I don't have first hand knowledge about this research but I would be very interested in hearing from those of you who might know about it. 

In the 1960s (or shortly thereafter) freshman college students were first asked to fill out surveys.  One of the questions was "what do you want to do with your life?  Or what will make you happy."  The purpose of the surveyors seems to have been to ascertain how the new post 60s college experience would improve the lives of individuals.  It was a very large study conducted over decades tracking the same kids.  

The control group were kids enrolled in Christian Colleges.  

The liberal arts students listed their goals in terms of experiences, contributing to the good of humanity (certainly an action), individual freedom etc.  The Christian college kids listed their goals in terms of graduating, getting a job, getting married, having kids.  One of my colleagues examining the data saw that after a couple of decades, by any measure, the kids in the control group were happier and more fulfilled, less suicidal etc.  My colleague published some of that research.

He was denied tenure. 

Mama Toad,

Ivan's argument was fatally flawed.  He (the Grand Inquisitor) argues that the people will only have bread if they give all their bread to the Inquisitor for distribution.  Otherwise they will be in a state of war.

We now know, as free market conservatives, that the only peoples in the world who do have enough bed for everyone are the politically and economically free people.  It is not a distribution problem.  It is a matter of increasing the size of the pie. 

Mama Toad,

People with Downs Syndrome do act.  They act with every smile and every action.  They act out love as an example to others.  

I agree with you that we are all equal as human beings in the eyes of God, but that is like equality before the law.  It does not preclude judgement. 

iWc,

According to Aristotle we are defined by our actions.  We do not define ourselves, we act.  Experience insofar as it is active does not define us.  Passive experiences are an option, but, for the most part they lack what Aristotle would call "seriousness."

In other words, we don't set out to define ourselves.  We do, however judge ourselves.  We should live our lives in daily expectation of the Day of Judgement, because every day is a day of Judgement.  We are responsible for our actions.

I noticed that in today's hearings the repeated theme of the witnesses was that yes, I was the person in authority at the IRS, but no I do not consider myself responsible.  One Congressman responded that even a 25 year old sergeant knows that you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility. 

We don't measure our lives on a single scale.  There can be no single scale because the good is not one monolithic thing.  To believe there is a single scale is to commit what Isaiah Berlin calls the monistic fallacy.  How do you compare a good father to a good artist?  There are probably an infinite number of scales and measurements from different scales cannot be reduced to one scale.  The good is intrinsically multi-dimensional. 

Nevertheless each one of us judges our lives and our decisions all the time.  To judge may be to look out upon your work, your decisions, etc. and be able to say "I believe it is good."  God did that in the six days of the creation.   

Jeff,

I am always delighted to meet another admirer of I. Berlin -- that's Isaiah and not Irving. 

You are correct that we can avoid these issues if we are only considering negative rights.  One problem is that the body politic can not (or will not) distinguish between positive and negative rights.  Look at the Constitution of Japan which we helped write.  Look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights.  Look at the current debates on "rights" to abortion.  We are in fact being asked to fund positive rights and, beyond that, we are being asked to approve of the exercise of these rights with which we do not agree.  

How do we save this distinction in the public discourse?

As a person grounded in both religion and family, I want the state out of marriage and religion, because I believe (based on our history and the first amendment) that that is the only way to preserve both religion and traditional family in the 21st century.  The state's involvement has weakened both.  It has certainly weakened marriage as an institution.  

The person in the middle is the state.  The individual is strengthened and not threatened by religion and family.  The state is weakened by religion, family, civil society, and individualism. 

Dear Fake John Galt,

I know how they view it.  Even if the rich or capitalism do create some poor (which is another argument) the liberal policies also create many poor.  Look at my home town -- Detroit. 

In the Idaho wilderness (where we lived for eight years) a local family had to fight all the way to the supreme court in order to homeschool their children rather than fly them out to a public school for months on end.  That case was, I believed, resolved in the 1950s.  I imagine homeschooling was still technically illegal in some states. 

Herbert, 

If Muslims taught Shaaria at home, I think we would have to accept it provided that they continued to pass the reading, math, standardized tests.  In Oregon, homeschool kids are required to be tested every two years at least in reading and math.   And yes, the same goes for farm kids.  The mandated tests represent the sum total of what the state has a legitimate interest in making kids learn.  I would add a history component, but I shudder to think what the State of Oregon would put in. 

We claim this freedom to educate our kids.  

It would get rid of the problem which automatically penalize (financially or otherwise) people who are legally married.   It would also strengthen the institutions of civil society for which marriage, of one sort or another, is important. 

James of England,

One reason why City College and Cass Tech worked (look at the lists of their alumna) was that they were allowed to accept students purely on the basis of academic achievement. There were other factors but open enrollment (circa 1970)   coincided with the end of these schools. I believe City College in its prime graduated more distinguished alumna than any of the Ivy Leagues.  

Others: The data seems to show that pre-school is at best day care.  There is nothing wrong with day care but it would be much much less expensive if the government and the legal system hadn't started regulating it.  My college couldn't offer pre-school/day care because the insurance premium would have been far higher than all other costs combined. 

Yes, I think that Republicans should take more ownership of public school issues.  I agree, however, that pre school has not been shown to  improve academic performance in the grades. 

As a Republican conservative, I think we should try to focus on those excellent public schools  that have worked in the past.  City College (pre-1965) and Cass Tech in Detroit (pre-1965) come to mind.  Why did they work so well?  Why did they fail?  Can we recreate any of the conditions for their success?   

Blue State:

No, I think what I am doing is separating those two things.  In my world you can have marriages without  (legally binding) contracts and you can have the legally binding contracts without marriage.  If you believe that such contracts are helpful, your church or any number of websites will provide generic forms.  If you have a great many assets then you can afford a lawyer.

Yes issues of money and financial exposure are not spiritually uplifting, but they are problematic.  One problem for many people I know is that they simply cannot afford to get legally married.  This is particularly true if either of the people have been married before and other people have claims on their assets -- even if their first spouses have died.   

Twvolk,

I am not a lawyer and I understand that many people will not want to make such agreements prior to marriage.  Websites and churches will however put together boiler plate agreements and encourage people to think these things through.  They will do so as part of the pre marriage counselling services.  It's a sensible thing to do.  Incidentally, if the default is that the spouse must get a third, that is both a plus and a negative in today's complex world where people are married more than once.  I understand that in other states children have such claims.  That makes marriage, with shared assets, very iffy for second marriages. 

Ed G.  I will try to read the articles and get back to you tomorrow.  

Joseph,

Yes, I would abolish "civil union" as it now exists.  To my way of thinking any two people (which would include friends, siblings etc) could establish some sort of a twosome for purposes of shared expenses, inheritance and survivor rights etc.  

Until relatively recently two people could live in the same house (and often did) without any questions being raised about their sexual orientation.  There was such a thing as friendship and that kind of unquestioned friendship (independent of sex) is one of the casualties of the 1960s.  Now everything is sexualized.  

Until recently unmarried siblings lived together in relationships where one tended to be employed outside the home and the other worked outside the home at most part time.  The "stay-at-home" sibling was disadvantaged with respect to survivor's benefits.

My notion of civil contract would extend those benefits (such as they are) to such couples.   

Fake John Galt,

That is exactly how I envision the range of civil contracts available.  A civil contract is governed by civil law and by the perceived self-interest of the contracting parties.  A marriage should be governed by love and (sanctified) commitment.  It should be a different kind of bond. 

Incidentally, all already existing marriages registered as civil marriages would continue to have that status.  I don't believe the change could or should be retroactive.