Re: Re: OT libertarian demographics

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 3:52:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jzbozzi@...

writes:

> NOTE, he said these were mostly MIDDLE class men.

Middle class means the top 20% of income bracket minus the top 5%. So, the

more money you have, the more likely you are to be in the middle class, until

you get beyond a certain point that qualifies as " rich. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

I don't really think this is the case with libertarianism because libertarian

is a rather unique out-of-the-box position to take and in fact a lot of

libertarians are not the kind of folks who say " who cares " if some people win

and

others lose, but many are the kind who believe that government intervention in

the economy hurts poor people and helps rich people, and there's a lot of

truth to it.

I think Irene's point is excellent and completely valid in terms of white

middle class or whatever other advantaged position people will have and how they

won't even notice, male, not fat, etc etc, but I think that's more reflective

of folks who vote Republican than folks who vote libertarian.

My theory on the libertarianism is that it's an *alternative* philosophy, and

only people with a relative amount of privilege will bother dabbling in

alternative politics.

The PERFECT example of this is to look at LEFTIST fringe groups like the

Greens. Good luck finding blacks among them, even though they speak more to

" black " issues than the Democrats do. But I think most black people or poor

people

either don't vote, or if they do vote, they do it to get someone in office

instead of having fun or playing intellectual/philosophical games because they

care more about the here-and-now than the philosophy.

Chris

In a message dated 9/4/03 4:40:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@...

writes:

> Most of what you say I agree with. But the question was why would

> libertarians be populated with middle class white males, does anyone have

> an opinion. My opinion is that many middle class white males often don't

> see even what advantages they have had so are more likely to find the

> libertarian point of view more appealing. But that is certainly not limited

> to them. The comment was not meant to be a personal attack just a comment

> on the human condition. Of course there are many more factors involved in

> success than just economic status at birth. That is what is fascinating.

> The bottom line is what is an individual's view of various progams. I

> happen to think of public funding of higher education is an investment in

> our future. If I understand libertarian philosophy correctly they would see

> it as trying to " lift people up " and a bad thing. I think someone's opinion

> of this question would be heavily influenced by whether or not they could

> afford a higher education.

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 6:06:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> In socialist-leaning Europe, you can get doctor training

> if you are at the top of the class, regardless of your background.

> Here you can if you get the right scholarships, but it is a lot

> more piecemeal. But in a truly libertarian society, how would

> a poor kid afford college?

I don't understand. What do scholarships have to do with med school?

Whether you get scholarships or not determines whether you get out with a buck

sixty

in loans or not, not whether you get accepted. Presumably if you become a

doctor, you get paid enough to pay off your loans.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I was talking about middle class men also.

Irene

At 12:50 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>the statistics I have seen show the opposite of what you claim. the

>more wealth and advantages you have the more you are inclined towards

>socialist programs, rather than individualism.

>

>NOTE, he said these were mostly MIDDLE class men.

>

>

>If that is true then it makes sense

> > that those with the most advantages, mostly white heterosexual

>males, would

> > most likely be attracted to this type of philosophy.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Most of what you say I agree with. But the question was why would

libertarians be populated with middle class white males, does anyone have

an opinion. My opinion is that many middle class white males often don't

see even what advantages they have had so are more likely to find the

libertarian point of view more appealing. But that is certainly not limited

to them. The comment was not meant to be a personal attack just a comment

on the human condition. Of course there are many more factors involved in

success than just economic status at birth. That is what is fascinating.

The bottom line is what is an individual's view of various progams. I

happen to think of public funding of higher education is an investment in

our future. If I understand libertarian philosophy correctly they would see

it as trying to " lift people up " and a bad thing. I think someone's opinion

of this question would be heavily influenced by whether or not they could

afford a higher education.

Irene

At 01:09 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>Oh boy, I can't believe I'm biting on this one and I admittedly

>deserve whatever I get...

>

>The notion of a level playing field is a farce. Find one single

>place in the natural world where such a field exists. People,

>animals, insects, whatever are born with specific aptitudes, talents,

>faults, skills, looks, upside and downside. There is no such thing

>as a level playing field. I happen to be a white heterosexual male

>but I'm also 5'5 " - I can't dunk a basketball, reach the top of the

>cabinets in my home. In addition I have challenges in learning

>certain types of skills particularly ones involving mathematics. I

>could go on and on about my shortcomings but the point is that

>everyone falls short somewhere, some more than others. Some find

>themselves lavished in opportunity and some don't. You can find

>plenty of folk who " made it " from the hood and plenty who have

>crashed and burned from the " rich " part of town. I think on this

>issue the libertarians are right, people are dealt a certain hand via

>genetics, culture, happenstance, etc... and they need to be trusted

>to play their hand. Sure as a middle class white male I did have an

>easier time and had more advantages as a kid than a black, white,

>purple, blue or latino kid from the ghetto but that's how the

>universe works. For every kid I was more advantaged than there are

>plenty of kids who were far more advantaged than I. They had 2

>parents, plenty of money, private schools, etc... and they did

>nothing with their lives. Affluence and opportunity is one small

>piece of what makes a life's work. Would we all prefer that start?

>Probably. But its not even half the story. And I find it to be an

>insult to those who are not as " privileged " to suggest otherwise.

>Some people are CEO's, some people are ministers and priests, some

>people are mothers, some people are surgeons and some people are

>ditch diggers. And I just don't see how those who are less affluent

>should be thought of as " less than " . I don't see why we as a culture

>should be trying to " lift them up " . I think " they " for the most part

>find themselves pretty ok. Sure they'd like more, but EVERYONE would

>like more no matter what your station. Sometimes you're the bear and

>sometimes your the bear's lunch. To attempt to alter such things is

>a waste of energy and ultimately politically and culturally

>dangerous.

>

>

>

>

> > >because most libertarians ARE white, educated, heterosexual

>middle-income

> > >males. why? does anyone else have an opinion on why they dominate

>this

> > >paradigm?

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

> And I just don't see how those who are less affluent

>should be thought of as " less than " . I don't see why we as a culture

>should be trying to " lift them up " .

The bit about college says a lot. We happen to have a lot of programs

to help poor kids get into college ... and those were started

largely by folks with " socialist " leanings. A poor kid simply

can't get into a good college without good scholarships. A rich

kid can fail in college if he isn't motivated (and a lot of them

aren't, just because they grew up rich!).

In socialist-leaning Europe, you can get doctor training

if you are at the top of the class, regardless of your background.

Here you can if you get the right scholarships, but it is a lot

more piecemeal. But in a truly libertarian society, how would

a poor kid afford college?

BTW I know a very successful white guy who always talks

about how he got through college " on his own " -- well, his

folks paid the way and his siblings helped him study and

the state paid for most of his college. Now he's rather

Libertarian. So it's a hot button for me ... now he runs

his own business and raises a family ... with a wife and

nanny and employees doing most of the work, as it

happens ... A lot of " self made " men have a bevy of

people (often women) supporting them. Like the surgeon

gets credit for the surgery, but he has a team of nurses

and assistants around him/her the whole time!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 7:50:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@...

writes:

> Definitely a cultural difference (to put it tactfully). I have a european

> friend who completed a PhD in theology. Since theology is not a high

paying

> career I seriously doubt she could have afforded to do that here. I think

> it is sadly an american bias to think that a higher education is only

> valuable if it puts one into a high paying career.

How is theology not a high-paying career? University professors make loads

of money, even in the liberal arts.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 8:05:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, bberg@...

writes:

> - Sweden has benefitted tremendously from R & D funded by US consumers and

> taxpayers.

> - The US has maintained the world's largest and most expensive military.

> - The US faced down the Soviets in the cold war.

> - The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign aid.

Key word there is " tax payers. " Tons of R & D in this country is done by the

military, and then given off to private companies. The internet comes to mind.

So you are comparing US socialism to Swedish socialism.

You are also overlooking the fact that a good sum of the " foreign aid " money

is actually an investment in liberalizing foreign markets. For example, the

US's vote in the IMF is proportionate to its contribution, which would be

considered foreign aid, and the IMF gives those loans on condition of acceptance

of

structural adjustment programs which liberalize the foreign markets, allowing

greater access to US companies to both invest and pull out as they please,

and buy up, etc.

But the biggest thing you are overlooking is that most Swedes I'm sure don't

give a damn that they weren't able to have the world's largest military during

the time at which they were enjoying comparably comfortable lifestyles (and

much more comfortable for lots of people, given the income distribution).

Chris

[Guest guest]

>The problem lies in compelling citizens at the point of a gun or

>threat of jail that they must comply. This in my mind is a violation

>of the most immoral kind.

I would tend to agree, but who is doing this? The Swedes pay

higher taxes, maybe, but they get more vacation and

have a good lifestyle, they don't seem to be at the point

of a gun. I think their decisions have been ones that most

people buy into.

Personally I think society is dysfunctional at the moment ...

as Lynn astutely pointed out:

" When we have no natural support

systems we have to purchase them. And guess who's there to sell them to

us? "

Mothers SHOULD be able to have kids AND feel productive and

for most of history, they have, with no government support.

But that same mother can't do that today, nor can she support

her kids without a college-educated job. Now Ursula LeGuin

proposed several interesting alternative societies that might

work.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>I don't understand. What do scholarships have to do with med school?

>Whether you get scholarships or not determines whether you get out with a buck

sixty

>in loans or not, not whether you get accepted. Presumably if you become a

>doctor, you get paid enough to pay off your loans.

>

>Chris

The fact you can GET those loans has a lot to do with government though, right?

I guess I'm lumping loans in with scholarships ... both are anti-libertarian

concepts, I think. Or at least they tend to be promoted by a bunch of dogooders.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> > And I just don't see how those who are less affluent

> >should be thought of as " less than " . I don't see why we as a culture

> >should be trying to " lift them up " .

>

> The bit about college says a lot. We happen to have a lot of programs

> to help poor kids get into college ... and those were started

> largely by folks with " socialist " leanings. A poor kid simply

> can't get into a good college without good scholarships.

This isn't true. I'm not poor, but my parents didn't pay for college. I

went through on loans (and a small scholarship which accounted for about 10-

15% of my expenses). It was a state school, but I paid nonresident tuition.

I don't *like* having tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt, but it

was a pretty good deal overall, considering its effect on my lifetime

earning potential.

> A rich

> kid can fail in college if he isn't motivated (and a lot of them

> aren't, just because they grew up rich!).

To some extent, this is an advantage that those from lower- and middle-

class backgrounds have. If your parents are paying for college, you can

afford to flunk out and/or pursue a worthless degree. If you're paying for

school with loans, you're more likely to pursue a degree for which there is

actual market demand, and more likely to take it seriously.

> In socialist-leaning Europe, you can get doctor training

> if you are at the top of the class, regardless of your background.

Same deal here. A few months ago, I was talking to a professor who was

trying to talk me into going to law school, and he said that if you have

good grades it's fairly easy to get loans for law and medical school

because doctors and lawyers make so much money.

> BTW I know a very successful white guy who always talks

> about how he got through college " on his own " -- well, his

> folks paid the way and his siblings helped him study and

> the state paid for most of his college. Now he's rather

> Libertarian.

I know a very successful Chinese girl who told me about how she got through

college on her own. Her parents didn't think that girls should go to

college, so she ran away from home and worked her way through school

without any support from them. Now she's rather libertarian.

My father dropped out of college to play in a band. That never went

anywhere, and he eventually became a carpenter. A couple of years before I

left home, he started his own business, and now it's worth a few million

dollars. Now he's rather libertarian, too (actually, both of my parents

have been libertarians for as long as I can remember, even when we had to

sell our house and move in with my grandparents).

My paternal grandparents are both strong Republicans, despite (or because

of?) having lived through the Depression and some hard times later. The

less said about my aunts and uncles (although one pair has turned out all

right), the better, but they're all Democrats. Perhaps this is just a

coincidence, but every single one of them has been divorced (my parents are

still married, and as far as I know, this is the first time for both of

them).

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

This is a good point. Most western European societies have higher taxes and

much better services and none of it is at the point of a gun. In Europe

they mind the taxes less because of the services they get. In all the time

I have spent there I can't ever remember anyone complaining about high

taxes. It is also pointed out by the likes of Gore Vidal that Americans

also pay high taxes (particularly the middle class) although not as high as

europeans and get almost no services. That it is the distribution of the

tax money that is the problem here. Of course this opens up a whole other

can of worms of welfare mothers vs corporate welfare etc.

The point of a gun comment also brings up another point. There seems to be

a fear of many that either a single payer system or socialized medicine

would create a kind of medical fascism. Comply or else. But in spite of

various forms of socialized medicine in Europe (which sadly is changing in

some places) I don't think any of those countries have compulsory

vaccination programs. I might be mistaken but I think they are all

voluntary. Many countries there do have stricter laws controlling vitamines

but many alternative medical treatments are totally accepted and covered

such as massage and homeopathy. I know that Germany has at least one

alternative medicine cancer hospital which I doubt could exist here. This

of course varies by country and I don't have first hand knowledge of all

the systems. Anyway, my point is that corporate profit driven medicine

doesn't seem to give more freedom of choice. Not in my experience anyway.

Irene

At 03:53 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

> >The problem lies in compelling citizens at the point of a gun or

> >threat of jail that they must comply. This in my mind is a violation

> >of the most immoral kind.

>

>I would tend to agree, but who is doing this? The Swedes pay

>higher taxes, maybe, but they get more vacation and

>have a good lifestyle, they don't seem to be at the point

>of a gun. I think their decisions have been ones that most

>people buy into.

>

>Personally I think society is dysfunctional at the moment ...

>as Lynn astutely pointed out:

>

> " When we have no natural support

>systems we have to purchase them. And guess who's there to sell them to

>us? "

>

>Mothers SHOULD be able to have kids AND feel productive and

>for most of history, they have, with no government support.

>But that same mother can't do that today, nor can she support

>her kids without a college-educated job. Now Ursula LeGuin

>proposed several interesting alternative societies that might

>work.

>

>-- Heidi

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> The fact you can GET those loans has a lot to do with government though,

> right? I guess I'm lumping loans in with scholarships ... both are

> anti-libertarian concepts, I think. Or at least they tend to be promoted

> by a bunch of dogooders.

One of the most annoying fallacies I run into when trying to explain

libertarianism is the notion that because we oppose being forced to do

something, we must be opposed to doing it at all. This just isn't true.

We're not opposed to charity--it's just that we think that it's something

that should be left up to voluntary contributions from families,

communities, and churches.

Similarly, there's nothing antilibertarian about loans--just about taxpayer-

funded loans. People like to get a good return on their investments, and an

intelligent medical student is an excellent way to do so. The rates might

be a bit higher, and students perceived as riskier investments might be

unable to get loans, but that's not necessarily a bad thing--interest is

the market's way of allocating limited capital to those capable of putting

it to the best use, and it's not in the best interest of the student or

anyone else to lend him money for medical school if he's not going to

become a doctor.

Also, to some extent, this is a case of government solving a problem it

created. Thanks to government policies designed to encourage college

enrollment, there are too many people going to college these days, and it

drives up the price. Furthermore, colleges are wasting too much money on

nonessential (to put it tactfully) departments like

Women's/Black/Chicano/Queer/Asian/Canadian/Whiteness studies. The reason

that they can do this is that not enough of the cost is being borne by

students.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Quoting Irene Musiol <irene@...>:

> This is a good point. Most western European societies have higher

> taxes and much better services and none of it is at the point of

> a gun.

Move to Europe, don't pay your taxes, and see what happens. Sooner or

later, the guns will come. The fact that some Europeans are happy

socialists does not excuse the theft from those who are not. They are

there. I don't know many Europeans, but Lloyd Webber comes to mind

as one prominent European who has spoken out about his opposition to high

taxes. There was a supermodel a few years back who moved to a different

country to reduce her tax burden, too, I think.

One of the problems, though, is that they see all the good being done by

socialism, but none of the damage that's done. Over the past thirty years

or so, the rate of economic growth in Sweden has been approximately equal

to that in the US. This despite the fact that, during that time:

- Sweden has benefitted tremendously from R & D funded by US consumers and

taxpayers.

- The US has maintained the world's largest and most expensive military.

- The US faced down the Soviets in the cold war.

- The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign aid.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Definitely a cultural difference (to put it tactfully). I have a european

friend who completed a PhD in theology. Since theology is not a high paying

career I seriously doubt she could have afforded to do that here. I think

it is sadly an american bias to think that a higher education is only

valuable if it puts one into a high paying career.

Irene

At 04:35 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>Furthermore, colleges are wasting too much money on

>nonessential (to put it tactfully) departments like

>Women's/Black/Chicano/Queer/Asian/Canadian/Whiteness studies. The reason

>that they can do this is that not enough of the cost is being borne by

>students.

[Guest guest]

I don't get it. Why would I want to move to Europe and not pay my taxes? I

am sure euopean tax evaders would get into as much trouble as americans

would. But that is not the point. And although I am sure that there are

Europeans that not happy with the system, Europeans are no more monolythic

than Americans are. There was a post suggestng that Europeans are somehow

taxed to death agains their will or that having better services would cause

that situation here. Heidi posted that she didn't think this was true in

Sweden. So I posted that it has definitely not been my experience in

various European countries. In fact soon after we were married, my husband

and I were talking to a dutch friend about the " marriage penalty " . My

husband was complaining a bit. And the dutch friend commented that a

married couple with two incomes were in a better position to pay the tax.

So my point is that in my experience, the vast majority of Europeans,

(Supermodels not withstanding) are comfortable with the idea of public

money for the public good and do not feel unfairly taxed. (Perhaps it is

only my friends.) And although that is an anathema to many if not most

americans it certainly has not created a European police state nor a poor

standard of living there. In fact their standard of living is quite high.

I am not sure of what " damage done you are refering to. None of the points

you made regarding US spending have anything to do with the European

economic system as far as I can tell.

Irene

At 04:51 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>Quoting Irene Musiol <irene@...>:

>

> > This is a good point. Most western European societies have higher

> > taxes and much better services and none of it is at the point of

> > a gun.

>

>Move to Europe, don't pay your taxes, and see what happens. Sooner or

>later, the guns will come. The fact that some Europeans are happy

>socialists does not excuse the theft from those who are not. They are

>there. I don't know many Europeans, but Lloyd Webber comes to mind

>as one prominent European who has spoken out about his opposition to high

>taxes. There was a supermodel a few years back who moved to a different

>country to reduce her tax burden, too, I think.

>

>One of the problems, though, is that they see all the good being done by

>socialism, but none of the damage that's done. Over the past thirty years

>or so, the rate of economic growth in Sweden has been approximately equal

>to that in the US. This despite the fact that, during that time:

>

>- Sweden has benefitted tremendously from R & D funded by US consumers and

>taxpayers.

>- The US has maintained the world's largest and most expensive military.

>- The US faced down the Soviets in the cold war.

>- The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign aid.

>

>

>--

> Berg

>bberg@...

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quoting Irene Musiol <irene@...>:

> I don't get it. Why would I want to move to Europe and not pay my taxes?

As an experiment to prove that tax laws really are enforced at the point of

a gun.

> And although I am sure that there are Europeans that not happy with

> the system, Europeans are no more monolythic than Americans are.

Exactly.

> In fact soon after we were married, my husband

> and I were talking to a dutch friend about the " marriage penalty " . My

> husband was complaining a bit. And the dutch friend commented that a

> married couple with two incomes were in a better position to pay the tax.

How is that relevant? The sentiment expressed there seems to be that the

government should take as much money as people can afford.

> So my point is that in my experience, the vast majority of Europeans,

> (Supermodels not withstanding) are comfortable with the idea of public

> money for the public good and do not feel unfairly taxed.

But you just said that they weren't monolithic. It's not a matter of public

money being taken for public good--some people are having their money taken

away, under the threat of death or imprisonment, to support other people.

Doll it up all you like, but under the makeup and ribbons, it's muggery.

> In fact their standard of living is quite high.

So high that thousands of people die when the temperature breaks 100?

> I am not sure of what " damage done you are refering to. None of the

> points you made regarding US spending have anything to do with

> the European economic system as far as I can tell.

Sorry about that. I clicked the wrong button and it got sent early, but I

thought that the point would be clear anyway. Economic growth is fueled by

savings and investment. The US has been spending a significant portion of

its GDP every year on expenses which Sweden just doesn't have. Since Sweden

gets a free ride from US research and doesn't have those other expenses

that I mentioned, their economy should be growing much faster than ours.

Yes, they may be doing all right with socialism, in the sense that it

hasn't completely ruined them (although it is worth noting that the Germans

are considering scaling back the welfare state due to economic troubles)

but they should be doing much better.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

Well like it or not the vast majority do see it as public money for public

good although you may not see it that way. And if that is public mugging

then our taxation is public mugging as well because there are always things

government will spend money on that someone will disagree with so it is a

bit unfair to characterise the European system that way and not the

american system. Bottom line is that you might consider their system as

muggery and you have a right to your opinion but the vast majority of

Europeans do not. As Gore Vidal says, Europeans don't resent their taxes

like americans do because see tangible results. You are entitled to believe

that is a failed system but I do not and the Europeans that I know do not.

The reason my Dutch friend's comment is relevant because they are

comfortable with a progressive tax system. The more you make the higher a

percentage you pay. They believe that those who are able to pay more should

pay more. That is also an anathema here but not there.

The people dying of 100 degree heat is irrelevant. Europe doesn't

ordinarily have the extreme temperatures we see here. They simply do not

have the infrastructure to deal with it. I don't know of any homes there

that have airconditioning. In spite of our infrastructure there are always

people here that die in heat waves. But since airconditioning is common it

relatively few.

You are correct about the Germans scaling back their welfare system but it

is not because it is a failure. It is because they inherited East Germany

back and are trying to absorbe and integrate a country that was robbed

blind by the Russians and is an economic mess. That has put a tremendous

strain on their system and a huge political mess as well as they struggle

with how to handle it.

You are partly right, economic growth is fueled by savings, investment and

spending. Anybody's spending including the poor. If the poor have more

money, they spend it and that also contributes to the growth of the

economy. Somehow that part is always left out of the equation. As far as

whether the Swedish economy should be growing faster than it is. I don't

know about that. And I am afraid I don't currently know any Swedes that I

could ask. Actually I just remembered, I do have an old friend that is

currently living in Sweden but we have lost touch. If I find a way to

contact him I will get his take on it.

Cheers,

Irene

At 06:04 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>But you just said that they weren't monolithic. It's not a matter of public

>money being taken for public good--some people are having their money taken

>away, under the threat of death or imprisonment, to support other people.

>Doll it up all you like, but under the makeup and ribbons, it's muggery.

[Guest guest]

So how does this work in your life? Do you pay taxes, obey laws etc? Are

you 100% happy with our government? Just curious.

At 06:18 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>it does not matter to me if 99.9999% of the population is happy with

>the situation and just 1 single person in the country is not happy

>and would choose differently if they were allowed the choice. this

>is rule by mob.

>

>every single individual on the planet has the God given right to

>live their life in the manner they see fit. No person or group has

>the right to use force against someone to do do something against

>their will.

>

>That is the libertarian philosophy in 2 sentances. its actually

>very simple, one of the reasons I like it. life is not as

>complicated as we often make it. I find a lot of people agree with

>this philosophy, they just don't practice it.

>

>-Joe

>

>

>the vast majority of Europeans,

> > (Supermodels not withstanding) are comfortable with the idea of

>public

> > money for the public good and do not feel unfairly taxed.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>>Some libertarians have made the observation that people who are risk

averse seem to shy away from libertarianism and favor social programs

and so called protection from the government. Some have also made the

observation that women more risk averse than men.

---->well, either that's completely false, or i'm an anomaly, considering

the amount of risk (physical and emotional) that i've taken in my life. and

frankly, i know many other women who are anything BUT risk averse. however,

i'd be willing to bet that if risk-aversion *does* predominate among women,

that's it's likely due cultural expectations and influences, rather than any

inherent quality of women.

>>>>but I do believe there are genetic differences in men and women and

between races.

---->thomas, the notion that there are different *races*, is a *social*

construct, not a biological one. biologically, there is only one race - the

human race. this is widely accepted in scientific circles. the social

construct that divided humans into different racial groups was created to

justify slavery, and unfortunately, is still perpetuated by some folks

today.

as far as biological differences among human beings go, i believe they are

all or just about all morphological - rather superficial adaptations to

different environments. these morphological differences " divide " humans into

different *ethnicities*. however, biologically, all ethnicities belong to

the same race.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

She is not a University professor. And I think university professors only

make really good money if they have tenyor. (I realized just now I don't

know hwo to spell that!). And that takes much time and luck! They usually

spend years as assistant professors and associate professors before

becoming full professors if ever. She has a job working for the church.

They have state religion in Germany.

At 07:04 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>In a message dated 9/4/03 7:50:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, irene@...

>writes:

>

> > Definitely a cultural difference (to put it tactfully). I have a european

> > friend who completed a PhD in theology. Since theology is not a high

>paying

> > career I seriously doubt she could have afforded to do that here. I think

> > it is sadly an american bias to think that a higher education is only

> > valuable if it puts one into a high paying career.

>

>How is theology not a high-paying career? University professors make loads

>of money, even in the liberal arts.

>

>Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Switzerland was much the same way. Friendlier lifestyle, but

> I don't think people are naturally " lazy " , they LIKE to work.

> Shoot, most retirees I know are volunteering like mad

> or joining groups -- they could sit at home all day but

> they don't. Mothers with young kids are not " lazy " for

> not wanting to work ... sheesh, taking care of young

> kids IS full time work.

>

> -- Heidi

>>>>Now Heidi, admitt it, being a mother of young kids as you say, don't

you find that most of your day you just sit around and eat those bon

bons?

>>>>Coming from a mother of 3 little kids at one time. The best

questions I think was, what do you do all day anyway????

-------->chat on email lists?

;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

Re: OT libertarian demographics

> Switzerland was much the same way. Friendlier lifestyle, but

> I don't think people are naturally " lazy " , they LIKE to work.

> Shoot, most retirees I know are volunteering like mad

> or joining groups -- they could sit at home all day but

> they don't. Mothers with young kids are not " lazy " for

> not wanting to work ... sheesh, taking care of young

> kids IS full time work.

>

> -- Heidi

Now Heidi, admitt it, being a mother of young kids as you say, don't

you find that most of your day you just sit around and eat those bon

bons?

Coming from a mother of 3 little kids at one time. The best

questions I think was, what do you do all day anyway????

Janice

[Guest guest]

Does this also extend to funding the military, police force, fire

department etc?

At 10:17 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>The crux of the issue is this: If people don't care about something enough

>to fund it voluntarily, then why should they be forced to pay for it?

[Guest guest]

Quoth Suze:

> It is interesting that, according to a poll by liberty magazine,

> the vast majority of people in the US who call themselves

> libertarians are white (95%) heterosexual (90%) males (90%) who

> are in monogamous relationship (70%), have a college degree (71%),

> are middle to upper-middle income (72%) and do *not* belong to

> a community group (74%).

Here's the link again:

http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/features/72demographics.html

First of all, from the figures on general population that I'm pulling out

of thin air, but which I'm guessing are more or less correct, homosexuals

and bisexuals are significantly overrepresented among libertarians, which

makes sense, and I don't think that those in monogamous relationships are

heavily overrepresented, either (although this is not actually what the

question was).

You may disagree, but I think that there is a direct causal link between

being more intelligent/educated and being a libertarian. Income, as well,

is roughly correlated with intelligence and education, so I would expect

those with higher incomes to be overrepresented among libertarians. Also,

people in their prime earning years are overrepresented, which would drive

up the average income.

As for women, I don't know. Single women, especially single mothers,

definitely tend to lean towards leftist politics, but married women, I

think, tend to be split more or less evenly between right and left, so your

explanation that they're turned off by the libertarians' economic program

doesn't hold water. It could be that women are simply less likely to have

enough interest in politics to investigate alternative movements like

libertarianism.

As for why libertarianism is white-dominated, part of it is that, as Chris

said, most alternative political groups are white-dominated, but I think

that this is a particularly true of libertarians because of the persistent

leftist big lie which states that minorities cannot and will not succeed

without government help.

There is, I think, a kernel of truth in your explanation. It's not that

white, middle class males will benefit the most from libertarianism--in

reality the poor would benefit the most, at least in the long run. However,

for the upper and middle classes, the benefits are much more obvious. Last

year, I spent as much money on taxes as I did on everything else put

together. I assure you that I am not getting my money's worth. Sure, there

were some services worth paying good money for, but the actual value

differed from the price by a factor of about ten. If we go libertarian, I

benefit immediately from the tax cut, and then the rapid economic growth

and rising standard of living are gravy. On the other hand, the poor don't

pay much, if anything, in taxes, so they don't see the immediate benefit,

and they also don't see the rising tide that will lift them out of poverty

(they do, however, hear shameless leftist demagogues telling them that tax

cuts are what's keeping them poor). They get the greater benefit in the

long run, but if they were perceptive enough to see that, then they

probably wouldn't be poor.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>I know a very successful Chinese girl who told me about how she got through

>college on her own. Her parents didn't think that girls should go to

>college, so she ran away from home and worked her way through school

>without any support from them. Now she's rather libertarian.

As did I. I got through college with no support and I got into a good

paying job. And I was libertarian. Until I had kids! Did this Chinese

girl have children? Also, it is quite easy to " work your way " through

state schools (which I did), but they are supported BY THE STATE.

Private schools are much, much harder.

I do know some rather " bootstrapping " Asians but they all live

in tight family groups (usually in the same house!). They often

own their own businesses, so the kids can come to work. One

in particular was my roommate. He came to this country to

" start a business " . His family paid for the business, and sent

him clothes from their clothing factory in Hong Kong. I suspect

he was successful, but it is a testament to having a good " group "

to support you!

-- Heidi