You are avoiding an answer that is apparently uncomfortable to your egalitarian sensibilities. People in slums choose violence, squalid surroundings and government dependency because that is part of their value system. Also, let’s be clear on this: “slums” consist of public housing or sec. 8. People, however poor, who own their homes or rent from landlords who don’t take sec. 8 payments show a pride of place that is absent in welfare recipients. I can show you many humble neighborhoods where the people make very little money but the place is safe and clean, albeit not to the standards of a middle class suburb.
People are free to choose violence or refrain from it. People are free to accept government welfare or reject it. The fact that they choose violence and dependency simply reflects their moral failing unless, again, you believe these people require shepherding by their betters.
I still disagree, people don’t choose violence and poverty over peace and prosperity, it’s not sensible. Ultimately if government programs weren’t provided for them, they wouldn’t live in the situations they live in. Inner-city poverty-stricken areas are like urban reservations, to a degree. You can’t blame it on the individuals, 'cuz it’s ultimately and obviously a result of government action. We’re both admitting the same thing, that government “free lunches” produce a harmful effect, but it seems you blame the individuals, while I blame political policies.
i’ve come to believe that the governmental education system produces less knowledgeable individuals, and welfare programs and public facilities provide an incentive to not work and have an easy way out and encourage a disrespect toward property (since they did not directly pay for it), Shitty, inexperienced, corrupt and biased police and courts create the ability to commit crime more easily and make crime socially acceptable, which in return create a breeding ground for ‘dirty’ businesses which are protected by violent gangs and provide money to violent and criminal organizations with enormous power and influence, economic restrictions like zoning laws, high taxes, minimum wages, rent control, and child labor laws which prevent individuals from escaping the environment of poverty, filth, and violence. Ultimately these policies prey on the most vulnerable populations within the country such as immigrants or minorities, since in a democracy minorities are easily controlled and abused.
Individuals are to blame for the choices they make and this applies whether you are a ghetto resident or a Wall Street banker. History is replete with individuals who overcame poverty, abuse, disability, etc.
These political policies are universal, but Lew Rockwell founds the Mises Institute and Barack Obama organizes taxpayer shakedowns. The difference between these two individuals is the moral choices they made.
Byzantine, you see no contradiction there ? Either people have free will, or their choices are determined by the ‘race’ they belong to - you can’t have it both ways.
You can’t say that people in the slums are poor because they are black and then say that people in the slums have ‘chosen’ to be poor. Or maybe they’ve chosen to be black ?..
Actually, I did correct myself to agree with Stranger.
But you’re on the horns of a different dilemma. Given the universality of government anti-market policies, why is the rate of social pathology higher among some groups than others? And here is where we do begin to tread on the uncomfortable ground of race and IQ. Why are the rates of social pathology so much higher among certain racial groups?
That’s exactly my question! Why are these areas particularly affected by government actions? It’s impossible for race to determine wealth, there are too many counter-examples to justify such a claim. It’s obvious that government restrictions most negatively affect groups that are most vulnerable (the youth, the uneducated, minority groups, elderly, homeless and unemployed, immigrants, etc…) I’m wondering how and Why? I think there hasn’t been enough research done, possibly it’s something austrian economics need to look into deeper.
I think we’re all asking the same question. Why are certain areas plagued with poverty, despite anti-market policies that are sported throughout the nation? What restrictions specifically harm these areas and why?
Stranger is not the proper ‘authority’ to invoke I’m afraid. He’s a conservative who regards libertarianism as based on fairy-tale morals…
There are no dilemmas here. Only your contradictions.
There’s nothing uncomfortable about it. From an objective point of view, racism is nonsense. But let’s grant that WASPs and ashkenazi jews are the master races and have higher average IQ(*) than the rest of the unwashed masses ? From a libertarian point of view, let me ask : So what ?
Or maybe your claim is rather that, say, blacks (or asians or whatever) are bound to be ‘morally degenerate’ because they are black ? I’ll repeat again : if being black means you’re bound to be a criminal, then the idea of moral choice is meaningless.
(*) Of course, such meaningless statistics are a typical product of government bureaucracies, but never mind…
I don’t believe the slums could be eliminated, or prevented. It seems you don’t want to believe this but some people do want to live in that culture. Check out the message in so much of the rap music you hear. The bad/ass meacrimnal culture is glorified in most of it. The fasion you see, believe it or not it based on prison culture.
I am a practicing anarchist. I don’t vote, I don’t pay income taxes. I am a musician and my life is VERY hard. I sometimes live in my car. Sometimes I live in the forest. I live on what I can make playing music and I follow noones rules but my own. I have my own economic formula it is: PPM+MMM which means The power of personal magnetism plus the magic of mental midgetry. Some people think that’s sick, but it works for me. Crazy stupid people love to party. They will waste their money and their brains on drugs, alchohol, sex and music. They give me their money because I give them a good time. I cater to the excesses and madness.
Most of these people are wild, and dangerous. I have seen depravetey that would shock you to the core of your being. This culture of people CHOOSE this kind of life. No policy or government intervention can stop them, and many a cop has been killed trying. And such people congregate, they hang together like people of capital, who would otherwise hang seperately. Same factor, other end of economy, equal morality.
Unfortunately I don’t see how that makes sense. The inequality of wealth is natural and from an economic point of view a good thing. Some will work harder, make more wealth, and save more wealth. Those people will be wealthy. some will spend more than they can sustain, make poor decisions, they will be poor.
People falsify modern culture. Criminality in “the hood”(lol) is a true thing, but it’s simply a way to survive. Very few want a life of violence and poverty, I don’t know where you got that idea, it’s contradictory to human nature. Drugs, alcohol, sex and music, primarily drugs and alcohol, can be disastrous, but most grow out of that lifestyle, and there is no evidence that a society where drugs are legal or widespread is magically immoral or chaotic. Besides, rap culture is new, while slums are not. People have always, historically, used culture, “a changing society”, and music etc… as scapegoats for the true causes behind problems, despite the historic fact that culture, music, and society are usually influenced by the ways of life the people are living, rather than culture, music, and society influencing the way people live. Does this make sense to anybody?
The fact is that if government didn’t allow these people to be parasitic and then keep them in a parasitic state with economic restrictions, than they would be forced to work and set their priorities straight. Welfare preys on the vulnerable. While economic restrictions keep them vulnerable, Us libertarians should know this. No government intervention can eliminate slums, I believe that. What they need is the elimination of government interventions. Slums and ghettos just couldn’t be sustainable without help from the government.
I think there needs to be a austrian study on the slums and the history of slums. I think it would find that slums are most prevalent in countries that are the least economically free. That they are not products of race. That people employ themselves in violent markets and rely on welfare because they were born with nothing and they simply have few other sensible ways of providing for themselves and their families. And that slums become less prevalent and widespread as an economy becomes more free. Would anybody agree with my hypothesis?
Because people with low IQ have poor impulse control and high time preference. They buy booze and cigarettes when they should buy groceries and then agitate for government services. They rape when they are sexually aroused. They see a car with some CD’s in the front seat so they break the window and grab them. The state justifies its existence by purporting to protect the rest of us from these people and simultaneously encouraging their reproduction. And, in a double coup, it plays on the consciences of the misguided by funneling tax dollars to the underclass in an endless attempt to make people more than they are.
I relate to you truth. I wanted you to know these things. You are very intelegent and your faith in mankind is a virtue. Don’t loose it. But you do missunderstand human nature. Some people are just wild. Yes if born poor, a person will likely remain poor. But not always. We have choices.
I live the way I live because I grew up like this. My parents were beatnik jazz musicians. Anti-establisment to the core. I learned their ideas, I live on the road as a child and learned to love music and entertaining. I also am very good at developing software, but to me the cubicle life SUCKS! I can build an app about once a year to supplement my income and then it is all I can take.
Human nature is unbounded. Some people are evil incarnate, and if you ask them they will tell you so. Don’t stop questioning though. I’m not about discouragement, the world REALY needs people like you so test everything. You will find answers, and that is what we must have.
You constantly and conveniently fail to address the glaring contradiction in your ‘theory’, namely :
If some people have a different brain which leads them to commit crimes, then there’s no free will - you can’t claim, as you did, that some people are stupid and therefore evil, AND also claim that they are evil because they freely chose to be so.
Are you claiming that some people’s intelligence is so low that they are effectively slaves to their impulses? That could well be the case. Such people cannot be expected to function in free society and must be coerced. I’m probably more prepared to deal with that conclusion than you are.
BTW, if you REALY want to KNOW free market, try performance art. No one has any agreement or obligation to pay you one red cent. You must give them pleasure, you must make them happy, and then you will be rewarded. Otherwise, you will starve.
The business cycle takes about 45 minutes. Anarchy is ALL you have. If you don’t understand human nature, you go home broke and hungry.