Thank You - Brandon
Zoning laws, the fact that the ghetto is not an appealing place to open a new businesses, rent control, minimum wage, child labor laws, criminalization of drugs, protectionism, affirmative action, ect.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Things I would blame the formation of ghettos on:
1. Welfare that creates incentives for young, single women to have illegitimate children and for capable workers to not work and instead become criminals.
2. Drug laws that prevent successful inner city entrepreneurs from doing their work and hiring others.
3. Shitty public schools that entrap inner city kids into a "culture of poverty."
4. Shitty public courts and police forces that do not protect inner city residents from crime.
5. Public housing, which is usually in disrepair and creates a pro-crime psychological arena. The bureaucrats in charge of public housing are usually not able to prevent crime on their premises, either.
6. Minimum wage laws that prevent the least skilled inner city residents from getting a job.
7. Unions that artificially raise wage rates that prevent the least skilled inner city residents from getting a job.
8. High taxes and regulations which prevent businesses from hiring inner city residents and new small businesses from springing up in inner cities.
Political Atheists Blog
I still disagree, people don't choose violence and poverty over peace and prosperity, it's not sensible. Ultimately if government programs weren't provided for them, they wouldn't live in the situations they live in. Inner-city poverty-stricken areas are like urban reservations, to a degree. You can't blame it on the individuals, 'cuz it's ultimately and obviously a result of government action. We're both admitting the same thing, that government "free lunches" produce a harmful effect, but it seems you blame the individuals, while I blame political policies. i've come to believe that the governmental education system produces less knowledgeable individuals, and welfare programs and public facilities provide an incentive to not work and have an easy way out and encourage a disrespect toward property (since they did not directly pay for it), Shitty, inexperienced, corrupt and biased police and courts create the ability to commit crime more easily and make crime socially acceptable, which in return create a breeding ground for 'dirty' businesses which are protected by violent gangs and provide money to violent and criminal organizations with enormous power and influence, economic restrictions like zoning laws, high taxes, minimum wages, rent control, and child labor laws which prevent individuals from escaping the environment of poverty, filth, and violence. Ultimately these policies prey on the most vulnerable populations within the country such as immigrants or minorities, since in a democracy minorities are easily controlled and abused. Is this correct?
Byzantine:You are avoiding an answer that is apparently uncomfortable to your egalitarian sensibilities
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
10Brandonr:Ultimately if government programs weren't provided for them, they wouldn't live in the situations they live in.
Granted, and yet, why do ghettos appear when government policies are nationwide?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
If someone takes government money the state has less. W00T!!!
Byzantine:The urban slums are not race-neutral. They are almost entirely black or Hispanic.
The short answer is low IQ.
The slums are products of poor choices, unless you're saying certain classes of people lack free will.
Individuals are to blame for the choices they make and this applies whether you are a ghetto resident or a Wall Street banker.
That's exactly my question! Why are these areas particularly affected by government actions? It's impossible for race to determine wealth, there are too many counter-examples to justify such a claim. It's obvious that government restrictions most negatively affect groups that are most vulnerable (the youth, the uneducated, minority groups, elderly, homeless and unemployed, immigrants, etc...) I'm wondering how and Why? I think there hasn't been enough research done, possibly it's something austrian economics need to look into deeper.
I think we're all asking the same question. Why are certain areas plagued with poverty, despite anti-market policies that are sported throughout the nation? What restrictions specifically harm these areas and why?