Political Discussion

[Diaper Baby Escape Plan]

That really elides the societal pressure to continue directly from high school to college and the predatory nature of the student loan industry especially over the last couple decades, but sure go off king. I don't have $200,000 of debt over my head, but I sure as shit didn't understand what I was signing up for as a seventeen year-old kid just trying to "invest in my future."

I agree with this sentiment. I had my undergraduate paid from military service. Both GI Bill and my home state gave free tuition to vets who have it as a home of record if you went to a state school. Heck, with all the entitlements I actually made money going to school.

I used to have a perspective almost identical to @Chucktshoes

I figured if I did it then anyone could. And I thought of it very black and white as "good" and "bad" decisions. But that gave short shrift to the expansive and differing circumstances of individuals and paints with too broad of strokes,. IMO.

I was fortunate to be raised by multiple generations of a family - that while not wealthy - had discussions with me about wealth and living within a means. I learned to budget at a young age. I learned about debt and the weight of it as well. I realize that not everyone has that fortune or learns about it in an easy way (ie I didn't have to be crushed by it to learn about it).

Not everyone has that education and it's not their fault. And in large parts that information has been withheld and made harder to access because predatory institutions benefit from it being that way.

Anyway just my (loaned) two cents. I am very much for personal responsibility and the weight of our decisions. But these are complex issues.

 

[Chucktshoes]

That really elides the societal pressure to continue directly from high school to college and the predatory nature of the student loan industry especially over the last couple decades, but sure go off king. I don't have $200,000 of debt over my head, but I sure as shit didn't understand what I was signing up for as a seventeen year-old kid just trying to "invest in my future."

The student loan industry is just one part of the predatory scam that is most of college. I actually support the ending of the bankruptcy exclusion for student loan debt. I support that because I understand that will radically change who gets loans and what the college experience actually is going forward. It would blow up the entire higher educational system and render a whole lot of people in need of a real job. This would be good thing. College is wasted for most people. It’s an overpriced 4 year delay of adulthood that results in a mortgage sized debt they’ll spend a lifetime repaying.

If your argument for college has anything to do with “the experience” you deserve every bit of your debt because you’re the cause of your situation.

 

[yukbon]

If your argument for college has anything to do with “the experience” you deserve every bit of your debt because you’re the cause of your situation.

The roots of education's raison d'être are split roughly two ways: philosophically and industrially.

The philosophical argument for liberal arts (here meaning ye olde meaning of liberal -- to be free -- and not something on the political spectrum) education is that a society where people have a broad or general understanding of mathematics, grammar, ethics, philosophy, science and the arts is a society made of well-rounded individuals that are more inventive and capable of understanding the natural world in general and well-placed/founded in order to change it (ostensibly and hopefully for the better). This is the basic roots of a liberal arts education, loosely founded on the trivium and quadrivium.

The industrial argument for education is that school exists to get you ready to work. American efforts for public education is largely rooted in this and historically, in the US at least, industrialists have had a heavy hand in American public education under the loose idea that if the government teaches everyone the basic reading/writing/arithmetic that you need for most literacy-based labor up to say, middle-management, which makes it easier to fill the positions needed and drive down the costs of math and literacy -based labor and associated training costs.

There's a huge amount of debate between these two camps, even today, and how much of a balance between the philosophical and broad curriculum is needed vs the more pragmatic get-'em-a-job camp. Anyway. I think you're wrong to pooh-pooh and hand wave away a broader liberal arts education as "the experience". I think a lot of people even in the midst of completing a liberal arts education miss the point of a fucking liberal arts education, and thus think of it as "the experience" of 4 years of slowly growing up and away from family/parents into being their own adult person, which honestly is a diminution and misappreciation of what it theoretically should be.

I will agree with you that if you spend 100K on learning to be your own person, you definitely earned 100K in debt due to bad financial planning, but a lot of folks simply don't have an appealing alternative. Even landed gentry like Diaper Baby wound up using the GI bill and state funding. Ask yourself how many volunteers there would be in the volunteer military forces if education were free or state-funded in some significant way that did not require military service.

 

[Chucktshoes]

The roots of education's raison d'être are split roughly two ways: philosophically and industrially.

The philosophical argument for liberal arts (here meaning ye olde meaning of liberal -- to be free -- and not something on the political spectrum) education is that a society where people have a broad or general understanding of mathematics, grammar, ethics, philosophy, science and the arts is a society made of well-rounded individuals that are more inventive and capable of understanding the natural world in general and well-placed/founded in order to change it (ostensibly and hopefully for the better). This is the basic roots of a liberal arts education, loosely founded on the trivium and quadrivium.

The industrial argument for education is that school exists to get you ready to work. American efforts for public education is largely rooted in this and historically, in the US at least, industrialists have had a heavy hand in American public education under the loose idea that if the government teaches everyone the basic reading/writing/arithmetic that you need for most literacy-based labor up to say, middle-management, which makes it easier to fill the positions needed and drive down the costs of math and literacy -based labor and associated training costs.

There's a huge amount of debate between these two camps, even today, and how much of a balance between the philosophical and broad curriculum is needed vs the more pragmatic get-'em-a-job camp. Anyway. I think you're wrong to pooh-pooh and hand wave away a broader liberal arts education as "the experience". I think a lot of people even in the midst of completing a liberal arts education miss the point of a fucking liberal arts education, and thus think of it as "the experience" of 4 years of slowly growing up and away from family/parents into being their own adult person, which honestly is a diminution and misappreciation of what it theoretically should be.

I will agree with you that if you spend 100K on learning to be your own person, you definitely earned 100K in debt due to bad financial planning, but a lot of folks simply don't have an appealing alternative. Even landed gentry like Diaper Baby wound up using the GI bill and state funding. Ask yourself how many volunteers there would be in the volunteer military forces if education were free or state-funded in some significant way.

The philosophical broad spectrum liberal arts education that is based on a classical model is what primary/secondary education is supposed to be for. Post secondary/post graduate should be focused on career specific knowledge where it is actually necessary. This is where I agree with others here who suggest that the way we do public education in primary/secondary is wrong. Teaching to mastery is the way. Grades and standardized tests are destructive.

 

[Chucktshoes]

That threshold for “adulthood” is pretty arbitrary when we know that our brains donn’t even finish developing until around age 25. Society requires a younger age for adulthood because of sexual maturity and the need for cheap labor in the workforce / expendable lives in the military. What is being framed here as a “delayed” entry to adulthood I might suggest is actually the alternative to a premature one.

*Looks around at the last 30 years or so of increasingly extended infantilizing of young people.*
Yeah, that’s a hard no.

Edited to add—


You don’t get self reliant, well functioning human being adults by treating them as incapable of being responsible for themselves until they are past prime learning age. You treat them as the self owned beings they are as early as possible. Young all people learn more by doing and experiencing than anything else.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Yo, I know we complain a lot, but it the 4th. America is pretty cool.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

Yo, I know we complain a lot, but it the 4th. America is a pretty cool idea.

FIFY, but also cheers man!

 

[Chucktshoes]

Yo, I know we complain a lot, but it the 4th. America is pretty cool.

 

[TenderLovingKiller®]

I guess what I’m saying is, what you perceive as recent infantilization, might just be in contrast to previous generations’ forced maturation to fill factories with workers, regiments with soldiers, and households with consumers. 18 is just…a number, that we all agreed that we’re going to consider the bar for (some aspects of) adulthood, but it’s not tethered to anything empirical except convention and the idea that it’s what we could probably get away with as a general rule.

Irrespective of all that, I reluctantly agree with you that college is an increasingly irresponsible choice for many because of the cost, but I still have trouble faulting kids who made decisions they believed would pay off and then found a host of generational forces at work against them. Still, what’s the limit — is $100k in loans for an undergrad education worth it? I’d want to be damn sure of the answer before I made that decision.

So what your saying is it’s fine that I still collect comic books and records while watching old wrestling pay-per-views on the television?…

 

[Chucktshoes]

I guess what I’m saying is, what you perceive as recent infantilization, might just be in contrast to previous generations’ forced maturation to fill factories with workers, regiments with soldiers, and households with consumers. 18 is just…a number, that we all agreed that we’re going to consider the bar for (some aspects of) adulthood, but it’s not tethered to anything empirical except convention and the idea that it’s what we could probably get away with as a general rule.

Irrespective of all that, I reluctantly agree with you that college is an increasingly irresponsible choice for many because of the cost, but I still have trouble faulting kids who made decisions they believed would pay off and then found a host of generational forces at work against them. Still, what’s the limit — is $100k in loans for an undergrad education worth it? I’d want to be damn sure of the answer before I made that decision.

My view is that we have turned the tendency for risk taking, bold action, and openness to trying new things that comes from that youthfulness of the “immature” brain from a feature into a bug.

Young folks are much more capable of not just self reliance but greatness than we give them credit for as a society. We’ve gotten soft and because of that do a shit job of turning out complete human beings. Maybe the reason younger folks struggle so much with making good life decisions isn’t that their brains aren’t mature enough but that they’ve been failed by their parents by not creating the circumstances that aid in developing those life skills?

 

[Chucktshoes]

To bolster my previous point here’s a list of the ages of some of the key players of the American Revolution as of July 4, 1776.


Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Gilbert Stuart, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
Alexander Hamilton, 21
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25

(Here are some other to save looking up the answer to questions that will undeniably arise)


Thomas Jefferson, 33
John Adams, 40
Paul Revere, 41
George Washington, 44
Samuel Adams, 53
Ben Franklin 70

 

[jaycee]

To bolster my previous point here’s a list of the ages of some of the key players of the American Revolution as of July 4, 1776.


Marquis de Lafayette, 18
James Monroe, 18
Gilbert Stuart, 20
Aaron Burr, 20
Alexander Hamilton, 21
Betsy Ross, 24
James Madison, 25

(Here are some other to save looking up the answer to questions that will undeniably arise)


Thomas Jefferson, 33
John Adams, 40
Paul Revere, 41
George Washington, 44
Samuel Adams, 53
Ben Franklin 70

People only expected to live into their 40's at the time of the American Revolution. If 20 were middle-aged at present the decisions made by 20 year olds would be different.

College is often too expensive (for various reasons) and its utility has changed, but the numbers still play out that your earning potential is higher with a 4-year degree. Rather than simply blaming the parents not teaching their children to be self-sufficient or make sound decisions let's look at the conditions that promote this lack of youth self-sufficiency.

Even if they themselves have the skills and understanding, parents are around their children less on average to teach them all of these ideas. In most two parent households I would guess it's fair to say that both parent's are usually working so they are paying for childcare from someplace or someone before school age, and during school age they are putting their kids in after-school programs and/or paying for sitters. Many people don't live near their immediate family anymore so the expectation that a grandparent be around to help isn't always there. Overall parents are spending less time with their kids than they used to in part because their economic situations are more tenuous, and people have different expectations for their lives than they used to. 2. Although most people wouldn't admit it, negative attitudes about physical labor and trades jobs (or the class of people in those positions) are still prominent in our society. A lot of parents incorporate those views into their parenting, media (film and tv) does a good job of it too, so kids are taught to want to be a doctor or an engineer or lawyer, and not many other perhaps more practical jobs. There of course isn't anything wrong with wanting to be a doctor but when you are making the choice to do it because you think you're supposed to and think you'd be better off doing that instead of some other job that maybe makes less money, you're probably going into it for the wrong reasons and taking on a lot of debt to do so. 3. Our education system is set-up for people to check boxes both literally when they take multiple choice exams for grades and to meet requirements to move on in the system. Also, the quality of your schooling and what you believe your options in life to be are not the same everybody. Our one size fits all way, elastic waist-band approach to knowledge and skills, fails more than not.

My point is that it wasn't necessarily better in the past, it was just different, and blaming parents for conforming to society's parameters and conditioning isn't really addressing the myriad of reasons education (and life) is becoming more and more unaffordable. People weren't any more thoughtful or creative at a young age 250 years ago or even 30 years ago; now they just expressed themselves differently and have different opportunities to do so. Do they need more opportunities now? I would say yes, but with the way our education system is structured it's probably going to happen outside of the classroom if it's going to happen.

 

[Chucktshoes]

People only expected to live into their 40's at the time of the American Revolution. If 20 were middle-aged at present the decisions made by 20 year olds would be different.

College is often too expensive (for various reasons) and its utility has changed, but the numbers still play out that your earning potential is higher with a 4-year degree. Rather than simply blaming the parents not teaching their children to be self-sufficient or make sound decisions let's look at the conditions that promote this lack of youth self-sufficiency.

Even if they themselves have the skills and understanding, parents are around their children less on average to teach them all of these ideas. In most two parent households I would guess it's fair to say that both parent's are usually working so they are paying for childcare from someplace or someone before school age, and during school age they are putting their kids in after-school programs and/or paying for sitters. Many people don't live near their immediate family anymore so the expectation that a grandparent be around to help isn't always there. Overall parents are spending less time with their kids than they used to in part because their economic situations are more tenuous, and people have different expectations for their lives than they used to. 2. Although most people wouldn't admit it, negative attitudes about physical labor and trades jobs (or the class of people in those positions) are still prominent in our society. A lot of parents incorporate those views into their parenting, media (film and tv) does a good job of it too, so kids are taught to want to be a doctor or an engineer or lawyer, and not many other perhaps more practical jobs. There of course isn't anything wrong with wanting to be a doctor but when you are making the choice to do it because you think you're supposed to and think you'd be better off doing that instead of some other job that maybe makes less money, you're probably going into it for the wrong reasons and taking on a lot of debt to do so. 3. Our education system is set-up for people to check boxes both literally when they take multiple choice exams for grades and to meet requirements to move on in the system. Also, the quality of your schooling and what you believe your options in life to be are not the same everybody. Our one size fits all way, elastic waist-band approach to knowledge and skills, fails more than not.

My point is that it wasn't necessarily better in the past, it was just different, and blaming parents for conforming to society's parameters and conditioning isn't really addressing the myriad of reasons education (and life) is becoming more and more unaffordable. People weren't any more thoughtful or creative at a young age 250 years ago or even 30 years ago; now they just expressed themselves differently and have different opportunities to do so. Do they need more opportunities now? I would say yes, but with the way our education system is structured it's probably going to happen outside of the classroom if it's going to happen.

If conforming to society’s parameters and conditioning causes one to fail their children with regards to preparing them for the world, then I will goddamn well blame the parent. That’s the primary fucking job of being one. If I don’t render myself obsolete in the running of my child’s life by the time they leave my house, I failed in my duties as a parent.

I didn’t say that people are less thoughtful or creative at a young age now, what I said was that people treat young folks as if they aren’t capable. I believe the opposite to be true. They can absolutely be capable of not only running their own lives, but of doing great things. If you’ve paid any attention at all the the drivel my dumbass spouts (I’m sorry if you have, but you did that to yourself if you did) “outside the classroom” is kinda my whole point here.

Also, that average life expectancy of 40 has more to do with childhood mortality than folks dying at that age. It wasn’t some Logan’s Run style society made up of 20 year olds. If they made it out of childhood it wasn’t that uncommon to make it to an advanced age. So 20 wasn’t any kind of middle age.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

I'll mention again, going to college was never really I choice for me. I was conditioned into believing it was required for success. It was an expectation of both my parents and the area I grew up in.

The high school I want had 96% rate of graduates going on to a 4 year school. Guidance counselors never talked to you about the cost of college or what other options you may have. Just about picking the right school for you and what degree you want to get.

My parents made a big push that I needed to go to college. They wanted a better life for me. And they road me hard about getting admissions letters written and studying for the SAT.

It was pretty much if you want success in life, a good paying job you need to go to college. No ifs, ands or buts.

At 17/18 years old I didn't know to question that. I just believed it to be true or I would be flipping burgers for the rest of my life.

I also, I didn't know the economy would fall out from under me and the recession would hit just as I was hitting the workforce. And you can't predict that. The recession really delayed my career growth for a good 5 to 7 years. Most places were downsizing, not hiring. Places that did hire me ended up going under. That happened to me twice with each of these jobs lasting less than 6 months. I found myself working multiple low wage jobs and finding it hard to get hired in my field again for 2 glaring reasons. 1, a tax credit for hiring recent college graduates (people within a year of their graduation) for all entry level jobs. And then 2, not having the experience for non entry level jobs. I didn't have 3 to 5 years experience so when I applied to jobs I was often ghosted.

So my professional career was pretty much delayed 7 years from graduation to get a good paying job that was stable. Student loans were to much debt during those 7 years, and the obama repayment plan options didn't cover my interest so they just kept growing instead of being paid off.

Even having a good paying job now isn't great. Sure I make more than the average person with just a highschool diploma, but wages keep getting depressed in my field due to globalization and offshoring work to india. 12 years ago with my level experience I could have expected to make 40k to 60k more than what I make currently. Now, I don't see making that without rethinking my career path.

Today, I now know there are more options than just college. And several of those options will make you more money. Any union job that is either construction or a tradesman job will have much better benefits than I currently have, better wages and best of all, no student loan debt.

My younger cousin got a job in construction. His father works construction and is in the union and was able to pull him into it with just a recommendation. He started off in the workforce at 18 making 120k a year. And unfortunately he wasn't mature enough to handle that kind of money. He blue it all on alcohol and cocaine. All he did was party, and buy the booze and drugs for his friends. He got a couple DUI's, spent some time in jail. He is still struggling with addiction. Sad story.

So, that being said, the extra 4 years college gives you for growing up I would say is definitely a benefit. But financially, it more often than not is not the best choice these days. Student loans just have become to predatory and the price of education comically high compared to expected salaries.




I know know there

 

[jaycee]

If conforming to society’s parameters and conditioning causes one to fail their children with regards to preparing them for the world, then I will goddamn well blame the parent. That’s the primary fucking job of being one. If I don’t render myself obsolete in the running of my child’s life by the time they leave my house, I failed in my duties as a parent.

I didn’t say that people are less thoughtful or creative at a young age now, what I said was that people treat young folks as if they aren’t capable. I believe the opposite to be true. They can absolutely be capable of not only running their own lives, but of doing great things. If you’ve paid any attention at all the the drivel my dumbass spouts (I’m sorry if you have, but you did that to yourself if you did) “outside the classroom” is kinda my whole point here.

Also, that average life expectancy of 40 has more to do with childhood mortality than folks dying at that age. It wasn’t some Logan’s Run style society made up of 20 year olds. If they made it out of childhood it wasn’t that uncommon to make it to an advanced age. So 20 wasn’t any kind of middle age.

Yes, we basically agree on things, and the point of my post/response was not necessarily to present arguments against all of your points.

I think where I disagree is with your idea/expectation of independent thought. I don't think most people have any idea how to do that, or be that person. My sense is that parents are conditioned by their own, by the world around them, by their religious practices, by media, etc. to approach the world to conform in various ways. These conforming behaviors are usually unconscious. I suspect the reasons for conforming to social norms are deeply ingrained into the human consciousness. I haven't researched this so it's just a feeling.

So the question to me is if (the royal) you wants children to have more opportunities for independence, creativity, and to do so with at least some sense of economic and social safety what needs to change and who is responsible? Certainly parents have a role in setting different expectations, but without societal changes, policy changes, these different approaches to and expectations for life can't take hold on any significant scale.

Re life expectancy in the past: Yes infant/childhood mortality was very high. People also bred earlier. Women had very different roles in society. Public health didn't exist... Ben Franklin and Betsy Ross both emptied their chamber pots out into the street. Industrialization was yet to come and people who couldn't afford to pay for labor worked and lived physically demanding jobs. Why did people eventually flee their pre-civil war agrarian lives to work in dirty, overcrowded, and unsanitary cities? Because (in-part), at least in the north, where the earth was harder to work and less profitable there was more opportunity in the cities.

 

[jaycee]

I'll mention again, going to college was never really I choice for me. I was conditioned into believing it was required for success. It was an expectation of both my parents and the area I grew up in.

The high school I want had 96% rate of graduates going on to a 4 year school. Guidance counselors never talked to you about the cost of college or what other options you may have. Just about picking the right school for you and what degree you want to get.

My parents made a big push that I needed to go to college. They wanted a better life for me. And they road me hard about getting admissions letters written and studying for the SAT.

It was pretty much if you want success in life, a good paying job you need to go to college. No ifs, ands or buts.

At 17/18 years old I didn't know to question that. I just believed it to be true or I would be flipping burgers for the rest of my life.

I also, I didn't know the economy would fall out from under me and the recession would hit just as I was hitting the workforce. And you can't predict that. The recession really delayed my career growth for a good 5 to 7 years. Most places were downsizing, not hiring. Places that did hire me ended up going under. That happened to me twice with each of these jobs lasting less than 6 months. I found myself working multiple low wage jobs and finding it hard to get hired in my field again for 2 glaring reasons. 1, a tax credit for hiring recent college graduates (people within a year of their graduation) for all entry level jobs. And then 2, not having the experience for non entry level jobs. I didn't have 3 to 5 years experience so when I applied to jobs I was often ghosted.

So my professional career was pretty much delayed 7 years from graduation to get a good paying job that was stable. Student loans were to much debt during those 7 years, and the obama repayment plan options didn't cover my interest so they just kept growing instead of being paid off.

Even having a good paying job now isn't great. Sure I make more than the average person with just a highschool diploma, but wages keep getting depressed in my field due to globalization and offshoring work to india. 12 years ago with my level experience I could have expected to make 40k to 60k more than what I make currently. Now, I don't see making that without rethinking my career path.

Today, I now know there are more options than just college. And several of those options will make you more money. Any union job that is either construction or a tradesman job will have much better benefits than I currently have, better wages and best of all, no student loan debt.

My younger cousin got a job in construction. His father works construction and is in the union and was able to pull him into it with just a recommendation. He started off in the workforce at 18 making 120k a year. And unfortunately he wasn't mature enough to handle that kind of money. He blue it all on alcohol and cocaine. All he did was party, and buy the booze and drugs for his friends. He got a couple DUI's, spent some time in jail. He is still struggling with addiction. Sad story.

So, that being said, the extra 4 years college gives you for growing up I would say is definitely a benefit. But financially, it more often than not is not the best choice these days. Student loans just have become to predatory and the price of education comically high compared to expected salaries.




I know know there

Yes, the problem being discussed is complicated and nuanced. I had similar expectations imposed on myself and frankly didn't know any better either, but I went to school in the mid-90's so my interest rate was different and made some different choices post-graduation. I ended-up continuing my education because of other conditioning and I wanted a career as an academic, which turned-out not to be right for me.

Their were many times I had the thought of if I had just picked-up a trade (I like plumbing) in my early 20's that I would've been financially more secure, but for me that thought completely ignores all of the other benefits my education and college experiences have brought me. I don't know exactly what the other life I imagine would've brought, but I think it's safe to assume that as a person with limited to no means at 18 I would've just stayed in or near my hometown and likely still would've be there. Whereas, I've been able to learn and see things I never possibly could've had I not continued my education. I have friends I can visit in different countries and across the U.S. and I have a perspective I couldn't have otherwise gained. Was it financially the best move for myself? No probably not. I've made some less than financially practical choices and didn't start earning a middle-class wage until my late 30's, but it isn't worth putting the energy into regret.

When I was young I wanted to be 2 things: 1. a marine biologist because I was obsessed with those Jacques Cousteau PBS shows and I wanted to help the world in some way 2. a trucker because the idea of seeing more of the world than where I was at was already important to me. I feel like I very roughly achieved the underlying goals I had with those occupations. I may not have done-so in the most fiscally responsible way, but I've been lucky enough to mostly crawl my way out of student loan debt.

I wish I had known what I know now at 18 and maybe I would've made some different choices, but there was no way anyone around me could've informed me about all of the ramifications for the choices I did make either. My parents didn't know any better, my neighbors and my community definitely didn't, and I had to fuck-up and succeed on my own.

 

[Chucktshoes]

So the question to me is if (the royal) you wants children to have more opportunities for independence, creativity, and to do so with at least some sense of economic and social safety what needs to change and who is responsible? Certainly parents have a role in setting different expectations, but without societal changes, policy changes, these different approaches to and expectations for life can't take hold on any significant scale.

Gonna focus on the real meat here which is this question.

First off, I think the most helpful thing is to realize that the concept of “economic and social safety” is a lie. Chasing after that is part of what got us where we are in the first place. Abandon that fallacy and you (royal) are left with the realization that you are responsible for you and thus, your children will be responsible for themselves. To me, that clears up quite a bit when it comes to how to prepare my kids for the world.

Secondly, the family is the primary building block of society and is the best and most effective change engine. That’s where it starts. It’s the only place it can start. It’s also the only place powerful enough to take on the massive system of forces that’s been working so hard to enslave us.

 

[jaycee]

Gonna focus on the real meat here which is this question.

First off, I think the most helpful thing is to realize that the concept of “economic and social safety” is a lie. Chasing after that is part of what got us where we are in the first place. Abandon that fallacy and you (royal) are left with the realization that you are responsible for you and thus, your children will be responsible for themselves. To me, that clears up quite a bit when it comes to how to prepare my kids for the world.

Secondly, the family is the primary building block of society and is the best and most effective change engine. That’s where it starts. It’s the only place it can start. It’s also the only place powerful enough to take on the massive system of forces that’s been working so hard to enslave us.

Fair enough. That works for you. It doesn't work for me.

I don't think family is the basic building block of society. It certainly wasn't for me and I suspect it isn't for many others. So family is whatever you make it in my world.

I also don't think economic and social safety is a lie conceptually. It's only a lie if you believe our current systems are the only way to do things and that they will offer either. I don't

 

[Chucktshoes]

Fair enough. That works for you. It doesn't work for me.

I don't think family is the basic building block of society. It certainly wasn't for me and I suspect it isn't for many others. So family is whatever you make it in my world.

I also don't think economic and social safety is a lie conceptually. It's only a lie if you believe our current systems are the only way to do things and that they will offer either. I don't

I think this is where we recognize we have reached a point of such a difference in presuppositional world views that there is no bridging of the gulf and we figuratively shake hands and agree to disagree.

Good discussion, sir. Until next time.

 

[jaycee]

I think this is where we recognize we have reached a point of such a difference in presuppositional world views that there is no bridging of the gulf and we figuratively shake hands and agree to disagree.

Good discussion, sir. Until next time.

Y absolutely. Again, we feel very similarly about all of this we just have different perspectives about how to proceed and why.... per usual