[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Ham Priday]

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