tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post7185884378965074601..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Right on povertyRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-49501271732530950782007-05-27T18:12:00.000-05:002007-05-27T18:12:00.000-05:00Rick - To respond to the first point in your last ...Rick - <BR/><BR/>To respond to the first point in your last post. You wipe out the premise of classical economics if your theory is that groups of people have 2 choices and generally reject the one that will maximize their self-interest, i.e., lead to a better life.<BR/><BR/>Anyhoo - <BR/><BR/>Your second point is interesting. By "community," I actually mean community. Neighborhood, town, state, nation, etc. But I also mean "government" which is the way people living together in a community act in concert.<BR/><BR/>More important, I see a glimmer of hope in your second point. We all agree that the government should not do ineffective things. Where the heck is the conversation about what the government can do that will actually help people and communities break the cycles of dysfunction?<BR/><BR/>You first started this riff on your blog suggesting that it would be a unique discussion among conservatives about poverty, dysfunction, etc., and that you thought these issues should be reconsidered.<BR/><BR/>The reception your posts have had makes a clear statement. We haven't heard from a single (self-described) conservative who actually thinks we should do something. The major response has been to argue that (1) the government should do nothing (other than law enforcement) and (2) assign blame and culpability, as though doing so has any effect other than trying to justify (1).<BR/><BR/>PS - the trick, as you know, is identifying the "root causes." You briefly sound like a liberal. Here's my problem: "culture" is not simply a cause, bad parenting is not simply a cause, drugs, violence, etc. are not simply causes - they are, for the most part, effects.<BR/><BR/>There's cocaine and violence in Mequon -- why is it not of a type and degree though that it paralyzes the community there as it does elsewhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-23303384632665163062007-05-27T16:45:00.000-05:002007-05-27T16:45:00.000-05:00Welfare does not have to be "better than" work to ...Welfare does not have to be "better than" work to create a culture of dependency. The real tragedy of welfare as we knew it is that it was not. IIf you haven't, take a look at Jason DeParle's book <I>American Dream</I>. It's not gospel but its got lessons for both sides.<BR/><BR/>The "community" (by which I presume you mean the government) has done quite a bit with little discernable impact. I don't really think that it can shut down its efforts and maybe it needs to do more. But whatever it does will have to be different because if it does not address what seem to be current "root causes", it will fail.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-34699823557284861682007-05-27T10:54:00.000-05:002007-05-27T10:54:00.000-05:00So, Rick, after all of this pretense to discuss th...So, Rick, after all of this pretense to discuss the central city and its problems, crime etc., as well as the right's thinking about it -- all we have is the declaration that those people have to change their "culture?"<BR/><BR/>Of course, for these purposes, "culture" has a unique meaning, defined mainly by its isolation from any other social or economic force. Rick this is off the Rack Republican rhetoric, dressed up with 5 cent words. While I don't think its what you precisely intend, you end up where the right always ends up, more or less: "those folks need to simply wake up and suddenly decide to think differently and since this is the only problem, there's nothing the larger community can or should do."<BR/><BR/>For consistency, please note my standing objection to this nonsense about a culture of dependency based on a cartoon verion of the "welfare state." Setting JP's racism aside (an accusation I almost never make or agree with) - this "All in the Family" Repub rhetoric rests on a factually inaccurate premise. There has never been - or at least for 30 years has not been - a comprehensive system of economiv governmental benefits in this country. A program here and there but nothing particularly substantial.<BR/><BR/>Even if the facts were there, the causation premise is silly. The opportunities that are available to many of us - the ones you think are also readily available in the central city - offer a vastly better life than any governmental benefits could offer, uncreating the premise for this "culture of depdendency." The incentive to for this "culture" cannot exist, even if one follows the right's rhetorical argument.<BR/><BR/>Here, like usual, the right's analysis of social problems is aimed at and accomplishes only one thing - the conclusion that the community cannot and should not do anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-10646747429680359422007-05-26T17:28:00.000-05:002007-05-26T17:28:00.000-05:00The loss of factory jobs, a soft judicial system, ...The loss of factory jobs, a soft judicial system, and the close proximity to Chicago has given us the current inner-city.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-56658683858957346092007-05-26T07:31:00.000-05:002007-05-26T07:31:00.000-05:00I can't agree with that. The history of freed sla...I can't agree with that. The history of freed slaves shows incredible resourcefulness, work, initiative and family. During the Jim Crow era, strong black families were essential to survival.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-70591760319657616282007-05-25T20:23:00.000-05:002007-05-25T20:23:00.000-05:00Our welfare system was based on European culture. ...Our welfare system was based on European culture. Help those in need and they will help themselves. <BR/><BR/>The recipients were mainly from a slave culture. That culture did not recognize marriage, family, rights, responsibility, or choices. <BR/><BR/>Welfare was a form of slavery without the work requirement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-4920921034064280142007-05-25T12:26:00.000-05:002007-05-25T12:26:00.000-05:00"...We created a welfare system that paid young wo..."...We created a welfare system that paid young women to have children and not work and that left young men off the hook. If you think that was compassionate, ask yourself if you'd treat your own children that way."<BR/><BR/>It was worse than that. At one point, in order to get AFDC benefits, there could not be a man in the house. I'm sure the reasoning was intended to force men to support their families, but it had the opposite effect--it drove them away. I'm sure it didn't intend to "reward" women for kicking their men of the house, but in the end that's what it did. (And, yes, I know some of the men were abusive and, yes, I agree abusive men should have been kicked out of the house.) <BR/><BR/>But all of that is really beside the point now. If someone runs over you with their car and breaks your leg, they may owe you money for doctors, but if you want your leg to heal, only you can do the physical therapy. "We" all have a part to play in this, but if we want a person to succeed more than the person wants to succeed (and is willing to work to succeed), nothing we can do will make them succeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-82526031049805355162007-05-25T10:02:00.000-05:002007-05-25T10:02:00.000-05:00Well, Plato thought it would work out just fine......Well, Plato thought it would work out just fine.<BR/><BR/>...which raises the question "Athens or Jerusalem," <BR/><BR/>...which brings up the "not-to-be-discussed-it's-un-PC" topic of Natural Law as the unimpeachable source of cultural norms<BR/><BR/>...which leads us to ask "who opposes the Natural Law?"<BR/><BR/>Or, better, reminding us that the nature of heresy is to de-couple a good thing (society's obligation to assist the unfortunate) from the fabric surrounding it (the obligations of individuals to right actions), OR to emphasize one good at the expense of other goods.<BR/><BR/>And to remind us that none are so blind as they who will NOT see.Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com