The international scene
Child support systems across the world
Objectives of child support across nations & centuries
Links to international sources about child support
Links to special interest groups worldwide
Declarations, treaties, conventions, etc
Clues about child maintenance in some Muslim cultures
PICSLT - Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology
International conspiracy theories
History of child support across the world
Reciprocal arrangements with other countries
The cost of children in other nations
Can Child Support Agencies ever work?
Home & weblog
Blog archive & site history
Site map & search

International conspiracy theories

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?

Some things really are the result of people or groups conspiring together. A Cartel is a group of companies or organisations acting together to control a market. One obvious example is OPEC, which controls oil production & prices. There are other examples where people or groups really have acted together. Some are widely known, and presumably there are many that are not generally known. Such cases are not included here.

Conspiracy theories, for the purposes of this web site, have the emphasis on "theory". They are theories, without useful basis in fact, that people or groups are conspiring to cause certain perceived ills. They state a false view of history to provide a focus for blame, and that is their point. They are simplistic explanations for unwanted realities. Instead of accepting that things are the way they are because of valid choices by a society, or else because of "cock-ups", they are stated to be the way they are because of a conspiracy. (Note - sometimes things really are unreasonable! The distinguishing feature of a conspiracy theory is that the causes are not properly supported by useful evidence).

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.

Analysis of a conspiracy

What? What is the conspiracy trying to achieve? The reason for starting with "what?" rather than "who?" is to avoid inventing a spurious justification for hating people you hate. If conspiracies exist, they exist to do something special.
When? When did this start? How long has it being going on for? This provides clues about whether there could be a single group conspiring.
Where? Where is the conspiracy trying to achieve its results? This provides clues about whether there could be a single group conspiring.
Who? The "who?" question needs to support the above questions, and not drive them. A group of people that you hate talking to one-another isn't a conspiracy. It is only a conspiracy if they are trying to achieve something bad, which needs the above analysis.
Why? If you think "they are out to get you" - "why?" Power? Money? Ideology? Or are you simply blaming someone else for your misfortunes?
How? How did the bad things happen? If it involved new laws, how did "they" make so many politicians vote the way they did? Bribes? Mind control? Or are you simply deluded?

Example

Roger Gay, who is responsible for PICSLT, has stated his views about the relationship between the administration of child support and the nature of, and potential end of, Western civilisation. I'm publishing this set of extracts from some of Roger Gay's articles posted to Usenet, often in response to articles of mine, on the assumption that these are his genuine views.

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?)

It's not whether you win or lose, but how you place the blame.

Page last updated: 6 July, 2004 © Copyright Barry Pearson 2003