Ron, Platt, Craig, and all [Arlo's questions] --
Arlo has accused me of "wagging out some ridiculously tired cliché". I guess that's how the elitists think of Freedom. Since he also feels we're to be criticized for not answering his rhetorical questions, let's have a go at it. > Are the "poor" better or worse off because of public libraries? They are better off -- if they avail themselves of the knowledge libraries offer. > Would the "poor" be better off if we shut down all the public > libraries and converted them to Barnes and Nobles? That's an asinine question, since nobody but Arlo would regard a public library as a collective society. > Let's go back to the fabled pre-socialist era of the early 20th century. > Give me some measures you would use to show me how the "poor" > were better off then? Better income? Better health care? > Better education? I'm not sure about "better income", based on the gold standard. But I would say that the stronger work ethic made wealth more accessible, so that the portion of society we would classify as "poor" was smaller than it is today. There were also fewer juvenile gangs, (more time for libraries;-), less drug addiction, less out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and less urban crime. And yes, I think people were far better educated prior to the 20th century. They were better read, more literate, knew more history, and had a better appreciation of what a constitutional government is for. > Contrast the workers in the Pullman camps to the factory workers > at GM today. Tell me in what ways the Pullman laborers were "better off"? You've dragged out one of the sorriest episodes in the history of U.S. industrialization. My research indicates that Pullman was one of several work projects organized in the Chicago area in the late 1800s to help build America's railroads. It employed European immigrants for track work and car service, much of which required long hours under inadequate working conditions. Despite this, many laborers preferred such jobs to factory work, and the so-called "camps" consisted mostly of Mexicans who "developed a strong community life, raised gardens, and held religious services." Workers unions began to form in 1856, which led to strikes and violence, until Federal law mandated a 40-hour workweek is 1946. I think it would be unfair and meaningless to contrast this early experiment in organized labor with the work environment and opportunities for advancement in a modern GM facility. > Since we favor the "free market", do you think people would > be better off with a privatized police force than a socialized one? > Why? Why is a socialized police force better than a private one? Frankly, I don't know what a "socialized" police force is. Are you referring to state troopers employed by the state, or the Gestapo of Nazi Germany? As far as I know, "federal police" in the U.S. are called FBI or CIA agents. The states hire troopers to patrol highways because they cross township and county lines. I do know from personal experience that the police force in Lower Moreland where I live is outstanding. I suppose you could call them "privatized"; they work for the municipality and, like the LM Fire Dept. and garbage collectors, are paid by resident taxes. Just for the record, Arlo, libraries, universities and corporations are not collective societies. Labor unions may be, as they impose rules and penalties on member behavior, as well as annual dues. Military organizations are definitely collectives. And it's interesting to note that most communist states originate as a military coup following a war or rebellion, the U.S.S.R and Cuba being notable examples. I hope I've answered these questions to your satisfaction. Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
