|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Which period was the golden age dangles?
|
I realize the whole "invisible hand' malarkey makes more sense if you just replace it with "God's hand". The idea is still silly, but it makes more sense why people think it does what they think it does.
|
On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago.
No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society.
I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy....
I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.
The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard.
|
On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard.
As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want.
|
On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want.
"Freedom of Mobility"?
Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed?
|
On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed?
Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws.
This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens.
|
On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed?
Yes, freedom of mobility meaning you have the ability to move into, around, and out of the jurisdiction. That way countries don't have to build walls to keep their citizens within their benevolent intentions. The ideology of social contract and redistribution should stand on its own merits without relying on a Berlin wall.
|
On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens.
Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal.
I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply.
|
On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard.
I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance).
I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications.
|
Well, this turned into a shitshow real fast. See you guys, it's been fun.
|
On May 24 2015 05:29 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2015 04:55 screamingpalm wrote:On May 24 2015 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Its easy to say minimum wage wont close the gap between rich and poor when that is not even the point of it.
I think he was talking about supplemental government aid (Earned Inome Tax Credit) as described in the article I posted, but that too I guess. :D Additionally, I would say neither increasing EITC nor raising minimum wage would affect the middle class much. Not really the point I don't think. Why is Earned Income Tax Credit better than an incremental tax? If you earn $5k a year you don't pay taxes. You earn $15k you pax X percentage on amount over 5k, you earn $50k another % on the amount over 15k and so on that then caps at around 70%-90% on the higher tiers of money earned. Could keep it to 4 levels I think. 1 for nothing, 1 for low taxes, 1 for above average income level, one for top income. Only the difference between levels has the higher percentage so you never run into the situation of making less after taxes when climbing up a tier. Paying money back unless the person paid too much seems a strange solution to me.
The EITC is a refundable credit, so you can end up paying negative taxes. One of the problems with supplemental government benefits is that they tend to scale down as people earn more, which is a disincentive to work. The EITC works in the opposite way - it encourages the poor to work.
For economists, the big selling point of the EITC is that it rewards work. The classic problem that arises when government provides assistance to those with low income levels is that as a person works to earn an extra $100, they often find that the government benefits are then reduced by nearly that same amount or sometimes even more. As a result, many low-income people who work are saving the government some money, but not much increasing their actual after-benefits, after-taxes standard of living. In contrast, the EITC is set up so that the work disincentives are greatly reduced. ...
"The official measure of poverty in the US does not include changes in resources due to taxes. If it did, scholars have determined that the EITC wouldhave been credited with lifting 6.5 million people out of poverty in 2012, including about 3.3 million children. Changes in income as a result of the EITC are associated with better health, more schooling and higher earnings in adulthood."
Link
|
On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried
There is a certain difference in underlying assumptions here. You assume that effort results in getting ahead. To someone who disagrees with that, who assumes that some people can try as hard as they can and still fall behind, that some people live in circumstances where no matter their level of effort, they will never achieve any form of upward social mobility, there is no crueler lie than to tell those people that if they just tried harder, they would get ahead.
|
On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply.
I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing.
|
On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications.
I swear every time Danglars posts he sounds more and more like an ideologue. Say little of substance, but preach it loud and hard.
|
On May 26 2015 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications. I swear every time Danglars posts he sounds more and more like an ideologue. Say little of substance, but preach it loud and hard. See an ideologue, talk about the ideology. Did you spot in the quoted post the following?
The choice is between individual liberties and an improving society
Blind belief in a post-labour utopia
Blind acceptance of an existing derth of "meaningful" (lol) jobs
The future necessarily will never remedy this problem (under capitalistic means, understood)
Restructuring society, really a radical restructuring, is the only fix
My ends are, of course, scarcity, decimation, and segregation
My side advocates lawlessness
Social Contract + Government Enforcement + Accountability ... unexplained. (And we've seen an increase in government unaccountability as its powers to enforce its views on equitability increases)
So honestly, it takes a blind person to ignore your own side's ideological arguments and criticize the others. Does it get any more solipsistic to assume you own pragmatism and responsible governance?
|
On May 26 2015 07:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 06:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 26 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public. The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. I've seen progress too in the rotting on a peach. Undermining what were advances in personal liberty is the quicker trip to your scarcity society. Mediocrity is praised and wealth decried. You mix in quite a bit of nonsense to attempt to justify attacks on a free and honest economic system. We aren't trashing working condition legislation or the rule of law in general. I also can see no more dishonest way to segregate society than to push the poor onto endless welfare assistance and tell them they couldn't get ahead even if they tried (and Jonny went into depth much earlier in the thread about the costs associated with job promotions in losing benefits and program assistance). I've seen a lot of noble societal goals masquerading as rights in the modern age. It's truly childlike to declare some things rights, then identify oppressors of rights, rather than seek goals and discuss how they might be achieved. The right to a job obviates thoughts of how to grow an economy and create jobs. Right to housing, right to whatever radicals identify as "dignified living" these days ... it's vacuous justification for a host of activities that themselves oppress and enslave. Better still to have an alert populace that signed onto something called the German constitution, than impose somebody else's social contract by fiat with invented authority and justifications. I swear every time Danglars posts he sounds more and more like an ideologue. Say little of substance, but preach it loud and hard. See an ideologue, talk about the ideology. Did you spot in the quoted post the following? The choice is between individual liberties and an improving society Blind belief in a post-labour utopia Blind acceptance of an existing derth of "meaningful" (lol) jobs The future necessarily will never remedy this problem (under capitalistic means, understood) Restructuring society, really a radical restructuring, is the only fix My ends are, of course, scarcity, decimation, and segregation My side advocates lawlessness Social Contract + Government Enforcement + Accountability ... unexplained. (And we've seen an increase in government unaccountability as its powers to enforce its views on equitability increases) So honestly, it takes a blind person to ignore your own side's ideological arguments and criticize the others. Does it get any more solipsistic to assume you own pragmatism and responsible governance?
Yeah, so basically what I meant by ideologue. Reduction of your "opposition" into extremes, strawmanning, buzzwords about utopia, blindness, etc. Reduction of the entire argument into sides. Reduction of complex issues into dichotomies.
I could basically sum up your entire post with "You're all sheep wilfully following a blind shepherd, here my word and be enlightened by the truth!" It's pure content-less preaching.
|
On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that something extremely difficult for a person with no substantial savings* to accomplish would be transitioning between jobs. For someone whose cost of living is approximately equal to their earnings, it's hard to arrange time off to travel to job interviews, and they wouldn't have the financial reserves to move first and then support themselves while looking for a new source of income.
Another thing that comes to mind is the financial outlay for signing a lease (first month's rent plus one or two months' rent as a security deposit), which can easily exceed $2,000 in areas of the US with an above average cost of living.
*According to this survey, under 40% of Americans have enough savings to cover a sudden, unexpected expense of $500 to $1000.
|
On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing.
Post-Civil war days is probably a bad period to discuss, because much of the movement and work was of the indentured servitude type, where you would have lodging provided by the company (for a fee) in exchange for tireless work hours and low pay, most of which would be returned to the company anyway.
And for the lower class, it was a matter of following work, and not seeking new opportunities.
|
On May 26 2015 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing. Post-Civil war days is probably a bad period to discuss, because much of the movement and work was of the indentured servitude type, where you would have lodging provided by the company (for a fee) in exchange for tireless work hours and low pay, most of which would be returned to the company anyway. And for the lower class, it was a matter of following work, and not seeking new opportunities.
Well, in the hypothetical, they would be, in theory, fleeing the ravages of a free market for the embrace of a social safety net.
|
On May 26 2015 07:46 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2015 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 26 2015 05:49 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:42 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 03:22 cLutZ wrote:On May 26 2015 03:09 killa_robot wrote:On May 26 2015 00:15 Wolfstan wrote:On May 26 2015 00:01 puerk wrote:On May 25 2015 13:37 Danglars wrote:On May 25 2015 05:57 puerk wrote:
Regarding your reverence of some absurd concept of property rights independent of a state (or state like social contract institution) that grants them, i find it highly amusing that you always want to go back to the Constitution as it once was. I.e. return to the constitution of the good old days with the fugitive slave clause and not this modern progressive amended weak shit, where the feds do not even have the authority to enforce the right to ownership of a person anymore.
It just comes of as whitewashing, and using the famous "everything was better in the past"-attitude to blind one self to the realities. And, surprise surprise, it's also possible that some things were better in the past. If your one gripe is its creation not involving a miraculous departure from long-established western norms of the period, then maybe you'll always miss the big picture. We naturally enjoy social contracts to be a means towards the security of property rights. The significant departures, nay absurd re-imaginings of property rights, stand out as rents in the fabric of the social contract ... one of the many faces of today's post-Constitutional society. I do also mean a specific period of the past. I have no desire to return to protectionist eras, dysfunctional absolute monarchies, or others marked by widespread real misery. Heck, some days I almost think I hear libs opining for the good old days of Eastern Europe's socialism of half a century ago. No my gripe is that you want to reverse the gigantic progress society has made since the establishment of the constitution under the guise of being a principled fighter for individual liberties instead of continuing to improve society. I idolize no past but still see much room for improvement for the present, especially challenging the "work to live"-concept that became obsolete through increases in productivity. We do not have and will never again have enough meaningful jobs, so we need to restructure society. You want an open, no rules race to the bottom where everyone in the US can try to compete with bangladeshi workers or die from starvation. Maybe that will decimate and segregate society enough that we go back to a scarcity society where every living person is needed in the economy.... I want redistribution motivated by a social contract enforced by a government accountable to the public.The american constitution is not the only possible way to think about rights and your understanding of property rights is much less natural than you think. The german constitution for instance recognizes the right to a dignified living and empowers the state to enforce this right. You abhore the idea because of your distrust for every government. I like the idea because of its intent and it is my duty as a citizen to help make sure the government gets held to that standard. As long as that redistribution enforcement can be stopped by borders and there is a freedom of mobility, I'm all for other jurisdictions and their citizens doing whatever they want. "Freedom of Mobility"? Meaning rich people are allowed to leave the country to avoid having their assets redistributed? Freedom for people, rich or poor, to enter or leave an economy is indicative of the strength of that economy's economic model. The post Civil War, pre-1980s South is a great example of this. The region suffered a huge brain drain because a lot of sophisticated people did not like Jim Crow laws. This is also, what the United States traditionally was based on, before the more recent centralization efforts. You let people move from state to state, and the assumption is that better governments will influence worse ones to become better, or risk losing their people. The 1860s realization is that this simple model wasn't enough, and that the Federal government also needs to ensure that these governments cannot become too oppressive towards citizens. Poor people tend to not have enough resources to just pack up and leave if they don't like the situation, so "Freedom of mobility" is a term for wealthier people having the ability to leave an area if it isn't ideal. I don't think it's a bad thing really, it's just freedom of mobility means any attempt to put any real measures against the rich is pointless, because they can just go to a different state/country where it doesn't apply. I'm interested in what the evidence is that, in a free market, that there is this low mobility for poorer people. Certainly, there are many poor people now that feel trapped in an area because they can't move a housing voucher or are in property that is being rented to them at sub-market rates, etc. I know during the post-Civil war days there was lots of freedom of movement by the poor, often to escape bad economic conditions (ala Grapes of Wrath), and I certainly understand moving costs and security deposits are non-negligible, but that last one is also a zoning and supply issue, and there are also significant transaction costs for moving as a rich person who probably owns property, a business, and has significant social capital they would be sacrificing. Post-Civil war days is probably a bad period to discuss, because much of the movement and work was of the indentured servitude type, where you would have lodging provided by the company (for a fee) in exchange for tireless work hours and low pay, most of which would be returned to the company anyway. And for the lower class, it was a matter of following work, and not seeking new opportunities. Well, in the hypothetical, they would be, in theory, fleeing the ravages of a free market for the embrace of a social safety net.
Yeah, stats on current situations would be interesting to see.
Just saying that mentioning the industrialization era is not really a good period to bring up when it comes to mobility of the lower class.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
