Will Tramps become Cats in Lanzarote?

Did you know that Cats in Lanzarote are seen as vermin,  They are killed because they have no use to society, cannot do useful work, are excess to requirements and a burden on resources.  Noo one cares that much, they are only cats after all.

I built a wall the other day.  It was a pain, and frankly, would have been better if someone else could have done it who had more time and less money than me.  In the statist world we live in, I would have been ripped off if I'd got someone else to do it , once all the cuts had been taken.

An image came to my mind as I hauled to bricks and gravel about:- the tramp I once saw in the city centre, who had a cardboard placard begging for work from someone.  What if he passed me and offered his services to build the wall?

The truth is, no matter how cheap he would have offered, I would have said no.  Because the risk to me of engaging this tramp in the task would have outweighed the time Id have saved.

Now, what if no-one could engage him?  There are people like that - useless to everyone. For example hardened criminals; utterly useless people by the nature of their incapacity to co-operate with anything.  In theory anyone could be useless to everyone, it depends on the task that people want done and the charactoristics/skills/competence of the potential worker.  In my view there is a real possibilty that a significant number of people will be useless to everyone else.  These days these people are in benefit. The tramp I saw in the town was on benefit.

But if his benefit was withdrawn, and I still didnt let him build my wall, would he just die peacefully?  I think we all knwo the answer to that.  So for these useless people, is it not better to pay them benefit, than have the risk of them taking and causing much larger losses to society in their fight for survival?

I get the impression that in the past, in more liberal times, the tramp would have been treated like the Cats in Lanzarote.  Are we really happy with that?

I get the impression that in the past, in more liberal times, the tramp would have been treated like the Cats in Lanzarote.  Are we really happy with that?

Indeed we're perfectly happy. We believe people have the right to have stupid impressions and you're clearly exercizing yours.

  In my view there is a real possibilty that a significant number of people will be useless to everyone else.

Do you plan on presenting supporting evidence, or will you leave it at that?

Just because the man may be useless to you, it doesn't mean he's useless to everyone.

Furthermore, you are neglecting to analyze the reasons why he became like this in the first place.

Finally, suppose it is better to give him money than not. This doesn't really change anything about any libertarian stances.

Indeed we're perfectly happy. We believe people have the right to have stupid impressions and you're clearly exercizing yours"

See this is the problem with these forums - anyone with a different view gets bullied out of the forum altogether.  You end up with a whole group of the converted.  No doubt theres an equivalent forum for socialist ends.  Personally, I'm more in favour of the concepts here than there. But I also know that we (humans) are very impressionable and persuadable.  As someone who thinks himself independent minded, academic and intellligent, this is a conclusion it has taken me years to accept.  But I think in truth, we all know this - that many of our ideas are not truly our own and often independent thought is an illusion.  How else could you get a such a large portion of a nation believing in the state? to me there is always a danger of objectivity becoming biassed.  I think if you read something enough times you theres a danger that you believe it.  You feel you understand it. 

I read an intersting book called 'Risk' that went through a few things, one of which was this trend - for humans to believe in something a little, then when they are reading something, infact even when they are chosing something to read, they unconsciously cherry pick things that will support their argument. There were some statistical psychological tests quoted. I think we can all admit that when reading something we have often rememberd the bits that align to our beliefs and perhaps focussed on these. Its a real danger, in my opinion, for all of us, in all our beliefs, that they may become radicalised without us even knowing.

I did wonder what would happen if even an iota of statist counter argument was put onto this site; whether the sort of reaction designed to bully me off would come back, which would perhaps prove the source of the one-sidedness of this forum.  I was proved right.

Now, I will probably end of 'doing one' too and leave the forum to be just as one sided as before.  But bear in mind, its people like me you need to convince to actuallyt get anything more than an abstract forum done on any of this, and you've just turned me away.  Great work ;)

"Do you plan on presenting supporting evidence, or will you leave it at that?"

Probably not - Not well read enough - I just notice in the UK when Ive lived near the slums, that theres loads of people that would rather sit on meagre benefits than find work, its part of the problem we have, and that it seems obvious that some would find work and some would be utterly useless if the system was changed.  I've read in news about violent criminals and people with serious mental health issues.  Im pretty certain there would be some who are useless due to the amount of trust needed in order to engage with someone in a transaction.  In truth we dont know what proportion of the ones currently deemed useless by the form of Capatalsim-come-socialism we have vs the outright Capatalism proposed here.

"Just because the man may be useless to you, it doesn't mean he's useless to everyone."

Agree, Im trying to use him as an example, the concept it that some people are or may be useless to everyone

"Furthermore, you are neglecting to analyze the reasons why he became like this in the first place."

Again I agree and there is a solid argument for why purely capitalist regimes might have prevented this.  However my only conceern on that front is that maybe one of the preventions was for him to cease to exist at the point he became useless, which will also no dount be a product, or a risk of a product of the system proposed?

"Finally, suppose it is better to give him money than not. This doesn't really change anything about any libertarian stances."

So in this situation are you saying the government gives him money?  As this then in my view casts a cloud over the whole theory - thers the tramp and the wall in all the economic principles, so if we concede that the government should get invilved in this one are we not conceding that it could get involved in all the others?

So is that a response to the entire Mises forum? Or just Marko?

Richard Cowell:

An image came to my mind as I hauled to bricks and gravel about:- the tramp I once saw in the city centre, who had a cardboard placard begging for work from someone.  What if he passed me and offered his services to build the wall?

The truth is, no matter how cheap he would have offered, I would have said no.  Because the risk to me of engaging this tramp in the task would have outweighed the time Id have saved.

Just because you would've said no, doesn't mean others wouldn't have.

Is an employer any more likely to want to engage in a tramp nowadays than in 'liberal times'? Why do you think people go to home depot to pick up people who work anonymously for cash? Could it be that it's easier to cooperate with someone when there's not someone looking over your shoulder making it nigh impossible and definitely expensive?

Now, what if no-one could engage him?  There are people like that - useless to everyone. For example hardened criminals; utterly useless people by the nature of their incapacity to co-operate with anything.  In theory anyone could be useless to everyone, it depends on the task that people want done and the charactoristics/skills/competence of the potential worker.  In my view there is a real possibilty that a significant number of people will be useless to everyone else.  These days these people are in benefit. The tramp I saw in the town was on benefit.

What if? You're assuming that they're useless to everyone, how do you know? Is it good that he's on benefit? Is it good that hardened criminals should be given the stolen money of peaceful people?

But if his benefit was withdrawn, and I still didnt let him build my wall, would he just die peacefully?  I think we all knwo the answer to that.  So for these useless people, is it not better to pay them benefit, than have the risk of them taking and causing much larger losses to society in their fight for survival?

So we should appease the violent criminals? Submit to fear? I think I know the answer too. In a liberal society, without firearms restrictions, these people will meet their ends and the hands of those they aggress on. Either that or they get away with it. Personally I'd like to have the option of them being killed mid-crime. What's the alternative again?

I get the impression that in the past, in more liberal times, the tramp would have been treated like the Cats in Lanzarote.  Are we really happy with that?

You get the impression that homeless people would be killed in a time when accumulating wealth was easier? Ok, I disagree. Now what?

Also, who is we? I am not we. Nor am I happy with the idea of murdering bums.

 

Frankly, I never understood this argument.

If we need to bribe the underclass with benefits lest they rise up, crack our skulls and simply take our stuff, why wait? Why not go over with it now instead of continuing to swell their ranks over next two or three decades (and I'm being very generous here with my estimate of how long the western social democracies will function) and give people already on the low end of the pay scale an incentive to join their ranks too.

Another thing that makes me sceptical is: Why now? We've had conditions both historical and present with larger wealth disparities and much smaller police forces and yet once again the underclasses simply didn't simply rise up and slaughter the wealthy.

I also think you, like many other people, massivly underestimate how much the present regulatory framework destroys opportunities especially for people living on the margins of society like your tramp on the town square. There even was a pretty interesting article on the blog about that not too long ago.

Richard Cowell:

I did wonder what would happen if even an iota of statist counter argument was put onto this site; whether the sort of reaction designed to bully me off would come back, which would perhaps prove the source of the one-sidedness of this forum.  I was proved right.

Please keep in mind that Marko is only one person here. No one else can control his behavior.

Regarding your issue with "useless" people, why do you think people are or become this way?

There were "useless people" in the old days. They lived in caves and they were called the hermits. People didn't murder them instead they brought them bread and berries.

It is interesting to me you think the past is something to speculate about. You have an impression in the olden days "useless people" may have been preventively killed off. But actually since the past already happened there is no need to speculate, it can simply be examined. There is no historical record of any private gangs roaming the countryside seeking out people who do not participate in the market to murder, no matter how liberal the times, so what glue are you sniffing?

Whenever there was a campaign against people unable or unwilling to offer much to others it was invariably conducted by a state. The Nazis knew of a category of 'asocials' who were to be repressed. Vagrancy was sufficient to gain membership in this category. They also murdered mentally retarded people, lest they prove too much of a burden to their generous social state. Stalin's Soviet Union came up with a charming slogan of "he who does not work, shall not eat". Soviet officials openly referred to deported dependents of forced labourers as "ballast" and tied rations to exiles to fulfillment of work quotas, though they had exiled and imprisoned tens of thousands of families which were already without adult able-bodied members, or would become such through injury or death. Many states carried out attempted crack downs against the traditional gypsy lifestyle of the Roma people (who albeit always very active on the market were useless to the socialistic authorities). Numerous states repressed vagrants, United States included as testified by Rambo: First Blood.

Seeing then that I can't think of private campaigns of homicide and terror against peaceful vagrants, bums and hermits, but plenty of state violence against them, you'll excuse me if I'm not too worried about their well-being in a free society. At the very least it seems unlikely they would be at any greater risk than in a statist world.

In fact intuitively it seems a pro-active homicidal campaign against the bums of the world would be far more expensive than dealing with any potential crime by a desperate bum on a case-by-case basis. First because it would go after the entire bum population, a portion of which may in fact may have never been driven to sufficient desperation to resort to crime, secondly because bums or people you mistook for bums may have friends who would now have a legal case to demand your death, thirdly because the targeted populace would now be alarmed and could reasonably be expected to engage you in a war, fourth because bums aren't skilled criminals and taking a loss on petty theft seems more frugal than investing in 4x4s, IR goggles and high-powered rifles with which to go after the bums (I'm imagining it like an over the top Australian kangaroo hunt with a lot of shouts of 'yehaaa'), fifth because bum-lovers will boycott you.

I mean really, why would a system of defense ostensibly able to deal with professional criminals fail when faced with starved, half-dead amateurs? It would be able to handle, without going on murderous preventive rampages against people suspected of having criminal inclinations, professional criminals, but could not be expected to perform the same in the face of the bum spectre?

The truth is, no matter how cheap he would have offered, I would have said no.  Because the risk to me of engaging this tramp in the task would have outweighed the time Id have saved.

Well not everyone is like you are they? As someone who was able to take advantage of the generosity of some twenty-five different drivers to cross Europe (to England) hitch-hiking, despite any movies they may have seen about pyschotic killers stalking the roads I say this from a little bit of experience. Mind you I am not, nor do I look like a tramp and it still took me 6 days, but I met people better at hitch-hiking along the way who travell way faster, including a Trotskyte ex-lawyer who was a tramp and looked the part, bad teeth and all.

Actually the very fact you were able to see this tramp suggest he is able to survive. Unless you remember him as lying very, very stil it would suggest he is able to get work enough times to keep him alive and out of trouble.  

 

 

Actually, historically it is after you mandate those less able to provide for themselves must be given handouts when you invariably see (state) hostility against them arise along with calls for them to be eliminated, whether by being bred out (Progressives), by reeducation in a deadly labour camp (Stalinists), or extermination (Nazis).

Germany was first the first welfare state, and then it was the first state to subject its handicapped to the gas oven.

The Roman Empire had a welfare state before Germany ever existed. Jus' sayin'.

I live in Gran Canaria, and have been to Lanzarote many times. I can say that your rather daft assumption that cats are treated like vermin is innaccurate, and pretty large insult to a friendly race of people. There are plenty of happy, well/fed cats on the Canary Islands. Mine is called Trousers.

 

There is a subset of expats on thed islands who believe that all the pets need to be rescued and airlifted to Sweden or Britain to save them. Millions of euros a year go on shipping cats to new homes. It is their money, and they are free to spend it as they choose. In my opinion it is wasted!

 

What cats are on Lanzarote and the other Canary Islands is an ecological nightmare. They have wiped out giant lizards, and threated seabirds and other endemic birds.