Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/16/2004 8:28:03 AM PST by rogerv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: rogerv
But we need something more, I think, a sense of wanting to help others live better lives

What if you have a lot of people that do not want to help others live better? Do you have a way to force them or are they free to do what they want?

2 posted on 12/16/2004 8:30:45 AM PST by KJacob (I will not worry about 2008 until late 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

"As a reformist liberal who follows John Dewey"

Never mind. Troll-Alert.


6 posted on 12/16/2004 8:49:45 AM PST by PeterFinn (The NAACP can have a recount of the Ohio vote if I can have a recount of the Million Man March.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

yours is a worthwhile project.

i read the first book in college. then i was idealistic.

now, especially since the democrats have corrupted public discourse, beginning with the removal of president nixon, the attacks on president carter for his religion, the attacks on president reagan, and the president bushes, and the cover-ups of president clinton's rapes, i've concluded that the majority of their supporters do not want intelligent discourse.


the goal of the democrats has been anti-democratic at least since the rise of fdr. democrats of the 20th and 21st centuries have supported tyrannies around the world-- lenin, stalin, mao, kim, fidel, and most recently, presidential candidate kerry's support of ho chi minh.

michael moore's films are a realistic statement of the current democrat plantation.


7 posted on 12/16/2004 8:55:32 AM PST by ken21 (kerrycide = running 4 president on treasonous service in vietnam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
You claim to reject "grand Utopian schemes", yet the language of your post suggests otherwise. You speak in terms of "how can we rationally institute changes in our society" or "how does one arrange society". The underlying assumption here is of a "rational" central authority administering social change, instead of "irrational" organic, bottom-up progress. I think this assumption is highly debatable, especially on this forum.

Also, I think your call for a conversation, rather than a monologue, is disingenuous. You casually dismiss important traditions of this country such as "individual initiative", "hard work", and "private property", without even discussing them. This makes me think you have some "grand Utopian scheme" in mind and wish to propagate it under the cover of discussion.
15 posted on 12/16/2004 9:29:17 AM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

rogev:

In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?






By following the basic principles of our Constitution.

No infringements on individual liberties allowed.


18 posted on 12/16/2004 9:34:06 AM PST by jonestown ( JONESTOWN, TX http://www.tsha.utexas.edu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
If you are looking to devise a system by which the world operates on auto-pilot, you will never get there.

Character will always matter. Individual morality will always matter. Courage and talent will always matter. The best you will ever be able to do will be to foster character, and morality, and courage and talent. Given a critical mass of people with those qualities, any system can be made to work after a fashion, and in the absense of those qualities no system can work.

I think the answer cannot be just: individual initiative and hard work. Both of those are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it. The difference is the social system in which they do their work.

Good example. What makes the third world "third world" is precisely a lack of legal clarity. See Hernando De Soto's work. The key to prosperity is a system that permits individual initiative, and protects individuals from one another. That means clear and predictable laws, clear and predictable property law, and most importantly transparent and honest courts.

The source of poverty is the inverse of the above, lawlessness even when disguised as lawful. Again, we are back to character. Any system can be suborned and undermined by dishonesty. We can argue between socialism and capitalism and various gradations in between but in the end the solution isn't in calibrating the precise mix of freedom and government intervention as much as it is a critical mass of moral people.

When did the Iron Curtain fall? It fell the day the East German leadership ordered the troops to open fire on the people, and the individual soldiers didn't fire. When did the Soviet Union fall? It fell when the troops were sent into Moscow and they didn't fire on the people. It fell in Romania when the troops wouldn't fire on the people. Dictatorships rely on people who will commit murder on command and fall when people refuse to do it. Again, character is everything.

20 posted on 12/16/2004 10:01:01 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
Let me get this straight: to rationally guide our society we must erase or deny self-interest?

KJacob asks the perfect question. How can you ensure all will buy into the 'common interest'? What sort of social engineering do you propose that would eliminate cheaters?

Also: who or what determines the common interest? A leader? A vote? Isn't that more or less what our system does now? I believe that you'll never get consensus from 250 million people. Differing ideas for the direction of our society will always exist, no matter what rate you phase in change.

If you want a society open to changes in beliefs than you must allow these differing ideas not only to exist, but you also must give each a chance to flourish. Only then will they become strong enough to challenge the dominant paradigm. You must encourage contrarian ideas knowing that they might replace currently held beliefs.

You say that a grand Utopian scheme is out of the question, and yet, if you're going to institute unidirectional piecemeal change there must be a guiding plan. If there's no Utopia at the end of this process, then it must be an eternal open ended quest. Therefore you must be willing to allow contrarian ideas take the reins and guide society when they attain popular support.

In such a situation, you might have a society that, in a time of scarce resources, draws closer together and realizes the benefits of group strength. That society might pass laws that redistribute income. Later, as resources become more available (due maybe to weather, overseas political climate, freak accident... who knows?), the society may realize the great advances possible when it's individuals are not hampered by the old system and are more free to act in self-interest. It might retract the laws that redistribute income.

And each state of that society, one more socialist, one more libertarian, must later be judged in your system to determine which was 'better', right? But you've already established that beliefs are to be relative and open to change, so the definitions of 'good', 'better', and 'crappy' also become relative. There goes any sort of scientific, or rational, study of the experiments. The quality of the social engineering experiments would be judged by whatever group holds political or social power. And when their beliefs are toppled by another group, the second could then draw new conclusions. 'Good' is now 'bad'.

Again, I ask: isn't this more or less what we have now?
22 posted on 12/16/2004 10:05:33 AM PST by mr.maine-iac (... there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. - Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

The problem with socialist societies is at some point they all have to resort to force to compel participation.

I prefer a society where if you and your cohorts wish to share you are free to form a commune...or even a corporation...and indulge yourselves to your heart's content.

But if someone...anyone...wants to move to a mountain top and salute a Nazi flag (extreme example disclaimer) and school their kids in National Socialist thought I want them to be free to do it. I absolutely don't agree with their actions, but I absolutely support their freedom to do it.

And that's the thing.

Our existing society does nothing to stop you from forming a Communist commune...or even a city (Santa Monica comes to mind). But a socialist society will have to prevent me from forming a capitalist commune or city because that is the very essence of socialism: central control.

Socialism without the force of government behind it is called capitalism. The People's Republic of China is a good example of where the government backed off and capitalism rose up all on its own. Now the Communist government there is trying to dial back the nascent freedom because free people don't like socialism.

China is headed to a bloody revolution due to the fact that people like being able to own things.

I prefer freedom.


23 posted on 12/16/2004 10:07:05 AM PST by PeterFinn (The NAACP can have a recount of the Ohio vote if I can have a recount of the Million Man March.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
Roger, no amount of government social engineering can make people care about one another. That is not the function of government. What I've seen from government is actually the opposite result. For example, the welfare type programs where we've put so many on the dole in this country actually hurt the spirit of giving in this country and have undermined organizations that had traditionally cared for the needy such as churches. If it were up to me, we'd start severely cutting down on things like SSI, H.U.D., food stamps, welfare, and that sort of thing and eventually abolish these programs if possible.

Does this mean I want children to go hungry? Absolutely not. I think if we started pulling the government out of these endeavors churches and other charitable organizations would step in and fill the void. I know I would contribute, as would most people I know. What would change is that churches and other charitable organizations would regain that position of importance in our communities. There would also be far less fraud because people would feel a lot worse about cheating local churches and community members than they would about defrauding the far away government that has money to burn. Likewise, local charities would be much better able to spot fraud on a local level.

Do you want to cut down on teen pregnancy? Stop making it such that they'll be able to receive relatively guilt free government support. Want able bodied people who now sit around and get high all the time and get in trouble while they are mooching off the government to get jobs and live like the rest of us? Cut them off. This would reduce crime and help these people and their children to learn to be contributing members of society.

Governments are inherently inefficient and prone to corruption. Government programs more often than not have unintended consequences that cause worse problems than those they set out to solve. Our government cannot fix all of our problems. This was never intended by our founding fathers who set this country up, especially with respect to our federal government, and they were right.

I don't hate liberals. But there is one thing about liberals and even many who claim to be conservatives that really bothers me, and that is this notion that government is there to fix all of our problems and this irrational belief that government is capable of accomplishing this monumental task. They aren't. They never were and they never will be. In fact they tend to make things worse and their role in society should be minimal. They should try to protect us from each other and make an effort to keep the playing field fair. But government should not be in the business of social engineering. They need to let nature run its course. Man is an amazingly innovative creature capable of adapting to changes. We don't need a government changing us or our society. Allow us the freedom to survive on our own devices and things always seem to work out. Meddle and muck things up with government programs and more and more laws and all you end up with is a dysfunctional society that can't take care of itself.

Thanks but no thanks. Keep your social engineering. Move to Canada or somewhere else and inflict it on them. Let nature run its course here and things will work out fine.
26 posted on 12/16/2004 10:33:53 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
So I guess the deep question for me is how does one arrange society so that we can adapt our institutions to changing conditions and improve their performance of important functions (like education, judicial justice, economic welfare, scientific knowledge, etc.)

After your first thread with the 450+ responses I would have thought that you would have been smart enough to recognize that people here understand what socialism is, they understand what "social engineering" is. They understand the kind of thinking, the kind of mind-set that would say how does one arrange society so that...

Statements like that are a dead givaway to conservatives that you are a socialist! Have you ever questioned why you think it is "your place" to "arrange society"? The arrogance of what you are suggesting just boggles my mind?

And why? Why do you automatically assume that government is the proper means to bring about the "social engineering" and socialism that you are after?

I think the answer cannot be just: individual initiative and hard work. Both of those are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it. The difference is the social system in which they do their work. The answer isn't private property either. To be sure, the system needs incentives to energize the work and creativity any economy needs. That you will own things appeals to self-interest, and self interest is an important factor in human motivation. But we need something more, I think, a sense of wanting to help others live better lives. Hume put it this way: in addition to self-interests we have sympathetic interests in the well-being of others. Those sympathies are limited, but they are a significant force in making people care about others in their community. Well, that's enough for a start. I donm't want this to be a monlogue, but a conversation, and am interested in hearing what you think.

What is your evidence that individual initiative is not sufficient? The Third World? As has already been explained to you, if countries in Africa and South America had good governments, the "individuals" that you seem so eager to control, would be doing just fine.

You have made no argument as to why what we have now is not acceptable. Freedom and self-determination are messy -- you cannot *control* people who are free. And I suspect that that bothers you (I also suspect that you think you "know" what is best for other people and if we would just allow you -- you {and others like you} would be a wonderful, benevolent dictator and create lovely realites for "the people" [who you probably see as too stupid to create their own realites])

30 posted on 12/16/2004 12:23:33 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
"I think the answer cannot be just: individual initiative and hard work. Both of those are necessary, but they are not sufficient. Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it. The difference is the social system in which they do their work. The answer isn't private property either. To be sure, the system needs incentives to energize the work and creativity any economy needs. That you will own things appeals to self-interest, and self interest is an important factor in human motivation. But we need something more, I think, a sense of wanting to help others live better lives,..."

Perhaps that can be summed up by recognizing collective identity can act as the catalyst, as long as the rights of the individual are not usurped.

I think our constitution does this; it provides for the common good while recognizing individual rights. It also allows for amendments; it appears the authors accepted the need for change. We have changed it, some for the good and some for the not so good, but the basic document remains untouched.

The constitution defines our collective identity, and with that, we (each of us, collectively) accept a certain responsibility for the group, to greater or lessor degrees.

I recognize I am not the philosopher Popper was, but it works for me.

33 posted on 12/16/2004 1:13:15 PM PST by 506trooper (FWIW...sometimes, I sense a lack of common sense..just my two scents.<br>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

You might be interested in this letter from Eric Voegelin to Leo Strauss, on Karl Popper:

Leo Strauss: May I ask you to let me know sometime what you think of Mr. Popper. He gave a lecture here, on the task of social philosophy, that was beneath contempt: it was the most washed-out, lifeless positivism trying to whistle in the dark, linked to a complete inability to think "rationally," although it passed itself off as "rationalism"--it was very bad. I cannot imagine reading, and yet it appears to be a professional duty to become familiar with his produtions. Could you say something to me about that--if you wish, I will keep it to myself.


Eric Voegelin: Dear Mr. Strauss, The opportunity to speak a few deeply felt words about Karl Popper to a kindred soul is too golden to endure a long delay. This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the "open society and its enemies" is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. This insistence persuaded me to read the work even though I would otherwise not have touched it. You are quite right to say that it is a vocational duty to make ourselves familiar with the ideas of such a work when they lie in our field; I would hold out against this duty the other vocational duty, not to write and to publish such a work. In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances.

1. The expressions "closed [society]" and "open society" are taken from Bergson's Deux Sources. Without explaining the difficulties that induced Bergson to create these concepts, Popper takes the terms because they sound good to him[he] comments in passing that in Bergson they had a "religious" meaning, but that he will use the concept of the open society closer to Graham Walas's "great society" or that of Walter Lippmann. Perhaps I am oversensitive about such things, but I do not believe that respectable philosophers such as Bergson develop their concepts for the sole purpose that the coffeehouse scum might have something to botch. There also arises the relevant problem: if Bergson's theory of open society is philosphically and historically tenable (which I in fact believe), then Popper's idea of the open society is ideological rubbish . . .

2. The impertinent disregard for the achievements in his particular problem area, which makes itself evident with respect to Bergson, runs through the whole work. When one reads the deliberations on Plato or Hegel, one has the impression that Popper is quite unfamiliar with the literature on the subject--even though he occasionally cites an author. In some cases, as for example Hegel, I would believe that he has never seen a work like Rosenzweig's Hegel and the State. In other cases, where he cites works without appearing to have perceived their contents, another factor is added:

3. Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says. Through this emerge terrible things, as when he translates Hegel's "Germanic world" as "German world" and draws conclusions form this mistranslation regarding Hegel's German nationalist propaganda.

. . . Briefly and in sum: Popper's book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dilettantish, and as a result is worthless.


34 posted on 12/17/2004 3:36:07 AM PST by Dumb_Ox (Ares does not spare the good, but the bad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

"In a nutshell, the central question is this: how can we rationally institute changes in our society?"

No, the central question is whether we have an obligation to change society. Why should we? On what authority?


35 posted on 12/17/2004 3:48:51 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: pbrown

PING!


38 posted on 12/17/2004 9:11:11 AM PST by airborne (God bless and keep our fallen heroes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

PING


42 posted on 12/17/2004 10:37:50 AM PST by airborne (God bless and keep our fallen heroes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv; Owl_Eagle; Americanwolf

A chance to ask questions...and perhaps get answers.


43 posted on 12/17/2004 10:40:58 AM PST by airborne (God bless and keep our fallen heroes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
Things have changed a lot since the 1940s. At that time it was assumed by many people that planning and government control were inevitable and the only question was whether they would be imposed gradually and regulated democratically or whether they would arrive in a more drastic fashion and be administered dictatorially. Today, people are much colder to the idea of centralized control.

"Piecemeal social change" sounded fine when totalitarianism was the alternative, but today it has an elitist, Orwellian ring. Government may be a necessity and some regulation of business unavoidable. Nations still do regulate industry and administer various agencies. The focus today is on individual liberty and government non-interference, though, and most of us tend to tune out people who want to use government to run people's lives. We may need them at some point or in some situations, but don't like them hanging around when things are more or less running well by themselves.

"Democratic control" was a plausible slogan in an age of totalitarianisms, but now we experience it as just more bureaucratic interference and red-tape. Consequently, to many people today, Popper looks more like the autocratic, top-down rulers that he was critical of in his own day. It's certainly ironic, but those who believed that he distorted the views of Plato or Hegel will probably smile at his being lumped in with them as ambitious would-be guardian-rulers. More or less the same is true of Dewey, at least where conservatives are concerned: democratic pragmatism isn't so much contrasted with totalitarian thought-control, but seen as another species of modern nihilism.

Right or left, we should all be glad that the totalitarianism isn't an option now, but that does mean that politicians and theorists associated with the struggle against fascism or communism don't seem to be the most relevant to our needs today.

55 posted on 12/17/2004 6:06:19 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
The difference is the social system in which they do their work. The answer isn't private property either. To be sure, the system needs incentives to energize the work and creativity any economy needs. That you will own things appeals to self-interest, and self interest is an important factor in human motivation. But we need something more

I think a liberal who has seen communist regime after regime fail should think that private ownership and self interest should be foremost in the third world attempting to get out of the hole.

Case in point: people in the third world work as hard or harder than many of us do in the indistrial world, but have much less to show for it.

And arguing that they work as hard is silly on the face of it too, inasmuchas the first world works with tools and equipment that far enhance the work acheivment of an individual. So thats it, move over to a capitalist society and forget about people doing good work for others unless it is of their own free will that they do so. The rest of the article is a subtle appeal for more communist treatment of people but in small bites so that they don't suffer the great losses of communist societies of the past. Wasted thought energy.

61 posted on 12/18/2004 10:34:46 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv
I find your insights and questions quite enchanting. Your title, straight from Karl Popper, was magnetic to me, as what little I have read by Karl Popper, I found myself mostly agreeing with him. Your interest in trying to understand different opinions in not unlike my own. I did however, find one paragraph that seemed to me to be the underlying premise on which all else depends. That paragraph starts out :

The reason beliefs should be treated as revisable is that we are often guessing the way the world is, and need to update our guesses in the light of new information. Markets can be good for this, but not always.

On this we agree one hundred percent.. I also agree with you that :

In efficient markets, price reflects available information. But competition can lead to information being witheld (for the sake of competitive advantage) and there are market failures as well.

But in stating the above, depending on how broadly you choose to define your words, lies the failure of your insight. If you broadly define "competitive advantage" to include advantage to the advancement of personal beliefs and causes, and to the advancement of personal prestige and reputation (regardless of or without personal monetary or material benefit), then we agree. On the other hand, if what primarily comes to mind is the narrow "competitive advantage" as it is usually meant, that of monetary and business position, then your proposal to correct such informational deficiencies fails. As failure to include personal beliefs, causes, prestige and reputation, will lead to false assumptions and subsequent premises. When propagated, such failures feeds into the politics of envy and resentment. Thus:

The assumption of rationality in the markets is an idealization.

Where in fact, all we can ever have rationally speaking, is "markets." Obviously some markets will be closed and private, while other markets will be open and public. A distinction must be made here for clarity. Government markets can be both both public as well as private. An example of a private government market in operation, can be found any time a personnel executive or an employment board decides to hire a new government employee. Obviously the policies on which they operate have been public. But basis for the final decisions are private.

But in the ideal case, for econmies as well as scientifc systems, the end result should reflect all the available information.

In closing I would suggest to you that an open public free market will most always reach closer to rationality than any private government market. You may call this "assumption of rationality... an idealization," but can you provide a better method of arriving at the most complete and accurate information?

69 posted on 12/18/2004 9:22:12 PM PST by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rogerv

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). This private bank has an exclusive monopoly in money creation which in reality has ended the need for revenue from taxes. So why do they tax? To FOOL YOU into thinking they need them.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations. There is also the postal monopoly, AMTRACK and CONRAIL

7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000. And I almost forgot...The Equal Rights Amendment means that women should do all work that men do including the military and since passage it would make women subject to the draft.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .

80 posted on 12/25/2004 12:48:59 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Merry CHRISTmas and happy new year everyone i love you all !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson