Well, the new morality that I see is that those who can't afford to send their children to college should never get married or have sex to begin with. Helping them is simply assisting them to avoid facing the consequences of their sin. Abortion is bad, not because it ends a life, but because it might allow those who deserve to suffer to escape some of that suffering.

Workfare programs are bad because they might compete with business. Apparently markets are the purest tool that God has to convey his will. Any interference with corporations or the market is wrong. If market forces grant CEOs a salary 100 to 1000 times what the least paid employee, it is because God wills it so. If the least paid employee earns not enough to afford health care or even a decent place to live and good food to eat, God wills it.

Workfare programs are also bad because they rely on taxes and transfer money from those who have it to those who don't. Taxes that benefit any person in greater proportion than their earnings are bad and a defiance of God's will.

Ack! Two errors in a single clause:

co-op leaders are able to use judgement and discretion, as when a Brazilian co-op used part of the "workers" money to hire an on-site doctor

That'd be judgment and "workers'" if you please.

(And I wouldn't even bother if I didn't know how this would bother you if you caught it in someone else's work.)

That is just his Agoran showing.

In fact, "judgement" is a valid spelling of the word. As Lee points out, that's partially my inner Agoran showing (it's definitely the standard spelling on Agora Nomic), but mostly I just prefer how it looks.

As for "workers", it was not meant as a possessive but as an identifier. Having said "back to the company..., to the workers, and to the community", I would have referred to these segments of the money as the "company" money, the "workers" money, and the "community" money, respectively. I suppose I could have used company's money, workers' money, and community's money, but the connection is more that the money is designated for each group, not that it's actually owned by them yet. (Of course, strictly speaking, that is within the scope of the genitive relationship, which is much broader than just possessives.)

So, although your version would not be incorrect, mine is correct and what was intended.

This seems to be a perfect topic with World Fair Trade Day coming up- we should value the worker as well as the work. Unfortunately, while we may have some impact in our own country, it's hard to make a difference in nations that are not fully democratic and not fully capitalistic. In a small way, I suppose we could stop buying cheap Chinese slave produced garbage at Wally World. In our country, I agree we should embrace the concept of living wage, while at the same time lowering taxes on employers enough so they can afford to pay the living wage. And if workers weren't taxed so heavily either, the living wage would not need to be as high as some propose. Now, to touch on abortion, neither the pro-life nor the pro-choice political movements have any credibility, IMO. Most pro-lifers seem only concerned about some types of "life," and most pro-choicers support only some "choices." For example, many pro-lifers I know of don't seem very concerned about the death penalty or issues of hunger, etc. And most pro-choicers oppose men who would like to choose to opt-out of parenting, while deceitfully throwing out terms like "Deadbeat Dad" when it's a known fact anyway that non-custodial mothers are more likely to avoid financial support for their children than non-custodial fathers.

"Deadbeat Dad" is used because the vast majority of non-custodial parents and the vast majority of non-support paying non-custodial parents are men. It is not inconsistent to be pro-choice and yet be opposed to allowing fathers to skip out on parental obligations if they wish. We do not, in this society, compel one person to have their bodily integrity or bodily automony violated in order to support another, no matter how critical that support is. If I am the only one who has a blood match to help another, and all they need is a drop of my blood to live, I cannot be compelled by law to give them that drop of blood. I can be forced under law to support individuals I would choose not to. Under some state laws, under certain condidtions, I must provide financial support to my parents, and of course that is not the only type of situation where I could be forced to use my money to support another I might not want to. Child support is not about punishing anyone, it is about the best interest of a child. It may not seem fair that women can opt out of parenthood by choosing to abort and a father cannot opt out at all (save by abstaining from sex in the first place), but pregnacy is inherently asymmetric, or as it has been said before: Life is not fair.