Ed says,

What about after Y2K has come and gone? Whether the effects last for a day, or a month, or a year, there should come a point at which we can say, "Okay, it's over. Now it's time to put the pieces back together again. Humpty Dumpty fell from the wall -- now we have to see whether all the king's men can put him back together again." In the worst of all possible scenarios -- e.g., nuclear accidents, toxic chemical disasters, outbreaks of war, plague, and famine -- Y2K could last for a century or more, and the generations currently living might not be the ones to begin the rebuilding effort. In that case, we would need someone like Hari Seldon in Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy, a fictional social scientist who sought to reduce 10,000 years of anarchy down to a mere thousand years. Perhaps there is a Hari Seldon somewhere among us, planning for just such a Y2K doomsday, but the Humpty Dumpty Y2K effort described below had much more modest objectives.

I ask,

Given the history of the US from FDR to now, is it wise to assume that a government will _help_?

What's wrong with self-reliance? Anarchy? From 1776 until 1861, the US got along pretty well leaving each person to himself.

But somewhere along the line the Federal Government set out to make itself the arbiter of what is right and wrong for the country, and it set out to get the power to enforce its ideas. For example, it began to try to prevent crime rather than punish criminals, and that has led to all sorts of stupid legislation. For example, it has tried to replace the morals of the country with the laws of the Federal Government, and since most laws are immoral, the people have no inate or learned desire to keep them, resulting in a natural antipathy between the government and the governed.

So I hope that there will be no overarching government on the other side of y2k. (I am assuming that a severe dislocation will occur during 1999-2001.) I, for one, am not willing to give up _any_ of my freedoms, not "for the children" or for any of the other excuses for government power grabbing.

If a person cannot make it on his own, and if his family and church cannot or will not provide for him, that is sad, but it is not my duty to provide for him. Perhaps his mother should have kept her legs closed.

If y2k does anything, I hope that it will destroy the big-government welfare system and the raping and pilaging of the US citizen to support those who should support themselves.

I surely do _not_ want a Hari Seldon to engineer the recovery of the huge evil empire that is the Federal Government. What used to be the government of the united States of America is now the government of the people of the states of America, a perversion and an obscenity.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 09, 1999

Answers

George: You said it so well! Doesn't history often repeat itself? I hope the younger generation can learn a lesson from all of this, but I doubt it. We have become slaves, we do not work for ourselves or really for the good of mankind, we work because we have to pay taxes and exist on this earth in whatever comfort we now enjoy. There may be some that do not fit the bill here, but for the most part it is true. We have allowed a few to have control over many and we on the bottom have no one to blame but ourselves. The snowball just keeps getting bigger.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), August 09, 1999.

Excellent post, George, thanks. I'll take a stab at your question with an analogy from here in slow paced New Mexico. Ed, if you haven't seen it yet and you stay in Taos,you'll see it over and over.

People move here all the time from the big cities and the big states with their big money and values. They move here for the slow pace, the tranquility and the easy-going life style. (Where else in this country do you see house trailers next door to million dollar mansions and the same two neighbors hanging out together?) But these newcomers immediately notice that something is wrong and by godfry they're gonna fix it. As you pointed out, George, preventing crime as opposed to punishing criminals is how this country's enlightened do-gooders have been fixing the country for most of this century.

Even here in slow paced New Mexico all those newcomer "fixers" have just about fixed us to death. Thank God the small towns here are just that, with no industry or excitement to draw in any more "fixers". I remember 25 or so years ago everyone in Colorado had a bumper sticker that said "DONT CALIFORNICATE COLORADO!" Too bad it didn't work.

I personally don't envision Infomagic's scenario but 2 giant steps back could indeed make for a much better future.

-- Roger (pecosrog@earthlink.net), August 09, 1999.

I grew up in New York City, in the Bronx, and I have lived in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Northern New Jersey. At the moment I am living in the Bronx again.

In the previous posting I read speculation about how cities might be wracked by rioting next year. In this thread I read about how the Federal government is evil because it spends money for welfare (how well used is the money given to the Pentagon?)

I have seen similar themes brought up a number of times on the main discussion forum. I detect a strong anti-urban, perhaps even anti- non-white, feeling among some of the people posting here. There are many kinds of communities in the United States, and people choose to live in them for various reasons. I don't think it is fair to imply that virtue and morality reside only in small towns and rural areas. Frankly, however, that is an idea that has endured through much of American history. I don't think that is healthy for dealing with the issues being discussed here.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

Paul said,

I grew up in New York City, in the Bronx, and I have lived in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Northern New Jersey. At the moment I am living in the Bronx again.

In the previous posting I read speculation about how cities might be wracked by rioting next year. In this thread I read about how the Federal government is evil because it spends money for welfare (how well used is the money given to the Pentagon?)

I have seen similar themes brought up a number of times on the main discussion forum. I detect a strong anti-urban, perhaps even anti- non-white, feeling among some of the people posting here. There are many kinds of communities in the United States, and people choose to live in them for various reasons. I don't think it is fair to imply that virtue and morality reside only in small towns and rural areas. Frankly, however, that is an idea that has endured through much of American history. I don't think that is healthy for dealing with the issues being discussed here.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

I reply to specific parts as follows.

"In this thread I read about how the Federal government is evil because it spends money for welfare (how well used is the money given to the Pentagon?)"

The constitution _requires_ that the government provide for the defense of the nation. Therefore, no matter how well or how poorly the defense funds are administered, they are legal, moral and acceptable (If they are acquired from the states.) It is a perversion of the constitution for the government to be in the Robin Hood business.

I detect a strong anti-urban, perhaps even anti- non-white, feeling among some of the people posting here.

I think your detector is defective. There are many, many able-bodied rural whites sucking at the disability teat. The fact that the teat is there is a crime.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 10, 1999.

Paul, It is not an anti-urban or anti-white bias.

I would like to invite you to spend a day in the early weeks of a program called YouthBuild, which is a program to take kids aged 14-24 and bring them from the Welfare culture to the Working Culture, putting them into skills and arenas where they may work for a living and contribute to their community.

We'll start with the first classes, which are life skills classes. Originally it was thought that these classes would include basic check book balancing and things of that sort.

It was discovered, however, that kids understood some of the concepts of a checking account but did not understand the concept of working for the money. They would ask questions like "Why do I have to come to work every day and stay the whole day?" When the answer was that this is the way you earn money, their response was usually a laugh. Everybody knows that the money comes in the mail, or from the Man down the street when you run an errand for him.

Kids would show up for class, go to sleep, or get up when they felt like it to go out to Mc Donalds for something to drink. the inapropriateness of these actions could be impressed on them but it took time.

I think you can extrapolate from here. We are dealing with a 3 or 5 generation expectation that entitlements will never end, when we are dealing with the "kids" in the inner city. the fact that the gravy train is about to come to a halt is NOT comprehensible to these kids.

Lest you think this is from whole cloth, the above is the experience of a pilot YouthBuild program done by St. Mark's Presbyterian Church, of Cleveland, OH in 1997, by Rev. Joan Salmon Campbell, my wife's boss at the time.

Chuck Rienzo

PS the graduates of the program showed a 100% High School retention or GED rate. hte program WORKS!

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 10, 1999.

To Chuck and George:

I think the standards that many Americans use about the work ethic, the responsibilities of government, the meaning of private property, the concept of "rights" for corporations, and other matters are hardly universal; at other times and places other standards have applied. For example, I notice that neither of you deals with the fact that some people become quite wealthy doing fairly useless or bogus activities (tobacco and liquor companies, stock market machinations, sending out "spam" advertising on the Internet, or just through inheritance). Other people work hard doing useful things in factories, farms, schools, etc., and get paid very little for it. If someone is wealthy, it is considered acceptable for him or her to then do nothing and contribute nothing. If someone is poor, it is generally assumed that it is their own fault. Money in this society is a virtue in itself.

When the American constitution was written, the world was at the very beginning of the industrial age. Since then, the American government has evolved in many ways that could not have been envisioned in 1789. For one thing, it has supported, subsidized, and otherwise helped the private sector through various forms of corporate welfare at least since the mid-19th century. The Department of Defense itself has grown in ways that were never conceived of in the Constitution. In fact, the Pentagon functions in a couple of ways that are far different from what was intended over 200 years ago. For one thing, it operates, through the awarding of lucrative weapons contracts, as a wealth transfer device far larger than the AFDC program or other programs for the poor. Secondly, it exists to project American super-power throughout the world (Vietnam, Somalia, Kuwait, Kosovo, etc.); the interests of the entire world have become American interests. (The armed forces of countries like Belgium actually function for "defense.") If some of the Founding Fathers could see this situation, they might ask: if we are in charge of the entire world, then who is in charge of us?

I think that the most important issues don't involve the vertical divisions between the private and public sectors, but rather the horizontal divisions between those who have power and those who don't. Big business and big government are intertwined as part of the same entity, what Lewis Lapham refers to as the "permanent government" that operates mostly behind the scenes to determine how the rest of us are to live.

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

Paul says [my responses in brackets]:

To Chuck and George: I think the standards that many Americans use about the work ethic, the responsibilities of government, the meaning of private property, the concept of "rights" for corporations, and other matters are hardly universal; at other times and places other standards have applied. For example, I notice that neither of you deals with the fact that some people become quite wealthy doing fairly useless or bogus activities (tobacco and liquor companies, stock market machinations, sending out "spam" advertising on the Internet, or just through inheritance).

[Whatever people will pay for is not useless or bogus. It may offend your sense of what is right, but others, who do not agree with your sense of what is right, should not be bound by what you believe. The big problem with the US being the way it is is that a group has tried to force what it believes on everybody else.]

Other people work hard doing useful things in factories, farms, schools, etc., and get paid very little for it.

[If they want to be paid more they should learn to do something that is in more demand. Just because they make or grow something doesn't make what they do any more "holy" than what an alcohol salesman does. Next you will say that we should take tax what you call bogus activities to give some money to the poor workers. Fill in your own expletives, for I dasn't turn the air blue.]

If someone is wealthy, it is considered acceptable for him or her to then do nothing and contribute nothing.

[I don't agree that his doing nothing contributes nothing. If he spends any of his wealth that contributes. If he doesn't, then at least he is not mucking things up for others.]

If someone is poor, it is generally assumed that it is their own fault.

[Damn straight!]

Money in this society is a virtue in itself.

[Having acquired it is a virtue. It's nice to be able to spend it to get things you want or need. Money in and of itself is neutral.]

When the American constitution was written, the world was at the very beginning of the industrial age. Since then, the American government has evolved in many ways that could not have been envisioned in 1789.

[Most of them unconstitutional. If the government had governed as it was designed to govern, much of that evolution would have not occurred.]

For one thing, it has supported, subsidized, and otherwise helped the private sector through various forms of corporate welfare at least since the mid-19th century.

[Since much later than that, I contend. Corporations were not coddled until after 1909 or 1913 (I forget when the individual income tax was started for real).]

The Department of Defense itself has grown in ways that were never conceived of in the Constitution. In fact, the Pentagon functions in a couple of ways that are far different from what was intended over 200 years ago. For one thing, it operates, through the awarding of lucrative weapons contracts, as a wealth transfer device far larger than the AFDC program or other programs for the poor.

[Even though the wealth transfer is as you say, I am not convinced that it is not as intended -- except that the founding father's envisioned that the fed would charge the states, not the citizens of the states!!! The buying of the weapons of war was certainly envisioned, but that, like any other process, can be perverted.]

Secondly, it exists to project American super-power throughout the world (Vietnam, Somalia, Kuwait, Kosovo, etc.);

[No. It exists to defend the US from all adversaries. It has been wrongly used to wage agressive wars. We have no business in _any_ war unless it is the result of our being attacked or of our knowledge that we are about to be attacked.]

the interests of the entire world have become American interests.

[No. Our politicians have made a majority believe that that is so.]

(The armed forces of countries like Belgium actually function for "defense.")

[Hoo damn ray for Belgium.]

If some of the Founding Fathers could see this situation, they might ask: if we are in charge of the entire world, then who is in charge of us?

[We are not in charge of the entire world. We are the victims of politicians who want a single world government and who are using the platform and wealth of the US to further those aims. Why else would we be trying to foster "democracy" (mob rule) on the world?]

I think that the most important issues don't involve the vertical divisions between the private and public sectors, but rather the horizontal divisions between those who have power and those who don't.

[As long as any individual is not unfairly prevented from acquiring wealth and power, then there is no problem. One is only guaranteed the persuit of happiness, not the attainment. And I will concede that the politicians have corrupted the rules to unfairly discriminate against non-politicians and those not in the old-boy network.]

Big business and big government are intertwined as part of the same entity, what Lewis Lapham refers to as the "permanent government" that operates mostly behind the scenes to determine how the rest of us are to live.

[I agree with this. I think it is wrong. And I think the second revolutionary war is long, long overdue. (Which is not to say that I want to fight in such a war.)]

-- Paul DiMaria (p_dimaria@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 10, 1999.

Why do people assume that all money spent on defense just "goes away" or ends up in the pockets of some rich person? The defense industry consists of American factories. The money pays the wages of the workers. The president of a company gets up in the mornung and comes to work just like everyone else.

And don't think that just because a company has a high-tech sounding name that it must be immensely profitable, or pays higher wages than, say, an automaker. They probably pay less since many defense companies are too small to be unionized.

-- biker (y2kbiker@worldnet.att.net), August 11, 1999.

George- Let's assume all the farmers out there become computer programmers. Where are you gonna get food? If all factory workers become middle management in various corporations. Who's gonna build you a car? If all the teachers become romance novelists. Who is gonna provide your kids with the education to take this world forward? Ordinary people provide the means for us to live extraordinary lives. Something to remember...

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), August 11, 1999.

George- Let's assume all the farmers out there become computer programmers.

[Since there is no incentive for that to happen, economic or otherwise, the assumption is stupid on its face and any consequences of it are at least as stupid.]

Where are you gonna get food? If all factory workers become middle management in various corporations. Who's gonna build you a car? If all the teachers become romance novelists. Who is gonna provide your kids with the education to take this world forward? Ordinary people provide the means for us to live extraordinary lives. Something to remember...

[This makes so little sense that I feel safe in disregarding it.]

[Had you said something to the effect that people doing the jobs that they have chosen for themselves makes it possible for me to not have to do those jobs, I would agree with you. What you did say strikes me as fatuous nonsense.]

George

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 11, 1999.

George- Since you felt the liberty to insult than which threatens your position as a Capitalist TOOL, I shall also feel free to remark that you are a fatuos ASS. There now, my inner child feels much better. Go play on your yacht.

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), August 12, 1999.

George, on one point you are wrong. In the 1980's President Cleveland (one of the sorriest presidents ever elected, up to the present one.) sent troops into chicago to put down the workers strikes. Their orders were to break up the strikes at all costs. They shot and beat workers, their wives and children, and imprisioned many. Extreme violence was the order of the day. President Cleveland had his head so far up big business it's amazing he could see daylight. Imagine that! sending troops against American citizens. Wonder if it could ever happen again. Reguards, Lani

-- Lani (silverfox@milfordnet.com), August 12, 1999.

I'm sorry, that should be "the 1890's" Lani

-- Lani (silverfox@milfordnet.com), August 12, 1999.

George- Since you felt the liberty to insult than which threatens your position as a Capitalist TOOL, I shall also feel free to remark that you are a fatuos ASS. There now, my inner child feels much better. Go play on your yacht.

[An observation: I was "insulting" your statements, not you. You, on the other hand insulted me. Feel proud? Another observation: I am not rich, but I have noticed that being rich is only regarded as bad by the envious.]

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 12, 1999.

George, on one point you are wrong. In the 1980's President Cleveland ...

-- Lani (silverfox@milfordnet.com), August 12, 1999.

I will concede that. As an aside, I feel that a strike should always be treated as a resignation by each individual striker.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), August 12, 1999.

Anarchy sounds great to me sometimes, but it won't be that good for the people who are too weak or sick or helpless to care for themselves. A lack of laws and government is like a blank check for murder, slavery, etc. The Law of the Jungle, when in effect, means that those who are oppressed eventually band together and enlist bigger bullies than those who bullied them in the first place. Anarchy naturally leads to a rapid totalitarian system. Only the impartial rule of law stops this terrible progression.

I agree with you though that people have forgotten about freedom being the bottom line. That's what laws need to do: liberate and keep us free. While laws designed to promote freedom generally promote security, laws designed (at their basic core) to ensure security DO NOT promote freedom.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 13, 1999.

Anarchy sounds great to me sometimes, but it won't be that good for the people who are too weak or sick or helpless to care for themselves. A lack of laws and government is like a blank check for murder, slavery, etc. The Law of the Jungle, when in effect, means that those who are oppressed eventually band together and enlist bigger bullies than those who bullied them in the first place. Anarchy naturally leads to a rapid totalitarian system. Only the impartial rule of law stops this terrible progression.

This is exactly what the apologists for government want you to believe. However, it is precisely the opposite of the truth. The purpose of government is to allow a few to rule the many. Without government, no one person would have enough power to ruin the lives of thousands, millions, or even billions of other people.

Unfortunately, the founders of this country did not understand that government is an unnecessary evil, as that argument had not yet been worked out conclusively. However, this has now been shown to be true, although of course most people are completely ignorant of it.

A good place to start is with the Lysander Spooner Reader, a collection of articles and essays by one of the great proponents of freedom. Another good source of arguments against government is Atlas Shrugged; although its author claimed that anarchy made no sense, when she tried to portray an ideal society, she portrayed it without government. You also might want to read "The Probability Broach", by L. Neil Smith, which shows the stark contrast between a free society and one enslaved by government.

The good news about Y2K is that we're likely to find out how well we can do without the cancer of government. We'd better be ready to come up with alternative ways of organizing society without it, so that it does not recur.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 13, 1999.

Please indulge me this rather ill-thought out and somewhat simplistic explication. I have recently been introduced to a variety of new constructs and perspectives, which seem to stand against social organization as currently practiced.

The concept of personal, individual freedom is one that has been instilled in me since I was born. I learned the history of United States government in the American public school system of the 50's--- an era when patriotism and loyalty to one's country were taken for granted, something to be cherished, to work for, and even die for.

A laissez faire economic system, coupled with limited governance has much to recommend it in an age of limited population and relatively unlimited resources. And for the first couple hundred expansionist years of our history, worked well and efficiently in providing for the physical and spiritual needs of our culture. But even then, one persons exercise of freedom frequently infringed on another's precious gift. Short of a direct personal feud or regional conflict, somebody had to step in and adjudicate---hence the rational for governance.

In today's more crowded world, opportunities for conflict are more frequent and, with the advent of more lethal technologies, more deadly. If, in the enjoyment of his freedom, every person could be expected to exercise personal responsibility and consideration for others, draconian governance would be less necessary. This is manifestly not the case.

Freedom has taken on a whiney, petulant quality in this last half of the century. As in any crowded circumstance (behavioral experiments validate this), competition becomes more energetic, selfishness more venal and exaggerated, and concern for others diminishes as we see how small the pie really is. Not only does this weaken the bonds between neighbors, but also the bonds between our generation and the next, and all future generations.

It is a survival trait to look out for oneself and one's family/tribe first. But, having secured a livelihood, we are compelled to consider the welfare of our species, including its future welfare. Fewer people seem capable of personalizing this concern as the competition for limited resources turns increasingly bitter and self-centered. This, unfortunately, is among the fruits of freedom.

You are NOT free to harm me or my children---or their children or theirs down the years. You are not free to deforest your land when it fouls my stream; to dig up limited resources which my great-grandchildren might need to survive; to foul the air or poison the land and water to the detriment to my children. You are not free to use your precious private property in a way that threatens my health and well being, or that of the planet my (and your) kids need to live on.

If you shit in my stream, I am free to organise with my neighbors to prevent you from doing this. And therefore is government instituted among men. So forgive me if I give so little credence to all this whining about the abrogation of precious freedoms, when I see so little regard for the concomitant responsibility which that freedom implies. "And it harms no one, do what thou wilt." But, first, make damn sure it doesn't cause harm.

Hallyx

"As population increases, individual freedom decreases."---Boyle's Law

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 14, 1999.

A much better fit for this thread and the above post. Wish I had found it 10 minutes earlier.

"Well, I have my rights, sir, and I'm telling you

I intend to go on doing just what I do!

And, for your information, you Lorax, I'm figgering

on biggering and biggering and BIGGERING and BIGGERING,

turning MORE Truffula Trees into Thneeds,

which everyone, EVERYONE, EVERYONE needs!"

--- Dr. Seuss (The Lorax)

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), August 14, 1999.