32 million on Food Stamps in America

[Matt]

The various misstatements about constitutional law, anti-trust law (both modern and historical), and the actual effects of government social programs are staggering. Any time I see a phrase that starts "I don't want my tax dollars used for XXXXX," I realize I am no longer dealing with a rational individual with much of a grasp on reality.

Please correct my errors. Otherwise don't post. If I want people to make unsupported claims that I am an idiot I can get that pretty much anywhere.

No one believes their tax dollars are spent correctly. You don't get to choose, at least without taking steps to play an active role in governance. You certainly do not get a say by bashing the system under which you prosper, much like the 17-year-old who "hates" his parents while living under their roof, and driving their car.

Karl Marx was the son of a wealthy capitalist, and was himself wealthy. I wish the world would stop paying attention to what _he_ said, judging that he had no right to complain because of his position.

The implication you are making is that the slave owners had no justification for complaining about slavery -- after all, they were benefitting handsomely from slavery.

Of course that's crazy. There were slave owners who developed ethical problems with the very institution that they depended on.

My complaint is that the current system is unethical, because it denies individuals choice over themselves and their property. Thinking is the fundamental activity of man, it is what defines him. Thinking implies that there are possibilities; possibilities are little more than choices. To the extent that the rights of the individual are suppressed, you suppress what it means to be human.

No one has yet explained to me how it is _ethical_ that some men should have their wealth stolen from them to support others.

I'm sure you're so principled that when you're 65 and Medicare eligible, you'll just respectfully decline that evil, government-subsidized healthcare that all those lazy, do-nothing seniors seem to use.

Why would or should I decline it? I've (grudingly) paid into the system.

Incidentally, I don't expect to see a single dime of that money in my lifetime.

If you did decide how to spend your own taxes this would quickly devolve into chaos.

Why?

Millions of people (myself included) wouldn't send one thin dime of my taxes into that wasteful sinkhole that is military spending.

I'd be fine with that. The US constitution, however, does say that providing for the common defense is one of the valid functions of the US federal government, although I don't remember what it says regarding how that should be paid for.

In any case, defending you from foreign states is one of the classical "problem cases" when talking about a "buyer pays" model for services that are typically provided by governments. "How do we let Russia Invade that guy who didn't pay his Army tax, while not letting Russia invaid his neighbors?"

I'd love to be in a place, politically, where we talk about how to best provide for border-defense and other police/military tasks because we've dismantled so much of the government that those are among the few remaining functions for which we have not yet devised and implented a way to replace and exceed the former state apparatus.

But I would donate my tax dollars towards actually educating the children of many "homeschoolers." Those kids haven't done anything wrong, and they deserve better than being raised as neo-con, neo-fascist, Palinesque ditto-heads.

I have some bad news for you. Homeschooled children tend to destroy publicly schooled children on any mechanism thus far devised to measure aptitude.

But what's more useful is that your response clearly illustrates the main problem people have with homeschooling -- people are fighting not for the education of children, but for the exclusive right of child indoctrination.

You didn't express any concern that my kids wouldn't be taught math, grammar, chemistry, or history. You went straight to your real concern -- that my kids might not be taught the same socio-political ideology that you hold for yourself, and eliminating non-statist/progressive ideology, more than [almost] anything, is the purpose of public educations most vocal adherents.

[the almost comes because the NEA is MOST concerned with perpetuating their organization. Part of that is indoctrinational feedback into the kids and parents, but i think they'd be flexible on that point as long as the union remained powerful]

[also, read: "Education, Free and Compulsory", by Murray Rothbard for a breif and interesting history of public education]

But since you're not "wrong" in raising your children that way, you'd think you show the same tolerance when you see a parent/parents sending their kids to *gasp* public school, and using programs they're eligible for, including food stamps, school meals, and Medicaid (for shame).

Well, I don't think any of that stuff is the proper role of government --- certainly not federal government --- but if people want to form schools and other such enterprises, they absolutely should do so. As long as they don't send me the bill.

[Matt]

I am really sorry I read this. Perhaps you are not old enough to really understand what minorities and women went through to fully understand what you are writing about discrimination.

I hold the rights of the individual to be above all else. That means I support Billy Bob's right [dumb as it may be] to not like brown people. The implication of this right manifests itself in a few ways. I don't think Billy Bob ought to be _obligated_ to:
- hire people he doesn't like
- invite them over for coffee
- allow them to be customers at his store

Sure, we have laws that obligate Billy Bob to do all of these things. Do you think that fixes the problem -- the problem that Billy Bob is a bastard? I don't think it does. I think it makes Billy Bob seethe with anger; I think it makes him hate not only brown people but "all people".

Now, George, a brown person, should not have ANY of the following as "Rights"
- the right to any job he likes
- the right to visit anyone he likes for coffee
- the right to be a customer of any business he likes

George has the right to
- not be beaten [by billy bob or his friends]
- not be threatened
- to defend himself and family
- to a jury trial, etc

In other words -- he has the same rights as everyone else, and anyone violating any of the above was already guilty of a crime prior to any civil rights laws.

I don't beleive in "group rights" or "group laws". There are only individuals. Everything else is political power-peddling.

Now, absent a bunch of "corrective" laws, what _should_ happen is that people of all colors should understand what kind of man Billy Bob is and take their business, friendship, and labor elsewhere.

One "structural" problem in the south was that Billy Bob was usually an agent of the government. Think of the ways that Billy Bob _really_ screwed George:
- Billy Bob was the Sheriff
- Billy Bob was a judge
- Billy Bob was on the zoning board, and could approve or deny new business "permits"
- Billy Bob was the public defender
- Billy Bob sat on the state Bar, and prevented George and George's friends from becoming lawyers.... so there was nobody legally allowed to defend George's brother against Billy Bob's bogus charges...

Discrimination in individuals in private enterprise is ugly, but humanity is ugly. Nothing can ever change that.

But discrimination by individuals or groups that wield coercive monopoly power -- and this is the SOLE domain of governments -- _that_ is truly evil and must be dismantled.

The issue with the robber barons is clear. Read the history of the railroads. How the rich obtained ownership (from the government) and how they were built, but given your

Wait. Railroads are the BEST example of how the government fucked the people and then blamed it on "the rich". Milton Friedman covers this at length, and he's miles more mainstream than someone like a Rothbard or Ayn Rand.

Also, if I were you, I would be careful in mentioning your employer, positively or in the opposite in a public forum. My guess is that it violates your employment agreement. I am done here.

It actually doesn't. It used to, and then it was relaxed. It's a moot point today: nobody has privacy if you look hard enough.

The point of my mention of Microsoft, however, was to discuss the perversion of anti-trust by way of example. I obviously speak neither on behalf of my company or the department of justice And obviously, MS has to comply with the EU's anti-trust laws as well, which are even more arbitrary than the USAs. In the USA, there is at least the notino that customers should be protected from harm. In the EU, they go further and stipluate that "the point" of anti-trust law is that companies should be protected from going out of business. You can probably surmise what I think of the EU's anti-trust regime

[m-racer]

I am really sorry I read this. Perhaps you are not old enough to really understand what minorities and women went through to fully understand what you are writing about discrimination.

I hold the rights of the individual to be above all else. That means I support Billy Bob's right [dumb as it may be] to not like brown people. The implication of this right manifests itself in a few ways. I don't think Billy Bob ought to be _obligated_ to:
- hire people he doesn't like
- invite them over for coffee
- allow them to be customers at his store

Sure, we have laws that obligate Billy Bob to do all of these things. Do you think that fixes the problem -- the problem that Billy Bob is a bastard? I don't think it does. I think it makes Billy Bob seethe with anger; I think it makes him hate not only brown people but "all people".

Now, George, a brown person, should not have ANY of the following as "Rights"
- the right to any job he likes
- the right to visit anyone he likes for coffee
- the right to be a customer of any business he likes

George has the right to
- not be beaten [by billy bob or his friends]
- not be threatened
- to defend himself and family
- to a jury trial, etc

In other words -- he has the same rights as everyone else, and anyone violating any of the above was already guilty of a crime prior to any civil rights laws.

I don't beleive in "group rights" or "group laws". There are only individuals. Everything else is political power-peddling.

Now, absent a bunch of "corrective" laws, what _should_ happen is that people of all colors should understand what kind of man Billy Bob is and take their business, friendship, and labor elsewhere.

One "structural" problem in the south was that Billy Bob was usually an agent of the government. Think of the ways that Billy Bob _really_ screwed George:
- Billy Bob was the Sheriff
- Billy Bob was a judge
- Billy Bob was on the zoning board, and could approve or deny new business "permits"
- Billy Bob was the public defender
- Billy Bob sat on the state Bar, and prevented George and George's friends from becoming lawyers.... so there was nobody legally allowed to defend George's brother against Billy Bob's bogus charges...

Discrimination in individuals in private enterprise is ugly, but humanity is ugly. Nothing can ever change that.

But discrimination by individuals or groups that wield coercive monopoly power -- and this is the SOLE domain of governments -- _that_ is truly evil and must be dismantled.

The issue with the robber barons is clear. Read the history of the railroads. How the rich obtained ownership (from the government) and how they were built, but given your

Wait. Railroads are the BEST example of how the government fucked the people and then blamed it on "the rich". Milton Friedman covers this at length, and he's miles more mainstream than someone like a Rothbard or Ayn Rand.

Also, if I were you, I would be careful in mentioning your employer, positively or in the opposite in a public forum. My guess is that it violates your employment agreement. I am done here.

It actually doesn't. It used to, and then it was relaxed. It's a moot point today: nobody has privacy if you look hard enough.

The point of my mention of Microsoft, however, was to discuss the perversion of anti-trust by way of example. I obviously speak neither on behalf of my company or the department of justice And obviously, MS has to comply with the EU's anti-trust laws as well, which are even more arbitrary than the USAs. In the USA, there is at least the notino that customers should be protected from harm. In the EU, they go further and stipluate that "the point" of anti-trust law is that companies should be protected from going out of business. You can probably surmise what I think of the EU's anti-trust regime

Last chance for rational thought. That minor "structural issue" you mentioned caused thousands of lynchings. A minor sacrifice in your view of freedom. You would have loved Germany in the 40's. That was a minor "structural issue" as well. Oh well, one of those humanity is ugly moments. Wingnut.

[Matt]

Last chance for rational thought. That minor "structural issue" you mentioned caused thousands of lynchings.

I don't think i was ambiguous about the magnitude of evil that happens when bad people get government jobs.

A minor sacrifice in your view of freedom. You would have loved Germany in the 40's. That was a minor "structural issue" as well. Oh well, one of those humanity is ugly moments. Wingnut.

No, I would have hated Germany in the 40s. Nor did I say the the issue was "minor". What I am saying is that because the government was stacked with racist bastards, even though blacks had the "right to not be murdered" back in the day, the kind of rules I think are right for society [Bob the racist can be a racist business owner, and that's ok because George the reasonble guy can just start his own business] don't work because the powers-in-charge control _everything_, including who can own a business, who can be a lawyer, who can go outside during what hours, and so on.

As long as the state is all powerful, you have to be breathtakingly careful about who you let into state office, and of course in the South they weren't. And so the structural problems were things that DIDN'T give disenfranchsied people alternatives to the bastards running everything.

The problem is structural in the sense that these people are legally guaranteed to be free from coercive violence, ought to have the opportunity to shop, work, and live elsewhere, but in many cases the power of the state interfered with that in a variety of ways.

If the law says you cannot work and you cannot live without Billy Bob's approval, then Billy Bob doesn't need to do anything so egregious as hurting you directly; he can completely subjugate you using zoning and permits and licensing and a thousand other "little cuts" that can always be sold to the voting public as "good and reasonable".

But this creates a structure were the vested incumbent interests remain completely powerful, and where one asshole that shuts out black people doesn't hurt himself -- he hurts everyone because competing with him is disallowed by his buddies in government.

Most people admit that regulation hurts business and the economy, but few people figure out that many of these regulatory agencies actually harm individual freedom in a very real, non-theoretical sense.

So the kludgey fix that was taken is to try to somehow make it so that nobody can be "mean" to anyone anywhere for any reason in any context. Which is ridiculous.

My remedy requires differentiating between the rules that should apply to people working in a government capacity vs. those who aren't. You aren't differentiating.

Bob the Racist store owner doesn't have the power to HURT black people by virtue of his position. Bob the racist Sherrif does. It is the Sheriff that we have to watch out for and carefully work to limit his power and autonomy to commit wrongs. It is the zoning board member. It is the Bar examiner.

"Wingnut" is usually reserved for thoughtless die hard republicans. If only the republican base thought the way I did. Sadly, they resoundingly rejected "my" candidate last time around, and continue to reject "my" candidates all over the nation.

"My" viewpoint doesn't rely on the government to be staffed by only good people. My viewpoint castrates the government, and what peices remain must be held to standards at least as high as they are today for _public_ officials. And everyone is more free with fewer laws as a result.

It does allow for the reality that some people, backwards as they are, just don't like some other people, for some pretty stupid reasons. I simply don't beleive that should be illegal, or the states business. The state is not in the business of making friends.

The only thing that makes people "get along" when they otherwise wouldn't is mutual exchange.. i.e. trade... commerce. And the state works tirelessly to make that as unvoluntary as possible.

[rlomba8204]

Wow. If ignorance really is bliss, then there are a few really happy MFers who have been posting in this thread.

Exhibit A:

. . . Millions of people (myself included) wouldn't send one thin dime of my taxes into that wasteful sinkhole that is military spending. But I would donate my tax dollars towards actually educating the children of many "homeschoolers." Those kids haven't done anything wrong, and they deserve better than being raised as neo-con, neo-fascist, Palinesque ditto-heads.

Want to talk about namecalling and ignorance. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to no longer participate in this discussion.

[C.R. Krieger]

<A completely jaw-dropping justification and advocacy of racism.>

You are not merely extreme; if you act on any of your views, you are a threat to society. Not government; society.

[Matt]

<A completely jaw-dropping justification and advocacy of racism.>

*sigh*

I'm not advocating that people be racists. I'm suggesting that if you actually beleive in personal freedom, some people harboring racist views in their homes __and businesses__ is a consequence you have to be willing to accept, and that I am.

I don't think using the law to force people to hire and fire people contrary to their own beleifs is appropriate.

I do think the law should apply the best ideals of invidiualism to _itself_, and thus, public entities cannot show prejudicial favortism towards any race, religion, gender, etc etc etc. People are to be considered as individuals, on their merits.

Of course -- that means that the [ ] Gender box on job applications shouldn't be a "selection" column for the analyst in the back office.. it means it should disappear entirely. If gender doesn't matter, make it truly NOT MATTER.

Or, you can continue to have a litany of laws and politicians telling minorities they will never succeed without the help of paternalists who merely ask for their loyal votes. When does the law roll back? When do politicians announce: "finally, you are now equal, and no longer need special legal help to succeed"? When will the politicians tell ${group} "you can stand on your own feet in this country and get as far as anyone else."

Never?

You are not merely extreme; if you act on any of your views, you are a threat to society. Not government; society.

I don't mind admitting that you've done me the pleasure of providing me with a tremendous compliment. To be a threat, something must hold power. If there's any power at all behind the words I've written, that's really a tremendous compliment.

The society we live in is sick and dying. It's certainly out of money, with no light at the end of that tunnel. It's dying because there is no epistemological basis for anything.. no underlying ideology.. no ethics, no principles. We have two "teams" of people who know mostly that they dislike each other, but both agree that the state can do whatever it likes to the other team. People can agree to disagree when they are not vying to put the shackles on each other using the power of government. But once its "my team vs. your team", everybody loses, every election.

I have excreted __pages__ of text into this thread and have yet to have anyone answer without ad hominems or accusations of ignorance. No one has attempted to justify the current situation as ethical, or explained how what I propose is unjust. Everyone is merely against it. Why? On what basis?

Most people have no underlying justification for why they like or dislike what they like in politics. But there is an alternative, one that is reasonably simple and which was present during the founding of our country:

"A man is born free, and we form a society to ensure that no group of men may deny any man the freedoms he was born with. That is the full and complete extent of the state, and we must vigorously constrain the state, as its nature is to expand boundlessly until it dies violently."

There is only this vague notion of "a social contract" that I never read, never signed, and cannot back out of, and the other party can change the terms of the contract at any time, with no warning, and I have no recourse. You guys are the lawyers -- tell me what kind of contract works like that.

[Son of a]

Wow. If ignorance really is bliss, then there are a few really happy MFers who have been posting in this thread.

Exhibit A:

. . . Millions of people (myself included) wouldn't send one thin dime of my taxes into that wasteful sinkhole that is military spending. But I would donate my tax dollars towards actually educating the children of many "homeschoolers." Those kids haven't done anything wrong, and they deserve better than being raised as neo-con, neo-fascist, Palinesque ditto-heads.

Want to talk about namecalling and ignorance. Thanks for reinforcing my decision to no longer participate in this discussion.

Do I need to put all sarcasm in italics?

My main point is that you don't get to pick and choose what you like from a menu when it comes to learning, when it comes to paying taxes, and when it comes to running a government. I was using that information as the kind of inflammatory, BS-language that so often fills the posts of many people on this board. I just posted something that rankles the folks on the right to a good degree (apparently) yet it is far less rancorous, racist, or mean-spirited.

And Ray, jump off of your high horse re: the Palin dig. We may not see eye-to-eye politically, but I'd like to think that your own political leanings combined with your intelligence would keep you from voting for the almost substance-free (look, I wrote on my hands, Ma) Palin. I didn't take a shot at the GOP as a whole, or at anyone with legitimate political ideas. Eventhough I disagree with (insert Republican X) I can accept the argument that they have a position grounded in thought and with a connection to reality. She doesn't and I think you know that.

But I'm done too. I can't really get into why its better being a citizen in 2010 than it was in 1905. And by that I mean I could, it is correct and can be shown quantifiably, but it is in no way worth the effort. It is akin to arguing why Euro bumpers on e28s look better than NA bumpers; if we need to start having that kind of conversation, it is probably just best to concede the irreconcilable differences and move on.

[Son of a]

The various misstatements about constitutional law, anti-trust law (both modern and historical), and the actual effects of government social programs are staggering. Any time I see a phrase that starts "I don't want my tax dollars used for XXXXX," I realize I am no longer dealing with a rational individual with much of a grasp on reality.

Please correct my errors. Otherwise don't post. If I want people to make unsupported claims that I am an idiot I can get that pretty much anywhere.

At $50 an hour (my discounted rate) I can and will. Since you're a supporter of the free market it is for you to decide whether or not this education is worth it to you. It should be cheaper than law school, but maybe not if we have to backfill. But I'm not falling into the trap of being dismissed solely because I'm not going point by point on where we "disagree" about the salient legal and historical points. And for the record, I did not here, nor have I ever, called you an idiot.

No one believes their tax dollars are spent correctly. You don't get to choose, at least without taking steps to play an active role in governance. You certainly do not get a say by bashing the system under which you prosper, much like the 17-year-old who "hates" his parents while living under their roof, and driving their car.

Karl Marx was the son of a wealthy capitalist, and was himself wealthy. I wish the world would stop paying attention to what _he_ said, judging that he had no right to complain because of his position.

The implication you are making is that the slave owners had no justification for complaining about slavery -- after all, they were benefitting handsomely from slavery.

Of course that's crazy. There were slave owners who developed ethical problems with the very institution that they depended on.

My complaint is that the current system is unethical, because it denies individuals choice over themselves and their property. Thinking is the fundamental activity of man, it is what defines him. Thinking implies that there are possibilities; possibilities are little more than choices. To the extent that the rights of the individual are suppressed, you suppress what it means to be human.

No one has yet explained to me how it is _ethical_ that some men should have their wealth stolen from them to support others.

I wasn't talking about Marx, never mentioned him, his background or his principles. I was merely pointing out the intellectual dishonesty that is decrying the system's inequities while prospering at the same time. Now here is where you tell me a) "I'm not prospering" b) "I'm not prospering as much as I would be if things were different (ie more in line with my own beliefs") or c) "I'm prospering in spite of this system." That's fine, and its a matter of debate, but ask your hypothetical friend from 1905 how life is, and let me know what he says about the notion of prosperity.

I'm sure you're so principled that when you're 65 and Medicare eligible, you'll just respectfully decline that evil, government-subsidized healthcare that all those lazy, do-nothing seniors seem to use.

Why would or should I decline it? I've (grudingly) paid into the system.
Incidentally, I don't expect to see a single dime of that money in my lifetime.

I'm 28 (and presumably younger than you), and I expect to see even less of that system. But just as my taxes pay for countless things I view as abominable, I pay them without extreme complaint. I do so not because I want to, but because I realize that it is far better than the alternative. And disagree though you may want, you agree as well. If you didn't, you wouldn't be paying. Now, whatever reason you have for doing so, you can agree that it is better than all but the Utopian fantasies you might entertain when it comes to not paying taxes.

If you did decide how to spend your own taxes this would quickly devolve into chaos.

Why?

Ever seen an unlined parking lot? Ever seen a traffic jam leaving a concert? Now picture that lot with no one directing traffic. Order stops being orderly once there are more people in a given space than can be held together by the group's own shared dynamic (whatever that might be at the time). Basically any group of strangers will devolve, to some degree or another, when they are placed in a situation where the sheer anonymity of numbers overwhelms the group's capacity to regulate itself. A few hundred million tax-paying entities + a "pay what you want" system = chaos.

Millions of people (myself included) wouldn't send one thin dime of my taxes into that wasteful sinkhole that is military spending.

I'd be fine with that. The US constitution, however, does say that providing for the common defense is one of the valid functions of the US federal government, although I don't remember what it says regarding how that should be paid for.

In any case, defending you from foreign states is one of the classical "problem cases" when talking about a "buyer pays" model for services that are typically provided by governments. "How do we let Russia Invade that guy who didn't pay his Army tax, while not letting Russia invaid his neighbors?"

I'd love to be in a place, politically, where we talk about how to best provide for border-defense and other police/military tasks because we've dismantled so much of the government that those are among the few remaining functions for which we have not yet devised and implented a way to replace and exceed the former state apparatus.

We can start with a free introductory lesson. You're speaking of Article I Section 8 which includes the establishment and maintenance of a militia, albeit with restrictions. Ironically this language is one of the only times the Constitution places explicit limitations so early on, and it does so only after speaking of such ideals as fostering the arts and sciences and standardizing weights and measures.

But I would donate my tax dollars towards actually educating the children of many "homeschoolers." Those kids haven't done anything wrong, and they deserve better than being raised as neo-con, neo-fascist, Palinesque ditto-heads.

I have some bad news for you. Homeschooled children tend to destroy publicly schooled children on any mechanism thus far devised to measure aptitude.

But what's more useful is that your response clearly illustrates the main problem people have with homeschooling -- people are fighting not for the education of children, but for the exclusive right of child indoctrination.

You didn't express any concern that my kids wouldn't be taught math, grammar, chemistry, or history. You went straight to your real concern -- that my kids might not be taught the same socio-political ideology that you hold for yourself, and eliminating non-statist/progressive ideology, more than [almost] anything, is the purpose of public educations most vocal adherents.

[the almost comes because the NEA is MOST concerned with perpetuating their organization. Part of that is indoctrinational feedback into the kids and parents, but i think they'd be flexible on that point as long as the union remained powerful]

[also, read: "Education, Free and Compulsory", by Murray Rothbard for a breif and interesting history of public education]

I know all about homeschooling. I've worked as a tutor and a teacher on and off for ten years. In that time I spent more than a year working with homeschoolers here, and I was using that language largely to make a point. I have no issues with homeschooling children. I do have issues with indoctrinating children, in anything, be it religion, sports, or even the arts. My general beef with homeschooling is in the lack of variety and opportunity afforded children who are homeschooled without immersion into the greater world as a whole, including those viewpoints not endorsed by the parents doing the homeschooling.
Your point about homeschoolers being measurably better that public school students is off-base. A homeschooled 17 year old with a GED who doesn't attend college will serve the same fries as a public high school graduate who doesn't attend college. Which Asst. Manager is better read is immaterial, the point is their ceilings are just as low.
And as someone who attended a public grade school, a public high school, a public university, and a public law school I can directly and honestly tell you that it is personal responsibility/ability of the student that makes the education work and be worthwhile, not where they are educated.

But since you're not "wrong" in raising your children that way, you'd think you show the same tolerance when you see a parent/parents sending their kids to *gasp* public school, and using programs they're eligible for, including food stamps, school meals, and Medicaid (for shame).

Well, I don't think any of that stuff is the proper role of government --- certainly not federal government --- but if people want to form schools and other such enterprises, they absolutely should do so. As long as they don't send me the bill.

They didn't send you the bill. They sent you a series of bills in the form of taxes and fees and you paid for them, and you benefited from them. If in no way other than those programs helped make it that much less likely that you, your wife, or your kids was kidnapped and held for ransom by someone, who fed-up by their situation, decided to take action and took a shot to better themself by combining entrepreneurial spirit with opportunity, firepower and the perceived weakness of those around them. If you don't think that can happen, take a look at some of the devolved (failed) nation-states in the world. They aren't paying much in the way of taxes in Somalia, but I don't think you're planning on making the jump to Mogadishu any time soon.

[Matt]

Son of a,

Thanks for the response.

I wasn't talking about Marx, never mentioned him, his background or his principles. I was merely pointing out the intellectual dishonesty that is decrying the system's inequities while prospering at the same time.

This isn't really important to what I'm trying to say, but do you really beleive this? Are you against whistleblower laws?

At this point, I'd claim that the people of the United States prosper _inspite_ of its government. Not because of it.

I think the notion that I can either complain about something or continue participating in any fashion whatsoever is an obvious false dilemma, one which you don't actually mean to suggest.

I understand that certainly up to a point [a point we may have not reached yet] that individuals are better off when they are integrated into functional socities. That's a different statement from "I think prosperity monotonically increases with the size of government", which I flatly reject.

But just as my taxes pay for countless things I view as abominable, I pay them without extreme complaint. I do so not because I want to, but because I realize that it is far better than the alternative. And disagree though you may want, you agree as well. If you didn't, you wouldn't be paying.

Sure. I agree that currently, paying my taxes is better than the alternative, which is going to jail and having all of the rest of my assets confiscated. But certainly there is some other possibility than "the tax code continues exactly as it exists, forever" and "go to jail". Perhaps the tax code could be different... or non-existant [as it was for much of US history]. Again, I think you suggest a false dilemma.

Order stops being orderly once there are more people in a given space than can be held together by the group's own shared dynamic (whatever that might be at the time). Basically any group of strangers will devolve, to some degree or another, when they are placed in a situation where the sheer anonymity of numbers overwhelms the group's capacity to regulate itself. A few hundred million tax-paying entities + a "pay what you want" system = chaos.

I won't try to categorically disagree with this. But again, supposing that we either must have draconian laws and regulations, or else have 100 million lawless people in total chaos... I'd again claim that you're creating a false dilemma.

I think it is reasonable to say that, the broader the set of people, the shorter the list of laws ought to be, because fewer of the folks are likely to agree. This is the anti-federalist model, which unfortuneately lost, and which has been beaten into the ground with growing federal power ever since.

Truly -- what can someone in washington DC tell someone in a 600 person town in the midwest about anything? The notion that all laws must be federal creates strife where it need not exist, and that all money must go to DC creates corruption where it need not exist.

Your solution -- or the one you defend -- to the chaos of 100 million problem, is to crush individuality. Mine is to refuse to try governing so large and diverse a body of people with such draconian control.

A [decidedly non-government] source of some of these ideas [the autonomy of people groups, and the hybridization of urban and rural living] is "A Pattern Language", by Christopher Alexander. Some of the early and topical patterns are excerpted below:

http://downlode.org/Etext/Patterns/ptn1.html
http://downlode.org/Etext/Patterns/ptn2.html
http://downlode.org/Etext/Patterns/ptn6.html

[each gets a longer treatment in the book, if you're curious]

Your point about homeschoolers being measurably better that public school students is off-base. A homeschooled 17 year old
with a GED who doesn't attend college will serve the same fries as a public high school graduate who doesn't attend college. Which Asst. Manager is better read is immaterial, the point is their ceilings are just as low.

I'd be happy to take the "where they end up in life" bet as well, but that data isn't as readily available.

The point is that you have reasonable basis to criticize homeschoolers.. just dogmatic opposition. And nearly 100% of homeschooling critics are guilty of the same mental error... they attempt to hold homeschooling as a practice, and homeschooled children as a population, to standards that other schooling arrangements don't themselves meet.

A joke, that isn't really a joke, makes the point clearly:

Bob: Yes, but how will your child get socialized? If they don't have the full experience of being around other types of people, what will happen? What are you going to do about that?

Sue: I hadn't though about it. I suppose I could hire older kids to randomly come by our house and kick the shit out of my kids while I do nothing or occasionally cheer.

Bob: Ok, seems like you have it under control.

And as someone who attended a public grade school, a public high school, a public university, and a public law school I can directly and honestly tell you that it is personal responsibility/ability of the student that makes the education work and be worthwhile, not where they are educated.

Of course. But in the case of the public school system, you're fighting an uphill battle. Why bother?

you benefited from them. If in no way other than those programs helped make it that much less likely that you, your wife, or your kids was kidnapped and held for ransom by someone, who fed-up by their situation, decided to take action and took a shot to better themself by combining entrepreneurial spirit with opportunity, firepower and the perceived weakness of those around them.

That's true. Luckily, because I pay enough taxes to send several children to school and feed and cloth their shitty parents, nothing like this ever happens to anyone, right?

If you don't think that can happen, take a look at some of the devolved (failed) nation-states in the world.

Like either coast of the US, for instance.

They aren't paying much in the way of taxes in Somalia, but I don't think you're planning on making the jump to Mogadishu any time soon.

Hardly. Not when Phase 2 of my plan is the complete paving of Africa into an auto-x park.

On a more serious note, I don't think I'd characterize what is happening in Somalia as a situation of people who just want to be left alone not being able to sort it out.

[Riddle]

Matt, there is a social contract – albeit “contract” may not be the best word for it. Contract implies a conscious, physical effort to create an agreed upon state or status. A better description would be a pre-defined social formula created on a sub-conscious level by humankind.

As a person who was homeschooled my entire academic career until college, I can offer definitive proof of a social formula (again, contract is implies an informed decision) based on the posts in this thread.

Matt, your use of homeschooling as an example of something that goes, as it were, against the grain of the system is inaccurate. As someone raised (arguably “indoctrinated”) in a substance-free (Palin?) type of environment, I can attest that Son of a’s comment indicating that it is up to the individual is the truth. I am living the social formula in spite of being homeschooled. I have student loans, am a well-paid professional and pay taxes.

If I kept everything I make I would be richer, yes. Do I (or you) have definitive proof that I would spend that money in a way that was exclusively profitable to me? Perhaps, but I guarantee that if I spent it, it would benefit another. What you cannot seem to grasp is that if you invest your money in the aforementioned “other” you get returns. You would likely argue that you are not “allowed” to chose where you spend your money, but if you were, would your world be so much better? With your individualistic viewpoint, the last era you would survive in would be 1905 or 1784. What you appear to misunderstand is that the instincts of the national conscience were not based on their Independence, but their dependence on others. Family, people, and environment made their work and money profitable, not just their own judgments and “feelings” of being free.

My earlier points still stand:

-there is a social formula, inescapably created by human nature
-there is a complex network of gives and takes in our society that makes it what it is: pay money, get money (or goods, services, etc)

Your ideals are not special, or radical. They merely raise questions regarding your grasp on reality. I would venture to say that you are what you fear in that if you gave everyone a free hand, you would end up with everyone taking handouts.

I cannot help but add a quick rebuttal to Son of a’s comment on what he calls a lack of variety offered to homeschooled individuals. The “variety” offered to children who are institutionalized from an early age is far less savory and no more accurate than what is offered to someone who is homeschooled. As you said, it is all up the individual. No cut and dry “one size fits all” formula here.

-Lauren

[C.R. Krieger]

<A completely jaw-dropping justification and advocacy of racism.>

*sigh*

I'm not advocating that people be racists.

Sorry. Let me change that to 'bigotry'. That way, it includes all the other forms of currently prohibited meritless discrimination (religion, age, gender, etc.) you advocate. Racism is merely a subset of bigotry. I'm not saying you're a racist; just that you support it as a philosophy.

There is only this vague notion of "a social contract" that I never read, never signed, and cannot back out of, and the other party can change the terms of the contract at any time, with no warning, and I have no recourse. You guys are the lawyers -- tell me what kind of contract works like that.

Ever buy a car? A house? Insurance? Ever try to negotiate the 'boilerplate' terms? Yeah; it's a 'contract of adhesion', as it's known in the law bidness. Not always fair because the other party has a lot more power to wield, compared to yours. But you're pretty much stuck with it unless your personal arsenal substantially exceeds what the Branch Davidians had. That's the reality you need to face instead of repeatedly stating that you'll solve the problems you have with the government with gunplay.

[Mike W.]

Matt, let it go. While I don't generally share your socio-political views, in your attempt to defend what you are saying you're just digging a hole deeper and deeper and not looking good doing it, even to other conservatives I suspect. What started out as an interesting discussion has gone to hell again. At least there hasn't been too much name calling yet. But in taking and defending a position so extreme, you're not doing yourself any favors even. We get the point, you're a conservative that argues against much government control, but we are also an organized society and with that come compromises.

[Matt]

Matt, let it go. While I don't generally share your socio-political views, in your attempt to defend what you are saying you're just digging a hole deeper and deeper and not looking good doing it, even to other conservatives I suspect. What started out as an interesting discussion has gone to hell again. At least there hasn't been too much name calling yet. But in taking and defending a position so extreme, you're not doing yourself any favors even. We get the point, you're a conservative that argues against much government control, but we are also an organized society and with that come compromises.

Conservatives dropped the ball and allowed us to get here.

They were supposed to be the defenders of capitalism, but they never knew why.

The reason to defend capitalism, pure unbridled capitalism, with no intervention, is that it is the only ethical system in history. Why? Because it is the only system based solely on the voluntary actions of individuals.

Conservatives never admitted that; they regularly conceded the argument to the left -- they agreed that, yes, "we need to subsidize of the undeserving [be they people, voters, or corporations], no matter who we must hurt to make it happen".

As long as the conservative movement agrees with the principles of the left [namely, the immolation of the individual to serve the needs of the undeserving], but continues to claim that they'll do a better job by under-delivering on those principles, the left will continue winning mindshare and pulling the center of the nation further towards self-sacrifice and a mixed-economy of resounding ineffectiveness.

So no, I don't mind upsetting "the conservatives". They blew it. Everytime the nation has hesitantly handed them the reins, they've underdelivered. Lincoln started the war of Northern Aggression. Nixon introduced wage and price controls! I actually love Reagan, but he campaigned on eliminating the department of education. How did that go? The '94 "Contract with America" included the same thing. What happened? And what happened to our 2A rights under "conservative" stewardship? How did USA PATRIOT project the conservative image of small government and strong individual freedoms? How did Real-ID bolster states' rights?

"Extreme" is a weasel word. When did you ever get upset with a man for being "extremely honest" or "extremely trustworthy" or "extremely reliable"?

The use of the word "Extreme" has been politically manufactured to destroy concepts, namely the concepts of justice and reality. When you call me extreme, you're merely saying that you hate justice and that you want to escape from the truth of what I'm trying to tell you.

Yes, our organized society comes with "compromises". People who compromise themselves, their values, justice, and reality. The thing that Reagan got right was NOT compromising with the USSR -- all he had to do was clearly and plainly state the truth that everyone knew but were too afraid to utter: the ideology of communism, of the USSR, was absolutely, plainly, unequivocally, evil.

When did you last respect a man who compromised his morals? Who compromised his wife? Who compromised national security?

None of you has yet said that our system, the one I virulently attack, is ethical, is just, or is righteous. You don't like or respect this system, but you are compelled to tell me how wrong and unrealistic I am for laying plain its true nature.

I don't participate in these discussions to make friends or to try to look admirable or articulate or whatever. I beleive that 100% of us would have a good time talking about cars and getting along, but that 95% of you would solemnly nod in agreement as the firing squad shot me over something irrelevant... something that didn't harm anyone else, and yet was labelled "criminal" just the same.

I'm not running for office, so I'm not mincing words. I'm not a politician, so I won't speak in vaguearies and let you fill in the blanks so that I can appear to agree with your pre-conceived notions, yet have promised nothing and go on to deliver less.

I'm here to tell you why I think you're wrong, and I'm _hoping_ for someone smarter than me to fix my erroneous thinking. I'd rather NOT spend my time arguing about ideology and politics on the damn internet, but here's the beef:

I'm worried that the clever people I've read are correct, and the implication of this is that you and I will be shooting at each other some day.

I'd rather not see it come to that, because I expect to lose, and badly. But so long as most of _you_ can agree that I have no right to exist, and that my hands, mind, and money can and will be bent to whatever purpose "the majority" can agree on, we'll be at odds with each other. I'm worried that some day, I'll be put in a position whereby I have to defend myself from _you_, whether you're the cop, or your the judge, or your the voter, all of whom thought or maybe admitted that the system sucked, but never-the-less, it was the system, and who was I to not sacrifice himself for the good of the system, just like eveyrone else was required to?

Well, I'll say it: the system sucks, and its immoral, and the only consistent defense you can muster for it is your fear of what might happen if enough people once again beleived that they owned themselves.