Peregrinator

Advocating the government guaranteeing income, that's socialism.

 

No it isn't. Socialism is when the State, or the workers themselves, own the means of production. For example, in Great Britain medicine is socialized as health care workers work for the national healthcare service. Even Canada does not have socialized medicine per se since most medical care is delivered by private services.

If you are going to advocate socialism?

But I haven't advocated socialism, any more than Friedman or Hayek did. References to China (which really is an authoritarian regime, and in some ways more capitalist than the United States) and other countries are just straw men.

In a free-market capitalist country like the US?

Well I am not a free-market capitalist.

 

I think you're in the wrong country.

I keep forgetting that if one disagree's with the laws of the country in which he lives, he should leave and go elsewhere!

It is YOUR duty to assure a basic income. The government should have nothing to do with you and your income.

 

A true free market capitalist does not want government anywhere near their income or the market.

Actually it's your employer's duty to make sure that you are paid a just wage; if they can't or won't then the duty falls to the government.

Friedman never advocated setting a minimum wage that high.

Of course not, negative income tax is completely separate from minimum wage. It's the government's duty to assure a basic income.

No reputable free-market economist thinks this is a rational idea.

The Negative Income Tax (very much like a basic income) was developed by Milton Friedman.

WeBelos....Stands for WE BE LOYAL SCOUTS

 

That's what it stands for now since the progression was changed.

I never realized until I attended the world jamboree, that the USA is like the only country where the scouting programs are separate.

That's not the case. Indonesia has the largest scouting and guiding association in the world and its boys' and girls' programs are separate.

What's really weird is that the UK Scouting Association does not admit republicans (that is, those who won't promise to do their duty to the Queen).

Peregrinator, I believe you're misreading the Hohfeld Right-Duty Correlative with regards to states and their citizens.  The duty is imposed upon the state, the right is an entitlement of the citizen.  The state has a duty to protect its citizens, the citizens have a right to be protected by the state.  Rights and duties are about relationships between parties.  You do not have both a right and duty with respect to someone or something, you have either a right OR duty with respect to another party.

Actually, no, I wasn't thinking of Hohfeld at all (in fact I had not heard of the man until yesterday when I looked him up after reading this). I was thinking, rather, that when a duty is imposed upon someone, then that someone has a concomitant right to fulfill that duty. For example, I have a duty to care for my children, therefore I have a right to do the things necessary for their care. And the same is true of societies as well as individuals. We can debate whether X is a duty of State (e.g., the duty to protect its citizens) but what can't be debated is that the State has the right to do those things necessary to fulfill its duties.

States don't HAVE rights (and never have); they have powers, not rights.

Could you elaborate on the distinction between the two as it pertains to State governments?

 

But succinctly: State governments as well as municipal governments have duties; therefore they have rights. For example, a State has the duty to protect its citizens; therefore it has the right to do so as well.

That's the "principle" followed by the BSA, right?

I believe so, as well as the one followed by WOSM.

And if read carefully it is a limitation on federal government only.

Yes, but the First Amendment has generally been held against State and municipal governments since the 14th Amendment.

Man creating God in his own image.

The sort of thing that happens once one accepts the principle that the "God" in "duty to God" is up to the individual to define.

I add in response to gumbymaster that my take on it was that BSA was attempting to limit the UUA's First Amendment right to say whatever it wanted in its own literature.

The First Amendment is a limitation on government restriction; it doesn't apply to private associations like the BSA (insofar as the BSA is "private" since it is favored in federal law).

Scouting magazine says there were 21,175 Eagles in 1960 and 29,103 in 1970. BSA membership ranged from 5.2 million to 6.3 million in that decade. So today, very roughly more than twice the Eagles with a third of overall membership (fuzzy numbers).

The 6.3 million number from 1970 includes 1.6 million adult volunteers, so the true comparison would be between the 4.7 million youth members of 1970 and the 2.1 million (including Venturers) of 2015.

 

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/443_boy_scouts_and_girl_scouts_membership.html

I was taught that Scouts didn't accept charity.  Obviously,  as least as to B.S.A., that has changed.

No, a scout doesn't accept a reward for doing a good turn. He can definitely accept charity or payment for a job well done (raking a yard, mowing a lawn, shoveling snow). There might be a fine line between the two, but I tend to think of a good turn as something that a scout volunteers to do (maybe without being asked) without expectation of payment. For example, when my son serves a funeral Mass, sometimes the funeral director offers money to the altar servers (I don't know how this started, but it's happened more than once, so I guess it's a common practice); my son always refuses because he views it as a good turn (and so do I).

To be fair, I've read Scouting for Boys and The Wolf Cub's Handbook​ by BP and the current Cub Scout program is a far cry from his original program. That wasn't brought on by girls, it was brought on by BSA evolving to match the interests of today's kids.

Actually the BSA has never, except perhaps early on and unofficially, run B-P's Wolf Cub program. For example, BSA Cub Scouts have always been segregated by age (initially - Wolf, Bear, Lion - hence WeBeLoS).

Some countries (e.g. Canada) have not been successful since imposing co-education on units.

Wish real politics was like this.

Just toss enough money/incentives in and maybe it can be

 

Seriously, it's a heck of a lot easier to get 7-8 people to come to a consensus than hundreds of thousands.

You could just limit them to the traditional patrol names and colors:

http://fr.scoutwiki.org/Code_des_couleurs_de_patrouille

So when an Archbishop of the Catholic Church singles out Amnesty International as being part of the problem with the Girl Scouts, without mentioning exactly why they are problematic, no one should be surprised if the first, and likely only, reaction is that the Catholic Church is supporting the execution of dissidents and is pro-death penalty.

Thus far the only such reaction I've seen is yours.

So in his letter, the Archbishop mentions that one of his problems with the Girl Scouts is their relationship with Amnesty International because, according to the Archbishop, the work of Amnesty International is in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

Until now, I never thought of the Catholic Church being opposed to organizations that oppose dictatorial regimes beheading political opponents and other dissidents.

 

Does the Pope know that his Archbishop supports beheading political enemies?  Just curious.

That's not Amnesty International's only political position, in fact after years of not taking a position on abortion (I'm sure the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion is not news), it changed its position in 2007.

 

In addition, in 2014 AI started making moves toward supporting the decriminalization of prostitution.

 

So there are two things that Amnesty International supports but to which the Catholic Church would be opposed.

 

Hope this helps.

The title of the thread uses the term mean or median age and the statistics indicate average.  Out of 100 boys if one got eagle at 15 and 99 got it at 17, the mean/median would be 16, but the average would be 16.99+ something.  I didn't go well in math in school, but I think I have those numbers correct.

"Mean" generally refers to what most people call "average" (it is definitely not the "median"). In this case the mean or average would be 16.99 and the median would be 17.

It was a mistake by everyone involved.  To start from a question of dishonesty is to do another injustice to the scout.

It wasn't necessarily dishonest; it might have been ignorance. But someone either knew that the rules were being flouted or should have known that they were being flouted. The former might be worse than the latter, but neither speaks highly of him or her.