Tons Of Farang In Thailand Are In Trouble

[adjan jb]

Concerning the post by adjan jb

I think you should think twice about throwing around the " N word", it is really not appropriate and offends a lot of people, and rightly so.

Just a reference to John Lennon : "Woman is the nigger of the world. If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with". I thought everybody would recognize it.

[November Rain]

...and then we get neo-feminists who complain that their version of civil liberties, which is "everyone is equal but woman are special" and all that it infers, should be the one everybody dreams of no matter what the longterm effect of it is. Strange world...

And who would be this "neo-feminist" with this particular agenda, to whom you are referring, TAWP? I certainly do not believe the maxim you quoted, so it can't be me. I abhor equally parents of either gender who father/give birth to a child & then abdicate knowingly & willingly from their responsibilities.

The fact is, however, that on this particular thread, those griping about their ex-spouses & about losing their civil liberties have been men. So, it stands to reason (I imagine) that their ex-spouses (the ones looking after the children) are women.

In PB's case (& others) it was the man providing the care for the children. If the wives in those particular cases were subject to paying child support, I hope that they had to pay it or expect the penalties, also. If that were not the case, I agree that is an injustice.

The fact remains, though, that if this thread is to be taken as representative, it is mainly women doing the caring for the children & men complaining about their lot. How is that neo-feminist or thinking "Women are special"? I'm simply responding to the arguments presented on this thread.

Edit - typo

Edited August 25, 2007 by November Rain

[Ulysses G.]

Concerning the post by adjan jb

I think you should think twice about throwing around the " N word", it is really not appropriate and offends a lot of people, and rightly so.

Just a reference to John Lennon : "Woman is the nigger of the world. If you don't believe me, take a look at the one you're with". I thought everybody would recognize it.

adjan jb, either Khun Dennis is pulling our leg, or else he is one ignorant young whippersnapper if he didn't realize that without your help!

[adjan jb]

or else he is one ignorant young whippersnapper if he didn't realize that without your help!

How does he sleep at night ?

[TAWP]

November Rain>> Are you saying that civil liberties aren't a focus point for woman? That would explain yours and kat's post about 'rights' including force against others...

[siamamerican]

This post is being hijacked by irrational thinkers. It's a constitutional right to blah, blah, blah.

A marriage that ends badly is a frustrating experience. Get over it and grow-up. It stinks that a Dad has to support a wife and children that he has little control over, but reality stinks sometimes. It's easy for us non-deadbeats to judge, but stop whining and be a man. Life is full of consequences and supporting your kids is one of the consequences of having them.

I'm fortunate not to be divorced and don't have kids. If I was and had kids, life would be less satisfying, but I would still wake-up everyday and try to do the right thing. Why wake-up every morning and look at an a-hole in the mirror.

[mellow1]

My 160 lbs is not any part of the ton mentioned in the title.I would certainly pay child support for my son should I fall into such an unfortunate position in life.The problem,I would personally have with this situation is, why isn't the child with me.I not only support the child,teach him reading,math,discuss ideas,spend almost all our time together, except when he's playing with his friends,or at school.Why is the mother almost always given custody of the child?What happened to the equal rights,women so proudly fought for.I wouldn't ask for child support,if the woman wanted to buy something for the child,it would be OK.If you cannot take care and provide for the child,why insist on having custody.Accept the responsibility these equal rights bring with them.The welfare of the child should of course be considered,but the intention of these laws have been perverted,and many times used as a weapon by the "fairer sex".

Hopefully such a scenario will not fall upon me,and I feel sorry for many men who have been abused by a lazy legal system.

[Ulysses G.]

or else he is one ignorant young whippersnapper if he didn't realize that without your help!

How does he sleep at night ?

Khun Dennis or Pretty-Boy Paul?

[November Rain]

November Rain>> Are you saying that civil liberties aren't a focus point for woman? That would explain yours and kat's post about 'rights' including force against others...

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. To avoid me going off on a tangent, could you explain what you mean, please, TAWP? Thanks.

The way I'm reading it, it looks like you're saying that I have stated civil liberties aren't important for women - when of course, they are important for all & I'm not sure where I've advocated "force", or indeed where kat had advocated anything of the sort, because in my mind, her posts were far more concerned with individuals' rights than mine...

[adjan jb]

Khun Dennis or Pretty-Boy Paul?

Sir Pretty-Boy Paul, if you don't mind.

[Ulysses G.]

Khun Dennis or Pretty-Boy Paul?

Sir Pretty-Boy Paul, if you don't mind.

It's off topic, but, musically, I thought that Sir Paul was Lennon's equal musically - something for us to debate at another time?

[Solosiam]

How is this feminism, the figures that are given as examples aren't huge amounts, more likely just enough money to clothe, feed and educate a child.

Most children stay with their mothers, like they should. Women are MUCH better at caring for children than men, its part of their genetic make up.

I think things like this are great, fathers shoudl be paying/contributing to their childrens upbringing - I have absolutely no sympathy for people who would whinge over handing over money for the sake of their children.

[KhunDennis]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

[adjan jb]

"Women are MUCH better at caring for children than men, its part of their genetic make up." Solosiam

As a father, I do believe and feel that caring for my child is part of "my genetic make up."

I wonder if you have any children ?

[adjan jb]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

[PeaceBlondie]

Of course child-rearing is part of the genetic make up of a real man. We are just fortunate enough that our anatomy doesn't require us to carry them through childbirth, or to nurse them. Other than that, I assure you we can do all the rest, including buying feminine products for teen age girls ("Excuse me, lady salesclerk, but where are the Midol and the sanitary pads?").

[Solosiam]

"Women are MUCH better at caring for children than men, its part of their genetic make up." Solosiam

As a father, I do believe and feel that caring for my child is part of "my genetic make up."

I wonder if you have any children ?

Don't be so preachy, Yes thanks I have children and am an excellent father, but I'm not very good at cleaning up sick, changing nappies etc... I'm better at providing fun, discipline and a safe and secure environment. If men are so genetically inclined to child care, why are there hardly any male nannies, midwifes, paediactric nurses, kindergarten teachers etc...

I hate this PC thinking that Men and Women are identical except for tits and a penis, it's just so false and metrosexual. we aren't meant to be the same, thats kind of the point.

[kat]

Here is a hint: No person has a RIGHT to get founding from someone else automatically. You have a very perverted view on universal rights, but I already knew that.

That goes for kat too.

Actually, yes they do. If you are a child that grows up in a house where your basic needs have been neglected, it's called child abuse and abandonment, and your parent can and should be lawfully arrested and corrected. Now, why should that be any different because they skip the country?

You are the one with the perverse ideas of "rights".

Please inform us how the parent that lost the custidy battle and are 10 000miles away should be held responsible for neglect on the care of the kids at the hand of the other parent. A divorce including monetary support for the children can be handled via a civil contract and doesn't need to involve the government.

You probably think that social welfare systems is a right too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_views_of_rights

ok, look, if it's a libertarian argument you want to have, then that's a different agenda because we will NEVER agree. I do not agree that private interests and contracts trump public governance. I do not think that the government should interfere on all facets of life, but on the issue of RIGHTS, then they certainly should if we want to live in a f***ing civilized country. Under your beliefs, it is fine for private corporations to privatize water, sanitation, and baby formula in developing countries, and then charge astronomical prices that the majority of the population can never afford. So, they can go there and take advantage of dirt cheap infrastructure, dirt cheap labor, and huge tax incentives and payoffs in from own countries, but never be responsible to anyone. Then the libertarians can say, 'oh well, it's all about freedom from government and free charge in private exchange', but it's never that clear cut, especially when the rest of us pay the proportinate bulk of those taxes to the government. You want roads on which to do business, you want a military to protect your interests, a police force, a decently educated populace that are not dropping dead in the streets? Then you can pay the taxes and live under the government like the rest of us, or you so-called free thinking libertarians can give back all of your sh*t that you accumulated under your so-called privatized, tax funded privileges and take your individual rights to live in Papua New Guinea; we'll see how far you and your libertarian views make it there.

If you want to live in a completely unwieldy, spherical government, where only the people with money have all the rights and privileges, and people with nothing get their discarded crumbs and live in fear of having their basic necessities such as water, sanitation, imprisonment, justice, or even life and death totally under just a couple of groups' control, then I can see why you are a libertarian and further why you are one in Thailand.

You fail to respond to you my question and then goes on to complain on something that shows that you lack the understanding on the argument in itself.

A parent that is away and neglect their kids will lose custidy. If parents divorce and one looses custidy rights and moves away the parent that has custidy for the child has a responsibility for the child's wellbeing. If the child is starving then the parent still in place should be blaimed - by demanding or accepting the custidy you accept the burden to have the child and keep it from starving. Are there a lot of children from divorced families in the US that are starving?

I agree that a parent, even if divorced and having lost custidy over the child, has a moral obligation to support their kid as they put it into the world. However the governments job isn't to define or uphold moral values, it's to protect the basic rights of an individual (and the protection from others limiting your rights) and nothing more.

Look, if you want me to understand your argument, then you need to state it clearly. If you make a civil agreement with someone for monetary compensation and she signs it, then that is a legal binding document, isn't it? I would think that is all par for the course in a divorce agreement, so what the <deleted> is your point here? If you reach agreement in a civil court, then that is agreement, and it is obvious.

However, in the case of deadbeat parents and the law, it is the case of not honoring those agreements or payments. Do you really think the person with the most money or the best position should win? That would be the case if we allowed for the type of society that would allow parents to walk out on their children and alimony unless the other parent could afford a good lawyer.

So, in response to your statement above, I don't view the government as upholding moral values here, but rather the law, and in your words, the right of the other parent to proper and due support for the children that both created. I don't see this as limiting rights, I see it as restoring them.

...and then we get neo-feminists who complain that their version of civil liberties, which is "everyone is equal but woman are special" and all that it infers, should be the one everybody dreams of no matter what the longterm effect of it is. Strange world...

Yeah, right. No one has said this here, but I find it comical the way you have to resort to oversimplifying and distorting my position in an attempt to bolster your own. That's how YOU see it, not me. If the father is the better care-giving parent and gets custody, then he should also get alimony from his working wife.

I don't have the time or the interest to continue to beat a dead horse here, so I'm done here. I'm not going to respond to anymore neo-liberal bullshIte, either, because their track records speak for themselves.

[Ulysses G.]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

[ratchabuild]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

[jumnien]

My father is gay and left my brother and I with my mother and never really provided much assistance of any kind even though he was living the high homosexual life in NY and LA. I'm 49 now, he's 76 now. He left 47 years ago and now I'm really grateful that we have a good relationship and I do love him. I accept him for what he was and what he is and realize we've all made mistakes. I'm thankful for what he has done and not resentful over what he didn't do that he "should" have. I'm not sure that I've even forgiven him or need to, I've just accepted him.

I think people are being far too harsh judging other fathers in this thread. Just my perspective.

[ratchabuild]

My father is gay and left my brother and I with my mother and never really provided much assistance of any kind even though he was living the high homosexual life in NY and LA. I'm 49 now, he's 76 now. He left 47 years ago and now I'm really grateful that we have a good relationship and I do love him. I accept him for what he was and what he is and realize we've all made mistakes. I'm thankful for what he has done and not resentful over what he didn't do that he "should" have. I'm not sure that I've even forgiven him or need to, I've just accepted him.

I think people are being far too harsh judging other fathers in this thread. Just my perspective.

Just goes to show what a wonderful job your mother did of raising you despite her runaway partner. Not everyone is as lucky.

[kat]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

Finally, I feel that this is a very intelligent counterpoint to my argument about what I was speaking against so strongly above. I will be back to discuss more in-depth later (I know, I keep bringing up time because I have major life issues to deal with right now), but I will briefly explain more about my perspective now.

I don't disagree with the major tenets of libertarianism (individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, less government), but I do disagree vehemently about individual liberty and the enforcement of human and equal rights. We know from history and from current example that without an overarching government that can codify fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights, the powerful and wealthy will be the groups setting that bar according to their own needs and interests. We can see throughout history with the American Founding Fathers (as so many American libertarians are enamored of mentioning) who had both indentured servants, slaves, and women as chattel; we can see this in the history of the labor movement before there were workers' rights, we can see this with women before they had the vote and equal rights (well close anyway, in the West) and the Civil Rights Movement, we can see it in the movement for public education and public libraries, and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women entering the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

[meom]

.., and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women,that abandon their children as well so they can enter the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

I think in this way it's more to the reality since many children are abandoned by their mothers as well while they are out working and grandma or sister or other family cares for the kids.

[jEFFREYk44]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

Finally, I feel that this is a very intelligent counterpoint to my argument about what I was speaking against so strongly above. I will be back to discuss more in-depth later (I know, I keep bringing up time because I have major life issues to deal with right now), but I will briefly explain more about my perspective now.

I don't disagree with the major tenets of libertarianism (individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, less government), but I do disagree vehemently about individual liberty and the enforcement of human and equal rights. We know from history and from current example that without an overarching government that can codify fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights, the powerful and wealthy will be the groups setting that bar according to their own needs and interests. We can see throughout history with the American Founding Fathers (as so many American libertarians are enamored of mentioning) who had both indentured servants, slaves, and women as chattel; we can see this in the history of the labor movement before there were workers' rights, we can see this with women before they had the vote and equal rights (well close anyway, in the West) and the Civil Rights Movement, we can see it in the movement for public education and public libraries, and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women entering the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

[jEFFREYk44]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

Finally, I feel that this is a very intelligent counterpoint to my argument about what I was speaking against so strongly above. I will be back to discuss more in-depth later (I know, I keep bringing up time because I have major life issues to deal with right now), but I will briefly explain more about my perspective now.

I don't disagree with the major tenets of libertarianism (individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, less government), but I do disagree vehemently about individual liberty and the enforcement of human and equal rights. We know from history and from current example that without an overarching government that can codify fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights, the powerful and wealthy will be the groups setting that bar according to their own needs and interests. We can see throughout history with the American Founding Fathers (as so many American libertarians are enamored of mentioning) who had both indentured servants, slaves, and women as chattel; we can see this in the history of the labor movement before there were workers' rights, we can see this with women before they had the vote and equal rights (well close anyway, in the West) and the Civil Rights Movement, we can see it in the movement for public education and public libraries, and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women entering the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

[TAWP]

Your post is tiresom of pure BS about a principal stance you lack any knowledge about.

So I will settle with a short quote from you:

Under your beliefs, it is fine for private corporations to privatize water, sanitation, and baby formula in developing countries, and then charge astronomical prices that the majority of the population can never afford.

Privatize baby formula? Didn't know it rained from the heavens, as gift from the Gods.

So yes, I think that anyone that makes a commodity and sells it can sell it at whatever price they want. If the majority can't afford it...uh...are you saying there is only one company that sells water and that people can't filter their own pumps? Your post is filled with wierd confusing arguments that I really-really don't have time to respond to. The above snippet will have to be a symbol of it.

[ratchabuild]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

Finally, I feel that this is a very intelligent counterpoint to my argument about what I was speaking against so strongly above. I will be back to discuss more in-depth later (I know, I keep bringing up time because I have major life issues to deal with right now), but I will briefly explain more about my perspective now.

I don't disagree with the major tenets of libertarianism (individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, less government), but I do disagree vehemently about individual liberty and the enforcement of human and equal rights. We know from history and from current example that without an overarching government that can codify fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights, the powerful and wealthy will be the groups setting that bar according to their own needs and interests. We can see throughout history with the American Founding Fathers (as so many American libertarians are enamored of mentioning) who had both indentured servants, slaves, and women as chattel; we can see this in the history of the labor movement before there were workers' rights, we can see this with women before they had the vote and equal rights (well close anyway, in the West) and the Civil Rights Movement, we can see it in the movement for public education and public libraries, and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women entering the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

First thing wrong with your fundamentally optimistic approach is that it is just that. The powerful and wealthy do set the bar according to their needs. How could it be otherwise when the government and its institutions is set up for that very purpose. Any social advancement for the mass of people is the minimum that the ruling elite can get away with. Only a multi millionaire can be president. Name a president who was not a member of the ruling elite or who was not in the pocket of same. If you look at ruling elites and business leaders over time very little change in personnel is evident. The ruling elite are entrenched. Its true of every other system in a western liberal democracy where the organs of goverment, press, army and communications are in the hands of the rich and powerful. What did dear rupert ever do for the ordinary guy? Except distract him with a diet of sleaze and tits and sky TV from making any empowing changes in his or her own life. As long as there are well meaning liberals to aid and abet such deception by their touching faith in "the system" real change remains a distant prospect. Unfair trade and protection, tied aid and discriminatory tarrifs ensure the third world remains poor. Yes sure we can legislate to stop them selling their daughters and criminalise them but the ruling elite will do fukc all to change the economic pressure that drives families to such madness. The rules by which we live are the rules of the ruling class and thanks to poor voter turnout and apathy, wall to wall tv and encouraged racism nothing much will change. "The ruling ideas at any time are the ideas of the rulers" Well meaning apologists are the first line of defence for the exploiters and abusers. You make their arguements for them and as one of the underclass you can be trusted.

Edited September 2, 2007 by ratchabuild

[BADBRAD]

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

Finally, I feel that this is a very intelligent counterpoint to my argument about what I was speaking against so strongly above. I will be back to discuss more in-depth later (I know, I keep bringing up time because I have major life issues to deal with right now), but I will briefly explain more about my perspective now.

I don't disagree with the major tenets of libertarianism (individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, less government), but I do disagree vehemently about individual liberty and the enforcement of human and equal rights. We know from history and from current example that without an overarching government that can codify fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights, the powerful and wealthy will be the groups setting that bar according to their own needs and interests. We can see throughout history with the American Founding Fathers (as so many American libertarians are enamored of mentioning) who had both indentured servants, slaves, and women as chattel; we can see this in the history of the labor movement before there were workers' rights, we can see this with women before they had the vote and equal rights (well close anyway, in the West) and the Civil Rights Movement, we can see it in the movement for public education and public libraries, and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women entering the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

First thing wrong with your fundamentally optimistic approach is that it is just that. The powerful and wealthy do set the bar according to their needs. How could it be otherwise when the government and its institutions is set up for that very purpose. Any social advancement for the mass of people is the minimum that the ruling elite can get away with. Only a multi millionaire can be president. Name a president who was not a member of the ruling elite or who was not in the pocket of same. If you look at ruling elites and business leaders over time very little change in personnel is evident. The ruling elite are entrenched. Its true of every other system in a western liberal democracy where the organs of goverment, press, army and communications are in the hands of the rich and powerful. What did dear rupert ever do for the ordinary guy? Except distract him with a diet of sleaze and tits and sky TV from making any empowing changes in his or her own life. As long as there are well meaning liberals to aid and abet such deception by their touching faith in "the system" real change remains a distant prospect. Unfair trade and protection, tied aid and discriminatory tarrifs ensure the third world remains poor. Yes sure we can legislate to stop them selling their daughters and criminalise them but the ruling elite will do fukc all to change the economic pressure that drives families to such madness. The rules by which we live are the rules of the ruling class and thanks to poor voter turnout and apathy, wall to wall tv and encouraged racism nothing much will change. "The ruling ideas at any time are the ideas of the rulers" Well meaning apologists are the first line of defence for the exploiters and abusers. You make their arguements for them and as one of the underclass you can be trusted.

Well put RB. I can't think of anyting to add to your argument so I will just agree whole-heartedly.

[cdnvic]

Your post is tiresom of pure BS about a principal stance you lack any knowledge about.

That could be because Kat tends to look at things from a real-world perspective, not some fantasy ideology that will never make it out of the confines of obscure talk radio and webcasts.