Is this the death of the family farm?

[finehoe]

We should be happy that the system worked.  It seems an honest but misguided attempt was made to protect children, and that the affected population pointed out the errors in the proposal and managed to persuade DOL to withdraw it. 

Unfortunately what we will probably never know is how many of the "thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farm" were based on actual problems with the proposed regulations and how many were the result of the blatant lies like "the Obama Administration wants to prevent children from doing farm chores" promulgated by hackish outfits like the Daily Caller.

Which brings me back to the point I was making (and seemed to go over Ock's head) when I said "demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."  Several of you have conceded that there are indeed dangerous situations for children on farms, and that there may be a place for some regulation.  But instead of addressing whatever problems there may have been in the proposed rules and debating them on their own merit, we have ideologues trying to shut down debate with outlandish lies.  And this isn't a one-time thing.  Remember "death panels"?

[BridgeTroll]

"demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."

We certainly see that often enough here don't we...

[NotNow]

"demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."

We certainly see that often enough here don't we...

cough...cough

finehoe, with all due respect, have you read your own posts?

[Ocklawaha]

We should be happy that the system worked.  It seems an honest but misguided attempt was made to protect children, and that the affected population pointed out the errors in the proposal and managed to persuade DOL to withdraw it. 

Unfortunately what we will probably never know is how many of the "thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farm" were based on actual problems with the proposed regulations and how many were the result of the blatant lies like "the Obama Administration wants to prevent children from doing farm chores" promulgated by hackish outfits like the Daily Caller.

Which brings me back to the point I was making (and seemed to go over Ock's head) when I said "demagogues will attempt to sway people and move them to action, often to counter legitimate complaints and efforts at reform."  Several of you have conceded that there are indeed dangerous situations for children on farms, and that there may be a place for some regulation.  But instead of addressing whatever problems there may have been in the proposed rules and debating them on their own merit, we have ideologues trying to shut down debate with outlandish lies.  And this isn't a one-time thing.  Remember "death panels"?

I simply commented on your (and the popular media) view of fascism as a 'right wing' government. My comment had nothing to do with the farm bill, but focused on this historical myth. FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

As for dangers, the number one killer of persons under 20 is the highway. For teens aged 15 to 19 years, over three- quarters of unintentional injury deaths are motor vehicle-related. On the basis of miles driven, this age group is involved in three times as many fatal crashes as are all drivers. Fifty-eight percent of teen fatalities were not wearing seat belts.

Now there is something I could get behind.

[finehoe]

finehoe, with all due respect, have you read your own posts?

I defy anyone to point out where I've posted a known lie.

[NotNow]

Finehoe, you called me and others "liars" over our differences.  "Demagogery" works both ways.  You couldn't seem to concede that the proposed rule went too far...even after the DOL has withdrawn the rule in apparent agreement.  I'll admit to my hard headedness on some of these issues.  But we all have to be able to discuss facts and not lower debate to personal insult.

[Adam W]

FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[Adam W]

It's also worth noting that anarchism is, in most cases, a far-left ideology. That's why "libertarian socialism" is synonymous with anarchism. In fact, until the mid to late 20th century when the wackos in the Libertarian Party stole the word, "libertarian" traditionally meant anarchist.

[NotNow]

It is against our rules to call other posters liars directly.  If this has occurred, please point out the post so that it can be amended

Read the thread.

[Ocklawaha]

FACT: National socialism, fascism, socialism and communism are kissing cousins. In spite of the typical headlines about 'Right Wing Nazi's,' the Nazi government was in fact on the far left, as it was simply a different version of socialism. The far right fringes are populated by people that want little or no government, or government control, to the point of anarchy.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Not at all. I said I simply disagree with the labels. As Stephen has pointed out, the popular tendency is to label the Nazi's as right wing due to their actions... IE racism, aggression, overt nationalism etc., but sweeping that aside, the governing concept of state controls in national socialism, socialism, fascism and communism is nearly identical. And while their activities might appear on the right, they have very little common ground with a system of less and less government control, assistance or aid. THIS is why the communists supported Hitler in 1933, they were told to support him in order to rid the state of the old 'right wing' conservative types that wanted zero change. They also thought that after Hitler was installed and his government was set up, it would be very easy to slide the state into communism... But again as Stephen would say, "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU?"

In other words, if you can wrap your head around this... For example the 'right' wants no part of Amtrak, mass transit, welfare, food stamps, medical care, etc., all things the 'left' supports. Germany had a state run railroad system, state run mass transit and the equivalent of welfare, food stamps and medical care. A state, no matter how evil, that takes care of its citizens, or its 'preferred citizens' with social programs would just seem to be on the left. No embarrassment, just observations of a historian, MJ is after all a place to discuss ideas and theories.

[bill]

not really

[finehoe]

You couldn't seem to concede that the proposed rule went too far...even after the DOL has withdrawn the rule in apparent agreement.

If you re-read the thread, I never came out for or against the proposed rule.  The problem I had was the misrepresentation of the FACTS, namely the ridiculous assertion that the Federal government was going to ban farm children from doing their chores.  Similarly, we had numerous posters that due to their having been raised on a farm, or having worked on a farm, or once having driven past a farm, proclaimed themselves experts on agricultural labor practices, yet NOT ONCE did any of them state why prohibiting the employment of workers under the age of 18 in nonagricultural occupations in the farm-product raw materials wholesale trade industries like country grain elevators, grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, feed yards, stockyard, livestock exchanges, and livestock auctions not on a farm or used solely by a single farmer would be a bad thing.  All of the "arguments" against consisted of

1) All government regulation in any way, shape or form is bad.
2) Continuing to argue against how the government shouldn't be preventing children from doing their chores, even after it had been definitivly shown that this wasn't the case
3) Silly hypotheticals along the lines of "but what if it's their mother's cousin's half-brother's grandpappy's farm?"

You say we "have to be able to discuss facts" but no facts were ever presented on why this particular rule was a bad thing.

For the record, I did not personally insult anyone.  I called out the original article for spreading an outright lie, and I said that your assertion that this was a new area that the DoL had never entered before was untrue.  And I gave facts to back up both statements.

[NotNow]

And I said if the DOL had prevously regulated this area, then there would be no need for a new proposal, would there? 

Anyway, thanks for the lively debate!

[Ocklawaha]

Not at all. I said I simply disagree with the labels. As Stephen has pointed out, the popular tendency is to label the Nazi's as right wing due to their actions... IE racism, aggression, overt nationalism etc., but sweeping that aside, the governing concept of state controls in national socialism, socialism, fascism and communism is nearly identical. And while their activities might appear on the right, they have very little common ground with a system of less and less government control, assistance or aid. THIS is why the communists supported Hitler in 1933, they were told to support him in order to rid the state of the old 'right wing' conservative types that wanted zero change. They also thought that after Hitler was installed and his government was set up, it would be very easy to slide the state into communism... But again as Stephen would say, "HOW'D THAT WORK OUT FOR YOU?"

In other words, if you can wrap your head around this... For example the 'right' wants no part of Amtrak, mass transit, welfare, food stamps, medical care, etc., all things the 'left' supports. Germany had a state run railroad system, state run mass transit and the equivalent of welfare, food stamps and medical care. A state, no matter how evil, that takes care of its citizens, or its 'preferred citizens' with social programs would just seem to be on the left. No embarrassment, just observations of a historian, MJ is after all a place to discuss ideas and theories.

Meh. 

This is like saying that the confederate and Yankee forces were actually the same thing since they both stood for representative democracy.

In today's milieu, fascism is definitely to the right of the spectrum, and the sight wing is actually advocating to previctorian notions of government, usually under the aegis of radical nationalism

In today's milieu, fascism is definitely to the right of the spectrum, which is what I said before Fine hoe and Adam jumped off the cliff with it.

quote author=Ocklawaha link=topic=14905.msg275982#msg275982 date=1335449619]
If being a liberal is to be on the left, and if being a conservative is to be on the right, then how do these common labels fit? I've always questioned that the extreme right is fascism, and the extreme left socialism or communism, as Fascism and Socialism differ in superficial ways, but are essentially the same. We tend to think of fascism only in terms of Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Peron's Argentina, were all fascist governments. Germany was racist, Italy was not, Spain was not a belligerent nationalist government and Iatly's was. The definition of fascism or socialism is a strong state government that controls property, industrial, commercial enterprises and the affairs of it's people for a supposed greater good.

Did you know for example, that in the German elections of 1933, the communist party ordered it's members to vote for the Nazi's? Why? To defeat 'common enemies.' Could it be that they are not that far apart? Finally if conservatives are the right, the fact that fascism is absolutely opposed to conservatism would seem to shoot the popular 'right wing Nazi' label in the foot. But then I guess who cares about historical or governmental fact when one can always, 'tell the lie often enough to become truth.' I realize these are NOT the popular culture labels, but they would "seem" to be historically correct.

OCKLAWAHA

Just a counter popular culture hypothesis which I think would be fun to research a bit more. We are in general agreement.

[finehoe]

And I said if the DOL had prevously regulated this area, then there would be no need for a new proposal, would there?

"The Department of Labor (Department or DOL) is proposing to
revise the child labor regulations issued pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, which set forth the criteria for the permissible
employment of minors under 18 years of age in agricultural and
nonagricultural occupations. The proposal would implement specific
recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, increase parity between the agricultural and
nonagricultural child labor provisions, and also address other areas
that can be improved, which were identified by the Department's own
enforcement actions. The proposed agricultural revisions would impact
only hired farm workers and in no way compromise the statutory child
labor parental exemption involving children working on farms owned or
operated by their parents.
    In addition, the Department proposes to revise the exemptions which
permit the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds to perform certain
agricultural tasks that would otherwise be prohibited to that age group
after they have successfully completed certain specified training. The
Department is also proposing to update the General Statements of
Interpretation to incorporate all the regulatory changes to the
agricultural child labor provisions made since they were last revised.
    Finally, the Department is proposing to revise its civil money
penalty regulations to incorporate into the regulations the processes
the Department follows when determining both whether to assess a child
labor civil money penalty and the amount of that penalty."

You can't "revise" and "update" something brand new.

Anyway, thanks for the lively debate!

Your welcome!