---Original Message---
Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - ... - July - 2004

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of
good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality
standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His
medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety
and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan
because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical
insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and
eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws
to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly
labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some
liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how
much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air
he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop
industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his
government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking
and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union
members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these
standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation
or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose his home
because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's
deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect
Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the
depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal
student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government
would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm
home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among
the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He
arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house
financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make
rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those
rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security
and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of
himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his
car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have
fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe
agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after
all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves,
just like I have"

http://tvnewslies.org/html/day_in_th...e_middle-.html



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.733 / Virus Database: 487 - Release Date: 8/2/2004

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:06:57 -0400, "clamnebula"
wrote:

Bull****.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free Temperature / Pressure charts for 38 Ref's http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:06:57 -0400, "clamnebula"
wrote:

Bull****.

and you got a really small closed mind, paulie.

"clamnebula" wrote in message
...
---Original Message---
Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - ... - July - 2004

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full
of
good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water
quality
standards.

Of course the GOP doesn't drink water and all water used to be poison.

He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His
medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their
safety
and work as advertised.

Because pharmaceutical comapnies want you to die from their product.


All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical
plan
because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical
insurance, now Joe gets it too.

Because there's no way employers want their employees to be healthty and
because outside of government 10% of the workforce is unionized.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and
eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for
laws
to regulate the meat packing industry.

Because meatpackers want you to die also.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is
properly
labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some
liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and
how
much it contained.

Because shampoo manufacturers want your hair to fall out and they would
never try to make their products safe on their own. Let's not forget the
other liberal wackos who don't want yo to eat animals or test your products
on them.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air
he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to
stop
industries from polluting our air.

Because every body in business wnats to kill people.

He walks to the subway station for his
government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in
parking
and transportation fees.

At my expense.

You see, some liberal fought for affordable public
transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

How, by keeping them from trying as hard as normal people?

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal
union
members fought and died for these working standards.

By bashing in the skulls of people who didn't see it their way.

Joe's employer pays these
standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the
union.

No the end useer of the product or service pays for them in the form of
higher prices.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker
compensation
or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should loose
his home
because of his temporary misfortune.

Because his employer can just cast away Joe's skills because employees are a
dime a dozen, or is it because Joe's to ****ing lazzy and stupid to buy
insurance.


Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills.
Joe's
deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to
protect
Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before
the
depression.

Insured to 50,000 big whoop.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market
federal
student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the
government
would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his
life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his
farm
home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is
among
the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety
standards. He
arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the
house
financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to
make
rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government
liberal
stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
(Those
rural Republican's would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social
Security
and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of
himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in
his
car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are
bad and
conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans
have
fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)
Joe
agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives;
after
all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of
themselves,
just like I have"

http://tvnewslies.org/html/day_in_th...e_middle-.html



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.733 / Virus Database: 487 - Release Date: 8/2/2004

clamnebula wrote:

---Original Message---
Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - ... - July - 2004

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full
of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water
quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of
coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to
insure their safety and work as advertised.

[...continues in praise of Nanny State...]

Wow - it's almost as if Joe doesn't have to think for himself at all! How
kind of liberals to have provided him with such a benevolent government.

And of course if you can't trust the government, who *can* you trust!?

--
Susan Hogarth : 919-906-2106
Michael Badnarik for President : http://www.badnarik.org/
"The great thing about competition is that it's not so much a plan as an
environment that fosters and rewards innovation, enthusiasm, and energy." -
Barbara Howe, Libertarian for NC Governor : http://www.votehowe.com/

clamnebula wrote:

---Original Message---
Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
A TvNewsLIES Reader contribution.
By John Gray Cincinnati, Ohio - ... - July - 2004

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee.


...


He turns on a radio talk show, the host's keeps saying that liberals are bad and
conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have
fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe
agrees, "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after
all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves,
just like I have"


Just as Joes dad's job disapeard from the North and East to the South
and West because of business exploiting laws, Joe's job is now
disapearing to other parts of the world because liberals made taxes too
high and regulations too onerous and unions too powerful.

Joe and his children will be paying thru the nose for the benefits Joe's
dad wanted his liberal politicians to provide him with his
grandchildren's future earnings because enough taxes to support all his
liberal desires can not be collected and enough money can not be borrowed.

Instead of letting people make their own choices based on their own
values, liberals (and conservatives) impose their values on everyone
with more laws. They make people do what they would not want to do if
the were free. So they vote with their feet to have a choice.

Cities are the sickest of all even though liberals tax the suburbs to
try to survive. Cities are run by liberal politicians with liberal
agendas. People are choosing to leave those places. Liberal Democrat
voters usually live in Republican suburbs for the better live style and
better schools.

Instead of people limiting government, liberals want government to limit
people.

Instead of people creating wealth to improve living conditions, liberals
create deficits, debts, high taxes and high taxes.

Instead of solving problems as promised, liberal programs made them worse.
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Environment.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Social%20Security.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Health%20Care.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Drugs.shtm
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Education.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/Poverty.shtml
http://1marketsquare.com/CapLP/ExampleTOC.shtml
and more

Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea - anyone
who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. Liberals call this democracy.

jim frei wrote:

wrote in message
...

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:06:57 -0400, "clamnebula"
wrote:

Bull****.

and you got a really small closed mind, paulie.

More cogent and well-reasoned political discussion from Left and Right.

NOT!

- Susan

George M. Middius wrote:


jim frei said:

Bull****.

and you got a really small closed mind, paulie.

Does paulie think all those benefits for Everyman were generous gifts
from the Capitalist Overlord Uberklass? ;-)

"Benefits"? You mean like the 'benefit' of having to ask permission of a
government-approved doctor to take the medication you want to take (and
being flatly denied many, or thrown in jail for asking)?

Or perhaps you mean the 'benefit' of overpriced insurance - thanks to
mandatory auto-insurance laws and regulations?

Or the 'benefit' of getting something (such as product labeling) at a
monopoly price and at the hands of a bunch of people you never chose for
the job?

Or perhaps the 'benefit' of being told that if no one wants to hire you
at a certain minimum wage, you have to go on welfare or charity or
starve or become a criminal rather than work for a lower wage?

Is that the sort of 'benefit' you mean?

- Susan

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


jim frei said:

Bull****.

and you got a really small closed mind, paulie.

Does paulie think all those benefits for Everyman were generous gifts
from the Capitalist Overlord Uberklass? ;-)



The question to ask is at what price do these "benefits" come. Why do
liberals want people to believe that none of these things could have been
accomplished through other means than their thuggery?

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:21:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question to ask is at what price do these "benefits" come.

Longevity, health, peace, lower crime.

So you agree that we have given up 'longevity, health, peace, lower
crime' for the 'benefits' of the welfare state?

Seems like a pretty crappy deal to me. A person would have to be pretty
stupid to give up those good things *and* his freedom just so he can
(maybe) be sure that the label on his shampoo bottle is accurate. That
is, he knows it's accurate assuming he can trust the government, and of
course we can trust government. Certainly a monopoly would be looking
out for our best interests, right?

Why do
liberals want people to believe that none of these things could have been
accomplished through other means than their thuggery?

Um because the "market" had not risen to fix these issues after 100s
of years of the problems existing?

Do we have 'longevity, health, peace, and lower crime' now? Do we now
live longer, healthier, more peaceful lives than we would have if there
were no welfare-warfare state? How many wars, for instance, was the US
involved in before, and after, these 'benefits' were assured to all?

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:54:34 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Do we have 'longevity, health, peace, and lower crime' now? Do we now
live longer, healthier, more peaceful lives than we would have if there
were no welfare-warfare state?

Absolutely. Go read some history.

History tells you what *would have been* if things had been different? I
think you misunderstand what history is if you believe that.

You need to show a causal relationship between government regulation and
those beneficial effects, not simply an increase in lifespan, say,
along with an increase in size and scope of government. I could show you
the exact opposite effect in Soviet Russia, for instance. The data are
meaningless without a reasoned cause-and-effect relationship.

Incidentally, you might read some history yourself. This past century
has hardly been 'peaceful' by any standards.

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:09:46 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:54:34 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Do we have 'longevity, health, peace, and lower crime' now? Do we now
live longer, healthier, more peaceful lives than we would have if there
were no welfare-warfare state?

Absolutely. Go read some history.

History tells you what *would have been* if things had been different? I
think you misunderstand what history is if you believe that.

It does allow you to look at how things were and then compare them to
how things have turned out since.

And that tells you exactly nothing about how things would have been now
with a free market.

If you liked Edwardian slums, sweatshops and child labor,

Ah, yes, the Edwardian free market! They just called an entire era
'Edwardian' because they thought that would be a cute name, not possibly
because there was a massive government headed by this Edward fellow, eh?

If you don't like child labor may I assume that you don't like the idea
of children being forced to attend school for twelve years? Or is that
somehow different?

I can
understand why their disappearance from developed countries troubles
you.

Oh, yes. Now we simply drug the children and send them through a mental
meat-grinder rather than off to sweatshops. That's a big improvement. Not!

Like most libertarians you have a mental image of how things would be
if there were no regulation,

[assuming you mean 'government regulation']

Of course, and so do you. The difference is that yours is based on both
a mistaken understanding of history and a bunch of flawed assumptions
about reality.

you just have never taken the trouble to
compare it to the 100s , nay 1000s of year when it was not present.

It's really hard to compare the industrial age to the pre-government
age. Oh, wait - they didn't have television then, either. The government
must have given us television!

Your utopia did not emerge.

I've got no idea what you're talking about. What 'utopia'? People will
always suffer and strive to better their condition.

and government stepped in when things
got intolerable.

Your understanding of history is flawed. Government *made* things
intolerable. Then it blamed someone else, 'stepped in', took over the
schools so it could teach people to believe that any improvements were
due to government (clever, that) and *voila*! Here you are telling me
how wonderful government is and that without it I'd actually have to
find out what was in my toothpaste all by myself. Horrors!

Have you studied the British Poor Laws?:

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/i...n/historyf.htm

"1572 An Elizabethan Act made provision for the punishment of sturdy
beggars and the relief of the impotent poor."

Right. *Punishment* of beggars. Send the poor *******s off to workhouses
to work for your cronies in so-called 'private industry'. THAT is
government for you!

But feel free to fight for your right for the 80 hour work week for 12
year-olds.

You don't think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?
Why do you have to control other people?

- Susan

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:21:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The question to ask is at what price do these "benefits" come.

Longevity, health, peace, lower crime.


And the data to back this up is where?

Why do
liberals want people to believe that none of these things could have
been
accomplished through other means than their thuggery?

Um because the "market" had not risen to fix these issues after 100s
of years of the problems existing?


We'll nevder know since Liberals always butt in before the market has time
to react fully.



- - - -
Just another albino black sheep

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:09:46 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:54:34 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Do we have 'longevity, health, peace, and lower crime' now? Do we now
live longer, healthier, more peaceful lives than we would have if there
were no welfare-warfare state?

Absolutely. Go read some history.

History tells you what *would have been* if things had been different? I
think you misunderstand what history is if you believe that.


It does allow you to look at how things were and then compare them to
how things have turned out since.

If you liked Edwardian slums, sweatshops and child labor, I can
understand why their disappearance from developed countries troubles
you.

Like most libertarians you have a mental image of how things would be
if there were no regulation, you just have never taken the trouble to
compare it to the 100s , nay 1000s of year when it was not present.
Your utopia did not emerge. and government stepped in when things
got intolerable.

Bull****, Liberal politicians stepped in when they thought they could garner
votes. It's a good thing there were enough Republicans in office when the
first Civil Rights bill was voted on or it wouldn't have passed.

But feel free to fight for your right for the 80 hour work week for 12
year-olds.


Since only 10% of the workplace is unionized and the unions main goal is to
make things cost more by increasing labor costs, I'd rather be free to fight
my own battles, without "help" from the Feds.
- - - -
Just another albino black sheep

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

It does allow you to look at how things were and then compare them to
how things have turned out since.

And that tells you exactly nothing about how things would have been now
with a free market.

They do tell you how the free market drove things to be in such a
mess.

What free market? The "Edwardian" free market? Puh-lease - don't make me
laugh.

Let's see ... government was around then, so why wouldn't you assume
that history tells you that *government* was responsible for society's
ills? Perhaps because that contradicts the *interpretation* of history
you learned in *government*-regulated schools?

This libertarian fantasy of yours, that is supposedly based on human
nature, reason and intellect, tell me what country currently has come
closest to achieving it?

You ask me who has come closest to 'achieving a fantasy'? Nothing like a
preloaded question, is there?

My bets on Somalia and Ethiopia. Minimal regulation. Right to carry
arms, most charity delivered through volunteerism.

Asking what nation has been the 'most free' is problematic. The same
characteristics which lead to a strong people also can lead to a strong
government - again you have the cause-and-effect problem.

But the question ought not be 'Is it better for people to be controlled
by government or by their own voluntary actions?', but instead 'Is it
right for some people to control others through government?'

Compare this to societies that implemented mandatory education and
regulate the market.

Like the Soviet Union? Like East Germany? Like China?

And why do you think children should be forced to attend schools,
anyway? I thought you *objected* to child labor!

The US, UK, western Europe. Do you begin to see
what is achieved with sensible regulation, state education, and
government infrastructure?

Ah, nice touch with that 'sensible regulation'. Who could object to
'sensible regulation'?

You can pretend all this would happen without "statism" but its never
occurred anywhere, despite its "great appeal" and "natural
rationality". Why do you think that is?

All *what* would happen? Interstate highways? Sunurban sprawl?
Cookie-cutter schools? Warfare on a scale never seen before?

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

If you liked Edwardian slums, sweatshops and child labor,

Ah, yes, the Edwardian free market! They just called an entire era
'Edwardian' because they thought that would be a cute name, not possibly
because there was a massive government headed by this Edward fellow, eh?

Now there's an intellectual response,aye?

Did you miss the point? *Edwardian* problems were not *free market*
problems, because the market was not free.

If you don't like child labor may I assume that you don't like the idea
of children being forced to attend school for twelve years? Or is that
somehow different?

And you don't? Sigh.

That doesn't parse. I don't what? If you mean don't think children
should be chained to a school-desk and forced to attend schools against
their wishes and against those of their parents, yes.

Why do you think compulsory school attendence is different from slavery?
Because it's 'good for them'? What if it *isn't*?

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Of course, and so do you. The difference is that yours is based on both
a mistaken understanding of history and a bunch of flawed assumptions
about reality.

Which you can't bother to begin to explain, right?

What do you think the discussion about the English Poor Laws (which you
snipped) was?

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

But feel free to fight for your right for the 80 hour work week for 12
year-olds.

You don't think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?
Why do you have to control other people?

You really have no notion how silly you look, do you?

Let me quote you:

"Now there's an intellectual response,aye?"

The difference is that the remark I made which provoked that response
from you actually contained intellectual content, unlike yours.

So, do you think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:42:42 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

It does allow you to look at how things were and then compare them to
how things have turned out since.

And that tells you exactly nothing about how things would have been now
with a free market.

They do tell you how the free market drove things to be in such a
mess.

What free market? The "Edwardian" free market? Puh-lease - don't make me
laugh.

Let's see ... government was around then,

Oh I'm sorry - you're actually proposing NO government?

I'm proposing nothing. I'm trying to correct your misunderstandings
about government and free market.

so why wouldn't you assume
that history tells you that *government* was responsible for society's
ills? Perhaps because that contradicts the *interpretation* of history
you learned in *government*-regulated schools?

Tinfoil hat alert.

To quote you - again:

"Now there's an intellectual response,aye?"

The truth is that if you were educated in the US your education was
controlled more-or-less by the state. Why it should surprise you to
learn that the state uses public education as means of
self-aggrandizement is beyond me. *Think*.

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:48:00 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:59:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Of course, and so do you. The difference is that yours is based on both
a mistaken understanding of history and a bunch of flawed assumptions
about reality.

Which you can't bother to begin to explain, right?

What do you think the discussion about the English Poor Laws (which you
snipped) was?

A minor red herring. While it arrest beggars who did t affect
merchants? Beggars aren't much of the free market.

I've tried to provide polite reasoned arguments. Obviously I can't
provide you with an entire education - that's up to you.

What you have added to the exchange is more than a few pointless and
childish insults, unsupported observations, and now this last entirely
incoherent paragraph.

- Susan

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:50:06 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

So, do you think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?

I don't think it devolves to be his decision.

I am not sure I agree that children should be a special case and should
not be free people.

Either he has parents
who make it for him,

And what if they decide that he must work an 80-hour week? Is he their
slave?

or he doesn't in which case necessity takes over.

Necessity rules all our lives.

I believe predators will take advantage of them.

Predators will certainly try, I agree. That is nature of predators. But
I am confused by your phrase 'take advantage of them' - do you mean that
these predators will enslave these orphaned children and force them to
work? Or will force them to attend school for twelve years because of
some freakish religious belief in the mystical power of twelve?

If that happens who does he turn to in your world for help?

I love that phrasing - very good! "Who does he turn to?" - that is
*exactly* it - he may choose to turn to anyone he thinks may help him in
his situation. And anyone of course may offer help. If you step in and
say "This child must not labor, but instead must attend a school I
approve of for twelve years!" that may be *helping* from your
perspective, but the child may - oddly enough - not see it that way.
What then? Why do *you* have a right to force the child through school
any more than a factory owner would to chain him to a bench in his shop?
What makes the difference?

- Susan

George M. Middius wrote:


Susan Ho said:

Is this munging of my name supposed to showcase your maturity, or you
civility?

Does paulie think all those benefits for Everyman were generous gifts
from the Capitalist Overlord Uberklass? ;-)

"Benefits"? You mean like

Not at all.

I suppose you're used to being ignored.

Not at all. I suppose you are used to be ignorant?

- Susan

Why do *you* have a right to force the child through school
any more than a factory owner would to chain him to a bench in his shop?
What makes the difference? BRBR


Yikes!
Kevin M. Kelly
"There needs to be a 12-step program for us gearheads"

From: Susan Hogarth

Right wing blather snipped

WTF does this have to do with audio?

Subject: Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
From: Susan Hogarth
Date: 8/20/2004 8:12 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

George M. Middius wrote:


Susan Ho said:

Is this munging of my name supposed to showcase your maturity, or you
civility?


You've just had a "Bad Middius Experience", Susan. Welcome to a very large
club. :-(


Does paulie think all those benefits for Everyman were generous gifts
from the Capitalist Overlord Uberklass? ;-)

"Benefits"? You mean like

Not at all.

I suppose you're used to being ignored.

Not at all. I suppose you are used to be ignorant?

- Susan

Torresists a écrit :

Subject: Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican
From: Susan Hogarth
Date: 8/20/2004 8:12 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

George M. Middius wrote:


Susan Ho said:

Is this munging of my name supposed to showcase your maturity, or you
civility?



You've just had a "Bad Middius Experience", Susan. Welcome to a very large
club. :-(



Does paulie think all those benefits for Everyman were generous gifts

from the Capitalist Overlord Uberklass? ;-)

"Benefits"? You mean like

Not at all.

I suppose you're used to being ignored.

Not at all. I suppose you are used to be ignorant?

- Susan

George M. Middius hates females, Susan. He is our RAO's Taliban. Note
that his religion isn't Islam it's pederasty.

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:50:06 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

So, do you think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?

I don't think it devolves to be his decision.

I am not sure I agree that children should be a special case and should
not be free people.

At age 4? Age 8? Age 12? At no time?

I think all humans should be free, always.

When do think a person should be allowed to decide what he is going to
do with his life and his property? At age 18? Age 24? Never?

- Susan

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Either he has parents
who make it for him,

And what if they decide that he must work an 80-hour week? Is he their
slave?

yes which is why people have through government decided this is
abusive and established rules for their protection.

So you do not believe the parents should have the final say in what the
child does, but instead that 'the people, through government' *should*?

What is it that is magical about 'the people, through government'? What
if they 'decide' that a steady course of Ritalin and state-approved
curriculum for 12 years is the right way to raise children? What if they
decide that to pursue a rigid course of 'no child left behind' in what
they *believe* to be the best interests of the child? What if they are
*wrong*?

Is the child then not the slave of the government rather than his parents?

- Susan

dapra wrote:

Susan Hogarth wrote:

wrote:

But feel free to fight for your right for the 80 hour work week for 12
year-olds.

You don't think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?
Why do you have to control other people?

Wow! That's a really sickening statement.

You find the idea of children being free 'sickening'? Interesting.

Who do you think should control children? You? The government? The
mother? The father? The school board? 51% of the electorate? Who?
Someone has to be in control of every person's life - the question is
*who* will have that control. Who should control your life, for
instance - you, the government, your parents, 51% of people who vote?

I may assume that according to you an 8 years old has the right to sell
his/her body for a candy bar.

Would you punish a child who made such a deal? What, would you throw the
poor confused little child in jail because he made a mistake? Isn't that
a little backwards? Wouldn't it be better to educate the child against
such mistakes and protect him from sick adults rather than treat him
like an errant slave if he somehow gets caught up in such a horrible thing?

But I find it interesting that you leapt from 'working as much as he
likes' to prostitution. Where do you draw the line at controling
children - or do you draw it at all? Is the government/parents/whoever
supposed to tell the child what he can or cannot think as well, or is
only his physical actions you think it's right to control forcibly?

He/she is paid by the prevailing market
rate, no?

The prevailing market rate for sex with a child is a candy bar? Where do
you come by this information?

We don't want "to control other people", especially not the
'free market', do we?

I certainly don't. But if 'we' is you and me, then at leats half of 'us'
seems to be of the opinion that controlling other people is a good thing.

It seems the last few hundred years of human history passed you by.

What - were children routinely selling sex for candy bars before the New
Deal? Thank God for Roosevelt!

- Susan

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:25:50 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:50:06 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

So, do you think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?

I don't think it devolves to be his decision.

I am not sure I agree that children should be a special case and should
not be free people.

At age 4? Age 8? Age 12? At no time?

I think all humans should be free, always.

When do think a person should be allowed to decide what he is going to
do with his life and his property? At age 18? Age 24? Never?

Are you planning to answer this question?

So you're okay with an 11 year old who decides to become a prostitute.

No, of course I'm not 'okay' with such a thing. How does agreeing that
someone has the right to do something equate to being *OK* with it? This
is a confusion that seems to be widespread. The point is that it isn't
*my* choice, it's hers. When do you think a person has the right to make
his own choices about his life and his property - when he is 18? 24? Ever?

She's exercising her free will and judgment?

Yes. Her *poor* judgement. This is why the normal arrangement is that a
child lives with (a) responsible adult(s) and follows their direction.

You're not a parent I take it.

That's correct.

- Susan

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:33:15 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Either he has parents
who make it for him,

And what if they decide that he must work an 80-hour week? Is he their
slave?

yes which is why people have through government decided this is
abusive and established rules for their protection.

So you do not believe the parents should have the final say in what the
child does, but instead that 'the people, through government' *should*?

On occasion yes.

What occasion? Who decides?

There are appalling parents out there who abuse their
kids daily. I don't wan't such misfits determining the kids welfare.

Yes - this is why children should never be considered the subjects of
one particular adult or *set of adults*.

Evidently you think picking the wrong parents is the kids fault and
he/she has to suffer with the consequences.

Evidently you haven't been reading carefully. I've said that a child is
not the subject of the parent, or any other adult or *set of adults*.
You have been the one maintining that government has the right to
determine how children must live, and what tasks they must perform. And
frankly, I don't care for 'such misfits determining the kids' welfare'.
What makes you think the government is inherently benevolent to children?

- Susan

wrote:

There are appalling parents out there who abuse their
kids daily. I don't wan't such misfits determining the kids welfare.

Yes - this is why children should never be considered the subjects of
one particular adult or *set of adults*.

And so who decides if the 18 month old who's suffering neglect stays
with his parents?

A jury of the parent's peers.

Define "neglect" while you are at it. Are the Amish
neglecting their children? Too bad Koresh didn't get
his day in court -- they killed the childred in order to
save them (from what turned out to be nothing).

--Ted

Susan Hogarth wrote:

wrote:

But feel free to fight for your right for the 80 hour work week for 12
year-olds.


You don't think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?
Why do you have to control other people?

- Susan

Wow! That's a really sickening statement.
I may assume that according to you an 8 years old has the right to sell his/her
body for a candy bar. He/she is paid by the prevailing market rate, no? We don't
want "to control other people", especially not the 'free market', do we?
It seems the last few hundred years of human history passed you by.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:19:03 GMT, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:33:15 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:53:24 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

Either he has parents
who make it for him,

And what if they decide that he must work an 80-hour week? Is he their
slave?

yes which is why people have through government decided this is
abusive and established rules for their protection.

So you do not believe the parents should have the final say in what the
child does, but instead that 'the people, through government' *should*?

On occasion yes. There are appalling parents out there who abuse their
kids daily. I don't wan't such misfits determining the kids welfare.

There are appalling social service agencies out there who have taken
children from homes with little or no evidence. There are appalling
social service agencies out there who have placed children with foster
parents who have killed the children.

The question is, which is more prevalent? Unfit parents or unfit
governmental agencies?

Evidently you think picking the wrong parents is the kids fault and
he/she has to suffer with the consequences.

- - - -
Just another albino black sheep

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:48:33 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
wrote:

wrote:

There are appalling parents out there who abuse their
kids daily. I don't wan't such misfits determining the kids welfare.

Yes - this is why children should never be considered the subjects of
one particular adult or *set of adults*.

And so who decides if the 18 month old who's suffering neglect stays
with his parents?

A jury of the parent's peers.

Via the state? Gasp!

Not necessarily, though a Constitutional libertarian
certainly wouldn't mind using state/county courts.
I can see you've certainly thought this through before --
NOT.

--Ted

wrote:

There are appalling parents out there who abuse their
kids daily. I don't wan't such misfits determining the kids welfare.

Yes - this is why children should never be considered the subjects of
one particular adult or *set of adults*.

And so who decides if the 18 month old who's suffering neglect stays
with his parents?

A jury of the parent's peers.

Define "neglect" while you are at it.

Because there is twilight does not mean there is not day and night.

Okay, don't define it. Keep an incredibly vague word
as the foundation of you argument. There are all manners
of neglect, and retroboy argues the state can intervene
for all of them, even when that is a really stupid position
to take.

Are the Amish
neglecting their children? Too bad Koresh didn't get
his day in court -- they killed the childred in order to
save them (from what turned out to be nothing).

Yadda, yadda.

And how young was the youngest girl Koresh slept with? 10?

Beats me, but the claims of child molestation by the government
were unfounded. Good to see you parroting the state line.

--Ted

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 19:06:24 GMT in triangle.general,
wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:54:59 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

You're not a parent I take it.

That's correct.


Next question.

You're under 20 right?

What difference would that make? How old are you?

Do you know what an ad hominem argument is? You might want to read
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

--
"He who has never hoped can never despair."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Rick Pasotto http://www.niof.net

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:01:09 -0700, dapra wrote:

Susan Hogarth wrote:

wrote:

But feel free to fight for your right for the 80 hour work week for 12
year-olds.

You don't think a 12-year old has a right to work as much as he likes?
Why do you have to control other people?

Wow! That's a really sickening statement.
I may assume that according to you an 8 years old has the right to sell his/her
body for a candy bar. He/she is paid by the prevailing market rate, no? We don't
want "to control other people", especially not the 'free market', do we?
It seems the last few hundred years of human history passed you by.

The libertarian rhetoric has an appeal to inflate the self worth and
feed the "you can't tell me what to do" feelings of the immature.

When logic fails, there is always insult to fall back upon.

The
difficulty comes in trying to actually analyze them through
situations.

Indeed. Rather than make the attempt, many people prefer instead to just
accept what they've been told or do what 'feels good'.

I mean the state does evil things: Painting yellow lines
down the highway. Installing stop signs. Establishing nuclear safety
standards. All of these things interfere with individual choice.

This is your argument in favor a state monopoly - that it does do some
useful things? This is like saying that slave-owners were really not so
bad because after all they did feed the slaves. Lost in this bootlicking
is the truth that the slaves actually grew and prepared the food and the
masters simply 'allowed' them to have some of their own things. This is
exactly our relationship to the state, although not so onerous by far in
most cases.

The even more absurd thing is these folks think that when people get
together and do the same thing by agreement as say a homeowners
association, it's all fine.

Yes, because that is a voluntary agreement.

But when they get together and do it as
government its inherently evil.

When did you and I 'get together and do it as a government'? What is
inherently evil about the state is the fact that *some* people 'get
together and do [things] as a government' and other people get the bill.

Though all the same problems occur.
And when they have disagreements over the homeowners contract, they
turn to the state provided court to resolve it.

Why not? We've been forced to pay for it - why not to try extract some
of that value back by using it? Meanwhile everyone suffers because these
'free' courts provided by the state discourage private enterprise in
that direction, just as the 'free' schools discourage investment in
private schools.

Anyway the absurd results like the above come from a total
determination not to let the first chink in the foundation of the
sound bite idea take hold because there is a real fear that once its
taken out the whole edifice crumbles rather quickly.

Now that is interesting, because that is what I think happens with state
apologists. You won't even address the question of when you think (or IF
you think) people should be free to make their own decisions. If you
faced this question honestly you would understand that it is never right
to force another person to live as you wish him to live.

- Susan

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:00:03 -0400, Susan Hogarth
wrote:

There are appalling parents out there who abuse their
kids daily. I don't wan't such misfits determining the kids welfare.

Yes - this is why children should never be considered the subjects of
one particular adult or *set of adults*.

And so who decides if the 18 month old who's suffering neglect stays
with his parents?

If his parents are neglecting him other people are free to offer him
care. If the parents are abusing him, then anyone is free to step in to
his defense.

- Susan

wrote:

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:07:30 -0700, dapra wrote:

I see libertarians, as being the foot soldiers of the corporate oligarchy. Some
of them may not know it, but by advocating 'personal freedom' their intention
is to fragment any opposition to the ruling class.

How very Orwellian of you:

personal freedom is corporate oligarchy
freedom is slavery
war is peace

What's an English-speaking person to do? Praise the state to advance
freedom? Praise war to advance peace?

They don't understand, or
they may do!, that getting together 100 CEO's to undermine democracy, control
the government is a lot more easier than motivating 100 million people to stand
up for their rights.

Oh, that is abundantly clear. That's why both the Democratic Party and
the Republican Party have been so successful in the short term.

They may claim their intention is of personal freedom, but they are destroying it.

How?

The movement is largely funded by industries, especially mining ,
timber and oil.

I'd like to see your evidence of this. In fact, frankly I'd like to HAVE
some of the evidence. But alas, as dapra pointed out, it's easier to get
those CEOs controlling the government than it is to get them to
support freedom for individuals.

They love having these messengers for absolute
property rights and anti-regulatory folks carrying their water for
them.

You think big industry is opposed to regulation? Alas, I am afraid that
is mostly not the case - those fellows largely got where they are by
buying into government, and they're not about to let go of their
controlling interest. "Absolute property rights", for instance - were it
not for the handy-dandy, absolutely legal tool of eminent domain, why,
companies might actually have to PAY landowners for their property!

http://www.gothamgazette.com/iotw/condemned/

Respect for "absolute property rights" protects EVERYone - the old
couple living in their retirement house as well as the large
corporation. It is government - owned by corporations - which ALLOWS
people to be robbed 'legally'.

That it is simultaneously dismantling civil society does not seem to
bother them as long as the short term profits flow.

Pushing people around is not included in any definition of 'civil
society' I am aware of.

- Susan