Hi, Mary, Mark and all MOQers!
Mary Wittler wrote:
>
> Hi Drose, Mark & everyone else,
>
> Though you did not specifically address me, Drose, I'd like to comment on some
> of your thoughts in your most recent Economy post.
Feel free to jump in, by all means! I've always thought that any post
was open to discussion by anyone froggy enough to leap.
> Mark: We seem to have some severe disagreements, but I think overall we are on the
> same track.
>
> Mary responds:
> Yes, I too think we all have quite a bit in common here.
>
Indeed, MOQers and LilaQs are part of something I think is pretty
special.
> Mary Adds:
> We are a 1 income family, but the tables are turned. My husband attends to
> our son's needs while I am the working parent (albeit a telecommuter).
>
I envy your husband. I have yet to get a telecommuter gig. Doesn't that
present some problems with separating work and home? Just curious.
>
> Mary: I agree with Mark here, Drose. The idea is that the current system encourages
> people to do the wrong thing by putting pressure on their pocketbooks. Since
> almost any action the government takes on any issue is going to push people
> toward one outcome or another, why not encourage them to do the right thing?
>
I say why not get the government out of it altogether. Eliminate the
breaks that encourage undesirable behavior and the undesirable behavior
will cease.
> Mary: Let's take the long view here. What do you imagine people 1000 years from now
> would think about the US? Let's assume (hopefully correctly) that 1000 years
> from now people will be more enlightened than today. It seems to me that what
> those future people will see is a society that spends enormous amounts of
> money on national defense - even after our major enemy (the USSR) has
> disbanded. Now that alone wouldn't be so bad except that we spend practically
> nothing (in relative terms) on the health, welfare, and education of our
> children - and further, our culture encourages gross materialism to the point
> that 2 working parents are the norm. Our children, meanwhile are relegated to
> a minimal level of daycare at the hands of low paid and untrained care givers.
> What does that say about our society? Nothing very good.
If history is any guide, we will be dust. What historians will note is
the decline and fall of the US political unit - absorbed by a more
vigorous culture and probably reinvigorated to a certain extent. Maybe
even a couple of times. So was Rome to Greece. So were the Germanic
tribes to the Romans. So were the Normans to the Saxons.
> Mary Says:
> If our society says it's allright to work and
> leave your kids with a stranger - in fact it's more than allright, it's a mark
> of success (!), then I guess a lot of people will do that.
>
Ah. You make my point for me!
> > drose: If the goal is to reform the tax code then let's do so.
> > drose: 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.
>
> Mary asks:
> Drose, why does that irritate you so much?
That should be evident from my posts.
> Mark: I think everyone does pretty much
> as well as they can given their background, education level, etc. There are a
> lot of people in our country who have been left behind. When you combine that with
> our grossly skewed
> popular culture, it's almost a foregone conclusion that there will be large
> numbers of illiterate, semi-helpless people left in the wake.
Then let's fix that! We should be cutting the strings that leave theses
people dependent and force them to do for themselves! That is how they
will grow. We did not create the problem overnight and some pain must be
involved. We don't want gov't to keep them dependent.
>
> > drose: I don't want to keep up with the Joneses, I want to quit subsidizing
> > them.
>
> Mary asks:
> I'm not sure I understand that statement, Drose. Are you saying that we are
> subsidizing the middle class at your expense? I think that's where the Jones'
> live, anyway. We seem to subsidize the very poor (which is really OK with me)
> and the very rich. Of course, in my view, the government is pretty much
> powerless in the face of major corporations. But that's another topic...
>
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Even the very poor would be far
better off with aggressive local action than with the one-size-fits-all
federal approach. I think you ascribe way too much power to
corporations. That's not to say that I want ATT feeding at the public
trough either...but that IS for another thread.
> Mark: 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.
>
> > drose: We do what is needful individually and screw it. Individuals change
> > society when they change themselves. Societies are not dynamic,
> > individuals are.
>
> Mark: 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...
The lesson of the brujo is that the individual was ahead of the curve
and drug society with him.
> > drose: 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.
>
> Mary says:
> Now this really irritates me, Drose. If you want to attack me, then address
> the post to me. I don't understand your sentiment anyway; afterall it IS
> women who go through pregnancy and experience the job problems associated with
> that, go through labor (sometimes life-threatening) and are the majority heads
> of single-parent households. Frankly, I'm quite amazed at your liberal stance
> on this issue - since your other stances are not. I certainly don't know if
> this is the case, but I would say that using a rhetorical device about which
> you do not subscribe to attack an opponent is pretty low quality.
As I've stated, I was not trying to talk behind your back. I figured
everyone interested, you included, would jump in. I stand by my
statement. Men and women share responsibility for the raising and
education of our children. Why should men be relegated to second class
status?
A discussion of sexual politics is best left for another thread. We are
piling up lots of future topics for discussion;-)
What is so liberal about my stance? I am not a knee-jerk anything. You'd
do well to leave off placing me on one side or the other of the
"liberal"/"conservative" dichotomy. You'll be constantly confounded.
I am disappointed that you think I would misrepresent my stance, on
anything, for rhetorical purposes. My standing, such as it is, on this
and other forums is only maintained by consistently presenting my views
and opinions and to take resposibility for them. You will never see a
post that I have written that is anything other than the God's truth as
I see it. You may disagree with me, and you may occasionally cause me to
change my mind, but you're always going to get honesty from me.
> > drose: 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.
>
> Mark: 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).
No argument here, Mark. I don't want Uncle Sam doing my job.
>
> Mary: Here, Here, Mark!
>
See, Mary? We can agree on more than the relevance of the MOQ.
> Mary says:
> Sounds like you are doing your best, Drose. We fundamentally DO agree!
Sounds like we all do our best.
>
> > drose: 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.
>
> Mary adds:
> It actually took me several years to come around to the idea of having
> children at all, for this reason - especially when you consider the heavy
> environmental load of 1 more American vs 1 more third-world person. We are
> rapacious! Of course our economy encourages (requires actually)
> over-consumption.
I think a lot of us in this society could do with a lot less conspicuous
consumption. I just don't think you can mandate it.
> > drose: 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.
>
> Mary responds:
> Whoa! First you accuse me of state sponsored birth-control, totalitarianism,
> and Quality knows what else, then you tell me that I view the government as a
> nanny?
I'm ready to concede the point on the totalitarian commentary. I
overreached myself trying to make a point. Mea culpa, Mary. I apologize.
> Mary: Far from it. I've never ever received government help, grants,
> subsidies, student loans, unemployment, welfare, scholarships, or anything
> else - ever! Everything I've ever done has been on my own - and I'm damn
> proud of it. To me, the government is not a nanny, but it can be an enabler.
> It is the only tool we have for effecting change in society away from the
> goals of media, advertising, and corporate profit. Without the government, we
> would do what the rich told us to do. We'd have no recourse.
We can use the word "enabler" in a couple of different ways. It can just
as easily enable undesirable behavior as desirable. Gov't is not the
only tool. Government, especially in a system where pols have to pander
to the public for votes, is precisely the wrong instrument to use for
public change!
>
> Mary: In my view, one of Government's main roles is in the redistribution of wealth.
> I can hear the howls now ;) but, if you recall your history, before
> democratic government there was no incentive whatsoever for those in power to
> even pay lip-service to the plight of the poor.
I posted the following quote in a thread concerning education awhile
back.
"The Founding Fathers believed that the purpose of politics is to
safeguard the space in which individuals can grow. The Constitution was
devised to promote freedom and enterprise, and to encourage individuals
to take full responsibility for their lives. The liberal heirs of the
Founding Fathers believe that the purpose of politics is to look after
all citizens from cradle to grave, regardless of what they have done to
deserve it. For them, politics is a rescue service, offered
unconditionally to all. Hence safety, health, and comfort become the
primary political values. The aim is to create a risk-free society. "
-Roger Scruton, English writer, writing in National Review
The first two sentences in this paragraph describe my political
philosophy almost perfectly, although Scruton's attack on liberals in
the last two sentences is somewhat simplistic. In the main, I agree with
him.
>
> Mark: 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.
I realize the government needs money to function. My objection to the
current tax code is that it too easily manipulated for political
purposes. But that's for another topic.
>
> Mark: I had no intention of knocking you as a parent, my apologies if my posts
> came off that way.
>
> Mary says: ditto
I never even thunk such a thing! No apology necessary.
>
> > drose: 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.
>
> Mark: 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...
>
> Mary: Yes, Mark. That's the crux of it. Without government intervention I
> don't see how we can ever hope to move to the next level as a society.
> Somewhere, Pirsig says that we only attend to those things that we are attuned
> to by our culture. So, what is our culture attuned to right now? Owning a
> Lexus, having Nike's to wear, and earning a bigger paycheck. Given those
> cultural cues, what will we think about? What will be important to us?
One of the things we can do is to holler loud and long. Or we can call
people on their bad behavior. Let's quit encouraging bad behavior with
the tax code. Let's quit micromanging society with financial incentives,
period. Reform our schools' curricula at gunpoint if necessary (just
kidding!) It makes little sense to ask the institution that screwed the
pooch to start with to make it right.
Really, Mary, I think we want the same thing. We just have diametrically
opposed views on how to make that happen.
>
> Mary says: Drose, you've hung around the MOQ for years, so you can't be all
> bad! JOKE! JOKE! JOKE! ;) I'm with Mark. Next time you're in Texas (yes, I'm
> a Texan too) I'd love to meet you and, though I don't care for beer, I'll
> raise a glass of wine in your honor.
>
My wife's has a friend who lives in Fredricksburg and we've promised her
a visit, so who knows?
>
> Good luck...are you teaching them Quality this season?
They already know - I'm just pointing it out for them.
>
> Wishing you a high Quality ball game tomorrow!
> Mary
>
Thanks for the good vibes. We won, 16-15. My daughter went .500 and no
errors. A quality day indeed.
BTW, Carmen, if you are lurking on this thread, do not take anything we
have discussed personally. I set no traps; I wish nothing for you and
yours but the best. This is, after all, politics, not reality.
Good night, all.
drose
"Well, whaddaya know?"
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