Today Jesse Jackson Weeps
-
"Poverty does not equate to immorality. However, in my experience poverty does in most cases equate to sloth, which happens to be one of the seven deadly sins. Nor did I involve the state in my opinion. Rather, I'm saying that there was a distinct difference between the two classes, even though they attended the same school. That difference was simply that there poor ghetto kids were punks. They had no desire to be educated or advance beyond their class, even though they were presented with the exact same opportunities as the bussed kids. From what I could tell, nobody was "keeping them down" except themselves." This is very similar to my take and my experience in a similar environment. The teachers were beside themselves trying to educate us and these kids just wanted nothing of it. They had no desire to better their position in life. The ONLY thing that motivated them to do anything at all was sports. Social promotion (advancing students through the system regardless of their capabilities) was rampant to avoid an abhorrent student failure rate. By 6th grade, most of these kids were barely able to read a "See Dick run" book. This is not to say that EVER kid was like that, but a very large majority. There were just a few kids in each class that were the 'nerds', 'geeks' or whatever that actually stayed quiet, did their homework, etc... and WANTED to get off 'the welfare'. The rest thought it was just a big joke and it was the white man putting them down.
George L wrote:
This is very similar to my take and my experience in a similar environment. The teachers were beside themselves trying to educate us and these kids just wanted nothing of it. They had no desire to better their position in life. The ONLY thing that motivated them to do anything at all was sports. Social promotion (advancing students through the system regardless of their capabilities) was rampant to avoid an abhorrent student failure rate. By 6th grade, most of these kids were barely able to read a "See Dick run" book. This is not to say that EVER kid was like that, but a very large majority. There were just a few kids in each class that were the 'nerds', 'geeks' or whatever that actually stayed quiet, did their homework, etc... and WANTED to get off 'the welfare'. The rest thought it was just a big joke and it was the white man putting them down.
I at least had the good fortune of being segregated to a large extent because I was in the "gifted" program (probably a euphamism for super-remedial), so I didn't have to share most classes with them. But when I did...It sure was a pain. Usually even downright scary.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
They had no desire to be educated or advance beyond their class, even though they were presented with the exact same opportunities as the bussed kids.
I was schooled with many kids just like this, they tended to be the poorest, and the richest kids in the class. One group were more interested in the break down of their homes and families and the others simply didn't care, they already had everything they wanted.
Red Stateler wrote:
What do they spend their time on?
We need poets, artists, thinkers, perhaps even priests, none of which should be commercial activities.
Red Stateler wrote:
being slothful and willfully ignorant virtually guarantees poverty
True but you need to ask why are some people like this. It may or may not be attributable to them, or more likely their parents. There will always be exceptions who break the mould set for them and succeed far beyond their backgrounds but this cannot be everyone.
Red Stateler wrote:
Your various conspiracy theories have no bearing on that whatsoever.
Correct, I mentioned no theories related to any conspiracies.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I was schooled with many kids just like this, they tended to be the poorest, and the richest kids in the class. One group were more interested in the break down of their homes and families and the others simply didn't care, they already had everything they wanted.
I'm not talking about rich kids and poor kids. I'm talking about middle class kids and poor kids. No rich parent would allow their kid to be sent to that school.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
We need poets, artists, thinkers, perhaps even priests, none of which should be commercial activities.
And none of which any of these students aspired to be.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
True but you need to ask why are some people like this. It may or may not be attributable to them, or more likely their parents. There will always be exceptions who break the mould set for them and succeed far beyond their backgrounds but this cannot be everyone.
It may be them and is more likely their parents. But whether it's one or the other makes no difference to me. In a free nation, every man is ultimately responsible for his success. You can be born with a silver spoon and die a pauper or be born a pauper and die with a silver spoon. If the individual knows the path to advancement (as they clearly did) and they reject it...That's their own doing. If anything, their squalor should be motivation to succeed, not to fail.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Correct, I mentioned no theories related to any conspiracies.
You mentioned the state taking everything away from them...
-
Yeah, I think this area was where people that didn't qualify for the projects ended up.
:wtf:
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
A very frank and honest admission if I may say so. This is essentially the same thinking as the Reaganite/Thatcherite concept that wealth equates to moral good, poor==dumb==lazy==bad, rich==smart==hardworking==good.
Poverty does not equate to immorality. However, in my experience poverty does in most cases equate to sloth, which happens to be one of the seven deadly sins. Nor did I involve the state in my opinion. Rather, I'm saying that there was a distinct difference between the two classes, even though they attended the same school. That difference was simply that there poor ghetto kids were punks. They had no desire to be educated or advance beyond their class, even though they were presented with the exact same opportunities as the bussed kids. From what I could tell, nobody was "keeping them down" except themselves.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Have you ever considered that perhaps poor people are poor because someone greedy took what they should have had and made them poor, or because their different culture is ineffecient in the structures set up by a capitalist system, although it might be superior in other ways. Perhaps some people are even poor because they spend their time and energy on things they value more than material wealth. That would be due to their own making but not necessarily a bad thing or something they should suffer for.
What do they spend their time on? Smoking crack? One doesn't have to be slothful or willfully ignorant to be poor. But being slothful and willfully ignorant virtually guarantees poverty. This group of people was most certainly the latter. I'm pretty sure that most of them are probably in the same ghetto (or maybe another one) contributing to the local crime syndicate. That's not because of some invisble hand holding them back. It was very clear that it was a choice they made. Your various conspiracy theories have no bearing on that whatsoever.
Red Stateler wrote:
nobody was "keeping them down" except themselves.
A lack of self-worth? Mixing with the wrong people? Lack of parental guidance? Poor housing? Poor employment prospects?
Red Stateler wrote:
What do they spend their time on? Smoking crack?
No doubt some do. But most don't have the money to spend on luxuries such as Crack. Some do the proper thing and go to Further Education Colleges and learn something new. However, most people who are in this deprived groupings are those where heavy industry once was, shut down for one reason or another, thus mass unemployment in the locality with minimal or no investment by other companies (or Government). And doing a "Norman Tebbit" is not always an option.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
nobody was "keeping them down" except themselves.
A lack of self-worth? Mixing with the wrong people? Lack of parental guidance? Poor housing? Poor employment prospects?
Red Stateler wrote:
What do they spend their time on? Smoking crack?
No doubt some do. But most don't have the money to spend on luxuries such as Crack. Some do the proper thing and go to Further Education Colleges and learn something new. However, most people who are in this deprived groupings are those where heavy industry once was, shut down for one reason or another, thus mass unemployment in the locality with minimal or no investment by other companies (or Government). And doing a "Norman Tebbit" is not always an option.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A lack of self-worth? Mixing with the wrong people? Lack of parental guidance? Poor housing? Poor employment prospects?
None of which are obsticales if you reject them.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No doubt some do. But most don't have the money to spend on luxuries such as Crack. Some do the proper thing and go to Further Education Colleges and learn something new. However, most people who are in this deprived groupings are those where heavy industry once was, shut down for one reason or another, thus mass unemployment in the locality with minimal or no investment by other companies (or Government). And doing a "Norman Tebbit" is not always an option.
That may be the case in Britain, but in the US there were public housing projects (low-rent buildings subsidized by the federal government) that were filled with welfare recipients. I do commend those few that actually went onto college and I'm certain they'll get all that they deserve.
-
George L wrote:
This is very similar to my take and my experience in a similar environment. The teachers were beside themselves trying to educate us and these kids just wanted nothing of it. They had no desire to better their position in life. The ONLY thing that motivated them to do anything at all was sports. Social promotion (advancing students through the system regardless of their capabilities) was rampant to avoid an abhorrent student failure rate. By 6th grade, most of these kids were barely able to read a "See Dick run" book. This is not to say that EVER kid was like that, but a very large majority. There were just a few kids in each class that were the 'nerds', 'geeks' or whatever that actually stayed quiet, did their homework, etc... and WANTED to get off 'the welfare'. The rest thought it was just a big joke and it was the white man putting them down.
I at least had the good fortune of being segregated to a large extent because I was in the "gifted" program (probably a euphamism for super-remedial), so I didn't have to share most classes with them. But when I did...It sure was a pain. Usually even downright scary.
Yeah, that's how I eventually got out. Both my brother and myself were 'tested' the same year. Once the results were in they allowed my parents to take us to another school for 'gifted' kids, but my parents had to arrange for transportation. It wasn't such a big deal since this school was pretty close to our house. A few months after that we moved to Ocala anyway and back to sort of normal, well, if boots, cowboy hats, horses and tractors are 'normal' ;)
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I was schooled with many kids just like this, they tended to be the poorest, and the richest kids in the class. One group were more interested in the break down of their homes and families and the others simply didn't care, they already had everything they wanted.
I'm not talking about rich kids and poor kids. I'm talking about middle class kids and poor kids. No rich parent would allow their kid to be sent to that school.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
We need poets, artists, thinkers, perhaps even priests, none of which should be commercial activities.
And none of which any of these students aspired to be.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
True but you need to ask why are some people like this. It may or may not be attributable to them, or more likely their parents. There will always be exceptions who break the mould set for them and succeed far beyond their backgrounds but this cannot be everyone.
It may be them and is more likely their parents. But whether it's one or the other makes no difference to me. In a free nation, every man is ultimately responsible for his success. You can be born with a silver spoon and die a pauper or be born a pauper and die with a silver spoon. If the individual knows the path to advancement (as they clearly did) and they reject it...That's their own doing. If anything, their squalor should be motivation to succeed, not to fail.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Correct, I mentioned no theories related to any conspiracies.
You mentioned the state taking everything away from them...
Red Stateler wrote:
In a free nation, every man is ultimately responsible for his success.
It's a nice ideal, unfortunately a pipe dream, even if either of us did live in a 'free' nation.
Red Stateler wrote:
You mentioned the state taking everything away from them...
No, not the state (which I did not mention), the greedy. For example those who get rich making the poor poorer by getting them hooked on crack, or on MSG, or anti depresents, or tobacco. Just pick your desired profit to risk ratio. Or those who raid pensions funds, outsource employment, gamble money that is not theirs etc etc. Capitalism unfortunately has to have loosers in order for it to work for the winners and no amount of blaming those on the loosing end will change that. If we recognise this fact and do what we can to mitigate it at both ends our societies and economies might survive long enough for someone to come up with a better idea. If we continue to treat wealth as the main indicator of personal value then I'm afraid our children will spend their lives be slaves.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
In a free nation, every man is ultimately responsible for his success.
It's a nice ideal, unfortunately a pipe dream, even if either of us did live in a 'free' nation.
Red Stateler wrote:
You mentioned the state taking everything away from them...
No, not the state (which I did not mention), the greedy. For example those who get rich making the poor poorer by getting them hooked on crack, or on MSG, or anti depresents, or tobacco. Just pick your desired profit to risk ratio. Or those who raid pensions funds, outsource employment, gamble money that is not theirs etc etc. Capitalism unfortunately has to have loosers in order for it to work for the winners and no amount of blaming those on the loosing end will change that. If we recognise this fact and do what we can to mitigate it at both ends our societies and economies might survive long enough for someone to come up with a better idea. If we continue to treat wealth as the main indicator of personal value then I'm afraid our children will spend their lives be slaves.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It's a nice ideal, unfortunately a pipe dream, even if either of us did live in a 'free' nation.
Oh yeah, I forgot...Conspiracies. :rolleyes:
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Capitalism unfortunately has to have loosers in order for it to work for the winners and no amount of blaming those on the loosing end will change that.
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but. Production and the financial mechanisms behind it is ever-expanding and bringing prosperity to more and more people. Ironically, the ghettofabulous crowd I'm referring to rejected capitalism. Theirs was a product created by inner city welfare systems (i.e. communist sub-states created by the Democratic Party in the 1960's) that didn't reward production. Consequently, they sat on their butts, did drugs and predictably amounted to absolutely nothing.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If we continue to treat wealth as the main indicator of personal value then I'm afraid our children will spend their lives be slaves.
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth? There's not even any relevance here. I said these people are poor because of their condition. That's a cause and effect relationship. Because these people were a bunch of worthless bums, they will not be financially rewarded in life. What's the "main indicator of personal value" to you? Managing to smoke dope all your life and then make it to the ripe old age of 25 before being shot in a drug deal?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A lack of self-worth? Mixing with the wrong people? Lack of parental guidance? Poor housing? Poor employment prospects?
None of which are obsticales if you reject them.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No doubt some do. But most don't have the money to spend on luxuries such as Crack. Some do the proper thing and go to Further Education Colleges and learn something new. However, most people who are in this deprived groupings are those where heavy industry once was, shut down for one reason or another, thus mass unemployment in the locality with minimal or no investment by other companies (or Government). And doing a "Norman Tebbit" is not always an option.
That may be the case in Britain, but in the US there were public housing projects (low-rent buildings subsidized by the federal government) that were filled with welfare recipients. I do commend those few that actually went onto college and I'm certain they'll get all that they deserve.
Red Stateler wrote:
low-rent buildings subsidized by the federal
I initially read that as the feral government.
-
Same here, I was bussed from Pine Hills to a school very close to Kissimmiee back in the early 80's. The area was complete squalor, looked like the remnants of an old plantation. People living in houses with dirt floors, abandoned houses full of bums/drunks/druggies, whatever. I was one of like 15 white kids out of 100 or so in my class. It sucked but I wouldn't trade the experience for the world.
George L wrote:
It sucked but I wouldn't trade the experience for the world.
What exactly did you get out of that experience to value it so highly? Beyond "it sucks to be poor" I can't see anything, and just driving through that sort of area or an equivalent urban slum seems to be an adequate introduction to that lesson.
-- You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It's a nice ideal, unfortunately a pipe dream, even if either of us did live in a 'free' nation.
Oh yeah, I forgot...Conspiracies. :rolleyes:
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Capitalism unfortunately has to have loosers in order for it to work for the winners and no amount of blaming those on the loosing end will change that.
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but. Production and the financial mechanisms behind it is ever-expanding and bringing prosperity to more and more people. Ironically, the ghettofabulous crowd I'm referring to rejected capitalism. Theirs was a product created by inner city welfare systems (i.e. communist sub-states created by the Democratic Party in the 1960's) that didn't reward production. Consequently, they sat on their butts, did drugs and predictably amounted to absolutely nothing.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If we continue to treat wealth as the main indicator of personal value then I'm afraid our children will spend their lives be slaves.
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth? There's not even any relevance here. I said these people are poor because of their condition. That's a cause and effect relationship. Because these people were a bunch of worthless bums, they will not be financially rewarded in life. What's the "main indicator of personal value" to you? Managing to smoke dope all your life and then make it to the ripe old age of 25 before being shot in a drug deal?
Red Stateler wrote:
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but.
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
Red Stateler wrote:
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth?
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
Red Stateler wrote:
worthless bums
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Al Beback wrote:
So the invisible hand of their parents had no effect? What are the chances that you would have ended up exactly like them had been subjected to the same environment at home?
I'm sure that had a very significant effect. Although your assumption that "parents" should be plural is a bit of a stretch... I'm sure each parent was every bit as useless as their children. It certainly was a great community!
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm sure each parent was every bit as useless as their children. It certainly was a great community!
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great. I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but.
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
Red Stateler wrote:
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth?
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
Red Stateler wrote:
worthless bums
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system.
No it isn't. Our energy comes from the sun. But besides that, the capitalist system does not encompass "the world". Supply has steadily increased for hundreds of years, demonstrating that you belief is false. If the world's economy were closed, then there would be exactly the same number of cars today as last year as 10 years ago as 100 years ago. The number of people would not increase. The amount of money would not increase. The amount of gold would not increase. Your crazy conspiracy theories just don't hold water once you spend 3 seconds looking at reality.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
I don't value them because of of their lack of character. Plain and simple. Their quality of life is a product of their lack of character. Again, it is a cause and effect relationship. Poor character begets a substandard lifestyle...Not the other way around. Your conspiracy theories require you to accept the reverse...That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system designed to do so while benefitting the rich. Do some research into the turnover over the wealthy (which is very high). Your conspiratorial rantings require a caste system, but the access to wealth is universal.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.
No. It isn't because it's wrong.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
That statement is fundamentally false and bordering on absurdity. That descibes a closed system, and the free market economy is anything but.
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
Red Stateler wrote:
What on earth is that even supposed to mean? That character is judged by net worth?
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
Red Stateler wrote:
worthless bums
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
The free market could exist, it would come in the form of anarcho-capitalism; basically a form of free-market anarchy where everything is provided by "the market". It requires nothing more than a couple of moral axioms to set it up and it completely eliminates the need for a state. It's a beautiful idea, yet not fully developed. I'm working on it in an academic sense.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm sure each parent was every bit as useless as their children. It certainly was a great community!
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great. I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
Al Beback wrote:
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great.
There are quite a few bad parents in this country. There are also quite a few people who have made something of themselves and become good parents despite that fact, thus demonstrating that being cursed with poor parents is not unbreakable. I agree that good parenting develops good character.
Al Beback wrote:
I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
I suppose that would be the Nazi solution. However, these kids had poor parents for a very specific reason: Welfare (since repealed). The state subsidized out-of-wedlock-births for a couple of decades in an attempt to revitalize poor "disenfranchised" blacks. They were essentially removed from the capitalist system which would only reward their success and placed in a world that specifically rewarded complacency. It is, above all things, a demonstration of what the welfare state does to people, their character, self-worth and spirit. That said, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They sold their soul for welfare.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
The free market could exist, it would come in the form of anarcho-capitalism; basically a form of free-market anarchy where everything is provided by "the market". It requires nothing more than a couple of moral axioms to set it up and it completely eliminates the need for a state. It's a beautiful idea, yet not fully developed. I'm working on it in an academic sense.
73Zeppelin wrote:
moral axioms
Yeah...Good luck with that!
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system. The absurdity is that some Capitalists continue to ignore this. As we've discussed before there is no 'free market' and never could be.
The free market could exist, it would come in the form of anarcho-capitalism; basically a form of free-market anarchy where everything is provided by "the market". It requires nothing more than a couple of moral axioms to set it up and it completely eliminates the need for a state. It's a beautiful idea, yet not fully developed. I'm working on it in an academic sense.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Yep, and therein lies the problem. The children sucked because the parents sucked, because their own parents sucked, and so on. Breaking out of that hopeless state, where you have the one or two lunatics you depend on (along with their offspring) constantly making you feel like crap, can't be easy. Then you go into the world where you're free to vent your built-up anger and frustration, and everyone thinks you're just another lazy, ignorant, criminal in the making. Great.
There are quite a few bad parents in this country. There are also quite a few people who have made something of themselves and become good parents despite that fact, thus demonstrating that being cursed with poor parents is not unbreakable. I agree that good parenting develops good character.
Al Beback wrote:
I can't think of a better reason to sterilize every newborn baby, and not allow them to procreate until they can prove with a high degree of certainty that they understand the principals of good parenting. Just think of the benefits to children and society as a whole!
I suppose that would be the Nazi solution. However, these kids had poor parents for a very specific reason: Welfare (since repealed). The state subsidized out-of-wedlock-births for a couple of decades in an attempt to revitalize poor "disenfranchised" blacks. They were essentially removed from the capitalist system which would only reward their success and placed in a world that specifically rewarded complacency. It is, above all things, a demonstration of what the welfare state does to people, their character, self-worth and spirit. That said, I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They sold their soul for welfare.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
In a free nation, every man is ultimately responsible for his success.
It's a nice ideal, unfortunately a pipe dream, even if either of us did live in a 'free' nation.
Red Stateler wrote:
You mentioned the state taking everything away from them...
No, not the state (which I did not mention), the greedy. For example those who get rich making the poor poorer by getting them hooked on crack, or on MSG, or anti depresents, or tobacco. Just pick your desired profit to risk ratio. Or those who raid pensions funds, outsource employment, gamble money that is not theirs etc etc. Capitalism unfortunately has to have loosers in order for it to work for the winners and no amount of blaming those on the loosing end will change that. If we recognise this fact and do what we can to mitigate it at both ends our societies and economies might survive long enough for someone to come up with a better idea. If we continue to treat wealth as the main indicator of personal value then I'm afraid our children will spend their lives be slaves.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
No, basically non-aggression. That's about all, really. Well, it's the fundamental one. The rest are rather secondary.