Base Closings Hidden Problems

[Said1]

Income redistribution is actually the first and oldest function of government. In the earliest hunting-gathering bands the leader had responsibility to see that infants, the old, the sick, the disabled got enough to survive - food taken from the best hunters. This universal practice has obvious biological advantages as not even the best hunter can survive to reproduce without the social network of the tribe.

They ran into problems when centralized government (cheifdoms) were introduced, or the politiciaztion process (which you mention below). In the beginning, foragers were real eagletarian societies where everyone had equal access to resources and the family unit was essential. They often intermarried, and their societies were sturctured around cosmologies such as the age-grade system the Massai still practice today in Africa. The band leader didn't have much authority over individuals and families were able to merge or leave other tribal units for whatever reason.

When agricultural communities arose in some river valleys 10,000 years ago, the redistribution function of government continued. Now a king presided over a record-keeping class of priests who guarded the annual surplus, taxing and redistributing in the furtherance of what our Constitution refers to as "the general Welfare."

This led to less access to resousrces and specialized labor instead of each family being self-sufficent, or sharing resources during droughts ect. They became dependant on the government and less dependant on each other. This also created a class system within ancient cheifdoms. Easter Island is an interesting case study of a cheifdom gone array.

 

[mrsx]

Those are the functions of family and private charity. Modern statism has as much to do with charity as a jackboot in the face.

Charity is an action motivated by love (caritas). I'm all for it. Income redistribution is a government function based on social utility. Taking your money and mine in order to spend $45,000/year keeping healthy young men in prison eating baloney sandwiches and lifting weights is not charity. It is income redistribution. Had we spent the money on education, those young men might be joining the tax rolls, letting you keep more of your ill-gotten gains. It's a matter of rational choices, not selfish indignation.

There is no need to call me she-bitch. The redundancy is characteristic of your garbled ideation. All bitches are female. Your obsession with the idea that I am actually someone called Wade undermines the credibility of your otherwise insightful, witty and well-informed elucidation of the views of the lunatic Right.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Charity is an action motivated by love (caritas). I'm all for it. Income redistribution is a government function based on social utility. Taking your money and mine in order to spend $45,000/year keeping healthy young men in prison eating baloney sandwiches and lifting weights is not charity. It is income redistribution. Had we spent the money on education, those young men might be joining the tax rolls, letting you keep more of your ill-gotten gains. It's a matter of rational choices, not selfish indignation.

There is no need to call me she-bitch. The redundancy is characteristic of your garbled ideation. All bitches are female. Your obsession with the idea that I am actually someone called Wade undermines the credibility of your otherwise insightful, witty and well-informed elucidation of the views of the lunatic Right.

Your case seems to indicate you understand the follies of excessive government.

Our education system has failed because it's been dumbed down with feelgood-ism and esteem based education. The proposition from the left that students should never be made to "feel bad" is complete lunacy.

Socialism is a meme placed into a society explicity to cause it to falter and fail.

There was no NEED to call you shebitch, but it sure was fun! Don't be so thin-skinned; you've been dishing it out all over the board.

If you're confused about why government shouldn't do everything, usurping all functions of family and faith in the process, as libs desire, consider our anti-monopoly legislation and the rationale behind that. Can you do that? Or is that too THINKY for you?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Checkmate it two moves. All in a day's work. Don't I make it look easy?

 

[mrsx]

Your case seems to indicate you understand the follies of excessive government.

Our education system has failed because it's been dumbed down with feelgood-ism and esteem based education. The proposition from the left that students should never be made to "feel bad" is complete lunacy.

Socialism is a meme placed into a society explicity to cause it to falter and fail.

There was no NEED to call you shebitch, but it sure was fun! Don't be so thin-skinned; you've been dishing it out all over the board.

If you're confused about why government shouldn't do everything, usurping all functions of family and faith in the process, as libs desire, consider our anti-monopoly legislation and the rationale behind that. Can you do that? Or is that too THINKY for you?

No argument from me on the over-priced futility of esteem based education. Perhaps we agree that we ought to throw out all this pseudo-psychological crap and get down to teaching these kids what they need to know in order to be able to go out and get a decent, self-supporting job and contribute to the society. I can understand how two generations of high-priced junk school causes a frustrated electorate to contemplating throwing out the baby (public education) with the bath water (bogus "learnologists" and their crackpot theories). Mend it, don't end it says I. Do we agree that public schools (like the interstate hiway system) is a legitimate part of the common welfare?

What about public health? I'm not talking about socialized medicine - I mean preventing the spread of smallpox etc. whether by terrorists, illegal immigrants or just bad luck. Does the government have any role to play in the health of its citizens?

I wasn't offended by being called a she-bitch, just pointing out that it undermines your legitimacy as offical spokesperson for the moon barkers.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No argument from me on the over-priced futility of esteem based education. Perhaps we agree that we ought to throw out all this pseudo-psychological crap and get down to teaching these kids what they need to know in order to be able to go out and get a decent, self-supporting job and contribute to the society. I can understand how two generations of high-priced junk school causes a frustrated electorate to contemplating throwing out the baby (public education) with the bath water (bogus "learnologists" and their crackpot theories). Mend it, don't end it says I. Do we agree that public schools (like the interstate hiway system) is a legitimate part of the common welfare?

What about public health? I'm not talking about socialized medicine - I mean preventing the spread of smallpox etc. whether by terrorists, illegal immigrants or just bad luck. Does the government have any role to play in the health of its citizens?

I wasn't offended by being called a she-bitch, just pointing out that it undermines your legitimacy as offical spokesperson for the moon barkers.

Government IS in education. It IS in public health. Why are libs STILL unhappy with the state of things? They must want MORE government involvement. I want to know from YOU, Darth Sidius, spokesman for the reality denying socialist leftist anti-americans, what is the EXTENT of their vision? Do you libs even HAVE an upper limit to the government encroachment into our lives? I would be really happy just freezing government encroachment at the level it is now. Can libs say the same? If not, why not? And WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR VISION?

I don't know how many times I have to ask you this question. It seems to be Kryptoniting your entire game plan, Bizarro Supergal. Why can't you answer it?

 

[mrsx]

Government IS in education. It IS in public health. Why are libs STILL unhappy with the state of things? They must want MORE government involvement. I want to know from YOU, Darth Sidius, spokesman for the reality denying socialist leftist anti-americans, what is the EXTENT of their vision? Do you libs even HAVE an upper limit to the government encroachment into our lives? I would be really happy just freezing government encroachment at the level it is now. Can libs say the same? If not, why not? And WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF THEIR VISION?

I don't know how many times I have to ask you this question. It seems to be Kryptoniting your entire game plan, Bizarro Supergal. Why can't you answer it?

Because you have complained in the past about the length of some of my posts, I'll keep this one relatively brief by mentioning a few of the places where I believe the government has already encroached wrongfully on the lives of its citizens.

I believe the government has almost no right to regulate or interfere with the private lives of consenting adults. This applies to ingesting any chemical or substance one chooses and to the private practice of any artistic, athletic or sexual activity so practiced. I defend the constitutional right of NAMGLA to act out its bizarre obsessions even though I am not a member.

I believe the government has no authority in the establishment or maintenance of any religious cult, group or practice, nor the power to regulate or prohibit any religious group or practice insofar as it involves only consenting adults. Sacred peyote or communion wine is all the same here. What is more, granting subsidies and tax exemption to places of religious worship (not church run schools, hospitals etc.) constitutes the establishment of religion and is wrong. Nor should the legal rights of any classification of citizens by the government allow for the distinction between members of that class on religious grounds or for religious reasons. Should we return to a military draft, there should be no exemption for religious students or for religious beliefs. The government must regulate civil marriage without regard to religiously-derived criteria. I deeply respect and have followed in my own life the belief that marriage is a sacred contract between one man and one woman; that is a religious marriage. It is wrong to deny Muslims the right to a marriage among one man and three women or the right to a *civil* marriage of two people of the same sex because the basis for these denials is ultimately rooted in Christian belief.

I could go on, but I sense that your eyelids are drooping and a thread of spittle is running down from the corner of your mouth, so I will stop here.

How do you like them apples, bub?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Because you have complained in the past about the length of some of my posts, I'll keep this one relatively brief by mentioning a few of the places where I believe the government has already encroached wrongfully on the lives of its citizens.

I believe the government has almost no right to regulate or interfere with the private lives of consenting adults. This applies to ingesting any chemical or substance one chooses and to the private practice of any artistic, athletic or sexual activity so practiced. I defend the constitutional right of NAMGLA to act out its bizarre obsessions even though I am not a member.

I believe the government has no authority in the establishment or maintenance of any religious cult, group or practice, nor the power to regulate or prohibit any religious group or practice insofar as it involves only consenting adults. Sacred peyote or communion wine is all the same here. What is more, granting subsidies and tax exemption to places of religious worship (not church run schools, hospitals etc.) constitutes the establishment of religion and is wrong. Nor should the legal rights of any classification of citizens by the government allow for the distinction between members of that class on religious grounds or for religious reasons. Should we return to a military draft, there should be no exemption for religious students or for religious beliefs. The government must regulate civil marriage without regard to religiously-derived criteria. I deeply respect and have followed in my own life the belief that marriage is a sacred contract between one man and one woman; that is a religious marriage. It is wrong to deny Muslims the right to a marriage among one man and three women or the right to a *civil* marriage of two people of the same sex because the basis for these denials is ultimately rooted in Christian belief.

I could go on, but I sense that your eyelids are drooping and a thread of spittle is running down from the corner of your mouth, so I will stop here.

How do you like them apples, bub?

Sexual perversion and bigamy? Those are the first things that come to mind when I ask for your vision?

Marriage without regard to religious criteria? That's like fat free butter.

 

[mrsx]

Sexual perversion and bigamy? Those are the first things that come to mind when I ask for your vision?

Marriage without regard to religious criteria? That's like fat free butter.

I have always considered myself a religious person. The issue is one of church and state. I advocate a rigorous separation of the two, not because I am secular, but precisely because I am religious. Here in New England, we Congregationalists learned the hard way that you cannot sanctify politics, but you can corrupt the church. I notice that Weyrich and a number of others who were heavily involved in the Christian Coalition etc. are reluctantly coming to the same conclusion.
I understand that certain practices are morally repugnant to you and that you see them as "sexual perversion and bigamy." I support your right to abstain from these practices and agree that you have a right to not have them thrust in your face in public or presented to your children. (That right is not absolute; it has to be balanced against the constitutional rights of the citizens you judge as perverts and bigamists to enjoy their own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
Most societies, certainly including our own, have surrounded marriage with religious practices from time immemorial. We do similarly with birth and death. I personally support this practice. However, those religious traditions cannot be given legal status. Many Catholic countries recognized this issue years ago and require a civil ceremony for the state, a religious ritual as may please the conscience of the individuals.
So I uphold the rights of those individuals whose conduct you do not agree with. I also uphold your right to shave your beard, eat a ham sandwich and drink a beer. To say that we are a country of Christians (which is questionable) does not mean that we are a christian country, which we most emphatically are not.
Although the issue of religious practice is an interesting one, it may draw us off the point. You asked me about limitations on government under the assumption that I am a liberal. I responded with specific examples where I believe in a great deal less government interference in the lives of citizens than, apparently, do you. Do you wish to return to the topic of the role of government or let my examples draw us off into the field of sex law? I swing both ways, as they say down at the Log Cabin Society; so what's your pleasure, treasure?

 

[5stringJeff]

Hate to spoil everyone's fun, but since it's been 2 1/2 pages since anyone discussed base closings and this has become an insult thread...