[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
Arlo has accused me of "wagging out some 
ridiculously tired cliché".  I guess that's how the elitists think of Freedom.

[Arlo]
No. That's what I think of propagandistic 
blowhards. Thanks for another example of that.

[Arlo had asked]
Are the "poor" better or worse off because of public libraries?

[Ham]
They are better off -- if they avail themselves 
of the knowledge libraries offer.

[Arlo]
So this collectivist, socialized program of 
"public libraries" is better than the "free 
market" alternative, namely replacing public libraries with B&Ns?

[Ham]
That's an asinine question, since nobody but Arlo 
would regard a public library as a collective society.

[Arlo]
Why are public libraries NOT an example of a "collectivist" program?

[Arlo had asked]
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?

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
Back this up with facts?

[Ham]
There were also fewer juvenile gangs, (more time for libraries;-)...

[Arlo]
What evidence can you offer to show that the 
youth spent their time in "libraries" rather than in factories?

[Ham]
... less drug addiction, less out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and less urban crime.

[Arlo]
Agree.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
Back this up?

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
Do you think the Pullman workers were "better 
off"? That was the question. That they developed 
community in the face of oppression is not in 
question. If you had to choose between living 
your life as a Pullman worker in the late 1800s 
or as a GM worker today, which would you choose? Why?

[Ham]
Frankly, I don't know what a "socialized" police force is.

[Arlo]
A police force supported by taxation. If a health 
care system supported by taxation is 
"socialized", why isn't our police force "socialized"?

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
If a job is paid for by the taxes, and works for 
the municipality, how is this "privatized"? A 
private police force would be akin to Blackstone, 
or private companies like this. So, since the 
"free market" is what's best and "social 
programs" make men "not free", why do you support 
the continuance of socialized policing and are 
not calling for turning over law enforcement to 
the "free market" companies such as Blackstone?

[Ham]
Just for the record, Arlo, libraries, 
universities and corporations are not collective societies.

[Arlo]
Well then clarify, what makes something 
"collective"? What makes universal health care 
"collectivist", but public libraries NOT?

[Ham]
I hope I've answered these questions to your satisfaction.

[Arlo]
Try again.