More Snooping Stupidity

[N2EY]

Except all those that you mention is not in the position to program future generations.

Sure they do!

Let's take a look:

socialist highway system - The construction of roads, bridges, tunnels and such, using tax dollars and the power of eminent domain, has caused us to become heavily dependent on rubber-tired transportation, paid for by taxes. Our culture is "programmed" around the idea that the socialist roads take us everywhere.

socialist Medicare - Insures that all Americans over a certain age have tax-funded medical care. We are programmed to expect it, and to not have to worry about paying for Grandma's medical care. Or our own, if we live long enough.

socialist park systems, museums, monuments - program us as to what is important in our history.

socialist military - program us to believe in armed conflict as a solution to problems.

socialist utilities (in some places) - made it possible to have modern conveniences in distant places where capitalism couldn't provide them. Programmed us to expect universal supply of electricity, communications, etc.

socialist libraries - programming by books, tapes, etc..

socialist weather service - programmed us to expect free universal weather forecasting.

There's lots more.

But I wouldnt hesitate to call them socialist programs also.

So do you deny they arent socialist? Or would you rather just use the word "public" and not think about it?

I don't understand what you're asking.

All "socialist" means is that The Government owns and runs something. Nothing more or less. Some folks seem to think socialism means something else - something bad. Unless it happens to be something they like.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N0WVA]

So how should the schools be funded? How should the curriculum be set?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Private schools are fine. Personally I think no one should be forced to participate in the socialists program, so therefore, no funding would be needed. Curriculum would be set by the parents and they would raise the child as they see fit. Maybe if we could get rid of some of these taxes, we can go back to having at least one parent having enough time to actually raise their kids, instead of dumping them onto the school 7 hours a day.

[N0WVA]

Sure they do!

Let's take a look:

socialist highway system - The construction of roads, bridges, tunnels and such, using tax dollars and the power of eminent domain, has caused us to become heavily dependent on rubber-tired transportation, paid for by taxes. Our culture is "programmed" around the idea that the socialist roads take us everywhere.

socialist Medicare - Insures that all Americans over a certain age have tax-funded medical care. We are programmed to expect it, and to not have to worry about paying for Grandma's medical care. Or our own, if we live long enough.

socialist park systems, museums, monuments - program us as to what is important in our history.

socialist military - program us to believe in armed conflict as a solution to problems.

socialist utilities (in some places) - made it possible to have modern conveniences in distant places where capitalism couldn't provide them. Programmed us to expect universal supply of electricity, communications, etc.

socialist libraries - programming by books, tapes, etc..

socialist weather service - programmed us to expect free universal weather forecasting.

There's lots more.



I don't understand what you're asking.

All "socialist" means is that The Government owns and runs something. Nothing more or less. Some folks seem to think socialism means something else - something bad. Unless it happens to be something they like.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Socialism to me is the false promise that all aspects of life will be better if all property and wealth is shared, and that those responsible for administration of such a system would not abuse it. So yes it does mean something bad, because it will never work. Government is not responsible for keeping men from behaving like animals.....just look at the overflowing prisons. I think it is the problem, and the less of it in any ones life, the better.

[WA6TKD]

The wise lady said it best. Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.

[N2EY]

Private schools are fine. Personally I think no one should be forced to participate in the socialists program, so therefore, no funding would be needed. Curriculum would be set by the parents and they would raise the child as they see fit.

So what you'd have is a system where a few rich kids get a good education at private schools, a few kids get a gooid education at home, and most kids barely learn to read and write, because their parents don't have the time/education/energy/skills to teach them.

It's been tried. It doesn't work. Every modern society that has succeeded economically and socially has done so because the population is educated.

In other places, where public education doesn't exist, a few get rich and succeed, while the masses live in ignorance and poverty. Feudalism is the result.

Maybe if we could get rid of some of these taxes, we can go back to having at least one parent having enough time to actually raise their kids, instead of dumping them onto the school 7 hours a day.

Eliminating school taxes won't allow Mom to stay home. (That's what you're really saying you want, isn't it?). Taxes aren't really the problem there.

The problem is that wages have not kept up with costs. That's an economic structure problem. Think about why that has happened. Think about why the ratio of CEO pay to average-worker pay is so much higher today than 50 years ago. Think about why so many jobs - good jobs that permitted a man to support a middle-class family - have been sent "off shore". Think about why job benefits keep eroding.

It's not because of public education. It's not because Americans are "lazy" or "are paid too much". There's something else going on.

School taxes are tiny compared to the other taxes we pay to support the military, social security, Medicare, corporate welfare and a wide range of other things.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KC2ZPK]

Yes, it was!
A slave was property. A slave was not a citizen, and did not have the rights of a free man; in fact, a slave had essentially no rights at all. A slave's only value was whatever non-slaves said it was.
If a "master" in pre-Civil War South Carolina beat one of his own slaves to death, was he charged with murder? Manslaughter? Or anything? I think not.

I know a slave was 'property' The 3/5ths 'worth', or maybe I should say 'count' was to reduce the number of southern reps in congress. Not because they were worth less then a free man. The southerners wanted them to be counted as 1/1 so they would get more representation, but the reps were only representing the slave owners, not the slaves.

I know all that. The point is, Why should the slave population count when it came to determining representation, when slaves couldn't vote?

they should not have! Slave owners wanted 1/1, Non slave owners wanted 0/1 A compremise was met at 3/5ths. The southern states likely would not ratify if slaves were counted as 0/1.

What you had was the slave states wanting to have their cake and eat it too. And they got it - or 60% of it, anyway.

For now(or then)

Were Native Americans counted in the census, and those numbers used to determine representation? I think not!

Completely different problems

The point of all this is that the founding fathers were pretty good in some ways but completely wrong in others.

Not completly wrong, but knowing what battles they could win, and when they could win them. They were not going to get Southern states to ratify without the slaves being counted. We were a new nation, we needed them to ratify. Simply pick your battles and move forward.

Not exactly. That document is not the same as what they wrote; it has been amended since they wrote it. I suspect that at least some of them would be aghast at some of the amendments.

and that provision was built in from the start. They knew they didn't know everything, and they knew they needed a way to amend the constitution.

Women voting? Non-white people voting? Direct election of senators? Those and many more would probably be strongly opposed by many of the founding fathers.
73 de Jim, N2EY

Direct election of Senators would have them turning, but not the others. Some states allowed women to vote, allowed non-white to vote, even hold political office in some states. Not all history has been taught in school (and that is another issue).

[N0WVA]

So what you'd have is a system where a few rich kids get a good education at private schools, a few kids get a gooid education at home, and most kids barely learn to read and write, because their parents don't have the time/education/energy/skills to teach them.

It's been tried. It doesn't work. Every modern society that has succeeded economically and socially has done so because the population is educated.

In other places, where public education doesn't exist, a few get rich and succeed, while the masses live in ignorance and poverty. Feudalism is the result.



Eliminating school taxes won't allow Mom to stay home. (That's what you're really saying you want, isn't it?). Taxes aren't really the problem there.

The problem is that wages have not kept up with costs. That's an economic structure problem. Think about why that has happened. Think about why the ratio of CEO pay to average-worker pay is so much higher today than 50 years ago. Think about why so many jobs - good jobs that permitted a man to support a middle-class family - have been sent "off shore". Think about why job benefits keep eroding.

It's not because of public education. It's not because Americans are "lazy" or "are paid too much". There's something else going on.

School taxes are tiny compared to the other taxes we pay to support the military, social security, Medicare, corporate welfare and a wide range of other things.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Which is the situation we have now. Well, there are some pretty dumb rich kids out there,too. But looking back, many I went to school with were straight D students, but somehow they graduated. Im not convinced forcing kids to go actually helps. My dad only went to 4th grade. Thats the only formal school he ever seen, was a surveyor for many years and he can do algebra better than me and had no problem helping me with my school work.

What we have now is not working, we keep throwing money at education only to dumb down the testing to make it look like progress. Its turning into just another bloated federal department that needs massive restructuring or disappear altogether.

[N0SYA]

Remember kids, nothing has enslaved and then murdered more people in the last 100 years than some form of atheistic socialism.

[N2EY]

I know a slave was 'property' The 3/5ths 'worth', or maybe I should say 'count' was to reduce the number of southern reps in congress. Not because they were worth less then a free man. The southerners wanted them to be counted as 1/1 so they would get more representation, but the reps were only representing the slave owners, not the slaves.

I understand what went on. The point is that the slave states only wanted a slave to "count" as a human being when it was to their political advantage. Otherwise, a slave was not a human being.

That's just plain wrong. Even if someone could accept the idea of human beings as "property", the slaves were stolen property - stolen from their homes in Africa.

In those days, stealing someone's horse was a serious crime. But stealing a human being from his/her family was a business.

A compremise was met at 3/5ths. The southern states likely would not ratify if slaves were counted as 0/1.

...Not completly wrong, but knowing what battles they could win, and when they could win them. They were not going to get Southern states to ratify without the slaves being counted. We were a new nation, we needed them to ratify. Simply pick your battles and move forward.

But they didn't move forward. By compromising on that issue, the new nation set itself up for the worst war in its history. How anyone of reason could have argued that a country founded on "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights" could have permitted slavery is simply beyond understanding.

Some states allowed women to vote, allowed non-white to vote, even hold political office in some states. Not all history has been taught in school (and that is another issue).

It's not taught in school because it's embarrassing.

Here's a quick history, which I posted some months back:

Timeline of Women's Suffrage in the United States

1776 Abigail Adams writes to her husband, John Adams, asking him to "remember the ladies" in the new code of laws. Adams replies the men will fight the "despotism of the petticoat."

1777 Women lose the right to vote in New York.

1780 Women lose the right to vote in Massachusetts.

1784 Women lose the right to vote in New Hampshire.

1787 US Constitutional Convention places voting qualifications in the hands of the states. Women in all remaining states except New Jersey lose the right to vote.

The ratification of the Constitution reduced women's rights!

1807 Women lose the right to vote in New Jersey, the last state to revoke the right.

For 62 years, no woman in the USA could vote.

1869 Wyoming territory grants first woman suffrage since 1807. (1 territory allows women to vote)

1870 Utah territory grants woman suffrage. (2 territories)

1887 Utah women lose right to vote. (back to 1 territory)

1893 After a vigorous campaign led by Carrie Chapman Catt, Colorado men vote for woman suffrage. (2 states; Wyoming territory became a state in 1890)

1895 Utah women regain suffrage. (2 states 1 territory)

1896 Idaho grants woman suffrage. (4 states; Utah Territory became a state in 1896

1910 Washington (state) grants woman suffrage. (5 states)

1911 California grants woman suffrage. (6 states)

1912 Oregon, Arizona, and Kansas grant woman suffrage. (9 states)

1913 Illinois grants municipal and presidential but not state suffrage to women. (9 states full, 1 partial)

1917 North Dakota, Indiana, Nebraska, and Michigan grant presidential suffrage; Arkansas grants primary suffrage. New York, South Dakota, and Oklahoma state constitutions grant suffrage. (12 states full, 6 partial)

1920 The Nineteenth Amendment, called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, is ratified by Tennessee on August 18. It becomes law on August 26.

It's obvious that from 1787 until the 19-teens - almost 150 years! - there were only a few places in the USA where women had the vote.

Why was such a fundamental right denied to half the population? Why was it taken away from women who had it? What was the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N0WVA]

Why was such a fundamental right denied to half the population? Why was it taken away from women who had it? What was the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Id say it was probably religious teachings that produced that mentality.