but

someone taught you to read and write. You will likely

go to a college that gets some kind of tax funds from

people who really didn't want to pay them. Would you

really get those bennies in a Libertarian system? Maybe,

maybe not ... it's a leap of faith.

>No, it means that human freedom is more important than economics, or

>anything else. It means that freedom is the very essence of

>humaness.

And that is exactly where we will have to agree to disagree.

I think community is the essence of humanness. Freedom

is an illusion -- humans can't survive as individuals so they

have to compromise.

>

>> that you are valued according to what you can produce. So if you

>> aren't productive, you are useless.

>

>No, in fact, and again, that is exactly what _you're_ advocating,

>the idea that one must justify their existence in terms of what they

>contribute to the collective, the idea that one doesn't belong to

>oneself, but is merely a cog in the machine that is the nation,

>state, tribe, or whatever. Under libertarianism there is no common

>or governmentally imposed concept of value. Each is free to decide

>upon and pursue their own values, unmolested by others, but of course

>only at their own expense.

I was commenting on the " social leeches " phrase. ALL of us are

social leeches at some points in our life -- esp.during childhood

and old age. The question is: who will take care of us? You either

are taken care of by your family, some nice person,

the government, or you die.

That is morally

>wrong. What is more, it is somewhat hypocritical, because you have

>chosen to keep part of your own resources that could be helping

>someone who needs it. I'm sure that you're living above the level of

>mere survival, and yet today there are how many millions of people

>suffering? You could give to those people, but you have decided that

>you have the right to a certain level of comfort and so withold what

>you could otherwise give, to maintain that level. What would you do

>if someone decided you needed to be doing more, and forcefully took

>all you had, leaving only enough for mere survival? Ideologically

>you'd have no basis for complaining.

Well, no, it's not hypocritical because in my world view (and in

the reality of the situation) I'm part of a collective. A HUGE amount

of my time and money goes toward supporting the collective. In taxes

yes (which is the EASY part!). The harder part is getting up at 3AM to

fix nightmares, staying home when I'd rather be out, cooking and cleaning,

supporting DH to go on a fishing trip. The taxation the gov't and insurance

imposes is the least of my worries ... but when I CAN go to the hospital

to fix a kid who really needs it and not go broke, I'm thankful.

If the gov't was more intrusive than it is (and it seems to be wanting

to go that way) then I need to exercise my part of the collective

and protest, because I feel the gov't is (or should be) an extension

of the collective will of the people. There is always some warlord

type who wants to take over ... the rest of us have to resist that.

>

>> If so, when did that happen? It certainly wasn't true 200 years

>> ago, much less 10,000 years ago.

>

>Again you cite tradition as an authority, but the further you go back

>in time, the more horrible human existence was. We are instinctively

>tribal because it served the purposes of the " selfish gene " , not

>those of individual happiness. There was no Garden of Eden, and our

>answers don't lie in our savage past, but in our intellectually

>enlightened future.

I doubt Price would agree with you there. Hunter-gathers didn't

lead a " horrible " existence according to most observers. The

Neolithic folks worked much much harder than the Paleos. We

are probably " instinctively " tribal because many mammals are

(even lions and other predators). We can design a " perfect " society

now, for sure, but it does have to take into account our

" hard wiring " or it is doomed to fail. Many of us would dislike

living in YOUR utopia where the responsibility falls back on the

family unit or the individual, because we like the support of a group

even if that imposes on our freedom.

>

>

>*I don't believe the statement about women's capacity for logical

>thinking. It's was merely " tit for tat " . (-:

I would LOVE to make some joke about 'tit for tat' and ...

oh well.

[Guest guest]

>Is there some loophole in the tax system which allows charitable

>contributions to result in a net financial benefit for the contributor? If

>so, would you please tell me how I can get in on this? If not, then how can

>paying $100 in order to avoid paying $30 in taxes be considered a winning

>proposition?

>

>--

> Berg

I don't know if this still works, or for what tax brackets, but

at the time it was explained to me (by someone doing it)

it was to switch tax brackets when you are on the edge.

But I'm not into bookeeping so I'm certainly no expert.

Also I'm not sure if said person was talking about his

corporation or his personal taxes.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> wrote - <<1. There's a difference between refusing to

> support people and killing them.>>

>

> if the end result is the same... where's the difference?...

> is it that you don't like to get YOUR hands dirty?

Are _your_ hands dirty, Dedy? As I pointed out to Heidi,

countless people die of hunger everyday while you live in

comfort. Do you not _let_ that happen?

It's impossible to correct all bad in the world, thus that

cannot be made a moral imperative. One can however make

sure never to contribute to the bad with their own actions,

thus the basis of morality is to _not_ do evil, rather than

making sure one _prevents_ all evil.

You certainly don't, and can't, take care of all the needy

in the world, but for some reason arguing on the wrong side

of this issue makes you at least _feel_ more compassionate

and charitable. Amazing trick that! I wish my conscience

responded to such " placebos " , but it doesn't. I have to

actually _do_ good before I pat myself on the back.

[Guest guest]

>

> is right –charities picking up the slack- is not what the

> Libertarians are saying.

Some are saying that, some are not, but you've missed the

important point. That is the _distinction_ I made in the

types of persons and activities now receiving government

support. Be very careful how you characterize me Ruby or

you risk stepping over the line onto slander. I'm sure you

don't want to slander anybody, do you?

Let me elaborate. The literal starving to death of poor

individuals who are truly unable to care for themselves,

and have no one in the world interested in helping them,

is not what I want to see, but I have complete confidence

in human nature that that will not be allowed to happen.

That alone doesn't really require that much money in any

case. What I would like to see, for one thing, is the

end of my tax subsidization of religions that I believe

to be false and immoral like Christianity, Islam, and

religious Judaism. I don't have any unrealistic hope that

prying them off of the tax vein alone will " starve " them

out of existence, but at least it will reduce their power

and influence to some degree, and more importantly, whatever

they have left won't come from _my_ pocket. You certainly

understand, do you not, how I can't find the subsidization

of persons and activities which I consider immoral anything

but intolerable? Another thing I'd like to see an end to

is politicians voting their own pay raises and living like

royalty. They are indeed leeches, and ones I like to see

starved out. There are many more such " holes " into which

I resent being forced to drop my money, but which I won't

list here. I'm sure you have your own such list. I do

want to include though, that while I don't want to see

desperate individuals allowed to starve, I do definitely

want to see their resources so severely cut that they dare

not even think of reproducing. Dysfunctional people tend

to produce dysfunctional children, whether through genetically

inherited behavior, behavior learned by example, or by simply

not being able to give their children the best care and education.

I don't believe that dysfunctional people deserved to be killed,

or even left to die, but they definitely do _not_ deserve the

right to reproduce more miserable people, and certainly at

least not at _my_ expense when I so deeply disapprove of it.

> one in the world to help them Prier to us having a Social

> Services System, charities where not providing for most of

> the needs of the poor or crippled …, who where without family

> able to help them.

How many were allowed to starve to death every year, and

how many hungry children did those who starved to death

give birth to _after_ they died?

> I am sure that most people in the Libertarian party already know

> this, so no that is not what they are saying.

Your ability to read minds is amazing. Your spelling slightly

less so.

> As for our money going to help churches with there charity works.

> That was tried here in Texas when Bush was governor. And then

> STOPPED.

It should have never been started. I'll take up arms before

I'll allow my money to support a church. It's much better in

my opinion for a person to starve to death rather than convert

to Christianity out of gratitude to the church who fed him,

especially since the church didn't really feed him, my money

did. Why should I tolerate being forced to support my enemies?

Our society functions as well as it does because it secularized.

That is it arranged a cease-fire or truce of sorts between the

religious factions. No one was to be declared true or false, or

receive special recognition by the state. However things like

tax subsidization of churches violates the principles of that

truce and threatens to end it.

> The incidence of abuse (not just of money) was too high. There

> was both emotional and physical abuse of elderly and child. There

> was one child with broken bones.

And yet you draw no lesson about tax subsidized charity from all

of this!

> What the Libertarians have to say about the elimination of all

> social services, and regulatory agencies, Is the same thing that

> he (Farwell) wants, and what all reconstructions want.

>

> And if they want it I DO NOT.

I don't know if what you say about Falwell is true or not, and

I don't intend to waste my time reading anything written by him.

It's irrelevant in any case, because even a broken clock is

accurate twice a day.

I could also say that when opposite sides are both happy with

their piece of the cake, it must have truly been evenly, and

thus _fairly_, divided. Libertarianism is fair to all.

> As for padlocking your pantry or back pocket, which ever one you

> feel will do you the most good. The French have shown how far you

> can take that. You can only make poor people starve for so long

> before they plant them self's at your dinning table and tell you

> too pass the gravy. (Or your head)

What a totally inapt analogy. The French aristocracy was the

parasite in this instance, starving the poor by coercing their

resources from them. The poor in this instance were created

in the first place by a disregard for libertarian principles.

> Water wars; Mexico is already thousands of gallons in areas to the

> US. The US may break treaties, but we sure get bent out of shape

> when some one breaks one with us.

Relevance?

[Guest guest]

>

> Women have a physically bigger connection between their

> right and left brains, which seems to translate to more

> awareness of emotions ...

You must certainly be aware that that's all unproven

speculation, and as we both keep saying, individuals

vary, so why keep trying the same tired defense?

> but when a person uses phrases about being happy to get rid of

> social leeches another person might perhaps be forgiven for

> inferring lack of empathy ...

Why? Would you have empathy for a literal leach, and

fail to scrape it off your arm if it were sucking your

blood? Without first knowing to what or whom I'm

metaphorically referring as a leech, how can you be

sure it deserves empathy?

> Hitler IMPOSED his ideas and in your ideal, they are not imposed.

> But the philosophy he was talking about was from the same

> root as the way you were talking ...

Ridiculous! Hitler believed he had the right to coerce,

or even kill the individual in the interest of the

collective. Libertarianism forbids sacrificing the

individual to the interests of the group. In what

universe are those ideas based on the same philosophy?

> that large portions of society

> are economic social leeches, basically.

How did we get to " _large_ portions " ? I think the larger

portion of society is getting reamed, and that most of

what gets taken goes to the _governmental_ leech, not the

needy, who are simply the excuse.

> That philosophy was really popular in the first part of this

> century, and the fact he carried it to a logical conclusion

> (albeit not an empathetic one) I think scared people away from

> that philosophy for awhile.

Again, I don't know how you arrived at such a bizarre

comparison. The National Socialists, or " Nazis " for

short, showed us their philosophical basis right in

their name. They were _nationalists_, and _socialists_.

Both of which are diametrically opposed to libertarianism.

> The idea of your " own " money reflects the " individualist "

> world view, which is really common in the US.

My individualism is a fact, not merely a view. I can

pinch myself hard, and repeatedly, and I guarantee

you that you'll never feel the pain. You and I are

separate beings, not separate features on one creature.

You speak of grounding political theories in biological

fact, well that is a biological fact.

> If you really want the extreme of individualism, then you

> take your dog and your horse and go live out in the wilderness

> trapping. You survive by your wits, or don't survive, according

> to the princibles Darwin described.

More nonsense. Demanding that one's individual rights be

respected in no way implies that one needs, or even wants,

to live alone. Why not require that the group arrangement

be _mutually_ beneficial to _all_ its members? Why do

you want to banish to the wilderness anybody who finds his

group taking more from him than it gives, and who so wants

to leave it for another. Why does your group think it has

the right to monopolize a territory and all exchange that

takes place within that territory?

> The other paradigm (leaving governments out of it) is

> the " community " view. Here you belong to a group. Some

> persons -- almost always women -- nurture you for the

> first 10-15 years of your life, and if you are a guy, you

> probably get a woman to wait on you for most of the

> rest of your life and care for your kids (not advocating,

> but this is reality in most of the world). You get a lot

> of bennies for living in a community, not least of which

> is people to care for you if you get ill. BUT -- there is

> very little freedom in these groups. Behaviour is almost

> always extremely regulated according to a set of taboos

> and cultural norms. A woman does not have the choice

> of caring or not caring for her ailing aunt, or of obeying

> her husband (usuall). The husband does not have the choice of

> going to war or not, if the rest of the tribe does.

>

> People tend to be happy enough in paradigm 2, though

> you would describe it as stifling. It IS stifling, esp. for

> women, but it is also the norm. Humans never have had

> much personal freedom, and they actually adapt

> to structure (esp. after they grow past young adulthood,

> when they rebel a lot).

>

> Now, our current system is trying to implement #2,

> while maintaining the freedoms of #1. So the compromise

> is: taxes. You pay money -- but for the most part, you don't

> have anyone telling you what to do (except maybe your

> parents, roomates, or significant other) and you DO have

> a lot of choices. And you get someone to take care

> of you if you get really ill, without assigning the role

> of " slave " to the women in your life.

No, I'm sorry, but your analysis of the alternatives and

what each necessarily entails, is flawed. This is just

how _you_ see it. The options are not really restricted

to what you describe here.

> Since I take it you are a young man,

I've already told you I'm thirty-eight. Do you consider

that young?

> you have probably had someone taking care of you most of your

> life, cooking and cleaning (and if you help out, major kudos to

> you!).

No one has cooked or cleaned for me since I was eighteen,

twenty years ago. Nor has anybody ever done my gravel

or chainsaw work for me, as has been done for you. In

any case I have the fifteen nieces and nephews that I

mentioned to you, their respective mates, my sisters and

brothers-in-law, and in a few years, my great nieces and

great nephews to take care of me, as I take care of them

when I can. No one needs to coerce us to act this way,

we do so because we love each other. You're way off base,

and hopefully not intentionally obfuscating, by trying to

contrast libertarianism with mutual human aid or human

community. The two are in no way mutually exclusive, just

the opposite in fact. The acknowledgement of and respect

for each other's individual rights is a necessary cornerstone

to a healthy and happy community experience, for _everyone_

involved.

> You may or may not have taken advantage of public schooling,

I hated nearly every minute of my time in public school. It

was just about the worst experience in my life. My parents

insist that they only sent me because it was the law and they

had no choice. If they didn't have to pay taxes for, among

other things, public schooling, they might have been able to

educate me privately or at home.

> but someone taught you to read and write. You will likely

> go to a college that gets some kind of tax funds from

> people who really didn't want to pay them.

I wanted to go to college, but my parents felt they couldn't

afford it. If they had been left the money taken from them

in the form of taxes, they might have been able to afford it.

Later, after I began working, I didn't want to have the double

burden of working and going to school, so I never did go to

college. However while I was working, money was being taken

from me against my will to help other people go to college who

now compete with me for jobs, and have the advantage over me

of having a college degree. How do you think I feel about that?

> Would you really get those bennies in a Libertarian system?

> Maybe, maybe not ... it's a leap of faith.

I don't know what " bennies " are. I guess you mean benefits?

If so, you've really been suckered. The government takes half

of your money away from you, then returns a quarter back in

the form of assistance with your tuition, and you thank them

for it!

So you see it boils down to two possible scenarios. Either

you believe that everybody's having money forcibly taken from

them, and that you're getting back _less_ than you had taken

from you, but are happy anyway and thus are a sucker, or you

think that you're getting more money than you lost, at other

people's expense, but are happy anyway and thus are a thief.

> And that is exactly where we will have to agree to disagree.

> I think community is the essence of humanness. Freedom

> is an illusion -- humans can't survive as individuals so they

> have to compromise.

This is part of the problem. You have a distorted understanding

of freedom.

> I was commenting on the " social leeches " phrase. ALL of us are

> social leeches at some points in our life -- esp.during childhood

> and old age.

No we're not. We are not leeches to those who love us and

_freely_ choose to care for us.

> The question is: who will take care of us? You either

> are taken care of by your family, some nice person,

> the government, or you die.

No, the question is: if no one in the end chooses to care

for us, do we have the right to coerce them to do so? Why

is it that you're so comfortable with the idea of coercing

others under threat of violence to be of service to you and

your interests? Why is it you're so sure there is no " nice

person " anywhere?

You're not taking the position you do because it's truly

fair and just, practical, or even in everybody's interest.

You take it because it's in your _own_ interest. The

government rewards and provides incentives for those who

will breed more taxpayers for them. But you've still yet

to answer my question. Why should _I_ support such a

system any longer? When I and people like me wake up and

stop supporting a system that's not in our own best interest,

where will you get your bennies then?

> Well, no, it's not hypocritical because in my world view (and in

> the reality of the situation) I'm part of a collective. A HUGE

> amount of my time and money goes toward supporting the collective.

> In taxes yes (which is the EASY part!). The harder part is getting

> up at 3AM to fix nightmares, staying home when I'd rather be out,

> cooking and cleaning, supporting DH to go on a fishing trip.

Having a husband and children was your own choice, and your own

problem, or are you rather implying that since you're happy to

be reamed by the government, I should be too?

> The taxation the gov't and insurance imposes is the least of my

> worries ... but when I CAN go to the hospital to fix a kid who

> really needs it and not go broke, I'm thankful.

Presumably because it would cost you more if you had to pay

your own medical bills. How shameful! You openly admit that

you enjoy having me forced at gunpoint to pay the expenses of

a child I didn't ask you to have!

> I doubt Price would agree with you there.

Price made some useful observations, but not necessarily with

any more insight than the average person in the same position

would have made. In fact, much of Price's thinking is on the

verge of being quackery.

> Hunter-gathers didn't lead a " horrible " existence according to

> most observers.

Where did you find an " observer " from the Palaeolithic era?

Why have we consistenly through the ages sought better and

better technology to improve our lives if there was never

any want to begin with?

> The Neolithic folks worked much much harder than the Paleos.

> We are probably " instinctively " tribal because many mammals

> are(even lions and other predators).

For whatever reason we are instinctively tribal, if it truly

is _instinctive_ and thus genetic, then it is necessarily in

the interest of the selfish gene and not the individual.

Correct?

> We can design a " perfect " society now, for sure, but it does have

> to take into account our " hard wiring " or it is doomed to fail.

We can't design anything until first free to do so. The U.S.

government doesn't allow competitors to operate within the

territory it claims.

> Many of us would dislike living in YOUR utopia where the

> responsibility falls back on the family unit or the individual,

A leech never likes being scraped off. The right to live

free of parasites is one that should be respected. The

right to be a parasite on another is not.

> because we like the support of a group even if that imposes on

> our freedom.

I don't care how much of _your_ freedom your willing to throw

away. You're imposing on _my_ freedom and asking support from

_me_, not from your " group " , since I never volunteered to be

part of your support group.

> I would LOVE to make some joke about 'tit for tat' and ...

> oh well.

Why don't you go ahead. Ring Around the Collar doesn't rule the

list yet.