You know what, in the end, all of this starts to sound to me like
justifications of selfishness.
You want all the liberty, all the freedom - and to hell with anyone or
anything that isn't part of your personal nuclear family/property.
Part of living in even a minimally-civilized society is sharing certain
burdens, one of which is paying at least some *minimal* attention to the
well-being and education of children. So what if their parents are
f*ckheads - that isn't the *kids'* fault, and I don't mind paying to help
kids *as long as that's what's being done*.
Frankly, after a while, all of the "rights don't mean responsibilities to
anyone" arguments strike me as being ethically hollow. All that's done
is a continual harping upon the current system, and even when someone
tries to suggest other ways, it always comes back to that same string.
I don;t know how many times a person can say "the current system needs to
be replaced". Of course, it never will be, because most people can't get
their minds up above the morass to even *consider* alternate ideas. It's
just harp, harp, harp.
Blame the parents, fine, f*ck 'em, right? And even though it's not a
child's fault that a couple of sh*theads refused to use birth contriol,
well f*ck the kids, too, right? F*ck any ideas, f*ck *anything* and
*everything* that might require a few sheckels from your pocket, right?
Basically, you want to have your cake, and eat it, too. Except that a
just society concerned with liberty does not simply appear out of nowhere
- if you let sh*theads and a-holes bring kids into the world and do
nothing to even *try* to help those kids learn a better way, don't whine
when the kids grow up to be theives and beggers because "it was their
parents' responsibility to educate them", even tho' the parents weren't
even capable of managing their own lives, never mind adequately rear (and
educate) a child.
You talk and talk about "teaching people better" - well, where is that
supposed to begin? If the parents don't know any better, or don't give a
damn, *how* the hell are the kids supposed to learn when they're being
forced to scratch out a living in the gutter so to speak, because Gawd
Forbid anyone actually <GASP!> PAY for teachers or anything.
And no, don't start in on that same old fraying string about teh current
system - I must have said a hundred times that it needs to be replaced.
But you refuse to even consider that - all you do is harp on how your
property is your property and tough nuts if some kids have shitheads for
parents because it sin't your business, ain't your responsibility, and
you don't give a flying fart. Sorry but that is exactly how it comes
across. It sounds exactly like the "justifications" of tyrants who run
Sorry, but I don't accept that "to hell with the kids if their parents
can't be bothered educating them" is part of the ideals or philosophies
that formed the basis for trying to form a nation which valued the
individual. And that's another thing - you all yammer and blither about
valuing the individual - but that bus stops short, tires screaming in a
cloud of black smoke, the *instant* that a few coins might have to come
out of your pocket so as to educate kids so that they can learn there is
a wide world out there and they have a right to claim their place in it.
And for the 110th time at least, no I am not an apologist for the current
bureaucracy, but I *am* a proponent of education.
I think you need to see that there are two ways of looking at the issue.
1) I am required, by the use of force, to "help" others. I have little
say in who, what or how I'm going to help. Nor do I have any ability to
ensure that my "contribution" will be used efficiently and/or
effectively. If I don't "help", my property is taken from me, by force.
I have no recourse, no appeal and no way to rectify the problem.
2) I give, of my own choice, to those who need help. I can be sure
that my help is used efficiently and effectively. I know that it will
be used to help those truly needing the help, and not those who are
working the system, lazy or simply take it because it's available.
There are those that argue there aren't enough people who will do #2, so
we must do #1. I am convinced that by doing #1, in *any* degree will
dissuade many from doing #2. I also know that if #2 was the only
option, we would be in no worse situation with regard to the number of
people requiring help and be in a better situation with regard to the
economic circumstances of everybody in general.
The only successful long-term answer is to eliminate all forms of
government welfare and provide it privately. Those who say it's not
possible simply want to shift the guilt, and the burden, to somebody
else. YOU should pay to help him, rather than, I will pay to help him.
Government social programs are now, and always have been, a way to
make yourself feel better buy stealing somebody's money to give a little
of it to somebody else.
I have not and will not argue that I don't have a personal moral
obligation to help those in need. I will argue until I die that nobody
has the right to take my money without my consent regardless of how
noble the purpose might be.
Voting isn't in the same category. Tyranny of the masses is no
different than the tyranny of a dictator. Just because "everyone"
agrees to steal from the rich guy doesn't mean it's moral. It just
means everyone has lost their morals.
It also means that people have, because of indoctrination, poor
reasoning and emotional manipulation, lost their ability to understand
the proper role and function of governments. Governments have changed
from protecting and defending rights to pandering to the wants of the
masses. Once government has moved to giving away money and power, it
ceases to be a government that will protect rights. It becomes
something different where favors are traded for power and money. If the
government had no welfare system--and it wasn't possible for it have
one--then what would the politicians be about? Today its all about how
much the government can give away. That money comes at a price--votes,
favors, whatever. In order to have any influence, you have to buy your
way in (and it's not always money that is the price).
I wholeheartedly disagree. In the past, "we" were conned into thinking
taking money and redistributing it is "worth paying for". Yet nothing
has changed. We're not better off, we're worse off. There are the same
number of poor and the amount of money taken is ever increasing.
I don't think we allowed ourselves to be taxes as much as we fooled
ourselves into thinking somebody else would be taxed and that's OK with
me because it won't affect me personally. We allowed ourselves to be
fooled into thinking that 1 or 2% of our income is a reasonable amount,
not realizing that we'd let the horse out of the barn (or a better
analogy, we poked a small hole in the dike to get a drink of water, not
realizing that the force of water would eventually erode away the entire
Do you not have any sense of history? The first "public" schools were
created by groups of families getting together to provide a space for
their children to learn and then paying the teacher. Most people knew
that they didn't have the time, ability or education to do it properly.
They created a "public" school...without "government" involvement.
Unfortunately, that has grown into a monster that is more about the
educational system than it is about education. This system insists that
we must pour more money into it every year, and we turn a blind eye to
the abysmal results. When did the changes take place? Not at once, but
slowly as governments got involved--imposing standards, rules, whatever
in exchange for money. Again, trading favors for power & money. Once
that happened, the education system became about the system, not about
So, no "education" isn't welfare, but our current system isn't
"education". How would I change it? Cut all federal funds (returning
them to the tax payers) and make the local groups responsible educating
the kids. There isn't "fairness" now, so let's stop pretending and just
have a system that is the natural outgrowth of individual families
banding together. It was this system that created the vast wealth and
prosperity of the country. Clearly, the current system is taking us in
the opposite direction.
Federal involvement in the education system is simply unconstitutional.
First, I don't consent by living here. I disagree and acquiesce
(because to protest illegal taxation is a sure ticket to incarceration).
I fight against it (quite unsuccessfully because most people have
stuck their heads in the sand). The voters no longer have any choice in
being taxed or not. The system is stacked against putting people into
office that can't be bought. People trade money for access and favors.
It's not a reasonably "free" system anymore. I vote--and I never vote
for an incumbent when given the choice. So you cannot tell me I consent.
Second, and more importantly, there isn't a place left on the planet
that hasn't been contaminated by this socialist stupidity. Everywhere
on earth people have been convinced that taking from the "rich" will
make their lives better, never considering that it simply gets rid of
the rich giving everyone the opportunity to remain poor. There cannot
be success if failure doesn't exist.
There have been several studies that show people would rather make more
money than their neighbors than be equally wealthy. It is human nature
that we're fighting against. I admire and marvel at those who can "make
it" and have no jealously of them, just enough envy to want to figure it
out. Unfortunately, I've met many people who would rather see the rich
guy torn down even it means their position in life doesn't improve.
This is what socialism, in any degree, causes--misery distributed as
broadly as possible. When we are forced to be "charitable", we are not.
We become resentful of those who have more to be taken from, resentful
of those who receive the charity and more poor ourselves. When we give
of our own will none of those things follow. Instead, we're more
grateful for what we have, realize we could probably live with less, and
may are even more motivated to be successful so they can help more people.
Why not spend this week reading the Federalist Papers
(http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18 ) and get a better understanding of
the proper role and functions of government. It's just a little more
education--and free at that...
Ok, since you feel that way, you and Don can go form a nation somewhere
where you'll all be moral.
How can you say we are not better off? The way people lived before public
education wouldn't even be conceivable to us now. I would love to see some
statistics comparing the number of poor in 1850 to now, but I don't know how
you could, since the definition of "poor" has changed so radically. The
number of people who actually don't have enough to eat most days is almost
I'd agree with you that there is far too much waste. However, you live in a
country which, like most countries, has decided that taxes at some level are
necessary to support services we consider essential.
Which was capable of producing at best an eighth grade education. Do YOU
not have a sense of history?
OK, obviously you don't have a sense of history. The United States was a
complete backwater by world standards until about 1940 or so. Most people
were barely scraping by until about 1910 at least. Both of these dates were
well after the institution of the public education system.
Yet, oddly, many of the founding fathers, notably Jefferson, advocated it.
If they had intended that it be unconstitutional, don't you think they'd
have advocated AGAINST it?
Yet you drive on roads paid for by taxpayer money, use subsidized
electricity, etc. You actually do have a choice as to whether to pay taxes,
even if you don't choose to go off with Don and found your own nation. It
is completely possible to live a decent life on an income so low that not
only do you not pay taxes, you get a tax credit back. And I'm not talking
about welfare. I'm talking about simply arranging your life so it is not
very expensive. Most of us find that inconvenient to do, so we _do_ consent
to be taxed.
I suspect you can find an island somewhere that is uninhabited. Maybe you
could take a cruise to New Zealand and mutiny near the Pitcair Islands...
You know, I know many people who both pay taxes and contibute to charity.
Render to Caesar and all that.
No, I think you are missing the point. I *know* there are many ways of
looking at an issue - I'm not an idiot, for petesakes. I have thought,
and continue to think, a lot about issues of rights and
responsibilities, and I hold to my conclusion that rights mean nothing
if they do not apply to everyone, including children (rights such as the
right to live and the right to not be harmed). Opportunity is great,
but it is maximized when all children have a chance to learn/be taught
the things which allow them to both see, and then hopefully take
advantage of, opportunity.
FIrstly, it's obvious, or at least it ought to be so, that I've been
talking about basic issues, *NOT* merely describing a specific status
quo. I've said about 100 times that the status quo is morinic and IMO
untenable over the long term. Yet here you go once again about how
pissed you are because you are forced to pay taxes. What, you think I
don't have to pay them? THis household pays a *hell* of a lot in tax
money. I don't like it, either.
But that is a far cry from saying that innocent children should be
neglected, kept ignorant, etc., because it's "nobody else's business"
that some people who have kids are stupid a-holes.
I've been talking about the *issue* - i.e., theoretically re: ethics -
and *not* the status quo regarding education. My personal conclusions
remain that denying children eduucation, i.e. keeping the child
illiterate and innumerate, is abusive because, given the facts of human
psychology, it condemns the vast majority to an unfulfilled, and often
miserable, life, and of more interest to you, very often a life of crime
that can inmpact your property and personal safety.
Nothing wrong with that. VOlunteerism is a great thing, IMO.
*****I am not talking about welfare!!!*****
How many times do Ihave to say that? Once again: people who
abuse/neglect their kids have no right to those kids. THe kids should
be taken away and adopted out, period, and no reversals of any such
adoption. In a nutshell, it has to be a choice between kids, *OR*
crack. There shoule have *nver* been an option to simply, without
question, hand non-working people more money every time they pop out a
kid - after all, *working* people have to live withing their means, and
do not get extra money simply for having another kid. If you can't
afford to take care of the kids, adopt them out to people who will see
to it that the children *do* get an education, a chance at the
proverbial brass ring, a chance to live a decent life.
SO don't imply that I'm talking about socialism - it's insulting and
nowhere near the truth, totally misses the point, which is, education so
as to *minimize* welfare - which IMO is evil becasue of what it has done
to families (by rewarding broken homes) and because of what ti continues
to do to people.
And what the bloody damn bleep does that have to do with trying to
ensure that all kids - who are not responsible for what their parents
dis/do - have a shot at learning to read, write, and do basic math?
See my post to Don re: the question "What if you live in a community
which, through a direct democratic process, votes to have a school so
that *all* the kids in the community have a chance to learn the things
which are nnecessary for them to be employed, and seek
self-fulfillment/happiness?" If you vote against it, but 90% of the
community votes for it, well, you can either pay, or move, but if you
refuse to support the democratic process, you cannot claim to favor
democracy. OTOH there was someone who recently said (wish I could
recall who...) that "everyone favors democracy when things go their
way". THe true test is what people do when they're the minority vote.
And, *yet again*, just to be clear, I am talkng about the fundamental
ethics that IMO ought to be one of the foundational principles of public
service, NOT describing the current clown-college/collage that is
passing itse;f off as "the government".
That's not what I'm saying - unless you think that all and any decision
made by any communnity via a democratic (i.e. majority) vote is always
completely abhorrent and wrong and to be dispensed with.
The solution is everything is - what? Dispense with any semblance of
community? I'm trying to discern the political philosophy here, the
fundamental ethics. You seem to be saying that the *only* ethic is "I've
got mine!" The problem is that it's not fundamentally practical, nuless
you live in a cabin out somewhere and make all of your own stuff. The
moment you even trade a fur pelt for a steel axe, tho', you're interactic
with others. What is the basis for agreement as to what will be traded?
If ther is no comprimise, the other person might demand 10 pelts for a
sewing needle, or you can demand the steel axe for a squirrel tail.
The point is that trade is one of the most basic/simplest forms fo
community, and it requires comprimise - there has to be some reasonable
basis for deciding the worth of the items to be traded.
A village is far more complex. All sorts of comprimises have to be made,
but people live in villages because the practical benefits outweigh the
annoyances of the comprimises. So how do you rpopose a village decide
upon anything? How does the village decide when to hunt, or when to
harvest berries, or perhaps plant soem crop or another? What if teh
decision of the majority is that every hosuehold in the village has to
contribute some of its grain/seeds to planting the crop? Is that
"theft", even when every household derives some sort of benefit -
including the really poor family at the edge of the village, where the
father died and the woman and her kids can't hunt effctively or work at
gathering or planting as effectively, so they have no more grain/seeds to
contribute to the planting?
If democracy is evil becuase the majority overrides the individual, what
should the decision-making process be? What if the village decides one
person is a pain in the ass because of continually refusing to go along
with the majority decision, and decides to either kick that person out,
or shun that person - meaning, no contact, including trade? How
practical, at that point, is individuality?
Part of the village ethic in most places has been that, if one family
gets extra help this year, it just moght be one's own family who needs,
and receives, some extra help next year. A bit of history: the Russian
peasantry, before teh Bolshieviks took over in 1917, had a system wherein
plots of land were owned by the village, no by any individual, and what
they would do would be to rotate the plots so that no one family would be
stuck all teh time with a poorly-producing plot; when the harvest came
in, the family with the crappy plot would receive a portion from the
Was that "theft"?
When the Soviet Union was formed (i.e. when the whole thing became
socialized), all plots were joined together and farmed in the "modern"
industrial manner - then all teh grain was taken by the gov.t and
supposedly "redistributed". Literally millions of peasant (land-workers)
starved; I think it was something like 20 million - and IIRC, it was
Stalin who said somethig to the effect of: "One death is a tragedy; a
million deaths are a statistic".
That is definitely theft.
What I have been talking about, **with education**, i.e. one specific
thing, is moer along the lines of the Russan peasant-village idea, where
a community agrees that, for some things, the community benefits when it
functions as a whole.
Is that theft?
Oh, but sorry, I'm just a stupid moronic "dead weight" product of the
public schools, incapable of thinking, so I guess it's just idiotic of me
to even dream up any sort of theoretical questions like that...
I have to say that learning to follow orders is an important skill. In
probably 70% of all jobs, that is at least as important as reading, math,
etc. For life outside work, one also needs to be able to think critically.
However, the main purpose of the educational system is to create good
workers, so training students to take order is a good thing. I think the
educational system is not perfect by any means, but I think it's a good idea
to have the school system at least expose children with the ideas of good
manners and respect for authority.
It's up to parents to teach children when and how to question authority.
The educational system at its root is to allow the student to become
employable (and so not starve).
If you look historically, though, few people could read or do math AT ALL,
and thinking was a luxury for the rich. Is our educational system as good
as it could or should be? Of course not! But completely eliminating it, as
Don suggests, is not the answer. Unless of course it died a natural death
due to people finding better ways to ensure all children get educated.
Foloowing directions is not the same thing as following orders.
Directions exist for a reason. Orders fome from an assumption of
authority which demands unquestioning obedience.
Education should be about much more than training good workers - it
should help establish a framework one can use to achieve self-
fulfillment, self-actualization. If all you want to do is train workers,
don't bother with education, jsut send the kids to work as soon as they
can do something, like knot carpets.
Oh, but wait, that'd be child labor. Well, if all that matters is "good
workers", why is child labor a bad thing?
I think it is a disaster for a great many kids.
A lot of "authority" is false; most people "in authority" are idiots.
What one needs to learn, in the current culture, which I never did BTW
since I lack sufficient social instincts, is how to *suck up to*
authority. Following "authority" blindly is not a good habit - liberty,
freedom, and democracy demand far more than that.
Good manners...? Good manners are rooted in civility, which in turn is
rooted in at least some minimal level of empathy for others. Good
manners are, in essence, not a set of rules, but rather, a way of giving
consideration to, being considerate of, others. Rules change from place
to place, so the rules of one place are irrelevant to the rules of
another - but civility, consideration, allow one to *adapt*, as opposed
to merely memorizing sets of rules.
And *adapting* is the important thing. Obedience does not teach one to
adapt, nor do rules, nor does blind obedience to those who claim
Good little worker bees, unquestioning, comfortable in their assigned
Replace, not eliminate. For one thing, chuck the bureaucrats, and let
teachers *teach*. And if soem cannot actually teach, can 'em and get
people who *can* teach.
Sometimes you have to do something you know to be stupid because that is the
way it is. And I don't think it hurts anyone to at least be familiar with
If a worker can only knot carpets, he/she is not a good worker in the
current climate. One of the many reasons child labor is a bad thing is that
it does not provide sufficient time for a child to learn the skills to be
Some. I wouldn't say even the majority.
Knowing when to keep your head down and not make waves is a very valuable
skill in an employee. If you do it because you were taught just to follow
authority blindly or if you do it because you have learned that sometimes
you just have to suck it up and do stupid stuff, the actual behavior is the
smae. And the older I get, the more times I look back and see times I was
_so sure_ I was right where, if I'd been able/allowed to do what I thought
was right it would have been a total disaster.
Do you really think you're happier because you haven't learned when to "go
with the flow"?
Good manners in children largely consists of respecting adults.
If the situation you need to adapt to is a job where you are expected to act
within rules, absolutely obedience is a very good adaptation. By your own
admission you are maladapted in this regard, so you don't really have much
to say about it.
If their parents don't provide them any framework for questioning authority,
yes, that is what you get. But the vast majority of people are happier that
way, just as many people are uncomfortable with the idea of international
Don has not suggested replacing the current system with anything that would
guarantee at least minimal education to all children.
Uh, sorry, but that makes no sense, unless you can come up with a
reasonable (emphasis on reasonable) example.
A lot of jobs are dull and boring, especially in retail, where a vast
amount of time is wasted neatening up after dooflollies who tear theorugh
everything and fling stuff around like spolied toddlers flinging toys.
But that's not a matter of "stupid orders", it's a amtter of "a lot of
people are jerks, but in order forthe shop to make sales and, in turn,
keep one's job, customers still have to be able to see the wares and they
also still want to see a neat and attractive display". IOW, that's just
business. Not at all thesame as just following a stupid order because
some little lavatory Napolean likes to assert their pee-drip bit of
There is no end of people who claim authority, and then use it to
"order" people to do things, which people do, even against their own
better instincts, *merely* because someone in "authority" told them to do
it. Most "authority" is basically bogus, anyway.
Only when one adds to that the reason behind the concept. In the
military, people have to learn to respond without thought, i.e on
"instinct", because the assumption is that the commander is trying to
achieve an objective while also trying to lose as few troops as possible.
And if one is a member of an orchestra, one has to be jsut that, a partof
a larger entity, and not just go off a start noodling in the middle of a
By and large, however, I'd say that the vast majority of mere "orders"
(as opposed to directions/instructions describing a process) are stupid,
Uh, I was being sarcastic :p
((At teh same time, if someone is intellectually handicapped, they often
excell at repetitive tasks and can sometimes reach a craftsman level. It
all depends upon the individual ;) ))
Happy? Not in my younger years - but it had nothing to do with getting
educated; it was due to (1) being *kept from* the education that would
have benefitted me (I had a very high IQ score in high school, and top
10% scores in several aptitudes, top 0.1% in spatial relations - but when
people choose to believe you're a stupid ditz, mere facts, mere test
scores, cannot change their chosen delusions), and (2) the Asperger's,
which is, in a nutshell, a from of 'social handicap' so to speak - I
didn't learn to "keep my head down" as you put it, because, despite
having a theoretical grasp of psychology, I've never been able to "read"
people; dealing with people in person is a lot like going to see a movie
in a foreign language: you see people doing things, see their faces
change, but there is no context, no meaning to it, it is inscrutible. To
know when to "put your head down", you have to have enough "social
instinct" to realize when people are gunning for you. I've never been
manipulative or inherently dishonest - I *could/can* be, but it's a waste
of time to me and distracts time and energy and "brain RAM" from doing
things that are more interesting and more constructive.
At the same time, when I stick to doing what I have analysed as being
right, I've always been happiest, because I know at those times that I
did not simply whore myself out to some a-hole's petty meanness or petty
So, yes, all in all, I *am* happier for not having merely
"gone with the flow" as you put it, or as I put it, jum,p over cliffs
with other groups of lemmings. It's also led to a greater degree of
financial security than for most of my former so-called "peers", a.k.a.
I maintain that it's a matter of consideration. Respect *is* an offshoot
of consideration, because it means having at least soem modicum of
empathy for others. ((Y'all prob. like to believe I'm a just a mean old
misanthropic cynical fart, but I'm actually quite civil to others in my
dealings, and when I am out and about, I generally make a lot fo folks
laugh becuase I try to be kind to people and make little jokes - and it i
ssatisfying to bring a littel laughter into someopne's day, since so many
people *are* miserable and mean.))
Respect is *not* the same thing as "shut the f*ck up and do like I tell
you"; at least, that never worked for me, ebcause punishments had less of
an impact upon me than did merely sucking up, because sucking up meade me
lose respect for myself. Nope, my female chromosome donor could wail
into me with belts and sticks 'till teh cows came home; but with my Dad,
whom I respected, all he had to do was give em a certain look that
expressed disappointment, and I'd be heartbroken. So no, respect is not
Now, if you're talking aboout kids in the infant to toddler range, of
course they have not yet developed the mental/intellectual ability to
understand such concepts, but after even a young age, they understand at
least the *basics* of empathy - and thus, respect, because part of
respect is the desire to not hurt others if one can avoid it. SO, for
example, I might not *like* this neighbor or that, but that does nto mean
I want to harm them. It's nto a matter of "fear" or whatever; I merely
have an aversion to causing unnecessary harm - the exception being, of
course, if I am, or any of my loved ones is, attacked.
Sez who? How can you be so sure that this "happiness" is not merely a
case of not knowing wny better? Nasd how do you define happiness? What
you posit is perhaps a description of the current state for the majority,
but I reject the idea that it's *any* sort of ideal. I also am not
convinced that it *is* an entirely accurate description of the status quo
- in fact, I suspect that a lot fo people are miserable becaus ethey
*don't know how to stop being sheep - c.f. "anorexia/bulemia", for
example. How many people suffer because they feel they have no choice
except to be and do what others tell them to?
Most people like to be part of a community, yes; most people prefer to
not have to make weighty desicions, yes. But happier because they don't
know how to be themselves, be an individual? Bull.
So what? I don't care - I wasn't talking about what Don said; I was
talking about my own views, not his.
I merely suggest that all children should be able to receive the goods, so
I do not think it is ethical that children be foreced to suffer for things
they've had no hand in - people have children, and iMO, if they aren't
going to be responsible for providing for theose children, the children
shouldbe given *permanently* to people who will, i.e. none of this crap
about giving the children back, tearing them away from the homes/parents
they've known so as to hand them back to some whining louse. Poeple are
so concerned with the right to have kids, and precious few give one iota of
a rat's arse about the *children*.
I personally do not think (based upon what I've observed for the past few
decades) that mass-schooling works at all as well as mass-transit. Mass-
production is OK for toasters, but not for children. Not all parents are
capable of home-shooling their kids, so sorry, but I do think that the
memebers of the community should share the task of seeing to it that the
children have a *chance* to learn the skills they need to take advantage of
No, but if they don't share the values of the community to the extent that
they are willing to support what the community has decided to do, they have
_chosen_ not to be part of the community. If you want to be part of a
community and take part in the advantages of doing so, you need to pull your
own weight. Not that it's any of our business ;-)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.