Humanities desk
< December 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	January 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 31

Weddings on a Sunday

I've just finished reading Around the World in 80 Days and it mentions not being able to get married on a Sunday. And now that I think of it, I can't remember ever attending a Christian wedding on a Sunday. So, was/is this some sort of custom? Am I suffering from confirmation bias? Is it because priests/ministers/reverends/vicars are too busy with regular services on Sundays that they just don't perform weddings on Sundays? Dismas|^(talk) 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good with searching the archives, but we had this same question here a couple of months ago. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1872, when the story is set, there were a lot of things that were not permitted on a Sunday. In any case, all the churches (in olden days people got married in churches) would have been fully occupied with other services.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site gives information for Church of England weddings in the UK, noting that Sunday weddings are not ruled out but are rare, apparently because ministers - even now - usually have several other services to perform on that day. However, this article points out the number of weddings that took place on 10/10/10, which was a Sunday. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Anglicans were once much more puritanical about what could be done on sundays than now. My father remembers (in the 1920s) not being allowed to play with toys on a Sunday, unless they had a religious significance - a toy Noah's Ark was permitted for example. My guess is that a wedding celebration would not be considered suitable for the Lord's Day - I'll see if I can find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the wedding itself was probably OK, being a religious event itself. The reception, however, is another story. Dancing, singing, and drinking are not exactly favorite activities among religious conservatives. And presumably there will also be people working that day, such as caterers, and that's also forbidden. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. Fogg gets engaged and immediately sends Passepartout to see the minister and arrange a marriage for "tomorrow, Monday". When Passepartout returns, he informs Fogg that the marriage is impossible tomorrow because tomorrow is Sunday. We're not talking about a wedding planned far in advance, that would include a fancy reception; just the opposite. --Anonymous, 09:13 UTC, January 1, 2011.

Well, I was married on a Sunday. We had chosen the Saturday, but the Russian Orthodox priest told us that day was unavailable due to some religious feast. That church is very conservative and quite inflexible in some of its attitudes, compared to some other Christian denominations, but there was no problem at all in being married on a Sunday. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the church was conservative and inflexible, I take it you married a woman that day, then, and not a man ? StuRat (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Yes. I'm not aware of any Christian churches that solemnise same-sex marriages even in countries that permit it, which doesn't include Australia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, this has just been legalised in the UK, and Quakers and Unitarians now carry out such ceremonies, as does Liberal Judaism, which recently became the first religious organisation in the world to publish a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 10:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good news story to start my year off on the right foot. Lovely. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's great news, though I am pleasantly astonished that it was the House of Lords which initiated the idea. Clearly they're not a bunch of elderly white heterosexual British upper-class males as one would expect :) ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 10:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tickled (pink) that the person who instigated the change to permit British Christian churches (and other religious venues) to marry gay people is a Muslim. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Waheed Alli, whose article I've worked on. (London's other gay Muslim Labour politician, Pav Akhtar, may have contributed.) Some of the impetus for the marriage equality bill came from Newington Green Unitarian Church, which also happened to have radicalised Famous Dead Bisexual Mary Wollstonecraft all those years ago. Whether Unitarians and Quakers still count as Christians I leave to others to debate. The Metropolitan Community Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement might be able to say more on whether any unambiguously Christian churches conduct same-sex marriages. It looks like the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto does, for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the United Church of Christ's synod supports gay marriage, though not all its congregations. Unitarian Universalists have supported it for decades, but haven't called themselves "Christian" for some time. The US Episcopalian church is at least on the edge re ssm. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that marriage cannot be restricted to a man and a woman. Gay marriage is legal throughout Canada, so religious establishments that wish to can solemnise marriages. It's not a question of supporting the idea, but of using the right. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Flanders: "The Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman."

Homer Simpson: "If you love your Bible so much, why don't you marry it ? Seriously, if you give me $20, I'd be glad to perform the ceremony." StuRat (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buying a set of pencils for artists

If you buy a set of pencils for artist, composed of whatever number of color pencils, it is highly probable that you run out of a specific color (you could be using green more often than pink). What are you supposed to do after that? Can you buy single matching pencils or do they really expect that you buy the whole set again? Are manufacturers forced to provide single pencils, in the same way that manufacturers are forced to deliver spare parts? Quest09 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High-end pencils are typically available in singles, and a decent art store (commercial link given as example) will stock them thusly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've discovered the real reason for the end of Picasso's Blue Period. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Well, fortunately, he discovered some left over pink pencils. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Types of conservatism

What's the difference between conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary. Unfortunately, the differences are subtle and complex, and labels are simplifications of this complex political ideology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the term conservative really does not refer to an ideology at all, per se. Rather, it's an uneasy alliance of ideologies that don't naturally belong together, but that have had some common enemies for the past fifty or sixty years. In particular libertarian conservatives and social conservatives really don't like each other at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing applies to the word liberal, doesn't it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The popular myth since the mid 1900s, both in the US as well as in most of Europe, is that "conservativism" is the pragmatic and undogmatic opposite of utopian liberal ideologies and has been so since 1789, while the truth is it is actually a very elaborate ideology with some very definite political objectives (as per the conservatism article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That wasn't what I was saying at all. There are lots of ideological conservatives. But conservatism is not an ideology, or at least not a single ideology. It's a coalition among very different ideologies. How long that coalition can hold together is an open question. My hope is "not very long", because I'm aligned with the libertarian side of the conservative movement, and see much more in common with the libertarian left than with the social right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is going to work. The American poor and lower middle class could hardly be convinced to vote for the preservation of economic inequality (as decreed by the omniscient and omnipotent Free Market) without the help of God and tradition. Free Market worship is a cult suited for the elite (economic and intellectual), it just doesn't work for the rest of society; if you have to sell such a deity to the others, it has to have a beard.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are such parties that are politically relevant in some countries, for example the Free Democrats in Germany. Granted, that's in a proportional system; it would be harder here. But in any case all I'm saying is I'd be more comfortable in a party with Bill Maher than in one with Pat Buchanan. Whether that sort of coalition could have electoral success is a question to be answered by experiment. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Want to be confused? Come to Australia. Our major conservative party is called the Liberal Party. Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing strange about that. Among the major Australian parties, they are indeed the most liberal, at least in the classical sense of the word. In a liberal country, it is conservative to be liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify a little: "Reactionary" is basically the opposite of "progressive". What is seen as 'reactionary' and what is seen as 'progressive' depends entirely of the context. 'Reactionary' is almost always used as a pejorative. 'Fascist', in a strict sense, refers to a follower of the Fascist movement as modelled by Mussolini. Nationalism and corporativism are key concepts of fascism. However, today 'fascist' is generally used as a pejorative, generally directed what is perceived as repressive and authoritarian. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It general,

Conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo

Nationalism creates the concept of national identity. Nationalism comes in two broad forms- liberal nationalism and fascism.

Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism which views the nation as an organic entity and the citizens as part of that organic entity (just as the body cells constitute the human body, fascists believe individual citizens collectively compose the organic entity called nation). Thus fascists equate "national interest" with individual rights. In fascist political system, the individual is complete subordinate to the state. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LibertarianWarrior: that's close, but a bit skewed. let's lay out the definitions in historical relation, to see some of the odd ideological bedfellows in this termonology:

Liberal (16th-18th century - often called Classical Liberalism): promotes individual property rights, generally to secure the wealth of individuals from seizure by nobles/aristocrats whose coffers were running dry. this asserted a number of inviolable individual personal rights, and rested in an early form of scientific rationalism. Liberalism developed along two different paths: social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights, and free market capitalism that focused on economic progress through individual competition.
Conservatism (17th-18th century): basically a traditionalist movement that opposed rapid change. early conservatives were environmentalist and elitist, wanting to preserve nature against the ravages of unbridled technology and preserve the social order against the too rapid and too wide dissemination of individual rights. This developed along several lines: environmentalism merged into social liberalism (basically by casting the environment as public good to which all individuals had an equal right); free-market capitalism developed both into industrial/corporate capitalism and (believe it or not) into Marxism; social conservatism re-grounded itself in religion and/or in racial/ethnic/national heritage, the first leading to a slew of morality movements, and the second leading to a number of right-wing political positions
- Side point, for interest: Marxism proper was rapidly absorbed into social liberalism - it's hard to find an academic paper on social justice that does not in some way trace its roots back to Marx - but Marxist derivatives like Socialism were largely absorbed by conservative nationalist movements. Both Stalin and Hitler were leaders of socialist parties, and both went after Communists and Marxists with extreme prejudice.
Reactionaries and revolutionaries are the extremes of these ideologies, wanting to (respectively) preserve or destroy the status quo, by violent means if necessary.
Nationalism (20th century): a form of conservatism that is based in national heritage (or if you like Aldous Huxley can be extended to any form of group identification) which promotes the collective group interests of a purportedly insular and identifiable group. it's explicitly exclusionist, usually elitist, and often reactionary. Nationalism often uses the language of social liberalism - empowering and defending the common man, and the like - it just restricts the application of those principles to members of the group.
Fascism (20th century) is a particularly strong form of nationalism - call it industrial scientific nationalism. unlike garden-variety nationalists, who are pure conservatives (merely wanting to rehabilitate the values of their group), fascists use technological means both to root out problematic elements within the group and to expand their influence and ideology outside the group. Thus, where nationalists are content to identify a problem group rhetorically and call for them to be removed (e.g. the modern US anti-immigrant kerfluffles, or the somewhat dated and racist calls to send African Americans back to Africa), fascists historically applied science to the problem (trying to identify members of the problem group genealogically or genetically and deal with them with industrial efficiency), used mass media to sell their ideology proactively (propaganda and other forms of social manipulation), and then reached out beyond the borders of the group militarily to destroy the "problem" once and for all. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2, you said "social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights". Social liberalism or welfare liberalism is a concept in which state interventionism plays a crucial role (in the form of taxation) and this goes against the concept of sovereignty of the individual. So how does social liberalism focus on expansion of individual rights??? In fact social liberalism is close to social democracy. And free market capitalism do not simply argue for "economic progress through individual competition", they argue something else. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place for this broader discussion. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LibertarianWarrior: in all forms of liberalism (except those that rest on philosophical anarchy), the purpose of the state is to intervene to protect the rights of the individual. Different strains of liberalism present different ideals about how this should be done, depending on what presumptions they make about the state of the world, but the basic idea is universal. even on your end of the spectrum (assuming that the 'Libertarian' part of your name is meaningful), the state exists in a limited form to adjudicate between conflicting interests of different individuals, or possibly to provide communal public goods - such as sewer systems and roadways - that would be difficult to maintain by individuals. Wherever you have the existence of this kind of collective action, you necessarily have some form of taxation or revenue collection - roadways don't get built for free. Most Libertarians I've talked to are not averse to taxation of some sort, so long as there is complete transparency of expenditures and thorough control of the process by the citizenry. They want to be able to get together and say: "We need a road - how much will it cost, how will we divide the cost amongst ourselves, who will we hire to build it...", etc.

Of course, Libertarianism starts with a strict assumption of middle-class (and usually cultural) homogeneity - it's an Adam Smith vision of the world. Libertarianism has no effective mechanisms for coping with impoverished classes, for restricting the actions of exceedingly wealthy individuals or corporate entities, or for coping with disasters. What could Libertarians do about something like the Bhopal disaster (where an exceedingly wealthy corporation accidentally released a toxic chemical that killed thousands of impoverished foreigners and poisoned their land and water for generations)? Would they have a town meeting about it? Liberal ideologies that are concerned about those kinds of problems (social liberalism, welfare liberalism, progressivism, and etc) usually call for stronger government oversight and proactive policies and structures aimed at preventing and alleviating such things. They also usually call for deep public transparency, though they usually accept that these structures will generally act without supervision in the interests of timeliness - e.g. we want FEMA to jump immediately into a natural disaster, and not wait for the public to give it a mandate to do so. The more extensive and independent these kinds of intervention structures become, the more expensive they become, and so budget-centered taxation becomes more of a necessity; we want to give FEMA a regular budget, because we don't want to wait until a disaster strikes before providing FEMA with money. The problem with budget taxation is (again) a transparency problem - the more abstract and opaque the budgeting process becomes, the easier it is for waste and corruption to sneak into the system.

So really, liberal systems (as theory, anyway) all rely on a balancing act: how much of their own wealth and property do individuals want to allocate to collective projects, and how much control over these collective projects (and those allocated funds) do individuals exercise? Libertarians take a very (no pun intended) conservative approach, allocating very little and demanding extensive control; other forms of liberalism are willing to allocate more and allow the people running those collective projects more autonomy. I personally lean more towards the latter approach for pragmatic reasons (libertarianism is too idealistic for my tastes), but I recognize the problems that occur when those collective structures get the bit in their teeth and people lose control over them (which is where the US has been heading for a few decades now...). --Ludwigs2 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a view that a lot of political groupings are negatively motivated, being based on a dislike (sometimes a hatred) of what someone else is or does. One could argue that Conservatives just don't like change. Nationalists don't like foreigners. Fascists don't like anyone. And Reactionaries just want to find someone else to blame, and then fight them because of it. (Don't worry about my possible biases being on display here. I could do the same for other groupings. I'm pretty cynical about all people who feel such simplistic labels are much help. I've just restricted myself to those groupings in the original question for now.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetto Croce once argued (talking strictly about conservatives and liberals) that politics is motivated by aesthetics: conservatives find the world they live in pleasing and don't want it to change, while liberals find an ideal world pleasing and want the real world to change to be more like it. Unfortunately, cynicism is the death of democracy - you have to assume that most people are trying to do the right thing, even if they have a twisted idea of what 'right' means, otherwise there is no possibility of communication and change. so, chin up, eyes forward, love your fellow man, and all that! Or to mix and mangle aphorisms, if you're trying to catch flies, use honey, not vinegar; if you're trying to catch bears, use honey and a club. --Ludwigs2 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, most libertarians I've talked to (which is several, since I am one) advocate private roads. That's not a terribly impractical or idealistic concept, since so many of them exist already and it's kind of the default. (I'm amused to read in that article that two thirds of roads in Sweden are privately managed.) You might have picked a poor example with roads; the really tricky problem is funding the police. Also you seem to have arrived at the idea that the absence of government equals anarchy and therefore all libertarians must be minarchists, but that's not the case; you're probably just struggling to imagine how chaos can be avoided without force. The general idea is to substitute goodwill. The old chestnut, which worked better in the days of the iron curtain, is to point out the conceptual struggle a communist typically has with the idea of a free market - without central management forcing people to do right, how can the correct goods possibly be manufactured? It's mind-boggling! I'll dismount this massive soapbox now though. :) 213.122.67.112 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you will... It may be that Libertarians talk differently to other Libertarians than they do to others, or it may be that the Libertarians I meet are usually academics and have a different perspective on the ideology. None of which really gainsays my point. a few things:

I didn't say that things like private roads were impossible, I said they were difficult to manage. I have a hard time imagining a private individual sponsoring something like Boston's Big Dig. Not just because of the expense, mind you, but I can't imagine why a private individual would do such a thing. as a private effort, it would either be a magnanimous gesture of unbelievable proportions or a profit-making enterprise that would be eminently unlikely ever to show a profit.
If libertarianism were going to work anywhere, it would work in Sweden. Sweden is (if I recall correctly) culturally and racially homogenous, largely middle class (with very little entrenched poverty), and highly socially liberal (strong emphasis on fair and equal treatment for all citizens). note however that Sweden actually has phenomenally high tax rates.
- For comparison, consider cities in the US south east during Jim Crow. It would not be uncommon to start in the heart of a bustling modern city like Memphis or Atlanta and find yourself in hard-packed dirt roads and squalid conditions when you crossed over into African-American sections. Privatization would entrench differential treatment of that sort (unless you also assume that all citizens are broad-thinking, moral, and highly egalitarian)
I understand philosophical anarchy perfectly well (including the Libertarian variety). I understand that the ideology wants to replace political/governmental bonds with social bonds, encouraging a sort of 'family-feeling' among citizens so that they interact with each other in pleasant, pro-social ways. I like the ideal, but I believe it is an incredibly naive set of assumptions, even under the best circumstances possible. I only need to point to a recent occurrence I read about to make my point: a woman who (on Christmas eve) picked up the family Christmas tree and attacked her parents with it. go family-feeling!
Please don't present the US-standard high-school level, anti-communist strawman argument as though it's what Marxists (or etc.) actually think. In fact, If one reads Marx carefully, it's evident that Marx is not actually anti-capitalist; he's against class-driven capitalism. hopefully you understand the distinction.

I don't want to get into an argument about Libertarianism (or Marxism) here. I'm not actually anti-Libertarian, and I respect the fact that Libertarians are generally more politically thoughtful than the rest of the US population. If you'd like to continue this, lets do it on my talk page so we don't hijack this thread any more than we already have. --Ludwigs2 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Marxism?

Ludwigs, not sure I do understand the distinction between anti-capitalism and anti class-driven capitalism. Marx wanted to see the advent of "the society of associated producers". That wouldn't be capitalist? Might be libertarian in some sense.... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep in mind that what follows is my own OR. Marx obviously read both Smith and Locke (not just because any scholar of his day would have, but because you can see traces of Both in Marx' work). Marx' early work is largely a critique of a particular (then dominant) form of capitalism, rather than a refutation of capitalism outright. if I can put his argument in a nutshell, it runs something like this:

Goods have an intrinsic value based in the amount of labor required to make them (labor-value)
Changes in production form (including technology and different forms of social organization), can have an impact on labor-value.
Capitalism has evolved to a form (industrial capitalism) where a small portion of the population (the capitalist class) controls highly efficient production means.
- Highly efficient production means are expensive, and require the investment of large amount of capital - free wealth that is spent in expectation of future gains
This capital is accumulated and recouped by the collection of surplus labor-value: basically, where a laborer could previously invest X amount of effort to produce a single good using his own tools, he can now produce Q goods of the same type with the same amount of effort using the capitalist-owned production system. the laborer then gets paid some value greater than the value of one good and less than the value of Q goods, the surplus goes to the capitalist, and everyone is (for the moment) happy.
Problems arise because the capitalists see themselves as a social class, and see the laborers as a resource
- capitalists constantly try to improve their standing in their class
- therefore they constantly try to increase their portion of the surplus labor value
- therefore (among other cost-cutting efforts) they constantly reduce the potion of the surplus labor-value that goes to laborers
Eventually, laborers collectively receive less than they would have would have under the previous less efficient means of production, to the point where they are required to work full time just to make a subsistence living.
When it gets worse than that, you'll have bloodshed - few people starve to death gracefully.

Marx' critique was really in the nature of "Let's not let it get to that point, shall we?" He really wanted to find some balance between Smith's free-market capitalism (the original "society of associated producers") and the obvious productive power of corporate entities (Smith, incidentally, railed against corporations as destructive forces as well - I always found that interesting). Marx' idea - vaguely, because he never developed it fully - was to somehow remove the class distinction between the capitalists and the laborers, so that social forces would guarantee that the surplus labor-value of high-efficiency production was never exploited the way it would be in truly degenerate forms of capitalism.

The problems that Marxism has suffered all stem from that fact that most of his followers forgot all about the capital/labor-value/efficiency aspect of the theory and focused purely on the social class issue - it boiled down in most people's minds to various means of ridding the world of an oppressive super-class. Even Marx fell into that trap for a while - if you read the 18th brumaire you'll see that it's mostly a description of the socio-political manipulations that the old French ruling class used to transform itself into the new French ruling class and subvert the democratic intent of the populace. So, a warning about the inevitability of revolution in a degenerate system got twisted into a call for immediate revolution against the current system, and everything went to hell in a handbasket.

I'm actually surprised that Libertarians don't use Marx more frequently - Marx could be used to give a brilliant analysis of (for instance) the mortgage crisis and subsequent events in the US that would highlight some of the problems with big government and its relationship with big business. but... their loss.

--Ludwigs2 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this interpretation can be reached by "reading Marx carefully". Rather, one can arrive at it by carefully ignoring almost everything Marx actually wrote and then applying one's gift of telepathy + time travel in order to establish what Marx was really thinking despite writing, in some cases, the exact opposite.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many 'types of Marxism'. Ludwig's version, however, isn't one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Marx and get back to me on that. That was (for the most part) straight from Capital, with (as I pointed out at the start) a bit of inductive reasoning and opining near the end. Capital is freely available online, along with many of Marx' other writings; I'll find a link to good translations for you if you'd like me to.

I don't mind running a mini-seminar in Marxist theory if it comes to that - it's not really my specialty, but I can do it justice. But don't argue with me from the perspectives found in threadbare punditry. If you think something I said is wrong please counter it analytically, with proper referents and clear arguments, so we can have a decent discussion. anything less than that, don't bother - it will just annoy me and embarrass you.

I swear, no one ever learns on Wikipedia... --Ludwigs2 03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the sub-thread in order to learn more, and indeed I have learnt something, even if others haven't. I liked the idea that the "society of associated producers" can be found in Smith. I'll go back to Smith to look at that, because I agree with Ludwigs' implication that Smith is often read wrongly. Specifically, he is not read in the context of the contemporary debate on the reform of English (not Scottish) social welfare (Poor Law). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth of Nations is an over-detailed tome, and you should really skim it rather then try to slog your way through the full text (unless you like that kind of thing, of course). I find Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments much more useful - it's more philosophical, and you get a better sense of where he was coming from intellectually. just my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 13:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Oxford World Classics abridged edition of WoN, which has material from all the volumes, and a great introduction by Kathryn Sutherland. I do want to read the whole thing though, or at least dip into some lesser known bits. I also read ToMS, useful to read it alongside Locke. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

immigration

Wikipedia gave me approximate answers to the question of how many legal immigrants the U.S. has yearly, but I would like to know what the average length of time is for a person who applies for legal immigrant status to be granted it. What are the conditions to be granted immigrant status? I know there is a lottery for a green card (friends from Holland have tried for 3 years) so is it purely luck or can you "wait in line" and eventually get to immigrate? I believe quotas by region of the world have been eliminated. Is that still true? Thank you.75.15.87.165 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at any US government websites on the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question about the average length is maybe impossible to answer, since many people might try it one year and again in 5 years and others, might try it once and get it.

The conditions are very diverse, so you'll have to check the US gov. web-page. There are several routes: to marry, to invest, to study, to work (for a company that sponsors you), to take part on a working holiday program.

Some countries are excluded from the lottery, so it is not only luck. If you don't have a high-school diploma, you are also excluded. Equally excluded are all those which do not have the means for immigrating and covering their own expenses. Quest09 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "length of time" depends very much on under what conditions the alien applies for (or, more often, is sponsored for) lawful permanent residence, and in some cases also on his nationality. Various categories of migrants are outlined in the article Permanent residence (United States), complete with the typical "visa backlog" times. The data are based on the US State Department regularly publishes Visa Bulletin, which states the current priority dates for various categories of employment-based and family-based migrants. The current bulletin's numbers are summarized here. As you can see, there is no visa backlog per se for, e.g. the immediate relatives (spouses and minor children) of US citizen, or the 1st ("extraordinary ability") employment-based category. Meanwhile, say, for the 3rd (general skilled) EB category, it is people whose applications were approved in 2002-2005 who may be receiving their immigrant visas or green cards today; for, for example. Philippine citizens who applied in the 4th family-based category (brothers and sisters of US citizens), the current "priority date" is stated as 1-01-88, meaning that applicants whose application was approved in 1988 are now eligible to receive their visas. This is because there are, presumably, lots more Filipinos with siblings in the US than the quota set for that category.

Of course, the visa waiting times (backlog) set in the Visa Bulletin is only part of the story. For the EB categories, typically, it would make little sense for an employer to spend time and money sponsoring a person for permanent residence unless he is already working for them (on a non-immigrant visa). So a somewhat typical timeline preceding permanent residence may be like this:

A foreigner spends a few years in the US on a student visa (e.g. F visa), gets a bachelor's or master's degree, and gets hired by a US company upon graduation.
S/he works for a US employer under the "practical training" provisions of the student visa (something like 12 or 18 months after graduation).
That time gives the employer an opportunity to sponsor the employee for a long-term employment permit, such as H-1(b) status. That is still a "non-immigrant visa", meaning that it only authorizes limited stay (normally, up to 6 years in total). but it has a "dual intent" provision (i.e., the fact that the person is being sponsored for PR at the same time is not an impediment for him having the H non-immigrant status). An alternative situation is the L-1 visa, available to people who initially worked for a multinational company's foreign office and then were transferred to the US.
Based on the need to retain the foreign worker permanently, and the eligibility under various legal criteria (such as the ability to "prove" that they "cannot" find a suitable US worker for the job), the employer may sponsor the alien for permanent residence. This is a major commitment (total costs usually way over US $10K), and involved a number of fairly lengthy legal steps. The process may perhaps be accomplished as fast as in a year or two, but in practice takes significantly longer; this is why the law has special provisions for e.g. extending the H status beyond the normal 6 year maximum for persons whose PR application is in progress, but a visa number is not available yet.

-- Vmenkov (talk)