If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
Dak
mentat
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
There are people who fit in, and people who don't. What would you do with the ones who don't, Dak, if not placating them with welfare so they don't take the stealing into their own hands?
Matt
Active Member
Just let them die in the streets. It's easy to have libertarian opinions if you have the economic ability to support them.
Dak
mentat
Who "doesn't fit"? Why is theft the only possible option imaginable. Why would that even be a problem if it were?
You act like I'm a hedge fund manager or something. I'm a part time working college student with a family to support.
"They" already "die in the streets". The "Great Society" experiment has been a failure.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Well there's a lot of people with untreated illnesses (mental and physical) who can't handle a job. In the case of mental, there's a good chance those people's children will inherit the problems, hence the multi-generational aspect of the problem.
Because people need money to survive. Generally money is either earned, gifted, or stolen.
Why is stealing a problem? Because there are property laws.
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
I like how no one feels they have to actually address the article or death rates or anything because mentally ill people and "anarchy". I guess if this subject were related to video games rms would have put a lot more thought into it.
rms
Active Member
talking about your national review article?
why you gotta call me out dog, I don't read one of your damn links and you gotta put me on blast?
Fo real?
why you gotta call me out dog, I don't read one of your damn links and you gotta put me on blast?
Fo real?
Dak
mentat
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I read the article. The claim that the welfare state alone is responsible for broken families and high crime rates is painfully simplistic. Just because there were more two-parent families in the 1950s doesn't mean it was worth the oppression of women that kept them in abusive marriages because people "just didn't divorce" back then. The article also doesn't mention how much more plentiful the job market was back in the 50s before globalization, automation, and women joining the workforce.
rms
Active Member
Did you link this because you think I would disagree with it or have trouble with it? Why do you think i'm a welfare state guy? haha
Unlike you Dak, I separate pragmatism from my own beliefs
But I do hate when writers use evidence like it's common knowledge without any statistic source/link etc. For instance, how can a writer make such a grandiose statement comparing 1865-1965 post slavery black society and 1965-2015 without literally using any evidence. I am guessing he is referring to the cheap housing/free housing movement, but it sounds inherently racist that 'putting all these blacks together' created these communities.
Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s,
Ugh. Talk about a ridiculous statement.
[
Einherjar86
Active Member
The claim that most black children were raised in two-parent households prior to 1960 is also questionable, in my opinion. The U.S. Census Bureau put out a warning in the early-20thC emphasizing that African American women were being disproportionately abandoned by their husbands or had never married but had children. So it seems like it was a problem well before the Civil Rights movement.
Dak
mentat
Did you link this because you think I would disagree with it or have trouble with it? Why do you think i'm a welfare state guy? haha
Unlike you Dak, I separate pragmatism from my own beliefs
This is the Mort Divine thread, not the rms thread, and pragmatism is my middle name. Unfortunately pragmatism has been coopted to mean "easy".
1. Why is your first concern "how it sounds" vs is it true?
2.
So ridiculous you didn't even have to bother checking whether or not it was true amirite? Because how things sound is an acceptable barometer.
Most = >50%. Doesn't sound questionable at all. Secondly, "Disproportionately" is a relative statement, and given the situation in the early 20th century we can assume A. Relative to whites and B. This number could be something like 15% vs 10%. I haven't done extensive study into the topic, but Sowell (and Walter Williams) have, and if one were to take issue with their statements or statistics I know I'd want something more in rebuttal than "that's racist"/questionable/ridiculous.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Here's my contention, which has nothing to do with Sowell being racist:
He suggests that prior to the Civil Rights movement and the 1960s, black families were trying to approximate the values of the white middle class; but the 1960s saw a resistance to this based on anti-racist imperatives that was ultimately detrimental to black mobility.
He's not incorrect that there were probably more black marriages prior to 1960 - after Reconstruction, blacks acknowledged their newfound rights (limited as they were) and took the opportunity to marry one another. Therefore, the marriage rate among black families was higher. However, it also started to decline prior to the 1960s, and the reasons for this have nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement since they began to occur well before the Second World War.
So I don't disagree with Sowell that more black children may have been born into two-parent households, but to say that they were "raised" in them, and/or that these two-parent households remained relatively steady until the Civil Rights movement, which is somehow responsible for their dissolution, does not seem to be a viable claim.
He suggests that prior to the Civil Rights movement and the 1960s, black families were trying to approximate the values of the white middle class; but the 1960s saw a resistance to this based on anti-racist imperatives that was ultimately detrimental to black mobility.
He's not incorrect that there were probably more black marriages prior to 1960 - after Reconstruction, blacks acknowledged their newfound rights (limited as they were) and took the opportunity to marry one another. Therefore, the marriage rate among black families was higher. However, it also started to decline prior to the 1960s, and the reasons for this have nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement since they began to occur well before the Second World War.
So I don't disagree with Sowell that more black children may have been born into two-parent households, but to say that they were "raised" in them, and/or that these two-parent households remained relatively steady until the Civil Rights movement, which is somehow responsible for their dissolution, does not seem to be a viable claim.
Dak
mentat
Well I wouldn't blame the CRM for the dissolution, and I can't see where Sowell did either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
The CRA is one paragraph. The "War on Poverty" is quite lengthy, and is what Sowell refers to as "the welfare state".
Even assuming things were in a declining state, it is an indefensible position to claim that the welfare state has helped at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
The CRA is one paragraph. The "War on Poverty" is quite lengthy, and is what Sowell refers to as "the welfare state".
Even assuming things were in a declining state, it is an indefensible position to claim that the welfare state has helped at all.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
It's a true statement by a long shot. He didn't make any comment about trends. But a quick google and hot damn my guesstimate numbers weren't far off:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...motherhood-in-america-over-the-last-50-years/
Edit: You can also see where the "Nixon Shock" hit minorities disproportionately hard.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Sowell said:
I don't think there's any way you can call that a true statement "by a long shot." Your stats reflect the number of unmarried births. They don't reflect the number of unmarried raised. The rate of unmarried births may have increased, but the rate of children raised in single-parent households has been an issue for some time in the black community.
In other words, before the 1960s more black children may have been born into two-parent households, but that doesn't mean the number of married fathers who abandoned them after they were born was lower.
Similar threads
