4 ms·

It's not a harm. The point is that you're not entitled to buy a meal. You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own, by negotiating with the outside

It's not a harm. The point is that you're not entitled to buy a meal. You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own, by negotiating with the outside world. You're not entitled to have them met. This couldn't have been more obvious in 1800 but seems to have been forgotten somehow. > they could just go somewhere else This is exactly how voluntary association works. As I've said before, we've not lived through desegregated public life and no opinion on private business. I suspect the actual outcomes would vary widely by location, which is the point of limited central authority. Who are you to tell someone hundreds of miles away how to live?

shadowgovt 4y ago
> You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own Do you see how easy it would be for an organized group to use a philosophy like that to exterminate another group? Imagine we only offered service to a certain group of people in a certain area. "Yes, you have freedom to trade and do business and have your needs met, but only in this five-block radius." Now let's, for the sake of argument, call that radius a "ghetto." Actually, we don't even have to invoke that grim specter. This is America we're taking about. ... We can call it a "reservation." Actual free societies are made of better than this. This story is no story of liberty.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Reservations are not ghettos. There are no walls and no guards. People can leave anytime. To equivocate them is to diminish the horror of the holocaust. It's true that they came about as a result of a long and brutal process of conquest, but these were warring nations and different times. It's also true that those living who were forcefully oppressed deserve reparations. Sadly there are few still alive. Those who do leave reservations however, especially those who do so in pursuit of education and not drugs, tend to fare far better than those who stay. This is hardly surprising given that remote areas that find their populations too dense to be supported by their economies tend to do poorly. You don't need to be on a reservation to have awful outcomes in remote areas. The (few) reservations that manage to produce something valuable and govern the proceeds well are hardly grim. People can just leave. Many people do, and many of those succeed. Our free society produces hierarchies of competence (not privilege)[1]. They're still hierarchies however, with winners in opulence and impoverished losers. More than there being nothing wrong with this, it seems to be a completely unavoidable law of nature. I'd say that's a good enough reason to embrace it. 1. The vast majority of intergenerational wealth transfers fail. People with rich grandparents tend to be middle class. It's (very) hard to raise competent people in a privileged environment, and incompetent people tend to fail in our society.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > hierarchies of competence (not privilege)[1]. Oh dear. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you've been sold a bill of goods. On the social mobility index, United States ranks 27 of the 80 some odd countries index. Poor kids in Estonia are more likely to turn out better than poor kids in the US. And intergenerational wealth transfer is only one way that privilege transfers. Opportunity and connections are the much larger effects. Seriously, do the research on how many poor people move up a social ladder over their lifetime versus how many wealthy people stay in their ladder. You will be disappointed in the story in America. And there's a reason the reservations are in remote places. And if you don't find the idea "all they have to do to move up in society is leave the reservation" to be viscerally revolting, you don't understand how a nation slaughters another bation and I think your comprehension of these problems may be too far away from me to reach. Again, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I believed in the dream too when I was younger.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      It's a bit more complicated than a single index isn't it? Social mobility varies widely in the US, with the biggest differentiator being domestic value for education. Time spent studying (not household wealth) is the biggest predictor of SAT scores. SAT scores are the biggest predictor of college/university admission. Admission is the biggest predictor of economic mobility. And the biggest predictor of time spent studying? Domestic value for education. If your parents (rich or poor) care about your education, you'll succeed. If the don't you won't. This is particularly evident when examining the social mobility experienced by children of poor asian immigrants. This is all pretty standard Chicago school stuff. For further reading see the work of Thomas Sowell. This is exactly what I'd expect in a free country. Opportunity is abound, you just have to take the appropriate actions to seize it. Conversely, if you're born into a domestic culture that sets you up for (economic) failure, it's no one's job to intervene. People can of course raise their children in any manner they see fit. > be viscerally revolting I'm not sure why I would. Hunting and fishing is simply no longer a sustainable economic model. I did say "that they came about as a result of a long and brutal process of conquest". But all the people who perpetrated it and suffered it are dead. The question is how to make the best of reality today. Living on a reservation in modern comfort (house, A/C, refrigeration, heating, etc.) is just not economically viable, regardless of how one may feel about it.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> You have to figure out how to meet your needs on your own Do you see how easy it would be for an organized group to use a philosophy like that to exterminate another group? Imagine we only offered service to a certain group of people in a certain area. "Yes, you have freedom to trade and do business and have your needs met, but only in this five-block radius." Now let's, for the sake of argument, call that radius a "ghetto." Actually, we don't even have to invoke that grim specter. This is America we're taking about. ... We can call it a "reservation." Actual free societies are made of better than this. This story is no story of liberty.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Reservations are not ghettos. There are no walls and no guards. People can leave anytime. To equivocate them is to diminish the horror of the holocaust. It's true that they came about as a result of a long and brutal process of conquest, but these were warring nations and different times. It's also true that those living who were forcefully oppressed deserve reparations. Sadly there are few still alive. Those who do leave reservations however, especially those who do so in pursuit of education and not drugs, tend to fare far better than those who stay. This is hardly surprising given that remote areas that find their populations too dense to be supported by their economies tend to do poorly. You don't need to be on a reservation to have awful outcomes in remote areas. The (few) reservations that manage to produce something valuable and govern the proceeds well are hardly grim. People can just leave. Many people do, and many of those succeed. Our free society produces hierarchies of competence (not privilege)[1]. They're still hierarchies however, with winners in opulence and impoverished losers. More than there being nothing wrong with this, it seems to be a completely unavoidable law of nature. I'd say that's a good enough reason to embrace it. 1. The vast majority of intergenerational wealth transfers fail. People with rich grandparents tend to be middle class. It's (very) hard to raise competent people in a privileged environment, and incompetent people tend to fail in our society.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > hierarchies of competence (not privilege)[1]. Oh dear. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you've been sold a bill of goods. On the social mobility index, United States ranks 27 of the 80 some odd countries index. Poor kids in Estonia are more likely to turn out better than poor kids in the US. And intergenerational wealth transfer is only one way that privilege transfers. Opportunity and connections are the much larger effects. Seriously, do the research on how many poor people move up a social ladder over their lifetime versus how many wealthy people stay in their ladder. You will be disappointed in the story in America. And there's a reason the reservations are in remote places. And if you don't find the idea "all they have to do to move up in society is leave the reservation" to be viscerally revolting, you don't understand how a nation slaughters another bation and I think your comprehension of these problems may be too far away from me to reach. Again, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I believed in the dream too when I was younger.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    It's a bit more complicated than a single index isn't it? Social mobility varies widely in the US, with the biggest differentiator being domestic value for education. Time spent studying (not household wealth) is the biggest predictor of SAT scores. SAT scores are the biggest predictor of college/university admission. Admission is the biggest predictor of economic mobility. And the biggest predictor of time spent studying? Domestic value for education. If your parents (rich or poor) care about your education, you'll succeed. If the don't you won't. This is particularly evident when examining the social mobility experienced by children of poor asian immigrants. This is all pretty standard Chicago school stuff. For further reading see the work of Thomas Sowell. This is exactly what I'd expect in a free country. Opportunity is abound, you just have to take the appropriate actions to seize it. Conversely, if you're born into a domestic culture that sets you up for (economic) failure, it's no one's job to intervene. People can of course raise their children in any manner they see fit. > be viscerally revolting I'm not sure why I would. Hunting and fishing is simply no longer a sustainable economic model. I did say "that they came about as a result of a long and brutal process of conquest". But all the people who perpetrated it and suffered it are dead. The question is how to make the best of reality today. Living on a reservation in modern comfort (house, A/C, refrigeration, heating, etc.) is just not economically viable, regardless of how one may feel about it.