So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen? by 1kiki

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, but now there are OTHER rights? BESIDES the right to own property and enter into contracts? Rights which, in fact, supersede those propertarian rights which you've described more than once? Well, why don't you explain what THOSE rights are, then?

They all derive from the right to be secure in yourself and your property. Don't see them as superseding propertarian rights at all.

Don't you consider your personal information to be your property? If you have the right to be secure in yourself and your property, don't you have the right to sue, or take other legal action, if someone tries to capture your personal information without your consent? And if most everyone understands that, will there really be that many people trying to do so?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 20, 2014 10:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Curiously, I find this conversation with Geezer to be productive. We're talking about things we haven't talked about before.

And I agree.

When we can get to actually discussing our opinions, between all the snippiness, it requires me to have to think about, and develop, my position. I suspect that this applies to both of us.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 20, 2014 11:28 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"They all derive from the right to be secure in yourself and your property."

I think that 'secure in your property' derives from 'secure in yourself' and is redundant, insofar as property is a product of your work, acquired through an exchange of your work for the work of others, and/or is a means of survival. But 'property' is more discrete and tangible than 'self' (unless you're only talking about the physical body), and so easier to define and enforce. The 'secure in self' you posit is a very vaporous concept. Perhaps you could define it further.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 20, 2014 11:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, so there are more things under the definition of "property" that I originally thought. Perhaps it's all best wrapped up in "Secure in person and property".

Security, however, has many aspects to it. People living on the edge of starvation are thought of as "food insecure". So security, to some extent, means reliably being given the necessary items for life (clean air, clean water, nutritious food, shelter, safety from physical harm) or reliably being able to obtain them through work. As far as I can tell, that is the most important aspect of security.

Then there are other, more intangible aspects of security: privacy, freedom from coercion, freedom to communicate etc. And of course the less necessary things that you might still want to hang onto- personal items, and so forth.

Let me know if this expansion describes the lines you're thinking along. I won't be able to get back to this for a week or so, sorry leave this dangling, real life calls.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 9:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Then there are other, more intangible aspects of security: privacy, freedom from coercion, freedom to communicate etc. And of course the less necessary things that you might still want to hang onto- personal items, and so forth.

Pretty much what I've been saying. You have the right (and in my desired libertarian society, everyone understands and respects that you have the right) to yourself and your property and everything that derives from that - security of self and property (considering privacy, right to voluntarily associate or withhold association, etc., as part of self and property) - with the understanding that you can enjoy these rights without threat or coercion as long as that enjoyment doesn't threaten anyone else's similar rights.

Quote:
Let me know if this expansion describes the lines you're thinking along. I won't be able to get back to this for a week or so, sorry leave this dangling, real life calls.

I got stuff (there's that word again) to do the week as well. I'll check back time to time.

BTW, still waiting for a response as to how to deal with the Meals-on-Wheels czar and his executives' plans for the one-meal-fits-all effectiveness plan.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 9:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They all derive from the right to be secure in yourself and your property."

I think that 'secure in your property' derives from 'secure in yourself' and is redundant, insofar as property is a product of your work, acquired through an exchange of your work for the work of others, and/or is a means of survival. But 'property' is more discrete and tangible than 'self' (unless you're only talking about the physical body), and so easier to define and enforce. The 'secure in self' you posit is a very vaporous concept. Perhaps you could define it further.

Well, I've seen libertarians posit that your self (physical body, mind, etc.,) is also your property. You own yourself just like you own your car or TV. The same right to possess and enjoy your property applies to your body, mind, etc.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 11:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
BTW, still waiting for a response as to how to deal with the Meals-on-Wheels czar and his executives' plans for the one-meal-fits-all effectiveness plan.

Dealth with it extensily on p2 beginning

Quote:
Oh, AFA a government system not working...

We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?

and also

"If it can be provided commercially, a goverment can do it"

But I see you want more details.

That's easy, it can be described by many Federal programs. for example the air pollution program that we all work under the Clean Air Act.

The Federal government sets the goals ... air quality must be this good, or better... and then allows the states, counties, or (in some cases) multi-county regions both the responsibility and authority to to make it happen. That's because each geographic region has its own weather and set of polluters, so each region's plan has to be unque to its circumstances.

That's one idea, but there are others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 12:10 PM

JONGSSTRAW

1. Deliver the mail.

2. Defend America against the commies and the ragheads.

That's all the Federal Govt. needs to do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 3:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
1. Deliver the mail.
2. Defend America against the commies and the ragheads.
That's all the Federal Govt. needs to do.

We the people of the United States, in order to
1) form a more perfect union,
2) establish justice,
3) insure domestic tranquility,
4) provide for the common defense,
5) promote the general welfare, and
6) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Section 8.

7) The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

8) To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

9) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

10) To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

11) To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

12) To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;

13) To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

14) To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

15) To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

16) To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

4) To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
4) To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
4) To provide and maintain a Navy;
4) To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
4) To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
4) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17) To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

18) To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Two outa' 18 ain't bad. But if I included the powers of the president and the supreme court, well, that 18 would be higher.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 3:28 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Anyway - Geezer, I appreciate the reply.

I was wondering how far your definition of self went. If anything is, the body is self. Do you consider your thoughts to be self? Your reputation? Your time? Where does self end?

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 6:59 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
BTW, still waiting for a response as to how to deal with the Meals-on-Wheels czar and his executives' plans for the one-meal-fits-all effectiveness plan.
Dealth with it extensily on p2 beginning
Quote:
Oh, AFA a government system not working...

We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?

And my response was to ask who'd do this. Got no answer.

I also noted...

Quote:
Also governments and governmental organizations, being groups of people with their own ideas of what's effective, not mechanical devices, are a bit harder to both analyze and correct, especially if their definition of "working" differs from yours. The Meals-on-wheels Czar and his directors are sure that they are more effective if they provide the same meal to everyone in the country on the same day.

Which you also didn't respond to.

Quote:
"If it can be provided commercially, a goverment can do it"

As effectively? In all cases? The Soviet government made tractors, and always met quota, but the tractors weren't very good.

Quote:
That's easy, it can be described by many Federal programs. for example the air pollution program that we all work under the Clean Air Act.

The Federal government sets the goals ... air quality must be this good, or better... and then allows the states, counties, or (in some cases) multi-county regions both the responsibility and authority to to make it happen. That's because each geographic region has its own weather and set of polluters, so each region's plan has to be unque to its circumstances.

That's one idea, but there are others.

So you're happy with air quality and emissions?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
KPO - in the purest form, her care would be up to her family and or local community, church, what ever. What takes place later in her life should be greatly determined by what took place before. All of us are the sum of our choices. Not all the results are happy ones. Even if we make the " right " choices, things can turn out pretty damn bad.

So what you are saying is -

All of us are the sum of our choices
Our choices to not determine whether things turn out well for us

Therefore, some things are out of our individual control, we may make all good choices in our life, and still bad things may befall us.

??

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 8:49 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Therefore, some things are out of our individual control, we may make all good choices in our life, and still bad things may befall us.

No no no no!!! No theorems or extrapolations! It's bad for the Rappster!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 9:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

No. I base my ideal society on the notion that most people in it will share certain principles (pretty much the definition of a society). The folks in the countries you list obviously share certain principles, or their countries wouldn't run the way they do. Do you consider that everyone in Sweden, for example, thinks just alike, or thinks just like you do?

Not really. That's why laws and systems of government were created. They don't rely on everyone accepting the principles in order for them to function.

Eg You might not share the belief that as an employer, you need to provide a safe workplace for your workers. However the law requires you to do so, and if you don't, you will be penalised. That's why laws exist, because not everyone shares the same beliefs or has the same morals.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 21, 2014 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:

My elderly aunts and uncles have been fortunate enough to have had their children and grandchildren look after them before they died. Or at least close enough to check on them and help them make decisions. I looked after my mother through two bouts of cancer, the final one taking her. Even with help it was hard for me.

Now as I face getting older, I wonder what will happen to me as there is no one to look after me as I did my mom or my cousins for their parents.

Sorry, not trying to get maudline. And as you know I live in Canada. Some care homes you have to pay for and some are government run.

My elderly father recently became ill after living independantly for many years. Although he was well off, he wasn't able to afford the private costs of being cared for at home, which would have meant around thousands of dollars per month for full time care, unsubsidised. At that stage, he wasn't sure how long he would need it.

Even with family members around, ferrying him to and from appointments and hospital stays, doing his washing and organising his care from experts, it was pretty much all consuming for me for 6 months, seeing as how I had a family and a job which still needed my time and attention. In the end, as he lay dying, I would not have been able to provide the care that he needed. I just wasn't physically, psychologically equipped, not to mention lacking the medical skills.

I have other family members who had dementia for years, were practically in vegetable states. I'm not sure how family would ahve managed full time care for these people, it was draining enough to be attentive to their needs on a part time basis year in year out.

I know that families did all this in the past, but I also know that people died in some grim circumstances.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So you're happy with air quality and emissions?

Yanno what?? It's MUCH better than is was when I first moved here in '78. Back then the ozone was so thick it would make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I recall being up at the top of the Cajon Pass in August at sunset, looking down at a red sun glowing dimly thru the smog at the end of a 10-day smog seige, with nothing but rock, dried bits of plants and murk to look forward to, and feeling like I was driving into Mordor. I kid you not.

I can't remember when we've had a day so bad in over 15 years, so the answer is... YES, I'M HAPPY WITH AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS. It's far better than when left to business.

Can it be better?

Of course. But it's not government "inefficiency" that's the problem, it's the competition with that big polluting government across the ocean, and business' desire to make "maximimum profit" that's the issue.
---

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 22, 2014 12:31 AM

CHRISISALL

Geeze would rather wheeze.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
1. Deliver the mail.
2. Defend America against the commies and the ragheads.
That's all the Federal Govt. needs to do.

In this day and age of giburu anonymous search engine http://gibiru.com/ there is NO EXCUSE for people like Jongsstraw (and rappy) to be so woefully ignorant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:38 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

You mistake their aim. Ignorance isn't a failing, it's a mission.

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:50 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
1. Deliver the mail.
2. Defend America against the commies and the ragheads.
That's all the Federal Govt. needs to do.
In this day and age of giburu anonymous search engine http://gibiru.com/ there is NO EXCUSE for people like Jongsstraw (and rappy) to be so woefully ignorant.

How'd I get dragged into this again? Those are Jong's answers, and wtf do you even mean " there is NO EXCUSE " ? You mean anyone who doesn't agree with you have no rights ? I'm sorry, but the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are pretty damn clear on what the US govt should / shouldn't do.

It's anything BUT ignorant to correctly state that our federal govt has FAR exceeded its rightful boundaries. The truly ignorant is you, who think you know what in the hell *I'M* believe, based on someone else's reply.

Good grief, the cult of stupid is strong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, you asked for a mechanism about how a Federal program can be applied regionally/ locally. So I described one possible outline based on the national air quality program. There are literally dozens of other ways it could be configured, based on who the money is paid to, who gets to oversee the programs, how quality is assured, and who and on what basis changes are made to the program.

I'll give you one more example,

Overall goals are set by the Feds. Various services (food delivery, in-home therapy, transporation assistance, house cleaning) are set up, in a semi-competitive basis. Just as with assisted living facilities, some will be better than others. Those who manage to attract and retain customers get more government funding. Federal government does accreditation inspections every three years (kind of like the Joint Hospital Commission) or so, and maintains an open to the public file of complaints.

I'm not going to detail the other dozens of possibilities. I assume this is enough.

Now, can we get back to your ideal world?

Quote:
You have the right (and in my desired libertarian society, everyone understands and respects that you have the right) to yourself and your property and everything that derives from that - security of self and property (considering privacy, right to voluntarily associate or withhold association, etc., as part of self and property) - with the understanding that you can enjoy these rights without threat or coercion as long as that enjoyment doesn't threaten anyone else's similar rights.

But, as I said, security is a rather broad word,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 1:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How'd I get dragged into this again?

Because you are our poster child for all that is willfully ignorant.

Quote:
and wtf do you even mean " there is NO EXCUSE " ? You mean anyone who doesn't agree with you have no rights ?

No, I mean that nobody has the right to claim an erroneous fact when things are so easily looked up! Yes, that means you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:

We didn't have to pay for the care givers who came in to help with my mom, government medical covered it but what they didn't do, I did. Very taxing for me. By the time she died, I was run into the ground almost and I wasn't working or had a family depending on me besides.

My mom wasn't bed ridden till almost the end and my dad's siblings like him went quickly. Which is fortunate, for my cousins.

There was some in home care that he could get free, but it only amounted to small amounts per week. Basically, he was at the stage where he needed 24 hour nursing care and you dont get that for free.

It is very taxing to look after dying relatives. More so than most people realise, who haven't done it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
How'd I get dragged into this again?
Because you are our poster child for all that is willfully ignorant.

Which only means that anyone who doesn't buy into your thought police views, is " ignorant ". Got it.

Quote:

Quote:
and wtf do you even mean " there is NO EXCUSE " ? You mean anyone who doesn't agree with you have no rights ?
No, I mean that nobody has the right to claim an erroneous fact when things are so easily looked up! Yes, that means you.

Because you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true, right ?

Bonjour !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 2:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Signy

Maybe Geezer isn't around today.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 7:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Maybe Geezer thought I forgot about this thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Brenda- my MIL was "in hospice" at home. Because hubby and I work full-time, and also bc of our brain-damaged child (who was slipping into dementia at the time) we hired a full-time attendant. And it was STILL hard. Hubby took the evening to midnight shift, I took the 2AM to 6AM shift. I was constantly short of sleep, preparing a special diet (the ketogenic diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet) for seizure control for our DD (which didn't do much good) and the physical and emotional toll was horrific.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:

We didn't have to pay for the care givers who came in to help with my mom, government medical covered it but what they didn't do, I did. Very taxing for me. By the time she died, I was run into the ground almost and I wasn't working or had a family depending on me besides.

My mom wasn't bed ridden till almost the end and my dad's siblings like him went quickly. Which is fortunate, for my cousins.

The care givers who came in for my mom started at 1 hour during the day and one for 4 hours on 1 day because our family doctor was worried about me. They came in 7 days a week. That was my break time. Towards the end, she was getting 2 hours a day, seven days a week and I was given 2 days with 4 hour breaks for me. She was just about to go into hospice care when she died.

People who haven't done it have no idea how hard it is.

It is hard. We considered caring for him in shifts, and if I'd had a better picture of how fast the cancer was spreading, I'd have probably opted for that one. 6 weeks was doable, 18 months was not. We were actively discouraged from this choice by the medical staff at hospital.

It was all very unsatisfying. The whole system needs an overhaul. I don't expect free treatment 24 hours a day, but some more affordable in home care options would have been useful.

sounds like your system has some advantages over ours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 7:54 AM

me neither, as it turns out...
We have public/private system. Kind of complicated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 9:34 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Geeze would rather wheeze.

Always nice to see you add nothing to the discussion.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 11:55 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So - Signy said she'd be gone for a week but would be back to continue the discussion. And she was, and is. I'm curious if you have a reply to either her post or mine.

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 12:02 PM

JONGSSTRAW

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 9:26 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-28/epidemic-hunger-new-report-sa
ys-49-million-americans-are-dealing-food-insecurity

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER- speaking of being secure... or insecure... does your system address this?

Epidemic Of Hunger: New Report Says 49 Million Americans Are Dealing With Food Insecurity

Quote:
If the economy really is "getting better", then why are nearly 50 million Americans dealing with food insecurity? In 1854, Henry David Thoreau observed that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation". The same could be said of our time. In America today, most people are quietly scratching and clawing their way from month to month. Nine of the top ten occupations in the U.S. pay an average wage of less than $35,000 a year, but those that actually are working are better off than the millions upon millions of Americans that can't find jobs. The level of employment in this nation has remained fairly level since the end of the last recession, and median household income has gone down for five years in a row. Meanwhile, our bills just keep going up and the cost of food is starting to rise at a very frightening pace. Family budgets are being squeezed tighter and tighter, and more families are falling out of the middle class every single day. In fact, a new report by Feeding America (which operates the largest network of food banks in the country) says that 49 million Americans are "food insecure" at this point. Approximately 16 million of them are children. It is a silent epidemic of hunger that those living in the wealthy areas of the country don't hear much about. But it is very real.

The mainstream media and our politicians continue to insist that "things are getting better", and that may be true for Wall Street, but the man who was in charge of the new Feeding America report says that the level of suffering for the tens of millions of Americans that are food insecure has not changed...

“Nothing is getting better,” said Craig Gundersen, lead researcher of the report, “Map the Meal Gap 2014,” and an expert in food insecurity and food aid programs. “Let’s stop talking about the end of the Great Recession until we can make sure that we get food insecurity rates down to a more reasonable level,” he added. “We’re still in the throes of the Great Recession, from my perspective.”

In fact, a different report seems to indicate that hunger in America is actually getting worse...

Children's HealthWatch, a network of doctors and public health researchers who collect data on children up to 4 years old, says 29% of the households they track were at risk of hunger last year, compared with 25% the year before.

If someone tries to tell you that "the economy is getting better", that person is probably living in a wealthy neighborhood. Because those that live in poor neighborhoods would not describe what is going around them as an "improvement". In particular, many minority neighborhoods are really dealing with extremely high levels of food insecurity right now. The following comes from a recent NBC News article...

"Minorities are facing serious hunger issues. Ninety-three percent of counties with a majority African-American population fall within the top 10 percent of food-insecure counties, while 60 percent of majority American Indian counties fall in that category"

But if you don't live in one of those areas and you don't know anyone that is facing food insecurity, it can be difficult to grasp just how much people are actually suffering out there right now.For example, consider the story of a young mother named Tianna Gaines Turner...

Tianna Gaines Turner can't remember the last time she went to bed without worrying about how she was going to feed her three children. She can't remember the last time she woke up and wasn't worried about how she and her husband would make enough in their part-time jobs to buy groceries and pay utilities on their apartment in a working-class section of Philadelphia. And she can't remember the last time she felt confident she and her husband wouldn't have to skip meals so their children could eat.

Have you ever been in a position where you had to skip meals just so that other family members could have something to eat?

I haven't, so it is hard for me to imagine having to do such a thing. But there are millions of parents that are faced with these kinds of hard choices every day. Things can be particularly hard if you are a single parent. Just consider the story of Jamie Grimes...

After Jaime Grimes found out in January that her monthly food stamps would be cut again, this time by $40, the single mother of four broke down into sobs — then she took action. The former high school teacher made a plan to stretch her family’s meager food stores even further. She used oatmeal and ground beans as filler in meatloaf and tacos. She watered down juice and low-fat milk to make it last longer. And she limited herself to one meal a day so her kids — ages 3, 4, 13, and 16 — would have enough to eat.

I have such admiration for working single mothers. Many of them work more than one job just so that they can provide for their children. It can be absolutely frustrating to work as hard as you possibly can and still not have enough money to pay the bills at the end of the month.

Those that believe that the economy has gotten "back to normal" just need to look at the number of women that have been forced to turn to government assistance. As I mentioned the other day, a decade ago the number of American women that had jobs outnumbered the number of American women on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin. But now the number of American women on food stamps actually exceeds the number of American women that have jobs.

The truth is that we are nowhere close to where we used to be. The last major economic downturn permanently damaged the middle class, and now the next major economic downturn is rapidly approaching. Right now, there are nearly 50 million Americans that are facing food insecurity. When the next economic crisis strikes, that number is going to go much higher.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 9:30 PM

JONGSSTRAW

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 28, 2014 11:54 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I wonder if Geezer will return to the discussion.

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maybe Geezer thought I forgot about this thread.

Nope.

Just out of town or busy.

Let's discuss your example of government enforcing clean air laws, because this is exactly the type of thing that a Minarchist Libertarian government would do. Such a government would be limited to basically enforcing contracts and making sure folks didn't hurt other folks or take their stuff.

So, if someone builds a Sriracha sauce factory upwind of your house, and the odor prevents you from enjoying your property, a Libertarian government, which supports the idea that you shouldn't be harmed by another, will step in. Depending on the limits on the government, it might be their responsibility or your responsibility to prove damage. A group of your neighbors might file a joint claim for damage. Many options.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 2, 2014 10:25 AM