or, what are the poor owed?

can you answer this in a brief paragraph, no sound-bites (or one-liners) or links (summarize it if it makes your point)?

What is poor? What is owe? Who is we?

---feel free to use your own definitions, but since Mr. Specific wants to know what I mean...

What is poor?
--let's say people living in poverty, low income, economically disadvantaged, etc. here in the U.S.

What is owe?
--as in: feel a responsibility to/for

Who is we?
--you, me or anyone who cares to reply

WHY?
This question has gnawed at me for years, ever since it was an essay writing contest topic for kids. It was sponsored by a community organization here in Austin, TX. The prize, I think was $100 for the best essay, which I was not able to obtain.

Thanks,
Raul

I think it is just a tad presumptuous to state your question, with the "we" and the "poor" as if there were no poor posting on this board.

"We," who include those who are poor in material ways, can do many things. For example, voluntary contributions and staffing of food banks. Banks and other lending institutions can make housing more affordable through low downpayment of low-interest mortgage loans. Community co-ops can innovate in private, shared family housing arrangements, similar to the ones in Lillian's message about the elderly in Europe living with roommates.

If the poor are at an educational disadvantage through illiteracy or language limitations, volunteer tutors can help with tutoring and bilingual lessons in languages.

Everyone can be more accepting of one another, trying to break through classism and other isms in the divide-and-conquer class-caste system developed in America through the imitation and introduction of Prussian schooling methods and European class standards of gradations in the nobility and peasantry divisions.

No one can help anyone if they haven't asked for help and don't want it. This would not preclude outreach programs, however, for people who wanted to avail themselves of hand up versus hand out programs run by individuals or privately founded and funded concerned American neighbors.

The welfare system in place now is creating more and more populations who need to be cared for. Often, overnment money channeled through welfare systems only perpetuates poverty and sometimes encourages more of it. It is paternalistic in its mission, with a mindset that views some people as superior and others as helpless and needing care. In some cases, the disabled and handicapped DO need care, which should be adequately dealt with through government accomodation such as handicapped entrances and sidewalk ramps for wheelchairs. Those with physical or mental handicaps should not be shut out of public life, hidden at home or in institutions as shameful people with deficits and objects of pity.

An interesting aside, seeing eye dog guides go through a rigorous "obedience" training. However, unlike some humans who go through institutional public school training, then college or military training (or some members of the military in Germany after WWII who justified their actions with "I was following orders") dog guides also are trained to know when to disobey their blind human's commands. For instance, if the blind person decides it is safe to cross the street (and it is the human, not the dog, who makes that decision), and then an unexpected vehicle appears in the street, making it unsafe to walk further, the dog will stop, and the blind person will know from the dog to stop because of an oncoming vehicle.

"We" are not so impoverished materially as we are intellectually, spiritually and emotionally, because our growth in human development has been stunted through conditioning.

"We" need to "break out of the trap," question all of our assumptions and occasionally start fresh, as if we knew nothing, and examine problems in a different light. It is a "rule" of metaphysics that problems cannot be solved on the level and through the thinking where they occurred. Another rule is that only like can know like. An abundance of ideas and good will are needed to solve impoverished ways of life and impoverished, narrow, cramped ways of thinking.

Often, throughout history, one sees great artists and authors, from Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel to Herman Melville (a customs inspector on New York docks) and his great books, contributing great works to society despite their impoverished living conditions. Obviously, even while suffering with sickness and hunger, Michelangelo could not have seen himself as in need of a welfare system to complete the masterpiece to which he was dedicated.

It is malevolent paternalism that has created new classes of the poor in the United States, which in some ways begins to look more like a Third World country.

The welfare system as it stands encourages irresponsibility. For example, some people (not all) on welfare continue to bring children into the world without any idea of how they will care for them. An underclass now exists where more and more people are on drugs, either prescription or illegal drugs, perhaps to tune out their misery. Too much money goes to drugs and not enough to sustain and educate children.

In every area of life, from home life to educational realms, we can give a man a fish or show him how to fish. Sorry for the cliché.

I do not think that welfare programs should be cut off abruptly, but that viable transitional programs need to be put into place, programs that will give adults access to ways to earn a good living, rather than exist on subsistence wages while their children are in daycare. As long as people collect more in government welfare monies than they can earn at a job, there is little incentive to work and become more financially impoverished.

Private sector companies should not be bribed by the government through tax breaks to hire people who have been on the welfare rolls. There are enough successful small and large entrepreneurs to help with education and training for new work for the unemployed.

Unemployment itself is built in to the planned economy, and even the materially well off live in fear of being downsized or in fear of having their work outsourced. This helps keep rabble rousing workers in line, helps make them toe the line, if they think the alternative is homelessness and starvation.

For a good example of how "we" can help the poor, see the success that Manhattan's Urban Academy had with the homeless shelter resident who was recently accepted to Connecticut College.

Respectfully yours,

Prudence

Excuse me for being "a tad presumptuous"--I did not mean to offend anyone. I do however, consider this group to be (from what I've read) rich intellectually and spiritually, from whom I'd like to learn. Wealthier than myself in those aspects, seriously, and I'm not trying to be humble.

I stated the question just as it was posed in the essay writing contest ("What do we owe the poor?") but I suggested that any one could answer to "what are the poor owed?"

Except for my spouse, all my friends are either leftists or liberals. I feel indebted to a leftist Amer.Govt. professor for "openning my eyes" to what was going on politically. I've also learned alot from Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and a few others. Only recently have I begun reading and learning much from a libertarian perspective (i.e. lewrockwell). So excuse me as I try to "shake off" my socialist thinking--as I see for myself its flaws.

You said, "No one can help anyone if they haven't asked for help and don't want it." That's true.
There's also the aspect that people are in the position they are via decisions they've made for themselves. If I (+ my family) were constantly in a tough spot financially because of bad choices I'd made, am I owed assistance (if I'm asking for it) either via govt. or private individuals? If the govt. systems are, as you said, "encouraging irresponsibility", creating dependent people and agressively dis-empowering them via PS/conditioning and interference in the economy, etc., then I'm not sure you can blame the one who has been "impoverished" this way. If you chose to help me, you might only enable my dependency. If you chose not to help me, what then? I guess my mind is still muddled by conflicting views (liberal/libertarian).

There are those who "roll up their sleeves" and, as you gave examples, help others--regardless of where they are in terms of need. Then there's those of us who are somehow hoping to promote ideas or changes to counter the Govt's actions. Maybe that's the socialist/planner side instilled in me.

If I had the skills and confidence in myself, my vision would be to promote libertarian ideas a la Malcolm X. Although not without some other flawed ideas, the Nation of Islam promoted/s self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, self-respect and re-education.

I guess I'm working on "ideas and good will...to solve impoverished ways of life and impoverished, narrow, cramped ways of thinking," as you stated.

Thanks for your response and ideas,
Raul

Dear Raul,

It will be interesting to see the degrees of denial and argumentation the board puts forth if Victor continues to speak out. I think his suggestion of ending the Western economy (now global) as the answer to helping the poor may have merit, but I don't have any idea of what economic system would replace capitalism. Free market capitalism, according to js, versus corporate capitalism that's cornered the world economy.

You and I are in the same boat as "recovering liberals" (at least that's what I am), at the same time that I am opposed to some Libertarian Party ideas. You didn't usually find conservatives fighting Joe McCarthy and the Committee on Unamerican Activities, nor were conservatives in the forefront of the civil rights movement or the womens movement in this country. It would seem that Marlon Brando and Native Americans themselves are nearly the only ones to have rallied to the cause of the Indians.

However, I did know of the two-pronged pincer "control the world plantation" movement a few decades ago, i.e., the Republocrats and one monied class playing both "sides" in a staged show against the other, while money controls the game. King of the Mountain rules, while the dunderhead PS-spawned populace believes that one of two "sides" will win out.

I have continued voting for mostly Democratic party candidates in the lesser-of-two-evils line of reasoning.

I am only realizing late in life that the government manufactures not only the dumb, but also the poor because government agencies have become "enablers." (Similar to Tom Szasz's book on "The Manufacture of Madness"; create disabled populations then make lots of money "taking care of them.) Those needing constant care and feeding are a vast job market for the caregivers, "inspectors," evaluators and dispensers of funds. So many generations have been on the dole now, that the new generations know no other way of life. Some have been intentionally rendered incapable of income producing work, have been channeled in to low-pay work, etc. and not as emergency stop-gap measures. The fathers (and mothers) of such families have sometimes been driven to drugs or to drink to escape their chronic misery, which often includes health problems and some public health problems, such as untreated TB, for example. However, when more families were intact, I'm not sure women and children were all having a great time of it. In many cases they were subject to abuse, even though they had a live-in mate and economic support. That is not enough to sustain good family relationships.

If you were irresponsible with your money and got yourself in a bind because of your own lack of judgment or foresight, I think you would deserve help from friends, family, private or emergency government sources. I would never be one to say "You made your bed, now you can lie in it." But if you repeatedly got in the same predicament, then people helping might have to withdraw or pare down their assistance to keep from becoming the enablers who might disable you over the long term.

When 10 percent of the people in the United States own 90% of the wealth, it's a lopsided wealth and poverty picture indeed.

It's interesting that Greider ("Who Will Tell the People") and people on the Left are now saying some of the same things that libertarians and anarchists are saying regarding poverty and maldistribution of income. js is of the opinion that corporations couldn't "own the world" without being in bed with the government, which has the manpower and gun powder to enforce corporate-government lockdown and erect barriers to job entry and entrepreneurial start-ups.

I disagree here to some extent. For instance, to sell food in a restaurant, all that is needed is a Food Handler's license and a Milk Handler's license, and being able passing regular sanitation inspections. And the elusive start-up capital! Of course, liquor licenses are costly, just as taxi cab "medallions" are expensive. But even with government, education and multinational constriction of free enterprise, I don't think it's all that difficult to go into business. Rent an office, install a phone and computer, provide service to clients and if there are employees, send in the payroll taxes on time.

I favor restoration of minimal federal government laws, rules and regulations, not anarchy and not socialism and not communism, even though I think we can and do and should learn from the thinking of people across the political spectrum. It's interesting that the libertarian-anarchist spectrum of the board hasn't commented much on NAFTA and GATT, which I believe have undermined US laws and sovereignty in a very big way. Why worry so much about DC legislation (with the exception of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act) when so many international trade laws and secret meetings of tribunals in Europe override US law concerning imports and exports? Right now, there's a movement to boycott fish from Canada, and who knows the legal ramifications of that? The reason for the fish boycott is that over 300,000 newborn Canadian seals are expected to be clubbed to death in the hunt that began March 30th. Sometimes the seals are skinned alive before they are dead, then left on the ice to die, sans their seal coat, which will be sewn up for the sake of consumerist fashion.

Going from the material level to an intellectual and spiritual level, I do firmly believe that we suffer from an impoverishment of ideas, new ways of thinking, openness to innovation. Money cannot solve some problems if it is used to perpetuate broken systems, even if broken systems cannot be stopped en masse overnight.

Throwing more money at problems and sending more Bill Gates's way—which, as a good "philanthropist," he uses for worthy causes such as a computer computers everywhere—is not going to solve an educational crisis, but may aggravate it, just as Whittle's Edison schools haven't improved education, nor has Channel One installation in classrooms.

I think that until the country's economy gets some sort of overhaul, it is the responsibility of the government and private sources to help shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, provide decent living quarters and educational assistance to those in need.

At the same time, I think government and corporations, with their bribes and payoffs, kickbacks, astronomically high CEO or executives salaries and stock option packages, should phase out of the business of helping, in the same proportion that poverty is phased out.

js calls taxes immoral and theft. But until there is a viable way for a practical transition, I think it would be immoral not to pay taxes, especially for those living in large homes, with two cars in their garages; one, two or three or more homes; and far richer fare than chickens in their pots.

Theft via taxes, homosexuality, pride and Lord knows how many other facts of human life have been condemned on this board as sin. Gluttony is also a sin, and should be a source of shame. Instead, poverty is a source of shame and asking for assistance is still seen by some to be a source of shame, just as if Calvin, the elect and the ****ed were the latest theology.

Prudence

Prudence,
Thanks again! It does take me awhile to digest and be able to respond. You said quite a bit this time.

I sit on the board of a Govt. funded non-profit corp. that works with families. I have introduced them to Gatto--we actually brought him to Austin a few years ago and he was fairly well received. I have voiced my opinions on education and those have also been well received--some parents begun to homeschool their kids and others have become much more critical of PS.

A while back I posted a topic which came from my org. titled, "How to Raise a Dropout" (for a parent info video). I voiced strong opposition to the title, the message and its implications. It was altered somewhat to appease my complaints, but I still don't like it.

Anyway, I'm known as the anti-school voice and I appreciate that issues are often debated with my perspectives in mind. I question constantly my continued involvement in this group, but I continue while I am respectfully given my "soap box" to question their policies and actions.

I'm still chewing on your comments.

Raul

Dear Raul,

I'm very happy to know that my comments were helpful to you. Your query was also thought-provoking for me. It is difficult not to swirl around or bounce back and forth between two untenable alternatives in variations of wheel spinning. It is difficult to forge a better future based only on the past, on tradition pre-1850 compulsory schooling. And it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see that in the most radical libertarian or anarchist ways of life, with each person maintaining his own self-government, that instead of a vibrant cosmopolitanism we could end up with Balkanization a la Bosnia, with intense ethnic strife and greater policing of it.

I'm actually Pia. It was consfusing to me yesterday. Both names beging with P, so please, Raul and all present, excuse any confusion that might have been generated by another handle.

Ten years ago I thought I would never have heard some of the words dripping off my pen that I wrote yesterday. I used to think that "mean, uptight, repressed, stingy, selfish, uncaring, smug, authoritarin, inflexible, hypocritical system-loving and Establishment-making Republicans" said things like I did about people in need. Now, having seen more of this "lifestyle" first hand—and witnessed small children suffering under its effects—I've changed my mind about many government "programs," which I think should be accessible to those in need in a temporary, emergency situation, not one that is perpetuated generaton after generation. I see some well-meaning programs as projects in cruelty to children, just as public schools can be prison projects for the young.

I know how difficult the "interface" (sorry) can be between private sector-public sector alliances. But until children aren't forced to go to bed hungry every night, I think the government has a responsibility to help fill the gap for families in need.

There are rumors that HUD and government-assisted living programs are due for drastic cuts in the next couple of years. Where this will leave families, handicapped and elderly people on such programs, I don't know.

js is a purist on anarchy, but I have yet to see the light on how much government waste and corruption would be eliminated were the country to adopt anarchy. No energy now to discuss that broad topic again.

Re: government, I think Thomas Paine was on the right road to liberty, and I think the country should try restoring his conceptions rather than abolishing government.

In this period of transition from twentieth-century horrors to the new millennium, I think that not only are we confronting the specter of eugenics and euthanasia (which would not inevitably result from genetic engineering), but so too are ideas of radical budget cuts for people in need—not breaks called corporate welfare.

Obviously some government-private sector co-op programs have been successful to varying degrees, and I include SBA, but its small business loans and small-business advisers, as well as some different types of housing and urban renewal programs.

But I also know that we've gone from a class-based society with lower-, working-, middle-, upper-middle and upper classes, to one with a growing underclass, a larger number of the truly down and out. And it gets worse as middle-class people resent the underclass AND gov't.-corp. honchos for the tax squeeze.

I hope you will continue to contribute to the forum. Your pertinent queries and reasoned responses are a good influence and good catalysts for generating new ideas instead of fighting (that is, debating). :D

>>>>It will be interesting to see the degrees of denial and argumentation the board puts forth if Victor continues to speak out. I think his suggestion of ending the Western economy (now global) as the answer to helping the poor may have merit, but I don't have any idea of what economic system would replace capitalism. Free market capitalism, according to js, versus corporate capitalism that's cornered the world economy.<<<<

I am all in favor of ending corporate crony capitalism, but replacing it with egalitarian socialism won't work. It's theft and slavery and it has failed everywhere it has been tried. You can keep on thinking that if just the right guy is in charge it will work, but you know what absolute power does.

>>>>>You and I are in the same boat as "recovering liberals" (at least that's what I am), at the same time that I am opposed to some Libertarian Party ideas. You didn't usually find conservatives fighting Joe McCarthy<<<<

History has shown that McCarthy wasn't all wrong, FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet spies, the overwhelming leftism of academia and the mainstream media is plain and the effects are being seen. Kruschev was right, they are burying us, or rather we are burying ourselves with their ideology.


>>>I am only realizing late in life that the government manufactures not only the dumb, but also the poor because government agencies have become "enablers." (Similar to Tom Szasz's book on "The Manufacture of Madness"; create disabled populations then make lots of money "taking care of them.) Those needing constant care and feeding are a vast job market for the caregivers, "inspectors," evaluators and dispensers of funds. So many generations have been on the dole now, that the new generations know no other way of life. Some have been intentionally rendered incapable of income producing work, have been channeled in to low-pay work, etc. and not as emergency stop-gap measures. The fathers (and mothers) of such families have sometimes been driven to drugs or to drink to escape their chronic misery, which often includes health problems and some public health problems, such as untreated TB, for example. However, when more families were intact, I'm not sure women and children were all having a great time of it. In many cases they were subject to abuse, even though they had a live-in mate and economic support. That is not enough to sustain good family relationships.<<<<<

Our dysfunction is good for the economy, our dysfunction is good for gov't growth. The gov't requires our dysfunction, it feeds on it.


>>>>When 10 percent of the people in the United States own 90% of the wealth, it's a lopsided wealth and poverty picture indeed.<<<<<

This has happened because of the growth of economic barriers to entry, strategic laws favoring a select group.

>>>>>>It's interesting that Greider ("Who Will Tell the People") and people on the Left are now saying some of the same things that libertarians and anarchists are saying regarding poverty and maldistribution of income. js is of the opinion that corporations couldn't "own the world" without being in bed with the government, which has the manpower and gun powder to enforce corporate-government lockdown and erect barriers to job entry and entrepreneurial start-ups.

I disagree here to some extent. For instance, to sell food in a restaurant, all that is needed is a Food Handler's license and a Milk Handler's license, and being able passing regular sanitation inspections.<<<<

There are regulations and codes for facilities such as handicapped accessibility, kitchen facilities, etc. There are EEOC hiring regs and workplace safety regs, I had a friend who opened a gourmet coffee shop in a small city. It was a nightmare.

>>> And the elusive start-up capital! Of course, liquor licenses are costly, just as taxi cab "medallions" are expensive. But even with government, education and multinational constriction of free enterprise, I don't think it's all that difficult to go into business. Rent an office, install a phone and computer, provide service to clients and if there are employees, send in the payroll taxes on time.<<<

Licenses, fees, medallions, inspections, etc. are nothing but restriction of economic opportunity and restrictions of freedom.

>>>>I favor restoration of minimal federal government laws, rules and regulations, not anarchy and not socialism and not communism, even though I think we can and do and should learn from the thinking of people across the political spectrum. It's interesting that the libertarian-anarchist spectrum of the board hasn't commented much on NAFTA and GATT, which I believe have undermined US laws and sovereignty in a very big way.<<<

I agree. They stink. They are a massive set of regulations and laws to restrict opportunity, they have nothing to do with "free trade" and everything about restricting it. I'm sorry I have not addressed the issue, I have a great article if you want me to post it.

>>>>Why worry so much about DC legislation (with the exception of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act)<<<

????!!!! What, me worry?

>>>>when so many international trade laws and secret meetings of tribunals in Europe override US law concerning imports and exports? Right now, there's a movement to boycott fish from Canada, and who knows the legal ramifications of that? The reason for the fish boycott is that over 300,000 newborn Canadian seals are expected to be clubbed to death in the hunt that began March 30th. Sometimes the seals are skinned alive before they are dead, then left on the ice to die, sans their seal coat, which will be sewn up for the sake of consumerist fashion. <<<<

If it's a voluntary boycott, I have no problem with it other than that it's silly and will hurt a lot of people who have nothing to do with baby seals. If some gov't tribunal thought it up and is enforcing it, that's a restriction of freedom.

>>>Going from the material level to an intellectual and spiritual level, I do firmly believe that we suffer from an impoverishment of ideas, new ways of thinking, openness to innovation. Money cannot solve some problems if it is used to perpetuate broken systems, even if broken systems cannot be stopped en masse overnight.<<<<

Herds aren't supposed to innovate and they are only supposed to think in "new ways" when they are told to, usually through TV programming or polls. Hopefully, more homeschoolers will lead to more innovation.

>>>>Throwing more money at problems and sending more Bill Gates's way—which, as a good "philanthropist," he uses for worthy causes such as a computer computers everywhere—is not going to solve an educational crisis, but may aggravate it, just as Whittle's Edison schools haven't improved education, nor has Channel One installation in classrooms.<<<<

I agree, the problem is public school itself, that big elephant in the living room Gates keeps looking past.

>>>>>>.I think that until the country's economy gets some sort of overhaul,<<<<

What kind of "overhaul"? Who do you trust to do this "overhaul"? Whay not simply leave people alone to buy and sell and keep the product of their labor?

>>>>> it is the responsibility of the government and private sources to help shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, provide decent living quarters and educational assistance to those in need.<<<

Wrong. It is my responsibility to help those in need I know about and can help. It is not my responsibility to be robbed to "help" those the govcrats deem to be needy.It is the responsibility of those helped to acknowledge the help and thank those who helped them and help others the same way. As for educational asistance, people can work their way through school people should not be robbed to finance the huge ed. bureaucracy.

>>>>>At the same time, I think government and corporations, with their bribes and payoffs, kickbacks, astronomically high CEO or executives salaries and stock option packages, should phase out of the business of helping, in the same proportion that poverty is phased out.<<<<

Gov't has no business playing robbing hood.

>>>>>js calls taxes immoral and theft. But until there is a viable way for a practical transition,<<<<

A viable way to stop theft? Just start stealing less and less? Right.

>>>>>>I think it would be immoral not to pay taxes,<<<<<

Taking money or assets under threat of force, seizure, or jail is theft, whether done by a thug or extorted by a suit in the name of your fellow citzens. Theft is immoral, is it not? You are perfectly free to practice your morality by volunteering to pay taxes of course, even more than you do already if you want to feel really moral by your standard of morality. But you do not have the moral right to demand someone else force me to pay for things you think "need" to be paid for. The ends do not justify the means.

>>>>especially for those living in large homes, with two cars in their garages; one, two or three or more homes; and far richer fare than chickens in their pots.<<<

So the excess income and assets of these folks should be seized and given to the "needy". How egalitarian. Why not get out the guillotine and have some real fun? What about inequality in education? Why should some educational gluttons get all the schooling and some not? Maybe there should be a lottery. Maybe everyone should just get 2 years of college and that's it. And inequality in looks. Why should some people be ugly and some so pretty? Like that twilight zone episode, maybe everyone should be ugly and average.

>>>Theft via taxes, homosexuality, pride and Lord knows how many other facts of human life have been condemned on this board as sin. Gluttony is also a sin, and should be a source of shame.<<<<

So you do agree that those other things are sins? Should they also be sources of shame? Sins are between the sinner and God, except those sins against others like theft or violence against another person. Gov't has no business attempting to play God to "equalize" incomes, nor has it proven to be effective in protecting people from theft or violence; it is, rather, a chief perpetrator.

>>>> Instead, poverty is a source of shame and asking for assistance is still seen by some to be a source of shame, just as if Calvin, the elect and the ****ed were the latest theology.<<<<

The stigma of welfare has long since died. It is now an entitlement. Are we better off? Are we better people? Are we more moral? Are there fewer "needy" or more? The "needy" are simply given a slice of our paychecks, with a hefty cut taken out for gov't "administrative" costs, of course. I'm still waiting for that thank you note or a monument to the taxpayer instead of the fatcat politico who did the stealing.

It costs nothing to have lofty ideals about how the world "should" be if only others were forced to pay for it.

 

Name:   js
Date Posted:   Apr 18, 05 - 7:02 PM
Message:   >>>>It will be interesting to see the degrees of denial and argumentation the board puts forth if Victor continues to speak out. I think his suggestion of ending the Western economy (now global) as the answer to helping the poor may have merit, but I don't have any idea of what economic system would replace capitalism. Free market capitalism, according to js, versus corporate capitalism that's cornered the world economy.<<<<

1. I am all in favor of ending corporate crony capitalism, but replacing it with egalitarian socialism won't work. It's theft and slavery and it has failed everywhere it has been tried. You can keep on thinking that if just the right guy is in charge it will work, but you know what absolute power does.

>>>>>You and I are in the same boat as "recovering liberals" (at least that's what I am), at the same time that I am opposed to some Libertarian Party ideas. You didn't usually find conservatives fighting Joe McCarthy<<<<

2. History has shown that McCarthy wasn't all wrong, FDR's administration was riddled with Soviet spies, the overwhelming leftism of academia and the mainstream media is plain and the effects are being seen. Kruschev was right, they are burying us, or rather we are burying ourselves with their ideology.

>>>I am only realizing late in life that the government manufactures not only the dumb, but also the poor because government agencies have become "enablers." (Similar to Tom Szasz's book on "The Manufacture of Madness"; create disabled populations then make lots of money "taking care of them.) Those needing constant care and feeding are a vast job market for the caregivers, "inspectors," evaluators and dispensers of funds. So many generations have been on the dole now, that the new generations know no other way of life. Some have been intentionally rendered incapable of income producing work, have been channeled in to low-pay work, etc. and not as emergency stop-gap measures. The fathers (and mothers) of such families have sometimes been driven to drugs or to drink to escape their chronic misery, which often includes health problems and some public health problems, such as untreated TB, for example. However, when more families were intact, I'm not sure women and children were all having a great time of it. In many cases they were subject to abuse, even though they had a live-in mate and economic support. That is not enough to sustain good family relationships.<<<<<

3. Our dysfunction is good for the economy, our dysfunction is good for gov't growth. The gov't requires our dysfunction, it feeds on it.

>>>>When 10 percent of the people in the United States own 90% of the wealth, it's a lopsided wealth and poverty picture indeed.<<<<<

4. This has happened because of the growth of economic barriers to entry, strategic laws favoring a select group.

>>>>>>It's interesting that Greider ("Who Will Tell the People") and people on the Left are now saying some of the same things that libertarians and anarchists are saying regarding poverty and maldistribution of income. js is of the opinion that corporations couldn't "own the world" without being in bed with the government, which has the manpower and gun powder to enforce corporate-government lockdown and erect barriers to job entry and entrepreneurial start-ups.

I disagree here to some extent. For instance, to sell food in a restaurant, all that is needed is a Food Handler's license and a Milk Handler's license, and being able passing regular sanitation inspections.<<<<

5. There are regulations and codes for facilities such as handicapped accessibility, kitchen facilities, etc. There are EEOC hiring regs and workplace safety regs, I had a friend who opened a gourmet coffee shop in a small city. It was a nightmare.

>>> And the elusive start-up capital! Of course, liquor licenses are costly, just as taxi cab "medallions" are expensive. But even with government, education and multinational constriction of free enterprise, I don't think it's all that difficult to go into business. Rent an office, install a phone and computer, provide service to clients and if there are employees, send in the payroll taxes on time.<<<

6. Licenses, fees, medallions, inspections, etc. are nothing but restriction of economic opportunity and restrictions of freedom.

. >>>>I favor restoration of minimal federal government laws, rules and regulations, not anarchy and not socialism and not communism, even though I think we can and do and should learn from the thinking of people across the political spectrum. It's interesting that the libertarian-anarchist spectrum of the board hasn't commented much on NAFTA and GATT, which I believe have undermined US laws and sovereignty in a very big way.<<<

7. I agree. They stink. They are a massive set of regulations and laws to restrict opportunity, they have nothing to do with "free trade" and everything about restricting it. I'm sorry I have not addressed the issue, I have a great article if you want me to post it.

>>>>Why worry so much about DC legislation (with the exception of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act)<<<

8. ????!!!! What, me worry?

>>>>when so many international trade laws and secret meetings of tribunals in Europe override US law concerning imports and exports? Right now, there's a movement to boycott fish from Canada, and who knows the legal ramifications of that? The reason for the fish boycott is that over 300,000 newborn Canadian seals are expected to be clubbed to death in the hunt that began March 30th. Sometimes the seals are skinned alive before they are dead, then left on the ice to die, sans their seal coat, which will be sewn up for the sake of consumerist fashion. <<<<

9. If it's a voluntary boycott, I have no problem with it other than that it's silly and will hurt a lot of people who have nothing to do with baby seals. If some gov't tribunal thought it up and is enforcing it, that's a restriction of freedom.

>>>Going from the material level to an intellectual and spiritual level, I do firmly believe that we suffer from an impoverishment of ideas, new ways of thinking, openness to innovation. Money cannot solve some problems if it is used to perpetuate broken systems, even if broken systems cannot be stopped en masse overnight.<<<<

10. Herds aren't supposed to innovate and they are only supposed to think in "new ways" when they are told to, usually through TV programming or polls. Hopefully, more homeschoolers will lead to more innovation.

>>>>Throwing more money at problems and sending more Bill Gates's way—which, as a good "philanthropist," he uses for worthy causes such as a computer computers everywhere—is not going to solve an educational crisis, but may aggravate it, just as Whittle's Edison schools haven't improved education, nor has Channel One installation in classrooms.<<<<

11. I agree, the problem is public school itself, that big elephant in the living room Gates keeps looking past.

>>>>>>.I think that until the country's economy gets some sort of overhaul,<<<<

12. What kind of "overhaul"? Who do you trust to do this "overhaul"? Whay not simply leave people alone to buy and sell and keep the product of their labor?

>>>>> it is the responsibility of the government and private sources to help shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, provide decent living quarters and educational assistance to those in need.<<<

13. Wrong. It is my responsibility to help those in need I know about and can help. It is not my responsibility to be robbed to "help" those the govcrats deem to be needy.It is the responsibility of those helped to acknowledge the help and thank those who helped them and help others the same way. As for educational asistance, people can work their way through school people should not be robbed to finance the huge ed. bureaucracy.

>>>>>At the same time, I think government and corporations, with their bribes and payoffs, kickbacks, astronomically high CEO or executives salaries and stock option packages, should phase out of the business of helping, in the same proportion that poverty is phased out.<<<<

14. Gov't has no business playing robbing hood.

>>>>>js calls taxes immoral and theft. But until there is a viable way for a practical transition,<<<<

15. A viable way to stop theft? Just start stealing less and less? Right.

>>>>>>I think it would be immoral not to pay taxes,<<<<<

16. Taking money or assets under threat of force, seizure, or jail is theft, whether done by a thug or extorted by a suit in the name of your fellow citzens. Theft is immoral, is it not? You are perfectly free to practice your morality by volunteering to pay taxes of course, even more than you do already if you want to feel really moral by your standard of morality. But you do not have the moral right to demand someone else force me to pay for things you think "need" to be paid for. The ends do not justify the means.

>>>>especially for those living in large homes, with two cars in their garages; one, two or three or more homes; and far richer fare than chickens in their pots.<<<

17. So the excess income and assets of these folks should be seized and given to the "needy". How egalitarian. Why not get out the guillotine and have some real fun? What about inequality in education? Why should some educational gluttons get all the schooling and some not? Maybe there should be a lottery. Maybe everyone should just get 2 years of college and that's it. And inequality in looks. Why should some people be ugly and some so pretty? Like that twilight zone episode, maybe everyone should be ugly and average.

>>>Theft via taxes, homosexuality, pride and Lord knows how many other facts of human life have been condemned on this board as sin. Gluttony is also a sin, and should be a source of shame.<<<<

18. So you do agree that those other things are sins? Should they also be sources of shame? Sins are between the sinner and God, except those sins against others like theft or violence against another person. Gov't has no business attempting to play God to "equalize" incomes, nor has it proven to be effective in protecting people from theft or violence; it is, rather, a chief perpetrator.

>>>> Instead, poverty is a source of shame and asking for assistance is still seen by some to be a source of shame, just as if Calvin, the elect and the ****ed were the latest theology.<<<<

19. The stigma of welfare has long since died. It is now an entitlement. Are we better off? Are we better people? Are we more moral? Are there fewer "needy" or more? The "needy" are simply given a slice of our paychecks, with a hefty cut taken out for gov't "administrative" costs, of course. I'm still waiting for that thank you note or a monument to the taxpayer instead of the fatcat politico who did the stealing.

20. It costs nothing to have lofty ideals about how the world "should" be if only others were forced to pay for it.

**************************************************

Pia responds.

1. ". . . but I don't have any idea of what economic system would replace capitalism" I did not say that socialism was a good replacement, any more than I said feudalism would be.

2. And so you, an anarchist see nothing wrong with the J. Edgar Hoover keeping files on all suspected of spying or being members of the Communist Party, wiretapping them, getting them blacklisted so they couldn't earn another cent in their careers? McCarthy's and Hoover's ends justified their means? Hoover also terrorized DC politicians by through snooping on them, taking photos of politicians in compromising "positions," etc., etc., etc. Joe McCarthy and Roy Cohn violated more civil rights and the letter and spirit of the Constitution than nearly anyone else who comes to mind. If they wanted to catch "spies" and execute the Rosenberg's, they shouldn't have used methods that violated the principles of the Constitution to do so. I'll likely be accused of further ad hominem attacks, but "rumor" has it that Cohn and Hoover liked to play dress-up and genital games with young men, while Cohn persecuted gays. See the Portuguese government scandal that broke out a few years ago and implicated government officials in similar behavior, then moved on to England and Blair's government.

3. I think that's the point I was trying to make, along with the fact that before some laws were enacted and some acts of domestic violence were prosecuted, things were not hunky-dory in the old days.

4. Yes, in large part that is the reason. Another reason is that people roll over and play dead in the face of such barriers, willingly trading freedom and liberty for a paycheck from those erecting barriers and credulously ADMIRING the philanthropists (who in some, many, most [you pick the one you like] are in the business of philanthropy for tax breaks and control of culture through dispensation of funds to projects in need, from hospital wings to libraries to education.

5 and 6. Not "nothing but." They also afford some protection from food poisoning, outbreaks of typhus, etc. The fact that inspectors in the food business or housing business get paid off in some instances doesn't mean they aren't necessary. Shall we wait until there are no barriers before we become or encourage entrepreneurs. Do you think the people who get the licenses, pay the taxes, pass the inspections are also guilty of being part of a bureaucratic restriction game? Should they close their businesses that support themselves, their children, their employees—and some gov't. projects and "theft"—by taking down they're WE ARE OPEN signs and shingles? Should they then start looking in the Help Wanted ads?

7. Well, wonders never cease, we agree!

8. Right, I'm too dumb to worry. (just kidding)

9. It is a voluntary boycott. And I guess there should be no laws to prohibit animal clubbing and skinning animals? If people rose to the level of humanity that I believe Blondeau is talking about, I doubt if they would still engage in such barbaric practices. Blondeau is saying what I've said to you many times. How is anarchy going to work when people are behaving the way they do now?

10. Herds. I've heard so much about herds here. Each human is an individual. Each can work alone and/or with others in a synergistic way. Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts of individual efforts. But each individual makes his or her unique contribution. My point was that people worship money as if they could eat it. Instead of being revolted by bloated corp-capitalists who have mansions (e.g., as in early days of Newport, Rhode Island) and light cigars with $, people admire and try to emulate the big shot money makers. New ideas and change are uncomfortable. Why was there ever a TV program called "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"?

11. We agree. But PS isn't the single cause of all discord on earth.

12. If I knew what kind of overhaul, I'd be rich! Ha ha ha. I think there needs to be a gradual, no overnight, shift to people trading with one another freely, bypassing the well-trodden paths, AS WELL AS serious, concerted efforts to clean up government and hold people in power for the crimes against humanity they commit. Should we all die of cancer because some chemical company polluted an area for the next thousand years? Or should the company, that might have gotten gov. subsidies, be forced with the government to clean up its mess and restore the land and water and air?

13. No, I think you're wrong. If people have gotten into unviable living conditions that they were pushed into or bamboozled or snookered into through government and/or big biz conniving, thieving, lying, experimenting, cheating, blackmailing, blacklisting, killing—then all of us in society should help clean up the mess and help restore those injured to a level that sustains human life, and hold the government accountable.

Taxes are theft? Yes, they've grown to be. But the effects of high taxes aren't going to be changed overnight. High bank interest is also theft, but it's not going to change overnight.

People like to say "No one owes you a living." Well, without the common air, land, water and other "natural resources," no one would be able to live and earn a darned thing. From what I've been reading at lewrockwell, von Mises and other such anarchist-leaning sites, Western law in this country rests on property ownership. If smoke from your wood-burning stove (and some people burn creosote-coated phone poles) drifts into my air and I choke, do you own that air or do I? Have you "aggressed" against me? If toxic sludge from chemical and other factories pollute rivers and reservoirs, who's responsible for sludge clean up to prevent people from being killed? Any regulation needed? Toxic waste dumpers going to behave if clean manufacturing, sans toxic waste, will lower fourth quarter earnings for stockholders? Meanwhile, larger community of shareholders are in the hospital, sucking up oxygen at the taxpayers' expense.

14. I agree, and it wouldn't be if the system hadn't been created by gov't. actors and defauting citizens or perhaps you prefer the word people, who take little or no responsibility to change things and restore or create a Constitution that would preclude robbing hood from being SOP.
I don't think the Constitution was written in stone any more than the Bible, so here we disagree too. It did not recognize blacks as humans, and blacks and women were disenfranchised, owned by the malevolent paternalists. Someone here (maybe Dave) wrote about scientists saying this that and the other person was defective or subhuman. Well, listen to what Jeffeson and other Foundering Fathers said about blacks, women and Native Americans, the native peoples who hadn't already been killed after their lands were stolen through war and trickery. Did you know that the Brits taught the Indians how to scalp and rewarded them with bounties they'd put on French heads?

15. Yes, steal less and less and stop corporate welfare and help people who've been subjects of corp-gov't. aggression.

16. "Theft" is immoral. So is killing (except in Augustinian just wars) and I'll spare you another list of things besides theft that are immoral. Income taxes used to be around 2 percent when government and the population were smaller. I wouldn't even mind paying 40 percent if the money did some good and didn't get ciphoned off in bureacracy and actually reached the sources it is ostensibly supposed to help. But why are you so pained by "theft"? Do you lack material goods because you have paid so much in taxes?

17. They could pig out (sorry porcine species) all they wanted to if their money in many cases hadn't been made on the backs of other people. If they want to live like material pigs and put their faith in "stuff," far be it from me to interfere. The same people, however, are getting bigger tax write-offs than the middle class and the poor.

18. No, I don't agree that all those other things are sins, although pride, false pride, I think is a "sin." I used the word also, which made my message ambiguous. Under the traditional list of "deadly sins," gluttony was one of them. If you see nothing immoral or sinful about people walking down the street to buy a $200 new shirt or sweater when children are going to bed hungry at night, then I fail to grasp your sense of the moral or the ethical. Government shouldn't redistribute income or rob Peter to pay Paul. But GOVERNMENT AND PORCINE CORP CAPITALISTS and defaulting people helped create the mess. They shouldn't walk away from it and let people starve. Few here like FDR very much, inluding me. But I didn't like the Dust Bowl famine and the Hooverville shoot-up either. Of course, both emanated from the same kind of thinking, double dealing, cheating, scheming, greed, desire to imitate European aristocrats, etc.

19. We are worse off because thanks to gov't., corp-capitalism and a planned underclass, an underclass has been created. Of course, the Native American population in this country were the first segregated underclass and they never got a piece of the entitlement pie. Did they? Then, we could go into Japanese interment camps in WWII. Or institutional populations experimented on. There are so may people who've suffered more than long-suffering taxpayers, that the "theft" you keep harping on seems like the lesser of many evils. Evils emerged from the uses to which taxpayer money was put. But I'm grateful to live here, have work and opportunties . . . and if I have to pay taxes until there's a viable, practical transition to a better way, which might be anarchy in a few hundred more years, I'll pay them and protest the uses to which some of the monies are put.

20. True. People "pay" for their lofty (Bible-inspired?) ideals through many ways, and cash isn't the only one.

Pia

>>>>1. ". . . but I don't have any idea of what economic system would replace capitalism" I did not say that socialism was a good replacement, any more than I said feudalism would be.<<<<

If it involves wealth re-distribution, it is socialism.

>>>>>>2. And so you, an anarchist see nothing wrong with the J. Edgar Hoover keeping files on all suspected of spying or being members of the Communist Party, wiretapping them, getting them blacklisted so they couldn't earn another cent in their careers? McCarthy's and Hoover's ends justified their m.......... Hoover also terrorized DC politicians by through Portuguese government scandal that broke out a few years ago and implicated government officials in similar behavior, then moved on to England and Blair's government.<<<<<<<

I didn't say anything at all about Hoover, and neither did you. I said McCarthy wasn't all wrong, and he wasn't. Hoover and McCarthy were both goons for the State, of course.

3. I think that's the point I was trying to make, along with the fact that before some laws were enacted and some acts of domestic violence were prosecuted, things were not hunky-dory in the old days.

Point taken. But is the modern day alternative that much of an improvement or is the oppressor simply a little more removed? Have rates of rape and domestic violence gone down or up? Are children better off?

>>>>>4. Yes, in large part that is the reason. Another reason is that people roll over and play dead in the face of such barriers, willingly trading freedom and liberty for a paycheck from those erecting barriers and credulously ADMIRING the philanthropists (who in some, many, most [you pick the one you like] are in the business of philanthropy for tax breaks and control of culture through dispensation of funds to projects in need, from hospital wings to libraries to education.<<<<<

You can blame the victim ("people"), but that gets difficult when the people are brainwashed and cognitive ability disrupted. All those "good" citizens from PS thinking they are educated and making informed decisions because they read newspapers and watch TV news, not realizing they are responding to carefully crafted stimuli.

>>>>>5 and 6. Not "nothing but." They also afford some protection from food poisoning, outbreaks of typhus, etc. The fact that inspectors in the food business or housing business get paid off in some instances doesn't mean they aren't necessary. Shall we wait until there are no barriers before we become or encourage entrepreneurs. Do you think the people who get the licenses, pay the taxes, pass the inspections are also guilty of being part of a bureaucratic restriction game? Should they close their businesses that support themselves, their children, their employees—and some gov't. projects and "theft"—by taking down they're WE ARE OPEN signs and shingles? Should they then start looking in the Help Wanted ads?<<<<<

Nonsense. Those credentials don't protect you any more than a teacher's credentials guarantee your kids will be educated in PS. They are gatekeeping, taxes, and protectionism. No, people have to pay if they want to run a business, but it's extortion. Businesses carry insurance in case they injure someone, no business owner wants to get sued. If a business is found to be violating some regulation by the state, the state simply extorts more money, the victim of the violation gets nothing of that, he has to still seek redress in the courts or settle.

7. Well, wonders never cease, we agree!

8. Right, I'm too dumb to worry. (just kidding)

>>>>>9. It is a voluntary boycott. And I guess there should be no laws to prohibit animal clubbing and skinning animals? If people rose to the level of humanity that I believe Blondeau is talking about, I doubt if they would still engage in such barbaric practices. Blondeau is saying what I've said to you many times. How is anarchy going to work when people are behaving the way they do now?<<<<

Probably people who had other economic opportunities wouldn't have the need to club seals, I'm sure it's not an easy way to make a living. Do you honestly think there should be a law against everything you don't like? You "talk" as if gov't is saving you from something that the awful absence of gov't would bring. Gov't brings tyranny, robbery, slavery, dysfunction, and death.

>>>>>10. Herds. I've heard so much about herds here.<<<<<<

But we have been molded into a herd of uniform nonthinkers in PS, responding to stimuli. That is the truth of it. There are stragglers and people on the fringe of the herd, but if these get too troublesome they are marginalized or killed. We are molded into passive subjects and now, worshippers of the State. A real testament to this is the fact that a couple of men on airplanes with BOXCUTTERS were able to intimidate hundreds of people and kill them (and thousands on the ground)with very little resistance.

>>>>Each human is an individual. Each can work alone and/or with others in a synergistic way.<<<<<

You can be individual up to a point, but if it threatens the status quo, look out. Don't be TOO different from your "peers". Working alone is highly suspect, working together, cooperating in a group is considered the best way.

>>>>>Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of the parts of individual efforts. But each individual makes his or her unique contribution. My point was that people worship money as if they could eat it. Instead of being revolted by bloated corp-capitalists who have mansions (e.g., as in early days of Newport, Rhode Island) and light cigars with $, people admire and try to emulate the big shot money makers. New ideas and change are uncomfortable. Why was there ever a TV program called "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"?<<<<

Because we are supposed to idolize them and money. What about the bloated socialists with mansions- Ted Kennedy, Nader, the Clintons, Bono, Barbra Streisand, etc., etc. Are they not even more sickening in their hypocrisy?

>>>11. We agree. But PS isn't the single cause of all discord on earth.<<<<

Because it is dumbing down, brainwashing, and State worship, it is the cause for much of it. Much of the rise of huge nation-states is directly attributable to it, Hitler knew it's power. It indoctrinates us into collective thinking and behavior, subservience and dependence on authority figures of the state rather than family. It disrupts cognition and molds our thought processes along similar patterns useful to the rulers. You know all this, I can't believe you question the impact of this indoctrination.

>>>>>12. If I knew what kind of overhaul, I'd be rich! Ha ha ha.<<<<<

Yet you trust someone else to know?

>>>I think there needs to be a gradual, no overnight, shift to people trading with one another freely, bypassing the well-trodden paths, AS WELL AS serious, concerted efforts to clean up government<<<<

You can't clean dirt. Gov't IS the problem. You can't harness it and tell it to only do "good" for others, gov't tends it's own interests, and ours when it will affect theirs.

>>>>and hold people in power for the crimes against humanity they commit. Should we all die of cancer because some chemical company polluted an area for the next thousand years? Or should the company, that might have gotten gov. subsidies, be forced with the government to clean up its mess and restore the land and water and air?<<<<

In a free society, there would be no "subsidies" and the people who had family members get cancer would drag the owner of a polluting company down and make them live in and drink the pollution themselves, or kill them outright, or possibly sue in court. No "budgeting in" of lawsuits, no "fines" for the govcrats to divvie up, no fat fees for licensed trial lawyers or bankruptcy lawyers.

>>>>>13. No, I think you're wrong. If people have gotten into unviable living conditions that they were pushed into or bamboozled or snookered into through government and/or big biz conniving, thieving, lying, experimenting, cheating, blackmailing, blacklisting, killing—then all of us in society should help clean up the mess and help restore those injured to a level that sustains human life,<<<<<

What rot. Govcrats and fat cats commit crimes and it is MY responsibility as a member of the herd to clean up the messes? Why? What do "we" do with the criminals? Sensitivity training? On what authority?

>>>and hold the government accountable.<<<

Because "we" are the gov't, right? Don't make me laugh. How do you propose to make them "accountable". Really.

>>>>>Taxes are theft? Yes, they've grown to be.<<<<<

More rot. So theft is only defined by degree? Stealing apack of gum isn't theft, but the level of taxation that you feel is too high is? Please give me a definition of theft.

>>>>But the effects of high taxes aren't going to be changed overnight.<<<<

One can hope.

>>>>High bank interest is also theft, but it's not going to change overnight. <<<<

Since we are forced to use the banking cartel, yes, it is theft. But, a free society would have independent banks in competition with each other.

>>>>>People like to say "No one owes you a living." Well, without the common air, land, water and other "natural resources," no one would be able to live and earn a darned thing. From what I've been reading at lewrockwell, von Mises and other such anarchist-leaning sites, Western law in this country rests on property ownership. If smoke from your wood-burning stove (and some people burn creosote-coated phone poles) drifts into my air and I choke, do you own that air or do I? Have you "aggressed" against me? If toxic sludge from chemical and other factories pollute rivers and reservoirs, who's responsible for sludge clean up to prevent people from being killed? Any regulation needed? Toxic waste dumpers going to behave if clean manufacturing, sans toxic waste, will lower fourth quarter earnings for stockholders? Meanwhile, larger community of shareholders are in the hospital, sucking up oxygen at the taxpayers' expense.<<<<<<<<

Anything that diminishes the value of your property would give you a cause of action against the offender. In a free society competition and alternative job and economic opportunities would make the monstrous multinational corporations and their ability to pollute on a large scale much less likely. Besides, you think this isn't going on now? You think the gov't is protecting you against polluters or protecting the "commons"? They love it when the greenies carry on about the "commons", it gives them a reason to restrict some smallholders use of his property. The big boys just get exemptions or protection or ignored, the small companies are justification for the armies of bureaucrats and fines. Oh, and be careful of that produce in the grocery store, it's coming from "unregulated" countries, you know.

>>>>>14. I agree, and it wouldn't be if the system hadn't been created by gov't. actors and defauting citizens or perhaps you prefer the word people, who take little or no responsibility to change things and restore or create a Constitution that would preclude robbing hood from being SOP.
I don't think the Constitution was written in stone any more than the Bible, so here we disagree too. It did not recognize blacks as humans, and blacks and women were disenfranchised, owned by the malevolent paternalists. Someone here (maybe Dave) wrote about scientists saying this that and the other person was defective or subhuman. Well, listen to what Jeffeson and other Foundering Fathers said about blacks, women and Native Americans, the native peoples who hadn't already been killed after their lands were stolen through war and trickery. Did you know that the Brits taught the Indians how to scalp and rewarded them with bounties they'd put on French heads?<<<<

I agree. the Constitution was a bloodless coup, the Articles of Confederation were adequate, the Constitution was needed to establish a Federal supremacy over the states and centralize power. It makes little sense to apply todays standards to men of two hundred and thirty years ago to demonize them. They were flawed men, that is why I am against gov't, you are making my argument for me. The incidences you cite were committed, for the most part, by representatives OF THE STATE you insist you need to protect you.

>>><15. Yes, steal less and less and stop corporate welfare and help people who've been subjects of corp-gov't. aggression.<<<<

Ye! Yes! Let's write our congressmen today and tell them our wishes, they can start stealing less tomorrow! O happy day!

>>>>16. "Theft" is immoral. So is killing (except in Augustinian just wars) and I'll spare you another list of things besides theft that are immoral.<<<<

Good, I'd like to stick to one thing at a time.

>>>>> Income taxes used to be around 2 percent when government and the population were smaller.<<<

They were still theft.

>>>I wouldn't even mind paying 40 percent if the money did some good and didn't get ciphoned off in bureacracy and actually reached the sources it is ostensibly supposed to help.<<<<

As a sovereign individual you have every right to enjoy being robbed. It is not my business.

>>>>But why are you so pained by "theft"? Do you lack material goods because you have paid so much in taxes?<<<<

!!!This is truly astounding. I can’t believe these statements. You see nothing wrong with stealing?? Because I do you see it as a flaw in me, it is because I am selfish and wanting more material goods?? The issue here is right and wrong, do you not see that?? A wrong is not made right because you approve of the reasons for it. It may be mitigated in your own opinion and by your value system, but it is an almost universally understood wrong to steal.


>>>>17. They could pig out (sorry porcine species) all they wanted to if their money in many cases hadn't been made on the backs of other people. If they want to live like material pigs and put their faith in "stuff," far be it from me to interfere. The same people, however, are getting bigger tax write-offs than the middle class and the poor.<<<<<<

Money can only be made “on the backs of people” if thre are laws preventing the people from doing alternative work. Of course these laws are presented as being protections for the people.


>>>>>18. No, I don't agree that all those other things are sins, although pride, false pride, I think is a "sin." I used the word also, which made my message ambiguous. Under the traditional list of "deadly sins," gluttony was one of them. If you see nothing immoral or sinful about people walking down the street to buy a $200 new shirt or sweater when children are going to bed hungry at night, then I fail to grasp your sense of the moral or the ethical. <<<<<<<

Perhaps you should list the behaviors you consider sins. I am truly astounded that you consider gluttony a worse sin than stealing. It is not up to you to make people moral, force them by stealing to benefit others. That makes you worse than the gluttons. I’d rather be a glutton than a thief. The poor will always be with us, considering them as entitled to the private property of others will only increase their number. You can take an army of socialists and confiscate every private bit of capital in the country, will that end poverty? Why not? They did that in the USSR, did it end poverty? The State owned everything, what did they have? Open your eyes, it is only through capitalism and the private ownership of capital that we have virtually ended famine in the developed world and have a standard of living above subsistence. The excesses of crony capitalists are only possible through the use of the laws of the State as a strong-arm against us.

>>>>Government shouldn't redistribute income or rob Peter to pay Paul. But GOVERNMENT AND PORCINE CORP CAPITALISTS and defaulting people helped create the mess.<<<<<

Please don’t forget your friends the socialists.

>>>>>They shouldn't walk away from it and let people starve. Few here like FDR very much, inluding me. But I didn't like the Dust Bowl famine and the Hooverville shoot-up either. Of course, both emanated from the same kind of thinking, double dealing, cheating, scheming, greed, desire to imitate European aristocrats, etc. <<<<

Those gov't caused economic problems would have ended much sooner without FDR’s meddling and wealth re-distribution.

>>>>>>19. We are worse off because thanks to gov't., corp-capitalism and a planned underclass, an underclass has been created. <<<<

And socialist policies of the massive nanny state.

>>>>f course, the Native American population in this country were the first segregated underclass and they never got a piece of the entitlement pie. Did they? Then, we could go into Japanese interment camps in WWII. Or institutional populations experimented on. There are so may people who've suffered more than long-suffering taxpayers, that the "theft" you keep harping on seems like the lesser of many evils. Evils emerged from the uses to which taxpayer money was put.<<<<<

All the above evils were perpetrated by the State using money stolen from people, which is why I keep “harping” about it. It’s fine that you don’t mind being taxed to pay for such evils, you have no right to demand it for the rest of us.

>>>> But I'm grateful to live here, have work and opportunties . . . and if I have to pay taxes until there's a viable, practical transition to a better way, which might be anarchy in a few hundred more years, I'll pay them and protest the uses to which some of the monies are put.<<<<<

Then enjoy the evils you are spawning, like the ones listed above, and stop complaining about them.

>>>>>20. True. People "pay" for their lofty (Bible-inspired?) ideals through many ways, and cash isn't the only one. <<<

Bot it’s always easier to spend other people’s money for the collective good of the needy, or the children, or the elderly, or society...

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_12/editors-anarchy.html

Does Freedom Mean Anarchy?
by Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford




www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_holcombe.pdf

"Government: Unnecessary But Inevitable"

The priority in our lives to change things such that whether anyone is wealthy or not, you don't know the difference or care.

I reckon humanity will have evolved to have this kind of sensibility by around the 23rd century. I'm an optimist. The future is better than the past: someday there won't be disease or disfigurement or even feeblemindedness thanks to genetic engineering -- but I'm still left wondering what the point was of all those centuries of dumb misery that came before. That's the question I have written on my card that I'll present to Jehovah if I get the chance. Some ppl. spent their lives in a fatuous low IQ haze from birth to death; what's up with that? Was this funny or entertaining to someone watching from another dimension? What?

The question wasn't about not knowing or caring about the wealthy. It was what do "we" owe the poor?

If you'd sit down and eat a big dinner in front of a hungry person, wouldn't you know, care and offer to share?

Suppose some wicked ones genetically engineer for dumb instead of smart? What will the 23rd century be like that.

The British are into genetic manipulation and human cloning now. They were with 14-day-old embryos that are then killed. As a strong opponent of abortion, what do you think about that?

You said, "Some ppl. spent their lives in a fatuous low IQ haze from birth to death; what's up with that?"

Maybe you were'nt refering to ppl. like me, but...
I spent 12 years in PS from 1970-82 and, although an avg. student, I never read a single book (hated even short reading assignments). It was not until a leftist Amer. govt. professor (2nd yr of college) "opened my eyes" to what was going on outside of south Texas (i.e., politically).
I think I would have spent my life from "birth to death" in a "low IQ haze" (not that I'm highly intelligent now, but I do read books now).

However, what good is it to "see" and know/understand more? I don't know if anyone has written specifically and extensively about an other aspect of what schools do to us (besides "Dumbing us Down"). That is, how they condition us to not act (upon what we "see" or become aware of). Too many ppl. I know, self included, are somewhat impotent to do anything about what we see wrong. You get angry for a little while and then forget about it. I don't think it's a coincidence that we don't act or we act in support of more stupid "improvements". I think we've been trained this way? Is this making sense?

I think the anger and then forget about phenomenon is fueled by TV exposé
programs such as 20/20 and 60 minutes. Sensational stories and then people say, "Well, what can I do about it?" The following week, another sensational story. The issues take sustained efforts in order to effect positive change.

Everyone remember Bhopal? Anybody go to India? Anybody get access to the muck-a-mucks at Union Carbide in Danbury, CT?

And so on . . .

I think people should think of the macro level and work on the micro level, helping in any way they can. For example, through writing and public speaking, as Gatto suggests, even to small audiences at the library. Over the Internet. Contributions as volunteers or donors to organizations one deems worthy, with an annual report or financial brief that explains where the money goes. As, um, Tom DeLay apparently overlooked.

Did you find my post above unworthy of comment? I know it was seventeen paragraphs instead of one. But since this isn't school, I thought you'd overlook that.

In the famous words of MLK...

"Do anything, no matter how small, to make a difference"

A lot of us think that change and reform needs to be grand. However, it is from my own experience that the small "changes" are the ones that REALLY count.

You can make a change or differnce on a small scale, which is just as good.

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

Replying to:

You said, "Some ppl. spent their lives in a fatuous low IQ haze from birth to death; what's up with that?"

Maybe you were'nt refering to ppl. like me, but...
I spent 12 years in PS from 1970-82 and, although an avg. student, I never read a single book (hated even short reading assignments). It was not until a leftist Amer. govt. professor (2nd yr of college) "opened my eyes" to what was going on outside of south Texas (i.e., politically).
I think I would have spent my life from "birth to death" in a "low IQ haze" (not that I'm highly intelligent now, but I do read books now).

However, what good is it to "see" and know/understand more? I don't know if anyone has written specifically and extensively about an other aspect of what schools do to us (besides "Dumbing us Down"). That is, how they condition us to not act (upon what we "see" or become aware of). Too many ppl. I know, self included, are somewhat impotent to do anything about what we see wrong. You get angry for a little while and then forget about it. I don't think it's a coincidence that we don't act or we act in support of more stupid "improvements". I think we've been trained this way? Is this making sense?

nt

if it involves the genetically spiffed-up race you see as a possibility for the 23rd century. At the same time, if you find individual women's choice to have an abortion morally (or ethically) repugnant.

I am asking if would find one woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy for reasons she deems good—reasons that could lead to a more intelligent or free individual life, or a better life for any number of private, personal, health or other reasons—WRONG?

AND, I'm asking if you would find terminating the life of an embryo acceptable for the sake of producing a better species of Homo sapiens by the 23rd century.

Thank you for considering my query.

No.

If I were the mother I would want to be able to decide one way or the other whether I wanted to survive a pregnancy or not. I can understand someone wanting to die while giving birth and I can also understand saving the mother's life if giving birth were going to kill her.

I'm not for abortion on demand, but it's not something high on my list of concerns. The issue of unschooling is a number one priority to my mind because everything else devolves from it. How we grow up effects everything else. Nothing will change until the way ppl. grow up changes.

Having said that; if I had a space ship and could go live on another planet, I would and would never think about the earth again. I hate this place and it's dumb misery and primitivism. Mankind is a bore. If I were sitting on a beach on a small planet near Alpha Centauri reading the paper and there was a blurb on the back page about a small blue green planet called Earth losing its orbit and flying into its sun I wouldn't even bother to finish reading the head line, I would go straight to the comics and I wouldn't even think about it. "Earthlings" the article might have read. "All they knew how to do is fight and spit and get emotional... no one misses them".

we owe them their humanity, their dignity. poverty is dehumanizing and undignified, and the poor exist because there are rich. vast wealth in the hands of a few is obcene. i disagree that the future is better than the past at least when it comes to poverty in the western hemisphere. poverty did not exist in north america until the europeans arrived. they transplanted their savage economic system to the "new world". native civilizations like the Inca, Mexica, Tolteca, did not know poverty at all. indeed, when montaigne, the french essayist, asked two natives who had been brought to europe (by force) what they found most interesting about european society, the natives said they were shocked by the extremes in poverty and wealth. they found it odd that so few could live so lavishly while so many went begging, and they wondered why the poor did not slice the throats of the rich and burn their houses. so we owe the poor the end of the western economic system.

nt

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization, he replied; "It's a good idea." He was being more than polite.

It would help the poor if people stopped killing them.

I think Gandhi replied "It WOULD be a good idea."

**********************************************************

Death by war, famine, pestilence ...


20th century death tolls

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

***********************************

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

The Death Toll: The American Holocaust

In American Holocaust, Stannard estimates the total cost of the near-extermination of the American Indians as 100,000,000.

The problem here (aside from the question of whether there were even this many people in hemisphere at all) is that Stannard doesn't differentiate between death by massacre and death by disease. He blames the Europeans for bringing new diseases which spread like wildfire -- often faster than than the Europeans themselves -- and depopulated the continent. Since no one disputes the fact that most of the native deaths were caused by alien diseases to which they had never developed immunity, the simple question of categorization is vital.

Traditionally we add death by disease and famine into the total cost of wars and massacres (Anne Frank, after all, died of typhus, not Zyklon-B, but she's still a victim of the Holocaust) so I don't see any problem with doing the same with the American genocides, provided that the deaths occurred after their society had already been disrupted by direct European hostility. If a tribe was enslaved or driven off its lands, the associated increase in deaths by disease would definitely count toward the atrocity (The chain of events which reduced the Indian population of California from 85,000 in 1852 to 18,000 in 1890 certainly counts regardless of the exact agent of death, because by this time, the Indians were being hunted down from one end of California to another.); however, if a tribe was merely sneezed on by the wrong person at first contact, it should not count.

Consider the Powhatans of Virginia. As I mentioned earlier, Stannard cites estimates that the population was 100,000 before contact. In the same paragraph, he states that European depredations and disease had reduced this population to a mere 14,000 by the time the English settled Jamestown in 1607. Now, come on; should we really blame the English for 86,000 deaths that occurred before they even arrived? Sure, he hints at pre-Jamestown "depredations", but he doesn't actually list any. As far as I can tell, the handful of European ventures into the Chesapeake region before 1607 were too small to do much depredating, and in what conflicts there were, the Europeans often got the worst of it. see http://www.mariner.org/baylink/span.html and http://www.nps.gov/fora/roanokerev.htm and http://coastalguide.com/packet/lostcolony01.htm

Think of it this way: if the Europeans had arrived with the most benign intentions and behaved like perfect guests, or for that matter, if Aztec sailors had been the ones to discover Europe instead of vice versa, then the Indians would still have been exposed to unfamiliar diseases and the population would still have been scythed by massive epidemics, but we'd just lump it into the same category as the Black Death, i.e., bad luck.

(Curiously, the Black Death was brought to Europe by the Mongols. Should we blame them for it? And while we're tossing blame around willy-nilly, aren't the Native Americans responsible for introducing tobacco to the world -- and for the 90 million deaths which followed?)

That's an interesting bit of history. Where'd you read/hear it? My wife would totally agree with you. I think just getting rid of some of the govt. corruption and the circular dependency (govt. employees depending on a steady production of dependent people) is too much to ask for.

Thanks,
Raul

YES, I can answer in a brief paragraph, but I won't. Why you ask, perhaps your need to improve your communiction skills. Don't mean to be insulting but your post was extremely DEMANDING with a pinch of dictorship smattered on the plate....

What may help you understand Raul is helping out in soup kitchens

You don't owe anything to the poor Raul.....

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

Replying to:

or, what are the poor owed?

can you answer this in a brief paragraph, no sound-bites (or one-liners) or links (summarize it if it makes your point)?

Thanks Bobby, sincerely. As I said (above), I did not mean to offend anyone. I asked that anyone who VOLUNTARILY wished to respond, not simply present sound bites or one-liners because there's not much to learn from them. I've learned much from this group and I feel that's one of the purposes of this board.

If you were assuming that I have not helped out in soup kitchens, you would be wrong.

As I also said (above), there are those who "roll up their sleeves" and help others and then there's those who like to think about ways to change the systems that enslave ppl. Leftists like to and effectively criticize "corporate America"/Govt. but their solutions are efforts to "level the playing field" for the impoverished, etc. Libertarians, on the other hand, blah, blah, blah.....(I haven't learned enough about their proposals).

Prudence (above) said: >>>"We" need to "break out of the trap," question all of our assumptions and occasionally start fresh, as if we knew nothing, and examine problems in a different light. It is a "rule" of metaphysics that problems cannot be solved on the level and through the thinking where they occurred. Another rule is that only like can know like. An abundance of ideas and good will are needed to solve impoverished ways of life and impoverished, narrow, cramped ways of thinking.<<<

If "we" don't hash out these issues, and simply help those in need at the local level, then we forfeit the global plans to the social engineers. No?

If I promote the dismantling of govt. programs/systems that impoverish people (not just financially) and am challenged to discuss alternatives (i.e., "are you just gonna let people starve to death?"), I'm not as sharp as some folks here to argue the issues.

Or, do we just let whatever happens happen?

I do appreciate for anyone to point out the flaws in my thinking--really!

Raul

I was a grumpy ole schmuck yesterday, and sincerly apologize for being such a jerk to you. A few things happened this week which I explained to Anon in Daves' thread.

I've learned a lot from you and everyone on this board as well. I disagree, I think you are just as sharp as any of the folks on this board, your thinking isn't flawed, mine was, sorry.

It's tax time, we're self employed, need I say more to explain my gumpyness ;-) Our income is a smidgen over the "Poverty line". Here, if income is at the "Poverty Line" we qualify for FREE health care and other perks paid by taxpayers. Unfortunatly the system is flawed, whereas wealthy folks with expensive accountants are able to do write offs below the poverty level, which qualifies them for freebies. One neighbor does that, leases 4 vehicles including a Hummer and Mercedes, SUV for 19yo daughter and sports car for the 17. That's a small portion of their write offs of $2,400./month. Much much more.

Than we have "career" welfare families. There are Fourth generation people learning this career living in our area. Each generation teaches their children how to feed off tax dollars without working.
It's frustrating Raul.

Approx. 20 years ago, Alberta tried to legislate a "work" for welfare program which IMHO wasn't a bad plan. But~but~but the bleedin hearts and people on welfare complained so that plan was scrapped. I still remember the 300# (beer gut) guy wailing on the news, holding a can of beer, complaining about the idea of working for welfare.... eeeeeshhhh Those were the days when canned beer was very expensive. hummmm He didn't look hungry...

Than we have families who truly need help "temporarily" until they get back on track. The system gives those poor folks a difficult time because they aren't trained by the "career welfare experts" on how to deal with government paperwork. (scam) Those folks are the people we as individuals help out, & through food banks and shelters for abused women and children.

Glad you've helped in soup kitchens, it's quite an eye openner isn't it, sorry for assuming Raul. You know the old saying "never assume", it can make an ASS out of U or ME" ;-) This time it was ME ;-)

We need to hash issues like this one over, that's for sure. Raul , I really feel aweful for being such a cranky old bat yesterday. I took my frustration of what went on here out on you and I'm sorry. Next time the neighbor woman boots her kids out for the night to entertain a "friend", leaving them without a place to stay, I'll pay her a visit, rather than giving you a hard time Her kids are 18 and 20, have jobs & pay room and board. Dh, DD & I thought that was a horrible thing to do to them. They stayed with us last night.

Rewinding back to your original question.

"What do we owe the poor or what are the poor owed?"

I'll have to get back to you Raul. Going to run this question by kiddo this week and see what her thoughts are. You already heard my blahh~blah~blahh , would be interesting to hear what a 16 year old thinks..

Bobby in Canuckville enjoying the sounds of
spring finally

Dude,

That was great! I could'nt have put it better myself! I volunteer for a local counciling charity, but also like to stop and chat with 'down & outs' on the street, not just giving money, but me time and company - for what thats worth! Just thought I'd ahare that with you.

Love Sid

I'm poor- monetarily speaking- AND I volunteer in "soup kitchens" AND nobody owes me squat.

People who want housing can, in this countey, get it.
People who want food can, in this country, get it.

Regard for their dignity, acknowledgement that dignity isn't tied to financial worth.
Beyond that, we must decide our own moral responsibility.

Don't mind me. Off to play tennis now. If more people played tennis or racquet ball, there'd probably be less aggression off the court.

With explicit instructions from God or bleeding hearts not to feed the tired, the poor and the hungry to the sharks while toasting success at a fishy pole.

Our respect,and help when they need us....


Raul , you are bossy & arrogant,,,, Are you a schoolteacher?

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

Replying to:

or, what are the poor owed?

can you answer this in a brief paragraph, no sound-bites (or one-liners) or links (summarize it if it makes your point)?

Another member of "the poor", here. There have been times when I raided the pantry to bring staple foodstuffs to a neighbor who was waiting for the foodstamp application to be approved. Or did childcare so someone could look for work. And we often trade resources - lumber for tin, childcare for yard work, housekeeping for automotive repair, heck I've traded work for food in both directions! Owe, hell! When money is not the only medium of exchange, we're rich!

I was wondering the other day if a kind of homesteading program would be successful. We'll give you land and tools, you farm for x number of years, and it's all yours.