Right, so the decision to restrict violence when other means are preferable is a *pragmatic* decision by rational human beings. The *pretense* of rights, codified in laws, and enforced with threats of violence, is necessary to keep us mostly civil, most of the time. So what do you make of this interaction from the parent thread?
@thisDinosaur - Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
In my book the opposite of poverty is self reliance
When all other means of state remediation has failed in regards to the equal enforcement of codified rights that subsequently deprive an individual or group of their ability to exercise the rights in question, they can resort to violence/aggression, indifference, or maximization.
1) Violence/aggression isn't optimal when the outcomes are favorable to the opponent.
2) Indifference is self explanatory in regards to favorable outcomes.
3) Maximization is the best option because you wield the most control over this vector irrespective of the opposing force.
The parent thread is stating that the opposite of poverty is justice, and the main focus of this justice, per the linked Atlantic article, is reparations to African Americans.
I reject this narrative for several reasons:
1) It assumes that African Americans cannot succeed until reparations are made.
2) It assumes that reparations will be forthcoming.
3) It assumes that African Americans are guaranteed success and/or happiness if handed wealth as opposed to earning it.
4) It assumes that all non-slave owning decedents and immigrants will want to contribute to the redistribution of their own wealth to pay for a wrong they had nothing to do with.
ThisDinosaur wrote:
There is only so self-reliant you can become when you can't really ever own anything without fear it will be taken away. Black Americans are more aware than any other group that property rights are an illusion. Its a necessary illusion that holds society together, but still just an illusion.
Campitor wrote:
Sigh - the wealth a.k.a property rights is an illusion narrative meant to placate underachievers and convince them that working hard for $$ has no benefit.
My explanation in this thread reveals what I think of property rights - they are real and they are fungible. Telling African Americans that property rights is an illusion is hurtful and gives underachievers an excuse for not trying. The entire argument within The Atlantic article (
The Case for Reparations) hinges on property rights for African Americans - to declare property rights an illusion completely invalidates every point of his argument for reparations.
I understand why Black want reparations. What happened to them in America was heinous, inexcusable, and sickening. But I'd rather teach them how to be self reliant instead of just handing them some money/property. I want to see them take advantage of the current opportunities they do have like studying hard, working hard, saving the money made by their efforts, pooling their resources toward a viable economic strategy. Reparations would be best spent teaching them how to make money via the numerous avenues available today. Teach them how to make a business plan, apply for loan, how to create a favorable credit rating, etc. But handing them a fist full of cash or handing them a house will do nothing to spur future Black achievement because it deprives them of the one thing they didn't get when they were given these properties - the knowledge on how to acquire them which deprives future generations of this vital information.