By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
Bron: Just because you cant figure out that what you said has universal application doesnt make me a moron.
I can’t “figure it out” because it isn’t true, what I said does not have universal application at all.
Your flawed premise is that receiving aid that can literally means the difference between life and death or health and permanent disability is somehow identical to receiving birthday gifts. That is not true, and the nature of the aids you mentioned is not a gift or windfall.
Whatever aid the rich provide their progeny for minimalist survival is not the point. If that is all they provided, their progeny (like virtually all other humans) would (if they could) get a job and work to improve their lot in life. When the rich go far beyond that and provide resources that mean their progeny can live comfortably, with all the entertainment they desire, without any responsibility or need to work — They have destroyed any incentive for their children to become independent or better their lives, they have turned their progeny into house pets that cannot survive the real world, and have no need to ever survive the real world.
That is not what happens with aid programs necessary for survival. A vanishingly small percentage of people on survival aid want to be there, the incentives for them to better their lot is present and pressing, but incentive has not mattered; they are circumstantially screwed and cannot earn enough to survive.
If you think otherwise, I think you have a severe deficit in your ability to understand other people and comprehend other circumstances that I think is uncorrectable.
Tony C – You attributed the following to me when it was actually said by Skip. Is it really that hard to keep track of who said what?
“Once again you ignore them so that “you” can have the ability to punish those that you believe may harm others.”
Tony C wrote to Bron: “They have destroyed any incentive for their children to become independent or better their lives, they have turned their progeny into house pets that cannot survive the real world, and have no need to ever survive the real world.
That is not what happens with aid programs necessary for survival. A vanishingly small percentage of people on survival aid want to be there, the incentives for them to better their lot is present and pressing, but incentive has not mattered; they are circumstantially screwed and cannot earn enough to survive.
If you think otherwise, I think you have a severe deficit in your ability to understand other people and comprehend other circumstances that I think is uncorrectable.”
***************
Why is it that if somebody expresses something different, they are automatically stupid, a moron, or outright deceitful? Imagine if I hold up a Nickel coin between us with the face of the coin facing you. I describe the coin as having the image of a building with a dome in the center. Then you get upset claiming that the coin does not look anything at all like that, how stupid could I be? Then you describe the coin as having the profile image of a man, not a building. You then go on to declare smugly that you are the only competent observer. That is somewhat like what you are doing here.
I know somebody right now who is receiving food stamps. She drives a Mercedes-Benz and has $13,000 sitting in her bank account. She plans to never work again a day in her life. Most of her correspondence is with lawyers helping her obtain that kind of life. Granted there are some people as you describe who really need some help, but there are a lot of people who game the system. These also are people who bemoan their poverty. They don’t want to be in their situation. This same woman complained to me two days ago about how she has been homeless since last June. She complains about not having anybody to help her. But the truth remains that her food stamps could be taken away, and she would not starve to death. Enough people in our community would give her food every month. I have never known anybody in this country to starve to death. The level of food stamp assistance has no bearing on whether people in this country will starve to death. The poor in this country have televisions, cell phones, electricity, and a standard of living is considered wealthy by many in other countries. Yet here you are fighting for them to have greater unrestrained access to government assistance.
As I have said before, I appreciate a level of government assistance. I hear many of your points, but you should work a little harder with hearing the point of others. We need to be responsible about doling out assistance. Taxation is too high already, overspending is too high, fraud is too high, and the federal government is too big. Let the States and local governments deal with their social problems.
With my methodology, I can look at any country and determine the approximate levels of socialism fascism, communism and libertarianism. Basically by segregating what elements/industries of the economy are in the private and public sectors and seeing how they are administered and paid for, understanding that there is obviously some crossover.
I was hoping that you guys would draw this conclusion from my paper but I guess that it is back to the old writing table/drawing board.
RTC:
“Bron,
You might want to see if your Mensa pal can explain the difference between fascism and socialism to you.
Or please tell us how he thinks they’re the same.”
If you cant figure out that Fascism and Socialism are variants of the same economic system called collectivism, I dont think my mensa pal can help you.
Tony C:
Just because you cant figure out that what you said has universal application doesnt make me a moron.
DavidM says: Once again you ignore them so that “you” can have the ability to punish those that you believe may harm others.
Hell no. I do not believe I have the Right to unilaterally punish any adult. Defend myself against them, yes, unilaterally punish them? No.
I believe it is up to a super-majority of people to determine whether an action should be punished or not.
In fact, I think you accuse me of the crime you wish to commit:
You are the one that wants unilateral power to punish those you think are harming you, and You are the one that wants to be free of punishment for harming or endangering others. That is why you don’t like regulation, you think you should not be punished for your profit-taking robbery, oppression, endangerment, or damaging fallout of your actions.
Your definition of “freedom” is apparently the freedom to harm and endanger others, especially those unable to do anything about it, without the rest of society coming after you with legal consequences. That is what this is about, right? You want us to all agree that we will not collectively protect each other against your predations, so your chosen prey will be defenseless.
You claim I believe in my “system of force:” Sure. Because we have seen rampant slavery, we have seen rape, we have seen kidnappers and thieves and organized crime rob and kill and enslave people by force in order to make a buck. Both sex and labor slavery still exists in this country, actual slavery still exists in the world. The psychopaths that use force are immune to appeals to sympathy, logic, or moral rectitude. They will only be stopped by force.
Gandhi was wrong, we are not addicted to force any more than we are addicted to oxygen. Countering force with greater force is an absolute necessity in preventing predation by those humans that see other people as objects and resources to be exploited, used up and discarded. That have no regard or value for any life other than their own.
Any system of society that does not ultimately resort to force is a fantasy that ignores a fundamental fact of life: Some small but real percentage of humans are ruthless predators on other humans, and that is unavoidable by any known means. Ignoring that fact leads directly to that small percentage ruling by force and subjugating the rest of the population. The only way to prevent that predation is by collective force greater than theirs, and organizing that greater force and ensuring it is applied equitably is the true function of Government.
“Gandhi was wrong, we are not addicted to force any more than we are addicted to oxygen. Countering force with greater force is an absolute necessity in preventing predation by those humans that see other people as objects and resources to be exploited, used up and discarded. That have no regard or value for any life other than their own.”
What happens when the greater force is the very humans doing the predation? Gandhi kicked Britton’s ass.
Who side are you one dude???? Perhaps your a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Also guys sorry. I’m working real estate, energy deals and taking an insurance course at the same time and don’t take enough time editing my blog posts. You should still be able to glean what I’m saying most of the time without giving me a hard time about it.
Skip says: Of course one does not “have to own” their own property but why is it such a dream for so many Americans and people around the world?
You are conflating two things, Skip. I will try to separate them.
You’re claim was that owning property increased “freedom.” My claim is it does not, because not one of the Rights or Privileges that make me a legally free man in America require me to own a single thing. Not one penny, and even the clothes on my back can be borrowed.
That is one concept. It is an objective fact. Owning property does not increase one’s Freedom.
That does not mean some of the Rights we have do not apply to property; they do. I have the right to Keep and Bear arms, so if I own a gun, I have the Right to Keep it and Bear it.
Rights can apply to Property, that does not mean that Property confers Rights. Owning Property lets you exercise your Rights to do what does not infringe upon other people’s Rights, which includes, to a partial extent, the Right to be protected from plausible physical or financial harm.
If you own an acre of land, you are free to do things with it as you please, with some restrictions to ensure your actions do not infringe upon the well-being of others. You cannot do things that endanger their lives or health or property. You may not be able to do things that reduce the value of their property without compensation. You may not be able to do things that reduce the value of common areas or resources, or increase the cost to others of using them. Just like in business, the restrictions prevent you from free riding (making a profit for yourself at the unwilling expense of others).
But speaking ideally (and not about our existing government) your restrictions are limited to just that; preventing your free riding but allowing anything else. The rest of society, in my view, has no legitimate interest in your actions unless they plausibly create objectively measurable harm to others, physical or financial.
Your freedom for what you do with your property is not conveyed by your property, it is a function of your general liberty to do as you please without harming or endangering others. You have no new Rights, ownership of the land conveyed no new Liberties.
You seem to think I am arguing as a Communist opposed to private ownership, and I am not. Get that out of your head. I am a fan of private ownership, including owning my home and car and computer systems.
That ownership provides opportunity for me to exercise my freedom, to alter them as I see fit, remodel, repair and extend them.
To the extent regulation reduces that opportunity, it may be equitable or not; but typically it does not reduce my “freedom,” because I was never free to harm or endanger others in the first place. Regulations do not restrict Freedom, they make explicit a restriction on actions in order to protects the Rights and Freedom of others.
You do not get to be a free-rider, you do not get to harm or endanger others for your own profit or convenience. If you refuse to recognize when you are doing that (or just don’t care) then we are forced to devise regulations and punishments to eliminate the value to you (financial and/or emotional) of harming or endangering others. That is not to restrict a freedom you were never entitled to in the first place, it is to protect the lives, health, property, Rights and freedom of those that you would otherwise choose to victimize.
I believe the ability to own property increases liberty. If I can not own property, does that not decrease my ability and freedom to do so. How can one be free if we must rent our homes from the king or oligarchs and be subject to their sociopathic wishes? Property is one method of storing ones labor.
Things such as pride of ownership appear to be essential elements of human nature, Once again you ignore them so that “you” can have the ability to punish those that you believe may harm others.
Self defense is a very power motivator and as we have seen in today’s world, penalizing those in power is very very difficult as compared to those in power penalizing the majority.
You believe in your system of force and we all see the great disparages between those who rule and those whom are being ruled over.
Sadly statist have yet to create a system based on force that provides true justice.
hskiprob wrote: “Property is one method of storing ones labor. Things such as pride of ownership appear to be essential elements of human nature.”
Excellent points. Not only does a person build up a labor equity in the things he owns, but he feels secure and a sense of pride which are great motivators of the human spirit to rise and excel.
This is one of the reasons that people use to feel shame in receiving public assistance, or even assistance from one neighbor. They knew that such an event flagged a personal failing on their part to be responsible for themselves and their family.
Sadly, the liberal policies destroy the human spirit and hurt human progress. It is ironic that the progressive philosophy leads to less progressive outcomes. The best message for helping the poor comes from the Tea Party and Republicans. Some people just have difficulty seeing that because they have been taught erroneously for so long that government is the answer to the problems of poverty.
How many free riders do we have today Tony? Have you noticed how many times you contradict your own thoughts. That is the nature of socialism. It takes away certain rights in order to try to protect them. It doesn’t work very well and it contradicts it’s own mission.
Bron,
You might want to see if your Mensa pal can explain the difference between fascism and socialism to you.
Or please tell us how he thinks they’re the same.
RTC – you should know by now the differences and similarities between fascism and socialism….it’s not that difficult – For fascism, think of primarily the use of taxation and regulation by government to control the means of production. For socialism think of the profits from a nationalized oil industry being used to give everyone free medical care but you can also use taxation and regulation to provide socialized medicine.
What confuses most people is that we most often think of fascism when the level of taxation and regulation get so high that it starts to economically oppress the majority, requiring oppressive enforcement measures to maintain the taxation and regulation. If the upper class of society is not really feeling the economic oppression, it may not seem to be fascism to them, but it still really is. In the beginning of the economic cycle of a country, when taxation and regulation are low, fascism is tolerable, but as the levels expand, it becomes less and less.
Some believe that socialism and fascism decrease the economic disparities between the classes, but that doesn’t actually occur over the long term as the oligarchs and their cronies end up acquiring a disproportional amount of the redistribution of wealth which ends up oppressing the majority.
I need to add this to my paper on Isms and terms and you guys are free to add you two cents worth.
gbk,
I think Skip’s writing accurately communicates his thoughts, in both style and substance. It’s also seems like a pretty fair reflection of the amount of time and effort he puts into it.
(Humor;dry, with a twist.)
Rafflaw, re: moron.
Mea culpa. Just irritation at my part on Bron’s intentional misinterpretation and non sequitur.
hskiprob,
“Perhaps that is the communist dream but not anyone with any levels of common sense.”
There’s something wrong with this sentence, isn’t there? It doesn’t quite come together, does it?
Now, I could complete the sentence knowing the gist of your thought given this thread, but this would be unfair as I would then be making assumptions that you might not agree with.
Writing is imitative in form though not substance. One learns to recognize properly constructed sentences through the practice of reading — the subject being immaterial.
From this it follows that when one writes a sentence one should be able to discern if their sentence is grammatically complete based on their foundation of reading. In other words, a person’s writing ability directly reflects their reading skill and history.
I know this is arrogant as hell, (which you already accuse me of, so be it), but I don’t think you’ve read anything substantial as evidenced by your writing. And I’m just talking sentences here, not paragraphs or essays.
Your lack of writing skill is much beyond the excuse of the quick and emotional nature of blog posts. Your sentence quoted above is very typical of your writing and when sentences don’t communicate your thoughts accurately, the paragraph will fail to do so which leads to your thoughts failing. You should consider this in future posts.
If you want to have a more successful interaction here I would suggest the following:
1) Learn to spell.
2) Learn grammar.
3) Learn how to construct a sentence.
4) Learn how to collect sentences into paragraphs.
When your done with your paper objectively discussing the political economies of the world, make sure you post a link here.
That is what editors do in formal writings. Why don’t you do something actually constructive and edit my paper? Help me improve it if you have the intellectual ability to do so. When you’re actually trying to do something constructive rather than destructive it’s much harder. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/harrietrobbins/anuASCIPc6E
Funny how the other guys are able to understand my writing and respond articulately. It’s also interesting that I once read an author that used no capitalization or punctuation and I was still able to comprehend his writing. If you can’t challenge the message, criticize the messenger’s ability?
Communicating with foreigners on science blogs is really interesting as well, yet we are able to do so, despite their writing in broken English.
“Perhaps leasing a home from the government is the communist dream, but not *for* anyone with any levels of common sense.” Can you understand it now?
Just like Tony C. Skip says: What happens when the greater force is the very humans doing the predation?
His answer was:
It never is. The citizens are always stronger than anybody governing them, whether they realize the truth of that or not.
So the killing of 262 million people in the twentieth century alone, by their own governments says “what” about Tony’s basic irrational thought?
I think you need to go back to the “Selfish or Sociopath, Does It Make a Difference” thread. I think you will feel much more at home there.
FYI: Shouldn’t reading all your crap make me a good author? Perhaps I should read someone else to get a better handle on it. lol
Except for the “moron” part.
Well said Tony C.
“Your arguments almost reach a level of being ridicules.”
See what I mean?
Tony C.,
“No, I am challenging the concept that ownership of property is a necessity of being “free” or having “liberty.”
I shouldn’t have to do that, it is obvious.”
You shouldn’t have to make this argument, as it is an obvious non-argument, but thank you for doing so.
Bron: I didn’t say they shouldn’t feed their kids for free, or refuse them free medical care, or deny them shelter. Did I?
Moron.
Tony, Your arguments almost reach a level of being ridicules. Of course one does not “have to own” their own property but why is it such a dream for so many Americans and people around the world?
One day I want to wake up and be able to “Lease” a house from some investor or better yet the government “based” on my needs. I of course would like to lease you a very little house Tony. Perhaps that is the communist dream but not anyone with any levels of common sense.
Tony C:
“Stanley and Danko (authors of “The Millionaire Next Door”) are academics that study the rich, and one aspect of their study is learning the effect of wealth on the adult children of the rich. They find out precisely what I said above; that when parents gift their children with stock portfolios, trust funds, houses, cars, travel, setting them up in business and just plain money, the children learn to spend it and wait for the next gift; which they cash in so they can live and party on the proceeds. They accomplish less than their non-wealthy peers, they are more dependent, and objectively and statistically less happy with their lives, both by self-report and using standard psychology tests.”
You make a compelling case to end welfare. Just change adult children of the rich to welfare recipients and stock portfolio, trust funds, etc to welfare, SNAP, aid to dependent children, WIC etc and you got the general idea.
Skip: Ever heard of this thing called a “contract?” You’d be surprised, they are everywhere, there is this whole body of law devoted to them. Anyway, they can compel an owner to honor various rights and privileges of a lessee.
Skip says: Are you really challenging the legal concept of private property rights?
No, I am challenging the concept that ownership of property is a necessity of being “free” or having “liberty.”
I shouldn’t have to do that, it is obvious. The Bill of Rights is not predicated upon people owning anything; a homeless person has all the same Rights as a landed millionaire. Our freedom is in our Right to do anything that does not infringe upon the Rights of others. That does not require property, and property-less people are not any less free, in the eyes of the government, than propertied people. They are required to treat such people identically.
The fact that we allow property rights (with restrictions) does not make those that own property “more free,” or those without property “less free,” in the eyes of the law and what can be done.
Money does not buy greater or lesser freedom in the eyes of the law. (Okay in our country it does, but that is a corruption of our government, not a feature or design; we are supposed to honor the ideal that “all persons are equal.”)
If you own a house then in a colloquial sense you may be more “free” to modify it, paint it, or rip out the sprinkler system or upgrade the A/C. But that has nothing to do with your actual “freedom.” And it is possible for all such permissions to be built into a lease, as well.
DavidM: You argue tautologically by giving examples of government removing true ownership as reasons why property ownership is not necessary.
That isn’t a rhetorical tautology. You don’t know what you are talking about. That is a proof. People can be free without owning any property. Period.
DavidM says: Ask yourself why you don’t just lease everything you own.
Because ownership is cheaper in the long run, and more convenient. But freedom (choice and self-determination) does not equate to money. Saving a $1 does not make me any more free.
Also, we are talking primarily about land or home ownership, not about owning your clothing or your blender or your recliner. And not about the ownership of dollars, either.
Also, I am talking about whether purchase and ownership of a tangible property, in and of itself, increases “freedom.” It obviously does not, since it can be converted back and forth from ownership of a tangible property to ownership of dollars; and as far as choice and self-determination are concerned, dollars are far more flexible than owning a chunk of land.
If you cannot or do not own the property, than you are reliant on those who do. That is surely not my concept of liberty and freedom. Are you really challenging the legal concept of private property rights?
DavidM says: The difference, Tony, is that giving someone ownership in land enables them to determine their own destiny. It is like the proverb, “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”
It isn’t like that at all, it is like … giving a man a fish.
Giving a man land is precisely analogous to giving a man a fish, and teaching a man a trade so he can earn money to BUY land (if he wants it) is precisely analogous to teaching him HOW to fish.
Owning land does nothing; the vast majority of people in this world would sell the land immediately and within a year or so spend the proceeds on what they need and want (not necessarily in that order). That is human nature, I’ve seen the studies of what people do with lottery winnings, especially the sub-$100K winnings, which is where this would fall; a few thousand dollars for a few acres of undeveloped land.
I am all about teaching citizens to fish AND giving them fish until they can fish for themselves. But in this society, teaching citizens to fish is sending them to school until they deem their education complete, and giving them fish is just about keeping the healthy and alive until they can start fishing, and sharing their catch with the society that nested them and needs their help.
DavidM says: It is not about picking winners or losers, but giving a poor person a big step up.
Except it wouldn’t. Property doesn’t free you, it is an object with a price. If I buy two acres today for $20,000, I am no more free tomorrow than I was yesterday. If I sell it the next day for $20,000, I am no less free than I was when I owned it. Money equals Land, Land equals Money. In general Money equals all kinds of tangible Property. Giving somebody Land is equivalent to handing them a check to do with as they please, and that is a waste of money, and truly a redistribution of wealth, the very thing you complain about.
Stanley and Danko (authors of “The Millionaire Next Door”) are academics that study the rich, and one aspect of their study is learning the effect of wealth on the adult children of the rich. They find out precisely what I said above; that when parents gift their children with stock portfolios, trust funds, houses, cars, travel, setting them up in business and just plain money, the children learn to spend it and wait for the next gift; which they cash in so they can live and party on the proceeds. They accomplish less than their non-wealthy peers, they are more dependent, and objectively and statistically less happy with their lives, both by self-report and using standard psychology tests.
There is an exception to that, however: The one thing wealthy parents can buy that ultimately makes their children happier is — education. In rich households with an objective emphasis on education (as measured by grades, degrees received, and successful semesters in college) the children of the rich score as happy and happier than their not-wealthy peers. When they later have access to their parents wealth, they are more likely to preserve or grow the value over time, more likely to be engaged in productive work or investment, and their parents are more likely to express pride, trust and admiration for the accomplishments of their progeny.
I don’t care if that was true for all time (although I think it has been), it is true now. I argue that is because the children become independent. They have their own skills, fully realized, because nothing stood in the way of their education to whatever level they desired, in whatever field they desired. (I presume children forced into a specific field like Law or Business which does not appeal to them curtail their education early and do not grade as well as children allowed to choose — In other words, the freedom to choose their own field is reflected in the statistics as higher grades, greater rank of degrees and longer duration of schooling).
Education is how money can buy freedom. But, unlike land, or cars, or houses, education cannot be sold and converted back into money. The many lawyers, doctors and psychologists on this blog (not to mention fellow professors) all have educations worth a small fortune, but it cannot be packaged up and sold to somebody else like land or a car or a house.
Education is not a tangible property (not even the physical degrees or transcripts, which is just a paper record of one’s experience and testing to ensure a skill was learned).
So there we have an example, backed up by extensive study, in which trading tangible property (money equals land, remember?) for a service (education is a service) makes people more free, more happy, more independent, more productive and better earners than they would be if you just gave them the tangible property to spend.
DavidM says: You claim the land would run out, but it did not run out when the government did it before.
Right, so by analogy, I have never been in a room where the oxygen ran out, so that makes it impossible, right? I have never been in a situation with an artery cut so my blood was going to run out, so that makes it impossible, right?
DavidM says: The governments are constantly acquiring new land all the time, something which you ignore. When someone dies with no heirs, the State government gets the land.
I don’t ignore it, I don’t believe it. And if people die without heirs, our law lets them, with a handwritten note (a holographic will), gift their property to somebody else. A friend, a charity, a cause. The land returned to the government would be an irrelevant anomaly; the vast majority of people, if they owned the land without restriction, would simply sell it for the few thousand dollars it could fetch and spend the money on life’s little emergencies. Or just entertainment, or incompetent investment.
DavidM says: A good social program would incorporate giving another person the ability to forge out his own destiny by giving him a place to live.
Except he doesn’t have to OWN the place he lives, as long as he is entitled by law to live there! And by giving him “true ownership” of a chunk of undeveloped land he will probably “forge his own destiny” by selling it to the highest bidder and using the proceeds to rent a roof over his head, buy new shoes, or do something dumb like buy the gaming system he covets. You might as well hand him $3000 or so for his 18th birthday, and it would provide exactly amount of “freedom” as that: Virtually none, it would evaporate and be forgotten.
If the government provided, instead, safe and clean minimalist apartments to those that wanted them (with shared sanitation facilities and about 150 sf per person of private room) then they get the primary benefit of not being homeless and they can’t sell it or rent it (because we can make that a crime), and it isn’t enough for 98% of people to want to live there indefinitely. The same goes for food, clothing, and health care.
A good social program does not hand anybody money that can be spent on anything at all, that is just redistribution of wealth that does no good. A good social program ensures specific social goods are accomplished: Life. Liberty. Education. Safety. Defense. Sanitation. Health. Nutrition. Research without a profit motive. The minimization of the Exploitation of desperation.