Re: OT libertarian demographics

September 5, 2003

>----->yep! have you ever heard of " gardiner's mutiple intelligences " ?

>intelligence manifests in many forms, and our society currently rewards the

>forms that are common to group in power. additionally, kids have different

>*learning* styles, and historically, schools only taught to one or two

>learning styles which was great for the portion of kids who learn best that

>way, but a disaster for the others who have different learning styles. in my

>grad school ed program, we had to learn to teach to the different styles.

Yep, I've heard of it and even scanned it, though I never read the

whole thing. My learning style is REALLY different from the norm,

so I do relate. Asperger folks aren't " the norm " or probably the group

in power, but we are very very useful. The best book on this is

fiction, and I'm not sure the guy who wrote it meant it to be an

analogy, but it is called " A Fire Upon the Deep " . In it, people

are turned into virtual " thinking machines " by a virus -- they

are very happy, but totally engrossed in their work and need

to be " managed " by caretakers to make sure they eat etc. It's about

as perfect an analogy of Asperger's as I've seen!

I don't think the Industrial Revolution would have happened

without Asperger's, nor the Computer Age. It is decidedly diet-related.

-- Heidi

September 5, 2003

>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.

Hmmm .. try reading " Nickle and Dimed " . What you say only holds true

for people with certain mental capabilities and background and certain

jobs. YOU are not " Joe Average " . And a single mother is DOOMED. I had

coworkers at Boeing (which is pretty forgiving as corporations go) and they

used up all their leave and vacation just doing doctor appts. and sick days

for their kids, and you can better believe they got no promotions.

There do exist very smart people who can beat the system. A lot of them

are in this group, beating the " food system " . But we are not average.

Can a society exist where " average " people can have a good life? Without

working 16 hour days?

-- Heidi

September 5, 2003

--- In , Irene Musiol <irene@q...>

wrote:

> 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 fact it is at the point of a gun; take not paying

those compulsory taxes to their logical end - prison or death.

Point is if people have a morality like you or I or Heidi that says

we need these things in an effort to support our women, children,

etc... then we as individuals should do that however when we compel

others to do the same against their own best judgement under the

thread of prison or worse as I said we've committed the greatest of

sins.

September 5, 2003

Its interesting in I both personally as participant and observer

gone round and round about this many times and what I realize every

time is that there is usually strong agreement on both sides that

there is a problem, the strong disagreement is in what to do about

it.

My question to those who don't agree with the " general " libertarian

position is this...

.... how can it be justified that a man or woman works and is

productive for themselves and their families and because of

their " good " behavior you feel that you or the government has some

right or stake to a portion of that productivity. I just don't get

this. I get the desire to help those less fortunate or who have

been done in by the so called " system " I get that completely but how

can you justify taking a good citizens productivity and

essentially " x " number of hours of their life for any reason. I

just don't see how this can be justified.

If I needed food I could not point a gun at my neighbor and say give

me $2.50 for a gallon of milk cuz my kid is starving. That would be

considered amoral, inappropriate and result in jail time. Why?

Because its generally considered unacceptable for an individual to

force another individual to act against their own accord.

But the whole non-libertarian " moral, help folks " basis is based

upon endorsing the government doing that very thing. As I've said

before I AGREE with supporting these folks who are less fortunate.

I AGREE. Sorry but I just don't get how we can justify helping

people by stealing from others.

This is a question of ultimate respect for a human being and his or

her right to his or her own life.

DMM

September 5, 2003

Actually it is just the opposite. I am one of those people you can count

on. But the truth is if you are alone and sick and have no means of support

there is not much out there to help you. Without any social programs life

would be a Dickens novel for these people. I mean how exactly would it

work? If you have no family, do you walk into a church and ask them

to give you food, shelter and medical care. And what do you mean by

community? How does one find this in their community?

Actually I really thought that Libertarians and a real plan not just

" faith " it would somehow work out for everyone. In other words the only

plan is tough luck Charlie. Or perhaps the belief if they were any good at

all there would be a community that would be willing to help.

Heidi is right about the book Nickle and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich. It is

an absolute eye opener.

Irene

At 11:56 PM 9/4/03, you wrote:

>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.

>

September 5, 2003

This is a string of replies within this thread to Suze, Heidi, ,

Irene, and Diane.

In a message dated 9/4/03 10:16:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> 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.

~~~This is all certainly true, but a valid libertarian argument would be that

government schooling is what causes blacks to be stuck with worse schools. A

semi-libertarian alternative is voucher programs, which would enormously

improve the situation and allow blacks, or anyone else, to go to whatever school

they want.

In my state, everyone effectively has equal access to the college/university

system, because they can go through a community college. I went to UMass the

year they dropped the racial affirmative action program, and the non-white

population plummeted enormously immediately. However, now that I'm back at

community college for a year, I see plenty of blacks and hispanics all around.

Anyone with a GED or high school diploma from the worst high school with no

running water can attend, and anyone who graduates with reasonable grades has

immediate no-questions-asked acceptance to any state four-year college or

university in MA. It's a less prestigious route, but if you want to get to the

finish

line, that's what it's there for.

Of course in the libertarian world there would be no community colleges.

Chris

_______________

Irene wrote:

" 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. "

~~~Assistant professors make fine money but I really don't see the issue, as

anyone has access to loans regardless of the money they make when they get

out.

_____________________

" 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? "

~~~How about getting rid of cigarette taxes so poor people can buy their own

food? The literal majority of cost in the $5-a-pack cigarettes we have out

here is tax, and a portion of the rest is increased cost from these idiot

lawsuits. Because rich white liberals who don't smoke don't give a damn if poor

people can eat.

__________________

Suze wrote: " ------>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,

OR

the system we live in rewards and maintains white male privilege.

"

~~~ I'd be interested to see

some statistics on the rate of economic advancement of blacks versus whites.

Because whites have been accumulating wealth longer and blacks started off

with less by the time *formal* barriers were broken down. So if blacks are

behind whites economically but are growing faster since the breakdown of formal

barriers, than that would affect the proper interpretation of the dynamics.

I've seen some black people argue, btw, that black people were advancing faster

before the breakdown of those barriers, however.

Chris

________

wrote: " 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. "

I think the traditional New England system had a lot of merit. If someone

couldn't work, the municipality (not the state or fed) paid a family to take

care of them for a year. There would be an auction, and the lowest bidder would

get to take the family. All of these people almost without exception were

mentally ill or physically handicapped, as there was simply no other reason *at

a

ll* not to be reasonably successfull and a property owner. If the people had

family, obviously the family would take care. This way there was a sense of

community, people were provided for, bureacracy was minimized, and there was no

sweeping poverty under the rug.

Chris

______________

Heidi wrote: " Hmmm .. try reading " Nickle and Dimed " . What you say only holds

true

for people with certain mental capabilities and background and certain

jobs. YOU are not " Joe Average " . And a single mother is DOOMED. I had

coworkers at Boeing (which is pretty forgiving as corporations go) and they

used up all their leave and vacation just doing doctor appts. and sick days

for their kids, and you can better believe they got no promotions. "

~~~ Heidi, while I empathize with the plight of single mothers and am the

child of one this is simply not true at all. I am a graduate of a community

college and there are single mothers all over the place. Any of these women if

they work hard enough can get as far in school as they want. Many of these

single moms go off to UMass after they graduate, which is why UMass has day

care,

as well as a plethora of private day care centers in the area. Ideally,

people have families, and the grandparents take care of the kids while the mom

is

working or schooling. Where the heck are people's families anyway???

Chris

_________

Heidi wrote: " Right. But everyone I've KNOWN who has gotten a loan, got a

taxpayer-funded

loan, and the payback rate isn't great. "

~~~ This is true. The loans available are generally facilitated by the

state in some way, but are not all subsidized. They are all very low interest,

since I've been in college anyway, and the difference is unsubsidized loans

accumulate interest immediately instead of after you graduate.

For " profitable " jobs there will always be people willing to give loans.

While the arts and humanities would presumably suffer since they are not

profitable, there are a crapload of rich artists that would presumably come to

the re

scue in such a situation, to found charitable foundations for liberal arts

scholarships.

Heidi also wrote: " Now in Sweden, for instance, if you passed a test that

said you were smart

enough to be a doctor, you could go to doctor school, and not have loans

at all. Which leads to lower medical costs. So it is a cost-effective

solution

to affordable medical care. Doctors get paid less, but they don't have loans

to pay back. "

~~~ According to a Swedish radical leftist I've had internet communication

with several years ago, Sweden also has a major shortage of doctors. Don't know

if this is still the case. Might be that doctors simply don't get paid

enough out there.

_________________

Suze wrote : " ---------------->brandon, this is completely and utterly false,

but a

pretty*common* misconception, so i'm not surprised to see it crop up here.

the notion that african american culture (i can't speak to hispanic culture

not having enough knowledge of it to do so) carte blanche " denigrates "

academic success is just plain wrong. in fact, historically, one of the core

values of african american culture has been *education*, along with the core

values of family and community. historically, and currently *many* african

americans have gone to *extreme* lengths to get an education. "

~~~Suze, while I respect your opinion as someone who has spent much more time

than me in African American communities, I've seen numerous black people in

addition to white anti-racist activists that have spent very much time in said

communities, say that it is basically a universally familiar concept among

black communities that blacks who do good in school are " trying to be white. "

Obviously if blacks who do well are denigrated by other blacks, there are

plenty of blacks trying very hard to do well, in addition to plenty of blacks

denigrating them. And yes, this concept of " trying to be white " is an example

of

how oppressed people interacting with a racially stratified society have

internalized harmful values, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is* a

_cultural_ problem with a _cultural_ solution. Blacks aren't afraid to tell

other

blacks that, and maybe it isn't polite for white folks to say it, but it's

true.

Suze also wrote: " so welfare and having children out of

wedlock (at least for a number of the poor, urban african american women

i've known) seems like a reasonable alternative "

~~~ So you are saying people consciously decide to have babies out of wedlock

so they can get welfare??? I would think the babies come first, then the

decision to go on welfare. I think you've accidentally made the point though

that in a libertarian society there would be much more incentive to not have

children out of wedlock.

Chris

_______________

Diane wrote: " One reason that alot of white middle class males are

libertarians may just be

because they are more optimistic that such a system could be brought about.

Most gays I know agree that libertarian views are the best for society, but

are

very pessimistic that government could ever be removed from our lives. "

~~~ Really? What is it about anti-sodomy laws that ever gave gays the

impression the government wasn't on their side? ;-)

Chris

________

[/End]

September 5, 2003

I have plenty of ideas as to how that help happens however my ideas

for that are all irrelevant as it pertains to my question.

Do you teach your children that if things don't go their way that

they should violate their own moral and ethical code in order to

make things better for themselves?

Probably not. So why with this as a most basic ethical code is it

simply ok to violate just because we are to lazy to come up with a

non violating idea?

The point is this approach of " lets do it because we don't have a

better way " is a violation of the most basic fundamental moral

tennets I can imagine.

Instead lets start with yes these people need help and we are going

to find a way to help them come hell or high water however NO WAY

are we going to violate others in order to get them helped. Even

the people who need the help who have even a shred of pride would

agree.

> >As I've said

> >before I AGREE with supporting these folks who are less fortunate.

> >I AGREE. Sorry but I just don't get how we can justify helping

> >people by stealing from others.

>

September 5, 2003

> That is it in a nutshell: individualism vs. " the tribe " .

> Imagine you were living in a group of 50 people out

> in the Plains somewhere, in an Indian tribe. The warriors

> are strong and have horses. The elders sit around a lot.

> The women search for food and tan hides. The kids play.

> If someone is lacking a foot, or is blind, they do

> what they can to help out, which might not be much.

> If food is scarce, such people may in fact be left to

> starve, but in general the practice seems to have been

> that everyone shared what they had. The medicine doctor

> did not refuse to treat people who couldn't pay him.

>

> Now, no one tells the horseless women " you should go

> hunt! Why should I bring YOU buffalo when you are too

> lazy to earn a horse or learn to ride! " . No one suggests

> the elderly men starve because they are no longer useful.

> I'm not suggesting communism here, but the point is

> that the emphasis is not on " one person earning their way "

> nor " forcing others to support them " . In a true community,

> everyone supports everyone, and in most of those communities,

> an " individualist " is regarded with the same fondness as

> we regard sociopaths in our society.

=====================I don't disagree with you at all Heidi, but in

the community you just described a) nobody is there for any other

reason than they choose to. (not to mention there probably wasn't

many other places to go ;-) and b)EVERY SINGLE PERSON knows their

role and is willing to play it. The so called community you just

described definitely is no " level playing field " .

>

> In a tribe, there was in fact little freedom to do something

> other than what the tribe was doing. Culture was mandated,

> and people who were TOO different might be cast out or

> punished ... though in general people didn't think to

> be too different or to rebel because that's the only system

> they knew, and there was a LOT of social support for conforming.

> If a guy wouldn't hunt, he'd be ridiculed, and a lazy woman

> who tanned hides sloppily didn't get praised and was

> gossiped about and lost social status.

=============Again I agree. In our culture lazy guys get a welfare

check and food stamps and a lazy woman goes and finds a lazy guy

with welfare and food stamps.

>

> So were those people committing the most greivous sin

> by " forcing " everyone to help the least-able members of

> the tribe? I would say not. I would say that algorithm was

> the " normal " way humans lived for a long time. Now we

> are trying to adapt that to much, much larger groups.

> European-style socialism is the closest anyone has

> come. It takes some resources away from those who

> have more (not ALL their resources, and the system costs

> less than our military, which is also non-voluntarily

> supported) and supports the old, infirm, children,

> and jobless, and makes sure everyone can get medical

> care. It makes for a kinder society with few homeless

> people.

>

> Libertarianism is more like the Old West --

> each individual out there with his/her gun trying

> to shoot down dinner and hopefully everyone helps

> out people who need helping, but since everyone

> lives alone there is little social constraint on

> a daily basis, so in fact very few people actually

> help out others, in fact the average white middle

> class person never SEES a lower-class person during

> the day unless that person is the maid at the hotel.

==================Your version of libertarianism is exactly that,

your version. Your discription couldn't be more inaccurate. Is

there something wrong with someone being a maid at a hotel? What is

wrong with being " lower class " as you describe it? I am by no means

at the top of the economic ladder there are those who " have more "

than me, does that make me " less than " them. This notion of a

pecking order or economic diversity being a " bad " thing is

ridiculous.

>

> -- Heidi

September 5, 2003

> > > >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.

> >

September 5, 2003

Irene you just ask a huge question that I am hesitant to answer A)

because it would take me an exceptionally long period of time to

address each issue and how it would be addressed. we're already

way off topic and this certainly would start this thread on its way

to the OT hall of fame. C) the amount of effort that would be

involved in debating each issue with every persons reply would be a

gargantuan task I'm not willing to under take ;-)

I'll attempt to answer in short...

As far as the Iraq issue an peoples objection you'd be correct.

Obviously the national military is a federal issue and certainly

would need to be paid for through gov't but not in the same demented

and warped way it is now. So your experience of gov't military

spending and what would be would be very different. Police, fire,

etc... would be left up to local municipalities as to whether they

were privatized or not. This would definitely NOT be a federal

issue but a state and local issue. A Libertarian view does not mean

no government and the rich get to say screw you to the poor losers.

Its a view that begins with Government is a necessary EVIL and

should be treated as such. Instead of when there's a problem,

issue, shortcoming, etc... and running to " mommy " (gov't) the gov't

is shackled to the floor and severly limited in its ability to act.

limited in scope and breadth. In turn you and I are

essentially " forced " to find a responsible, ethical solution to

whatever the issue. Whereas today Gov't is thought of as the first

place to go to help these " lower " folk. I think Bush's push for

more action and help from " faith based " organizations has a very

very very (emphasis on very) small tinge of this but instead its

just the governmentalization of churches. The tinge I refer to is

simply people in the private sector, real people like you and me

saying lets help these folks. Instead the general call is to " let

the gov't do it. "

As an old line once read a " governement BY the people " . We do not

have government by the people. I know of few if any people in this

country today who are happy with our government. Bush, Clinton,

, Ford, Regan whatever. I find most folk I speak with Dem,

Rep, Gree, Lib, Soc generally dissatisfied with the gov't.

> >Instead lets start with yes these people need help and we are

going

> >to find a way to help them come hell or high water however NO WAY

> >are we going to violate others in order to get them helped. Even

> >the people who need the help who have even a shred of pride would

> >agree.

>

September 5, 2003

----- 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.

---------------->brandon, this is completely and utterly false, but a

pretty*common* misconception, so i'm not surprised to see it crop up here.

the notion that african american culture (i can't speak to hispanic culture

not having enough knowledge of it to do so) carte blanche " denigrates "

academic success is just plain wrong. in fact, historically, one of the core

values of african american culture has been *education*, along with the core

values of family and community. historically, and currently *many* african

americans have gone to *extreme* lengths to get an education. i'm reminded

of one girl (who i think i saw in a documentary on american racism) who

lived in extreme rural poverty, was apparently malnourished, who lived in

essentially a shack with no electricity...who did her homework by

*moonlight.* my personal experience (having lived and/or worked in african

american communities for most of my adult life), plus my studies of african

american history, suggest that this girl's dedication to education has been

the norm throughout african american history, NOT the exception.

african american culture is no more monolithic than european american

(white) culture, so it is virtually impossible to cast a broad stroke and

say the african american community at large values having children out of

wedlock and denigrates education, despite how you interpret statistics. it

is not to say that these attitudes don't exist in some african american

communities, but there are a number issues that come into play here, and the

complexities of what makes people do what they do, or think what they think

is often difficult to understand...unless you've walked two miles in the

other person's moccasins, and even then...

before i continue, note i am not african american, and i cannot speak for

the african american community as a whole nor for any single individual. and

i'm sure there are african americans who might disagree with my perspective.

i can only speak from my own experience (as mentioned above) having lived,

worked, learned and/or taught in a number of african american communities

both urban and rural, middle income and poor, and among the educated elite,

working class and impoverished alike, as well as my studies of african

american history and culture in undergrad, grad school and on my own. that's

my disclaimer!

so, to continue...for those african american communities in which *some*

members may feel children out of wedlock is acceptable (which, i personally

feel is acceptable), and who deliberately chose not to participate in an

institution (the public school system in their community) that some may

perceive (sometimes accurately) as working *against* them within a larger

system that works against them...i think there are a number of factors at

work but the # one factor is...

POVERTY! especially over multiple generations. poverty is the #1 obstacle

facing poor african americans, imo. it's rare to find schools that even have

basic staples in many low income communities (including poor white

communities as well!), including books, teachers, and even classrooms, for

that matter, since, in most districts (that i'm aware of) the local tax base

pays for the public school...so unequal access to education is a reality for

the majority of kids living in poverty (of which black children are

disproportionately represented). jobs are often scarce in poor urban (and

rural) neighborhoods, and in many cases those needing jobs don't have the

proper training/education to fill the available positions. as well, many of

the available jobs are minimum wage. in addition to that, marriage is

penalized by the welfare system, so welfare and having children out of

wedlock (at least for a number of the poor, urban african american women

i've known) seems like a reasonable alternative. reminder, i'm only relating

my own experience/observations...clearly not all low-income african

americans feel this way, or are on welfare or view the public school system

as anything other than an important means to academic and economic success.

i'd like to add more, but i skipped to the next section and i'm out of time.

>>>>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.

----->oh, if only that was *all* it took!

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.

-------->the only way you could logically compare the economic situation of

asian americans and african americans is to do it in a vacuum - totally

remove it from the historically context in which it arose.

first, asians, as with virtually ALL immigrants other_than african

americans, have been VOLUNTARY immigrants to america. african americans

(with the exception of perhaps a small number of irish and british

indentured servants) were the only americans to be

*brought_to_this_country_by_FORCE, against their will, in shackles...at the

end of a gun, (very UNlibertarian of the slaveholders!). and by some

estimates, the middle passage (cross atlantic voyage), resulted in 20 to 30

million deaths. can you say " holocaust " ? no other immigrant group

experienced this. and the fact that africans sold other africans as slaves

or that slavery has been widely practiced worldwide by many cultures in no

way diminishes this unique experience of african americans, nor impacts the

resulting economic/political (power) disparities between black and white

americans and other immigrant groups.

so, the point is, that the histories of african and asian americans are

*completely* different, resulting in different economic opportunities for

the two communities. african americans *built* much of this country UNPAID

for approx. 400 years. had all or even most " freed " men been given the

promised 40 acres and a mule, not as " welfare " but rather as piss-poor

payment for 400 years of UNpaid labor, perhaps the economic inequities

between blacks, whites and other *voluntary* immigrant groups, might be

slightly less pronounced. but whites came to this country as *voluntary*

immigrants, and the many who enslaved africans, built fortunes on this free

labor, which they've passed down to generations of their kin, thus

increasing the economic and political power of whites as a group, which in

turn has increased the power of white-controlled institutions. conversely,

african americans, as a group, have historically never had wealth to pass

down to their heirs, even though they were the ones who actually *earned* it

in many cases, at least those who were enslaved. this is a unique situation

in american history. since asians did not have the same economic/political

history, came here as voluntary immigrants, sometimes with economic support

from families in their native countries, and often face fewer barriers to

economic success than do many african americans, the economic success of the

two communities cannot be compared as a means of saying, " look at this

immigrant community who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps...so why

can't the other one... "

bottom line is...the economic inequities between black and white americans

(as well as other voluntary immigrant communities) cannot be viewed outside

the historical context which_created_them. i think that is the fallacy that

i see in the libertarian " bootstrap " argument.

> ----->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?

-------->yes, or to at least make it MUCH more difficult for them to get out

of poverty. there a three levels of racism:

1) institutional

2) cultural

3) personal

numbers 1 and 2 are both *systemic*. it doesn't mean that it's necessarily

conscious and deliberate on behalf of individuals who support racist

institutions, for example, but whether it's conscious support or not, the

*result* is the same. and it is the *result*, not the *intention* that

matters.

there's a lot more i'd like to add, because i know i left out many other

factors that contribute to my refutation of what you perceive as

" shortcomings " of women, and black and hispanic americans which supposedly

contributes to our disproportionate representation among the poor, but this

is already a ridiculously long post and i only got about 3 hours sleep last

night, so am not feeling articulate enough to do it justice. i will say

though, that i'm not an " apologist " for *anyone* and i certainly believe

that everyone in this country should live up to their potential and work for

a living. and i also believe the welfare system has not been very effective,

and in many cases has probably done more harm than good. but the issues of

" race " , gender and poverty are a lot more complex than that, and i wanted to

point out at least a few of the complexities when discussing economic

disparities of opportunity that exist due to racism, sexism and poverty

(which often results from the former). and i didn't even get into areas like

the effect of poverty on health and nutrition, both of course which affect

every other aspect of our lives. will save that for another post.

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>

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

September 5, 2003

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

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

> Actually it is just the opposite. I am one of those people you can

count

> on.

I see. So it's not you--it's everyone else that's so greedy that they're

willing to let the handicapped starve. You say that Europeans love

paying 50-90% taxes; are they just better people than us Americans?

> But the truth is if you are alone and sick and have no means of

support

> there is not much out there to help you. Without any social programs

life

> would be a Dickens novel for these people. I mean how exactly would it

> work?

According to the United Way, per-capita charitable giving in the United

States was $651. In total, this is something like $175 billion, far in

excess of what is needed to support the truly needy. Furthermore,

charitable giving would go up considerably if people didn't have the

feeling that they'd already done their part by paying taxes (and the

extra disposable income wouldn't hurt, either).

The reason that you can't envision a replacement for government-run

" social programs " is that they've usurped the role and crowded out

private-sector equivalents. It's the same as with Europeans who don't

mind paying taxes--it's not that it's the best possible solution; it's

just that they've never known anything better.

Of course, private charities wouldn't operate in quite the same way as

government programs. For one, donors wouldn't tolerate waste or money

being spent on those capable of working but simply unwilling. They would

also demand results--such as programs that encourage people to get their

lives in order rather than becoming more and more dependent on others.

> If you have no family, do you walk into a church and ask them

> to give you food, shelter and medical care.

For food and shelter, yes, although it helps if you're a member of the

church. Aren't these services commonly performed by churches? They were

prior to these indispensible governmental programs. As for medical care,

pro-bono work on the part of doctors was actually quite common before

the socialization of medicine.

> And what do you mean by community?

Friends, neighbors, community associations, etc. How about the Salvation

Army?

> How does one find this in their community?

Again, our society has been so distorted by government intervention that

these things are just not as prominent nowadays as they should be, but

they are still there if you look.

> Actually I really thought that Libertarians and a real plan not just

> " faith " it would somehow work out for everyone.

We do, and it's much better than the leftist mantra of " throw other

people's money at it until it gets better. " That was the one-sentence

version. Now you see more. If that's not enough, I guess I can find

something more detailed.

> In other words the only plan is tough luck Charlie.

That's a willful distortion, and you know it.

> Or perhaps the belief if they were any good at

> all there would be a community that would be willing to help.

Yes! But you seem to disagree. Why is that? It it because you really do

think that they're truly worthless, or is it just because you think that

you're better than the rest of us?

September 5, 2003

Neither, it is because my experience is that there is not much social

structure out there to help people who are truly in need. Indeed do not

think I am better than you or than the welfare mother for that matter. On

the contrary, I feel that I am not immune to the social forces that can

place people in those situations. Nor is anyone else for that matter.

At 10:42 AM 9/5/03, you wrote:

>Yes! But you seem to disagree. Why is that? It it because you really do

>think that they're truly worthless, or is it just because you think that

>you're better than the rest of us?

September 5, 2003

In a message dated 9/5/03 4:40:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> i was only refuting brandon's

> assertion that women, african americans and hispanics don't succeed in

> school or succeed economically (as well as white males do) allegedly because

> we have a disproportionate number of " shortcomings " as compared to white

> males.

Well it's first totally false that women succeed less at school. There are

almost TWICE as many women in college than men, currently.

But for the same education, women do much more poorly economically and

career-wise. The reasons are up for debate-- true barriers, sexism, etc, are

certainly among them, but so are other issues, such as a greater proportion of

women

who voluntarily take more time off from work to engage in childrearing, etc.

I'm sure most sane people would recognize the contribution of both factors,

but the relative proportion they contribute is up for grabs. Also, even the

latter factor involves sexism in a way, in that mom's who take time off from

work are penalized in earning towards requirement, climbing the ladder, etc.

Actually, not women, but anyone who becomes a stay-at-home parent, which is

mostly women.

But as to non-whites who actually do suffer a severe disproportionate

under-representation in higher education (along with men, actually, but much

worse,

and to more detriment, since men are probably under-represented in college

because they have better access to higher paying jobs without education...) the

classic libertarian argument that *I've* seen is that

a) yes, there is some cultural shortcoming as *part* of the problem

but

this shortcoming is induced by government intervention

.... including the welfare system, which as far as I can tell is heavily

criticized by blacks, both political blacks and in black movies and black music.

> ---->well, there is also the charter school program.

I'm all for it.

I do support vouchers however, because they are the most effective and

*decentralized* form of " evaluation " of schools. The folks supporting

standardized

tests are always whining about how if we are going to pay for schools we need

to demand standards and have some way of evaluating them. Vouchers allow

*parents* to evaluate the school, and penalize or reward the school by bringing

their kids somewhere else or keeping them there. This way they don't completely

destroy any semblance of anything worth spending money on in the school

system, which is what standardized tests do (not to mention further penalize

blacks.) I would support these being used at charter schools and all forms of

education, including homeschooling and various variations thereof.

> the

> only variable that changed was a non-traditional (charter) school run by

> principals and teachers with very high expectations. which is a further

> refutation of the notion that poor urban black students " denigrate "

> education, or universally associate doing well in school to " trying to be

> white. " but i'll reply to that notion more below.

I really don't see how it refutes the notion, which isn't my invention, but

is my understanding based on what *black* people say. It simply supports the

idea that the other main barrier to black people is low expectations, which is

generally put forth by the same people who put forth the former idea. What it

does refute is that blacks are any less competent than whites at school and

shows all they need is an environment conducive to learning and people who

believe in them.

> ----->hahaha! you are replying to someone's book review on amazon. oh what

> the hell, since we've gone this far OT, why not? LOL ;-)

Exactly.

> ~~~ I'd be interested to see

> some statistics on the rate of economic advancement of blacks versus

> whites.

> Because whites have been accumulating wealth longer and blacks started off

> with less by the time *formal* barriers were broken down.

>

> ----->that might be true IF all " formal " barriers were broken down. there

> are still *extreme* barriers, some systemic by institutions and some not.

> much of the former *overt* racism of the first half of the last century (and

> previously) has morphed into *covert* racism in the last, about 3rd of the

> last century until the present. so why you may not *see* clear signs of

> racism such as jim crow laws, doesn't mean strong institutional barriers

> still don't exist. personally i think there are fewer barriers today than,

> say, 50 years ago. but there are folks who disagree with this assessment.

Well Suze, I meant formal as synonymous with overt. There are obviously

problems like redlining etc but I was referring to the explicit stuff. There

are

folks, black folks, who argue that blacks were doing much better progress when

those formal barriers were there, and I personally think it makes a lot of

sense, but I don't really have an opinion on it, as I haven't seen enough

evidence one way or the other, and am white, so don't really have much

experience to

make a judgment. Not to mention to young to remember Jim Crow ;-)

> I've seen numerous black people in

> addition to white anti-racist activists that have spent very much time in

> said

> communities, say that it is basically a universally familiar concept among

> black communities that blacks who do good in school are " trying to be

> white. "

>

> ----->this is simply not true. it IS a phenomenon, but by no means a

> *universal* one. although you wrote " universally familiar " concept, so i

> could agree that most african americans *today* would likely be aware_of the

> concept, but not all.

That's exactly what I meant when I said " universally familiar. " I watched a

black teacher, I think he was a college professor but I forget, a teacher of

some sort, who said he'd had this discussion with his black students

repeatedly, and he's had *two* students out of all of them who weren't familiar

with the

concept, and both of them grew up with middle class black parents in white

neighborhoods.

now, again it goes back to *context* - in certain

> school settings, this is more prevalent - particularly those that denigrate

> the student's culture and treat her/him as incompetent. but, for example, in

> some *afro-centric* schools, it's far from the truth, and is actually the

> reverse - where academic achievement is highly valued.

And don't those schools get better achievment? If they don't, then there

*must* be something that makes blacks inherently incompetent, which I find

impossible to believe. If they do, it just proves the point that it is one of

the

barriers blacks face. No?

i would say that's

> also the case in many conventional schools where teachers affirm their

> student's culture, and as individuals, and who hold high expectations for

> all their students. i think alot of it has to do with validation and

> affirmation of students - from my experience and observations, where ever

> the teachers and principals treat black children as incompetent and teach a

> euro-centric curriculum (which unfortunately is really common and which

> includes most schools i've worked in), the more of this " trying to be white "

> concept your likely to see. it's about " acting white " in a *white-centered*

> system. however, in schools where the teachers and principal have a great

> deal of respect for their students, have an inclusive curriculum, and high

> expectations, this is an anomaly, at least from my own experience, and from

> my readings about schools that are successful in educating black students.

This seems to me to be in complete agreement with what *I* was saying, seems

to be very similar to what black conservatives say, and seems to even have

similarities to what white libertarians say, though all previously mentioned

folks' opinions are obviously more important, with the exception of mine.

Chris

September 5, 2003

In a message dated 9/4/03 10:16:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> 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.

~~~This is all certainly true, but a valid libertarian argument would be

that

government schooling is what causes blacks to be stuck with worse schools.

----->and that may well be true. i wasn't refuting any libertarian argument

regarding school funding when i wrote that. i was only refuting brandon's

assertion that women, african americans and hispanics don't succeed in

school or succeed economically (as well as white males do) allegedly because

we have a disproportionate number of " shortcomings " as compared to white

males. i have no idea if that's a standard libertarian belief, but the

notion has been posted here twice in the past few days by libertarians. so,

if that's the position from which libertarians judge how and why some groups

have more economic success than others, then i would say it's a false

premise to begin with. and real solutions can't be developed starting from a

false premise.

>>>>A

semi-libertarian alternative is voucher programs, which would enormously

improve the situation and allow blacks, or anyone else, to go to whatever

school

they want.

---->well, there is also the charter school program. i did a portion of my

internship in a semi-religious all black charter school run by a local

minister. i was *very* excited about some of the charter schools in NY and

boston back in the mid-90s at that time as there are some extraordinary

charter schools in poor urban, often all black neighborhoods that are

turning out *very* high graduation rates with significantly more high

achieving students, in areas where neighboring schools have been failing

miserably. the kids are all the same - meaning the same demographic, the

only variable that changed was a non-traditional (charter) school run by

principals and teachers with very high expectations. which is a further

refutation of the notion that poor urban black students " denigrate "

education, or universally associate doing well in school to " trying to be

white. " but i'll reply to that notion more below.

" 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? "

~~~How about getting rid of cigarette taxes so poor people can buy their own

food? The literal majority of cost in the $5-a-pack cigarettes we have out

here is tax, and a portion of the rest is increased cost from these idiot

lawsuits. Because rich white liberals who don't smoke don't give a damn if

poor

people can eat.

----->hahaha! you are replying to someone's book review on amazon. oh what

the hell, since we've gone this far OT, why not? LOL ;-)

__________________

Suze wrote: " ------>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,

OR

the system we live in rewards and maintains white male privilege.

"

~~~ I'd be interested to see

some statistics on the rate of economic advancement of blacks versus

whites.

Because whites have been accumulating wealth longer and blacks started off

with less by the time *formal* barriers were broken down.

----->that might be true IF all " formal " barriers were broken down. there

are still *extreme* barriers, some systemic by institutions and some not.

much of the former *overt* racism of the first half of the last century (and

previously) has morphed into *covert* racism in the last, about 3rd of the

last century until the present. so why you may not *see* clear signs of

racism such as jim crow laws, doesn't mean strong institutional barriers

still don't exist. personally i think there are fewer barriers today than,

say, 50 years ago. but there are folks who disagree with this assessment.

Suze wrote : " ---------------->brandon, this is completely and utterly

false,

but a

pretty*common* misconception, so i'm not surprised to see it crop up here.

the notion that african american culture (i can't speak to hispanic culture

not having enough knowledge of it to do so) carte blanche " denigrates "

academic success is just plain wrong. in fact, historically, one of the core

values of african american culture has been *education*, along with the core

values of family and community. historically, and currently *many* african

americans have gone to *extreme* lengths to get an education. "

~~~Suze, while I respect your opinion as someone who has spent much more

time

than me in African American communities, I've seen numerous black people in

addition to white anti-racist activists that have spent very much time in

said

communities, say that it is basically a universally familiar concept among

black communities that blacks who do good in school are " trying to be

white. "

----->this is simply not true. it IS a phenomenon, but by no means a

*universal* one. although you wrote " universally familiar " concept, so i

could agree that most african americans *today* would likely be aware_of the

concept, but not all. now, again it goes back to *context* - in certain

school settings, this is more prevalent - particularly those that denigrate

the student's culture and treat her/him as incompetent. but, for example, in

some *afro-centric* schools, it's far from the truth, and is actually the

reverse - where academic achievement is highly valued. i would say that's

also the case in many conventional schools where teachers affirm their

student's culture, and as individuals, and who hold high expectations for

all their students. i think alot of it has to do with validation and

affirmation of students - from my experience and observations, where ever

the teachers and principals treat black children as incompetent and teach a

euro-centric curriculum (which unfortunately is really common and which

includes most schools i've worked in), the more of this " trying to be white "

concept your likely to see. it's about " acting white " in a *white-centered*

system. however, in schools where the teachers and principal have a great

deal of respect for their students, have an inclusive curriculum, and high

expectations, this is an anomaly, at least from my own experience, and from

my readings about schools that are successful in educating black students.

>>>Suze also wrote: " so welfare and having children out of

wedlock (at least for a number of the poor, urban african american women

i've known) seems like a reasonable alternative "

~~~ So you are saying people consciously decide to have babies out of

wedlock

so they can get welfare??? I would think the babies come first, then the

decision to go on welfare.

----->i think both scenarios are probably accurate to some extent.

>>>I think you've accidentally made the point though

that in a libertarian society there would be much more incentive to not have

children out of wedlock.

----->i would have to agree with that.

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>

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

September 6, 2003

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:59:30 -0400

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

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%).

This would pretty much describe the antagonists behind the American

Revolution as well. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

>

> 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?

Well last I checked most activist groups across the spectrum are

dominated by this kind of group.

Of course it might be a misnomer to describe most libertarians as

" activists " since most deplore politics as such.

Even groups that are largely portrayed as liberal, like black Americans,

are not. Most black Americans are what I would call instinctively

conservative, though not always self consciously so, but the media

appointed black leadership is most definitely to the left of things.

The history of black leadership in America is decidedly " conservative "

and even republican (note that I don't necessarily equate the two).

Which makes sense given their history in this country, that they would

instinctively be leery of gov't authority, and republicans at one time

had a reputation for limited gov't.

To bad no one told Marcia that, or rather too bad she didn't

listen to her jury consultant. Any libertarian worth his/her salt could

have told her that any group of people who had that kind of history with

with police authority, especially with the LAPD, would freak out at the

sound of a Mark Fuhrman.

I still remember watching his testimony, getting out of my chair and

telling my girlfriend " its over. They could have pictures of him in the

very act, but he won't be going to jail in this life. "

I'm not saying that is right, but that was the reality.

>

> 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...

Well let me introduce you to McElroy, one of my favorite

individualist feminist thinkers: http://www.zetetics.com/mac/

And then my favorite feminist fatale lesbian libertarian atheist, Camille

Paglia: http://www.salon.com/jan97/paglia970113.html

And then there is the black sage from south central LA, Larry Elder:

http://www.larryelder.com/

And lest we forget, Walter , the libertarian African American

economist who so profoundly influenced my thinking with his book, The

State Against Blacks: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

Now when he is hosting the Rush Limbaugh show, then its fun to listen

too. Which is really interesting, because Rush will *not* allow

libertarian debate on his show while he is hosting. That is one group of

folks he can't beat " with one hand tied behind his back " as he is so

fond of saying about liberals.

Now moving on :-)

The world has always been dominated by a dedicated minority. The

American Revolution was fought by men of means. And it was a small group

at that. And there was a small group who were loyalists to the British

empire. The vast majority of the folks were in the oblivious middle.

Contrary to romantic notions, most revolutions are waged by what we

would call the bourgeoisie, be it Marxism or Anarchism. These folks have

the time, energy, resources, and interest (however off target) to wage

such battles. When the American revolutionaries pledged their lives,

fortune and honor that was serious business. And many paid a horrendous

price.

Libertarianism, especially paleo-libertarianism, is spreading across the

globe in some of the darndest places. One of the top 500 websites in the

world (http://www.lewrockwell.com) and the top libertarian website is

paleo in orientation although libertarians of most stripes can be

found there. As such it is transcending the demographics mentioned above.

Liberty, genuine liberty, benefits everyone, regardless of what demographic

they fit in.

>

> 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.

Libertarianism, politically speaking, in no way vaults the one above

the many or the many above the one. What it does do is limit or remove

altogether the gov't role in the process. Beyond that, there is no

central blueprint for liberty. Libertarians are all over the place as to

what an ideal society would look like. In other words, you could have a

libertarian society where the many took precedence over the one.

There is nothing within libertarianism that would inherently do away

with the kind of communities you mention above.

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!

Bear with you? Is that an invitation or what? LOL!! It is the beer I

just drank!

Rights, as you posit them above, are actually quite foreign to most

modern libertarian thinking. I'll let you think through why that might

be, but I can think of a lot of libertarians who put a very high value

on community and family.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

September 6, 2003

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:42:01 -0700

Irene Musiol <irene@...> wrote:

>

> 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

Actually it works in both directions. People can become so comfortable

with their disadvantages that they no longer recognize them as such. And

when someone comes along with a message of liberation, they want to get

rid of him. Moses and the Jewish slaves in Egypt readily come to mind.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

September 6, 2003

This is true but seems much less common. Especially when you look at worker

and peasant revolts. Chiapas for example. Or the labor stikes in the US

earlier this century, and the civil rights movement. Most liberation comes

from within. Actually how does Moses and the Jews in egypt support your

point. I am not a biblical scholar, but I was not under the impression that

Moses had trouble convincing the Jews to leave slavery in Egypt.

Irene

At 11:01 PM 9/5/03, you wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:42:01 -0700

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

>

> >

> > 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

>

>Actually it works in both directions. People can become so comfortable

>with their disadvantages that they no longer recognize them as such. And

>when someone comes along with a message of liberation, they want to get

>rid of him. Moses and the Jewish slaves in Egypt readily come to mind.

>

>Science, Opiate of the Masses?

><http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html>http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/ree\

d9.html

>

September 6, 2003

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:42:32 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> 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

>

For a dissenting view on Guns, Germs, and Steel " geography as destiny

approach " you might want to check out http://tinyurl.com/mgkh. It is

also shows us that the Vikings gave us much more than cod liver oil -

but a society that was libertarian as well

Of course Diamond wants to argue that such was forced on them by

geography. IMO, even a cursory analysis shows the guy is trying to spit

into the wind.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

September 7, 2003

> i was only refuting brandon's

> assertion that women, african americans and hispanics don't succeed in

> school or succeed economically (as well as white males do) allegedly

because

> we have a disproportionate number of " shortcomings " as compared to white

> males.

>>>Well it's first totally false that women succeed less at school. There

are

almost TWICE as many women in college than men, currently.

------>i'm not sure if brandon intended to include *women* actually. i'm

guessing he didn't since he subsequently described the alleged shortcomings

of black and hispanic students...no mention of women. he can clear this up

if i'm remembering incorrectly. should've left it out of my response, since

i wasn't clear if he was including women.

> the

> only variable that changed was a non-traditional (charter) school run by

> principals and teachers with very high expectations. which is a further

> refutation of the notion that poor urban black students " denigrate "

> education, or universally associate doing well in school to " trying to be

> white. " but i'll reply to that notion more below.

>>>>I really don't see how it refutes the notion, which isn't my invention,

but

is my understanding based on what *black* people say. It simply supports

the

idea that the other main barrier to black people is low expectations, which

is

generally put forth by the same people who put forth the former idea.

----->because it points out that the " dengirating " of education, is not

actually a denigration of *education* per se, but rather the dengiration of

a certain *brand* of education in which the educators and school are

perceived (often accurately) as denigrating_the_students. so it is a logical

response. in a school where the students are not denigrated, but rather

valued and challenged, they typically *respond* to the education, rather

than rebel against it.

>>>> Not to mention to young to remember Jim Crow ;-)

----->as am i! LOL

now, again it goes back to *context* - in certain

> school settings, this is more prevalent - particularly those that

denigrate

> the student's culture and treat her/him as incompetent. but, for example,

in

> some *afro-centric* schools, it's far from the truth, and is actually the

> reverse - where academic achievement is highly valued.

>>>And don't those schools get better achievment?

----->yes, from the ones i've read about.

>>>>If they don't, then there

*must* be something that makes blacks inherently incompetent, which I find

impossible to believe. If they do, it just proves the point that it is one

of the

barriers blacks face. No?

------>yes, perhaps the primary education barrier. never mind no heat, no

classroom, no textbooks (also common in poor urban neighborhoods, where the

majority of black children attend school). the teacher is the pivotal player

in education.

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>

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

September 7, 2003

In a message dated 9/6/03 10:50:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> ----->because it points out that the " dengirating " of education, is not

> actually a denigration of *education* per se, but rather the dengiration of

> a certain *brand* of education in which the educators and school are

> perceived (often accurately) as denigrating_the_students. so it is a logical

> response. in a school where the students are not denigrated, but rather

> valued and challenged, they typically *respond* to the education, rather

> than rebel against it.

I disagree with this. I think rather what it shows is that the denigration

of education only takes place within an environment which denigrates the

students, rather than one which does not. If you believe that those who say

doing

well in school is " trying to be white " are *consciously* making this dichotomy

between possible learning situations, I find this rather implausible and in

any case you certainly haven't shown any evidence of it.

If you aren't saying that they consciously make this dichotomy, but rather

that whether the phenomenon arises depends on the interaction with the specific

environment, than I don't think you're " refuting " anything I said, but rather

echoing what I was trying to say when I wrote, " And yes, this concept of

" trying to be white " is an example of how oppressed people interacting with a

racially stratified society have internalized harmful values... "

> ------>yes, perhaps the primary education barrier. never mind no heat, no

> classroom, no textbooks (also common in poor urban neighborhoods, where the

> majority of black children attend school).

then I hardly see what you're " refuting. " I would " refute " you back, but I

can't find the disagreement. lol

the teacher is the pivotal player

> in education.

I don't know what you're saying here, but I think this is an accurate

description of a pathological phenomenon of our education system.

Chris

September 7, 2003

> > ----->because it points out that the " dengirating " of education,

is not

> > actually a denigration of *education* per se, but rather the

dengiration of

> > a certain *brand* of education in which the educators and school

are

> > perceived (often accurately) as denigrating_the_students. so it

is a logical

> > response. in a school where the students are not denigrated, but

rather

> > valued and challenged, they typically *respond* to the education,

rather

> > than rebel against it.

>

> I disagree with this. I think rather what it shows is that the

denigration

> of education only takes place within an environment which

denigrates the

> students, rather than one which does not.

----------->that's *exactly* what i said! you just re-stated it. LOL

If you believe that those who say doing

> well in school is " trying to be white " are *consciously* making

this dichotomy

> between possible learning situations, I find this rather

implausible and in

> any case you certainly haven't shown any evidence of it.

------>while i didn't make any mention of whether it's conscious or

subconscious phenomenon, i can say, ime, it can be one or the other

or a combo of both. it depends on a number of variables, but age is a

big one...with older students at the high school level being more

likely to consciously reject a system that rejects them. i'm not sure

if you're likely to find evidence similar to the scientific abstracts

we post here to support a nutritional theory, but perhaps there are

interviews with students somewhere that might fit into the " hard

evidence " category that would satisfy you. actually, i think some of

my books may this and may even include input from some students on

this issue, but i don't feel like sorting through all my books now!

LOL

>

> If you aren't saying that they consciously make this dichotomy, but

rather

> that whether the phenomenon arises depends on the interaction with

the specific

> environment, than I don't think you're " refuting " anything I said,

but rather

> echoing what I was trying to say when I wrote, " And yes, this

concept of

> " trying to be white " is an example of how oppressed people

interacting with a

> racially stratified society have internalized harmful values... "

>

> > ------>yes, perhaps the primary education barrier. never mind no

heat, no

> > classroom, no textbooks (also common in poor urban neighborhoods,

where the

> > majority of black children attend school).

>

> then I hardly see what you're " refuting. "

------->IIRC, i was refuting what *brandon* wrote originally.

I would " refute " you back, but I

> can't find the disagreement. lol

----->me either! and i don't remember what it was. LOL

>

> the teacher is the pivotal player

> > in education.

>

> I don't know what you're saying here, but I think this is an

accurate

> description of a pathological phenomenon of our education system.

>

------->i didn't consider myself a " pathological phenomenon " when i

was a teacher (turning my life upside down and working harder than i

ever have in my life to help my students succeed) and i've known a

number of teachers who've been the single best influence on a child's

life. my dad, for example, is a lifelong educator and has gone out of

his way to help " troubled " students whom the other teachers didn't

want to deal with over the years, even to the extent of having a

student who was having family troubles stay at my parents' home for a

while. he is the kind of teacher kids remember into adulthood. he

recently got a letter from a former student that explained to him

what a profound positive impact he had on him, for example. how does

that fit into the notion that a teacher's pivotal role in a child's

education is " pathological " ?

OTOH, i've known teachers who've had a horrendously negative impact

on some of their students. so, ime and opion, teachers being a

pivotal player in a student's life can either be phenomenally

important to the child's life and success, but for others be a very

negative impact. but i've seen/known about far too many circumstances

where teachers have made all the difference in their students' lives

to ever consider their role as " pathological " . although i understand

that your personal experience may not have been so good.

was Escalante a " pathological phenomenon " of the education

system? how about all the other teachers out there working themselves

to the bone to help their students succeed?

suze

September 8, 2003

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:13:44 -0400

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

> >>>>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.

>

> ----->mike, i don't think anyone's under the illusion that the " playing

> field " will ever be *perfectly* level, although it's certainly a worthy

> ideal to strive for. however, the issue is that some americans (sorry to be

> so ameri-centric you folks in other countries :-) face an *extreme* number

> of obstacles put before them by a system that was designed by and for a the

> group in power, and a system that was designed to maintain that

> demographic's power.

I disagree. First the idea of leveling the playing field usually means

doing something by legislative or bureaucratic fiat that supposedly

helps disadvantaged folk who have the deck stacked against them. No it

doesn't. It just creates a different playing field equally bumpy that

some people learn to manage and many don't. And the many who don't will

continue to blame the " system " because the field isn't " level "

Lets face it. In the whole history of the world, the field has never

been level. To give people the idea that their success or failure is

dependent on a level playing field does them a grave disservice in my

opinion.

There is no level playing field and the attempts to create one, however

imperfectly, only make the playing field even more bumpy by advantaging

some and disadvantaging others.

>

> it actually has nothing to do with the aptitude of the individual - which

> actually " blames " the individual for not succeeding in a stacked system, but

> has to do with the number of obstacles to power each of us faces.

Actually it has everything to do with the individual and his/her cultural

milieu and very little to do with a " stacked system. "

One of the greatest untold stories in modern times is that of Black

Americans. No group has come so far and so fast in such a short period

of time. No one. And I don't think anyone would argue that the deck

wasn't stacked against them.

But you don't hear about it. All you hear are the stories of people who

fell through the cracks. All you hear are the gut wrenching tales that

are not representative of the modern black experience.

It is rather politically incorrect to talk about the rising black middle

class. Black Americans have dramatically risen in wealth over the last

forty years. That rise began while some of the most obnoxious barriers

in our society were still in place. The black underclass is *not*

representative of Black America. It is a statistically unrepresentative

sample that seems nearly impervious to any change.

Having worked down in South Central LA in the five years I was living in

California, I can tell you it won't change unless there is a change in

mindset, which is a cultural issue, not an institutional one. You can

level the playing field all you want, if that were possible, and it

wouldn't make one hoot of a difference.

But the story of ethnic America goes far beyond Black America. Want some

genuine inspiration? Want to read about groups that have overcome some

of the darndest of odds and some of the most imposing challenges? Then

pick up a copy of Ethnic America by Sowell. He covers many of the

ethnic groups that make up what we now know as modern America.

Further, in some of his later work, he shows how various groups, no

matter where they end up in the world, and no matter how severe the

obstacles, tend to build a certain kind of success unique to them. That

is a product of culture, not environment. In other words, it is the

culture we bring to the environment that ultimately changes the

environment, and not vice-versa.

>

> >>>>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.

>

> ---->again, you are looking at the situation as if the people who face

> obstacles

> put_in_front_of_them_by_a_system_that_is_designed_to_reward_a_different_demo

> graphic, are somehow flawed. the issue is not *flawed individuals* who are

> simply too inept to succeed due to *their* flaws, but rather it's about a

> flawed *system*!

The " system " is designed to reward those who provide a service others

want. The more you do that the more you will be rewarded. That sometimes

is obscured when you are not self-employed but it is no less true. The

genius of the " system " is that it eventually overcomes any systemic

factors that might be blocking a particular person's way.

Having been an employer I can tell you that at the end of the day what

you most care about, regardless of your personal preferences, is whether

you will make a profit to stay in business. No profit, no business, and

*everyone* loses out. If I make a decision that is not profit oriented

that will only hurt me in the long run, because most assuredly my

competitor (s) will.

I remember a few years back when South African workers were lobbying for

a minimum wage for black workers. Why would these folks be doing such a

thing? Because the white laborer was being routinely underbid in the

market by the black laborer. And any employer who wants to stay in

business will hire inexpensive labor since that represents his greatest

overhead. Racism would cost him money, so he didn't do it.

But once the minimum wage laws were passed, the cost of discrimination

was lowered, thanks to the gov't who was supposedly helping out. The

employer now thinks, " if I have to pay everybody the same wage to start

then I might as well hire the people I prefer. " And that is exactly what

happened. The gov't has removed the cost of discrimination and the

employer acts accordingly.

Ethnic Americans all have unique skills and talents they bring to the

table. And over time, they are recognized and rewarded, as witness the

story of Black America as I mentioned above.

one that is controlled by the group in power and works to

> maintain dominance of the group in power. by taking the focus off the group

> in power and their institutions that uphold the status quo, and suggesting

> that those who can't seem to succeed within such a system have

> " shortcomings " , puts the " blame " so to speak, where it does not belong. in

> my experience, there's a remarkable number of folks who are not part of the

> power demographic, who posesss extraordinary skills and talents with which

> they could make profound contributions to our nation, if their time and

> energy were not used up trying to overcome all the obstacles in front of

> them.

Well that is a subjective evaluation on your part, which may very well

be true, but none of us can look inside the heart of a man or woman and

tell whether they have what it takes to make profound contributions to

our nation.

As it stands many *have* made profound contributions to America, in

spite of the obstacles, real or perceived. And it seems to me that the degree

of success you achieve is in direct proportion to the number of

obstacles you are willing and able to overcome.

>

> and to be sure, there are a number of individuals not belonging to the power

> demographic who DO succeed within the system, in part due to sheer

> perseverance, intelligence, savvy and/or hard work but also a bit of good

> fortune, imo.

A course this is true of anyone who succeeds, white or otherwise. But it is

funny how that " bit of good fortune " seems to come alongside many who

demonstrate " perseverance, intelligence, savvy and/or hard work. "

if perseverance, intelligence and the like were the *only*

> criteria, then white men, who are a numerical minority, wouldn't be

> overrepresented in positions of political and economic power and women and

> people of color (or whatever the respectful term de jour is [i missed the

> politically correct movement, so don't keep up with terminology]) wouldn't

> be underrepresented. unless of course, we are just stupid, lazy and

> incapable ;-)

The problem with this is that politics is not a measure of success for

most people period, white or otherwise. Politics under no circumstance

is subject to the discipline of the market. It is whole different

ballgame and really is not germane to the subject of success. Playing

the political game is not playing the game of life in any real sense. It

is a poor measure.

And what positions of *economic* power are you talking about?

Underepresented by what measure? According to whose standard? I will let

you answer that before I say anything else.

And women are a special case simply because most marry, have kids, and

leave the marketplace at least temporarily. Nearly every study I have

seen that takes such into account shows that a woman who does not leave

the marketplace and has the same educational attainments as a man, earns

nearly dollar for dollar what a man earns in that particular field.

The income difference studies remind me of the mortality studies that

get skewed because they don't take into account infant mortality.

>

> >>>> 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.

>

> ------>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,

>

> OR

>

> the system we live in rewards and maintains white male privilege.

or your idea about the poverty rate of African Americans and other

minorities is incorrect

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

September 8, 2003

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 22:18:54 -0700

" Berg " <bberg@...> wrote:

> 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.

Yes that is a problem, but the greater problem is when poor blacks with

dysfunctional cultures are indentified as representative of the black

community at large. I'm not saying you are doing that, since you

qualified the word black with poor, but in any case it most certainly is

not true.

Though often portrayed that way, Blacks are no more monolithic

culturally than any other group of folks.

Science, Opiate of the Masses?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed9.html

September 10, 2003

Regarding " government is us "

Given a monopoly media of 4, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine

(thank you Reagan and Bush and also thanks for quite literally giving

away radio licenses like candy), the 1991 obstacles the FCC put

forward to enforcement of all parts of Section 315 of the

Communications Act of 1937 that requires equal access of all

political candidates to media, the fact that instant runoff is still

just a dream in most places (watch how they try to stall it in San

Francisco just like they're trying to gut campaign finance reform),

and given the thereby effective monopoly of the two party system

(rather than the parliamentary system that is in effect in more

civilized nations):

I can say with some certainty that the government isn't me.

Nonetheless, I will fight to keep it, because it, and those few

services still in the public domain (namely fire, police, military,

Social Security, Medicare, parks, water, prisons, and public

schools), belongs to us. Whereas privatization belongs to..., well,

that's the fun of it. It belong to a loose group of stockholders

until they have to account for it or there's a problem like a big

blackout, in which case they want a bailout from nonstockholder

citizens plain and simple with no accountability, payback, or

interest. Of course all but fire, police, and military and Social

Security are currently on the auction block, but give them time.

I can't wait for the Aramark Navy or the Diebold National Guard. If

you want to invade, first wait for a layoff.

Government is kind of like having a dog that regularly goes and

visits the neighbors who provide him prime rib while all I can afford

is skirt steak. As long as he still comes home to me and ocassionally

barks when someone comes to the door, I'm not willing to give him

(that's give not sell) outright to the neighbors just yet, at least

not until I get a full reimbursement of everything I have spent so

far after depreciation, a promise to take care of my security and

companionship equivalently, and a little accountability and means of

redress for diminished service when they suddenly start feeding him

soy meal instead (because it's more efficient) and he dies on my

lawn. My apologies to actual dog owners.

in Berkeley

P.S. Dean on instant runnoff:

" If you want real campaign finance reform, here's what you've got to

do, and you have to do all three at once. You have to do public

financing of campaigns, you have to have instant runoff voting, so

Ralph Nader doesn't take the election away from Al Gore, although we

know it was really the Supreme Court that did that, and you've got to

have either a constitutional amendment or a better court that will

say free speech and political contributions are not the same thing.

We can do better than the FEC is doing right now, which is busy

gutting McCain/Feingold, which a lot of people right here worked very

hard for. "

http://www.fairvote.org/irv/vt2003/dean.htm

Sign In

Re: OT libertarian demographics

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity