Re: OT libertarian demographics

[Guest guest]

As far as race goes, all of the leftist movements are all white too, with the

exception of anything headed by Al Sharpton or .

And I fail to see how, for example, a march against the prison-industrial

complex, is a white issue. Nevertheless, it's mostly white people in the march.

What you said makes perfect sense. Modern libertarianism flourishes most

among descendants of geographical areas where capitalism has flourished for

longer. This isn't purely cultural, but could be almost wholly attributable to

geographical characteristics-- I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel on this one.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/4/03 4:44:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> So I think our society makes it easy for some groups to succeed,

> and the ones that succeed just don't realize that the " system " is

> WHY they can succeed. They truly feel they are self-made. I always

> did (not male, but white and college educated).

Heidi,

I agree with everything you said, although I'd point out that I'd rather say

they *are* self-made in that if they did nothing they still wouldn't succeed.

I have to suggest Guns Germs and Steel again here. Diamond explains

how geography and biota determined the development of states and " progress " in

one continent versus another. He makes the point that it isn't environmental

determinism in that it's NOT a denial of human creativity. However, one person

in one environment with equal creativity will not come up with the same

results as another person in a different environment with equivalent creativity.

So successful people absolutely do succeed because of their own hard work and

creativity, but this says nothing of the ability of someone else under

different conditions to get the same result of " success " for the same hard work

and

creativity.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>my impression is that libertarianism (the conservative form that seems to

>predominate in the US today) *most* benefits white, educated, heterosexual

>middle-income males, which would be a reasonable assumption, *in part*

>because most libertarians ARE white, educated, heterosexual middle-income

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

>paradigm?

I've been thinking about it, partly in conjunction with another

discussion with someone who was talking about the Potato Famine

in Ireland. At the risk of fouling the " real " definition of liberarianism,

most libertarians I've heard from are basically " bootstrappers " -- " people

should be able to make it on their own: look at me, I did!!!! "

Now, in our society, a white male of reasonable intelligence really CAN

bootstrap themselves, and many do. The ones that fail are in fact

often lazy, drug-addicted, or have major emotional problems.

But take this in the context of an Irish potato farmer. He didn't own

his land, he had to give a big part of his harvest to the landowner,

and parts of it he was not allowed to eat. He couldn't hunt protein

to supplement his diet (venison was for the Lords). So was the reason

he was starving because he was lazy? Most of us would say the

system was stacked against him, but the Lords figured the peasants

were, in fact, lazy.

So I think our society makes it easy for some groups to succeed,

and the ones that succeed just don't realize that the " system " is

WHY they can succeed. They truly feel they are self-made. I always

did (not male, but white and college educated).

Until I had kids.

Then I go WOW! You really CANNOT WORK in our society and give

kids any kind of a good life. You have to rely on being married to

a guy with a GOOD JOB (union or college-educated) or quit and

work at home, which is what I did. So " Aid to women with dependent

children " suddenly made a lot more sense, as does the European

socialist idea of paying a parent to stay home for 3 years to raise

the kid. Kids raised by their parents bond with *adults*, they mature

better, and they are calmer, in my experience. And they get sick

less. And childcare eats up most of a salary, in many cases.

The economy we have is *stacked against* good child rearing

practices. A woman with little kids usually does not have the

option of being libertarian.

>. i

>don't know, but it's certainly VERY american to vault *individual's* rights

>and needs to an almost sacred sphere, certainly to a level not so common in

>parts of the world where the value of *community* and *family* are often

>sacred, and *individual* needs are less important. sorry that this may seem

>like a gross oversimplification, but it's the general idea that i'm trying

>to float out here, rather than to get mired in the myriad of complexities

>and nuances involved. so bear with me!

Exactly! Personally I don't like the idea of the " nuclear family " much --

well, I like MY family, but we have a lot of people " around " us (and

working here, in fact). We've divided people up into smaller and smaller

groups, no " clumps " , certainly not " clumps " where people are interdependent.

We need kefir-grain communities, not homogenized milk!

Now if we had a community, one or two of the women could watch

the kids and maybe do food prep, while others brought in

cash money or tended crops (Ditto for guys, but I'm concentrating

on kid issues, which usually falls on women to handle).

-- Heidi

[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. I really do not

know if this is true or not, but I do believe there are genetic

differences in men and women and between races. I don't know enough

to say risk aversion is one of these. I know even just sugesting

this is possible is very offensive to some, I have been to college!

However, in the end I believe government security is false security.

Its not that I don't like security, its just that voluntary groups or

organizations can provide a much better form security than

monopolistic and often corrupt brand of government security.

To bring this back to nutrition, if the government was not

responsible for nutrition in peoples' minds and in law, I believe

more people would seek out better information and independent groups

would form that did labeling. Yes, there would probably be more than

one label, but that is a good thing. There would be competition and

diverity of ideas. When you actually have competition I always

believe the best idea will win in the end. There could be a Native

Nutrition group that analyized and approved foods based on what they

thought was good criteria, not the pathetic one size fits all of the

fda. For God's sake, they are going to include trans fatty acid

content with saturated fat!

libertarians look at how the government does things (by force rather

than choice) and we see so much missed potential.

> the current discussion on libertarianism has piqued my interest in

the

> cultural/national/geographical origins of different political

viewpoints.

> it's something i've given a bit of thought to in the past, largely

because

> i've spent quite a bit of time in different cultures/communities so

have

> observed some very different worldviews, but until now i hadn't

given a lot

> of thought to the cultural/geographical origins of the current

conservative

> american libertarianism. 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%).

> these 1998 figures are from the " liberty magazine " poll, posted on

their

> website:

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

> (however, compared to the figures for 1988 there's a moderate

decrease in

> these percentages.)

>

> my impression is that libertarianism (the conservative form that

seems to

> predominate in the US today) *most* benefits white, educated,

heterosexual

> middle-income males, which would be a reasonable assumption, *in

part*

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

income

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

this

> paradigm?

>

> i'm fully aware that there are exceptions to the rule in that there

are

> white women, as well as women and men of other cultural/ethnic

origins,

> income levels, education levels, sexual orientation, etc. who are

> libertarians, albeit a small minority. and i'd imagine these

individuals

> would think libertarianism benefits them, as well. it would be

interesting

> to hear what someone who does not fit the majority profile of

libertarians

> thinks about the dominance of white males in this paradigm...

>

> david posted:

> > As indicates, " libertarian socialist "

> > is an oxymoron. Libertarianism places the individual and

> > his/her rights above the interest of the state, or any

> > other collective.

>

> related to david's statement above and the predominance of white

men in the

> libertarian camp, i was thinking that it seems like libertarianism

would be

> a political viewpoint most likely to arise in the US, or europe or

other

> countries where people of european descent dominate both

economically and

> politically. the reason being that much (or all) of asia and africa

(and

> other regions?) tend to have cultural traditions that put the needs

of the

> *community* (collective) above the needs of the *individual*. or,

in some

> cases, generally hold a much higher regard for the needs of the

community

> vs. the needs of the individual. i realize though that the waters

get murky

> when the community then becomes a state-run gov't, which may no

longer

> deserve the level of value put on *smaller*

communities/tribes/groups. i

> don't know, but it's certainly VERY american to vault

*individual's* rights

> and needs to an almost sacred sphere, certainly to a level not so

common in

> parts of the world where the value of *community* and *family* are

often

> sacred, and *individual* needs are less important. sorry that this

may seem

> like a gross oversimplification, but it's the general idea that i'm

trying

> to float out here, rather than to get mired in the myriad of

complexities

> and nuances involved. so bear with me!

>

> thoughts? comments?

>

>

>

> 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]

Well it doesn't surprise me. Libertarians seem to be of the opinion that we

have a level playing field in general in this country and that if someone

doesn't succeed it is because they don't deserve to. Although keep in mind

I am no expert in libertarian thought. 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. Again this is gross

generalization.

I heard of a wonderful experiment during a lecture. Sadly I do not think it

was published. However as an experimentor (the person giving the lecture

that I heard) went into a high school as a new teacher. The students in her

new class were all given name tags of various colors. The colors were

assigned at random. All the students knew was that they had this new

teacher and they were asked to wear the name tags for a week. However the

" teacher/experimentor " purposly called overwhelmingly on only those

students with red name tags and gave them positive feedback. She called

very little on the others and gave little feedback at all. After a few days

of this the " non-red " students were ready to revolt. They were absolutely

furious with the unfair treatment they were getting. Not terribly

surprising. The surprising thing was that the " red " students were totally

unaware of the favored treatment that they were getting and in fact did not

believe it until the experiment was revealed. All that they could see was

that they were working hard and were being rewarded which seemed just fine.

The point being that it seems part of the human condition that people are

so familiar with the advantages that they have that they are completely

unaware of them as being advantages.

Irene

At 10:59 AM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>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]

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]

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]

> We've divided people up into smaller and smaller

> groups, no " clumps " , certainly not " clumps " where people are

> interdependent.

> We need kefir-grain communities, not homogenized milk!

Just as it's easier to " control " milk that's been processed--easier to

ship etc--it's easier to control people when they've been processed and

separated out one from the other. When we have no natural support

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

us? And tell us that this is what we really want? It's the entire

underlying point of my website.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

Hi Heidi,

I am commenting to your post. I took a stab at only posting the parts I was

commenting to. I hope it is still readable.

Ireen

At 12:11 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

> >my impression is that libertarianism (the conservative form that seems to

> >predominate in the US today) *most* benefits white, educated, heterosexual

> >middle-income males, which would be a reasonable assumption, *in part*

> >because most libertarians ARE white, educated, heterosexual middle-income

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

> >paradigm?

>

>I've been thinking about it, partly in conjunction with another

>discussion with someone who was talking about the Potato Famine

>in Ireland. At the risk of fouling the " real " definition of liberarianism,

>most libertarians I've heard from are basically " bootstrappers " -- " people

>should be able to make it on their own: look at me, I did!!!! "

>

>Now, in our society, a white male of reasonable intelligence really CAN

>bootstrap themselves, and many do. The ones that fail are in fact

>often lazy, drug-addicted, or have major emotional problems.

-----This is my impression as well. I come from an immigrant working class

family but worked 15 years as a professional with professionals who came

from a more american middle class background. This was a very comman

attitude with them.

>But take this in the context of an Irish potato farmer. He didn't own

>his land, he had to give a big part of his harvest to the landowner,

>and parts of it he was not allowed to eat. He couldn't hunt protein

>to supplement his diet (venison was for the Lords). So was the reason

>he was starving because he was lazy? Most of us would say the

>system was stacked against him, but the Lords figured the peasants

>were, in fact, lazy.

>

>So I think our society makes it easy for some groups to succeed,

>and the ones that succeed just don't realize that the " system " is

>WHY they can succeed. They truly feel they are self-made. I always

>did (not male, but white and college educated).

>

>Until I had kids.

>

>Then I go WOW! You really CANNOT WORK in our society and give

>kids any kind of a good life. You have to rely on being married to

>a guy with a GOOD JOB (union or college-educated) or quit and

>work at home, which is what I did.

-------I am with you there. I quit my job and moved when I got married. I

had planned to find another job after taking a break for a few

months. Except I got pregnant and that was that!

>So " Aid to women with dependent

>children " suddenly made a lot more sense, as does the European

>socialist idea of paying a parent to stay home for 3 years to raise

>the kid. Kids raised by their parents bond with *adults*, they mature

>better, and they are calmer, in my experience. And they get sick

>less. And childcare eats up most of a salary, in many cases.

------I lived in europe for a year and in spite of the rampant socialism,

people I knew are not at all lazy. They are however a lot less fearful of

what might happen if they lost their job and health insurance.

>

[Guest guest]

>------I lived in europe for a year and in spite of the rampant socialism,

>people I knew are not at all lazy. They are however a lot less fearful of

>what might happen if they lost their job and health insurance.

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

[Guest guest]

>. However, one person

>in one environment with equal creativity will not come up with the same

>results as another person in a different environment with equivalent

creativity.

I agree, and I gotta get tha book ...

That also brings up the point: people have different brains. Our society right

now rewards a certain kind of creative/analytical brain, but not everyone has

that kind of brain. Very good people used to be very good farmers with no math

skills whatsoever! Nor could they read. But they were strong and worked hard.

Those folks can't find many good jobs today either.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

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]

> > >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]

>>>>As far as race goes, all of the leftist movements are all white too,

with the

exception of anything headed by Al Sharpton or .

----->not if you include the entire umbrella of left-leaning liberals,

including mainstream ones. aren't african americans and other non white

ethnic groups " over " represented on the left, and isn't the right

(especially the extreme right) dominated by white males?

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]

my impression is that libertarianism (the conservative form that seems to

>predominate in the US today) *most* benefits white, educated, heterosexual

>middle-income males, which would be a reasonable assumption, *in part*

>because most libertarians ARE white, educated, heterosexual middle-income

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

>paradigm?

>>>>I've been thinking about it, partly in conjunction with another

discussion with someone who was talking about the Potato Famine

in Ireland. At the risk of fouling the " real " definition of liberarianism,

most libertarians I've heard from are basically " bootstrappers " -- " people

should be able to make it on their own: look at me, I did!!!! "

--->right. waaaaay back in my college days i took a graduate course titled

" american racism " . one of the books the prof assigned was all about the

bootstrap argument. the ol' " look *i* did it, so you should be able to do it

too " argument that's totally void of context, as all or most of the

bootstrappers faced far fewer obstacles than those whom they chastised for

not being able to be equally " successful " within the same skewed system. i

don't remember the details of the case profiles, but it certainly made an

impression on me. i don't recall too many books from those days, after all!

LOL

>>>Now, in our society, a white male of reasonable intelligence really CAN

bootstrap themselves, and many do. The ones that fail are in fact

often lazy, drug-addicted, or have major emotional problems.

>>>So I think our society makes it easy for some groups to succeed,

and the ones that succeed just don't realize that the " system " is

WHY they can succeed. They truly feel they are self-made.

------>YES! precisely. there are exceptions, of course, as with everything.

IOW there are *some* barriers which *some* white males do face, *classism*

being one example, but simply *being* white in america comes with a plethora

of entitlements that many whites are still unaware of. when i was first told

this back in my early twenties, my first response was denial followed by a

heavy dose of guilt. it *really* took a paradigm shift for me to finally

realize and accept that it was true, and that was a hard-won realization.

but that's another story.

>. i

>don't know, but it's certainly VERY american to vault *individual's* rights

>and needs to an almost sacred sphere, certainly to a level not so common in

>parts of the world where the value of *community* and *family* are often

>sacred, and *individual* needs are less important. sorry that this may seem

>like a gross oversimplification, but it's the general idea that i'm trying

>to float out here, rather than to get mired in the myriad of complexities

>and nuances involved. so bear with me!

>>>>Exactly! Personally I don't like the idea of the " nuclear family "

much --

well, I like MY family, but we have a lot of people " around " us (and

working here, in fact). We've divided people up into smaller and smaller

groups, no " clumps " , certainly not " clumps " where people are interdependent.

We need kefir-grain communities, not homogenized milk!

---->LOL!

>>>Now if we had a community, one or two of the women could watch

the kids and maybe do food prep, while others brought in

cash money or tended crops (Ditto for guys, but I'm concentrating

on kid issues, which usually falls on women to handle).

---->sounds like a kibbutz :-)

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]

At 10:59 AM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>because most libertarians ARE white, educated, heterosexual middle-income

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

>paradigm?

>>>Well it doesn't surprise me. Libertarians seem to be of the opinion that

we

have a level playing field in general in this country and that if someone

doesn't succeed it is because they don't deserve to.

---->that's the impression i get as well. i think often people don't put

things into *context*, meaning that the access to power in this country is

quite stratified. it's not *only* the barriers of racism and sexism, of

course, as there are other barriers to economic success (power) such as

classism, ageism, heterosexism, etc. but the barriers of racism and sexism

have historically been extremely pronounced and have played a major role in

the poverty of women and non-white americans, which then gives these groups

an additional barrier of classism...oh, not to mention unequal access to

schools that actually have heat or books, or *rooms*, for that matter.

arguably the best book i ever read (NAPD aside) is jonathan kozol's

" " Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. " it

will change the way you see the world, especially in the case of people who

don't really think racism is still much of a force in america.

(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060976977/ref=lib_dp_TBCV/10

2-1546123-0868920?v=glance & s=books & vi=reader & img=17#reader-link)

>>>Although keep in mind

I am no expert in libertarian thought.

----->well, me either, obviously! LOL. but we're learning...

>>>The students in her

new class were all given name tags of various colors. The colors were

assigned at random. ... All that they could see was

that they were working hard and were being rewarded which seemed just fine.

The point being that it seems part of the human condition that people are

so familiar with the advantages that they have that they are completely

unaware of them as being advantages.

---->i would guess that's a takeoff on the classic " brown eye/blue eye "

experiment (http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9495/Jan30_95/eye.htm), in which

the same protocol was conducted, but using eye color to differentiate the

privileged and unprivileged groups. i think it was originally done in the

60's. and i think my sunday school teacher did it, as well.

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]

Quoting Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...>:

> arguably the best book i ever read (NAPD aside) is jonathan kozol's

> " " Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation. "

> it will change the way you see the world, especially in the case of

> people who don't really think racism is still much of a force in

> america.

Can you give a short version of the argument? I don't believe that it is,

and my interest hasn't exactly been piqued by the fact that the first two

reviews at Amazon contain gems like these:

" We need to fight the tax cuts that make these familes live in rat infested

housing and wait for 3 days in the emergency room to get treatment for AIDS

related illnesses. "

" Companies like Philip put ads in magazines touting their

contributions to community food banks, as if that's something to be proud

of. Hey, how about paying enough taxes so poor people can buy their own

food? "

--

Berg

bberg@...

[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????

Janice

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> Now, in our society, a white male of reasonable intelligence really CAN

> bootstrap themselves, and many do. The ones that fail are in fact

> often lazy, drug-addicted, or have major emotional problems.

This doesn't apply just to white males. In the United States, there is no

good excuse for anyone of sound mind and body not to make it into the

middle class by the time he's thirty. If, after ten or more years in the

work force, you don't have enough marketable skills to make $15+ per hour,

you're doing something wrong.

This is not to say that there is a " level playing field. " There isn't.

Poor, inner-city children are at a huge disadvantage. However, they can

succeed, and what they need to do so is not more government funding, but a

culture in which it is unacceptable to get bad grades, use drugs, drop out

of school, and get pregnant at the age of 15. The biggest advantage I've

had in life was not the fact that I'm a white and male, or that my parents

were middle-middle class, but that they taught me from an early age that

that sort of thing would not be tolerated.

By the way, I was a libertarian even back in high school, so it's not as

though I got a good job and then suddenly changed my worldview.

> So I think our society makes it easy for some groups to succeed,

> and the ones that succeed just don't realize that the " system " is

> WHY they can succeed. They truly feel they are self-made. I always

> did (not male, but white and college educated).

>

> Until I had kids.

>

> Then I go WOW! You really CANNOT WORK in our society and give

> kids any kind of a good life. You have to rely on being married to

> a guy with a GOOD JOB (union or college-educated) or quit and

> work at home, which is what I did. So " Aid to women with dependent

> children " suddenly made a lot more sense, as does the European

> socialist idea of paying a parent to stay home for 3 years to raise

> the kid. Kids raised by their parents bond with *adults*, they mature

> better, and they are calmer, in my experience. And they get sick

> less. And childcare eats up most of a salary, in many cases.

>

> The economy we have is *stacked against* good child rearing

> practices. A woman with little kids usually does not have the

> option of being libertarian.

You'll have to connect the dots for me, because I'm just not following the

logic. My mother was a libertarian when I and my sister were young, and she

remains one. She had to work, too, because my father didn't have a

particularly good job. When times were tough, we moved in with our

grandparents, and even after we got our own house, my grandparents often

babysat us. Tell me this: Would you rather have people dependent on the

state to help them take care of their children, or dependent upon their

extended families and neighbors?

For future reference, there's a very simple rule to follow when deciding

whether or not it's time to have children. If you can't afford to raise

them properly, then it's not time.

> Now if we had a community, one or two of the women could watch

> the kids and maybe do food prep, while others brought in

> cash money or tended crops (Ditto for guys, but I'm concentrating

> on kid issues, which usually falls on women to handle).

If you want to do that, then go ahead. The great thing about libertarian

societies is that they allow this sort of freedom. If you want to set up a

socialist microcosm in a libertarian country, no one's going to stop you.

On the other hand, try setting up a libertarian microcosm in a socialist

country and see how well that goes over.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

At 09:32 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>In the United States, there is no

>good excuse for anyone of sound mind and body not to make it into the

>middle class by the time he's thirty.

Just curious. What is the libertarian view of people who are not of sound

mind and body?

Irene

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> At 09:32 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

> >In the United States, there is no

> >good excuse for anyone of sound mind and body not to make it into the

> >middle class by the time he's thirty.

>

> Just curious. What is the libertarian view of people who are not of

sound

> mind and body?

I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to believe

without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

communities.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

> ------>if it were just a matter of " happenstance " then the poverty

rate of

> women and african americans (and especially african american women!),

for

> example, wouldn't be so disproportionate to our numbers in society. so

> either women and people of color:

>

> a) have a disproportionately high amount of " shortcomings " as compared

to

> white males,

Yes. This is the sad, politically-incorrect truth. The biggest problem

facing poor blacks and hispanics today is not racism, but the culture in

which they grow up. A culture in which dropping out of school and having

children out of wedlock is acceptable and academic success is denigrated

isn't going to produce a lot of fine, upstanding examples of human

beings. When 70% of births among black women are out of wedlock, then of

course they're going to have a higher poverty rate! Those who have risen

up out of poverty are usually able to do so because of strong positive

values instilled in them by their parents.

If racism were the primary factor, than one would expect Asians to be in

the same boat, but they have about the same per-capita income and a

substantially higher median income than whites, presumably because of

their cultural emphasis on academic achievement and family values.

> ----->in a *vacuum*, or in the context of a perfect country in which

there

> is nearly equal access to power for ALL citizens, this might be true.

but,

> in the context of nation where some folks are the bear and some are

the

> bear's lunch BY DESIGN, not by sheer randomness, it is morally

reprehensible

> NOT TO, imho.

I don't understand. Are you saying that that's the case here--that the

whole system is set up to keep certain people in poverty?

[Guest guest]

In other words, Tough luck Charlie!

At 10:11 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----

>From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> > At 09:32 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

> > >In the United States, there is no

> > >good excuse for anyone of sound mind and body not to make it into the

> > >middle class by the time he's thirty.

> >

> > Just curious. What is the libertarian view of people who are not of

>sound

> > mind and body?

>

>I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

>faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to believe

>without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

>have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

>communities.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If " Tough luck Charlie " is what that means to you, then I sincerely hope

that I am never in the unenviable position of having to rely on your

kindness and generosity for my survival.

Re: OT libertarian demographics

> In other words, Tough luck Charlie!

>

> At 10:11 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

> >----- Original Message -----

> >From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> > > At 09:32 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

> > > >In the United States, there is no

> > > >good excuse for anyone of sound mind and body not to make it into

the

> > > >middle class by the time he's thirty.

> > >

> > > Just curious. What is the libertarian view of people who are not

of

> >sound

> > > mind and body?

> >

> >I think I speak for most libertarians when I say that we have enough

> >faith in the kindness and generosity of ourselves and others to

believe

> >without doubt that those who truly cannot provide for themselves will

> >have their needs taken care of by their families, churches, and

> >communities.

[Guest guest]

>>>>Now if we had a community, one or two of the women could watch

>the kids and maybe do food prep, while others brought in

>cash money or tended crops (Ditto for guys, but I'm concentrating

>on kid issues, which usually falls on women to handle).

>

>---->sounds like a kibbutz :-)

Yeah, that's one of the idealistic goals of a kibbutz, but I worked with

a lady from one and given her description, I'd NEVER live there,

nor want my child living that way. She did not know her mother.

In my book, a kid should be carried by her Mom or relatives for the

first 6 months at least, and really close to her parents for a few years

after that. THEN she can start being socialized with other kids. But

Mom shouldn't be alone in a house cooking a meal waiting for Dad

either ... Mom should be doing stuff she normally does, " wearing " the baby.

I.e. the Continuum Concept, which is NOT a kibbutz. My coworker wasn't

really sure which woman was her Mom ... this is NOT bonding parenting.

-- Heidi