Child Support Reforms International Conspiracy
RogerFGay
were just about some angry and greedy women, the issues would be
handled individually in courtrooms. The fact that we're dealing with
federal laws and international treaties says the problem is really
tied to another agenda.
Treaty Aims to Override National Sovereignty
http://www.iwf.org/news/020725.shtml
The Independent Women's Forum has uncovered the ultimate intention of
the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW): to assert precedence over the sovereign laws of
independent nations. The warning comes as the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee prepares to take up the 20-year-old discredited treaty.
complete article
http://www.iwf.org/news/020725.shtml
Barry Pearson
news:4b6433c3.0207...@posting.google.com...
> Now really, if the reforms -- including the child support reforms --
> were just about some angry and greedy women, the issues would be
> handled individually in courtrooms. The fact that we're dealing with
> federal laws and international treaties says the problem is really
> tied to another agenda.
>
> Treaty Aims to Override National Sovereignty
> http://www.iwf.org/news/020725.shtml
Thanks for pointing it out - I had never heard of the Convention. But what has
it got to do with "Child Support Reforms"?
I note the following extracts, which sound a bit like what some father's groups
seek. My suspicion is that the Convention is intended to have effect in
countries that discriminate against women. Countries which actually favour
mothers in family courts and elsewhere might find some of the articles
problematic. (Probably needing special interpretations of "the interests of the
children shall be paramount"). As recent threads on Child Benefit have shown,
the UK would have trouble with 13(a), where the mother explicitly has priority
in law.
Article 5. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures:
(a) To modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with
a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other
practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of
either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women;
(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of maternity
as a social function and the recognition of the common responsibility of men and
women in the upbringing and development of their children, it being understood
that the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases.
Article 13. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in other areas of economic and social life in order
to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in
particular:
(a) The right to family benefits;
Article 16. 1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in all matters relating to marriage and family
relations and in particular shall ensure, on a basis of equality of men and
women:
(c) The same rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution;
(d) The same rights and responsibilities as parents, irrespective of their
marital status, in matters relating to their children; in all cases the
interests of the children shall be paramount;
(f) The same rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship,
trusteeship and adoption of children, or similar institutions where these
concepts exist in national legislation; in all cases the interests of the
children shall be paramount;
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/what_next.htm
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/faq/
Jill
through the ether:
>Now really, if the reforms -- including the child support reforms --
>were just about some angry and greedy women, the issues would be
>handled individually in courtrooms. The fact that we're dealing with
>federal laws and international treaties says the problem is really
>tied to another agenda.
It isn't about "some" greedy women. It is about a majority of greedy
women and why not? The system itself pushes the greed agenda on any
woman who wasn't that way to begin with. The system makes it very
inviting and inticing to go for not just more and more but for ALL of
the goodies. And the system coaches and cajoles any reluctant women
to believe that this is all fair because it is, after all, The Law,
and don't forget how the system promotes the whole mess as really
being for the children. Many a woman who had no idea of taking
everything when she walks in the lawyers office for the first time,
leaves with a whole different agenda.
Jill
Dave
afraid of the consequences of exploiting NCPs for their own personal gain.
They need to be exposed for what they are and for what they have done. They
need to feel the constant fear and oppression that we have to live with
every day. Americans are largely uninformed to the fact that the
Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer applies to non-custodial parents.
Therefore all persons involved with CS corruption must be identified
publicly and held accountable. The Usenet is a good place to start in
posting the names, place of employment, crimes against NCPs and HOME
addresses of all individuals responsible for Child support corruption which
includes gross violations to the Constitution and the Civil rights of NCPs.
There are also other forums to expose this information such as posting this
information on websites, through email, fax communication, answering
machines, voice mail, flyers posted in supermarkets, malls, places of
employment, on car windshields, etc. I think you get the point that the
public must be informed.
The fear that this identification and personal information has been made
public alone can be a deterrent to others that wish to exploit and oppress
non-custodial parents for their own personal gain. I am not advocating
violence but exposing these individuals for their crimes of violating the
rights of NCPs.
The evil CS infrastructure of hate and oppression must be dismantled and the
individuals exposed.
"Jill" <perspic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d43df36...@news.earthlink.net...
Edmund Esterbauer
streams through kidnapping children and having multiple partners. These
incentives were devised by the Stalinist feminazi. The SF have no moral
standards ( a feature of communists and fascists) and are mass child
killers, child abusers and criminal extortionists. The enemy is not the
woman who takes advantage of the economic inducements set in place by the SF
but the SF criminals residing in the states' bureaucracies.
What's the difference between the SF and bin Laden?
Bin Laden murdered fewer people.
--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek
"Jill" <perspic...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d43df36...@news.earthlink.net...
RogerFGay
> >
> > Treaty Aims to Override National Sovereignty
> > http://www.iwf.org/news/020725.shtml
> [snip]
>
> Thanks for pointing it out - I had never heard of the Convention. But what has
> it got to do with "Child Support Reforms"?
>
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.
RogerFGay
> On 27 Jul 2002 05:19:54 -0700, roge...@yahoo.com (RogerFGay) sent
> through the ether:
>
> >Now really, if the reforms -- including the child support reforms --
> >were just about some angry and greedy women, the issues would be
> >handled individually in courtrooms. The fact that we're dealing with
> >federal laws and international treaties says the problem is really
> >tied to another agenda.
>
> It isn't about "some" greedy women. It is about a majority of greedy
> women and why not? The system itself pushes the greed agenda on any
> woman who wasn't that way to begin with. The system makes it very
> inviting and inticing to go for not just more and more but for ALL of
> the goodies. And the system coaches and cajoles any reluctant women
> to believe that this is all fair because it is, after all, The Law,
> and don't forget how the system promotes the whole mess as really
> being for the children. Many a woman who had no idea of taking
> everything when she walks in the lawyers office for the first time,
> leaves with a whole different agenda.
>
> Jill
> >
You said the system does this and the system does that. I agree that
it's the system that invented and continues to drive the problem.
People are people. Of course they can get a response to temptation.
The system is designed to tempt. Propaganda has been designed to make
yielding to temptation look like a moral right and doing the right
thing look as though it's stupid and pathetic.
RogerFGay
and Fathering Magazine.
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive_index/gay_archive.htm
http://www.fathermag.com/cgi-bin/scrape.cgi?http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/FatherMag/
"Dave" <nocivilrights@forthe-noncustodial-intheUS> wrote in message news:<uk81khd...@corp.supernews.com>...
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<GVw09.1883$U45....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
>
> > > Treaty Aims to Override National Sovereignty
> > > http://www.iwf.org/news/020725.shtml
> > [snip]
> >
> > Thanks for pointing it out - I had never heard of the Convention.
> > But what has it got to do with "Child Support Reforms"?
>
> 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.
Since my specialist interest is "child support reform", it would be useful to
know when you are talking about "child support reform", and when you are talking
about something else entirely!
> 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.
As far as the UK is concerned, I disagee. I see it as trying to balance the
rights & responsibilities of 4 potentially competing stakeholders - mothers,
fathers, children, and taxpayers. It gets the balance wrong (which is what I am
trying to rethink) but previous systems, and indeed previous lacks of adequate
systems, also got the balance wrong. (No doubt I too will get the balance
wrong - but I intend to get closer than my predecessors!)
In about 62% of UK CSA cases (the number increases year by year), the case
exists because at least one of the parents wants it to, not because the state
insists that it must exist. In effect, in those cases one of the parents
believes that his/her individual rights have been thwarted by someone else and
needs a remedy. The CSA offers a service to help someone enforce their rights.
It is interesting that some non resident parents say they would prefer a court
system - which makes me wonder whether father's rights of parenting would be
better enforced by an administrative agency than the current court system! I see
no evidence that using alternative approaches to resolving such competion among
stakeholders work that much better elsewhere, else why is there so much fuss
about inadequately implemented and enforced father's rights? Relying on courts
isn't so hot!
Obviously, many people (typically non resident parents) claim that those people
(typically the parents with care) shouldn't have those rights. But the fact that
the government has given those individuals those rights contradicts your
statement that the individual is dead and that individual rights are being
superseded. The problem is actually that where there are competing stakeholders,
there are interacting rights, not independent rights.
The "alternatives" I see in Usenet appear to be variants of "pistols at dawn",
which I can't take seriously at all. And I see no evidence that using courts
gives better results than administrative agencies - else why are so many people
in the US who have screwed by the courts complaining?
> 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.
As far as the UK is concerned, I disagree. You started this thread because of a
proposal (is it a real one?) to consider taking up the "Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)". In that
article, your complaint did not appear to be that this was contrary to
individual rights, but that is was contrary to national sovereignty, which is
entirely different.
When the UK put the European Convention on Human Rights into law, including
access to the European Court, this became a curb on the excesses of central
government. Individuals are using the European Court to overturn policies that
the UK government(s) have long held at the expense of individuals. They are
using it as US citizens might use the Constitution to curb the powers of
Congress. I'm not convinced that the Constitution is working as well as its
creators expected, and perhaps what US citizens need is an external remedy. When
such conventions are given teeth, it can be citizens who are given extra rights
at the expense of central governments. What you call sovereign rights sometimes
appear to me to be central government rights, not citizen rights.
As far as I know, the UK hasn't ratified CEDAW (I am checking this). But I have
been researching its influence. One influence is that it may prevent certain
forms of positive discrimination IN FAVOUR of women! After all, the Convention
expects equality. (I read this in connection with "all women short lists" for
political parties, a measure intended to get more women into Parliament. The
Convention might enable men to challenge these lists in court, if it were
ratified).
I believe that CEDAW might be exactly the tool that father's rights groups need
to overcome the residence (custody) bias in family courts. It appears to have
potential for overcoming a specific sex bias in the UK's social security & chid
support laws which I want to see removed. Without it, it is hard to get central
government to move, as a recent thread here (about Child Benefit) showed.
To get back to child support, I believe the higher level of central control of
child support in the UK (CS laws are made only by central government, and
implemented by government agencies), compared with the US, may be responsible
for avoiding some of the excesses of the US system that I read about here.
Sometimes it appears to me that the US has lost control at a local level.
John O
Lighten up, Barry. I think that Roger has put his finger on a very
important point. And there is no reason to argue that your positions are
exclusive.
My own interests are more focused on the Law in general.
What I have seen in the UK - particularly under the current Government - is
a move toward making obedience to the letter of the Law more important than
adherence to its spirit. Combined with that, is an attempt to codify and
straitjacket the Law, so that the scope for manoeuvre....for principles of
equity....is seriously impaired.
CS is a good example of this. So, too, are Speeding Laws. And in a way,
you appear to be on the side of the Devils, in this aspect of the argument.
It does seem to me that CS CAN be managed by means of some generic Laws,
PLUS an Appeals System or an Exceptions System, where the results are truly
crazy.
I will get back to you at some point about how the PWC thing seems to apply
in my case but, on pondering the Boarding School Issue a bit more, it does
look, rather, as though, were I to pay to send my daughter to a Boarding
School, the ex would be entitled to 50% additional CS, for doing half the
care she does now.
I think Roger is right about the trend. WHY it is so, I am not sure. One
possibility that occurs is that there are simply too many people and the
worlkd is getting too complex for States to screw around with abstract
concepts of justice. The bureaucrats have taken over - and justice is no
longer efficient.
Just look at the recent White Paper on Crim Justice.
By the Way.... are you still working for who I think you are? Have you any
observations to make on the demise of Libra?
Dave
"John O" <aud...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d46d1fe$0$4225$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
You cannot blame Barry, he cannot help himself since he was raised from
birth under Socialism therefore there is no thinking out of the box of
government not involving themselves in the lives of its citizens.
Unfortunately the US adopted way too much from the Brits and is becoming
what our founding fathers escaped from.
Barry Pearson
> news:ZIz19.1648$xq1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > As far as the UK is concerned, I disagee. I see it as trying to
> > balance the rights & responsibilities of 4 potentially
> > competing stakeholders - mothers, fathers, children, and
> > taxpayers. It gets the balance wrong (which is what I am
> > trying to rethink) but previous systems, and indeed previous
> > lacks of adequate systems, also got the balance wrong.
> > (No doubt I too will get the balance
> > wrong - but I intend to get closer than my predecessors!)
>
> Lighten up, Barry. I think that Roger has put his finger on a very
> important point. And there is no reason to argue that your
> positions are exclusive.
Roger and I are both engineers. That puts both of us into a different category
from many who post on this topic.
> My own interests are more focused on the Law in general.
>
> What I have seen in the UK - particularly under the current Government -
> is a move toward making obedience to the letter of the Law more
> important than adherence to its spirit. Combined with that, is an
> attempt to codify and straitjacket the Law, so that the scope for
> manoeuvre....for principles of equity....is seriously impaired.
>
> CS is a good example of this. So, too, are Speeding Laws.
> And in a way, you appear to be on the side of the Devils, in
> this aspect of the argument.
In many matters, I have a simple requirement - can I avoid inadvertently
becoming a criminal?
If I see a sign saying "30 mph", does it mean that? Or does it mean that someone
will make their judgement based on their particular view of equity, or "the
spirit", and I may find that I became a criminal post-hoc, with no plausible way
of guaranteeing in advance that I wouldn't? Sorry, that isn't justice, that is
an opportunity for sleeze, corruption, special pleading, expensive lawyers, etc.
No thank you.
Now take a more serious matter. How can I guarantee that I will not be convicted
of date rape? It is VITAL that the rules are known to me in advance. It would be
contemptible for the matter to be determined by the post-hoc views of the
alleged victim. Let's have clarity in advance. Otherwise we are talking about
vengeance for bad sex. (Not that sex with me is bad sex ......!)
Of course I accept that an escape route is needed for cases where the law
couldn't envisage a particular situation. We can't have people just being pushed
relentlessly through a meat grinder. But I believe that often these escape
routes will be to let people off, not to convict them.
I read many US child support cases, for example those identified on Usenet, and
others identified in sites such as SupportGuidelines. Often I just think "wow, I
wouldn't have predicted that!" And neither would the person concerned - they are
cast into a world that they could not plausibly have predicted, and have lost
the ability to predict & plan their lives.
When there are a number of stakeholders, it is important to look at things from
the point of view of all of them. Don't just think about "the spirit" or
"equity" as far as the non resident parent is concerned - now what does that
mean for the parent with care, the children, taxpayers? How far should their
views of the "spirit of the law" be taken into account? Even when the results
are unpredictable?
Sometimes the best answer is - "here are the rules, known with complete clarity
in advance, just adapt to them and everyone will be OK".
> It does seem to me that CS CAN be managed by means of some
> generic Laws, PLUS an Appeals System or an Exceptions System,
> where the results are truly crazy.
Indeed. My Agenda is trying to move in that direction. I may try to develop an
International Agenda, in addition to my current UK Agenda. But where there are a
number of stakeholders, there are winners & losers whenever the boundaries
change, and unless all of them can predict the results, there will be
unfairness. How far should people involved with child support for 16 years of
their lives have their futures determined by "balance of probabilities"? Perhaps
"beyond reasonable doubt" would be safer.
[snip]
> I think Roger is right about the trend. WHY it is so, I am not sure.
> One possibility that occurs is that there are simply too many
> people and the worlkd is getting too complex for States to screw
> around with abstract concepts of justice. The bureaucrats have
> taken over - and justice is no longer efficient.
I agree about the complexity. 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?
Many people appear to believe that the justice system is about getting the right
judgement & penalty afterwards. I believe that it SHOULD be about getting the
right behaviour first, so that far more people never even enter the justice
system. "Prevention is better than cure". "Fore-warned is fore-armed". (etc). My
prime concern isn't justice in court - it is about never getting to court in the
first place. What happens in court is a secondary concern.
[snip]
> By the Way.... are you still working for who I think you are? Have you any
> observations to make on the demise of Libra?
[snip]
I left them a year ago, which is why I now post under my own name. In fact, they
don't even exist any more!
I will bite my tongue about Libra! An interesting example of trying to impose a
centrally designed system on a set of relatively autonomous units, without
adequate explanation of "what is in it for them".
Barry Pearson
news:ukdlhlf...@corp.supernews.com...
[snip]
> You cannot blame Barry, he cannot help himself since he was
> raised from birth under Socialism therefore there is no thinking
> out of the box of government not involving themselves in the
> lives of its citizens.
>
> Unfortunately the US adopted way too much from the Brits
> and is becoming what our founding fathers escaped from.
Let's compare. I recently tried the "World's Smallest Political Quiz".
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
It said:
"According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.
"Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They
believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and
violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social
diversity.
"Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
"Your Economic Self-Government Score is 70%."
That indeed is how I feel. "Avoid harm to innocent people, else let people do
what they like".
What is YOUR score?
Dave
With this particular 10 question test it is fairly easy to achieve those
scores. Despite the websites claim that does not make you Libertarian in
your views. I true Liberterian would not accept government involvement in
the family period. Judging your score and your posts perhaps there is a
chance you may see the light some day and not accept any government role in
the family (except for the obvious being violence, abuse and neglect).
My score? I am ahead of you in self government and fundamentally surpass you
on personal.
Personal - technically 80%, fundamentally %100 as I agree with the statement
of "Avoid harm to innocent people, else let people do what they like". The
drug question cannot be answered with a yes or no answer. Which means I
believe in the legalization but control of some drugs as you cannot have
people on a drug like crack where they are going to go out and commit
murder.
The border question could be a little clearer to say "Citizens should be
free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose". In
that case yes, but the way it reads with "people"instead of "citizens" I
would not allow anyone to stroll across our borders from another country as
you open yourself up to terrorism and invasion from within.
Self Government %100
RogerFGay
>
> Let's compare. I recently tried the "World's Smallest Political Quiz".
> http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
>
> It said:
>
> "According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.
>
Barry, That does seem to conflict with your discussion on dealing with
child support issues. You've consistently supported a highly
regulated, bureacratic system of government management of family
issues. I think I read somewhere - you said you have no personal stake
in the system. Are you saying that it's fine for you to be libertarian
-- have personal rights and freedom -- but not for others?
Barry Pearson
news:<eCC19.6178$fw4.151846@newsfep2-gui>...
> >
> > Let's compare. I recently tried the "World's Smallest Political Quiz".
> > http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
> >
> > It said:
> >
> > "According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.
>
> Barry, That does seem to conflict with your discussion on dealing
> with child support issues. You've consistently supported a highly
> regulated, bureacratic system of government management of family
> issues.
No I haven't. In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing the involvement of
government. (In 1998 I was part of a team that proposed virtually eliminating
the UK's Child Support Agency, and identified alternative mechanisms, typically
in the private sector, for much of the work it does. But when I see statements
here about how the private sector appears to do a lot of damage in the running
of the US child support system, I am having second thoughts on this).
There are 4 stakeholders in issues of child support - mothers, fathers,
children, and taxpayers. The problem here is that their individual rights
compete with one another after separation. The discussion here is how to resolve
the conflict. One of my proposals takes taxpayers out of the equation - trying
to use the child support system to save taxpayer's money causes too much
hardship & forces the state to intrude. So my first step turns it into 3
stakeholders, whose rights & responsibilities have to be balanced. "Official
organisations" are then only needed to the extent that they are needed to
resolve conflicts, because there is no other state interest.
I suspect that some people who don't like the idea of a central agency would
prefer the use of courts to resolve these conflicts. But the family court system
in the UK is where some of the worst decisions about residence (custody) occur,
and I suspect that child support courts in the US are where some of the worst
decisions are made (eg. to do with presumed paternity or liabilities). So what
I'm NOT seeing is that using local courts instead of a centralised agency is any
better. (And some parents who are impacted by the UK's CSA agree - they don't
want lawyers and uncertainty).
Neither do I believe that these conflicts can be resolved simply by leaving it
to the stakeholders concerned without any recourse to "official" organisations.
I see assertions here that this is what should happen, but I simply don't
believe that a mother, a father, and a child, in unresolved conflict with one
another, are going to have a satisfactory life for (say) 16 years. No one gives
me answers to questions such as "where will the child live?"; "where will the
child go to school?"; "who is allowed to pick up the child from school?"; "who
can take the child abroad on holiday?"; plus issues about financial support;
etc.
Ultimately, the only thing that I believe needs to be central is the child
support formula. And, of course, its sole purpose is for use when the
stakeholders can't otherwise agee. With taxpayers out of the equation, there
should be a hope of getting a better one, without the fiscal and ideological
baggage. Some have wanted the option of competing formulae - now, who decides
which is used?
> I think I read somewhere - you said you have no personal stake
> in the system. Are you saying that it's fine for you to be libertarian
> -- have personal rights and freedom -- but not for others?
I am trying to see how the three remaining stakeholders (after removing
taxpayers) - mother, father, and child - can have a balanced set of personal
rights and freedoms when they can't come to their own agreement about their
competing desires. Is that what we are all discussing?
RogerFGay
>
> No I haven't. In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing the involvement of
> government. (In 1998 I was part of a team that proposed virtually eliminating
> the UK's Child Support Agency, and identified alternative mechanisms, typically
> in the private sector, for much of the work it does. But when I see statements
> here about how the private sector appears to do a lot of damage in the running
> of the US child support system, I am having second thoughts on this).
>
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.
RogerFGay
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072702.htm
Two lawsuits against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in
England are demonstrating that fathers and mothers have unequal legal
and political status. Divorced fathers Kevin Barber and Eugen
Hockenjos both filed petitions for equal treatment in the distribution
of the child benefit.
......
Unequal tax treatment was cited in a Georgia decision this year in
which a superior court declared their guidelines unconstitutional.
complete article
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072702.htm
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eCC19.6178$fw4.151846@newsfep2-gui...
> > It said:
[snip]
> > "Your Personal Self-Government Score is 90%.
> >
> > "Your Economic Self-Government Score is 70%."
> With this particular 10 question test it is fairly
> easy to achieve those scores. Despite the websites
> claim that does not make you Libertarian in your
> views.
>
> My score? I am ahead of you in self government and
> fundamentally surpass you on personal.
>
> Personal - technically 80%, fundamentally %100 as
> I agree with the statement of "Avoid harm to
> innocent people, else let people do what they like".
> The drug question cannot be answered with a yes or
> no answer. Which means I believe in the legalization
> but control of some drugs as you cannot have people
> on a drug like crack where they are going to go out
> and commit murder.
I agree. It is a clear example where the rights of various individuals are "in
competition".
Let's look at taking drugs & driving. (Hot news in the UK at the moment). There
are 3 main stakeholders - drug-taker/driver; those who may be injured/killed;
taxpayers (who may end up paying to sort things out). I'll ignore taxpayers here
in order to simplify matters.
I don't want to stop drug taking. I don't want to stop driving. But neither do I
want to see people get killed as a result of mixing those. Getting killed is the
ultimate denial of individual rights & personal freedoms!
So the right to do these things needs a corresponding responsibility - to avoid
mixing them. But there is no use telling a dead child "the person who did this
had a responsibility not to do it". Responsibility needs to be policed. Think of
policing as protecting someone's individual rights & personal freedoms. When
there is "competition", there need to be policed responsibilities.
> The border question could be a little clearer to
> say "Citizens should be free to come and go across
> borders; to live and work where they choose". In
> that case yes, but the way it reads with "people"
> instead of "citizens" I would not allow anyone to
> stroll across our borders from another country as
> you open yourself up to terrorism and invasion from
> within.
My qualms with the "Economic Self-Government" questions concerned "Minimum wage
laws cause unemployment". This isn't a question about a libertarian approach to
economic issues. It queries facts. The author PRESUMES that this question
examines the philosophy of the person answering - but I happen to have been
studying statistics on this for years, and to me this is about facts,
statistics, probabilities, etc.
2 or 3 years ago I would have agreed with the assertion. Then the UK implemented
a NMW, and it didn't work out like that. One of the main areas where people were
hostile to the NMW was the hospitality business. But it turns out that when one
restaurant increases its prices, others in the area have to too. It MAY be that
the NMW has tilted tourism against the UK, but the UK was never a good
destination for low-cost travel anyway.
I was working on Social Security before I focused on Child Support. What I
realise is that if you have few resources (money, intelligence, skills, etc),
whatever your theoretical rights & freedoms, you have trouble exercising them,
or even knowing about them. People in poverty tend to have few practical rights
& personal freedoms, whatever the theory. They are disenfranchsed. So when there
is a conflict between personal issues & economic issues, I come down on the side
of the personal issues, to give people their rights.
[Next sentence copied from earlier in the article]
> I true Liberterian would not accept government
> involvement in the family period. Judging your
> score and your posts perhaps there is a chance
> you may see the light some day and not accept
> any government role in the family (except for
> the obvious being violence, abuse and neglect).
[snip]
Look at the earlier discussion above. There are (at least) 4 stakeholders in
separated families. Mother, father, child, taxpayer. As I did for the
drug-driving case above, let's leave the taxpayer out of the equation for
simplicity. That leaves mother, father, child.
Their rights & freedoms are in competition. So, as in the case of the
drug-driving case, there are responsibilities as well as rights, because any one
person's rights may impact another's rights. Furthermore, as in the case of the
drug-driving case, responsibilities need to be policed.
So focusing libertarion principles on all stakeholders - mothers, fathers,
children - means there have to be policed resposibilities as well as rights.
Without the policed responsibilities, libertarian principles are not being
applied to all the stakeholders. Some will be disenfranchised.
THAT is what my Agenda is about - identifying the balanced set of rights &
responsibilities among the stakeholders so that individual rights & personal
freedoms are available to all of them, with the constraint that these tend to be
in competition.
The question is - how are these responsibilities to be defined & policed? If
they are not, others' rights are lost. That needs an authority to define them,
and an authority to police them. I don't know an alternative.
RogerFGay
> in advance, just adapt to them and everyone will be OK".
>
> > It does seem to me that CS CAN be managed by means of some
> > generic Laws, PLUS an Appeals System or an Exceptions System,
> > where the results are truly crazy.
>
> Indeed. My Agenda is trying to move in that direction.
Then just do it. What sense does it make to go to the opposite end of
the logical spectrum and then say you're working toward the other end?
>
> I agree about the complexity. 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.
> Many people appear to believe that the justice system is about getting the right
> judgement & penalty afterwards.
Everyone who is in an afterwards situation must certainly think that,
and there is absolutely no way to change their minds about it. There's
no way to justify avoiding getting it right as the first and highest
priority. Any government that avoids that as the first and highest
priority is intentionally oppressive and should be overthrown.
I believe that it SHOULD be about getting the
> right behaviour first, so that far more people never even enter the justice
> system.
I think it works that way in Star Trek, but I'm not sure. They didn't
have many episodes on earth. Anyway, we don't yet have the technology
required.
"Prevention is better than cure". "Fore-warned is fore-armed". (etc).
My
> prime concern isn't justice in court - it is about never getting to court in the
> first place. What happens in court is a secondary concern.
>
Then why are you spending so much time on policies specifically
designed for use in court?
wd
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4b6433c3.02073...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<eCC19.6178$fw4.151846@newsfep2-gui>...
> > >
> > > Let's compare. I recently tried the "World's Smallest Political Quiz".
> > > http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
> > >
> > > It said:
> > >
> > > "According to your answers, your political philosophy is libertarian.
> >
> > Barry, That does seem to conflict with your discussion on dealing
> > with child support issues. You've consistently supported a highly
> > regulated, bureacratic system of government management of family
> > issues.
>
> No I haven't. In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing the involvement
of
> government. (In 1998 I was part of a team that proposed virtually
eliminating
> the UK's Child Support Agency, and identified alternative mechanisms,
typically
> in the private sector, for much of the work it does. But when I see
statements
> here about how the private sector appears to do a lot of damage in the
running
> of the US child support system, I am having second thoughts on this).
Then how can you lend support to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of
Discrimination against Women?
This Convention clearly states that children will be givin primordial
consideration in all cases.
This will *not* reduce government involvment at all. But it will mandate
proof every 4 years that
progress (by government) is made wrt this treaty.
>
> There are 4 stakeholders in issues of child support - mothers, fathers,
> children, and taxpayers.
You forgot stakeholder#5
All the people who make a living from the huge divorce industries.
If it was abolished, how would it effect economics in the country having so
many
unemployed.
The problem here is that their individual rights
> compete with one another after separation. The discussion here is how to
resolve
> the conflict. One of my proposals takes taxpayers out of the equation -
trying
> to use the child support system to save taxpayer's money causes too much
> hardship & forces the state to intrude. So my first step turns it into 3
> stakeholders, whose rights & responsibilities have to be balanced.
"Official
> organisations" are then only needed to the extent that they are needed to
> resolve conflicts, because there is no other state interest.
There is a state intrest. Jobs. Divorce has become just another huge
industry
that employs many people-- not to mention the spin off ripples for the
economy.
> support formula And, of course, its sole purpose is for use when the
Barry Pearson
> Tax Laws and Child Benefits: Unequal Treatment is International
> http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072702.htm
>
> Two lawsuits against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in
> England are demonstrating that fathers and mothers have unequal legal
> and political status. Divorced fathers Kevin Barber and Eugen
> Hockenjos both filed petitions for equal treatment in the distribution
> of the child benefit.
This is old news indeed!
In 1999, I worked with Families Need Fathers to bring these anomalies to
attention of the government. See:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmsocsec/
798/9091501.htm
I have described the sex discrimination is the social security laws on my web
site:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/information_and_explanation/legislation/le
gislation_sex_bias.htm
I went further, and showed how this also causes sex discrimination in the child
support laws too.
It is part of my Agenda to remove this sex discrimination:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/what_next/no_discrimi
nation.htm
It may be that the best means of removing it would be:
"Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women"
gopher://gopher.un.org/00/ga/cedaw/convention
Article 13. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in other areas of economic and social life in order
to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in
particular:
(a) The right to family benefits;
But, of course, YOU oppose the ratification of this convention in the US.
Barry Pearson
news:<0_O19.1214$sH3....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > No I haven't. In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing
> > the involvement of government. (In 1998 I was part of a
> > team that proposed virtually eliminating the UK's Child
> > Support Agency, and identified alternative mechanisms,
> > typically in the private sector, for much of the work it
> > does. But when I see statements here about how the
> > private sector appears to do a lot of damage in the
> > running of the US child support system, I am having
> > second thoughts on this).
>
> 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.
You are talking about the US, presumably. Once again, the UK is totally
different. There is no such concept as private collection agencies, or keeping a
third.
> What you keep avoiding is reinstatement of individual rights
> and the Common Law system. Without that, you're not in
> western civilization.
I am in the 21st Century version of Western civilisation. I haven't a clue where
you are. 17xx? 18xx? 19xx? Illusion?
There are (at least) 4 stakeholders in separated families. Mother, father,
child, taxpayer. Let's leave the taxpayer out of the equation for simplicity.
That leaves mother, father, child.
Their rights & freedoms are in competition. So there are responsibilities as
well as rights, because any one person's rights may impact another's rights.
Furthermore, responsibilities need to be policed.
So focusing on the individual rights & personal freedoms of all stakeholders -
mothers, fathers, children - means there have to be policed responsibilities as
well as rights. Without the policed responsibilities, these rights & freedoms
are not being available to all the stakeholders. Some will be disenfranchised.
THAT is what my Agenda is about - identifying the balanced set of rights &
responsibilities among the stakeholders so that individual rights & personal
freedoms are available to all of them, with the constraint that these tend to be
in competition.
The question is - how are these responsibilities to be defined & policed? If
they are not, others' rights are lost. That needs an authority to define them,
and an authority to police them. I don't know an alternative.
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
Barry Pearson
news:uknqfu4...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0_O19.1214$sH3....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > No I haven't. In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing
> > the involvement of government. (In 1998 I was part of a
> > team that proposed virtually eliminating the UK's Child
> > Support Agency, and identified alternative mechanisms,
> > typically in the private sector, for much of the work it does.
> > But when I see statements here about how the private sector
> > appears to do a lot of damage in the running of the US child
> > support system, I am having second thoughts on this).
>
> Then how can you lend support to the Convention on the
> Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?
It proposes equality of rights & freedoms between men & women. What is wrong
with that?
If you think that it gets this wrong, fine! Let's discuss it. But as a
principle, what is wrong?
> This Convention clearly states that children will be givin
> primordial consideration in all cases.
The phrase is "in all cases the interests of the children shall be paramount".
Given the vulnerability of children, their typical inability to decide & control
their own future, and the massive impact on their future that early problems may
cause, this makes a lot of sense. No politician will ignore them.
I am one of the few serious analysts who studies the responsibilities as well as
the rights of children. But those rights must never ignored. Anyone whose
approach ignores those rights has a losing approach.
> This will *not* reduce government involvment at all. But it will
> mandate proof every 4 years that progress (by government) is
> made wrt this treaty.
That is not to do with government involvement in a particular case (eg. John
Smith, Jane Smith, and young Junior Smith). It is about the government producing
a report every few years, which is totally different. I have seen those reports.
They are mostly PR exercises. But if nations like the US or UK get involved,
there is a hope that other countries will get involved too. The "British
Council" uses this Convention in Africa.
> > There are 4 stakeholders in issues of child support - mothers, fathers,
> > children, and taxpayers.
>
> You forgot stakeholder#5
> All the people who make a living from the huge divorce industries.
> If it was abolished, how would it effect economics in the country
> having so many unemployed.
I only considered stakeholders that matter. I don't care if those other people
disappear off the face of the Earth.
> > The problem here is that their individual rights
> > compete with one another after separation. The discussion here is
> > how to resolve the conflict. One of my proposals takes taxpayers
> > out of the equation - trying to use the child support system to
> > save taxpayer's money causes too much hardship & forces the
> > state to intrude. So my first step turns it into 3 stakeholders,
> > whose rights & responsibilities have to be balanced.
> > "Official organisations" are then only needed to the extent that
> > they are needed to resolve conflicts, because there is no other
> > state interest.
>
> There is a state intrest. Jobs. Divorce has become just another huge
> industry that employs many people-- not to mention the spin off
> ripples for the economy.
[snip]
That still leaves 3 stakeholders in issues of child support - mothers, fathers
and children.
Their rights & freedoms are in competition. So there are responsibilities as
well as rights, because any one person's rights may impact another's rights.
Furthermore, responsibilities need to be policed.
So focusing on the individual rights & personal freedoms of all stakeholders -
mothers, fathers, children - means there have to be policed responsibilities as
well as rights. Without the policed responsibilities, these rights & freedoms
are not being available to all the stakeholders. Some will be disenfranchised.
THAT is what my Agenda is about - identifying the balanced set of rights &
responsibilities among the stakeholders so that individual rights & personal
freedoms are available to all of them, with the constraint that these tend to be
in competition.
The question is - how are these responsibilities to be defined & policed? If
they are not, others' rights are lost. That needs an authority to define them,
and an authority to police them. I don't know an alternative.
Child Support Agenda for the 21st Century
Barry Pearson
> "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<0iC19.2430$xq1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> > > It does seem to me that CS CAN be managed by means of some
> > > generic Laws, PLUS an Appeals System or an Exceptions System,
> > > where the results are truly crazy.
> >
> > Indeed. My Agenda is trying to move in that direction.
>
> Then just do it. What sense does it make to go to the opposite end of
> the logical spectrum and then say you're working toward the other end?
As I said, my Agenda is trying to move in that direction.
> > I agree about the complexity. 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.
It didn't work in the UK before the CSA was introduced. Go read the White Paper
issued before the 1991 Act. Or even the 1974 Finer Report. The CSA was a
reaction to the fact that what you proposed wasn't working.
The way of getting uniformity is to have a centrally-defined formula (or
centrally-defined guidelines, or whatever). I know of no other means.
[snip]
> > "Prevention is better than cure". "Fore-warned is fore-armed". (etc).
> > My prime concern isn't justice in court - it is about never getting to
> > court in the first place. What happens in court is a secondary concern.
>
> Then why are you spending so much time on policies specifically
> designed for use in court?
I don't. My Agenda mostly doesn't need courts. I don't know how to avoid family
courts for deciding residence / custody, but the rest doesn't use courts.
wd
> "wd" <serve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uknqfu4...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:0_O19.1214$sH3....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> [snip]
> > > No I haven't. In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing
> > > the involvement of government. (In 1998 I was part of a
> > > team that proposed virtually eliminating the UK's Child
> > > Support Agency, and identified alternative mechanisms,
> > > typically in the private sector, for much of the work it does.
> > > But when I see statements here about how the private sector
> > > appears to do a lot of damage in the running of the US child
> > > support system, I am having second thoughts on this).
> >
> > Then how can you lend support to the Convention on the
> > Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?
>
> It proposes equality of rights & freedoms between men & women. What is
wrong
> with that?
Nothing.
>
> If you think that it gets this wrong, fine! Let's discuss it. But as a
> principle, what is wrong?
In concept its ok. And i have never claimed to be against it in principal.
But its a treaty, not a guide line or an agreement. We have found that
morials cannot be legislated
in the courts in the US and thats just what this attempts to do IMO
(legislate morials) only on a much larger scale.
>
> > This Convention clearly states that children will be givin
> > primordial consideration in all cases.
>
> The phrase is "in all cases the interests of the children shall be
paramount".
I took that "phrase" right from the copy of the treaty YOU posted.
Article #5 b
(b) To ensure that family education includes a proper understanding of
maternity as a social function and the recognition of the common
responsibility of men and women in the upbringing and development of
their children, it being understood that the interest of the children
is the primordial consideration in all cases.
It seems you have not read this treaty as well as you claim to have.
So read that part. Men and women will not count wrt decisions about children
because the "primordial consideration in all cases" will go to the children.
This one like here will pretty much change the way people have parented
for thousands of years. Where men and women came first and then children.
Also note that everywhere else in the articel the phrase "women and men" are
used
except here where it says "responsibility of men and women "
> Given the vulnerability of children, their typical inability to decide &
control
> their own future, and the massive impact on their future that early
problems may
> cause, this makes a lot of sense. No politician will ignore them.
On your left hand you say:
"In fact, some of my Agenda involves reducing the involvement of
government."
On your right hand you support a treaty that will clearly give other nations
influence
on even your own agenda. Which means *more government*
>
> I am one of the few serious analysts who studies the responsibilities as
well as
> the rights of children.
How on earth do children have responsibilities in this matter.
They are children.
But those rights must never ignored. Anyone whose
> approach ignores those rights has a losing approach.
Exactly. And i agree with you. But i also think a treaty is the wrong way
to go in achieving childrens rights.
>
> > This will *not* reduce government involvment at all. But it will
> > mandate proof every 4 years that progress (by government) is
> > made wrt this treaty.
>
> That is not to do with government involvement in a particular case (eg.
John
> Smith, Jane Smith, and young Junior Smith).
Do you actually believe this? Or are you trying to convince me.
This treaty will directly be responsible for more government in family
matters.
It will need gvt employees just to keep up with the data and make the
reports to start with.
> It is about the government producing
> a report every few years, which is totally different. I have seen those
reports.
> They are mostly PR exercises.
Maybe.
But who will make the reports? Who will keep track of the data, etc etc?
More government employees we will need to hire. Thus insreasing the size and
involvment of government in family matters.(which you say you are against)
> But if nations like the US or UK get involved,
> there is a hope that other countries will get involved too. The "British
> Council" uses this Convention in Africa.
I dont see how this benefits America at all.
But it will be another expense to the american tax payers.
>
> > > There are 4 stakeholders in issues of child support - mothers,
fathers,
> > > children, and taxpayers.
> >
> > You forgot stakeholder#5
> > All the people who make a living from the huge divorce industries.
> > If it was abolished, how would it effect economics in the country
> > having so many unemployed.
>
> I only considered stakeholders that matter. I don't care if those other
people
> disappear off the face of the Earth.
Thats a personal opinion.
The fact is, the divorce industry has grown to the point that if it were
scaled
down, there will be an economic impact.
>
> > > The problem here is that their individual rights
> > > compete with one another after separation. The discussion here is
> > > how to resolve the conflict. One of my proposals takes taxpayers
> > > out of the equation - trying to use the child support system to
> > > save taxpayer's money causes too much hardship & forces the
> > > state to intrude. So my first step turns it into 3 stakeholders,
> > > whose rights & responsibilities have to be balanced.
> > > "Official organisations" are then only needed to the extent that
> > > they are needed to resolve conflicts, because there is no other
> > > state interest.
> >
> > There is a state intrest. Jobs. Divorce has become just another huge
> > industry that employs many people-- not to mention the spin off
> > ripples for the economy.
> [snip]
>
> That still leaves 3 stakeholders in issues of child support - mothers,
fathers
> and children.
>
> Their rights & freedoms are in competition. So there are responsibilities
as
> well as rights, because any one person's rights may impact another's
rights.
> Furthermore, responsibilities need to be policed.
So you are for *another* arm of government to police this ?
---- iow, more government.
>
> So focusing on the individual rights & personal freedoms of all
stakeholders -
> mothers, fathers, children - means there have to be policed
responsibilities as
> well as rights. Without the policed responsibilities, these rights &
freedoms
> are not being available to all the stakeholders. Some will be
disenfranchised.
>
Exactly who are "Some will be disenfranchised" Surely not you right?
> THAT is what my Agenda is about - identifying the balanced set of rights &
> responsibilities among the stakeholders so that individual rights &
personal
> freedoms are available to all of them, with the constraint that these tend
to be
> in competition.
Who decides what is balanced?
Who decides what is right wrt families? (more important)
Ask 1,000 people what a "balanced set of rights & responsibilities is
wrt women men and children, and you will get 999 different answers.
You have either not thought this through OR you indeed are for
*more* government involved in "the family".
>
> The question is - how are these responsibilities to be defined & policed?
If
> they are not, others' rights are lost. That needs an authority to define
them,
> and an authority to police them. I don't know an alternative.
It sounds like you are describing a totally government controled family.
RogerFGay
>
> >
> > Then just do it. What sense does it make to go to the opposite end of
> > the logical spectrum and then say you're working toward the other end?
>
> As I said, my Agenda is trying to move in that direction.
>
> > > I agree about the complexity. 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?
> >
Are you familiar with the history of the Common Law system in England
and what it's major components are?
Dave
-snip-
> So focusing on the individual rights & personal freedoms of all
stakeholders -
> mothers, fathers, children - means there have to be policed
responsibilities as
> well as rights. Without the policed responsibilities, these rights &
freedoms
> are not being available to all the stakeholders. Some will be
disenfranchised
> THAT is what my Agenda is about - identifying the balanced set of rights &
> responsibilities among the stakeholders so that individual rights &
personal
> freedoms are available to all of them, with the constraint that these tend
to be
> in competition.
>
The only way that can be accomplished is keeping the government out of the
lives of it's citizens. Everyone will then be on equal ground. Problem
solved.
Will some be disenfranchised? Yes and that's too bad, that's life and life
is what you make of it. How dare these weak minded individuals not face up
to their responsibilities and involve big Daddy-government to force the
infringement on the rights of the others for their own parasitic gain.
Barry Pearson
news:<FEY29.2581$mB4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> Are you familiar with the history of the Common Law system
> in England and what it's major components are?
There isn't a simple answer.
But for you & anyone else who are interested, here is some useful reading.
It doesn't say how to set child support liabilities!
COMMON LAW V. CIVIL LAW SYSTEMS
http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0999/ijde/messitte.htm
Common Law And Statute
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap185.htm
The Law Commission
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/misc/about.htm
Common law - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/common+law
The Common Law
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/LawCom.htm
common law
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0813047.html
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0857483.html
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0857484.html
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/society/A0864690.html
RogerFGay
> "RogerFGay" <roge...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4b6433c3.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > "Barry Pearson" <ne...@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<FEY29.2581$mB4.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > >
> [snip]
> > Are you familiar with the history of the Common Law system
> > in England and what it's major components are?
>
> There isn't a simple answer.
> But for you & anyone else who are interested, here is some useful reading.
> It doesn't say how to set child support liabilities!
>
>
There is a simple answer to the questions -- are you familiar with the
history and do you know its "major components?" People have the right
to introduce evidence and argument on their own behalf and to
challenge decisions even after they are made on the basis that
decisions are inappropriate, unreasonable, unfair, impractical, humane
.... and appellate courts set legal precedents in their decisions that
help define what is appropriate, reasonable, fair, practical, humane,
.... these rules must apply in ALL cases giving the name Common Law
... fundamental rules of law are established that govern ALL decisions
where the fundamental legal issues are the same. This means that
allowing unfairness in child support decisions can lead to unfairness
in the way judges, barristers, members of parliament, and Barry
Pearson are charged with other obligations. It is fundamental to
COMMON LAW that the generalizations of fundamental law effect everyone
equally. Therefore it does not profit one group to develop unfairness
in the laws as a way to target another group. "Whatever goes around,
comes around."
Edmund Esterbauer
of the family courts. We are dealing with State sponsored criminal child
abusers.
--
"The true value of democracy is to serve as a sanitary precaution protecting
us against the abuse of power...In its present form ..It has ceased to be a
safeguard of personal liberty, a restraint from abuse of government
power..It has on the contrary, become the main cause of a progressive and
accelerating increase in the power and weight of the administrative
machine."
Friedrich A. Hayek
Nemisis
"Edmund Esterbauer" <edm...@au.gateway.net> wrote in message
news:Hcs39.9535$Cq.4...@ozemail.com.au...
> Rubbish. There is no equality under law. Everyone knows the criminal
bias
> of the family courts. We are dealing with State sponsored criminal child
> abusers.
That there isn't equality in practice doesn't mean that there isn't
supposed to be. Human beings will corrupt any institution they create. Noble
purposes will always become perverted because humans can't participate
without brining their own selfish interests into the mix. Some people look
at the whole thing of child rearing as a form of a "meal ticket" in life and
then they abuse the legal process to make that an entitlement. The politics
which drive the legal system are heavily weighted in that direction because
the countervailing voice comes from a rabble instead of any viable opposing
political voice. So long as men spend the majority of their time trying to
prove who has the largest penis, their voices will never be heard. Once men
stop the silly infighting that has doomed them, then things will start to
equal out. But not one second before.