Erri2000 Endorses Ron Paul for President!

[Donna Matrix]

My mother came from Iceland ygmir... my father was of swedish/germanic stock (Minnesota boy).... I'm nordic through and through... where do you - your people - hale from?

Loved your post! truely. I have this wonderful poster of the Viking laws - I will scan it tomorrow and upload it here. If you like it - I'll send it you via email. It's beautiful.

[ygmir]

hi,
I'm Danish/Swedish/Celtic......ergo my Nordic Pagan ways.......in the truest sense, that is. Not nouveau-Pagan.
I'd love to see the poster, ping me off list and I'll send my email to you.

[Box Burner]

Well I am back.

Said I would have more to say so here it is.

Why I favor a one room schoolhouse.

While I had seen this in various places it really jelled with the Boy Scouts. The stated goal of the Boy Scouts it to teach boys th be self reliant and to teach them to be leaders. A goal at which they favor miserably.. I do nopt think that the boy scout organization has had the capacity to do that since I was a kid.

I have been a scoutmaster so I know of what I speak. What has happened is that the scouts are divided by age. Cub scouts, Guide Patrol (Mormon sponsorship), varsity Scouts, And Ventures. these groups never meet together and never have any activities together, Now the division between cub scout and boy scout is natural and as it should be as far as I can see. cub scout s are still mostly under the influence of their mothers (thus the Den Mother). who are teacing them the basics of life. But by the time they become boy scouts that are ready (and eager) to become men and so righfully pass on th the tutelage of their fathers.

OK. what used to happen, and still did when I was a kid, was that the new boy scout would enter a troop where there were older more experienced scouts who would then teach him what to do. The scoutmaster was a teacher and a consultant. the boys ran the troop. So noe the new scout enters a troop and the only other boys he sees are brand new just like him. None of them have a fucking clue about what they are supposed to do. what usually happens, is that the scout manster ends up planning everything and the boys go along for the most part and tourists.

The boys go through the scouting program with no older scout s to look up to and no younger scouts that they can teach. so how the fuck are they going to become leaders? In addition they do not learn how to deal with other kids that are older, wiser and more expreienced, or kids that are younger, less knowledgable and less experineced. So they neither learn how to lead or follow. And of course they do not learn the social skills that are associated with this.

There is more but that will suffice for now as it has the most to do with the subject at hand.


So in a one room schoolhouse you would have about 20 to 30 students of all ages from about 10 to 20 families. This gives you a good mix. And no only do you have a bunch of kids who are of diffrent ages bout some of them are brothers and sisters. In this situation you have kids who are older for the younger ones to look up to. and kids who are younger for the older ones to to help. and a good teacher will be observant and help this process along. so that all of the students will learn the social skills needed to lead, follow, and get along together with others who are different and at different levels.

In addition those kids who learn really fast or who have an aptitude for one subject or another can easily be advanced by the teacher and still stay within their "peer" group.





Edited for: I am not going to go through and correct all my errors because I am too damn tired. so I am handing my paper in just the way it is.

[CapSmashy]

yes. education. but the question is who decides what is taught.

Who decides what is taught? Unfortunately, the people doing the decision making on what gets taught in public schools are elected from the lowest percentage turnout of registered voters. If a local school board election gets a 10% turnout, its a miracle.

I view this as being one of many issues and problems with public education. Many of the big issues would be a relatively easy fix and in turn, self correct a lot of the smaller issues.

I say the parents are responsible. The government just can't care - too much red tape involved. If the parents don't care - either home schooled or public schooled - then the children don't get an education.

Absolutely. Parents are a third of the parent, teacher, student triangle.

However...

A parent failing to be attentive to their child in public school is detrimental to the process but there is the built in safety net of peers and the teacher that can help the student make it through. A parent failing the child in a home school environment means that child will not be educated. Lack of education means lack of opportunities.

It's up to the parents. More tax dollars is meaningless.

Again, correct.

The wasteful nature of the bloated public school administrations is another major issue.

In terms of western, modern industrialized nations, we are near the top of the list in terms of dollars per student spent, yet our students tend to rank at or very near to dead last in terms of academic performance.

We have more than enough funding flowing into public schools. If those funds were managed efficiently, say not having 1 administrator per every 2 teachers in some districts, those of us paying the taxes that fund public education could even see a decent drop in the taxes we pay.

Did you know that the most literate time (and highest quality) for US was during the founding era when everyone was home schooled?

Says who? What methods were used to collect such data at the time? Who collected the data?

In urban areas, I have no doubt that literacy rates were relatively high, especially in the Puritanical north east were Bible study was mandatory. Most were not able to do much with their new found literate ability though since most literary works outside the Bible were rare and most were deemed not suitable for commoners to read. Can't have the masses thinking too much, especially in a Puritanical society. It really wasn't until the early/mid 1700's that more people actually started reading anything beyond their approved Bible.

Ever think that government involvement with education is the problem?

Not at all. In the case of the Colonies, early America, it was the church's interference that sharply limited education. We still have a very similar issue today.

It was Daddy Bush who said "Education is the answer." (he did mean public education) Is public education the answer? Or do we need a "different" kind of education that the one the public school are providing?

That is a gross simplification of what he said, but the meaning holds true. Pappa Bush outlined a very ambitious scheme with real numbers and real goals in response to the already flagging numbers in education that were beginning to have an impact on 1990 America's ability to perform on the world stage. Our higher academic knowledge base was in decline and still is.

Had all of Pappa Bush's ideas been put into effect, I really think we would have seen a significant turnaround in the public schools. However, and as usual, it was the bloated, local level entities that mucked up the works.

One of the largest obstacles every recent reformer has faced is the lack of a "red menace". The launching of Sputnik by the Russians did more for public education in this country than anything we could ever come up with on our own.

Based on the general theme of your posts, one can only assume your different kind of education that will be the salvation of all hinges on home schooling.

I home schooled my kids for 12 years. I also have had some of the kids in the public education system for 12 years. I know the difference between the two.

So you felt adequately suited and qualified to teaching higher maths and sciences? Giving a truly diverse and unbiased course of instruction across American literature? Covering all the bases and providing an unbiased view of American and World history?

I am not a fan or advocate of home schooling. I believe schooling done with a group of peers from an independent entity is critical for stimulating a good learning environment and more importantly, provides for diverse socialization opportunities. You have to have a combination of different points of view to really stimulate learning. Even if you disagree with one of those points of view it is important to hear it to stimulate the analytical thought necessary to state clearly why you disagree with it.

The men and the elephant story is a good illustration of the need for a combined diversity of viewpoints.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant

In a home school environment, where does that diversity of information come from?

Have you read the Federlist Papers? These were written for the "masses" to get the newl formed Constitution passed in the states.

Why yes. I read them in American History. I even have a copy of them kicking around somewhere in my office. I am not quite sure what they have to with the overall context of your assertion of how much more literate they were int he 18th century.

Hardly anyone these days have such a command of the English language.

Snark!

Are you familiar with how our country came to be? The public schools do not teach this stuff. I know, because I was there.

Given the extent of my son's projects related to the Revolutionary War, the Constitution and many other facets of the birth of our nation, I would the material is still quite well covered.

Exactly what founding documents have you read? They are my documentation. Have you read Locke? Bastait? who?

Actually, this is an irrelevant question to the general flow of the discussion. Who cares what Founding documents have been read? Most are not applicable to our modern age.

And a note on your bemoaning the loss of the archaic, flowery verbiage of the 18th century. I say good riddance, especially in today's modern age. The majority of people want their information in streamlined formats that focus on the who, what, when and how. We do not need nor require long flowing preambles and sprinklings of extraneous long winded hyperbole to get accurate and timely information delivered.

Yes, it is very pretty to read, but highly unpractical as a means of communication today.

This true, but really now - why do you expect the civil governement to do these things for you? Pay for the lessons yourself. This is not Rome - yet.

Well, let's compare progress and innovation between nations where the government provides education vs. governments that do not provide education. I am pretty sure even you will have to admit that there is a very significant difference between the two in terms of basic quality of life.

I find it rather appalling that you would belittle the need for music and art to be routine subjects in an educational environment.

Aren't BM people self-reliant? I thought so... maybe I was wrong? uh?

An inherent factor of being self reliant is knowing your limitations. There is a difference between being self reliant and being narcissistically arrogant.

I would be doing my child a great disservice to presume I was adequately suited for meeting his educational and social needs.

[CapSmashy]

Public school on a national scale fails miserably, and only serves one purpose. Brainwashing. ]/b]

Public schools fail because the public fails to be involved.

Typical voter turnout for a local election, the one that can have the greatest and most immediate impact on your day to day life and finances, averages 10% across the board.

make no mistake about it, if the government has charge of the schools, and therefore decides which textbooks are appropriate are they not then teaching your kids only what they want them to know?

And where does that government come from? Local level elections.

Public school should not extend further than the number of families it takes to fill a school room. And yes I do favor one room school rooms.

An interesting idea. Class sizing is a very important issue in terms of educational benefit.

The main issue I see with the one room school house approach is the lack of diversity of knowledge that can be expected from one teacher and the attention to detail that can be paid across the necessary educational spectrum.

[CapSmashy]

Again I ask:

WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DO YOU WANT?

Is the United States of America worth saving?

To address this larger issue that no one else will really answer, I think it is actually a very straightforward question. What style of government is best suited to have the greatest benefit for the whole of society.

In very simplistic terms, I really find myself leaning toward secular democratic socialism.

[Donna Matrix]

[mdmf007]

Ron is an intelligent man - and would make a fine president, twil never happen though.

[Donna Matrix]

Again I ask:

WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT DO YOU WANT?

Is the United States of America worth saving?

To address this larger issue that no one else will really answer, I think it is actually a very straightforward question. What style of government is best suited to have the greatest benefit for the whole of society.

In very simplistic terms, I really find myself leaning toward secular democratic socialism.

Very good posts. Fun to read.

Now - the commentary:

See, the thing is this - all programs, especially governmental one, sounds good - that's why they get passed. The idea isn't the problem, it's the implementation. Big government, where the people are not involved personally, is the problem. Solutions only seem to work when the locals are implementing it - because they care about the outcome.

Okay, so let's look at secular democratic socialism.

Secular = no religion, mainly no Bible stuff I imagine, cuz in reality so very many things are based on belief rather than "facts."

Democratic = majority rule without law - you'd need a Constitution or some other basis for ultimate law and there isn't one in your government. Some would call "democratic" mob rule, the founders did.

Socialism = I am assuming you mean the kind of socialism where all property is commonly owned? if not, please correct. This has met with utter failure, whether one is talking about communes of the 60's or the Soviet Union, China or other socialist societies. They break down rapidly because production falls off.

IN a secular democratic socialist society what would be the basis of law? No Bible. No Constitution. No people in control cuz socialist societies are run by the government.... they own everything.

So... the question remains: What would be the basis of law in a secular democratic socialist society?

[Donna Matrix]

Is America worth saving?

We currently have a Constitutional Republic where our representatives are democratically elected. Now, the problem is that we are overrun with corporate lobbists bribing our democratically elected representatives. The people are not in control of what these representatives pass in the legislatures - the corporations are. The people are only in control of who gets elected, but then one could even argue - with mega-media propoganda - that we the people are not even in control of this either.

Corporations are creations of the state and lobby for state protection and state favors. This is a huge problem.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Ron is an intelligent man - and would make a fine president, twil never happen though.

This man made millions putting people out of work! He made his name by What? Rescuing a corrupt UTAH olympic commitee!

Bring him on! And he'll be an easy win!

Okay, so let's look at secular democratic socialism.

Secular = no religion, mainly no Bible stuff I imagine, cuz in reality so very many things are based on belief rather than "facts."

Democratic = majority rule without law - you'd need a Constitution or some other basis for ultimate law and there isn't one in your government. Some would call "democratic" mob rule, the founders did.

Socialism = I am assuming you mean the kind of socialism where all property is commonly owned? if not, please correct. This has met with utter failure, whether one is talking about communes of the 60's or the Soviet Union, China or other socialist societies. They break down rapidly because production falls off.

IN a secular democratic socialist society what would be the basis of law? No Bible. No Constitution. No people in control cuz socialist societies are run by the government.... they own everything.

So... the question remains: What would be the basis of law in a secular democratic socialist society?

very narrow minded definitions!

In your world, you're christian and there is no social programs. Only the rich are favored and could get an abortion. Poor people have babies and live in shanties!

A grave new world!

You say you are for the Republic but you are not!

You follow the Jewish history written in mythological form. Look at Isreal. They recently lied to own people. Rewriting history to cover their evil acts of stealing land and screwing the international community by allowing them to be recognized as a nation. So you now believe the Torah wasn't a rewrite of history? No god there and if there was he left long ago!

McCain will be your presidential candidate and he need not to bow down to those that lied about this war hero! Chuck Huck! Mitt is a BIT!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/us/po ... ve.html?hp

AIIZ

PS- Lets not forget the largest benefactors of lobbyists are the Republicans- like the Abramoff scandal!

[ygmir]

AIIZ:
with the statement:

......PS- Lets not forget the largest benefactors of lobbyists are the Republicans- like the Abramoff scandal!.......

You seem niave or un-informed. But not un-intelligent or ill-meaning.

I'd propose that if you think one party is pure and altruistic, and, the other evil, you may not be digging deep enough.

Those statements usuallycome from the fact that you agree with a certain line of thought, so, accept thier "issues" as not important to your bigger picture.

I'd say you can find plenty of scandal, lobbying, graft, corruption, etc, etc, in both parties, at all times.
It's their nature, I think.......

If you point is that one party does it "more" or "worse", then, you are just talking matters of degree. And, that's a tough argument to back up.

They're either corrupt or not, I'd say.
I'd say the argument is which form of government you want.

We will accept faults in the leaders we agree with, that we decry in others.......

A listing of specific corruptions is not productive, since, it would be un-ending, on both sides.

We either want to take care of ourselves, or, have someone do it for us.

That, at least IMHO, is the crux.

Just some random thoughts.

[Donna Matrix]

mdmf007 wrote:
Ron is an intelligent man - and would make a fine president, twil never happen though.

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:
This man made millions putting people out of work! He made his name by What? Rescuing a corrupt UTAH olympic commitee!

Bring him on! And he'll be an easy win!

Ah.... um..... Ron Paul is a different person than Mitt Romney.... um.....

[CapSmashy]

Very good posts. Fun to read.

Why thank you.

Now - the commentary:

See, the thing is this - all programs, especially governmental one, sounds good - that's why they get passed. The idea isn't the problem, it's the implementation. Big government, where the people are not involved personally, is the problem. Solutions only seem to work when the locals are implementing it - because they care about the outcome.

Yes and no.

I feel that the larger problems we have with the present evolved form of our government is that it one, places the wants of business and private interests over the needs of the public. And two, actually discourages participation by the public.

The apathy of the general public is not an accident. I really feel that a large amount of it was carefully orchestrated to get people to not care and more importantly, actually believe they no longer can have an effect on their government.

We have moved far beyond the notion that a government should fear the governed and it is a damn shame.

Okay, so let's look at secular democratic socialism.

As I said, a simplistic, generalized view. But I will happily address your points.

Secular = no religion, mainly no Bible stuff I imagine, cuz in reality so very many things are based on belief rather than "facts."

No, secular as in no religion. Period.

You do not need a Bible, a Torah, a Koran or a Ghita or any other mythologically based text to write laws or govern a populace.

Democratic = majority rule without law - you'd need a Constitution or some other basis for ultimate law and there isn't one in your government. Some would call "democratic" mob rule, the founders did.

Democratic <> representative republic. If you are choosing to split hairs on the topic, then yes, you can nitpick semantics all day long.

When viewed in a general context, a democratic government is quite easy to understand as a government elected by the people.

Socialism = I am assuming you mean the kind of socialism where all property is commonly owned? if not, please correct.

Socialism in the context of recognizing that a society has needs and services that should not be subjected to the whims of profiteers, speculators and private industry.

This has met with utter failure, whether one is talking about communes of the 60's or the Soviet Union, China or other socialist societies. They break down rapidly because production falls off.

Except that both of your national examples can no longer be viewed in that context. Russia has rebounded quite nicely from its near collapse and has been doing quite well under their current model of expanded capitalism and democracy coupled with a strong centralized core of socialism.

China never failed in the context of going bankrupt or having to rebuild themselves. Prior to getting Hong Kong back from the Brits, yes, China was stagnated and very economically flat. When Hong Kong was once again Chinese, the Chinese government was smart enough to realize that that doubling of their GDP was not a fluke. By expanding markets, property rights and ushering in private investment and capitalism, China has become a juggernaut. But they still have a very solid and committed socialist core at the heart of their government.

IN a secular democratic socialist society what would be the basis of law? No Bible. No Constitution. No people in control cuz socialist societies are run by the government.... they own everything.

You have allowed your assumptions to over ride your common sense.

Why would there be no Constitution? Instead of looking at modern examples of democratic socialism, such as Canada, France, England, what China is leapfrogging towards, you chose to stick with purity of definitions that really do not fit with today's modern society.

And what does the Bible have to do with establishing law?

Maybe in archaic times where people still feared the things that went bump in the night and did not have the means or technology to explore their world, I can see where utilizing a mythological text that was formulated as a means of control over the ignorant masses it would make sense.

Considering adhering to a religious dogma demands that you include all aspects of that dogma in your belief, I can see no place where a literal application of the "laws" contained in the Bible would have any place in a modern, enlightened society. Should we still be stoning men to death for cutting their hair or for working on the Sabbath? Should I still be allowed to sell my sister into slavery?

So... the question remains: What would be the basis of law in a secular democratic socialist society?

The same basis that should be utilized for any society or political system.

What benefits the general society the most.

For example, you do not need a religious text to tell you that murder is a detriment to society and should be illegal.


However, by the same token, there are several laws that are on the books that do nothing but exist to inflict a specific dogmatic set of moral values onto others regardless of anyone else's beliefs.


Edit;:Format errors,

[Green Wood]

Romney is a smart man. Seems he doesn't want to throw more of his millions out the door.

He's coming OUT- of the race that is!

Better save that money when there are take-over deals coming on the market- just more people to put out of work and cash in on their demise!

The Republican Way!

Now Ron can place 2nd or 3rd in more primaries.

AZ

PS- sadly, the economy needed him to pump up the advertising market where I make some of my money! Take the wealth away from the rich and put that back into the economy that is the only way to help correct this recession.

[Donna Matrix]

Greenwood... yes, just heard.. Romney is likely to quit soon....

CapSmashy:
And what does the Bible have to do with establishing law?

America is a "common law" country. The common law is generally from the proscriptions and prescriptions from the Bible.

France is a "civil law" country. Civil law = only what is made illegal by the state is illegal to do otherwise it's legal.

[CapSmashy]

CapSmashy:
And what does the Bible have to do with establishing law?

America is a "common law" country. The common law is generally from the proscriptions and prescriptions from the Bible.

France is a "civil law" country. Civil law = what is made illegal by the state is legal to do.

I'm well aware that many of the laws in the US are based on mythological beliefs of what some feel everyone else's morals should be.

Which is why I very pro secular government.

[ygmir]

[b

I'm well aware that many of the laws in the US are based on mythological beliefs of what some feel everyone else's morals should be.

Which is why I very pro secular government.

I'd propose no one tell me my morals,
and, don't tax me to use my money to satisfy your's, either.
You wanna start a soup kitchen, do that,
and,
your dollar will feed someone.

don't take my dollar, and, spend 28 cents of it to feed someone I may or may not care to feed.
Just to get them to vote for you, and, make you feel superior, because, you "care".......or "feel my pain".....or whatever catch phrase you choose

I'd rather sevely limited government, no help or hinderance.
let people help people......they will, if given the opportunity.
It's just easier to let the government step in........with other peoples money, and, make you feel good.......

I have faith that people will help eachother, if needed.
Although, they may let the meth-addicts starve....who knows......
But, it would be a society that creats itself, and is dynamic depending on the people involved.

[CapSmashy]

I'd propose no one tell me my morals,
and, don't tax me to use my money to satisfy your's, either.
You wanna start a soup kitchen, do that,
and, your dollar will feed someone.

don't take my dollar, and, spend 28 cents of it to feed someone I may or may not care to feed.

So you prefer to see people starving, dying of disease and having to live hand to mouth by counting on the kindness of strangers?

Because that's what happens when there is no safety net.

I'd rather sevely limited government, no help or hinderance.

Oh like say... what they have in Dafur? Somolia? Liberia?

let people help people......they will, if given the opportunity.

No they won't. Outside of a few large donations to the cause of the week, people in general will not go out of their way to help anyone that is not within their circle.

There are specific examples that can be cited where people will come together based on a specific need, but as a general rule, if people that are unable to provide for themselves are placed in a position of having to rely on the kindness of others, they typically end up in a barely survivable situation.

It's just easier to let the government step in........with other peoples money, and, make you feel good.......

Nope. A government system tend to be more cost effective and unilateral in who and where it helps.

I have faith that people will help eachother, if needed.

Altruism on the scale you are suggesting does not exist. It never has and it most likely never will.

Although, they may let the meth-addicts starve....who knows......

Does the meth addict deserve to be left to die in the street?

But, it would be a society that creats itself, and is dynamic depending on the people involved.

Which is easily applicable to any society.



Since we already know you are unwilling to have your tax dollars used to help others, what else are you opposed to seeing your tax dollars spent on?

Just a curiosity.

[Box Burner]

Yes and no.

I feel that the larger problems we have with the present evolved form of our government is that it one, places the wants of business and private interests over the needs of the public. And two, actually discourages participation by the public.

The apathy of the general public is not an accident. I really feel that a large amount of it was carefully orchestrated to get people to not care and more importantly, actually believe they no longer can have an effect on their government.

We have moved far beyond the notion that a government should fear the governed and it is a damn shame.


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

The same basis that should be utilized for any society or political system.

What benefits the general society the most.

For example, you do not need a religious text to tell you that murder is a detriment to society and should be illegal.


However, by the same token, there are several laws that are on the books that do nothing but exist to inflict a specific dogmatic set of moral values onto others regardless of anyone else's beliefs.

,

This is why I do not favor putting education into the hands of government.

As for diversity of knowledge being presented to the student this is easily done by any teacher in this modern age of internet access. Yes you are going to have some teachers who are not up to the task, You already have that in the public schools.

True only 10% take part in local elections. But as you said, it has been orchestrated that way..

A one room schoolhouse does not need to be limited to one teacher.

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

As for the right form of government?

Any form of government will work. given the right conditions.

Dictatorships and monarchies work if the dictator or king is educated, wise, and benevolent.

Democracy requires a public that is educated and wise.
Republics require and elite group that is educated, wise and benevolent,

Democratic and republic forms of government work best in an atmosphere of anarchy..

[ygmir]

HI,
I wish I knew how to do the quote in boxes thing better.......

anyway,

NO, I don't prefer to see people starving, etc, in the streets. That's where my comment about opening a soup kitchen comes in. I'd do that. I think a lot of others would, too.
I'm not against banding together, to help others. I think it's great.
I'm also for a safety net. But, not so comfortable and enabling that it promotes generational existance there.....
What I don't like is pork barrel, buy votes, gain power, by using money you take from me against my will.

Of course there are things only a large, central government can do. Scale is important.
So is local, intimate knowledge.
So, yes, I have faith in humanity to help. Sure, some wont. Sure, others will do more than their share.
It comes from a sense of family, community, and society.
We help our family. If we have extra, we help our community, etc.
If everyone took care of thier own, there'd be much less need for the massive programs.....
But, still, some need for larger than family/community scale.
It's finding that balance.

I think Darfur, et al, is not a good example. You have there, hatreds, combined with generational corruption, lack of education, and societal issues.

I think our society would be far different.......at least, I trust in the inherent goodness of people to step up.
the thing is, no one will, because, they see the government as the one who should.
I think long ago, there were a lot of charitable organizations, churches, etc that did help feed and shelter, etc people.........
But, I think they also had expectations and or held people somewhat accountable.......

I would disagree that a government system is more cost effective.....
as economy of scale goes, it can get things cheaper, maybe,
but, that savings is spent in the beaurocracy.......

The neighborhood "soup kitchen" for lack of a better term, IMHO, is the most effecient way to go, with people stepping in, making connections, which, furthers the sense of community and ability and willingness to help
your neighbor......
And, works against big governments ploy to have us all look to them for life itself, and, be willing to submit in order to recieve their largess.....
If we were more self reliant, and, connected to eachother, we'd not need big government, and, that is bad for them....
so, they work to keep us apart.
No, I'm not cynical......grin.......


It is also true, that, some people are beyond help. As stark as that statement seems, I feel it is true.
At some point, as a society, you pull the plug. If, as an individual you decide not to, good on you, but, as a whole, how far do you go? I think there are and should be limits.

I agree that widespread altruism is tough to get to happen, but, I think it would be more prevelant if given a chance.........

It would make a more spartan society, for sure, but, perhaps, a more healthy in the long term, one.........

and, at some point, some will get left behind. That's nature. Life isn't always fair.
so, maybe the meth addict, at some point, is not taken in, and left to fend for themselves........

Is that not Natures way? I think so. Of course, I'm not advocating "law of the jungle", I'm just saying that there has to be a point where effort is deemed usless and someone is on their own.

I'm not opposed to helping others, and, I accept that, in some cases, it takes tax dollars to do that. What I am opposed to is overbloated programs, social and military, that do nothing but self perpetuate, become bloated with "pork", and, have no returns......

I'm sure there are many things I oppose my tax dollars going to, also, many I agree with.
I guess part of the representative republic government we have, and, as designed, is that we trust our reps. to see what is done is what we want.
Democracy, as defined, wouldn't work in a population the size and composition we have.

I'd just rather not send so many dollars to people who have little knowledge of the real world, and give them the power to use them unwisely.
We're not under taxed, they're over spent.

As an asside:
Can someone tell me how to do that neat thing you do in your post, where, you put the points in a box and then respond below?

It'd make is easier for a slow thinker such as me to respond and, try, to make sense.

thanks,
I hope I've responded to your statements.
thanks for the conversation, it is quite enjoyable to share opinions.......
It's refreshing to converse, and be able to disagree, without getting into personal assault, and such. I see that way to often, and, it so limits the ability to discuss, and, learn.

[ygmir]

I agree with you, Box burner, on a lot of what you say.
I'd add:
Probably the most effecient, responsive government would be a "benevolant dictatorship", but, that would depend on eveyones ability to agree with what is wanted, and, ok.........
I hardly see that happen with a group of 10 people, let alone a nation.....

So,
lets participate in the process, observe and enjoy the manifestations as they occur, not take it to personally, do what we can to make the changes we feel necessary,
sit back, and, enjoy the show.......

[Green Wood]

hOME ScHOOLed

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload ... deo=104018