5 ms·

Where should they go to not be an unfair burden?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Cluster then in a single, easily avoided neighborhood. Its one thing to ask productive people to give up their income to support the unproductive - its another to ask them to be victims of violence.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  That's a reasonable description of a prison.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    A prison is a place you are not allowed to leave. In contrast, I encourage everyone in public housing to find a job and leave.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Is it just received wisdom that Cluster then in a single, easily avoided neighborhood [that is apparently violent] is the best way to accomplish everyone in public housing to find a job and leave?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  The problem with this form of hyper-libertarianism is that a large percentage of the people your are consigning to your "unproductive" ghetto are children who are not productive in or out of these neighborhoods and who had no agency in the process that got them placed there. So you've doubled down on the hardship these children have to overcome. Even if you are ok with this from a moral perspective (which is a pretty high bar to get over in my opinion) it seems like a pretty ineffective way to limit the number of "unproductive" in your society.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    From what I see, a fixed number of people will be subject to the predatory behavior of the underclass. We are collectively unwilling to fix this. I don't see a compelling reason why it matters which children are victimized this way. Now if you want to say that none should be, I agree. Find a way to stop crime. Spreading crime around is not that way. (FYI my thinking on this issue draws far more from neo reactionaries than libertarians.)
    - com2kid 12y ago
      > Spreading crime around is not that way. There is also the idea that by separating out problem elements, that in the long term you decrease overall crime. A child in a ghetto who knows not of the potential for escape will likely stay in that ghetto. A child who is surrounded by choices, options, and multiple role models has a choice to make.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        If you have evidence that exposing everyone to criminals reduces crime, I'd love to see it. Not knowing one can leave can be handled with direct communication. For example, billboards: "get a job and you can leave this place. Any adult is here by choice."
        techsupporter 12y ago
        Other billboards we can put up in the ghetto to make sure people are fully informed and that experience tells us work just as well: - Not having sex means no babies. - Don't do drugs. - Stay in your local, neighborhood school to perform as equally well as your similarly-aged peers in schools located in more affluent areas. Well, maybe that last one not so much. Your argument strikes me as a reason people raise in objection to mass transit: the "undesirables" might come to town. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to your position. I live in an area of my city that, on paper, has a pretty high average household income but due to history also has a decent amount of petty crime. The answer isn't to redline those people off to somewhere else. There is a huge difference between being poor and committing crime, except that the poor tend to go to jail and the wealthy tend to pay a fine with no admittance of wrongdoing. And the latter also tend to screw over more people in one pop. The answer is to make it socially unacceptable, in all areas, to commit crime and to demonstrate that the law and society won't tolerate it.
- aosmith 12y ago
  Creating ghettos isn't the answer. Letting the free market dictate where people live is a much better solution.
aosmith 12y ago
Somewhere they can afford to pay for without assistance. Putting people without means next to those with some (albeit limited, in my case) means creates an asymmetric problem.

Cluster then in a single, easily avoided neighborhood. Its one thing to ask productive people to give up their income to support the unproductive - its another to ask them to be victims of violence.

maxerickson 12y ago
That's a reasonable description of a prison.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  A prison is a place you are not allowed to leave. In contrast, I encourage everyone in public housing to find a job and leave.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Is it just received wisdom that Cluster then in a single, easily avoided neighborhood [that is apparently violent] is the best way to accomplish everyone in public housing to find a job and leave?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
kasey_junk 12y ago
The problem with this form of hyper-libertarianism is that a large percentage of the people your are consigning to your "unproductive" ghetto are children who are not productive in or out of these neighborhoods and who had no agency in the process that got them placed there. So you've doubled down on the hardship these children have to overcome. Even if you are ok with this from a moral perspective (which is a pretty high bar to get over in my opinion) it seems like a pretty ineffective way to limit the number of "unproductive" in your society.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  From what I see, a fixed number of people will be subject to the predatory behavior of the underclass. We are collectively unwilling to fix this. I don't see a compelling reason why it matters which children are victimized this way. Now if you want to say that none should be, I agree. Find a way to stop crime. Spreading crime around is not that way. (FYI my thinking on this issue draws far more from neo reactionaries than libertarians.)
  - com2kid 12y ago
    > Spreading crime around is not that way. There is also the idea that by separating out problem elements, that in the long term you decrease overall crime. A child in a ghetto who knows not of the potential for escape will likely stay in that ghetto. A child who is surrounded by choices, options, and multiple role models has a choice to make.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      If you have evidence that exposing everyone to criminals reduces crime, I'd love to see it. Not knowing one can leave can be handled with direct communication. For example, billboards: "get a job and you can leave this place. Any adult is here by choice."
      - techsupporter 12y ago
        Other billboards we can put up in the ghetto to make sure people are fully informed and that experience tells us work just as well: - Not having sex means no babies. - Don't do drugs. - Stay in your local, neighborhood school to perform as equally well as your similarly-aged peers in schools located in more affluent areas. Well, maybe that last one not so much. Your argument strikes me as a reason people raise in objection to mass transit: the "undesirables" might come to town. I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to your position. I live in an area of my city that, on paper, has a pretty high average household income but due to history also has a decent amount of petty crime. The answer isn't to redline those people off to somewhere else. There is a huge difference between being poor and committing crime, except that the poor tend to go to jail and the wealthy tend to pay a fine with no admittance of wrongdoing. And the latter also tend to screw over more people in one pop. The answer is to make it socially unacceptable, in all areas, to commit crime and to demonstrate that the law and society won't tolerate it.
aosmith 12y ago
Creating ghettos isn't the answer. Letting the free market dictate where people live is a much better solution.

aosmith 12y ago

Somewhere they can afford to pay for without assistance. Putting people without means next to those with some (albeit limited, in my case) means creates an asymmetric problem.