5 ms·

I think what Jello implies is wrong. People have the inherent ability to do bad things and treat eachother differently, regardless of whatever property system y

I think what Jello implies is wrong. People have the inherent ability to do bad things and treat eachother differently, regardless of whatever property system you have in place. Unemployment and undereducation will not be eliminated by the removal of private property. You don't have to be a property owner to be a self-absorbed dick that doesn't care about other people. If people want to make sure everybody has a living stipend (which is the logical conclusion of the goal of zero unemployment), they can pass a law creating that while still maintaining a system of property owners and private property.

silverbax88 15y ago
The quote, which is incredibly apt, does not blame crime on property law, but rather, short-sightedness and greed.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  "power structure of self-absorbed property owners" implies that people who don't own property aren't self-absorbed, or that the power structure of property owners is responsible for greed, unemployment, and undereducation. Otherwise, why mention a power structure of property owners?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - silverbax88 15y ago
    Mentioning the existence of a power structure of property owners does not automatically include all property owners.
    - dreamdu5t 15y ago
      Okay... then what does the power structure of private property have to do with it? Unemployment is not necessitated by private property. Removing the power structure of property owners will not eliminate unemployment or cause people to become educated. This is what Jello implies, and it's naively incorrect. Come on, Jello openly professes these politics/ideas, I am not reading anything into the quote that isn't there. He mentions power structure of property owners for a reason.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
        CWuestefeld 15y ago
        Public schools in the USA are paid for by property taxes. Yes, but the property owners don't get to decide how much they're going to pay. The citizenry at large either votes directly on a school budget referendum, or votes for representatives to decide the same. Either way, the decision on school funding is made by a much broader set of people than the property owners. Indeed, I own a cabin in upstate New York, but I am not a resident there, and thus am not allowed to vote there. I am entirely at the mercy of others as to how much I much pay for the school taxes there, as I do not have even a whisper of a voice.
        xxpor 15y ago
        That's not strictly true. In the 2 states I'm familiar with that have state income tax (New Jersey and Ohio), a HUGE proportion of the state budget goes to assistance for lower-income districts.
      - Jeng 15y ago
        Replace "Property owners" with people of influence.
saraid216 15y ago
There's a difference between "rawr, property ownership makes people dicks" and "property owners are the ones encouraging and permitting dick behavior to happen". Straw men are silly.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  "property owners are the ones encouraging and permitting dick behavior to happen" implies that people who don't own property aren't permitting dick behavior to happen. They are. They can.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  I'm missing the connection between your comment and the parent. But to answer your question: In times of economic hardship, people have less to lose. If you've got everything you want, you don't want to rock the boat. If you're dissatisfied but are still able to make a decent existence (whatever that means) for you and your family, then you might want to rock the boat, but you're unlikely to take the risk. If you're already in a situation where you can't provide, then there is very little risk, so what the heck.
hackinthebochs 15y ago
You're reading that way too literally. The point is that the property owners, those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools and an improved prison system. It is this greed that comes back to bite them when those kids rob and kill them.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools My property tax bills beg to disagree with you. For the 16 years I've owned my house, I've watched the portion of my taxes that go to our schools go up far faster than the rate of inflation. If there's a problem with education, it is absolutely NOT that there is insufficient money being invested into it. This should be so transparently obvious to all by now, that I assume anyone claiming otherwise has motives he's trying to hide.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    I believe I have discussed education issues on here with you in the past. Suffice it to say, I believe you are sorely mistaken. 1. Proportions of taxes can shrink or grow at any rate independent of inflation. This doesn't say that the absolute value given to education per student (and that's the measure that matters) has or has not exceeded inflation. 2. Statistics saying that e.g. yy% of students do not benefit from reduced class sizes or increased educational spending, where yy is some large double-digit number, ignore the critical exceptions to those statistics. Public education must address the worst-case outcomes, not just the average case, or those (100-yy)% of dropouts will sink into ghettos and become a significant drain on society, when most of them have the potential to be net contributors. 3. As I'm sure I've said before, talk to a few overworked, stressed-out teachers after an arduous day of dealing with students threatening them with violence, administrators not supporting them with classroom materials (try teaching math without any textbooks), etc. It's like babysitting 250 erratic 4-year-olds a day without the right toys to pacify them, except those 4-year-olds can kill you.
    - 15y ago

silverbax88 15y ago

The quote, which is incredibly apt, does not blame crime on property law, but rather, short-sightedness and greed.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
"power structure of self-absorbed property owners" implies that people who don't own property aren't self-absorbed, or that the power structure of property owners is responsible for greed, unemployment, and undereducation. Otherwise, why mention a power structure of property owners?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- silverbax88 15y ago
  Mentioning the existence of a power structure of property owners does not automatically include all property owners.
  - dreamdu5t 15y ago
    Okay... then what does the power structure of private property have to do with it? Unemployment is not necessitated by private property. Removing the power structure of property owners will not eliminate unemployment or cause people to become educated. This is what Jello implies, and it's naively incorrect. Come on, Jello openly professes these politics/ideas, I am not reading anything into the quote that isn't there. He mentions power structure of property owners for a reason.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
      - CWuestefeld 15y ago
        Public schools in the USA are paid for by property taxes. Yes, but the property owners don't get to decide how much they're going to pay. The citizenry at large either votes directly on a school budget referendum, or votes for representatives to decide the same. Either way, the decision on school funding is made by a much broader set of people than the property owners. Indeed, I own a cabin in upstate New York, but I am not a resident there, and thus am not allowed to vote there. I am entirely at the mercy of others as to how much I much pay for the school taxes there, as I do not have even a whisper of a voice.
      - xxpor 15y ago
        That's not strictly true. In the 2 states I'm familiar with that have state income tax (New Jersey and Ohio), a HUGE proportion of the state budget goes to assistance for lower-income districts.
    - Jeng 15y ago
      Replace "Property owners" with people of influence.

saraid216 15y ago

There's a difference between "rawr, property ownership makes people dicks" and "property owners are the ones encouraging and permitting dick behavior to happen". Straw men are silly.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
"property owners are the ones encouraging and permitting dick behavior to happen" implies that people who don't own property aren't permitting dick behavior to happen. They are. They can.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

CWuestefeld 15y ago
I'm missing the connection between your comment and the parent. But to answer your question: In times of economic hardship, people have less to lose. If you've got everything you want, you don't want to rock the boat. If you're dissatisfied but are still able to make a decent existence (whatever that means) for you and your family, then you might want to rock the boat, but you're unlikely to take the risk. If you're already in a situation where you can't provide, then there is very little risk, so what the heck.

hackinthebochs 15y ago

You're reading that way too literally. The point is that the property owners, those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools and an improved prison system. It is this greed that comes back to bite them when those kids rob and kill them.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
those with wealth, are too greedy to allow their wealth to be taxed for social services such as better schools My property tax bills beg to disagree with you. For the 16 years I've owned my house, I've watched the portion of my taxes that go to our schools go up far faster than the rate of inflation. If there's a problem with education, it is absolutely NOT that there is insufficient money being invested into it. This should be so transparently obvious to all by now, that I assume anyone claiming otherwise has motives he's trying to hide.
- nitrogen 15y ago
  I believe I have discussed education issues on here with you in the past. Suffice it to say, I believe you are sorely mistaken. 1. Proportions of taxes can shrink or grow at any rate independent of inflation. This doesn't say that the absolute value given to education per student (and that's the measure that matters) has or has not exceeded inflation. 2. Statistics saying that e.g. yy% of students do not benefit from reduced class sizes or increased educational spending, where yy is some large double-digit number, ignore the critical exceptions to those statistics. Public education must address the worst-case outcomes, not just the average case, or those (100-yy)% of dropouts will sink into ghettos and become a significant drain on society, when most of them have the potential to be net contributors. 3. As I'm sure I've said before, talk to a few overworked, stressed-out teachers after an arduous day of dealing with students threatening them with violence, administrators not supporting them with classroom materials (try teaching math without any textbooks), etc. It's like babysitting 250 erratic 4-year-olds a day without the right toys to pacify them, except those 4-year-olds can kill you.
  - 15y ago