Thank you.:grin: But this mentality is not limited to Spartans.

The Christian god said his people are not to be slaves, but they could own slaves. Then later He changed his mind and advised Christians to be good slaves and He promised He would provide good leaders. We called these God-chosen leaders kings. Today, the Evangelicals swoon over Trump, who believes he is a good father to our nation. But democracy in the US begins in part by Locke's argument, that the king fathers keep us as children and do not help us grow up and become independent adults. While the misogyny males among us, direct their anger against women, instead of system that keeps them powerless.

Don't know if anyone can follow the leaps of thought. but I want to say women in the west were resentful of the big stink made over slavery when their own enslavement called marriage, was ignored. What makes a human being deserving?

So we have a definition of "democracy", which is good, it works for me.

I also agree that large portions of the population are confused by ideological propaganda. Of course, I am not free myself of my own ideology, but I try to look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions on this merit alone. But I could be wrong.

People who, for example, believe in the Q conspiracy theory or think vaccines are modes in which we will be controlled by microchips have a distorted apprehension of the evidence. Likewise with people who think Trump is amazing. This is a big problem in political discourse.

We can quibble about the causes of bureaucratic problems, no problem. But I've yet to understand what is meant by family values. I won't be a nuisance and ask again, I'm curious by what you mean here. — Manuel

Oh please do make yourself a nuisance and ask again. So many thoughts are coming up and my head is in a swirl of competing thoughts. I find myself responding to one thought and forgetting to respond to another.

The gods are not almighty kings. They are a family. Our single-unit family is the result of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and the Hebrew/Roman male head of the family. This has blocked our understanding of being brothers and sisters and a democracy. The family of democracy is brothers and sisters, not a father/king/ Trump, head of the household/nation.

We stopped educating for democracy and left moral training to the church, you know, the story of Cain and Able, pitting brother against brother, and a kingdom. Now we live with a Christian mythology of democracy and I hope everyone sees the problem with that. Instead of the old grade textbooks focusing on family values and cooperation, we embrace authoritarianism and a dog-eat-dog social order. We are pitted against the notion of democracy being rule by reason with fear of Satan and knowing we were thrown out of the Eden by desiring knowledge. We are now a warring nation with the Power and Glory of God, and we are no longer a nation of charity and peace, but a nation of power struggles, winners, and loosers. Thank you for asking about family and helping me get back to one way family is important to democracy, brothers and sisters, and rule by reason.

Family is also important to democracy because when we can depend on our family, we do not need to depend on the state. The one thing most homeless people shared in common, is believing they can not turn to family for help.

Please, explain what you think I said, and how you think your idea of good child-rearing is different from mine. — Athena

Yes, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting Sparta's way forward as an example of loyalty to traditional ways of life and duty to country.

Well, you've expanded on the usual notion of "family" that tends to come to mind automatically. It is legitimate to do so, because in a certain sense, we are brothers and sisters. But family's have problems, as everyone knows.

It's as Robert Fisk once pointed out, the biggest, nastiest fights we have in life are with family, not with friends or strangers. If applied to the whole of society, then some of our family members believe things that kill other family members and are odious. So it's still a problem, though this way of thinking can be useful.

The religious depictions can be argued for a long time. But you could also take the idea that aspects of society can be used for familial improvement. That's the impulse for things like social security, health care and the like. The word "state" is subject to fierce controversy these days.

it is true that women's movements came well before two-income families. The rhetoric of women's liberation was in place by "1958", your preferred watershed year (what with Sputnik, the National Defense Education Act and all). Still, the movement of women into the workforce wasn't a simple event.

There was, on the one hand, a booming, expanding post-war economy. On the other hand, the kind of jobs women went into in the 50s and 60s were not generally great jobs. In most cases, the personal rewards of being a 'new woman' in the business environment were pretty meagre. The state did not step in with child-care when American women started working. Women were expected to continue their role of housewife in addition to wage-earner. Not a good deal! Something more compelling than ideology was at work here.

The economic motivation wasn't simply survival, for many families. Upward mobility often required a second income.

Those born into the real middle class (business owners, professionals like doctors and lawyers, upper management, etc.) had more options from the start. The group of strivers we are talking about are mostly working class. The appurtenances of the aspirational middle-class life often required more than one income. A home in a good school district, a better car, the summer vacation road trip, lots of "stuff" all required more money.

The inflation / falling relative wage crunch didn't begin until the 1970s. There were roughly 25 years after the end of WWII where these generational social changes took place.

By the way, the military industrial complex was created in WWII, a good 18 years before 1958. It just got bigger after the war, and is still with us, unfortunately.

I find a disconnect between this:

We now worship the power of the state and instead of family acceptance and values, we want to be absorbed by the state and identify with a social unite bigger than the individual, bigger than the family, even though this means being like the Borg, with no individual power of authority. Groupthink, dependency, the end of family. — Athena

And this:

which prepares the young to be products for a society controlled by Industry. — Athena

I see the latter as being more accurate. We don't worship the power of the state. We worship the power of the dollar, which is controlled by the plutocracy. The military industrial complex is only related to the state in that the complex owns the state. Government is just a punching bag for the people to blame when things go wrong and the plutocracy loves that. It keeps the heat off of them.

The family was never autonomous or powerful. They just pretend to feel that way, at home, at night, in their "castle", where they might be allowed to sleep in peace at night before returning to the machine. Even then, the man ruled the woman.

And the state is not the machine. The state is now a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the machine. Politicians are bought and paid for.

Well, you've expanded on the usual notion of "family" that tends to come to mind automatically. It is legitimate to do so, because in a certain sense, we are brothers and sisters. But family's have problems, as everyone knows.

It's as Robert Fisk once pointed out, the biggest, nastiest fights we have in life are with family, not with friends or strangers. If applied to the whole of society, then some of our family members believe things that kill other family members and are odious. So it's still a problem, though this way of thinking can be useful.

The religious depictions can be argued for a long time. But you could also take the idea that aspects of society can be used for familial improvement. That's the impulse for things like social security, health care and the like. The word "state" is subject to fierce controversy these days. — Manuel

You did an excellent job of seeing an important difference with the family model. The Greek gods fought a war with their parents and the parents' generation. I don't think they had a sense of brotherly love as Christianity would have us be loving. And oddly the goddesses were as liberated modern women, but the women of Athens were not. However, we are speaking legitimacy of power. Each has his/her realm of power and decisions were made with different points of view. And by the way, Zeus was a real jerk from a female perspective. It is bad enough that he slept around, but dragging his feet in helping Demeter get her daughter back from Hades crosses a line of my tolerance. :lol:

Because the gods did argue with each other, we have the question of how did they resolve their differences? This separated the Greeks, especially those of Athens, from the rest of the world. Here is where we get the notion of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods were limited by logos. To clarify, the supreme power was not a god, but universal law.

Sparta did not pay much attention to the gods and sure did not live by family order!!! Here is the socialist difference. Germany was the Sparta of modern times because of being organized by Prussian military order and the US was the Athens of modern times until it began imitating Germany and adopted the German models of bureaucracy and education.

Tocqueville warned that Christianity would bring modern democracies to despots. We do seem to be going that direction, with government ruling over us like the Christian God and taking care of us so much our ability to act like adults is in question.

I love your post.

Everything you said is true and spot on. For sure the Military-Industrial Complex was put in place at the beginning of WWII. One of my old books expressed a lot of concern about those government contracts and the direction the US was going. The author questioned if things would return to a domestic economy or not? :grimace: Largely because of economic reasons it did not. There was a brief period between the end of the war and the beginning of the Korean war when government contracts were being dropped. You can bet your pibby that industry was thrilled to get back those government contracts, and those making the decisions noticed our economic boom was much better with those government contracts. Even without the USSR threat of Sputnik, there was a lot of pressure to maintain government contracts.

My grandmother wrote romance stories for women's magazines and at least one of them centered on the conflict between husbands and wives when the war ended and now women were expected to give their jobs to the men, and they were to return to being domestic women. I know this conflict was one of the things that lead to my parents divorcing, and in general, divorces were increasing. Please can we stay with this fact of life for a moment?

I lived through the "history" of which you speak. My cohort is perhaps the last one that was supposed to stay home and care for family. This was economically enforced by strict limits on the kind of education a woman could get and the kind of jobs she could have. My well-meaning father, the one who was strongly opposed to my mother following her dreams, told me the only thing I could study in college was homemaking and I should spend my life being a good domestic woman because men naturally earn more money, therefore, I should remain dependent on one. :grimace: I did my best to be a good daughter, a good wife, and a good mother, and this value system is in every cell of my body. I am compelled to put family first because this is what a good woman does. Please, understand this is a very physical thing, not just a thought.

Okay, admitting that old social order did not work well for me and that I am aware that my notions of right and wrong could be more physical than rational, my notions are very much about social order and being independent of government or dependent on government. What is the alternative social order? How about military order applied to citizens? That is what we have now. Our technological society is no longer family order and there are good and bad things about this. Our lack of awareness of the change is absolutely terrible and very threatening. Since 1958 we have prepared the young for the Military-Industrial Complex and family order bearly exist. None of our relationships are as they once were. Now everything is controlled by policy, not individuals. This is a huge shift in personal liberty and power and I write to raise awareness of this.

Yes, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting Sparta's way forward as an example of loyalty to traditional ways of life and duty to country. — T Clark

:grimace:

I speak because I am not at peace with my thoughts. Spartan women had much more freedom and equality with men than Athenian women. I like that. However, the downside is no one had individual liberty and power. Athens adopted Spartas communistic, everyone serves the state and the state takes care of everyone when we mobilized for war against Prussia. However, Athens stopped short of being a welfare state. Pericles' funeral speech makes it very clear, in the war against Sparta, Athens was fighting for individual liberty and power. There are huge social, economic, and political ramifications to being too much like Sparta and the US has crossed that line.


B

Something went wrong preventing me from completing that thought.

Being a full-time homemaker can be a personal sacrifice that we do not want to make, but do we want to be a socialist despot? Do we want to give up our liberty and power to be well taken care of?

The family was never autonomous or powerful. They just pretend to feel that way, at home, at night, in their "castle", where they might be allowed to sleep in peace at night before returning to the machine. Even then, the man ruled the woman. — James Riley

How old you are really matters to your perception of change. I have largely withdrawn from society because phone trees and trying to get things done by pushing buttons instead of talking to a human being is just rude! Dealing with a human being controlled by "policy" and expecting everyone to be equally controlled by "policy" completely destroys our liberty and power. My grandmother refused to teach in schools that did not give her complete authority over her class and so would anyone of her generation. Our understanding of what we defended in two world wars is so screwed by the false belief that our changed reality is progress.

I was horrified the first time I was told not even if I pay cash can I see a doctor because only if I have the right insurance can I see that doctor. Every aspect of our lives is now controlled by an authority other than our own authority. This is so insidious, words to describe it, fail me. Getting dental care with my insurance is like being processed on a conveyor belt. We have lost so much liberty and power it is intolerable and Trump followers are justified. They are just wrong to attack liberals for the problem, and liberals are just as wrong because they have no more understanding of the problem than Trump followers have.

The movie "The Brave New World" reveals the problem far better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn5yUgci5Zg

Follow the money, Athena. It will not lead to the government you rail against. Government is merely the tool, bought and paid for by that same money.

"Socialism" is just the family writ large. It was actually the norm for the majority of the last 200k years and it is what got us to where we are today. Once we left off of hunter-gather lifestyles, we started working toward what you rail against.

And the state is not the machine. The state is now a fully owned and operated subsidiary of the machine. Politicians are bought and paid for. — James Riley

This would not be possible without the adoption of the German bureaucratic model that destroys individual liberty and power. Before we adopted the German bureaucratic model, our government was too small and too weak to do what it is doing today.

Follow the money, Athena. It will not lead to the government you rail against. Government is merely the tool, bought and paid for by that same money.

"Socialism" is just the family writ large. It was actually the norm for the majority of the last 200k years and it is what got us to where we are today. Once we left off of hunter-gather lifestyles, we started working toward what you rail against. — James Riley

So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend?

Liberty and responsibility go hand and hand. We fought a war against being ruled by a king, and without understanding what was happening, we replaced our individual liberty and responsibility, the democracy we had, with a bureaucratic order that is more powerful than any king and unlike a king, a bureaucracy does not die. There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power.

Before we adopted the German bureaucratic model, our government was too small and too weak to do what it is doing today. — Athena

I don't know anything about the German bureaucratic model, but I will stipulate that you are correct, except on one point: You said "we" adopted. I don't think Americans sat down and said "Hey, let's adopt the German bureaucratic model!" To the extent that is what "we" have, it was just part of that tool I was talking about. The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals. But you know what? The Plutocracy absolutely LOVES you blaming government. That is one reason they keep government around: a punching bag for you, so you don't blame them for what they are doing to you (and "family").

I'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? Hmmm.

Again, follow the money.

So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend? — Athena

Colorado State University and University of Idaho, a life-time ago. I don't recommend any books.

There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power. — Athena

When I hear "bureaucratic order" I think of "deep state." If the "deep state" is what kept fascism from a successful coup in January, then I'll tip my hat to it. Having a bunch of Masons acting as back up couldn't be all bad. I used to hate the two-party system (and still do), but I have also come to understand how a party might be useful, especially if a newbie gets in office and needs some institutional memory to keep the ball rolling. I'm all for throwing out the bathwater, but not the baby. Especially if a fascist is doing the tossing.

Anyway, my point is, I'm not as quick to disparage institutions as I once was. What we need to do is take our government back from the Plutocracy. Good luck with that.

I don't know anything about the German bureaucratic model, but I will stipulate that you are correct, except on one point: You said "we" adopted. I don't think Americans sat down and said "Hey, let's adopt the German bureaucratic model!" To the extent that is what "we" have, it was just part of that tool I was talking about. The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals. But you know what? The Plutocracy absolutely LOVES you blaming government. That is one reason they keep government around: a punching bag for you, so you don't blame them for what they are doing to you (and "family").

I'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? Hmmm. — James Riley

Perfect! :cheer: You win the prize! WE did not! there would be no reason for me to say anything if people understood what happened.

"The Plutocracy might very well find the German bureaucratic model more efficient it accomplishing their goals" Now you are on the right track! :grin: and neither Trump or Biden have the awareness to change this reality. You can bet your last dollar that this system favors the plutocracy because it favors power, not individual liberty and power and because the government is now a power game, both Trump and Biden will make terrible decisions. I keep saying democracy is rule by reason but unfortunately, I seem to be the only person who has that understanding of democracy so there is no support for this notion. Without understanding democracy is rule by reason, that leaves us power conflicts that will destroy our country.

I disagree with your understanding of the plutocrat's understanding of government. Government is their tool, they own it and they control it. The Military-Industrial Complex is a trinity of power- military might, Industrial economy, and government all working together.

Everyone loves to blame government. The plutocrats understand how it works and play it a fiddle and as long we can keep us believing the government is our enemy, we will remain powerless.

"I'm also reminded of Mussolini." :heart: :cheer: Wow I am impressed! Yes, absolutely! During the Great Depression many people thought fascism was the solution to economic crashes and that is when we gave our government NEW POWERS. WE did not pay attention. Who studies bureaucratic order and power? We vote for the person we believe will best serve our interest and how they go about it does not matter. Like if we need a tumor removed from our brain, we don't want the medical details. That is how we vote, pick the best man to do the job and trust he will do the job well. SOCIAL SECURITY is not possible without adopting the German model of bureaucracy.

So where did you study public policy and administration and what books do you recommend?
— Athena

Colorado State University and University of Idaho, a life-time ago. I don't recommend any books.

There can not be socialism without this change in bureaucratic order and the change in bureaucratic order crushes our individual liberty and power.
— Athena

When I hear "bureaucratic order" I think of "deep state." If the "deep state" is what kept fascism from a successful coup in January, then I'll tip my hat to it. Having a bunch of Masons acting as back up couldn't be all bad. I used to hate the two-party system (and still do), but I have also come to understand how a party might be useful, especially if a newbie gets in office and needs some institutional memory to keep the ball rolling. I'm all for throwing out the bathwater, but not the baby. Especially if a fascist is doing the tossing.

Anyway, my point is, I'm not as quick to disparage institutions as I once was. What we need to do is take our government back from the Plutocracy. Good luck with that. — James Riley

Awe, that is why you are so smart and thought of Mussolini. We now have a great discussion going because you do know more than the average person. I am impressed by how you thought the good of political parties.

I used to vote for both parties to keep things balanced, but we shifted from democracy being rule by reason, to power games. Our democracy is now unbalanced and I think this follows the 1958 change in education. Education for a technological society with unknown values has made our democracy an unknown value and we just assume everyone is fighting everyone else because we have conflicting interests. But having good government is not a conflicting interest.

Democratically good government is not the Christian notion of God and a kingdom and its power and glory and Trump. :groan: We should have never dropped education for democracy because only when it is defended in the classroom can it be defended. Leaving moral training to the church along with adopting the German model of bureaucracy has us on the same path Germany followed. Now our most threatening enemy is not a foreign enemy.

Education for a technological society with unknown values has made our democracy an unknown value and we just assume everyone is fighting everyone else because we have conflicting interests. — Athena

I don't know about the dates, but I agree there was a shift. The plutocracy wants schools to produce good little producers and consumers; thus, they emphasize STEM, and de-emphasize the Liberal Arts (philosophy, reason, logic, language, history, political science, social studies, civics, etc.). It's interesting that a good foundation in the Liberal Arts actually stimulates an intellectual curiosity for STEM. I would think a kid going for STEM because he/she was curious about it would be the critical distinction between us and other countries (China?) that drill down on STEM as the be-all and end-all of education. But a kid that can think analytically and critically and logically and philosophically presents a substantial, credible threat to the plutocracy and we can't have that! Hell, even mom and dad don't want little Billy and Sally to come home from school and 'larn them; so they don't champion schools either.

Biden and Trump may both be caught in the web, but Trump loves the web and wants to be the spider. He'd make the trains run on time all right, but not for everyone.

'm also reminded of Mussolini. Didn't he make the trains run on time? Didn't he coin the term "fascism". Isn't that a condition where there is no distinction between the corporation and the state? — James Riley

Mussolini did invent fascism (an old Roman symbol, the fasces (a bundle of wooden rods and an ax blade). It was a symbol of power and authority -- below is an image of it on a Roman mile stone. Corporation served the state.

I have read that, contrary to his reputation, Mussolini did not make the trains run on time. He did build some decent looking buildings and improve Rome's infrastructure. It was not very antisemitic. The Nazis didn't make the trains run on time, either. German trains had been running on-time since the get-go, under the tight management of the Reichbahn company. German fascism was an economic mess in many ways.

I find it hard to pin down exactly what fascism means today. One scholar said that fascism is better defined by it's methods than its ideology.

Our democracy is now unbalanced and I think this follows the 1958 change in education. — Athena

You are obsessed with the National Defense Education Act and Eisenhower's speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes that you lament (it sounds like an lament, anyway) started much earlier than 1958.

Land Grant schools began with the Morrill act of 1862. The act set aside land in states to be used to help fund higher education. The Big Ten state universities are examples of beneficiaries of the Morrill act--universities like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and others.

Up until the time the Land Grant colleges and universities got up and running, higher education was largely an elite affair. The private colleges were focused on the Liberal Arts and limited their enrollment. The big Land Grant universities had the liberal arts as well, but also institutes of technology, medical schools, business administration departments, agricultural colleges, home economics, and so on. They were far more democratic in their mission and admission policies.

The end of WWII brought a huge wave of enrollment by men returning from the war, at least partly funded by the VA program. The Baby Boom followed their father into college (starting in 1964). This brought about still more democratization of higher education, and yes, a dilution of old academic traditions and practices. The Berkeley Free Speech Moment (think Mario Savio: “The revolt began in the fall semester of 1964 as an extension of either vicarious or actual involvement in the struggle for civil rights.”) was a prominent flash point in the changing higher education culture.

I would agree that democracy in the United States is not in great shape, but I blame the founding fathers. A lot of them wanted democracy for the few, not the many, and to a large extent the is the way things have worked out.

The elite (based on wealth) ran things in the 17th and 18th centuries, continued through the 19th and 20th centuries, and appears to be immovable for the rest of the 21st century. So yes, democracy is unbalanced and has been in this country from the get go.

I don't know about the dates, but I agree there was a shift. The plutocracy wants schools to produce good little producers and consumers; thus, they emphasize STEM, and de-emphasize the Liberal Arts (philosophy, reason, logic, language, history, political science, social studies, civics, etc.). It's interesting that a good foundation in the Liberal Arts actually stimulates an intellectual curiosity for STEM. I would think a kid going for STEM because he/she was curious about it would be the critical distinction between us and other countries (China?) that drill down on STEM as the be-all and end-all of education. But a kid that can think analytically and critically and logically and philosophically presents a substantial, credible threat to the plutocracy and we can't have that! Hell, even mom and dad don't want little Billy and Sally to come home from school and 'larn them; so they don't champion schools either.

Biden and Trump may both be caught in the web, but Trump loves the web and wants to be the spider. He'd make the trains run on time all right, but not for everyone. — James Riley

I don't think I have come across someone who understands the problem as well as you do.

In 1958 President Eisenhower asked congress to passed the National Defense Education Act. It was to last 4 years but as we can see we never returned to what Eisenhower called our domestic education. That education was liberal from the first day of school and focused on being cooperative. My grandmother would say we teach math to teach children how to think. We used the conceptual method where children learned increasing complex concepts. A forward to an old text book explains to the teacher not to fuss too much over students knowing the details of history, names and dates, but rather focus on the child's understanding of concepts.

That domestic education was great for science and education for technology is not. Only specialized people are doing well with science. I have an old science for citizens book that was popular because everyone learned, school only prepared them to learn more, and it was their responsibility to keep learning on their own. Back in the day, people with only 8th grade educations would have thought people who do not understand the importance of wearing a masks during a pandemic were ignorant people. It was a patriotic duty to not be ignorant. Eisenhower warned us of the danger of relying too much on specialist and Pericles in his funeral speech explained Athens was generalist and that is better than the specializing of Sparta.

So let us be clear about this. The change in education goes with the change in bureaucratic order. In the past people defined their job themselves and everyone did their job differently than others because how a job was done depended on what worked best for the person doing the job. Of course you can see when the person died the whole operation would be thrown into chaos, because the person who filled the job would not do it the same and everyone would have to adjust.

Prussian military order controls everything with policy. Every job is narrowly defined and everyone who does that job is expected to follow policy, not his/her own inclinations of the best way to do the job. The organization meant, even if all the generals were killed, the war could go on because decisions were not made by individuals but a committee and from there everything is a matter of policy.

Do you see how that change in bureaucratic organization leads to education preparing the young to be followers not leaders? Eisenhower praised the Germans for their contribution to democracy, because the bureaucratic order and education for technology is a great leveler. Independent thinkers are undesirable and this gets tangled up with Christianity! Teachers had to take Texas to the supreme court because Texas was forcing text book companies and teachers to teach creationism as equal to science. In 2012 the Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education in higher order thinking skills. Their reasoning was HOTS lead to children questioning their parents and that was a bad thing. Do not question anyone but do what you are told.

I sincerely hope people can see what this has to do with racism, why Trump was elected, and why the Capital Building was under siege. Our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were when Hitler came to power and thugs roamed boldly in the streets.

Last thought, we replaced Greek and Roman philosophers with Hegel and Nietzsche.

. My 1940 Family Law book holding family responsible for family, no longer applies. Have we made this social change with much thought? — Athena

This is an absurd re-writing of history, as if there were a time in the past when rigid bright lines divided the family and society, where only through aggressive invasion could the powerful state impose its will on the family and provide for it food, shelter, clothing, education, and other means of social assistance. There never has been this dichotomy, with society properly "out there" while the family worked its magic independently and efficiently, leaving us now to lament a wonderful lost past.

If you wish to argue that society at large is taking too large a role in what could better be handled independently by families, that might be a sustainable argument, but I don't think you have a point when you try to harken back to a time that never was prior to all this societal interference.

In truth, secularized society is a fairly new idea in itself, with prior interventions being made by religious institutions. Regardless, you're talking about a time that never was and are trying to advance the ideal of a rigid family/social distinction. Appreciate at least that your ideal is fraught with all sorts of problems, as it allows the unfortunate offspring of disadvantaged families to remain disadvantaged despite the many resources the greater society could be providing them. You need to ask yourself why you would want to perpetuate such a system that allows inherited disadvantage when it so easily remedied.

This is all to say it's a matter of degree, with how much social assistance each person receives for family matters as opposed to whether there should be any at all.

Our politics are now as reactionary as Germany's politics were when Hitler came to power and thugs roamed boldly in the streets. — Athena

Yes, and I look to our Jewish brothers and sisters to let us know when it's time to start kicking ass before it's too late. They should have a good feel for that now. But so far, everyone seems to be content with relying upon the rule of law. So I also look to the DOJ, the FBI and others. Assuming they are not corrupted from within by sympathizers with the thugs, and can keep their own house clean, they should be out nipping these racist white nationalist fascist thugs in the bud.

Time will tell.

You are obsessed with the National Defense Education Act and Eisenhower's speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. The changes that you lament (it sounds like an lament, anyway) started much earlier than 1958.

Land Grant schools began with the Morrill act of 1862. The act set aside land in states to be used to help fund higher education. The Big Ten state universities are examples of beneficiaries of the Morrill act--universities like Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, and others.

Up until the time the Land Grant colleges and universities got up and running, higher education was largely an elite affair. The private colleges were focused on the Liberal Arts and limited their enrollment. The big Land Grant universities had the liberal arts as well, but also institutes of technology, medical schools, business administration departments, agricultural colleges, home economics, and so on. They were far more democratic in their mission and admission policies.

The end of WWII brought a huge wave of enrollment by men returning from the war, at least partly funded by the VA program. The Baby Boom followed their father into college (starting in 1964). This brought about still more democratization of higher education, and yes, a dilution of old academic traditions and practices. The Berkeley Free Speech Moment (think Mario Savio: “The revolt began in the fall semester of 1964 as an extension of either vicarious or actual involvement in the struggle for civil rights.”) was a prominent flash point in the changing higher education culture.

I would agree that democracy in the United States is not in great shape, but I blame the founding fathers. A lot of them wanted democracy for the few, not the many, and to a large extent the is the way things have worked out.

The elite (based on wealth) ran things in the 17th and 18th centuries, continued through the 19th and 20th centuries, and appears to be immovable for the rest of the 21st century. So yes, democracy is unbalanced and has been in this country from the get go. — Bitter Crank

What difference did the Morrill act of 1862 make? It had nothing like the social, economic and political ramifications of the 1958 National Defense Education. In fact, education for technology and merit hiring levels out society. What you think is important and what I am talking about are completely different things.

How many elite people ran everything? Most people were farmers or farm hands. Plenty of people owned their own business and in most the country there was no industry that people could depend on for jobs. You either owned land for an income or you had to create your own business and in rural America that is still true. Without a service economy people in small towns would have no jobs! I don't think those working people are the elite you are talking about.

The US is best known for a person with nothing making it to the top. I do not believe the Founding Fathers are to blame for anything. For sure Jefferson took a strong stand against the Federalist and insisted the power rest with the people.

Maybe if you understood why I focus on the change in bureaucratic order and education, we would share an agreement on why the US is now like Germany was when Hitler came to power. For sure there were serious problems with family order, such as excluding people because they are a different color, or a different religion, and hiring people not because of their merit but they are family or a friend of the family. The old family order was both good and bad. A technological society weakens family order.

There is a lot to talk about, such as US industry is autocratic and not democratic and I have a big problem with that. James understands the value of liberal education and if we returned to that and replaced autocratic industry with democratic industry we could have a new golden age.

I find it hard to pin down exactly what fascism means today. One scholar said that fascism is better defined by it's methods than its ideology. — Bitter Crank

For fascism to exist the bureaucratic order must be developed to control everything and the young need to be taught to follow orders.

The state is necessarily and increasingly paternalistic. So it is no wonder that its most obsequious subjects are invariably callow. In the UK, the welfare state architect used the phrase “cradle-to-grave” to describe his social security scheme. Now that’s a telling phrase.

It seems likely to me that anyone living in that sort of system—raised in it, educated by it, paying for it—is nearly doomed to become dependant on it. And to be honest, I can hardly blame the man, his money stolen and used to build the system, when he seeks some sort recompense in the form of what it can offer. It’s beyond the point of repair now. The best we can do is raise and educate our children otherwise and hope for the best.

This is an absurd re-writing of history, as if there were a time in the past when rigid bright lines divided the family and society, where only through aggressive invasion could the powerful state impose its will on the family and provide for it food, shelter, clothing, education, and other means of social assistance. There never has been this dichotomy, with society properly "out there" while the family worked its magic independently and efficiently, leaving us now to lament a wonderful lost past. — Hanover

Okay I have the book on Family Law and it is authentic. What is your source of information?

And I would not claim it was a wonderful past. Actually, some of the pioneer women in the west were very, very resentful of the big stink made over slavery while their own slavery was ignored because it was called "marriage". Some of them were married off to older men when they were 14. This was about survival, not love and marriage. I have spoken with women from a generation that is no longer with us and these women who were very glad when their husbands died, leaving a few years to enjoy their own lives. How do you know of their reality? What do you know of it?

I wonder sometimes what those who decry socialism so frequently here in our Glorious Union think it to be. I suspect they don't think it's an economic system, one by which the means of production, etc., are owned by the government. They seem more inclined to deem it anything which they think benefits others (particularly certain others) more than it benefits them, or which limits their ability to do what they want to do, or which serves to persuade others not to think as they do. So for example Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, public education, welfare systems, have all been described as "socialist" or "socialism" by some in our Great Republic at one time or another, and have been claimed to sap us of our virtue and responsibility.

One must ask, with my daemon Cicero--Qui bono fuisset? Who benefits from efforts to undermine and demonize a government's assistance to its people?

The state is necessarily and increasingly paternalistic. So it is no wonder that its most obsequious subjects are invariably callow. In the UK, the welfare state architect used the phrase “cradle-to-grave” to describe his social security scheme. Now that’s a telling phrase.

It seems likely to me that anyone living in that sort of system—raised in it, educated by it, paying for it—is nearly doomed to become dependant on it. And to be honest, I can hardly blame the man, his money stolen and used to build the system, when he seeks some sort recompense in the form of what it can offer. It’s beyond the point of repair now. The best we can do is raise and educate our children otherwise and hope for the best. — NOS4A2

I am glad you have a better understanding of what I am talking about than some do. However, I do favor public assistance, but as Locke said of kings, It would be fine if kings be like fathers, if like fathers, they prepared their children to be independent. In part I am talking about education the helps the young grow up and not only be independent but also capable of being civil and industrial leaders, Without that education, and the past understanding of family duty and responsibility, we get a socialist welfare state.

My thinking includes respecting and trusting all professionals and giving them the authority they deserve. Stop trying to control them making them conform to policy.