This is a repeat as I screwed up the italics tags. But the blue clicky's worked this time. If the first is gone, it's becasue I asked joe/joe clone to fix it. Unless I screwed it up again.

Chicago John

And once again, I ask for your source. I'll copy article VI for you here, and you can pick it out for me

That seems a fairly clear statement. The alternative would be to give some person, King, Pope, or the Oracle at Delphi, superior authority to make laws. In that case, men, not Law would be supreme. Or are we defining the original "government of laws, not men differently?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land You believe that raising children is the responsibility of SOCIETY??? " and added I must admit... I've under-estimated how socialist you are. You continue...

Please re-read all of what I said. Quoting out of context leads nowhere. For example, I could interpret your single statement as "See, he's a socialists so that means he believes this and so and socialism is wrong, therefore I don't have to respond to what is said, just what I want to have been said. Reading the gestalt tells me that itsn't what you're about.

Restating, then, Out of self-interest, society plays a role in raising children. I think I defined my hierarchy of responsibility a little later in the post. The family is the first line of defense, and up from there. The responsibility (ideally), is with the family. If they don't, or can't, what's the next step? Who steps in and what are the rules (formal and informal).

Assuming, of course, that our Constitution does not restrict it from happening.

Of course.

When government "provides", it is really the individual paying the bill. The resources are still drained from the individual, only with less efficiency.

Perhaps less efficiently, if that is the goal. (As opposed to effectiveness). And yes, the individual pays the bill. Because a bunch of individuals elected representatives who mandated the bills to be paid, and how. You, I or anyone else may not like it, but we have the mechanism to change it.

I agree, but for completely different reasons.

So I've gathered. The problem that I see is that the capitalist model assumes linear relationships with the market forces. If those forces are non-linear, then the effect of pure market forces, or government interference based on a similar linear theory, will only work some of the time. It also appears that in many cases the traditional market forces that (sort of) served to moderate capitalism, don't make their way through the system in time to have the effect theorized. "The problem seems to be that, as complexity has increased, the self-correcting feedback loops (free market forces) have stopped working. Had stopped working before government interference began. All that interference did is add more unpredictable linear inputs to a non-linear system that was already exhibiting instability.

The problem is that government is interfering. In trying to restrict "unhealthy" companies, the government passes taxes and regulations aimed at them. By doing so, the companies start playing the loopholes. The companies who are better at lobbying win

Define "unhealthy" companies? I think you give the government much more credit for intelligent intervention than is warranted. And for some level on insight beyond the superficial. Are tariff's wrong? What effect do subsidies play in this? Are so called tax incentives any better (or worse) than regulatory taxes. Given the history of self regulation (the infamous meat packing plants being the best known, probably), should government interfere? If not, how do you stop the excesses? The primary value of Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. Is using actuarial tables to decide whether to correct a defect in a car something that should be ignored by the government? As they are the ones who reformed tort laws to make holding companies responsible for their own harmful acts harder to litigate, what role should government play? In the real world.

I said "Ideal"? Enlightened Despotism? Anarchy? Pick your utopian model. and you responded with Capitalism

I was looking for a political answer. Capitalism is an economic model.

Pretend is loads more fun then reality

Pretend is limited self gratification. Reality is more fun.IMO. And has a really nasty way of slapping you in the face if you ignore it.

Nope. In the first 30 years of my life, I spent a lot of time trying to tell people what to do. Then I realized that THEY were intelligent people also, and that free will is one of the best gifts I've been given.

How do you mediate your free will and mine and everyone else's with the need to live with others, to function as a society.

You want the community to have the ability to "moderate" your PERSONAL values???

The expression of them, yes. I will still have my personal values. Moderating the expression is part of the social contract.

Sir / Mam; The idea of rugged individualism is AMERICAN. Remember how Americans came here and braved harsh winters and a strange freaky land? Remember how they traveled west across deserted plains? They craved individualism more then creature comforts. So do I. I weep every time I watch "Dances With Wolves", realizing that I'll never be able to live with that kind of freedom ever again.

Individualism is an human trait and American's value it more than most. Most individualists tacitly accept the social contract and figure out ways to express their individuality within the limits they've accepted. The classic rugged individual doesn't work well in society. But then, few seem to totally reject society either, as communities and groups tend to provide him/her with all the things that make the "individualism" possible.

Dances With Wolves? It was a movie. As I haven;'t seen it, I can't comment on it's historical accuracy. I am highly skeptical about the factual basis of anything designed for pure entertainment. Perhaps someone else who has seen the movie and studied the time period and culture can respond.

I remember exactly how, and why the first Europeans came here. And they survived as a community, not as "rugged individualists". They survived by cooperation. The earliest colonists had strong elements of theocracy and tended to demand orthodoxy. The few who practiced rugged individualism were usually tolerated, sometimes venerated, and weren't all that good at being a part of society. So they went off exploring or whatever. Society went right on doing its thing, building the country. The classic rugged individualist doesn't build a trans-continental railroad or a church.

I like individuality. Think it's a very good thing. And realize that practicality dictates that there has to be some sort of moderation of its expression. Before I can answer how much I want it moderated, I need to balance out various values, look at possible consequences and decide how far to go. And how to best go about it.

Of course, our definitions may be different.

I'm still new to HTML, and I can't remember the command for bold. I needed to add emphasis on those words. Caps was my only choice.

The teal permathread at the top of the form has stuff on html (and a whole lot more). If I can get it right, the html stuff is here

Which is the catch. The Constitution has special emphasis on the freedom of the individual

Not a catch. Just one of the rules to play by.

And that is perfectly within their RIGHTS (sorry, don't know the HTML) to not have values.

Yes. I just don't have to like it. On the other hand, those with values have a much better chance of getting society to go along with them.

That's a belief, not a value. A value is something that you can improve upon. Under your definition of respect, you either have it or you don't.

A certain basic respect, yes. And a value is a basic principal. It may arise out of a belief. What is improved is how you use that value in everyday life. Integrity is the value. Trying to be as honest as possible is the action. The idea that integrity is worthwhile is the belief. Or is it a definitional thing?

I said ""Do no harm" is laudable (not sarcasm). What is what you think and do cause me harm and to not cause me harm, you have change what you believe? and you asked Please reword that past sentence. It makes no sense to me as written. Maybe it's just missing a punctuation.

It was a mess. To bad they haven't developed a content checker. Restated, how would you/do you, mediate the difference values, beliefs or whatever in a society as large as ours. What should or shouldn't the government do.

Pardon me, but you can. Where do you think "Hate Crimes" come from?

I don't think can make an individual accept or reject a value by making a law. I think society can determine when the expression of a value is contrary to its purposes and try to moderate behavior.

And the idea behind hate crimes comes from the idea that intent should be taken into account in a crime. Just as we have various degrees of murder (based on intent and circumstances), the idea of hate crimes emerged. Needed or right, I'm not sure.

Pardon me, but when you REQUIRE someone to pay taxes for YOUR ideas of what is right, then you are making them do what you believe

Society requires its members to pay taxes for the commonly held idea of what is right, In our society, we do it through elections. If I accept the benefits of the society, become a partner to the social contract, then there are consequences to that decision. Having to pay for things that you don't like is sometimes one of them. I don't like paying for corporate welfare. I don't like paying for stadiums or paying more and more each year for police services when the crime rate continues to rise. So I work to elect people who agree with me and argue my point of view. As do you.

On voter fraud you said. Yes. Mainly the Democratic politicians.

It should be important to everyone. I don't have any more use for those who are making a sectarian political issue or a media event than you seem to.

If that's so, then it should be dealth with everywhere it occurred. We had more irregularities in Chicago, and yet, no one is complaining. ('cept me)

They should be. But the failure in Chicago, Washington, New Mexico or wherever doesn't justify ignoring a failure in Florida.

Your current friends weren't born in 1750. Point: True or false- Jefferson tried to get rid of slavery in writing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which was unheard of at the time?

He did, then didn't put his money where his mouth was by getting rid of his slaves. And yes, several of them tried to write anti-slavery provisions into the constitution and failed. You asked why I wouldn't have liked some of the Founding Fathers back then. That's a reason. My ancestors wouldn't have either At least on the slavery issue, as they believed that owning slaves was wrong.

Again, the idea that non-property owners could be allowed to vote was a radical idea in the late 1700s. Yet, they proposed such ideas in the late 1700s.

And did nothing about it. Or about the right of women to vote, either. (Although New Jersey did until 1806).

The idea of an representative government in general was fairly radical. They did that, for which they should be appreciated. The Electoral College can be looked at as a way to prevent the larger states from dominating the smaller. It is also a way to ensure that the popular vote is diluted. There are arguments both for and against the electoral college and probably no really good answer. The intent was, in part, to limit the power of the voters.(And I'm not trying to side track onto who really won the recent election).

I'd said "...don't think that Native Americans are sub-humans and that lying, cheating and stealing their land is just fine." and you asked Which founding fathers do you believe did that? Jefferson? Lincoln?

Washington and Jackson, Tyler and Harrison come to mind if you're talking about commission (although Washington's actions predate the revolution). If by acts of omission or tacit compliance, well, we really don't know how Bush will deal with the Nations yet, so I can't include him on a list that has 42 names.

What do you feel about the pledge that ends in "Our Sacred Honor

Noble sentiment. And please understand, I don't belittle what they accomplished. I've just found them to be very, very human. And don't think that the original intent argument is valid, obviously. The founding fathers (and a lot of others) risked a lot in the revolution. Or motives both altruistic and self-serving. The ideas stand independently.

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. I can't stand when people claim to have ALL of the information. Though I admit to arguing that I know more then most people when it comes to Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.

Yes. People who think they know it all are especially irritating to people like you and me who clearly do :-)

I have friends in Arkansas who share your views. So do I, though probably based on much less information I don't like Clinton as a person. First strike was claiming JFK as his idol. That isn't to say I don't like some of his policies. (Obvious I think). Then there was White water..

Back when I was negotiating contracts with various companies around the country, our corporate attorney said to avoid contracts subject to the laws of California, Louisiana or Arkansas. I knew about the first two. His claim (as an attorney from Little Rock), was that the state was so small that nothing happened that the movers and shakers didn't know about and approve and that when it came to the judiciary, if you weren't part of the inner circle, you were pretty sure of losing, or at least having a rough time. Which I remembered when Whitewater came along and suddenly no one knew anything

Okay, then, I apoligize. I will make a note of it and try to back off.

Accepted and I also apologize. Feel free to call me when I backslide. If I do it, call me. I'll do the same. I may get passionate about politics. I try not to get pissed about them. And if I do, it will

Does this mean we can date?

On the Federalist Papers, you said I'd like to see that context. I'll have to visit the GPO on the web and look up the Federalist papers sometime soon.

This site :Federalists papers is an alternative to the GPO. Has the complete text on-line. I'd be interested in your take on it. The hardest part is trying to remember the social and historical context.

Regards

John