Saturday, June 30, 2007
Thoughts on the Supremes
The recent decisions of the Supreme Court exhibit a mixture of pure "movement conservative" and "pro-authority" beliefs. The pro-authority beliefs are shown in the decision about the "Bong hits" sign and the "right" of a manufacturer to set a minimum price for its product sold by an independent distributor. The movement conservative belief is shown in the two school desegregation cases.
I've been having a running discussion, argument, or debate with some conservative friends, one of whom I would call a movement conservative. He argues, for example, that there is nothing about our health care system that government ought to change. The overload in emergency facilities in cities that have high concentrations of illegal immigrants is not a consequence of any government action regarding the health care system; hence, government should not undertake to modify the system. Instead, government should take steps to get rid of the illegal immigrants who are causing the problem and who are present because government hasn't enforced the existing laws regarding immigrants and their employment. I would summarize the movement conservative belief as including the theorem that government is not responsible for problems that government did not create. The storm that damaged New Orleans was not caused by government; hence, government has no responsibility to repair the city or do anything for its dispossessed citizens. Schools that happen to be segregated as a result of residential segregation should not be desegregated by government because government was not responsible for the segregation.
You'd think that I, after 84 years on this planet, would have learned by now what conservatism is all about. Yet, the mind set of the movement conservative still astonishes me.
I've been having a running discussion, argument, or debate with some conservative friends, one of whom I would call a movement conservative. He argues, for example, that there is nothing about our health care system that government ought to change. The overload in emergency facilities in cities that have high concentrations of illegal immigrants is not a consequence of any government action regarding the health care system; hence, government should not undertake to modify the system. Instead, government should take steps to get rid of the illegal immigrants who are causing the problem and who are present because government hasn't enforced the existing laws regarding immigrants and their employment. I would summarize the movement conservative belief as including the theorem that government is not responsible for problems that government did not create. The storm that damaged New Orleans was not caused by government; hence, government has no responsibility to repair the city or do anything for its dispossessed citizens. Schools that happen to be segregated as a result of residential segregation should not be desegregated by government because government was not responsible for the segregation.
You'd think that I, after 84 years on this planet, would have learned by now what conservatism is all about. Yet, the mind set of the movement conservative still astonishes me.
Labels: Conservatism, hospital emergency rooms, housing problem, immigration, price fixing
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Is Communal Living a Solution?
I'm still suffering from pessimism (see my post of a few days ago). I am concerned that the "free" enterprise system that we enjoy necessarily consignes a fraction of the population to lives of poverty. There must be a better way. We must find it.
I asked myself, is communal living a better way? One of my daughters and her family live in a cohousing community near Seattle. Each family has money invested in the organization and has shares. Matters are settled by a vote of all the members. Each family or individual member has either a house or an apartment. These houses and apartments are built close together on a tract of land, about five acres. There is a large play area for children. There is a parking lot for cars - each family is allocated one parking space. There is an area fenced off for chickens. There are apple trees. Near by there are blackberry bushes. Blackberries grow wild in Seattle and neighboring towns. In addition to the houses and apartments, there is a large common house which has a large kitchen, a dining hall, apartments for visitors, and laundry facilities. Members of the community may eat one meal a day in the common house. They take turns selecting and preparing the menus. My daughter and son-in-law do their turn about once a month. Members of the community do not own individual houses or apartments; they own shares of the community which entitle them to the use of a house or apartment.
I have visited my daughter several times during the past ten years or so that they have been living in the community. They are pleased with their living arrangements. I am impressed with how well the community works. I would like to live in such a community.
The concept of cohousing came from Denmark, according to my son-in-law. There are several cohousing organizations in this country. There's at least one in California. I imagine there's a web site where you can get more information (there's a web site for everything).
It has occurred to me that co-housing is not a solution for housing for the poor. Poor people don't have the money with which to buy shares in a co-housing organization. Cohousing is for comfortable middle-class people - people with a little extra money to invest in a home. We need another model for the poor.
I asked myself, is communal living a better way? One of my daughters and her family live in a cohousing community near Seattle. Each family has money invested in the organization and has shares. Matters are settled by a vote of all the members. Each family or individual member has either a house or an apartment. These houses and apartments are built close together on a tract of land, about five acres. There is a large play area for children. There is a parking lot for cars - each family is allocated one parking space. There is an area fenced off for chickens. There are apple trees. Near by there are blackberry bushes. Blackberries grow wild in Seattle and neighboring towns. In addition to the houses and apartments, there is a large common house which has a large kitchen, a dining hall, apartments for visitors, and laundry facilities. Members of the community may eat one meal a day in the common house. They take turns selecting and preparing the menus. My daughter and son-in-law do their turn about once a month. Members of the community do not own individual houses or apartments; they own shares of the community which entitle them to the use of a house or apartment.
I have visited my daughter several times during the past ten years or so that they have been living in the community. They are pleased with their living arrangements. I am impressed with how well the community works. I would like to live in such a community.
The concept of cohousing came from Denmark, according to my son-in-law. There are several cohousing organizations in this country. There's at least one in California. I imagine there's a web site where you can get more information (there's a web site for everything).
It has occurred to me that co-housing is not a solution for housing for the poor. Poor people don't have the money with which to buy shares in a co-housing organization. Cohousing is for comfortable middle-class people - people with a little extra money to invest in a home. We need another model for the poor.
Labels: blackberries, cohousing, Denmark, housing problem
