mav, and others I'm responding to the issues I"d like to have some clarified. As you said earlier, we have areas of agreement. And disagreement. And I'm using html tags again, with(I hope) better results.

Maybe, depends on what state you live in

Why would it depend on the State. The question is independent of any political implications. My question (restated): Beyond the obligation of the family (nuclear? Extended?) Does the community have obligations toward education?

Real men don't get pregnant, I think I commented on that

Baring cloning, Men are a necessary part of the pregnancy. I'm in favor of staying involved.

Men and women should respect their children first and worry about their own "delicate sensibilities" later or do the right thing and get fixed.

Without self respect, how to you respect others? A number of studies indicate that low-self esteem correlates with child abuse. I will agree that having children is something that should require a lot of thought. And if by "sensibilities" you mean not making a child and integral part of the parents life on a day to day basis, yes.

No, it was by no means a full description of "responsibilities

It would be interesting to know what the responsibilities are, and whether the responsibilities are the families to work out, or some are the man's some the woman's some both.

No, what if there is no "community". At one point they would band together to form a common defense. See faith/community based organizations below

Begs the question. Does the group (beyond the family) have obligations? If so, what are they?

Forget the government. Does the Church? Boy/Girl Scouts. Little League? and you replied, They have a function, but it's not really a responsibility, except for the child's safety.

The implication is for physical safety only. What are the "functions". Are they necessary or only nice?

You said The cops is a good start, teachers, people in authority (the judge) and I said Obedient to the internal set of values, ethics, morals and beliefs I've helped my son develop? Sure. Willing to accept the consequences of those beliefs, that to. Blind obedience, even to positive and good things, is very dangerous. Solutions and consequences, again. They go hand in hand and you added Well, common sense has to be factored in

On the cops and authority issue, I could argue that under that theory the American Revolution was wrong as the King was exercising his legitimate authority. Our rebellion was rooted in a profound disrespect for that authority. Common sense is a cathc-all for sloppy reasoning.

There are some extra-responsibilities too, like community or faith based organizations which can take care of and place unwanted children in loving homes, instead of just killing them" This addresses your above question.

What other rolls do you view as legitimate?

My comment was The criteria imposed for adoption in this country have little to do with the loving nature of the home and you replied That is not my doing. The LSCs traditionally occupy the social services

On what evidence to you base this contention?. Who "occupies" the social service agencies isn't the issue. Who makes the laws, rules and regulations is. As to whose doing it is, it's all of our doing, by commission or omissions, by tacit or willing compliance.

The Constitution is NOT a "living, breathing document", that's just a feeble excuse for violating it, unless of course, you go to the trouble of AMENDING it.

The founding fathers stated purpose was to create a government of law, not men. Claiming that the constitution is a living, breathing document is more a testimony to their effort than anything. In what ways does that concept relate to violating the Constitution?

Faith based criminal "correction" IS a lot more than material help

It just hasn't proven to be effective in practice. Nor have a lot of other, non-faith based programs, come to that, as both types propose simplistic, cookie cutter solutions. Faith based also comes with a lot of baggage that I prefer not to have to pay for.

Absorbing facts and theories is good

And this means what? If all I want is to learn facts, theories, dates and such, I have a computer and a search engine. Learning facts and theories is the bare bones beginning. Learning how to think is vital.

Well, if they encounter enemies both foreign and domestic...

And not sarcastically, if the enemy isn't there, they are perfectly willing to create one. As the definition of enemy is anyone who doesn't agree with them, they have many candidates.

Well they currently have control over both the education and information systems in the world. Just like it says in the Manifesto

In control? I suppose it helps if you know the answer before you ask the questions and then picking and choosing onlt the facts that support that answer. Leaving out the facts that don't support your position, or claiming they don't count, ends up in decisions that ignore real consequences and tend to foster the idea of conspiracy. Your (or my) slopping thinking doesn't mean that a plot exists. The Manifesto? As in Communist Manifesto? Can the Gnomes of Zurich or the Illuminatus be far behind? The claim of a conspiracy is an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary proof. Anecdotes aren't proof, just good stories. Coincidences aren't either. Retreating into "they make sure there is no proof" begs the question. Because in an unrestricted condition, a person will find something in which they can excel, specialize and enjoy, and perform that specialty with a passion, especially if they own the property/equipment and can reap benefits in direct proportion to their effort

A fascinating theory. You imply this is some innate trait of man. It might be a nice theory but reality keeps rearing its ugly head.

Unrestricted or otherwise, humans first seek shelter, safety, food, companionship and to reproduce. Beyond that it gets very fuzzy. What evidence supports this theory? I'd say that successful mediocrity wins out over excellence every time. Excellence takes a lot of time and work.

Finding The Answer before you ask any question is dangerous at any point on the political spectrum.

The success is its own reward

An ego boost, certainly but otherwise a non-statement. Neither success nor reward is a specific measurable, both are highly subjective.

Communal living promotes mediocrity

Maybe. It can also promote excellence as it allows the individual the physical and mental security to concentrate on whatever they want to concentrate on. In certain environments and social situations it may be a necessity.

Why should you work hard on the government farm if you get paid the same (very little) whether you break your back or not? (unless of course they are holding a gun on you)

You shouldn't.

And another Guest wrote

Okay then. Please give me your definition of socialism, and how it is applied in your ideal government

Difficult as I'm not a big fan of pure socialism. The classic defintion is: "a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, rather than to determination by individuals pursuing their own interests or by the market forces of capitalism." (From the on-line Britannica)

I don't do "ideal governments" as such seems and oxymoron. I prefer to look at what my values and goals are(which I've stated fairly clearly on this and other threads)., and how to best accomplish them practically. (Based on how people do act, not how I want them to act). If capitalism or socialism have elements that work, then incorporate them. All the "isms" "ists" and "ocracies" need to fit people. Trying to stuff people in boxes because someone has decided that this theory or the other is "true" has never worked, except maybe in the short run.

I am interested in values. Personal values. Build on that and look at the lesson's of history. Of science, of experience. Is it practical. What are the consequences?. If I have a basic value that says it is wrong for people to be hungry, I need to figure out ways to make that happen. (Not "a way"). Do I just feed the hungry no matter what? Probably not, as that isn't practical and would go against other values. Do I let them starve because "all they have to do is try and if they won't help themselves why should I?". No, because that says my value against letting people starve when I can help is just lip services.

It starts with individual values, not with some external dogma. Finding an answer an then forcing facts to fit and demanding that only one way works is wrong from whatever point it comes.

What are your values? Not what principals do you like. Capitalism isn't a value, neither is socialism. Family, integrity, charity, respect are values, the individuallity is a value. If I understand my values, then whatever system I propose has to be consistent (if I value integrity). Again, it starts with the individual and builds up. The thrust of what you propose is to build from some assumed-to-be-right theoretical structure down, rejecting any fact that doesn't fit and belittling anyone who doesn't agree. Labeling people as this or that (until they've proven other wise, is intellectual dishonesty.

There are claims of voting irregularities in every election, in every state. Become a judge of election, and you'll find out how often they occur. Here in Chicago, we had States' Attorney's Office looking over our shoulders all of the time.

Yes, there are. Our Canvassing Board deals with it regularly, too. As Florida has a strong Government in the Sunshine law, observing is very easy. Claims of fraud have to be addressed, not ignored.

Yeah, I read that story. Again, there was no real claim that African Americans were targeted

Who cares who was targeted? Claiming that the exclusions were deliberately based on race isn't here nor there. If people were excluded we need to find out why.

Carelessness may work, except that after the fiasco in Miami-Dade a couple of years ago, where there was fraud, the fact that they didn't clean it up demands more of an explanation than "oops".

Which is the key. Of all ethnic backgrounds

That's why I said it.

Since when did you see me argue for a sports stadium??? Your analogy doesn't even hold on a parallel. One could argue that a sports stadium benifits the many. You can't argue that for Clinton.

I didn't see you argue for a stadium and you see that don't like it. Just as you didn't see me argue for socialism. I brought it up as an example of using tax-payers money and political influence for personal gain (which is related to Clinton) and in answer to early posts. And studies done of the impact and benefit of stadiums (the ones not done by the club owners) show that the economic benefit is either much overstated or non-existent.

Do you agree with the Constitution as a document?

Yes

I said "I strongly suspect I wouldn't have liked a lot of the founding fathers." You replied Given that, I have a strong suspicion that I wouldn't like you

I'm devastated. And the statement may be too general as I've only read biographies of 6 or 7 of them. I don't disparage what was finally produced, just that looking at their lives, they don't deserve to be canonized. Arrrgh. The *Living Document* people. Q: Did you ever read up on our Constitution just for the heck of it?

Yes. Did you every study it? Have you read "The Federalist's Papers". Hamilton's Essay's? Any of Jefferson's commentaries?. Read any of the minutes of the Constitutional Conventions? Any collections of editorials from the various colonial newspapers of the time? If so, then we have interpreted things differently and I'd be interested in discussing your views off-forum. If not, your opinions are based on hearsay, the opinion/analysis of others who support your preconceived opinions, and urban legend.

You could not be more wrong. The Constitution is ONLY supposed to be interpretted by the Supreme Court. Why do you think the legislature has to AMEND the constitution whenever we come up with a way that we want to add to it?

I was getting at the Constitution as a framework and set of rules under which the legislature passes laws to accomplish its purposes. They interpret how far they are allowed to go. If they're wrong (by accident or for purposeful political reasons), the Supreme Court ends up involved.

"Eating well. Vacationing well. Having a nice house, and smiling because they don't complain about money".

All nice but I hope you have more of a personal value system than that. I think you may find that all those things (which we all want), are merely satisfying. And fairly superficial.

I've been poor and working less then 40 hours. I've made a good living working more then 40 hours/week. I prefer the latter.

Have you been poor working 40 (or more) hours a week? Or know people who are?

Smart people often take chances. Just because they fail the first time out, it doesn't mean that they are stupid. On the contrary, if they are making 6 figures while failing, that's not a bad way to fail

No it isn't. Of course, it's a matter of intent. Are they interested in actually producing something or just making the six figures? And, yes, I think it matters.

Just to be clear, then you are FOR former felons voting?

Yes.

I have no problem with putting a stigma on being a felon

I do as its one element in a high recidivism rate.

Your argument is backwards. You are telling me what the EMPLOYEE believes, not what the EMPLOYER believes. If management is only after salary, then that's what they get more of. If general employees list salary as 4th or 6th on their list, is it that surprising that they aren't getting paid more?

Since the employee is the one doing the work, yes I am. And if salary is what its all about, its not surprising that companies have major productivity, turnover and customer service issues.

I said When it's all about money, productivity suffers, in the long run. and you replied Based on what style of management?

On almost any type of management that views money as the primary motivator.

And Guest Teacher wrote

Time to get off the computer, sonny, you'll miss the school bus.

What more can be said?

Regards,

John