Rebane's Ruminations
June 2011
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Archie&Meathead Apropos to the lively discussion at ‘True Value of Work and Caring Economics’, Harvard professor of government Harvey Mansfield contributed a telling piece about the “poor choices … students made in selecting their courses and majors.”  In ‘Sociology and Other Meathead Majors’ Dr Mansfield points out the distinction between education based on facts and that based on values.  And, of course, therein lays a root cause of rot in our workforce.  Majors in ‘values based’ subject areas are hard to sell on the labor markets.  And moreover, such majors are victims of the commercially useless leftwing ideologies that are rampant in the country’s schools.  That is a double burden that no employer, save the government, wants to bear.

Mansfield opines that “Archie Bunker was right to be skeptical of his son-in-law’s opinions.”, and goes on to say –

More fundamental, however, is the division within the university today, in America and everywhere, between science and the humanities. Science deals with facts but the humanities also have to deal with values. This is where the problem of bad choices arises. We think that one can have knowledge of fact but not of values—the famous “fact/value” distinction.

Science has knowledge of fact, and this makes it rigorous and hard. The humanities have their facts bent or biased by values, and this makes them lax and soft. This fact—or is it a value?—gives confidence and reputation to scientists within the university. Everyone respects them, and though science is modest because there is always more to learn, scientists sometimes strut and often make claims for extra resources. Some of the rest of us glumly concede their superiority and try to sell our dubious wares in the street, like gypsies. We are the humanists. 

Posted in , , ,

332 responses to “‘Meathead’ Majors”

  1. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    THE CONTENTION THAT TAXES WERE LOWER IN THE 1950’S IS 100% BULLSHIT.”
    I expect that you mean ‘HIGHER’.
    One thing that’s hard to escape is that government spending in 1950 was on the order of 22% of GDP and now it’s well over 40%, with a much lower percentage of military spending. The spending for good deeds just grows and grows.
    A lot of the BS involved in madly googling for tax percentages is the high marginal rates that used to exist. What really matters is effective tax rate, which is the amount actually paid by the various income levels. Of course, having said that, no one cares about the facts of the matter. It doesn’t make for as interesting a story.
    I think a lot of what drives modern politics is the pressure brought on as follows (I’m not claiming causality especially, just potential for problems).
    . A rapidly aging group of boomers, uniquely so really, who will be happy to pauperize the rest of the country for it’s own healthcare.
    . Many in this group never formed family businesses or extended households and got divorced for trivial reasons (a financial deathblow).
    . They have expected to retire off of either a speculative bubble (real estate or stocks) and/or from a pension that they put very little into (SS).
    . With a pixie dust based retirement built atop unearned wealth, such as it is, there was never a super strong push to save money.
    . There’s really only so much stuff to go around and there’s more and more people.
    This group of boomers is starting to panic. There’s this strong urge to empty out the Koch Bros. bank vault in order to pay the bills, to get free healthcare, whatever it takes.
    The problem is that the truly rich aren’t the people to get money from. That’s basically wealth taken off the table. It was made largely by pushing paper and is still valued in bits of paper. If it were turned into spendable cash, Big Mac prices would skyrocket. That money is going to stay put holding up bond values. This is really a fight over real wealth, not money.
    So who’s left? The boomers that actually prepared for the future. The savers. And they’re trying as hard as they can to hang onto what they’ve squirreled away.
    That’s yer modern politics in a nutshell. An aging group looking poverty in the face vs. a smaller group trying to not get sucked down into the same maelstrom.
    Little Red Hen Nation.

    Like

  2. Sharon W Avatar
    Sharon W

    Who the hell had $200k in annual income in 1956?! (btw, income taxes were capped at 50% for earning income in the 1950’s). Paul your argument has failed.

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    Excellent point SharonW. This demonstrates more of the apples and oranges comparison that is so dear to the left when pointing back to the Eisenhower years.

    Like

  4. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Paul, can you address wmartin’s comment Posted by: wmartin | 08 June 2011 at 03:48 PM
    Does your ‘solution’ allow for one to appreciate the fruits of their labors or do you expect to provide another carrot to draw investment, innovation, growth, etc?
    I agree that our system punishes those who succeed to pay for those who don’t even try or fail doing so. Thoughts? Why should I be paying more because someone disregarded their own personal activity (finances, health, choices) when I am solely responsible for mine?

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    This is where I got my information. You need to scroll to 1956 and read the fine print, go to 200,000. Correct me if I’m wrong
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Also you need to compare it to 2010

    Like

  7. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Mikey
    You wear your Libertarian stripes proudly. From your perspective it’s a dog eat dog world where those, who for whatever reason fall by the wayside don’t deserve any help from the more fortunate and able unless they voluntarily chose to do so. So what happens to these people if here is not enough willing generosity to go around? Do they just die in the streets or will they be rescued by those who are ultimately funded by, yes, you and I the taxpayers. What is your plan? I have scribed all I am going to do about Caring economics which, in my opinion over a period of time will do the job of essential caring much beter than emergency government services. It’s pro active and economically sound and, yes, is paid for by the taxpayer.
    So Mikey, what is your plan or do we even need one?

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    Pardon my interjection here Paul, but I’m confused.
    “… will do the job of essential caring much better than emergency government services.” If caring economics is paid for by the taxpayer, is it not then a part of emergency government services? How else does the derelict dying of a drug overdose on a cold SF street get help (except, of course, bychance a good samaritan private individual or organization like the Salvation Army)?

    Like

  9. Mikey McD Avatar
    Mikey McD

    Paul, my tenets would have been considered socialist by early Americans :). Do you discount the fact that our individual decisions determine our welfare (ability to put roof over our heads, food on table)?
    I am fine with refined safety nets for society (several months of food stamps etc), but I will not accept the role of retirement sugar daddy for folks who KNOWINGLY made stupid decisions (multiple divorces, chose to tour with the band instead of work, leveraged themselves excessively, chose to indulge in various drugs, etc).
    The purpose of my working 10 hr days and risking every penny I have is not to make money so I can be a sugar daddy for folks who knowingly made stupid decisions. I do, however give a considerable amount to charity to care for widows and orphans (those who suffer at no fault of their own).
    I contend that our current welfare system (cradle to grave – WIC, food stamps, HUD, Medi-cal, etc) already provides sufficiently. One could make an argument that such entitlements actually self perpetuate the problem. Those who ‘freeze to death on the streets’ choose to do so.

    Like

  10. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, your link proves my point! read the details QUOTE “Corresponds to one half of taxable income” Making th actual tax rate 46% AT $200K (WHO MADE $200K IN 1950’S?) AND BEFORE DEDUCTIONS.

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    You picked up on my chant George. We do rescue some unfortunates from the street although others get missed. Usually when people reach that level it’s too late to really help them. A caring system does all it can do to prevent people getting in that situation. There are thousands of caring jobs that need to be done but it has to be a recognized, accepted and funded function of government services. I guess it could be looked at as a care giving CCC type program that would both employ people and do good work that will have an economic return by helping to restore useful citizens to a good life. We pay for it in our soul when we ignore those in need. It sure is a lot better way to get people back to work than giving billions to Banksters and Wall Street pirates.

    Like

  12. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, sorry for the long list of questions (previous posts and this one):
    Are you in favor of ‘bailing out’ people who make bad decisions but against the ‘bailing out’ of businesses who make bad decisions (like Goldman Sachs, BofA, GM)?
    Do you believe that our individual actions should be void of consequences?
    Do you think parents need a financial reason to bring their kiddos up well (i.e. welfare payments from gov funded by tax payers)?
    Do you believe in discrimination based on income level?
    Do you believe in property rights?
    Have we convinced you that we are taxed more today than we were in 1950’s.
    Please you comment on wmartin’s comment/questions?

    Like

  13. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Paul, sorry for the long list of questions (previous posts and this one):
    Are you in favor of ‘bailing out’ people who make bad decisions but against the ‘bailing out’ of businesses who make bad decisions (like Goldman Sachs, BofA, GM)?
    It depends on what you mean by bailing out. I believe people who have problems should be helped so that they can live a useful and productive life. I don’t believe in bailing out companies whose execs get paid millions.
    Do you believe that our individual actions should be void of consequences?
    no
    Do you think parents need a financial reason to bring their kiddos up well (i.e. welfare payments from gov funded by tax payers)?
    Your question is pretty vague. Are you saying people have children for the big welfare bucks?
    I don’t believe in baby farms. But what do you do when children are born and their parents have no way of supporting them. A basic subsistence for under privileged families is in everybody’s best interest. What do you think is the best thing to do with a single mom with two kids that can’t find time to work even if she could find a job because child care takes so much of her wage she can’t afford to make ends meet.
    Do you believe in discrimination based on income level?
    You’re talking about graduated income tax. I believe in it
    Do you believe in property rights?
    Sure, depending on what you mean. I don’t believe we have the right to put a hog farm in a residential neighborhood or cause your neighbor to have breathing problems by burning leaves that blow into his house for example.
    Have we convinced you that we are taxed more today than we were in 1950’s.
    no. I need to look into it a little more.
    Please you comment on wmartin’s comment/questions?
    I need to take a little time and look at it. I am not an economist so it’s hard to counter well rehearsed arguments.

    Like

  14. Mikey McD Avatar

    Something tells me that our definition of “useful and productive life” is different… we will reserve that for another day :).

    Like

  15. George Rebane Avatar

    I wonder if anyone here would consider a voting restriction on people who pay no federal or state income taxes. Would it be proper for them to be enjoined from voting on measures that raise or lower such tax rates? In short, only taxpayers vote on measures affecting the taxes they pay. This question addresses the popular notion that democracies fail through the Peter/Paul Principle.

    Like

  16. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    You’re in rare form tonight George. How about different voting quantities based on how much you pay.. For example 1 vote per $10,000 tax payment. You pay $100,000 you get 10 votes. By the way George, what Democracies have fallen because of the P/P Principal. I’ve been answering questions all night so it’s your turn.

    Like

  17. Mikey McD Avatar

    Mikey- “Do you believe in discrimination based on income level?”
    Paul “You’re talking about graduated income tax. I believe in it”
    How do you address the discrimination question? Are you not discriminating based on income (same as sex, skin color, religion, etc)?
    What about a single lump sum income tax? You want to be a citizen you must pay $x? Even a flat tax favors lower income levels. The progressive income tax penalizes upper income levels. Ironically, it is the lower income levels that use more of the gov funded programs/services (public education, welfare, etc). 16th Amendment be Damned!
    By the way George, what Democracies have succeeded because of the P/P Principal?

    Like

  18. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    when marginal tax rates were 91%, no one with any sense or access to good accountants paid 91%.
    For example, in those days even consumer credit card (any loan whatsover) was deductable, for good reason. If you paid ANYONE interest, that would be income they’d report and pay taxes on. So you didn’t pay taxes on it.

    Like

  19. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    when marginal tax rates were 91%, no one with any sense or access to good accountants paid 91%.”…
    Exactly. These super high marginal rates are an especially irritating talking point, especially when effective tax rates are a thing a person can look up without too much trouble.
    For anyone who is interested, effect tax rates for various quintiles/deciles/top %1 are readily available to (I believe) 1979 or so and are extracted here and there before that.
    There’s plenty to argue about even from those numbers, but it’s certainly best to start from that baseline. Rates for the very top generally have dropped lately, but not as much as you might think, and they’ve dropped a lot for the bottom 20%.
    One problem with intake of tax money is that smaller differences don’t make for as interesting a story, but really can be pretty huge in effect due to compounding debt plus the number of years they occur.
    As someone else mentioned, the total tax bill should include vastly increased sales tax, increased property tax (I believe that houses are still historically over trend, even with the drop), SS and Medicare rates that went way up, plus the thousand hidden taxes that are out there. Vehicle registration in CA is a great example of something that became a major cash source.

    Like

  20. wmartin Avatar
    wmartin

    “I need to take a little time and look at it. I am not an economist so it’s hard to counter well rehearsed arguments.
    Posted by: Paul Emery”
    I wouldn’t sweat it, the well rehearsed argument of an economist seems to have as much predictive value as a monkey with a dart board. They are hell on wheels at predicting the past, though.
    I’m not certain if it’s because their uber-simplified models of mass behavior are wrong or overwhelmed by unintended consequences .or. their emotion-based political beliefs come out in the models.
    My own working theory is that you are better off listening to Bill Gross than you are Paul Krugman or some old Friedman article. Having lots and lots of chips on the table tends to clarify the brain.

    Like

  21. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “Sure Greg, I hope this helps.”
    I’m afraid it did not.
    “First of all we have to place economic value in the work activities that lie beyond the marketplace.
    Who is this “we”?
    “When I say invest in the infrastructure I mean investment like when we build highways, bridges, airports and dams. The money would come from the general fund pool that we all pay into but in short order would more than be returned by less dependence on public education, social welfare systems, law enforcement and medical services and general taxpayer support for social services.”
    Please define exactly what you mean by “infrastructure” in this case. You want to “invest in it” I get that, but I have a sneaking suspicion this valuable infrastructure is just the promise of better people through a centrally planned wealth redistribution administered by ‘caring economists’, the right people in the right jobs.
    “Probably the closest models we have to this are from the Nordic countries.”
    And even the Swedes couldn’t get that to work well.

    Like

  22. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE – When you introduced Eisler’s caring economics (CE), an untried social order, I believe it is up to you to answer as many questions about its workings as you can (and it’s OK to say ‘I don’t know’). I feel the same responsibility when asked greater details about my NPSC recommendation.
    But reviewing the comment threads on this, what you seem to be doing is side-stepping questions about CE and constantly returning to accusing your questioner of not caring for people freezing on the streets – the anecdotal incident that caused you to introduce CE. The issues of deeming it important to care for the less fortunate and the analyzing the means to provide such care are semantically orthogonal (q.v.).
    Your refusal to pick up on this and continuing to repeat the same old charge has not boded well for the discussion on CE. We are going around in circles; witness GregG repeating earlier question by me and others on who the ‘we’ are who will make the subjective value judgments, develop the infrastructure, determine pay scales, and operate it.
    As I said with my link to the summary of Eisler’s new economics, CE has ALL the attributes of failed socialist economic theories in which market price was replaced by government diktat. It is up to you to dispel that notion for us.
    Re P/P Principle and democracies: Paul, you and Mikey raise important questions about the effects of that principle in how realworld systems of governance have wound up operating under the guise of starting out as noble democracies. This topic deserves a forum of its own, and I intend to launch it with a little piece spelling out my own thoughts which should answer your question.

    Like

  23. paul emery Avatar
    paul emery

    I’m not answering any more questions till George tells about who the fallen democracys are that tumbled due to the P/P principals

    Like

  24. George Rebane Avatar

    Principal – a chief or head; the head or director of a school or, especially in England, a college; a person who takes a leading part in any activity, as a play; chief actor or doer.
    Principle – an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles; a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics; a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.

    Like

  25. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Exactly what questions am I avoiding. Will CE be paid for by taxpayers money? yes How will it work? We hire people to do the jobs available. (“We” refers to the American citizenry as represented by our elected bodies) Investment in infrastructure means investment in better educated and healthier children that will be productive in their adult lives therefore being positive contributors to society and the economy. Look at our incarceration numbers and the chronic mental and physical health rates of young people to illustrate our current failures. Maintaining the environment has obvious economic value and the care or seniors and the infirm is an obligation that needs no explanation.
    I envision a modern CCC type program with lots of jobs that will reduce unemployment and pay for itself.
    I can’t prove any of this so don’t ask me. I realize it’s the antithesis of Libertarian thought so from that view it is easily discredited as socialistic garbage and the next step to bayonets and firing squads, a chain of events that I have yet to see credible documentation supporting from these pages.
    So I do ask then give me a better idea. I have yet to see one or a reference to a working system other than a couple of Asian City states that George favors.

    Like

  26. Ben Emery Avatar

    I believe this is an A-political view of Supply Side Economics- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp#axzz1Onp5QTFa
    George this theory was never tried on a national level until the 1980’s. The only other time it is feasible was the 30 years or so during the robber baron era. What we have more in common with that era is a few behemoth companies controlling the major industries. That lead to the labor movement, anti trust laws, outlawing corporate donations into politics, and the New Deal America along with the greatest generation that blossomed out of it. I think we are at the beginning of another one of these movements.
    Recommended book to grasp this cycle of cultures is called “The Fourth Turning” http://www.fourthturning.com/html/history___turnings.html

    Like

  27. George Rebane Avatar

    Dear Readers – I just finished a comprehensive, complete, and eloquent 😉 reply to PaulE. And when I hit ‘Post’, TypePad blew it away. I am pissed.
    This has occurred before to me and others. I recommend composing your comment in your favorite text editor like MS Word, and then copy/paste it into the comment box. Then if it disappears into bit heaven, you can repeat the process with better luck. I promise to more consistently follow my own advice in the future.

    Like

  28. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, your CCC give ZERO respect for individual liberty. Each citizen is enslaved. Yes, it would take “bayonets and firing squads” to get freedom loving humans to participate.

    Like

  29. Mikey McD Avatar

    Ben, can you expand on this “along with the greatest generation that blossomed out of it.”
    does your thought process account for our country’s (and most citizens) debt and extreme government created inflation to attain this “greatest generation that blossomed” feeling?

    Like

  30. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE, your responses to CE questions hearken FDR’s NRA program that extended and deepened the Great Depression. I again cite SecTreas Henry Morgenthau’s 1939 testimony to Congress on the failure of FDR’s programs. These will work no better for implementing CE, and I echo Mikey’s pithy response.
    My own approach to the much larger problem (which includes freezing people in SF) is the Non-Profit Service Corporation to which you have evidently given short shrift for unknown reasons.
    And besides “a couple of Asian cities”, I did cite the America of the 50s and 60s which, with a smaller government and a private/public welfare system, successfully addressed the problem that CE proposes to solve.
    My own family’s saga when we first arrived on these shores was just one of the uncountably successful experiences that demonstrated the workings of that bygone system. Let’s not discount our own history.
    (My blown away response was better.)

    Like

  31. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Paul Emery-
    On May 24, 2011 in a comment in the Tea Party – “Deaf, deluded, deceptive”? thread here on Rebane’s Ruminations you wrote:
    “I’m an odd duck. I’m kind of a Libertarian Green. I believe you can’t have liberty without a healthy earth. I’m a strong Libertarian on social issues.”
    It seems that you have, in this thread, contradicted the notion that you are “a strong Libertarian on social issues.” I invite you to comment and perhaps to correct this.
    I would also like to hear more about your belief that liberty requires a “healthy earth.”

    Like

  32. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Am I alone in not understanding why folks like Paul and Ben have such disdain for our economic model? Most jobs are created by small business and to me that those people would risk their money for a idea of making their dreams come true is the epitome of liberty and freedom for anyone with motivation. America spends billions on its poor, our churches do as well. We have people using welfare cards on massages and gambling and yet Paul thinks our country is a mean uncaring place. He has yet to answer who will make the rules and enforce them under his favored economic model. What if someone wants to improve their status in life Paul? Will your economic police arrest him for not following the rules?

    Like

  33. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    It’s hard to think about Liberty when you’re grubbing for clean air and water. If the earth reaches the point where it can no longer sustain the consumption are regurgitation of it’s resources then we’ll degenerate to wandering tribes fighting over green grass and waterholes. Not much room for liberty.
    Of course this is an extreme example so let’s put it more folksy.
    A bear doesn’t crap in his own backyard and
    It is our responsibility preserve and leave the earth in the same condition for the 7th generation to use as we were blessed to have it left for us.
    Fighting over dwindling resources insures we will be invading and violating the liberties of other nations and they will do the same to us.
    I support the Libertarian views on personal freedom. That’s all I have time for now.

    Like

  34. Mikey McD Avatar

    It is a contradiction to say “I support the Libertarian views on personal freedom” and then support the CCC and the tax structure that would be needed to fund it.
    Either a man’s earnings are his property or the States- we can’t have it both ways. (See Bastiat).
    I can’t accept that the existence of entrepreneurs must come at the expense of our resources (air, water, etc). I do contend that their is no better steward of a resource than it’s owner and/or the man who benefits from the resources.

    Like

  35. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Paul Emery wrote: “I support the Libertarian views on personal freedom.”
    OK, but freedom is not free and one cost of personal freedom is personal responsibility. Perhaps the most significant of personal responsibilities are those we have to our families and especially to our children. Rather than accept these as personal responsibilities, however, caring economics would have them become social responsibilities. This must certainly lead to diminished personal freedom. A Libertarian view of personal freedom is that personal freedoms are to be maximized and you again appear to have contradicted yourself.

    Like

  36. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    OK, so, in other words Paul Emery is calling for:
    1) higher taxes
    2) new programs administered by Congress or state Legislators, hiring the right people to make decisions for all
    3) higher spending on education, and on the health of kids and old people
    4) it will all be revenue neutral because of better outcomes
    Is that about right?

    Like

  37. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Kesti
    How does that lead to diminished personal freedom? You don’t explain yourself. No one would be required to be a CCC (I’ll use that from now on for efficiency) child raiser it will just be an option if a parent wishes to be a full time parent. Give me an example other than the issue of taxation which has been beat to death and of which I can offer no relief other that we pay the costs now through national education institutions and social remedies such as law enforcement, health and welfare costs. So I want examples to give substance to your argument.
    Libertarian views are like the Tea Party. There are many variations. I can form my own and call it what I like. I am a strong supporter of Ron Paul’s foreign policy views and his stand on opposing the Patriot Act on domestic surveillance. Also the legalization of drugs. I am opposed to federal involvement in education and generally support states and better yet local jurisdiction of most government functions. I think unrestricted possession of guns is a safety issue and has little to do with resisting a government takeover or whatever. Environmentally the Ron Paul Libertarians don’t offer any reasonable remedy to the destruction of the earth. They look to the courts as the vehicle of resolution but everyone knows the person with the most money gets the best lawyer and usually wins. So if I have to bring my neighbor to court because he’s burning leaves that’s causing me to cough I have to beat him in court and there you go. The best lawyer wins.
    So Mikey how do you enforce air and water standards without legal standards. Should a manufacturer be able to use a dangerous chemical that can be ingested when manufacturing toys for children. Is it OK to use asbestos as a building material, should we allow lead in gasoline…. on and on.
    I believe that in a modern society we need a system of taxation that will insure a civil and healthy society. The form and structure is legislated through our elected representatives. If we don’t like what they instigate we can vote them out and elect someone in who suits the desires of the electorate. Pretty simple. Bastiat was fine for 1850 or so but it’s a different world now.
    So many questions, so little time. Thanks for the respectful dialogue.

    Like

  38. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “How does that lead to diminished personal freedom? You don’t explain yourself. No one would be required to be a CCC (I’ll use that from now on for efficiency) child raiser it will just be an option if a parent wishes to be a full time parent.”
    In the same way you’ll be able to build a cheap energy producing coal fired power plant. You can build it, but the sustainability (fees) will be determined by regulations and that will leave you with no choice.
    Example:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aTf5gjvNvo&NR=1
    Result:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU&feature=related

    Like

  39. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” Paul, and if we accept money from the government in compensation for raising our children we can be certain that the government will have expectations concerning how that raising is done. This means that we would be allowed fewer choices (personal freedoms) concerning family matters.
    I admit that I was thinking of CCC child raising as mandatory matter and that it being optional does reduce the impact of the personal freedoms issue. I have other objections, however. How, for example, shall the value of child rearing be decided and by whom? Also, I tend to oppose expansion of government because governments have proven to be ineffective in preventing abuse and unintended negative consequences of its programs, perhaps especially its social programs.
    I said nothing concerning air and water quality standards, manufacturing toys with dangerous materials, etc., nor that I reject the need for a tax system. Why do you turn to these side issues rather than support the ideas you propose?
    You’re welcome for the respectful dialog. I suspect that you didn’t intend it, but please note that I find referring to me as “Kesti” and “Mikey” to be disrespectful. Other than for those, I thank you, too.

    Like

  40. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Mikey
    “Yes, it would take “bayonets and firing squads” to get freedom loving humans to participate.”
    Are you saying that if this was legislated you would take to organized rebellion to resist?

    Like

  41. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, I think we both know that this has as much likelihood of passing as an amendment to cancel the 16th Amendment.
    I would organize a rebellion to resist as long as it was peaceful. I like to think that this is what I am already doing.
    I would leave the country before I participated in a bloody revolution (Singapore).

    Like

  42. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Well, Paul, “organized rebellion” comes in many forms. My answer is, “No,” if you’re asking whether I would take arms to the streets and storm government offices. I might oppose such legislation in the ways that I sometimes have done regarding other issues, such as informing my representatives of my opinion, supporting organizations that I feel agree with me, etc. If such legislation were passed I might do what I could to promote its repeal in similar ways.
    Am I correct to conclude that you are being deliberately disrespectful by mocking my preference for freedom and by calling me “Mikey” or are only again trying to be cute?

    Like

  43. Mikey McD Avatar

    Our self interest is enough to protect resources.
    “So Mikey how do you enforce air and water standards without legal standards.”
    p.s. Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS (as do I).
    Paul, did you see my suggestion for a peaceful transition to ‘freedom in education’?
    Allow homeschooling and private schooling expenses to be credited towards taxes.

    Like

  44. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Kesti
    Mikey McD was the blogger I was referring to in the “organized rebellion” segment

    Like

  45. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Mikey
    You didn’t answer my question. How does “self interest” protection of resources work. You are worse than me in explaining the practical application of concepts. Give me an example of how I should deal with a neighbor that raises pigs that stink up my yard and a manufacturer that uses dangerous material in children’s toys. Also, an air polluting smelter. Those are three examples that might give a little substance to your statement.
    I can go for tax credits for private education and home schooling. This will not make me popular with some of my colleagues but hey, I’m a green libertarian.

    Like

  46. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    Oops. Mea culpa!

    Like

  47. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, my understanding can be summed up by the following time tested phrase “you can sheer a sheep many times, but lead them to the slaughter once.”
    Two of the ‘controls’ which protect resources in a free market are:
    1- managing resources is wise business practice (see quote above. A lumberjack who cuts down every tree on his property will only feed himself this year, if he manages his harvest he will have a career.
    2- A lumberjack who disregards the environment (in addition to limiting his income) should be boycotted by his customers. Customers control which businesses survive via ‘voting with their wallets.’ Such boycotts nearly killed Mitsubishi (and countless others) before they changed their practices.
    “How does “self interest” protection of resources work. ” Posted by: Paul Emery | 09 June 2011 at 04:19 PM
    Regarding the pigs/toys. Pigs take a ton of land to support them and residential areas are not good business choices. Also, each sub-division, neighborhood association can write their own agreed upon rules (swine is not allowed in my sub-division despite being agriculture in nature). Parents need to complete due diligence when they buy toys, food, etc.

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Thanks Mikey
    Should the government require safety labeling on said toys or is it up to every parent to do their own research on what they buy for their children? Do we have to wait till children become sick to establish information about safety. This is not a hypothetical situation. Here’s a case where poison was discovered by a U.S. agency. Under you’re Libertarian manifesto would you eliminate these kinds of commissions?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/world/asia/11china.html
    Everyone chime in on this, it’s not just between Mikey and I.
    I don’t agree with your take on logging. Most loggers historically have been rip and run types. You just need to look at the devastation to the rain forests in the Olympic Peninsula to see that, I know, I used to live in Washington. It was only after the State started issuing huge fines did they even clean up their mess so new trees could grow. Most of the private lands were stripped clean and the property owners got paid off by the loggers and didn’t care a bit about re growing trees and just slit leaving the mess behind. It’s better now because of regulations and now we have tree farms but that was not the original instinct of the loggers. I remember talking to a friend of mine who was a logger in Oregon and I asked him if the loggers would cut down every tree if they were able and not restricted by the law and he said “absolutely, every tree is cash in the pocket”

    Like

  49. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    You are hilarious “In 1956 my parents were raising four kids, two more came later, on a one income setup” That time frame was in the economy the labor movement, anti trust laws, banning corporate money from campaigns, and the new deal created. Since Reagan started the war on Unions and labor wages have remained stagnant for workers and exploded for the top 1/2 of 1% of income bracket.
    By the time the 50’s were rolling around the massive infrastructure projects, GI Bill, and incentives to reinvest capital back into entities where it was created created the largest strongest middle class in world history.
    Mickey,
    This started getting dismantled in Nixon/ Ford administration and the counter revolution or the Reagan revolution started us on the ideology that greed is good and we are seeing it played out to fruition.

    Like

Leave a comment