There are theories that "child support" or "child support
reform" are part of an international conspiracy. What is the nature
of conspiracy theories?
Conspiracy theories don't lead to genuine solutions, because they deny
what really has to be solved. To some people, the idea that it is a valid
choice for a society to force separated parents to provide financial support
for their biological children is intolerable. To others, the amounts concerned
are seen as so unreasonable that they cannot be accepted as either plausible
costs of raising children or the result of careless legislation. Instead,
child support is claimed to be a fascist or totalitarian or Marxist or
socialist or communist or feminist conspiracy. (Take your pick according
to your own hate figures!) Without the conspiracy theory, it may be harder
to recruit more support to "the cause", and it may be necessary
to accept that the way ahead is to use analytical & democratic means
to change things. This may be unacceptable to people who don't like the
harshness of reality - analysis may undermine their position. Reality
is often complex, but people often seek simple patterns within complexities.
| Source |
Extracts from Roger Gay |
UK-oriented commentary |
|
Re:
Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy
2002-07-30
Roger Gay's article
that started this thread was not about child support. It was
about a news article saying that the USA may ratify a
UN convention, and that this is a "threat to national sovereignty".
|
"I mention in another article that child support reforms are
not in fact about child support, which is something I've hinted
in many of the posts I've given in response to yours. Pardon me
if I haven't yet been really explicit about that, but this is an
attempt to open the discussion up to it.
"Child support reforms have been about changing the system
generally, from one with individual rights / i.e. human rights and
essential freedom from government control and manipulation, to one
in which the individual is dead and only a centrally controlling,
exercising unlimited arbitrary power matters. I've more than once
mentioned that the transition has been international. Somebody is
murdering the western world. I think the first thing we need to
do is recognize and understand the threat."
|
To me, "child support" is about handling the cash-flow
between separated parents in order to pay for the raising of their
children. "Child support reform" is about changing, and
preferably, improving, this system.
This is not an international conspiracy, but instead shows reactions
in many nations to common problems. There was a continuing rise
in the number of separated families, gradually increasing costs
of raising children, a societal acceptance that the problems of
children in separated families could no longer be hidden to the
same extent, concern about the cost of social security expenditure
because the state rather than parents were picking up the cost,
etc. Attempts to use child support to reduce social security expenditure
are really anti-socialist.
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-07-30
"Child
Support's Wacky Math" is a book about the way that Virginia
and other states modify child support orders in consideration of
visitation and shared parenting.
|
"I've seen this claim many times as a justification for centrally
controlled administrative systems. But I've never once seen any
credible evidence that the system of justice that western civilization
requires failed, nor any convincing evidence that going to the extreme
end of socialist / communist bureacratic institutions is a better
idea."
"The argument resolved and analyzed objectively was that judging
case by case does not give the same results as using an overly simplified
and obviously biased formula. The presumption in such research has
been that the overly simplified bureacratic formula is the preferred
answer, therefore getting a different result is bad. In other words,
there is simply no credible research whatsoever concluding that
western civilization failed and we must now rely on extreme socialist
bureacracy for better efficiency and fairness."
|
The UK's CSA was an anti-socialist measure brought in by one of
the most anti-socialist governments we have had. It had an aim of
reducing dependency on "the state" and reducing the redistribution
of taxes in the form of welfare/benefits, by making separated parents
between them take more responsibility for financing the raising
of their children.
It doesn't meet the definitions I can find about socialism, whether
these are classic "clause 4" socialism (stating that the
means of production, distribution and exchange should be publicly
owned), or variants such as redistribution across unrelated people
via the tax system. (Neither does it resemble communism, which is
probably best considered as the opposite of capitalism & free
enterprise).
Commentary about "Western civilisation" doesn't indicate
that it depends on any certain style of child support,or even that
it relies on significant amounts of inter-personal litigation.
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-07-30 |
"Reform of child support has
been international. I've written about that more than once and have
another article in the works on exactly that -- citing two UK cases
and comparing that to problems in the US. Yes, there are some slight
differences between the way we go about things. But the general problem
is exactly the same problem. I think people in the UK should know
that people in the US have presented professional mathematical proofs
that ... among other things show that it can be done. There's a difference
between what is mathematically, logically, and sciencifically correct
and child support law developed by hook crook and special interest
funding. I believe it really is of international interest that there
are people who can prove that something is right or wrong." |
I disagree with some of the basis on which Roger Gay's logic and
mathematics are based. There is no consensus that they use the only
valid basis. Therefore, logic and mathematics cannot prove the answer
- different people may validly come to different conclusions.
PICSLT isn't written into the fabric of the universe. It is a very
good opinion of how to solve a particular problem in a particular
environment (Some states of the USA, late 20th Century &
early 21st Century).
My own qualifications
on such matters are suggested in a page about myself.
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-07-31
This was in response to my statement "Neither do I accept
that "centrally controlled administrative systems" are
purely to do with "socialist / communist bureacratic institutions"".
|
"These policies that we're discussing were well developed
in the communist world and they were imported to the west. There
is a clear distinction between the system that defines western civilization
and the socialist system. I can only believe that you know that,
and you've got me wondering why you're taking me through the paces
of false logic. There are bureacrats in London, therefore we're
all commies anyway. It is just incredible that you claim that there
is not distinction between communism and western civilization."
"But the bureacratic child support system with its simple
biased politically controlled formula does not do the least harm.
This is an exact opposite of a government treating individuals with
respect. It is not only a system that gives individuals too little
respect, it simply does not acknowledge the individual at all. This
isn't just theory either Barry. These policies that we're discussing
were well developed in the communist world and they were imported
to the west."
|
The fact that (according to Roger Gay) certain child support techniques
(percentage of income) originated in Soviet Russia doesn't not mean
that the are inherently communist. This has to be determined by
examination. Will listening to the music of Dimitri Shostakovitch
turn people into card-carrying communists? Do we need to ban it?
"To
simply dismiss it, or any idea, based solely on its cultural antecedents,
is incredibly erroneous".
As stated above:
"The UK's CSA was an anti-socialist measure brought in by one
of the most anti-socialist governments we have had". And the
first version of the CSA used a formula unlike any that existed
before, and it certainly didn't resemble the Soviet Russia version.
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-07-31
This was in response to my question "Who (apart from you!)
says that this is not a Western way of solving the problem?"
|
"Western civilization as we
know it is based on protection of individual rights, and includes
the ban of arbitrary government intrusion. Among the basics that need
to be understood is the difference between fact and political decision.
When you see government decreeing facts arbitrarily and enforcing
en masse judgments in contradiction to actual facts in individual
cases, you know you've crossed the border out of western civilization.
"Generally, we can find arbitrary government control and manipulation
in many places outside of the western bubble, in some places without
constraint. We don't need theory to identify the child support system
as communist. It's an established fact that the child support system
recently imported to the west, including rigid en masse formulae
for determining the amount to be ordered and rigid enforcement policies
that deny individual rights were imported from socialist countries.
It's a fact.
"BTW: It didn't work worth a shit in Soviet Russia either.
It's just part of the story that pushed a very large portion of
the Russian economy into the black market and contributed to the
catastrophic failure of their system. It's that system that didn't
work, Barry. You've got it backwards repeating the idea that the
Common Law system failed."
|
The word "arbitrary" here is simply a diversion (a strawman).
No evidence has been presented to justify the word.
The UK's system isn't in contradiction to actual facts in individual
cases! A centrally-determined formula uses the facts in an individual
case. But not all the facts.
The fact that (according to Roger Gay) certain child support techniques
(not, in fact, used for the first version of the CSA) originated
in Soviet Russia doesn't not mean that the are inherently communist.
This has to be determined by examination.
The CSA of the 1991 and 1995 Acts failed, among other reasons,
because it tried to take so much into account that the evidence
for this could not be managed. Not only did it need a lot of evidence,
but circumstances changed often because so many of them were taken
into account. Some people, such as new partners, felt that the CSA
was too intrusive. Some people wanted a level of predictability
that was lost by taking a lot of circumstances into account. Who
decides what is relevant?
|
Re:
Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy
2002-08-01 |
"I doesn't matter whether the rigid inhuman bureacracy is
run by government employees or private sector employees working
on commission. You're right, that the latter did not improve things.
The only direct evidence there is that they made things worse is
that custodial parents only get a maximum of two thirds of what
is "collected" because private agencies keep one third.
Otherwise, it's the same deal.
"What you keep avoiding is reinstatement of individual rights
and the Common Law system. Without that, you're not in western civilization."
|
Such private agencies don't exist in the UK.
And the UK is most clearly in Western civilisation!
Depending on what you read, the USA has 2 or 3 times as many lawyers
per head as the UK, which in turn has more per head than most other
countries. The litigious nature of the USA is a special feature
of the USA, not a necessary feature of Western civilisation.
|
|
Re:
Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy
2002-08-03
This was in response to my question "But how just or unjust is
having rules that enable a person to determine in advance where they
will be if they do (or not do) X?" |
"That's part of the miracle
of the Common Law system -- trial after trial (think like a scientist
when I use the word "trial") -- the trial courts try to
get it right. Some portion of cases, in which one or more litigant
believes the trial court got it wrong, are appealed. The appellate
courts are required to take a more general look at interpretation
of the law and at fundamental justice (in terms of precedent in both
the UK and US systems as well as the Constitution in the US system).
This over time results in uniform interpretation of the laws and increasing
justice. Certainly it leads to greater uniformity. Without the exercise
of individual human rights however, there's no way for the miracle
to occur. Judgments are repeatedly made about shaping the law that
have nothing to do with getting it right."
|
This isn't science. Science is about establishing knowledge about
the universe. At each stage, a scientist has to check back against
the universe to see whether the theory is tracking the universe.
A process that helps people believe that a something is OK isn't
science! In fact, it sounds more like religion (or perhaps politics).
Will the trial process on the left establish how much children actually
cost to raise? Or
does this need scientific research?
The UK's court system used before the CSA had not lead to uniformity!
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-03
Part of this was in response to my statement "A characteristic
of communist states, totalitarian regimes, and dictatorships, is
that they restrict the influence of external norms, and completely
thwart the ability of their citizens to challenge "the state"
by using those conventions & influences as a remedy".
More of this was in response to "My question is - what is
your position on "democracy"?"
|
"Yes, child support reforms have been part of an international
movement. That much is certainly an obvious fact by now to you and
I. Certainly it should be obvious in this forum that fathers in
the US and the UK are fighting the same problems as a result, but
it's also a fact that the problem is more widespread than that,
and that they result from similar reforms in many countries. Among
them -- Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden,
France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, among others (Source: The
Child Support
Agenda )"
"I would say the same thing. What we're arguing about is that
your specific suggestions do not correspond to this general position.
The problem is that you have expressed no concern for the fall of
western civilization -- fundamentally based on individual rights
and personal freedom -- you won't even acknowledge its existence,
or that it ever did exist."
"And there is another thread in this forum "Family verses
Communism" in which the specific ideas of anti-family Marxist
Communism can and are easily compared with current child support
reforms in the west and the accompanying history of propaganda --
which is certainly tied to radical Marxist feminism, an international
political movement."
"Did you know that communism, in the minds of Marxist communists,
is the perfect democracy? It's pure democracy, and pure democracy
sucks. It's one of the most unstable, inhuman, and oppressive systems
ever invented. Intelligent people who've lived with socialist "democracy"
point out that "all power comes from the people" -- but
that once given, it cannot be taken back (except by another revolution).
There is no mechanism in "democracy" itself for protection
of individual rights and freedom. Once the power is passed, those
in power presume legitimacy for the exercise of unlimited, unmitigated
power -- the antithesis of a system that protects individual rights
and freedom. The revolution itself must lead to the fundamentals
required for the protection of individual rights and freedom, and
anyone in power who works to violate those rules must be deposable.
To provide a stable system that protects individual rights and freedom,
one needs a system of checks and balances operating on rules that
are "external to" the rules controlled by those in power
- the very rules that the revolution for individual rights and freedom
established. Through a series of historical events, the UK and US
established such systems. Those are the systems you would like to
see overthrown by other external influences."
|
This is not an international movement, but instead shows reactions
in many nations to common problems. There was a continuing rise
in the number of separated families, gradually increasing costs
of raising children, a societal acceptance that the problems of
children in separated families could no longer be hidden to the
same extent, concern about the cost of social security expenditure
because the state rather than parents were picking up the cost,
etc.
Proposals to reform the Child Support Agency will not cause "the
fall of western civilization"!
I find this attack on democracy to be disturbing. I believe democracy
is a useful tool to avoid totalitarianism and help curb corruption.
It has the "unfortunate" characteristic that it sometimes
lets people you disagree with make decisions! As stated elsewhere
on this web site:
"Politicians and diapers have one thing
in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same
reason".
In the UK, the best "system of checks and balances operating
on rules that are "external to" the rules controlled by
those in power" may well be a system of "other external
influences". When Roger Gay criticises an "International
Conspiracy", he is criticising the USA's ratification of a
UN Convention. Yet the UK's ratification of another
Convention has strengthened UK citizens' individual rights and
personal freedoms. Such cases have to be taken on their merits -
they must not be condemned out of hand.
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-04 |
"People have been demonstrating
this for a long time. Under the Constitutional system and the British
Common Law system as well, it should only take one such demonstration
in an individual case to void the use of the formula. The fact that
the formula has not been declared void demonstrates that the system
is no longer operating according to the constitution." |
Since when has one exception been sufficient to void a social formula?
A problem with one case needs examination - is the whole system
wrong, or does it need minor evolution? If it needs evolution, this
can then be achieved across all future cases.
Can it be said that courts never made a mistake? Has a mistake
by a court voided the whole court system? Does the correction to
a court's mistake automatically correct all cases affected by similar
mistakes in courts across the nation? No!
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-04 |
"My mathematics of child support is the best and most advanced
in the known universe. It is developed to the point that it provides
the only real scientific theory and valid mathematical science of
child support that exists. If your quest is valid, then the job
should already be done. You should need only to study my work and
you will have the answer."
"The common law process is a scientific process. It has time
and time again gained proper stability and rational uniformity even
in the face of constant interrpution and interferance from the highly
erratic and unstable "democratic process" of legislation.
A competent and honest legislator would carefully build upon what
is rationally and correctly established in common law in designing
new legislation. But you will not have those scientific results
when you abandon the system of common law for one of unlimited and
arbitrary tampering by a European bureacracy.
"Human rights Barry. Rights, not arbitrary entitlements. Individual
rights. They are required. If they are abandoned it will be the
final nail in the coffin of civilization as we know it."
|
I disagree with some of the basis on which Roger Gay's logic and
mathematics are based. There is no consensus that they use the only
valid basis. PICSLT isn't written into the fabric of the universe.
It is a very good opinion of how to solve a particular problem in
a particular environment (USA, late 20th Century & early 21st
Century).
I find this attack on democracy to be disturbing. I believe democracy
is a useful tool to avoid totalitarianism and help curb corruption.
It has the "unfortunate" characteristic that it sometimes
lets people you disagree with make decisions! As stated elsewhere
on this web site:
"Politicians and diapers have one thing
in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same
reason".
The word "arbitrary" here is simply a diversion (a strawman).
No evidence has been presented to justify the word. Proposals to
reform the Child Support Agency will not "be the final nail
in the coffin of civilization as we know it.""
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-05
This was in response to my statement "When you talked of the
end of Western civilisation, I saw this as hyperbole".
|
"You reject the western rule
of law and are obviously working toward international socialist rule.
Obviously you have no interest in logic and reason, and you're pretending
this is about the US verses Europe. Anything having to do with the
west is too complicated and subject to your constant claim - against
all real evidence - that it has failed. Before you leave the debate
-- if that's what you choose to do -- I want to make sure I've mentioned
that the fundamental politics of your argument are factually incorrect.
Western liberalism and Common Law were born in England.
"You reject the western rule of law. Look at what that's done
for countries outside of the west. Once you're outside the US and
Western Europe (go a little farther east) you'll find burning homes
and bombed out buildings as the direct result of raw group politics.
You'll find (socialist) systems that exploit group politics, intensify
conflict, and then use one group to hold another in check. You'll
find rule by religous sects and pseudo-religous war-lords related
to oppression and eternal war. You'll find poverty and lack of progress
of all kinds.
"As for Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation
TECHNOLOGY, it, as very clearly stated on the introductory page
of the web site, covers "the science, engineering, and application
of child support guidelines." LITIGATION is a word in the ENGLISH
language and does have to do with what happens in court. It is very
much related to the "application of child support guidelines."
It's senseless to talk about design of child support guidelines
without taking the context of their application into consideration.
As an engineer you should know that. You apparently do, and have
it in mind that the western rule of law should be eliminated; replaced
by the socialist approach."
|
I am interested in logic and reason
(which is exactly what would be expected from someone whose degree
is in mathematical physics and who have since then been an engineer,
mainly in computing). I support the western rule of law (and indeed
rely on it, by publishing material critical of the government under
my own name hosted in my own country). I am not working toward international
socialist rule (and Roger Gay doesn't appear to be working to any
consensus definition of what "socialist rule" is).
Proposals to reform the Child Support Agency will not cause "burning
homes and bombed out buildings", or "rule by religous
sects and pseudo-religous warlords related to oppression and eternal
war"!
And I obviously don't "have it in mind that the western rule
of law should be eliminated; replaced by the socialist approach"!
Depending on what you read, the USA has 2 or 3 times as many lawyers
per head as the UK, which in turn has more per head than most other
countries. The litigious nature of the USA is a special feature
of the USA, not a necessary feature of Western civilisation.
|
Re:
Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy
2002-08-06 |
"That's right. I was describing
one of the fundamentals of western civilization. One of the basic
concepts is equality under the law, "common law" "equal
protection." The problem is that western civilization has been
abandoned due to corruption." |
No it hasn't.
It has evolved into something that Roger Gay doesn't like.
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-07 |
"Some of them will favor not
having any individual rights at all and allowing the state unlimited
power to make arbitrary en masse decisions. They will not be part
of western civilization as we know it." |
No, this is just about handling
the cash-flow between separated parents in order to pay for the raising
of their children. "Child support reform" is about changing,
and preferably, improving, this system. |
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-08 |
"You have shown absolutely
no support for those things in your discussions here and you have
returned fire with anti-western propaganda when I've discussed them.
Pretty soon you'll be telling us that the US is not part of Western
Civilization, which is something that was invented 700 years ago by
Marxists in time machines." |
I haven't used anti-western propaganda.
No I won't tell anyone that!
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-08
This was in response to my statement "It was those interpretations
that led to much of the unpredictability of the current system".
|
"The unpredictability of the
"current system?" Unpredictability was never demonstrated
under the traditional common law system in which decisions were made
in full view of the evidence on a case-by-case basis." |
Yes it was. The CSA was eventually created in 1993, as a result
of the 1991 Act, based on the White Paper of 1990:
"Children Come First"
White paper in 1990, precursor to the CSA
ISBN 0-10-112642-5
The key volume here is Volume 2, which shows the shambles being
caused by the Magistrates Courts system, and the way that this was
causing lone parents to become dependent on benefits (welfare) because
of the inconsistent assessments and silly amounts being awarded.
Amazingly, research in 1990 showed that maintenance formed less
that 10% of a lone parent's income, compared with 45% benefits &
22% net earnings.
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-09 |
"I can't stop you from taking socialism and the battle against
the west personally Barry. But I can tell you that I first identified
the link to the socialist movement and propaganda in the early 1990s,
long long before this encounter and before I'd ever heard of Barry
Pearson. Since then I've identified many of the people involved,
some of the international organizations they belong to and even
confirmed Soviet Russian law as the origin.
"You're calling well-established and even obvious facts opinion
and have been using personal attack tactics as follow up. It's obvious
that we're dealing with non-western, socialist type policies. Do
you think the general public is too stupid and uneducated to see
it?"
|
The fact that (according to Roger Gay) certain child support techniques
originated in Soviet Russia doesn't not mean that the are inherently
communist. This has to be determined by examination. Will listening
to the music of Dimitri Shostakovitch turn people into card-carrying
communists? Do we need to ban it?
"To
simply dismiss it, or any idea, based solely on its cultural antecedents,
is incredibly erroneous".
The opinions that Roger Gay claims to be facts are the ones
shown here, for example that USA-style litigation is necessary to
Western civilisation.
|
|
Re:
Book Review: Child Support's Wacky Math
2002-08-11
This was (indirectly) in response to my statement "Handling
child support by means other than litigation is nothing to do with
attacking western civilisation, wanting socialism or communism,
or not being interested in individual rights & freedoms. It
is simply about handling child support other than by litigation!"
|
"Barry's told us flat out that
his agenda is to push internationalism (while its still heavily influenced
by the Marxist left). Here we are discussing the international effects
of the success of the international left's agenda in child support
reform and he's playing the nationalism card. I think the self-contradiction
is more than enough to invite suspecion." |
My
Agenda is clearly stated, and it isn't that!
Child support isn't an international conspiracy - it is a problem
to be solved.
|
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-03
|
"The child support system in
the US and UK are based on the same treaties and international conventions.
They share the same basic law. We're all discussing the effects of
exactly the same international conspiracy to eliminate basic rights
and establish the policies of an international dictatorship." |
They are NOT based on the same treaties and international conventions!
In fact, there are NO such treaties and conventions that identify
a common approach to child support systems. They certainly do NOT
share the same basic law! In fact, one of the major criticisms of
the UK's system is that it went its own way, towards disaster, instead
of sharing experience with other countries.
There is no international conspiracy - except in the mind of conspiracy
theorists.
|
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-05
|
"No Barry. We just don't agree
with you that government's should act arbitrarily with the intent
to cause intense damage to a large group of citizens. We disagree
with you that it's ok to harm men just because some anti-male propaganda
has been circulated. We disagree with you that the west should be
decoupled from its liberal roots altogether in favor of dictatorships
controlled by an international organization. We disagree with you
that Marxist socialism should rise again in the West after falling
in the Soviet Union and elsewhere." |
Obviously I don't believe that governments should act to cause
intense damage to a large group of citizens. That is simply a diversion
from Roger Gay.
The idea that child support reform will lead to a rise of Marxist
socialism hardly needs comment.
|
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-08
|
"I suggest that you've already
tried nationalism to help sell your extremist socialist political
views. National Socialism, as we know, went by the name Naziism."
|
Now it is Naziism, not Marxism /
socialism / communism!
In other words, it what is whatever Roger Gay dislikes at the time.
|
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-13
|
"It's impossible to discuss
anything rationally with a leftist extremist like yourself. Time has
passed, therefore we need to change things. Anything that is established
is bad, because time has passed. Your argument [snipped] that people
in big cities must live in an alternate reality plane is right out
of the Marxist play-book. Somebody forgot to tell you that we've had
big cities for a very long time. The transformation from agricultural
societies happened way before you were born. There was this thing
called the Industrial Revolution ... you missed that. Get out of Marx
and into something more up to date. The real world has passed you
by.
We already understand the conclusion of your argument. It isn't
new. It isn't a modern adaptation. The individual should be killed,
and we should all, as a group, be subject to the capricious whims
of dictators implemented in arbitrary ways by simple-minded bureacrats.
|
No one who knows me would call me a leftish-extremist! Otherwise,
no comment.
|
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-14
|
"You're going to have a tough
time selling the idea that we must transform our form of "democracy"
from its established liberal roots to totalitarian bureacracy because
the population is growing. Your argument is that there are now too
many people for anyone to have rights." |
Needless to say, this statement
has no relationship with my article that he is responding to. |
|
Re:
Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie
2002-10-08
|
"I know you want to administer
law using the communist model, and of necessity your arguments are
continually more ridiculous." |
No I don't. Otherwise, no comment. |
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-14
|
"The other links on my links
page under "international" provide information about international
organizations to which some of the really major players in international
child support reform belong. Information and policy preferences are
also shared with people from many countries through the activities
of those private organizations, establishing a set of "conventions"
shared by this particular small group of people. These movers and
shakers in individual countries then influence the policy within those
countries along the lines of what members of the group have established
as convention. Examples of movers and shakers in the US include Irwin
Garfinkel, Sara McLananan, and Merigold Meli. They got the ideas for
child support reform from socialist countries like Soviet Russia,
and have subsequently had the most influence on policy changes in
the US, Australia, New Zealand, and indirectly in a number of other
countries, including in the UK."
|
The people (somewhat incorrectly) named there are academics (professors),
who are typically not old enough to have been involved throughout
the USA's evolution of child support:
Academics share information. They meet one-another and present
and publish their ideas. If non-experts such as politicians want
to obtain information and ideas, one (of several) type of person
they talk to is academics. Getting ideas from Russia is not an issue
(as long as they have value). Politicians don't just roll-over when
academics tell them things. They take bits that are useful to their
own objectives, and reject the rest.
|
|
Re:
Virginia: Child Support Undefined
2002-10-22
|
You're responding with arguments
in favor of the international socialist approach. That's a far cry
from "truth" and "facts." It's an extreme political
position. No matter whether you're able to fool people by dodging
back and forth for your expressed support for internationalism / nationalism,
it's obvious how far you are from respect for the individual and human
rights. Your world is the world of bureacracy; as though life can't
possibly exist without it. You keep asking us to accept that more
bureacracy and more powerful bureacracy equates to a higher quality
of life. You'll keep telling us that it's the truth that we can't
live acceptable lives without having bureacrats tell us how to live
and forcing us into a centrally planned mode of existence. Facts Barry?
If that's fact for you, check into an institution, sign your power
of attorney over to trusted relatives. Don't try to take the rest
of us with you. That's a threat, and war would be a legitimate response
if you get far enough with it. |
Note "internationalism / nationalism" - aren't these
opposites?
Of course, I didn't say even once, let alone keep saying, those
things. Roger Gay is making them up for reasons best known to himself.
And is he really threatening war?
Really?
(Who has the extreme political position - Roger Gay or me?)
|