drose (and everyone else!)-
Hey there!
On 6/10/99 at 7:25 PM -0500, drose wrote:
> It's softball season and I've been busier than a one-legged cat in a
> sandbox, but I've wanted to finish out this thread and now I have the
> opportunity.
I'm so glad that you did! I think there we have more in common in our view
of what is right than we might in how that view should be promulgated...
> First, Mark, let me congratulate you. I wish I could have stayed home
> with my kids. I was better suited to the workplace than my wife.
Thank you...let me congratulate you and your wife in not falling completely
into the two-income trap. Before I offend anyone, my wife and I are in that
trap even though I stay at home...we're in it to pay for her education and
we plan on getting out of it one way or another sooner rather than later.
Also, thank you for posting a reply...
> The bill, like the police officer bill before it, is a grant program
I really wasn't trying to discuss the quality of the bill, but rather the
fact that it was federal and did address education. I agree that the
framework of unsecured grants is not ideal.
> And the tax break is totally meaningless if you are not willing to do
> the right thing without it!
That is not completely true. Government has an effect on behavior because
not everyone acts on the intellectual level all of the time. Why else would
parenting and working and pride fall into disrepute? The government
subsidized the wrong things. Parenting would seem, to me at least, be a
biological/social interaction.
Also, please remember that, in my model, this was a *temporary corrective*
measure in order to redefine society's priorities (seems a little like
affirmative action for parents). Only society can do that. This was also
based on the absurd tax system being a given. I would prefer a flat tax
system with no breaks or penalties and an artificial floor.
One important part in this was to stop rewarding people for bad behavior.
If you do that, the wrong should right itself...it will just take longer.
> But raising your child correctly is still the right thing to do - and
> the state has not empowered you to do it. You already have that power.
Yes, but the state and society can *encourage* me not to use that power,
instead to go with the static patterns of society, through TV, press,
church, tax codes, laws, etc. I'm saying (now at least - the debate has
helped me frame the issues better in my own mind) that we should look at
what society is encouraging and alter it so that society is encouraging
better values. Who really believes that welfare (money for nothing) is
better than work programs (money for work)? Just those getting the money, I
imagine, and only because society says money is better than arete.
> If the goal is to reform the tax code then let's do so.
That wasn't the main goal for me in this post, but it is certainly a worthy
goal. My goal was to point out how society, well US society, can trip up
people trying to be good. It started with parenting versus daycare and the
most concrete contributor to that problem was the tax code. It's the
easiest thing to "tweak" to fix the issue, certainly.
> It irritates me no end that a substantial portion of my single (paltry)
> income goes to fund programs for people who want the government to do
> what they should be doing for themselves. Eliminate the break and
> reduce my taxes. To hell with a credit.
Fair enough. It's a small step in the right direction.
> I don't want to keep up with the Joneses, I want to quit subsidizing
> them.
I really, really, really like this!
Of course, we subsidize them by silently endorsing patterns of society
which encourage them as well. That's why I see a need for social vigilance
and social action.
> We do what is needful individually and screw it. Individuals change
> society when they change themselves. Societies are not dynamic,
> individuals are.
Societies are less dynamic, but they have to be dynamic to survive...isn't
that the lessen of the brujo? It seems like you are throwing away a grand
instrument of change if you throw away society...
> It is the height of arrogance to presume that women bear all
> responsibilty for procreation. It is a partnership. I think it is sad
> that some women wish to marginalize men in this area. I don't know
> whether they think they are holding onto power or what. I do suspect
> that it is not healthy for women or men or society.
Both sides can be pretty sexist. By the way, Pirsig has some comments on
this in one of the cut portions of ZMM found in the "Guidebook to ZMM"...pp
205-206 of the GZMM (so to speak).
> Oh, my. The government cannot empower parents. (I know you didn't use
> empower, but it came up earlier in the thread.) All the government can
> do is undermine parental responsibility.
Or encourage it...which is all I was asking. Government should stop
undermining and start encouraging. For example, further regulation of
movies, video games, the internet, etc, all undermine parental
responsibility (and restrict intellectual freedom at the same time).
> I drive older cars, live in older housing and spend within my means.
We're young, but we just finished paying off our first car and have no
plans on buying new again, our house was built in 1934, and our means are
at an end.
> My kids rarely come home without one of us waiting for them.
Fantastic.
> When the governmment set the rates for welfare at a base rate plus so
> much extra per each child, the unintended but totally predictable result
> was more children per welfare household. The unintended (?) but
> predictable result of such a limit would be fewer children per
> household, in effect birth control.
Ah, back to it. Since the *individuals* still have the power to have
children, especially in the sense that if they have the means, they can
support them, this is quite a bit different than China. There is no
artificial limit and then forced abortion. There is encouragement from the
government to control a biological function.
Frankly, this is probably necessary. Have you checked the population clock
lately?
http://www.overpopulation.org/
6 billion on Oct 12...my son will be two a week later.
You also might want to check out the natural law essay on the moq.org site.
It has some commentary on birth control and abortion.
> The road to hell...etc. (Look! A cliche!) You already have the incentive
> to do what is right for your kids. If you just can't pass up the BMW,
> then ...
But why should we allow society to give counter-incentives to do what is wrong?
> Mary (and many others) intentionally or not conceives of government as
> nanny, or maybe enabler I think is the word I'm after. The big
> difference between "individualist" and "statist" is that the individual
> reserves for himself the responsibility to run his life and manage his
> affairs and the statist is happy to let someone else do it for him.
For me, it depends on the affairs. I've given some examples already of why
I think statist/individualist is another dualism which can be better
understood when you apply the MoQ to it. Already in this post we see that
I'm for taxes (not in the current form) but against regulation of free
speech.
> Look - I spend a lot of time with kids.
I had no intention of knocking you as a parent, my apologies if my posts
came off that way.
> Frankly, if a financial incentive is needed to have Mom or Dad stay home
> with the kids, then Mom and Dad have their priorities screwed up.
Yes! But how do we as a society educate/instruct/encourage Mom and Dad and
future Moms and Dads to have the right priorities? Surely not by giving
people who use daycare financial incentives...
> I don't want to hear about my wallet doing my talking.
A tax credit was really temporary for me and not as necessary, certainly
upon reflection, as fixing what is broken (the tax break for daycare, etc).
Anyway, I think we are much closer to agreement than we were several days
ago, without either one of us losing much at all. Thanks for the discussion.
> Sometime I would like to pound down a beer or have a cuppa joe
> with each of you.
Let me know when you are headed to Texas...
> Have a good evening and wish us luck for the game tomorrow!
Good luck...are you teaching them Quality this season?
Cheers,
Mark
Between the time I received the post from drose and the time I sent this
out (one hour, 50 minutes), the world population grew by roughly 19800
people (according to the url above).
________________________________________________________________________
Mark Brooks <mark@epiphanous.org> <http://www.epiphanous.org/>
How do you know who wrote this? <http://www.epiphanous.org/mark/pgp/>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST