Socialized medicine, next is socialized housing....

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

It's cheaper to give them a fantastic loan rate than it is to give them raises to the point where they can afford the house at normal rates.

IIUR that is indeed how its done.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't see why we should have fellow americans, even americans returning from iraq that you supposedly value, die from cold-exposure related health problems because we as a society can not loan them a dorm style, almost cell-like sleeping quarters

We do; they're called homeless shelters. Only those that refuse to use shelters die from cold-exposure problems. Don't make it sound worse than it is.

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

I think that this is a valid concern for the worker. Leaving aside their own travel costs there is the social cost of commuter congestion & the huge amount of time that it can take to travel to & from work, ..., this can cut into time spent with ones kids for example, which may have a further 'social' cost.

Then they should get a job where they can afford to live on the pay they'll make working close to home and not ask the state to require the company to pay them more becasue they want to live in the middle of cambridge.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

Then they should get a job where they can afford to live on the pay they'll make working close to home and not ask the state to require the company to pay them more becasue they want to live in the middle of cambridge.

I'm not suggesting that.

Although it does seem to be a 'micro-example' of the wealth/income distribution problem that I made earlier

The market solution is that either Janitors are paid more or more housing in appropriate areas.

If the wealth/income distriubution diferential is too great then the market will, likely as not, not provide the housing solution.

OTOH the market should prevent any such differential becoming too great as Harvard losses popularity coz its percieved as overly-dirty

All the market solutions assume that there are no bottlenecks, the speed of traffic, the availability of land, or the 'cachet' of a Havard degree etc

Cliffs: the markets is not always able to act fast enough to ensure that there arent problems that are widely percieved as 'unacceptable'. The determination of what is unacceptable is what drives calls such as the ones decried here. Often it may be expedient to provide social housing.

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

Cliffs: the markets is not always able to act fast enough to ensure that there arent problems that are widely percieved as 'unacceptable'. The determination of what is unacceptable is what drives calls such as the ones decried here. Often it may be expedient to provide social housing.

So because harvard, a private institution, doesn't want to pay their janitors more the state should either force them to, or the city of cambridge should be required to provide low-cost housing?

(important parts are bolded)

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

So because harvard, a private institution, doesn't want to pay their janitors more the state should either force them to, or the city of cambridge should be required to provide low-cost housing?

(important parts are bolded)

no, neither, ..., it depends on how great the problem is.

Hopefully the market would be able to resolve the situation anyway.

Your basic objections based on property rights etc are fair enough but not IMO totally overriding in all cases.

The notion of the 'common good' exists. Any h'ardship' suffered by long-commuting janitors forms only a very minor part of any such assessment

In your prior example if you neighbour refuses to build on his land when its actually needed by the millions of homeless persons then he should loose it.

But there arent millions of homeless persons in NH

In the Cambridge example, given market failure, then here, in increasing unlikelyhood, are some reasons why it might be expedient for the state to intervene, (I've made assumptions that may be untrue)

Are the numbers of communitng janitors so great as to really p*ss off all the other commuters in Cambridge? (the economic cost of increased commuting times is calculable)

Has Harvard become so dirty that its going broke & thus got itself into a financial hole so great that it cant rectify the situation & its collapse is going to take the town with it, as Cambridge is a one industry town?

Are the unemployed ex-janitors taking direct action that is making life in the area very hard for everyone else & they are so numerous & well-organised that police action against them is equally disruptive?

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

In your prior example if you neighbour refuses to build on his land when its actually needed by the millions of homeless persons then he should loose it.

But there arent millions of homeless persons in NH

I don't give a shit how many homeless there are (or are not) there is no way his land should be taken because he decides to leave it undeveloped.

Are the numbers of communitng janitors so great as to really p*ss off all the other commuters in Cambridge? (the economic cost of increased commuting times is calculable)

Why does that matter? If enough janitors have to commute then alternative ways to get there will emerge.

Has Harvard become so dirty that its going broke & thus got itself into a financial hole so great that it cant rectify the situation & its collapse is going to take the town with it, as Cambridge is a one industry town?

So the city should be able to mandate what harvard does because harvard is "big"?

Are the unemployed ex-janitors taking direct action that is making life in the area very hard for everyone else & they are so numerous & well-organised that police action against them is equally disruptive?

If the unemployed people "take action" that's illegal they should go to jail. If their action is not illegal then why would the police be involved?

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't give a shit how many homeless there are (or are not) there is no way his land should be taken because he decides to leave it undeveloped.

its an extreme example. In such a circumstance it would just be taken by force, ..., like the nearly all of the USA was, with much less 'justification'. IIUC you do believe that 'might makes right', the right of conquest etc.

Why does that matter? If enough janitors have to commute then alternative ways to get there will emerge.

Then such alternates with have a calculable cost & it may be cheaper to provide suitable housing nearby. Remember the janitors would not be able to fund these alternates themselves any new measures will be funded by the other commuters, (which may be 'fairer' than taxing everyone, but the 'target' payers are likely to be a fairly similar group of people & even if not these 'others' are being 'forced' to pay for the failure of the market.) ..., & you'd presumably oppose the compulsory purchase of land to make more/wider roads anyway, although other solutions might be possible

So the city should be able to mandate what harvard does because harvard is "big"?

In this extreme example & if my assumptions are true then, yes IMO

If the unemployed people "take action" that's illegal they should go to jail. If their action is not illegal then why would the police be involved?

Their action is assumed to be illegal, the counter-actions are assumed to be severely disruptive, long-term & expensive with a large opportunity cost in 'law & order' terms. It is called blackmail

Cliffs: The right to private property is not absolute.
Democracy inplies compulsion & compromise, otherwise there would be no taxation at all. The c'ommon good' exists. It is hard to determine. That why we vote

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't see why we should have fellow americans, even americans returning from iraq that you supposedly value, die from cold-exposure related health problems because we as a society can not loan them a dorm style, almost cell-like sleeping quarters

The only failings in this area is people trying to do it on the super-cheap instead of the cheap

Build huge towers with basically no police enforcement and no real registration or checking system

You need a complicated system that's more expensive, with the housing spread out and a reward/punishment system where the good poor are given the best neighbors with other good poor, and eventually the "bad poor" are given a system similiar to a mental asylum, because thats exactly what they need, medical care and/or isolation

In the medium-areas, have a police force and strong social services

It's not socialism, its giving people the right that they don't have to sleep on park benches when it goes below zero across millions of homeless people every winter...one should remember Section 8 was Nixon's idea

San Fransico has been tinkering with "modified" public housing for the past few years and has experienced success, ofcourse they have nowhere near the resources to implement a real plan, however their "better housing" areas have been quite safe and served as rebounds for many people, the only problem is incredibly long lines and lack of housing to fit them

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Yes, that's exactly what it is. It's socialism. Attempt to spin it however you want, while neglecting to explain why you think one group of people should have the privilege of oppressing another group of people. You don't ever touch on the proposed oppression of the wealthy because it shatters your concept of "equality." I have yet to see any of you socialists actually explain why you think you should be able to steal my money from me and spend it how you deem necessary.

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

its an extreme example. In such a circumstance it would just be taken by force, ..., like the nearly all of the USA was, with much less 'justification'. IIUC you do believe that 'might makes right', the right of conquest etc.

I don't believe might makes right. But I believe in using might if we are right. I also believe it should not be used by a govt against its own citizens.

Then such alternates with have a calculable cost & it may be cheaper to provide suitable housing nearby. Remember the janitors would not be able to fund these alternates themselves any new measures will be funded by the other commuters, ....

How so? Added buses means more bus fares. Problem solved.

In this extreme example & if my assumptions are true then, yes IMO

This scares me. Should washington state be able to mandate what bill gates does? He's bigger than harvard, just in a different way. Should montana be able to mandate what the biggest ranch in that state does, just becuase it's big?

I understand the idea behind the saying "the biggest tree catches the most wind" but I think it's 100% bullshit.

Cliffs: The right to private property is not absolute.
Democracy inplies compulsion & compromise, otherwise there would be no taxation at all. The c'ommon good' exists. It is hard to determine. That why we vote

If you really think it's ok to "vote away" someone else's land just because "someone else could use it" then there's something wrong.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Fuck those lazy poor people.

Let them starve in the streets.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Fuck those disabled people.

Let them starve in the streets.

No. But there's some people who are claiming disability who shouldn't and that pisses me off.

Why should I have to pay for someone else to be lazy? If someone else doesn't want to provide for himself then why the hell should we have to do it for them? If you are capable of working and you are not for reasons of too low paying a job or because you have received some form of settlement, entitlement, or capital... then you can live poor or on the streets. That's your choice and I shouldn't have to encourage that behavior/mentality in this country as well as give up my hard-earned money because someone else is too lazy to take care of himself.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't believe might makes right. But I believe in using might if we are right. I also believe it should not be used by a govt against its own citizens.

sorry i must have either misunderstood your comments elsewhere or confused you with someone else. the discussion was if native americans should be able to demand the retrun of their land

How so? Added buses means more bus fares. Problem solved.

this may not provide an acceptable solution, people refuse to use buses, there are too many janitors etc.

[quote]This scares me. Should washington state be able to mandate what bill gates does? He's bigger than harvard, just in a different way. Should montana be able to mandate what the biggest ranch in that state does, just becuase it's big?[

I understand the idea behind the saying "the biggest tree catches the most wind" but I think it's 100% bullshit./quote]
in the example of harvard its assumed that the liveihood of the entire town depends upon the university not purely because its 'big', its a common good fingy ..., sorry for any confusion

If you really think it's ok to "vote away" someone else's land just because "someone else could use it" then there's something wrong.

'just because' is framing it in a particular way, but either way, ..., it happens all the time, runways, roads etc. At least it does here in the UK. I'm sure it does in the US too

I dont always agree with it myself its a case by case thing for me, which is why the various silly examples arose.

But the principle exists. Your property rights are not absolute. Others need, especially communal need, can over-ride. For a start, thats what taxation is.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by avsp

sorry i must have either misunderstood your comments elsewhere or confused you with someone else. the discussion was if native americans should be able to demand the retrun of their land

Why should they be? Under what logic should they receive land. I also notice the hint of "their" land. Should all of South America pull out and go back to Spain and Europe to allow the natives to live on "their" land. When you colonize a place you displace people.. often by force. You acquire the land. America acquired the land from the natives a long time ago. And now that land is subject to US law, morality, and rights. Native Americans are more than welcome to live on their conquered land.

in the example of harvard its assumed that the liveihood of the entire town depends upon the university not purely because its 'big', its a common good fingy ..., sorry for any confusion

The livelihood of a lot of towns in America is also Walmart. Does that mean they should be able to confiscate for the "Common Good"? Most Americans would say that shouldn't be allowed. Keep in mind taking something from others for the "Common Good" as described here and by Thorgrim is Socialism. There's no way to spin that. America is not a socialist nation and it will be our downfall if we adopted its procedures.

But the principle exists. Your property rights are not absolute. Others need, especially communal need, can over-ride. For a start, thats what taxation is.

In America we have eminent domain which a lot of people are fighting. It used to just be used for transportation and utility, but a Supreme Court ruling just gave it more power... to the states. A lot of people are fighting it because it's considered anti-American.

[7960]

Originally Posted by avsp

sorry i must have either misunderstood your comments elsewhere or confused you with someone else. the discussion was if native americans should be able to demand the retrun of their land

Not me.

this may not provide an acceptable solution, people refuse to use buses, there are too many janitors etc.

If janitors refuse to use buses then they don't get to work and they're fired. Problem solved.

in the example of harvard its assumed that the liveihood of the entire town depends upon the university not purely because its 'big', its a common good fingy ..., sorry for any confusion

There are plenty of places that are a one-industry town. Three hours north of me is a town with 2,000 people, about 1,500 of which work at the factory. Should that town be able to vote and make decisions for the factory? Actually, they thought they should be able to and found out the hard way they could not. A bunch of workers got to thinking that they'd like more money. The factory wasn't giving raises like they wanted to the workers who live in the town voted a huge increase in taxes for the factory, thinking their property taxes would then drop correspondingly.

Turns out the factory owner got pissed and closed it instead of paying. They moved the factory to a township a few dozen miles away, avoided all the new taxes they were going to have to pay, negotiated a sweet deal with the township where they moved to, and royally fucked the former town. Yep, it was spiteful. I'm sure some workers quit or sabotaged the factory/product because of it. But for as many as they lost from the old town they gained by moving so many miles south, toward another small town. Overall I applaud the factory owners for not allowing the workers to manipulate the town's politics to end-run themselves a raise.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In America we have eminent domain which a lot of people are fighting. It used to just be used for transportation and utility, but a Supreme Court ruling just gave it more power... to the states. A lot of people are fighting it because it's considered anti-American.

A lot of areas enacted laws specifically nullifying that eminent domain ruling. Every place in america SHOULD have done it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Yes.


No. But there's some people who are claiming disability who shouldn't and that pisses me off.

Why should I have to pay for someone else to be lazy? If someone else doesn't want to provide for himself then why the hell should we have to do it for them? If you are capable of working and you are not for reasons of too low paying a job or because you have received some form of settlement, entitlement, or capital... then you can live poor or on the streets. That's your choice and I shouldn't have to encourage that behavior/mentality in this country as well as give up my hard-earned money because someone else is too lazy to take care of himself.

Why should you have any rights if you aren't willing to work for them?

We should be able to out in hunting parties and kill the homless for sport.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I have yet to see any of you socialists actually explain why you think you should be able to steal my money from me and spend it how you deem necessary.

Why should my money be stolen from me to pay for wars I don't agree with?


This is the way things work. There are some things you want paid for and some things others want. Why are your things fine while others are stupid?