We survived WITHOUT safety edicts

Great column.

One of the purposes of Government is fiscal management. That is,
redistribution of incomes.

The story I just posted from MD illustrates the point exactly. The facts are
that jobs are shrinking.

One of the aims of Government is to KEEP FOLKS EMPLOYED. If that means an
intrusive CPS, which takes children from ok parents where abuse nor neglect are
not substantiated, so be it.

We can criminalize almost every act someone does in the course of the day.

Like to do your laundry nude? Lewd act?

Make a stupid call and allow your son and his friend to ride in your trunk, and
you forfeit the right to talk to your son, UNLESS YOU ARE SUPERVISED.

Again, make-work jobs.

Fifty years ago, America was a manufacturing powerhouse. Now we are a
litigating POWERHOUSE.

Newsgroup alt support child protective services.

DESCRIPTORS; child abuse, cps, child protective, ACS, DYFS, DHS, DFS, DSS, CSB,
FAMILY LAW, PARENTAL RIGHTS, ASFA, NEGLECT, CAPTA.

JG sent in:

Subject: We survived WITHOUT safety edicts
From: "JG"
Date: 7/24/2003 1:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Gee, Dr. Williams and I must be on the same wavelength! What a
coincidence that his latest (today's) column addresses some of the
differences between the '50s and '60s (he's somewhat older, so he threw
in the '40s as well) and today.

"The fact that these safety edicts saved some lives and prevented some
injuries doesn't provide justification for them anymore than mandating
that, because some Americans have headaches, aspirin be put in the water
supply."

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/w...20030723.shtml

We made it


Walter Williams

July 23, 2003

Whenever someone says that this or that government program is absolutely
necessary, I always wonder, "What did people do and how did they survive
before the program?"


If someone says food stamps are absolutely necessary for poor people's
survival, I wonder how America's millions of poor immigrants made it.
Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our history.
Was there a stealth food stamp program during the 1700s and 1800s?

Then there's the question: How did we manage to build the world's
greatest cities without the help of the 1965-created U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development? Did cities become worse off or better off
afterward? Or, how did we manage to produce energy to fuel the world's
richest economy before the 1977 creation of the Department of Energy?

Recently, I received an email titled, "We Made It." It had to do with
the federal safety edicts of agencies like the U.S. Product Safety
Commission, established in 1972, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation, established in 1966. Congress created these and other
agencies to "protect the public against unreasonable risks of injuries
and deaths." That's how toys, cribs, child car seats and childproof
medicine bottles came to be regulated. Considering we were a nation for
nearly 200 years before Congress started protecting us against
"unreasonable risks of injuries and deaths," a natural question is how
we managed to survive and grow from a population of 4 million to the 280
million of us today.

According to my email's author, if we listen to Washington, those of us
still around who were children during the '40s, '50s and '60s probably
should be dead. Nonetheless, there are 58 million of us born in 1945 or
earlier who are still kicking. Our parents allowed us to sleep in cribs
beautified with lead-based paint. They drove us around in cars that had
neither seatbelts nor airbags. They permitted us to ride our bicycles
without helmets, just as adults rode motorcycles without helmets. And,
horror of horrors, there were no childproof medicine bottles that, by
the way, are sometimes so difficult to open that some people summon
their children to open them.

The fact that these safety edicts saved some lives and prevented some
injuries doesn't provide justification for them anymore than mandating
that, because some Americans have headaches, aspirin be put in the water
supply.

In a free society, government has the responsibility of protecting us
from others, but not from ourselves. Before government got into the
business of protecting us from ourselves, we did have a greater measure
of protection from others. Yesteryear's children rode their bikes or
walked to a friend's house, knocked on the door and let themselves in.
Many families didn't lock doors until the last family member was home
for the evening, and they did that in poor neighborhoods like the one I
grew up in.

Yesteryear, when we went off to school, parents might have worried about
our crossing streets safely. Today's parents have a different set of
worries, such as whether their child will be shot, stabbed, robbed,
raped or given drugs in school. During the pre-1960 years,
neighborhoods -- including poor neighborhoods -- were safe enough for
women to walk the streets after dark. In fact, in places like Harlem,
N.Y., hot, humid nights saw children and adults sleeping on fire escapes
and rooftops. Doing the same today might lead to arrest for attempted
suicide.

Speaking of crime, if children did have a scrape with the law, our
parents sided with the police.

Don't you wonder how so many Americans made it without today's
oppressive, caring, nanny government?

JG wrote:

If someone says food stamps are absolutely necessary for poor people's
survival, I wonder how America's millions of poor immigrants made it.

They didn't all. Many of them starved to death. Have you read Angela's
Ashes? Several of the authors siblings died of malnutrition.

Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our history.

You missed something. There was mass starvation at several points that I
can recall. Some of those were at war time - Valley Forge in the winter
in the 1770s, Andersonville, GA in the 1860s (where 13,000 people died in
16 months). There was also mass starvation of native Americans - Trail of
Tears of the Cherokee and the persecution of the Souix come to mind.

Having read quite a lot of what you've written, I've come to the
conclusion that you are narrow minded with no idea of how poor your
education is.

Wendy

"Wendy Marsden" wrote in message
...

Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our history.

You missed something. There was mass starvation at several points that I
can recall.

Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
The Jungle?

--
CBI, MD

"Wendy Marsden" wrote in message
...

JG wrote:

If someone says food stamps are absolutely necessary for poor
people's
survival, I wonder how America's millions of poor immigrants made
it.

They didn't all. Many of them starved to death. Have you read
Angela's
Ashes? Several of the authors siblings died of malnutrition.

People make choices, and sometimes those choices have bad consequences.
That's life. Frank McCourt's father was an alcoholic who impoverished
his family, so I think it's fair to say it was he, not "society," that
(indirectly) killed some of his kids. (BTW, Frank McCourt is a great
example of an individual motivated by adversity. Often "that which
doesn't kill us" DOES serve to "make us stronger." Too bad so many
parents these days go to ridiculous [occasionally even illegal and/or
unethical] extremes in their attempts to remove *all* adversity from
their kids' lives.)

Unless I missed something, mass starvation is not a part of our
history.

You missed something. There was mass starvation at several points
that I
can recall. Some of those were at war time - Valley Forge in the
winter
in the 1770s,

The winter of 1778-9, to be precise. Again, choices. The soldiers
could have eaten the dead (of starvation) horses. (Sadly, their
inaction undoubtedly caused *more* deaths; failure to dispose of the
horse carcasses resulted in widespread disease.) Exposure to the harsh
elements also played a significant role.

Andersonville, GA in the 1860s (where 13,000 people died in
16 months).

....many of disease(s) caused by contaminated water supplies. Regardless
of whether by disease or starvation, the Union soldiers who died at
Andersonville were essentially *murdered*. Williams believes that in a
free society most individuals (those not genuinely disabled) can avert
their own starvation; those held prisoner at Andersonville were hardly
free.

There was also mass starvation of native Americans - Trail of
Tears of the Cherokee and the persecution of the Souix come to mind.

The forced displacement of the Cherokee and their treatment at the hands
of the US government during frelocation marches were deplorable, as was
the treatment of the Dakota/Lakota/Nakota. (Jeez, Wendy, I'm surprised
someone with such apparently liberal views would use the insulting term
"Sioux.") Again, the circumstances (i.e., starvation) of these groups
were beyond their control.

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Having read quite a lot of what you've written, I've come to the
conclusion that you are narrow minded with no idea of how poor your
education is.

You do know, don't you, that the comments to which you responded were
written by Walter Williams, not I? (I agree with them, however.) I've
come to the conclusion that your education in American history was
rather deficient...

"JG" wrote
Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"!

So are all the other cases of mass starvation in the last 100 years.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:16:09 GMT, "JG" wrote:

The winter of 1778-9, to be precise. Again, choices. The soldiers
could have eaten the dead (of starvation) horses. (Sadly, their
inaction undoubtedly caused *more* deaths; failure to dispose of the
horse carcasses resulted in widespread disease.) Exposure to the harsh
elements also played a significant role.

Ah, I see. We don't need no stinkin' food stamps. Let them eat their
dead animals if they're so damn hungry!

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Indeed. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

Good thing the government now tries to avoid that by issuing food
stamps. So what's your point? You claim that either starvation isn't a
problem, or, if it is, it's the government's fault.

PF

"PF Riley" wrote
stamps. So what's your point? You claim that either starvation isn't a
problem, or, if it is, it's the government's fault.

She's right.

"Wendy Marsden" wrote in message
...
Roger Schlafly wrote:
"JG" wrote

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration
are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"!

So are all the other cases of mass starvation in the last 100 years.

And so you are against feeding programs by the Government?

Damn right!

"Feeding" and other welfare programs foster dependency and discourage
self-reliance. They also hinder private programs, which have, and can,
do a much better job.

See:
"A Happy Anniversary for Welfare Reform?", Lisa E. Oliphant,
http://cato.org/dailys/08-22-00.html

"Civil Society to the Rescue," Michael Tanner,
http://cato.org/dailys/7-01-97.html

"WELFARE AND THE CULTURE OF POVERTY," William A. Niskanen,
http://cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html

JG

The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make
things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things
worse. The black family--which survived slavery, discrimination,
poverty, wars and depressions--began to come apart as the federal
government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help."
--Thomas Sowell

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:13:48 GMT, "JG" wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 04:16:09 GMT, "JG" wrote:

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration
are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Indeed. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!

"Let them eat buns"? g

Ah, Riley, yet another knee-jerk response! ...how predictable... Are
you aware that at the time Marie-Therese allegedly uttered these words,
the French government was meddling in the bread market? Bakers were
operating under a goofy law that required them to sell their more
expensive bread (brioche) at the same price as their cheapest bread if
and when they ran out of the cheap stuff. As such, Marie-Therese's
comment was hardly flippant; indeed, it was likely a call for
enforcement of the law.

Yes, I am well aware of the bread-pricing laws and the fact that the
statement has been misattributed and misunderstood. This is all
irrelevant. I was using the quotation in the sense in which it is
usually misinterpreted since such interpretation does apply here. Or
should I have perhaps said, "Qu'ils mangent des chevaux?"

And by the way, the only correct answer to the question of who
actually said it is: "Not Marie-Antoinette."

Good thing the government now tries to avoid that by issuing food
stamps. So what's your point? You claim that either starvation isn't a
problem, or, if it is, it's the government's fault.

Starvation doesn't have to be a "problem"; the private sector can, and
has, seen that hungry (starvation is an exaggeration) persons are fed.
You know what *might* really be blamed on the gubmnt? Obesity amongst
the poor. See http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/testimony-040303.pdf

So it seems you still can't make up your mind whether or not
government causes starvation. First you claim it does, then turn
around and cite an article claiming that starvation was a big problem
back in 1967, and that the government would have nothing to do with
these people, denying them welfare. (Now then where was your "private
sector?" And is this what you were referring to when you said that
kids "had it better in the '50s and '60s?") But the article then
claims that the government then overcompensated and has caused
obesity.

So I must thank you for countering Wendy's examples of starvation in
the U.S. which you claim to have been caused by governing bodies with
your own example of starvation initially ignored by the government
then cured by government programs.

So which is it? Does the government make people go hungry or make them
fat?

PF

JG wrote:

Gee, has anyone perceived a pattern here? With the exception of
McCourt's family, all the examples Wendy offered for consideration are
instances of "STARVATION BY GOVERNMENT"! (Okay, quasi-government
Valley Forge.) Too funny...

Nice observation. I submit that the incidents of mass starvation where
the government was NOT involved don't make it far enough into the public
consciousness for me to pull out of my head in a post.

I particularly liked how you write off the death of immigrant children as
their father's fault for not being a better father. But, wasn't that the
basic premise of this thread, denying that people died before the safety
nets? Now you're telling me that the ones that died didn't count?

Here's another example of immigrent children's deaths. My three great
aunts died at the turn of the century in Hamtramack from food
poisoning. (At least that's what I think it was, they called it "summer
complaint".) My great-grandfather always, always bitterly blamed being
Jewish as the doctor didn't come to their house until it was too late for
Sadie, Minnie and Rose. No safety net there. Can you imagine losing your
3, 6 and 10 year old daughters? My grandmother was born after her sisters
all died and grew up an only daughter with three ghosts populating her
family. I assure you, these people didn't lose their children through
Greek-type tragic flaws.

Wendy, whose children can get in to see doctors when they need it