Zoning laws, the fact that the ghetto is not an appealing place to open a new businesses, rent control, minimum wage, child labor laws, criminalization of drugs, protectionism, affirmative action, ect.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Things I would blame the formation of ghettos on:
1. Welfare that creates incentives for young, single women to have illegitimate children and for capable workers to not work and instead become criminals.
2. Drug laws that prevent successful inner city entrepreneurs from doing their work and hiring others.
3. Shitty public schools that entrap inner city kids into a "culture of poverty."
4. Shitty public courts and police forces that do not protect inner city residents from crime.
5. Public housing, which is usually in disrepair and creates a pro-crime psychological arena. The bureaucrats in charge of public housing are usually not able to prevent crime on their premises, either.
6. Minimum wage laws that prevent the least skilled inner city residents from getting a job.
7. Unions that artificially raise wage rates that prevent the least skilled inner city residents from getting a job.
8. High taxes and regulations which prevent businesses from hiring inner city residents and new small businesses from springing up in inner cities.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
So the cause is either economic or ethnic/bad decision-making by an affiliated group... Well the only way to test it out is to set up a free society. In a free society, poverty will still exist, but slums will not for the most part, if it is an economic problem. But, if slums are the results of races of people, for some reason, wanting to live hard, dangerous, violent, and poor lives, than "the hood" will still be up and running and just as wide spread as in the states.
My bet is still on economic, and if that makes me egalitarian than that makes those in opposition collectivist and probably racist too. But, just to be fair I won't totally rule out the opinions of stranger, mmartillo, jon, and byzantine... But yea... seriously... You guys are totally wrong. lol.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Here's the problem: the current system is not meritocratic, so it is fallacious to assume that all poor people are poor simply because of bad decisions, or that all rich people are rich simply because they are particularly productive or smart. That's a strawman, nobody said such a thing.
Brainpolice:Here's the problem: the current system is not meritocratic, so it is fallacious to assume that all poor people are poor simply because of bad decisions, or that all rich people are rich simply because they are particularly productive or smart.
That's a strawman, nobody said such a thing.
It's not a strawman, it's the implication of the statements made. I'm having trouble getting people to understand that reductios are not strawmen. The person clearly implied that currently existing inequalities in wealth (perhaps including those between ethnic groups) are "natural", based purely on merit. That's simply not true when we take into account all of the market distortions involved.
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Here's the problem: the current system is not meritocratic, so it is fallacious to assume that all poor people are poor simply because of bad decisions, or that all rich people are rich simply because they are particularly productive or smart. That's a strawman, nobody said such a thing. It's not a strawman, it's the implication of the statements made. I'm having trouble getting people to understand that reductios are not strawmen. The person clearly implied that currently existing inequalities in wealth (perhaps including those between ethnic groups) are "natural", based purely on merit. That's simply not true when we take into account all of the market distortions involved.
But it wasn't a reductio because nobody claimed that all inequalities were the result of nature as opposed to nurture. I believe the argument put forward by Byzantine and Stranger was merely that since government policies are natioal there must be some other cause of slums.
Not once did they dismiss government intervention as not having any effect whatsoever, merely that there must be other causes. Apparently you're too egalitarian to accept this.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice:The rural slums are almost entirely "white". Are you willing to blame them for moral degeneracy as well?
Of course. I've been in trailer parks where my host said he could not let me out of his sight.
But we're both on the horns of the same dilemma: If low IQ causes squalor and violence, then why do a number of low IQ people nevertheless practice cleanliness and non-violence? If government policies cause squalor and violence, then why do some citizens practice cleanliness and non-violence and others do not? Stranger is the only one who has resolved this paradox: moral choice of the individuals involved. If you are saying that slum inhabitants have no moral choice, then it follows they are mere wards of those who do have the capacity for moral choice.
10Brandonr:So the cause is either economic or ethnic/bad decision-making by an affiliated group... Well the only way to test it out is to set up a free society. In a free society, poverty will still exist, but slums will not for the most part, if it is an economic problem. But, if slums are the results of races of people, for some reason, wanting to live hard, dangerous, violent, and poor lives, than "the hood" will still be up and running and just as wide spread as in the states.
Actually, all you have to do is set up universal conditions and see how people respond. Again, given the universality of government anti-market policies, most people--even poor people--manage to lead peaceful and productive lives. What do they have that the violent and welfare-dependent minority do not?
If you persist in saying that the causes of violence and filth are environmental, i.e., government policy, you are denying that people have moral choice just as surely as the most dogmatic eugenicist.
so... Would "ghettos" still exist in a free society?
10Brandonr: so... Would "ghettos" still exist in a free society?
Sure they would. Where do you think I am going to find employees to exploit?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
To the argument of policy being 'universal'. I don't agree that you can say that about schools. Here is why. Because the UNION has it's said effect on the employement of teachers, school districts cannot easily weed out the less skilled teachers. The district's way of doing this is to place the undesirable teachers in the 'worst' schools. Those in the ghettos. Good teachers who can choose their assignments will not work in these schools. It's too easy to get shot by some gang banger. This on top of the fact that public school pedagogy is designed to discourage critical thinking skills. So I say, the policies CAN BE discriminatory.
Is this 'free society'?NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- A Louisiana state representative has generated controversy with his proposal to offer poor women money for voluntary sterilization.
mmartillo: So I say, the policies CAN BE discriminatory.
So I say, the policies CAN BE discriminatory.
Now we're getting somewhere. My bet is that more of the policies can and are discriminatory also. They discriminate against minorities and immigrants.
mmartillo: Is this 'free society'?NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- A Louisiana state representative has generated controversy with his proposal to offer poor women money for voluntary sterilization.
What?
Uh, which "minorities and immigrants" are you talking about? Jews, Orientals, Slavs, Levantine Christians, Germans, Sikhs, and numerous others are all thriving in the US.
Am I speaking Ebonics?
No I'm talking Eugenics. Is this good? Cull the poor bastards, yeah thats the ticket.
I predict my humor bombs again.
Byzantine: Uh, which "minorities and immigrants" are you talking about? Jews, Orientals, Slavs, Levantine Christians, Germans, Sikhs, and numerous others are all thriving in the US.
Whichever are most disoriented by the legal system. Included on your list should be blacks and hispanics, both races contain many individuals who thrive in the US. Race cannot determine the ability of an individual to be poor.
mmartillo: Am I speaking Ebonics? No I'm talking Eugenics. Is this good? Cull the poor bastards, yeah thats the ticket. I predict my humor bombs again.
...?
10Brandonr:Whichever are most disoriented by the legal system.
And who would those be and why, given that many people of all races thrive under the current legal system?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap