Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote: Let them eat cake! Sure, they will move, but the prices haven't come down over the years. The nice spots, with a view or clean air to breath or on a lake, will keep going up by the inexorable laws of capitalism, and the poor get the worst, the most crowded, the most polluted, etc. That's the way it's supposed to be, right? ###### No. By the " inexorable laws of capitalism " (a termed coined by Marx as a pejorative denigrating the free and voluntary exchange of goods) prices continually go down, and have done so as a matter of historical fact for a very long time as I mentioned in a previous post. Prices get distorted go up and *stay* up for many many reasons, most of which involve gov't intervention of some sort at some level, like all the growth management issues here in the state of Washington. The rising tide helps everyone, including the poor, enjoy a better quality of living. But this is because of the " inexorable laws of capitalism " when they are allowed to work and not hampered by those who think they can do better by regulation, only to hurt the very people they claim to be most concerned about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > -----Original Message----- > From: [mailto:slethnobotanist@...] > > By the " inexorable laws of capitalism " (a termed coined by > Marx as a pejorative denigrating the free and voluntary > exchange of goods) prices continually go down, and have done > so as a matter of historical fact for a very long time as I > mentioned in a previous post. Land prices are different, though. With all other goods, supply tends to increase over the long term as the technology for producing it improves. With land, supply remains fixed and prices fluctuate with demand. When population goes up, demand goes up. When more efficient uses of land are developed (high-rise apartments, for example), demand goes down. And there are innumerable other factors that affect both global and local demand for land. While we can say with near certainty that the prices of most man-made goods will continue to go down in the future, I don't know of any way to predict long-term trends in land prices. Certainly, though, we can say that housing prices tripling in two years is an anomalous and unsustainable trend. Barndon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 very true, we could definately afford everyplace we have lived in the last decade if the rent were 1/3 to 1/2 of what I had to pay. - who doesn't go to doctors anymore > Part of it may be government intervention, but a lot of it is also supply > and demand. Housing prices have tripled in my neighborhood, in 2 years. > I couldn't afford to buy my house now! Someone did a study on standards > of living, and concluded that most things are cheaper now, but the two > things that make people need to work more and more are housing costs > and health care costs, both of which have skyrocketed. > > > Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > > No. It is not racist or chauvinistic. It is a nationalistic view I am > > taking. > ______ > > ~~~~> With respect to the objective elements of the definition of > " chauvinism, " one of which, according to my Websters, is " excessive or > blind patriotism, " > nationalism is chauvinism, as " patriotism " is, according to the same > source, > a love of one's country. " Excessive " is a subjective term, and one of > scale, > so it would depend where on that scale your view lies, in the eyes of the > person using the word, but it is certainly applicable to the extent it > can be > objectively defined. Blind patriotism is not that same as patriotism. Period. Try again. > ______ > > > Do we want to outsource national > > defense? If not, why not? > > ______ > > ~~~~~> Nations are made of people, and people have their own > interests, some > of which coincide with those of others within a nation while clashing > with yet > others. There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se, > because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be > allocated > selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at > the expense of > other interests of the same people or of other people. Thus, there is > only > defense of certain things pertaining to certain groups of individuals > within a > nation, rather than a unified defense of a monolithic national interest. Okay. What are physical borders for? They don't consist of people. But people do indeed occupy land. Still, do you want to outsource defense of your land and people? > > As an example, for a long time the oil in Iraq was selectively > defended with > a much greater amount of resources by US troops than other property > within > Iraq. Had the same resources been put towards protecting the property > of store owners or individuals, or different businesses, or > archeological interests, > etc, different groups of individuals would have benefited at the > expense of those who had a greater interest in protecting the oil. The US troops were not defending their nation. And, in fact, the Iraqis might say the troops were offending the Iraqi nation. Bad example. Is this now US oil? What is you point? > > When 9/11 happened, the government failed to protect the World Trade > Center > and those involved in the tragedy. When the Republican National > Convention > occurred, a force of 10,000 police men successfully defended the > President. A > smaller amount of human resources were employed in the search for > Osama bin > Laden. These are more examples of how allocating resources in > different amounts to different tasks results in the selective defense > of some interests at the expense of other interests within a nation. It depends on which version of events you wish to accept. Who did what and why? > > Since the government is able to levy its fees by force, without regard > to its > success at the task of defense, it is not required to be successful to > maintain its revenues. A firm located within, or outside of, the US > that must > perform successfully at providing its defense services, has a greater > incentive to protect the property entrusted to it than does the US > government, because > protecting US property could generate an enormous amount of revenue, > and failing the task or deliberately avoiding it would result in a > loss of that revenue. This is simply not true when contractors (mercenaries?) are used to fight wars; not for the US government directly, but for profit by private firms, as is the case in Iraq anyway. And so go the legal implications. Who is upholding Geneva Convention rights? So it may be that your argument about levy by force is not so much a matter of state anymore. In any case, so many questions arise by this sort of action, war for profit by business. > > This is reflective of Bastiat's dictum, " If goods don't cross borders, > soldiers will. " The tying of financial interests between nations > creates a common > interest in peace, because the various interests within the various > nations are > dependent on the protection of the property involved in their financial > assets for the continuous generation of revenue. > > On the other hand, a defense firm that maintains its revenue by the > use of > force (such as the US government) could not only be incompetent, but even > deliberately avoid defending the property entrusted to it, and not > only continue its > revenue, but even use this incompetence or other failure as a political > justification for increasing the revenue it acquires by force. BTW, the US government is not a defense firm. And last I checked, contracts for defense are not based on force (which I have shown, may not even be the job of the US government) but are solely based on projected budgeted needs. Procurement is another matter, of course. > . This It is relatively easy to slip by incompetently or deliberately > failing to > defend the " national interest " when there is no such thing. A firm > that had > specific property to defend with specific amounts of resources to > achieve specific > results could be objectively evaluated by its customers as to whether > it was > failing or succeeding to perform the duties being paid for. > > Maybe " outsourcing " " national " defense isn't such a bad idea? > > Chris Stocks are speculative as well. Terrorism is also. The US nation. Do these entities exist? YES. Well, you maybe happy to know that if this open ended war on terror continues, some nice young man like you may well be outsourced by draft for the defense of our nation :0 Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 > > No. It is not racist or chauvinistic. It is a nationalistic view I am > > taking. > ______ > > ~~~~> With respect to the objective elements of the definition of > " chauvinism, " one of which, according to my Websters, is " excessive or > blind patriotism, " > nationalism is chauvinism, as " patriotism " is, according to the same > source, > a love of one's country. " Excessive " is a subjective term, and one of > scale, > so it would depend where on that scale your view lies, in the eyes of the > person using the word, but it is certainly applicable to the extent it > can be > objectively defined. Blind patriotism is not that same as patriotism. Period. Try again. > ______ > > > Do we want to outsource national > > defense? If not, why not? > > ______ > > ~~~~~> Nations are made of people, and people have their own > interests, some > of which coincide with those of others within a nation while clashing > with yet > others. There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se, > because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be > allocated > selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at > the expense of > other interests of the same people or of other people. Thus, there is > only > defense of certain things pertaining to certain groups of individuals > within a > nation, rather than a unified defense of a monolithic national interest. Okay. What are physical borders for? They don't consist of people. But people do indeed occupy land. Still, do you want to outsource defense of your land and people? > > As an example, for a long time the oil in Iraq was selectively > defended with > a much greater amount of resources by US troops than other property > within > Iraq. Had the same resources been put towards protecting the property > of store owners or individuals, or different businesses, or > archeological interests, > etc, different groups of individuals would have benefited at the > expense of those who had a greater interest in protecting the oil. The US troops were not defending their nation. And, in fact, the Iraqis might say the troops were offending the Iraqi nation. Bad example. Is this now US oil? What is you point? > > When 9/11 happened, the government failed to protect the World Trade > Center > and those involved in the tragedy. When the Republican National > Convention > occurred, a force of 10,000 police men successfully defended the > President. A > smaller amount of human resources were employed in the search for > Osama bin > Laden. These are more examples of how allocating resources in > different amounts to different tasks results in the selective defense > of some interests at the expense of other interests within a nation. It depends on which version of events you wish to accept. Who did what and why? > > Since the government is able to levy its fees by force, without regard > to its > success at the task of defense, it is not required to be successful to > maintain its revenues. A firm located within, or outside of, the US > that must > perform successfully at providing its defense services, has a greater > incentive to protect the property entrusted to it than does the US > government, because > protecting US property could generate an enormous amount of revenue, > and failing the task or deliberately avoiding it would result in a > loss of that revenue. This is simply not true when contractors (mercenaries?) are used to fight wars; not for the US government directly, but for profit by private firms, as is the case in Iraq anyway. And so go the legal implications. Who is upholding Geneva Convention rights? So it may be that your argument about levy by force is not so much a matter of state anymore. In any case, so many questions arise by this sort of action, war for profit by business. > > This is reflective of Bastiat's dictum, " If goods don't cross borders, > soldiers will. " The tying of financial interests between nations > creates a common > interest in peace, because the various interests within the various > nations are > dependent on the protection of the property involved in their financial > assets for the continuous generation of revenue. > > On the other hand, a defense firm that maintains its revenue by the > use of > force (such as the US government) could not only be incompetent, but even > deliberately avoid defending the property entrusted to it, and not > only continue its > revenue, but even use this incompetence or other failure as a political > justification for increasing the revenue it acquires by force. BTW, the US government is not a defense firm. And last I checked, contracts for defense are not based on force (which I have shown, may not even be the job of the US government) but are solely based on projected budgeted needs. Procurement is another matter, of course. > . This It is relatively easy to slip by incompetently or deliberately > failing to > defend the " national interest " when there is no such thing. A firm > that had > specific property to defend with specific amounts of resources to > achieve specific > results could be objectively evaluated by its customers as to whether > it was > failing or succeeding to perform the duties being paid for. > > Maybe " outsourcing " " national " defense isn't such a bad idea? > > Chris Stocks are speculative as well. Terrorism is also. The US nation. Do these entities exist? YES. Well, you maybe happy to know that if this open ended war on terror continues, some nice young man like you may well be outsourced by draft for the defense of our nation :0 Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:43:47 -0800 " Berg " <bberg@...> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [mailto:slethnobotanist@...] > > > > By the " inexorable laws of capitalism " (a termed coined by > > Marx as a pejorative denigrating the free and voluntary > > exchange of goods) prices continually go down, and have done > > so as a matter of historical fact for a very long time as I > > mentioned in a previous post. > > Land prices are different, though. With all other goods, supply tends to > increase over the long term as the technology for producing it improves. > With land, supply remains fixed and prices fluctuate with demand. When > population goes up, demand goes up. When more efficient uses of land are > developed (high-rise apartments, for example), demand goes down. And there > are innumerable other factors that affect both global and local demand for > land. While we can say with near certainty that the prices of most man-made > goods will continue to go down in the future, I don't know of any way to > predict long-term trends in land prices. Certainly, though, we can say that > housing prices tripling in two years is an anomalous and unsustainable > trend. > > Barndon You are right of course, but I don't think that is what is driving the price of housing in many places, nonetheless I should have mentioned land as being the exception. The problem is that prices are higher than they otherwise would be because of restrictions on land use and various other regulations and gov't policies. Remove these and while demand might still increase prices it wouldn't be what they are now. I used to live right on the water in Seattle. Beautiful place and beautiful area, but when I saw the appraisal on my place it was just out of this world. Then come to find out that the city of Seattle had made it illegal to build any more homes on the water. They did this many years ago (early part of the 20th century) because the city council didn't like the element that was living on the water at the time (white trash as the article put it). When you artificially restrict the supply it shouldn't come as a shock when prices skyrocket as demand increases. " Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through a deeper factual analysis. " Murray Rothbard " Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side. Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner; and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is like a day without sunshine. " Brad Edmonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 27, 2004 Report Share Posted November 27, 2004 On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:01:12 -0600 Deanna <hl@...> wrote: > > ~~~~~> Nations are made of people, and people have their own > > interests, some > > of which coincide with those of others within a nation while clashing > > with yet > > others. There is therefore no such thing as " national defense " per se, > > because resources are limited, not unlimited, and therefore must be > > allocated > > selectively, necessarily defending some interests of some people at > > the expense of > > other interests of the same people or of other people. Thus, there is > > only > > defense of certain things pertaining to certain groups of individuals > > within a > > nation, rather than a unified defense of a monolithic national interest. > > Okay. What are physical borders for? They don't consist of people. > But people do indeed occupy land. Still, do you want to outsource > defense of your land and people? A state is a group of people who have acquired an aggressive monopoly of force over a given territory. The physical borders represent the limits to which they can enforce their monopoly (generally speaking). I wouldn't " outsource " defense, I would simply take it out of the hands of the state, since the state's interests are often (and necessarily) at odds with those of whom they claim to " protect " (because of the scarcity of resources) and place it in the hands of those who are most willing to provide what I want in terms of protection. > > As an example, for a long time the oil in Iraq was selectively > > defended with > > a much greater amount of resources by US troops than other property > > within > > Iraq. Had the same resources been put towards protecting the property > > of store owners or individuals, or different businesses, or > > archeological interests, > > etc, different groups of individuals would have benefited at the > > expense of those who had a greater interest in protecting the oil. > > The US troops were not defending their nation. And, in fact, the Iraqis > might say the troops were offending the Iraqi nation. Bad example. Is > this now US oil? What is you point? I'm sure will answer this but I don't think he mentioned anything about the troops defending the nation. I could be wrong but I will hazard a guess that he might agree with you about US troops " offending " the Iraqi nation. I know I would. But I think his point was there is no such thing as a monolithic " national defense. " > > When 9/11 happened, the government failed to protect the World Trade > > Center > > and those involved in the tragedy. When the Republican National > > Convention > > occurred, a force of 10,000 police men successfully defended the > > President. A > > smaller amount of human resources were employed in the search for > > Osama bin > > Laden. These are more examples of how allocating resources in > > different amounts to different tasks results in the selective defense > > of some interests at the expense of other interests within a nation. > > It depends on which version of events you wish to accept. Who did what > and why? Whatever the version of events, it doesn't invalidate his main point which is that " national defense " measures are selective in nature and essentially a myth. > > Since the government is able to levy its fees by force, without regard > > to its > > success at the task of defense, it is not required to be successful to > > maintain its revenues. A firm located within, or outside of, the US > > that must > > perform successfully at providing its defense services, has a greater > > incentive to protect the property entrusted to it than does the US > > government, because > > protecting US property could generate an enormous amount of revenue, > > and failing the task or deliberately avoiding it would result in a > > loss of that revenue. > > This is simply not true when contractors (mercenaries?) are used to > fight wars; not for the US government directly, but for profit by > private firms, as is the case in Iraq anyway. And so go the legal > implications. Who is upholding Geneva Convention rights? So it may be > that your argument about levy by force is not so much a matter of state > anymore. In any case, so many questions arise by this sort of action, > war for profit by business. Force meaning how the revenues were obtained in the first place. And a private group of soldiers will certainly have a more vested interest in doing what they were hired for than the US gov't would even though presumably they were elected for such a purpose. > BTW, the US government is not a defense firm. And last I checked, > contracts for defense are not based on force No, but the money to pay for them is based on force. > Stocks are speculative as well. Terrorism is also. The US nation. Do > these entities exist? YES. Well, you maybe happy to know that > if this open ended war on terror continues, some nice young man like you > may well be outsourced by draft for the defense of our nation :0 Lets hope not. The Republicans are fond of saying they are the party of Lincoln, who outlawed slavery, lets hope they don't bring it back in the form of the draft. " Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through a deeper factual analysis. " Murray Rothbard " Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side. Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner; and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is like a day without sunshine. " Brad Edmonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/2004 4:07:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, ChrisMasterjohn@... writes: > Increasing government intervention to force employers > to give greater wages to people who " need " them to survive in this derranged > > nihilism toward the institution of family will only exacerbate the problem > by > allowing people to give in to a greater degree to their hedonistic desires > to > maximize their present fun and independence without regard to whether their > future and their children's future can afford it. > > Chris > Wow, Chris! Well said!!! Marilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/2004 5:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, lynn@... writes: > http://www.thenewhomemaker.com/ > Lynn--I've bookmarked your site to go back to when I can. Today is our family Thanksgiving dinner, so I've got to run! Just wanted you to know. Marilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 : >By the " inexorable laws of capitalism " (a termed coined by Marx as a pejorative denigrating the free and voluntary exchange of goods) prices continually go down, and have done so as a matter of historical fact for a very long time as I mentioned in a previous post. > >Prices get distorted go up and *stay* up for many many reasons, most of which involve gov't intervention of some sort at some level, like all the growth management issues here in the state of Washington. " prices continually go down " ???? That just isn't true in the land department. Land is a finite entity, and it's been that way since WAY before government intervention. It's what the tribes fought over and even animals fight over ... territory. Shoot, even the birds have wars over who owns our yard. Biggest or loudest bird gets hunting rights. Land prices go down when population falls or the land is perceived as less valuable for some reason. To use the waterfront analogy, when the waterfront is full of drunk sailors and " white trash " , it is cheap. When you clean it up and regulate it, it becomes desireable, mainly because people like living near the water and there is always a limited amount of waterfront available. Ditto for houses on the hill ... Capitol Hill was a pricey area, then it went downhill, then the city invested in nice stores and " upgrading " the commercial area, now prices are through the roof. Areas like Kent, which has very poor land regulation, haven't seen much price boom because it's a lousy place to live ... it looks like LA. Places like Bellevue, which has restrictions which make it a beautiful place (like, you have to have x number of trees in the parking lot), have attracted the yuppies and land prices go up. A richer person has a choice where to live. More of them choose to live here, at the moment, because the growth restrictions mean it is unlikely they will have a mega apartment spring up next door (that's why we chose the land we did! After seeing what happened to other neighborhoods). When you are buying property, you want some assurance that the REST of the landowners will make decisions you want to live next to. No way in heck I'd buy property with no zoning laws in effect. But in general, housing and land prices have gone UP when more people move in. And they haven't fallen except in areas where people are leaving. That's why for most Americans, their biggest source of wealth is their house. >The rising tide helps everyone, including the poor, enjoy a better quality of living. But this is because of the " inexorable laws of capitalism " when they are allowed to work and not hampered by those who think they can do better by regulation, only to hurt the very people they claim to be most concerned about. I truly disagree when it comes to zoning laws. There were few such laws when I was growing up, and unrestricted growth led to a disasterously nasty place to live. Left to their own devices, contractors make some amazingly lousy choices. > Heidi Jean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 >By the " inexorable laws of capitalism " (a termed coined by Marx as a pejorative denigrating the free and voluntary exchange of goods) prices continually go down, and have done so as a matter of historical fact for a very long time as I mentioned in a previous post. > ~~~That sounds like it was spoken by someone who only cares about technicological items! Prices on almost everything else continual go up. Shoes, clothes, dining out, stamps, food, services, utilities, etc. etc. etc. Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2004 Report Share Posted November 28, 2004 > Increasing government intervention to force employers > to give greater wages to people who " need " them to survive in this derranged > > nihilism toward the institution of family will only exacerbate the problem > by > allowing people to give in to a greater degree to their hedonistic desires > to > maximize their present fun and independence without regard to whether their > future and their children's future can afford it. > > Chris > Wow, Chris! Well said!!! Marilyn ~~~~Yes! I'm so tired of government intervention every time we turn around, and I'm low-income myself! Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:37:38 -0800 Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote: > > >~~~But, they didn't go out to work much at all until after womens' lib. That's my point. I wasn't talking about rights. I was talking about what actually happened. > >Carol > > A lot of Women's Lib was about " equal pay for equal work " ... not about GOING to work. > My Mom and Aunt both worked, but they got paid a lot less than their male counterparts. You are very right about the impetus of the modern women's lib movement being " equal pay for equal work. " When the *modern* movement started with the publication of Betty Friedan's _The Feminine Mystique_ back in 1963 and her organization NOW, it was about alleged economic discrimination. The movement quickly morphed into something else but that is perhaps a topic for another time. The problem is that every time it has been looked at closely (women's pay) it never quite measures up to the rhetoric. Walter demonstrated this years ago in his book, _The State Against Blacks_, but many others have done so as well upon closely examining the data. I won't quote him since he really needs to come out with an updated version of his book, but his book is well worth the effort of reading: http://tinyurl.com/5sccl There are a number of reasons why some women then and some women now in general receive less pay, none of which involve irrational sexist discrimination, as individualist feminist McElroy points out (and those of an egalitarian mindset should take note): Women Earn Less Than Men And rightly so, says McElroy, given their priorities. http://tinyurl.com/69q5w The discrimination bugaboo in terms of money is not only subject to myth when it comes to women but also minorities as well: " The ideology that informs the thinking of present-day " civil rights " agitation is cluttered with misconceptions. It is not true, for example, that discrimination must lead to poverty. As Sowell observes, the Chinese have never enjoyed an equal playing field in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, or Vietnam, yet the Chinese minority in these countries, a mere five percent of the population, owns most of these nations’ total investments in a variety of key industries. In Malaysia, the Chinese minority suffers official discrimination at the hands of the Malaysian constitution, and yet their incomes are still twice the national average. Italians in Argentina were subject to discrimination but ultimately outperformed native Argentines. " Similar stories could be told about Jews, Armenians, and East Indians. In the United States, the Japanese were so badly discriminated against that 120,000 of them were confined in detention camps for much of World War II. Yet by 1959 Japanese households had equaled those of whites in income, and by 1969 they were earning one-third more. " Another misconception is that statistical disparities between groups necessarily prove the existence of discrimination. Here again Sowell’s work is essential. There are a great many morally neutral explanations that can account for these differences. Ethnic groups in America often differ considerably in average age, sometimes by as much as a quarter century. That factor alone would be enough to account for a considerable portion of income differences between groups, since an older group will tend to have more education, more job experience, and more accumulated wealth. " The various ethnic groups are also distributed very differently across the country, some concentrated in largely low-paying areas and others in high-paying areas. Thus the difference in incomes between Asian Americans and whites (with Asian Americans earning more), and between whites and American Indians or Hispanics, essentially disappears when we control for geographical distribution, education level, and proficiency in the English language. " For a quarter century, in fact, college-educated black couples have earned slightly more on average than college-educated white couples, yet " civil rights " leaders prefer to obscure the real situation by looking at the two races in the aggregate. Only that way can they claim that " racism " is the explanation for white-black income differences. " http://tinyurl.com/3v9hz > To me it is a lot about POWER. If a woman produced 80% of what a family ate, then that > woman had a lot of say about how the family was run. But in the 50's paradigm, the man > " went to work " and the woman " kept the house " , which by that point was a nominal > job since automation had done most of the work. My Mom, for one, was unhappy > and bored. I swore never to be in THAT boat! The 50's housewife was alone in an > empty house, the kids at school, very little esteem. That was an historical anomoly. Yup, I agree with you again. One reason for that anomaly is the same reason we are able, even the poorest among us, to eat today in a way that only kings could in the past (with the attendant problems), the free market. We are wealthy today in a way unimaginable in times past. This is a demonstrable fact. http://tinyurl.com/3vx48 Women have always worked as you point out. In older times, even a women who " stayed home " was working because the kids were around all day and the scope of the home was so much broader. The modern truncation of the sphere of the home is being reversed in a number of circles with the advent of homeschooling, home businesses, growing food, etc, etc. The problem isn't so much wealth and technology as is our attitude and use of it. I know some quite well off people whose homes are a hub of constant activity and yet at the same time quite peaceful and satisfying. That is because they have resisted the trend to ship out the historic functions of the home which they could have done given their relative wealth. On the other hand, I know some relatively poor folks who have also resisted that pattern, so even though their kids *could* go to a tax subsidized school, they do not. And even though they *could* shop for food at the local convenience store they do not, and on and on. I think the truncation both of the scope of the family (no longer extended) and the type of work done by the family is part of the real problem. All of sudden women were just raising kids and that only part time with the advent of public schooling, fast food, and a reorientation of the home to be non-productive. It is interesting to note that all of the early women libbers came from the middle class and NOT the working class. Middle class wives of the 50's and 60's often found their lives measured only by part-time children and menial housework consisting of only cleaning or cooking, which is a historical anomaly. One way to get around the truncation of the extended family is to abolish immigration restrictions so that inexpensive maids and governesses would be available to help and allow women to pursue other interests without detriment to the family. Another would be a change in attitude among some that somehow homeworking is inferior to work outside the home > Women rebelled, but by that point they didn't know what the " right " paradigm might be, > and really, we still don't. I'm trying something different, and it's working pretty well, > but it's still an experiment. Hmmm...I assuming you are speaking to your own experience and not for all women? > Ideally, a woman raising kids has as much power and say-so as her husband, over the > household and the children's well-being, and finances. In the household I grew up in and in the family situations I'm aware of, then and now (with some notable exceptions) women were the de facto power no matter how much the man may have protested or tried to act otherwise. America is a very matriarchal society. Men spend their lives first trying to please their mom, then their teachers and then their wives. which by the way I think is a good thing (except for tax subsidized teachers). In America, male power is largely a myth. Homes and relationships are ruled by women. This has been noted by European observers for a long time. http://tinyurl.com/5lp7k And this has been true in a lot of places even since ancient times. The famous woman of Proverbs 31 and her counterpart in I were described as home despots - they ruled the economic sphere which revolved largely around the home in that day. The woman in Proverbs 31 was so good that in the gate (the public sphere), her husband was known by *her* reputation, akin to marrying a famous woman today. Quick, what is the name of Maggie Thatcher's husband? Who is Madonna married to? You get my point. And she (Proverbs 31) is lauded as the example of what it means to be a wife (note - she worked from home, lol!) >She can breastfeed and still > be more than a servant. What do you mean by this statement? Most women at this point in time take for granted that their > husband cannot beat them or rape them legally, as was the case in the early 1900's, > and they can vote and spend money and own property. Elsewhere in the world, this > is still not the case, and women are more 'property' than 'people'. And many American women, particularly self-described feminists, are unaware as to how this current situation came about. They are apt to blame capitalism as an evil and feminism as what delivered women from their predicament but neither is true. It was the right to property that turned things around. This was a result of the great strides in LIBERALISM ( known today as libertarianism) that occurred in the 17, 18, and 19th centuries. It was the overturning of the old feudal and pre-capitalist order that was marked by male oppression. which marked women and other humans as chattel, and could own no property, etc. " As the idea of contract enters the Law of Marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement. Nowadays the position of the woman differs from the position of the man only in so far as their peculiar ways of earning a living differ... " Woman's position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the Law of Property it necessarily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights over the wealth which she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage... " That marriage unites one man and one woman, that it can be freely entered into only with the free will of both parties...that the rights of husband and wife are essentially the same--these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of married life " Ludwig Von Mises, _Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis) And contrary to Mises, this attitude toward marriage had found expression even in ancient times. The OT gave women the right to divorce, own property, and inherit family wealth. They had to give assent to the husband of their choice. All this was UNHEARD of in the ancient world. It was later perverted by the Jews of Christ day who had a prayer that ran something like " I thank God I am not a gentile...or a woman. " But it wasn't like that from the beginning. This is why Christ is constantly saying... " you have heard it was said " (the then current Jewish understanding) " but I say unto you " (the meaning God intended all along). In fact everywhere that Christianity went, the relative status of women improved dramatically though certainly not perfectly. There were truncations by people like Augustine (and later Aquinas in the West) who unfortunately never overcame certain aspects of ancient Greek philosophy. " Scholarship is essentially confirming your early paranoia through a deeper factual analysis. " Murray Rothbard " Vegetarians, come away from The Dark Side. Pork is the other white meat; beef is what’s for dinner; and a day without pepper-crusted venison tenderloin is like a day without sunshine. " Brad Edmonds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 > Re: Re:POLITICS: Having Babies > >This is why Christ is constantly saying... " you have heard it was said " (the >then current Jewish understanding) " but I say unto you " (the meaning God >intended all along). In fact everywhere that Christianity went, the >relative status of women improved dramatically though certainly not >perfectly. Status may have improved, but everywhere Chrisitianity went, women were also told (allegedly by God through ) that their husbands were their " rulers " and wives were to obey them, as you've told me more than once, and which you've also stated you desire in your own marriage as an " authentic " Christian. I know YOU don't consider that a decrease in status, but others might have a different opinion. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 16:25:43 -0800, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote: This is why Christ is constantly saying... " you have heard it was said " (the > then current Jewish understanding) " but I say unto you " (the meaning God > intended all along). In fact everywhere that Christianity went, the > relative status of women improved dramatically though certainly not > perfectly. There were truncations by people like Augustine (and later > Aquinas in the West) who unfortunately never overcame certain aspects of > ancient Greek philosophy. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Always interesting, . I, myself wanted to point out that the " Women's Lib " movement seems to me to have been built partly upon the exploitation of low-paid female domestic help, but you got that already. Again, with the property thing. Ironically, maybe, what you've said reminds me of what I've read about the very beginnings of the Islamic religion and how it was a vast improvement in contemporary conditions for women--Arabs and Christian both. Radical, even--note the rule on inheriting property: (from some website) http://www.theharmonyproject.org/sacredpaths/islam/ " The Quran was revealed to Muhammad over a period of 22 years, and apart from its already familiar doctrine of monotheism, it also laid the foundation for a religion that initiated important social reforms. Some scholars believe that Muhammad was as much a social reformer as a mystic and theologian, and perhaps more so. The Quran makes frequent reference to zakat, the requirement to give a fixed portion of one's annual income to the poor, and this became a cornerstone of Islam, along with a special concern for the unprotected, especially orphans and women, who would have difficulty surviving in a tribal society. Addressing the horrendous treatment of women in Arab culture at the time, Muhammad forbade female infanticide and the prostitution of slave-women, and introduced the right of women to inherit a half-share of their father's estate, whereas before they got nothing. He insisted that married couples have reciprocal duties and rights, and that women should be educated, and limited the number of wives a man may lawfully have to four (although he himself had more). In practice, Muhammad gave something close to equal status to women in the first Muslim community and drew great strength from his first wife, Khadija, during the time he first began receiving his revelation and implementing the basic principles of Islam. (The fact that his treatment of women was not carried on with the same generosity by his followers makes Islam vulnerable to some of the same criticisms as Christianity, because Christ's followers have not always practiced his radical teachings on nonviolence and compassion for others.) " B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 > > > There are a number of reasons why some women then and some women now in > general receive less pay, none of which involve irrational sexist > discrimination, as individualist feminist McElroy points out (and > those of an egalitarian mindset should take note): > > Women Earn Less Than Men > And rightly so, says McElroy, given their priorities. > http://tinyurl.com/69q5w > This is becoming less and less true. Men are wanting and expecting time to meet family obligations, especially if both husband and wife work--they need to be able to share the responsibilities for their children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Even though it has always been assumed that the husband, as " head of household " has a higher status than the wife, I personally believe that is not what was originally intended. I think that interpretation was a creation of men, probably starting with , who I have a problem with on a lot of issues. From a practical standpoint, a household, workplace, government, etc. can not function properly with too many bosses (too many cooks spoil the stew). Someone has to be the boss, take responsibility, make the final decision in times of conflict. Generally (but certainly not always), a male is more capable of putting emotion aside and making a hard decision. Being physically stronger, it would also be natural that he would be responsible for the protection of his family. The roles of husband/wife should not be construed to be ruler/servant; it is really just a division of responsibilities. BTW, I am female, but serve the role of " boss " and " breadwinner " (and baker) in my household. It's just where my talents lay (lie?) > > Re: Re:POLITICS: Having Babies > > > > >This is why Christ is constantly saying... " you have heard it was said " (the > >then current Jewish understanding) " but I say unto you " (the meaning God > >intended all along). In fact everywhere that Christianity went, the > >relative status of women improved dramatically though certainly not > >perfectly. > > Status may have improved, but everywhere Chrisitianity went, women were also > told (allegedly by God through ) that their husbands were their " rulers " > and wives were to obey them, as you've told me more than once, and which > you've also stated you desire in your own marriage as an " authentic " > Christian. > > I know YOU don't consider that a decrease in status, but others might have a > different opinion. > > > Suze Fisher > Lapdog Design, Inc. > Web Design & Development > http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg > Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine > http://www.westonaprice.org > > ---------------------------- > " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause > heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- > Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt > University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. > > The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics > <http://www.thincs.org> > ---------------------------- > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 > Re:POLITICS: Having Babies > > > >From a practical standpoint, a household, workplace, government, >etc. can not function properly with too many bosses (too many cooks >spoil the stew). Someone has to be the boss, take responsibility, >make the final decision in times of conflict. I do understand this in terms of business relationships, but do not think this model necessarily works for marital relationships. I'm sure it would work for some, but don't think it works for every marriage. It certainly would NOT work for mine. LOL Generally (but >certainly not always), a male is more capable of putting emotion >aside and making a hard decision. Being physically stronger, it >would also be natural that he would be responsible for the >protection of his family. I think back in the day a man's relative physical superiority would definitely have been made him the obvious one to be the family protector. But I'm not with you on men being better at making hard decisions. Regardless, both men and women as genders and individuals bring a unique perspective and unique gifts to a marriage and the best decisions, IMO, are ones that combine their relative strengths - not ones made by one OR the other (even if the other partner is conferred with). > >The roles of husband/wife should not be construed to be >ruler/servant; it is really just a division of responsibilities. I agree and I was in no way trying to imply a ruler/servant relationship, but I also don't see it simply as a division of responsibilities (although that is clearly part of it). > >BTW, I am female, but serve the role of " boss " and " breadwinner " >(and baker) in my household. It's just where my talents lay (lie?) So you think every marriage should not be built on the (Orthodox) Christian model, but that they should be flexible depending on the talents of each husband and wife? Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- “The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 [] From a practical standpoint, a household, workplace, government, etc. can not function properly with too many bosses (too many cooks spoil the stew). Someone has to be the boss, take responsibility, make the final decision in times of conflict. [suze] I do understand this in terms of business relationships, but do not think this model necessarily works for marital relationships. I'm sure it would work for some, but don't think it works for every marriage. It certainly would NOT work for mine. LOL. I totally agree with you, Suze. IMO the definition of a *healthy* relationship (marriage and friendship, that is) is that the roles (nuturer/nutured, eg) are flexible and can shift as the needs of the marriage or friendship shift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 Quote from my man, J. : " When you make the sacrifice in marriage, you're sacrificing not to each other but to unity in a relationship. " B. On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:31:02 -0500, <jessclaire@...> wrote: > > [] From a practical standpoint, a household, workplace, government, > etc. can not function properly with too many bosses (too many cooks > spoil the stew). Someone has to be the boss, take responsibility, > make the final decision in times of conflict. > > [suze] I do understand this in terms of business relationships, but do not think > this model necessarily works for marital relationships. I'm sure it would > work for some, but don't think it works for every marriage. It certainly > would NOT work for mine. LOL. > > I totally agree with you, Suze. IMO the definition of a *healthy* > relationship (marriage and friendship, that is) is that the roles > (nuturer/nutured, eg) are flexible and can shift as the needs of the > marriage or friendship shift. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 [ says] In fact everywhere that Christianity went, the relative status of women improved dramatically though certainly not perfectly. , and everyone else, I'm curious on your opinions re: whether the arrival of Christianity improved the lot of Price's primitives. Esp. the women. B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 [] Generally (but certainly not always), a male is more capable of putting emotion aside and making a hard decision. [DMW] Do you have any evidence to support this remarkable claim? Stereotyping women as emotional silly putty without a brain to trudge through the really tough decisions is a disservice to women everywhere, unless you can back it up substantially with hard evidence. Some of us studied male-dominated subjects and actually excelled over the men at them, all without crying or whining. But I, for one, was sexually harassed by a professor and a student on different occasions, because I was not only smart, I was visually appealing to them as well. I have had quite enough to last me a lifetime of being held back or discounted simply because of my gender. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I would go even further and challenge any 'evidence' that might be provided that a male is " more capable of putting emotion aside and making a hard decision " . What kind of evidence could there possibly be? > > [] Generally (but certainly not always), a male is more capable of > putting emotion aside and making a hard decision. > > [DMW] Do you have any evidence to support this remarkable claim? > Stereotyping women as emotional silly putty without a brain to trudge > through the really tough decisions is a disservice to women everywhere, > unless you can back it up substantially with hard evidence. Some of us > studied male-dominated subjects and actually excelled over the men at > them, all without crying or whining. But I, for one, was sexually > harassed by a professor and a student on different occasions, because I > was not only smart, I was visually appealing to them as well. I have > had quite enough to last me a lifetime of being held back or discounted > simply because of my gender. > > Deanna > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 > I would go even further and challenge any 'evidence' that might be > provided that a male is " more capable of putting emotion aside and > making a hard decision " . What kind of evidence could there possibly be? I was just trying to be nice and put the burden of proof back where it belongs. I haven't a clue about what evidence might exist. Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2004 Report Share Posted December 7, 2004 I wasn't so much asking whether there was any evidence touted as showing this, but more the philosphical question of what kind of evidence would we accept as showing this. > > > > I would go even further and challenge any 'evidence' that might be > > provided that a male is " more capable of putting emotion aside and > > making a hard decision " . What kind of evidence could there possibly be? > > I was just trying to be nice and put the burden of proof back where it > belongs. I haven't a clue about what evidence might exist. > > Deanna > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.