Re:POLITICS: Having Babies

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

> -----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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> > 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

[Guest guest]

> > 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

:

>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

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> 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.

[Guest guest]

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>

> ----------------------------

>

>

> >

[Guest guest]

> 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>

----------------------------

>

[Guest guest]

[] 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.

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

[ 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.

[Guest guest]

[] 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

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>