A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Parenting Without Punishing"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old June 30th 04, 03:16 PM
Nathan A. Barclay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"


"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities
numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able
to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal
democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had
nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get
along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to
freedom and consensus!!


You're ignoring the fact that living on one's own was both lonelier and more
dangerous than living with the tribe. Thus, the power to banish people from
the tribe, or to impose punishments that members of the tribe would have to
banish themselves to avoid, offered the potential for a great deal of
leverage. That would certainly have undermined freedom and the need for
consensus.

Further, it would not be especially hard for a tribal government to take the
form of a "big-tough-hunter-ocracy" where a group of the biggest, strongest
men impose their will on the rest of the tribe because the others don't dare
to challenge them - and aren't willing to take a chance on whether they
could survive if they killed off their best hunters in the night, even if
they would be willing to kill them and even if they were not too afraid to
try. There is no particular reason to think that everyone would be given an
equal voice and vote.

I'm not saying that an essentially democratic tribal government would be
impossible. I'm just saying that it cannot be taken for granted.

Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?

-----------------------------------
We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government
we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and
rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things
you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of
collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself
is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes
us apart.


I will certainly agree that collective greed works well in pursuing
collective goals - goals that are shared and that can be reached more
efficiently working together than working alone. But many goals are
individual, not collective, and your own stance against vouchers shows how
miserably collective greed can work when different people have different
goals.

"I want a Viper."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says you have to get a Porsche instead."

"I want a house with yellow bricks."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says that houses have to have red bricks."

A system centered around collective greed can fail miserably when
individuals need or want things that the collective does not care about, or
when the collective takes advantage of differences in what individuals want
as an excuse to provide them with less.

Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably
eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process
might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen.

--------------------------------------
Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to
Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not
actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and
technology. These are actually opposites.


You're being absurd.

Suppose I spend $5,000 on a machine that lets me produce widgets in half the
time it takes other people to produce them. That provides economic growth
because I can produce twice as many widgets in the same amount of time.

If widgets normally cost $50, it might look at first glance like I can keep
selling my widgets for $50 and pocket the difference for myself. But if I
would try such a thing, other people would notice and start thinking, "Hey,
he's getting rich off those widgets. I'll buy my own widget-making machine
and make some of that money for myself." Once widget-making machines become
more common, we have to reduce our prices in order to compete with each
other, so most of the benefit from the widget-making machines ends up going
to people who buy widgets instead of to us. If I'm the first one to get a
widget-making machine, I might make a lot of money before that happens. But
in the long term, it is the customers that can now buy widgets for maybe $30
each (since some of the money has to go to pay back the cost of the
machinery) instead of $50 that get most of the benefit.

That phenomenon, repeated over and over, is why America's economy has grown
to a point where our poor would be considered rich by the standards of quite
a few other nations. You can argue that you think your communistic approach
would work better, but you would have to be blind, a liar, or a lunatic to
claim that the rich are the only ones who benefit from a capitalistic
system's growth.


  #322  
Old July 1st 04, 05:59 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities
numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able
to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal
democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had
nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get
along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to
freedom and consensus!!


You're ignoring the fact that living on one's own was both lonelier and more
dangerous than living with the tribe.

-----------------------------
Not if the tribe splits. Example, if the old try to abuse the young,
the young may leave. And yet they have the best reasons to want to
get along in order to 1) succeed, and 2) be happy.


Thus, the power to banish people from
the tribe, or to impose punishments that members of the tribe would have to
banish themselves to avoid, offered the potential for a great deal of
leverage. That would certainly have undermined freedom and the need for
consensus.

--------------------------------
Nope, because they had to grant to each other whatever they wanted
for themselves, and that breeds consensus. Also they were lovers,
as tribes of pre-humans must have been because other apes are today.


Further, it would not be especially hard for a tribal government to take the
form of a "big-tough-hunter-ocracy" where a group of the biggest, strongest
men impose their will on the rest of the tribe because the others don't dare
to challenge them - and aren't willing to take a chance on whether they
could survive if they killed off their best hunters in the night, even if
they would be willing to kill them and even if they were not too afraid to
try. There is no particular reason to think that everyone would be given an
equal voice and vote.

---------------------------
One, big mean hunters don't do well. Bulls in a china shop don't do
well at subtle games of waiting and planning. The tribe's hunters
are the careful thinkers who can walk a long way and keep records
of where the game is, they are meticulous in making their weapons
so each lance or dart or arrow flies the same. And big mean anythings
don't do well in tribes, they aggravate people and they DO get killed
in their sleep or discplined by a group assault. No big guy can
succeed against even just three smaller people. The largest members
of the tribes are teddy bear types who like children and are humble.

Only in recent times, the last 5000 years or so, have there been a
way for large psychopaths to survive as criminals in bandit gangs.
This is because only in the last 5000 years have there been so many
people that those who were exiled for their criminality might find
one another and form bandit groups before they died of accident or
predation or starvation and exposure. Prior to that time our tribes
were simply too far apart.


I'm not saying that an essentially democratic tribal government would be
impossible. I'm just saying that it cannot be taken for granted.

--------------------------------------
And in the cases it didn't happen lots of people died or were
far less happy or successful. This is called the exception that
proves the rule. Our nature is well-known now, we simply take
it for granted and fail to see it, or we recall the invention
of crime by the Feudalistic psychopaths and assume we were them,
when we were not at all!


Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?

-----------------------------------
We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government
we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and
rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things
you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of
collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself
is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes
us apart.


I will certainly agree that collective greed works well in pursuing
collective goals - goals that are shared and that can be reached more
efficiently working together than working alone.

-----------------
Name JUST ONE that cannot be?? I can't think of one, honestly!!!

There is no one who does not at least secretly wish for a large
number of lovers who care about them and all get along together.

There is no one who does not want a lot of friends they can do
things with all the time, so they never have to be lonely again.

Sure, there are things one pursues alone, but its sour and cold
and seems pointless without others to show your hobbies to, or
to share together.


But many goals are individual, not collective,

-----------------
But only distorted criminal goals that CAN only arise in the
child-abused mind. No one who was not abused would want other
than collective happiness. Not even Rodney King, finally.


and your own stance against vouchers shows how
miserably collective greed can work when different people have different
goals.

-------------------------------------
You have an aberrational belief system BECAUSE you are the victim of
the slave-control religion of the last Feudalism, your family has
remnant serfdom in their mentality and that brainwashing was only
ended a few generations ago, if it has ended fully at all!


"I want a Viper."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says you have to get a Porsche instead."

"I want a house with yellow bricks."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says that houses have to have red bricks."

-------------------------
If you want a Viper, you build/buy it.
If you want yellow bricks, make them.


A system centered around collective greed can fail miserably when
individuals need or want things that the collective does not care about, or
when the collective takes advantage of differences in what individuals want
as an excuse to provide them with less.

---------------------------------
Nope, not so. Everyone has little desires that aren't shared by
everyone else, so we are senstive to what others might want even
if we don't. But we are also sensitive to believing the person
should acquire those themselves, and especially not expect the
rest of us to pay for them if we don't collectively agree to
fund promulgating them, like with religion.

Now if you want something we don't disagree about, something
merely aesthetic, or unimportant to us, then we might see that
we all have some things like that, and help each other acquire
them.

But we collectively do NOT have to fund or take a collective
stand on anything divisive that has been a sore point between
us all!! You see, because of well-remembered abuses many people
now HATE ANY kind of religion that parents try to impose on
children, and because of that this society right now is right
on the edge of making religious brainwashing of children
illegal, and this is WHY you're not going to make headway on
this one!!

Now YOU may not believe it, but for myself after seeing 50 years
of history this is a familiar pattern of change to me now, the
same sort we saw when spousal abuse because illegal and highly
focused in the public eye. The same sort of arguments happened,
and now there aren't any anymore! The society has finished
deciding, and started IMPRISONING!!

Religious brainwashing of children is already illegal in two
nations in Europe.


Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably
eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process
might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen.

--------------------------------------
Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to
Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not
actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and
technology. These are actually opposites.


You're being absurd.

-----------------------
Not at all, the "market", rather than meaning just "trade", is often
used to describe only the development of profit and enthusiasm for
those in the stock market, who derive that wealth from others WHO
WORK, but NOT by working THEMSELVES!!


Suppose I spend $5,000 on a machine that lets me produce widgets in half the
time it takes other people to produce them. That provides economic growth
because I can produce twice as many widgets in the same amount of time.

------------------------
No, that's NOT "economic growth", that grows nothing. It only makes
cheaper widgets so people can afford more of them if they want, or
spend less time earning one. They work the same hours but get more
widgets, or work less and spend less hours for one widget!

You would have the right to pay for the cost of the machine out of
the sales of your products to the State stores, as a part of your
costs, and otherwise you'd receive the same wage per hour for your
labor. Or you could sell the machine to the State for reimbursement
if you wanted and keep using it.


If widgets normally cost $50, it might look at first glance like I can keep
selling my widgets for $50 and pocket the difference for myself. But if I
would try such a thing, other people would notice and start thinking, "Hey,
he's getting rich off those widgets. I'll buy my own widget-making machine
and make some of that money for myself." Once widget-making machines become
more common, we have to reduce our prices in order to compete with each
other, so most of the benefit from the widget-making machines ends up going
to people who buy widgets instead of to us. If I'm the first one to get a
widget-making machine, I might make a lot of money before that happens. But
in the long term, it is the customers that can now buy widgets for maybe $30
each (since some of the money has to go to pay back the cost of the
machinery) instead of $50 that get most of the benefit.

------------------
You seem to have this fatuous immature delusion that after 54 years
that I haven't any idea how Capitalism works. Why do you even bother??
It still isn't "growth" as commonly spoken of in the marketplace. The
market speaks of growth only of profit.


That phenomenon, repeated over and over, is why America's economy has grown
to a point where our poor would be considered rich by the standards of quite
a few other nations. You can argue that you think your communistic approach
would work better, but you would have to be blind, a liar, or a lunatic to
claim that the rich are the only ones who benefit from a capitalistic
system's growth.

--------------------------
Actual productive growth that makes more goods for the same or less
labor is indeed technological and infrastructural growth. But in the
case of Capitalism the growth differential is mostly handed to the
rich, who do less or NO work for it, while the workers who did the
labor are deprived of most of that benefit. So no, you are barely
correct, they do barely benefit, if you call that benefitting.

But despite your desperate hand-waving and meaningless filthy
partisan anti-communist verbal gestures, YOU are the blind
lunatic liar here!!:

Communism does indeed do the very same thing, promoting these
same industrial advances by publically financing them in the
EXACT SAME manner as an investor in Capitalism, but COLLECTIVELY!!
AND HOWEVER!: When the widgets are divided, they go equally to
each laborer for each labor hour they spent making them, which
is the essence of fairness.
Steve
  #323  
Old July 1st 04, 05:59 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Parenting Without Punishing"

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:


Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities
numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able
to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal
democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had
nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get
along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to
freedom and consensus!!


You're ignoring the fact that living on one's own was both lonelier and more
dangerous than living with the tribe.

-----------------------------
Not if the tribe splits. Example, if the old try to abuse the young,
the young may leave. And yet they have the best reasons to want to
get along in order to 1) succeed, and 2) be happy.


Thus, the power to banish people from
the tribe, or to impose punishments that members of the tribe would have to
banish themselves to avoid, offered the potential for a great deal of
leverage. That would certainly have undermined freedom and the need for
consensus.

--------------------------------
Nope, because they had to grant to each other whatever they wanted
for themselves, and that breeds consensus. Also they were lovers,
as tribes of pre-humans must have been because other apes are today.


Further, it would not be especially hard for a tribal government to take the
form of a "big-tough-hunter-ocracy" where a group of the biggest, strongest
men impose their will on the rest of the tribe because the others don't dare
to challenge them - and aren't willing to take a chance on whether they
could survive if they killed off their best hunters in the night, even if
they would be willing to kill them and even if they were not too afraid to
try. There is no particular reason to think that everyone would be given an
equal voice and vote.

---------------------------
One, big mean hunters don't do well. Bulls in a china shop don't do
well at subtle games of waiting and planning. The tribe's hunters
are the careful thinkers who can walk a long way and keep records
of where the game is, they are meticulous in making their weapons
so each lance or dart or arrow flies the same. And big mean anythings
don't do well in tribes, they aggravate people and they DO get killed
in their sleep or discplined by a group assault. No big guy can
succeed against even just three smaller people. The largest members
of the tribes are teddy bear types who like children and are humble.

Only in recent times, the last 5000 years or so, have there been a
way for large psychopaths to survive as criminals in bandit gangs.
This is because only in the last 5000 years have there been so many
people that those who were exiled for their criminality might find
one another and form bandit groups before they died of accident or
predation or starvation and exposure. Prior to that time our tribes
were simply too far apart.


I'm not saying that an essentially democratic tribal government would be
impossible. I'm just saying that it cannot be taken for granted.

--------------------------------------
And in the cases it didn't happen lots of people died or were
far less happy or successful. This is called the exception that
proves the rule. Our nature is well-known now, we simply take
it for granted and fail to see it, or we recall the invention
of crime by the Feudalistic psychopaths and assume we were them,
when we were not at all!


Can you provide some practical, real-world examples?

-----------------------------------
We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government
we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and
rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things
you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of
collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself
is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes
us apart.


I will certainly agree that collective greed works well in pursuing
collective goals - goals that are shared and that can be reached more
efficiently working together than working alone.

-----------------
Name JUST ONE that cannot be?? I can't think of one, honestly!!!

There is no one who does not at least secretly wish for a large
number of lovers who care about them and all get along together.

There is no one who does not want a lot of friends they can do
things with all the time, so they never have to be lonely again.

Sure, there are things one pursues alone, but its sour and cold
and seems pointless without others to show your hobbies to, or
to share together.


But many goals are individual, not collective,

-----------------
But only distorted criminal goals that CAN only arise in the
child-abused mind. No one who was not abused would want other
than collective happiness. Not even Rodney King, finally.


and your own stance against vouchers shows how
miserably collective greed can work when different people have different
goals.

-------------------------------------
You have an aberrational belief system BECAUSE you are the victim of
the slave-control religion of the last Feudalism, your family has
remnant serfdom in their mentality and that brainwashing was only
ended a few generations ago, if it has ended fully at all!


"I want a Viper."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says you have to get a Porsche instead."

"I want a house with yellow bricks."

"Sorry, but our collective greed says that houses have to have red bricks."

-------------------------
If you want a Viper, you build/buy it.
If you want yellow bricks, make them.


A system centered around collective greed can fail miserably when
individuals need or want things that the collective does not care about, or
when the collective takes advantage of differences in what individuals want
as an excuse to provide them with less.

---------------------------------
Nope, not so. Everyone has little desires that aren't shared by
everyone else, so we are senstive to what others might want even
if we don't. But we are also sensitive to believing the person
should acquire those themselves, and especially not expect the
rest of us to pay for them if we don't collectively agree to
fund promulgating them, like with religion.

Now if you want something we don't disagree about, something
merely aesthetic, or unimportant to us, then we might see that
we all have some things like that, and help each other acquire
them.

But we collectively do NOT have to fund or take a collective
stand on anything divisive that has been a sore point between
us all!! You see, because of well-remembered abuses many people
now HATE ANY kind of religion that parents try to impose on
children, and because of that this society right now is right
on the edge of making religious brainwashing of children
illegal, and this is WHY you're not going to make headway on
this one!!

Now YOU may not believe it, but for myself after seeing 50 years
of history this is a familiar pattern of change to me now, the
same sort we saw when spousal abuse because illegal and highly
focused in the public eye. The same sort of arguments happened,
and now there aren't any anymore! The society has finished
deciding, and started IMPRISONING!!

Religious brainwashing of children is already illegal in two
nations in Europe.


Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably
eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process
might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen.

--------------------------------------
Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to
Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not
actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and
technology. These are actually opposites.


You're being absurd.

-----------------------
Not at all, the "market", rather than meaning just "trade", is often
used to describe only the development of profit and enthusiasm for
those in the stock market, who derive that wealth from others WHO
WORK, but NOT by working THEMSELVES!!


Suppose I spend $5,000 on a machine that lets me produce widgets in half the
time it takes other people to produce them. That provides economic growth
because I can produce twice as many widgets in the same amount of time.

------------------------
No, that's NOT "economic growth", that grows nothing. It only makes
cheaper widgets so people can afford more of them if they want, or
spend less time earning one. They work the same hours but get more
widgets, or work less and spend less hours for one widget!

You would have the right to pay for the cost of the machine out of
the sales of your products to the State stores, as a part of your
costs, and otherwise you'd receive the same wage per hour for your
labor. Or you could sell the machine to the State for reimbursement
if you wanted and keep using it.


If widgets normally cost $50, it might look at first glance like I can keep
selling my widgets for $50 and pocket the difference for myself. But if I
would try such a thing, other people would notice and start thinking, "Hey,
he's getting rich off those widgets. I'll buy my own widget-making machine
and make some of that money for myself." Once widget-making machines become
more common, we have to reduce our prices in order to compete with each
other, so most of the benefit from the widget-making machines ends up going
to people who buy widgets instead of to us. If I'm the first one to get a
widget-making machine, I might make a lot of money before that happens. But
in the long term, it is the customers that can now buy widgets for maybe $30
each (since some of the money has to go to pay back the cost of the
machinery) instead of $50 that get most of the benefit.

------------------
You seem to have this fatuous immature delusion that after 54 years
that I haven't any idea how Capitalism works. Why do you even bother??
It still isn't "growth" as commonly spoken of in the marketplace. The
market speaks of growth only of profit.


That phenomenon, repeated over and over, is why America's economy has grown
to a point where our poor would be considered rich by the standards of quite
a few other nations. You can argue that you think your communistic approach
would work better, but you would have to be blind, a liar, or a lunatic to
claim that the rich are the only ones who benefit from a capitalistic
system's growth.

--------------------------
Actual productive growth that makes more goods for the same or less
labor is indeed technological and infrastructural growth. But in the
case of Capitalism the growth differential is mostly handed to the
rich, who do less or NO work for it, while the workers who did the
labor are deprived of most of that benefit. So no, you are barely
correct, they do barely benefit, if you call that benefitting.

But despite your desperate hand-waving and meaningless filthy
partisan anti-communist verbal gestures, YOU are the blind
lunatic liar here!!:

Communism does indeed do the very same thing, promoting these
same industrial advances by publically financing them in the
EXACT SAME manner as an investor in Capitalism, but COLLECTIVELY!!
AND HOWEVER!: When the widgets are divided, they go equally to
each laborer for each labor hour they spent making them, which
is the essence of fairness.
Steve
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Parenting Without Punishing" Chris General 328 July 1st 04 05:59 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane General 13 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Spanking 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.