Early Retirement Extreme Forums

scriptbunny posted this article earlier in the thread:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ns/361631/
Its a little long. Here's the relevant part:
In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.
...
Redlining destroyed the possibility of investment wherever black people lived.
Essentially, black people were not legally permitted to have a mortgage until the civil rights reform of 1968. If they somehow purchased a home or even rented a home anyway, the entire neighborhood became uninsurable. This was federal law. If a black American had said "I have a right to get a mortgage" in that time period, they would have been factually wrong.

Thanks for clarifying - I read the linked article. I abhor what happened to Black people in the US. But he's making some assumptions that I think encourages hurtful behavior.

Here is one example:

One thread of thinking in the African American community holds that these depressing numbers partially stem from cultural pathologies that can be altered through individual grit and exceptionally good behavior. (In 2011, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, responding to violence among young black males, put the blame on the family: “Too many men making too many babies they don’t want to take care of, and then we end up dealing with your children.” Nutter turned to those presumably fatherless babies: “Pull your pants up and buy a belt, because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”) The thread is as old as black politics itself. It is also wrong. The kind of trenchant racism to which black people have persistently been subjected can never be defeated by making its victims more respectable. The essence of American racism is disrespect. And in the wake of the grim numbers, we see the grim inheritance.

I don't think making yourself more respectable will abolish racism but it certainly helps - isn't being more respectable a must, especially if your trying to influence favorable outcomes for your social group? It's these types of easy dismals that cultivate the narrative that appearances don't matter when we all know they do. Example, you run out of gas and you see two gas stations - the closest one is filled with guys on choppers sporting bandanas, biker leather jackets, and tattoos. The farther gas station is filled with guys wearing khakis and polo shirts. Which gas station would you choose? The bikers may be some regular guys in a road club who like dressing alike for solidarity - but are you going to gamble on that if you're the polo shirt wearing type?

And when is it useless to cultivate individual grit? The author doesn't say it explicity but he sort of implies that it doesn't help when he says "this is wrong" - this is something that I 100% disagree with - grit will always help and lack thereof will doom you to mediocrity.

And the Atlantic article is awash with examples of Blacks being fleeced or deprived of real estate - he hits this lack of homeownership consistently throughout the article. This implies that home ownership is the springboard to greater prosperity in the black community - something I do agree with. How exactly does this square with the "ownership rights illusion" narrative. Ownership rights seem to be the keystone of his arguments for reparations - someone should call the author and tell him his arguments are based on an illusion. Or just maybe there is something to ownership rights that is tangible in the pursuit of wealth. Again - how does studying or waiting on reparations help those in need now? I know what can help - hard work and self reliance.

I'm sure many on this thread heard of black Wall Street and its destruction is 1921. I'd like to point out that this bastion of Black wealth was built when Blacks were being abused, discriminated against, and killed at a despicable rate. They managed to create this enormous wealth despite having the entire White infrastructure against them. Yes Whites destroyed it but the point is that Blacks were able to achieve it - think about that in the context of era it was created. Is not a Black wall street even more possible now in the year 2017 than in the postbellum south of 1921? I'm not arguing that African Americans don't deserve any compensation for the 300+ years of wretched abuse they endured - what I'm saying is that they shouldn't be hanging their future on a reparation that may never come and instead focus on how they can create another Black Wall Street now. Once you get the money..then you get the power....

Campitor, same question. Where do rights come from? Are they god given, defined by law makers, or something else?

One question, though. Whats the difference between Might = Right, and Enforcement = Law ?

I didn't say either. I said law comes from enforcement, if they were equal, we wouldn't have two words with entirely different meanings.

For example, for the last 15 years, the most powerful military in the Middle East was ours, and yet, would you describe the situation there as lawful? How about right? We certainly have all the might, and we have the finest bourgeoisie to write the laws, so what is the problem?

If we're going to take this to first principals, we really should take this to a separate thread. I would have done this already, but it's a pain when I am posting from my phone.

ThisDinosaur wrote: ↑

Thu May 25, 2017 5:36 pm

Campitor, same question. Where do rights come from? Are they god given, defined by law makers, or something else?

To explain where rights come from I have define what a right is to me. True rights are natural rights. Rights are natural when they are derived from deeply held instincts and behaviors. These rights would evolve and be subsequently codified into laws. In prehistoric times rights were enforced violently by individuals and in ancient times they were enforced by tribal violence. Today they are enforced with implied violence or economic retribution by the state. I don't say "God given" because that implies a divine enforcement which is conspicuously absent when said rights are aggrieved.

The rights I consider natural are life, liberty, happiness, trade, and property. I consider the aforementioned rights as "natural" because they are exhibited in every sentient species. All biology struggles to stay alive (life). All animals evolved behaviors that maximize pleasure and genetic potential (happiness). All higher mammals exchange efforts for outcomes like Alpha males fighting off threats so that females can thrive and raise their broods safely in exchange for exclusive reproductive access (trade). All sentient animals enforce territory or access to natural rights (property).

As humans evolved and became better killers, the monopoly of violence no longer belonged to the strong or the many. Smaller forces or lone individuals could hurt or kill enemies greater in size or strength. So enforcement of our "natural" rights evolved into contracts and laws that could be enforced by invented structures that reduced violence; this had the additional benefit of enhancing and improving the access and enjoyment of natural rights for individuals and larger groups male and female. This increased enjoyment and access had the corollary affect of creating "bolt-on rights" that didn't exist previously such as patent law (a bolt-on to property rights).

I don't consider our natural rights to come from government because these rights existed long before government was even a concept as explained above. Remove government and our rights would still exist except they would be enforced by physical violence or chicanery. Please note that life has never provided equal outcomes that result from the exercising of our natural rights - there will always be individuals or groups that are better at maximizing their choices or access.

General Snoopy wrote: ↑

Thu May 25, 2017 9:31 am

@Dragline

History is not Psuedohistory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohistory

Edward Gibbon is my benchmark for how to do history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
In this insistence upon the importance of primary sources, Gibbon is considered by many to be one of the first modern historians. Many people disagree with his conclusions, but they do not disagree with his methods or sources.

About the "history of white people," OK you have piqued my interest. What are some examples? Try to keep it to what historians would refer to as History and not as Pseudohistory/propaganda.

I would suggest the last episode of the "Fall of Rome" podcast which deals with the Saxons invading Britain if you want to go that far back.

Better to go to Montpelier to see what they have uncovered recently: http://wtop.com/living/2017/05/montpeli ... t/slide/1/

But the problem with Gibbon is that he might have been the first, but is certainly not the last.

FYI, the reason he is considered the first is that he offered a critique of Christianity that was not in keeping with the traditions of the time. Nothing to do with white people per se.

Really, if you are relying on Gibbon you prove my point. That is a white man's historian from the 18th Century who even predates the United States. Thank you.

Dragline wrote: ↑

Sat May 27, 2017 10:20 pm

But the problem with Gibbon is that he might have been the first, but is certainly not the last.

FYI, the reason he is considered the first is that he offered a critique of Christianity that was not in keeping with the traditions of the time. Nothing to do with white people per se.

Really, if you are relying on Gibbon you prove my point. That is a white man's historian from the 18th Century who even predates the United States. Thank you.

Gibbon is considered the first because he relied upon primary sources. These primary sources contradicted the official Church history. Of course it has nothing to do with white people - it is all about the historical method.

If you think the search for truth using primary sources interpreted with the goal of objectivity is "White" history, then I am appalled.

Well, I'm afraid you are missing the point. In favor of "outrage", one of the anti-intellectual plagues of our times.

History is meant to be revised and is written from the perspective of the time and place where it is written, and who it is written by. The idea that somebody is going to write the "last word" about any history is kind of an excuse for rejecting new ideas out-of-hand (like being "outraged") instead of grappling with them.

For example, most modern historians of ancient Rome find Gibbon's one-idea thesis about the fall of Rome to be rather simplistic and erroneous, particularly given the further research that has been done. The effort was laudable in its detail, but far from objective and far from the last word.

There is actually an excellent podcast series entitled "The Fall of Rome" hosted by an historian (and MMA fighting expert), Patrick Wyman, that deals directly with this topic and includes views and counter-views -- which is the way history is generally presented today. It's quite illuminating and he puts out a new episode every week or two. See https://soundcloud.com/fallofromepodcast

I think this video can add to this discussion - its how Indians solved the litter problems in India. It's pretty enlightening on how you can get people to emulate good behavior by creating positive incentives so the culture of futility/underachievement is changed.

Why is India so filthy? | The Ugly Indian | TEDxBangalore

I rran into this article, and thought of this thread.
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8978579/w ... arceration

Most people are in prison for violent offenses

About 54 percent of people in state prisons — which house more than 86 percent of the US prison population — were violent offenders in 2012, and 16 percent were drug offenders, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

This number is even higher in some states. In California, for example, 89 percent of inmates in 2013 were locked up for violent crimes, following several years of reforms that reduced the number of nonviolent offenders

I can't vouch for their numbers, and it's been years since I heard anything on this subject beyond the narrative of highest incarceration rate/drug crimes/racial discrimination.

Personally, I am constantly amused at the stats that show dropping crime rates, used in the same paragraph as "nobody knows why", and usually, a reference to highest incarceration rate/drug crimes/racial discrimination.

As though nobody could connect the dots of highest incarceration rate, lowest crime rate, and not counting the crimes committed in the population most prone to crime, convicts.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/16/bail-out/

This had the closest thing to positive possibility I've seen on the subject, bail charities.

About a fifth of the incarcerated population – the top of the orange slice, in this graph – are listed as “not convicted”. These are mostly people who haven’t gotten bail. Some are too much of a risk. But about 40% just can’t afford to pay. They are stuck in jail until their trial, which could take a long time:

Or, if you prefer your statistics come with a face and a story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =122725819

doesn't victimless drug crime get to Riggerjack's libertarian soft spot? brute simply can't stand it. if there was an actual (violent or not) crime, sure. but pure possession or sales/manufacturing related activities?

I don't think it's that simple, BRUTE. There's an incredibly high correlation between certain drugs and crime, specifically property crime. Rich addicted people can feed the beast all they want, but poor addicted people steal to feed it. And since other people tend not to like being stolen from, those thefts can turn violent very quickly. Of the people G has represented as a public defender in the last year, almost all were on drugs. Usually heroin. And when it's a charge, drugs is rarely the only charge, it's usually tacked onto the offense that drew the notice of the authorities: theft, violence, threats, public intoxication, etc. I don't think most of us object to e.g. marijuana use when people are sitting quietly at home lighting up, you're right. But I'd also argue that low-key pot smokers who are minding their own business don't tend to get arrested/incarcerated.

Or, putting it another way: do people who sell drugs like heroin in poor neighborhoods - knowing that these folks will eventually run out of money and likely behave desperately rather than seek treatment (if it's even available) - do those people have any culpability in the drug-related crimes that follow? And if we know that people on heroin have an upwards of 50% likelihood of committing a non-drug felony until/unless they get treatment, and that this felony will be directed at another person, why is it illogical that heroin use itself should be illegal?

Drug crimes are not victimless. The "criminal", law enforcement, and society at large are the clear victims of drug prohibition. My world is a better place for WA legalizing marijuana. It would be better still if we cut marijuana taxes to eliminate black market pot.

However, our justice system exists as a gladiator academy. I'm not sure my life would be improved by trying to integrate a sudden influx of gladiators into general society. I am certain it would improve theirs, but we have ignored their interests up to now, I doubt we would suddenly find the sympathy do justice by them.

But addressing the problem from the inputs seems a working solution. Decriminalization is a nice start. Addressing the bail system is another.

If prison construction was up to me, I'd take a page from the second prison in papillon, the large concrete cell, that the prisoner only leaves for release. Add a shower controlled by the guardroom, a barred window into the cell on each side (most people need human interaction), and an out of reach big screen running Khan academy 12 hours a day. Parole is only available to prisoners with a HS diploma or a GED. Food delivered by robot, any prisoner transport is a special occasion, and secure.

Eliminate prison gangs, eliminate the potential for abuse by staff, eliminate most of the staff. Cut costs, and turn prison into compliance training, rather than the gladiator schools we currently pay for.

But then, I'm not in the business of raising prison budgets and/or profits.

If someone is looking for a definition of justice that hasnt crumbled for me when I apply it to events and people's actions and the consequences they face....

Justice is the interest of the stronger.
~Plato in his Republic.

Or, putting it another way: do people who sell drugs like heroin in poor neighborhoods - knowing that these folks will eventually run out of money and likely behave desperately rather than seek treatment (if it's even available) - do those people have any culpability in the drug-related crimes that follow? And if we know that people on heroin have an upwards of 50% likelihood of committing a non-drug felony until/unless they get treatment, and that this felony will be directed at another person, why is it illogical that heroin use itself should be illegal?

Well, let me address that froma different angle.

Heroine addicts are criminals. Because we made them criminals. Sure they made their choices, but we set the rules.

If I am a criminal, that factors into all my decisions. Do I get a job, or break into houses? Well, a paycheck is weeks away, and the house is right there. Long term planning is probably not a habit I have formed, so right now is important. I'm already subject to arrest and prison at all times, so adding a bit of marginal risk by burglary isn't that big a change. If I have been to prison before, I know how to survive and work in that system, it's deterrent is limited. I have probably resigned myself to the near inevitability of going back inside. All I'm trying to do is extend the party as long as I can, build stories and memories for the inside.

Contrast this with the guy who just lost his job. He is broke, paychecks are weeks away, and the house is right there. First, does he know how to break in? (It still astounds me how big the mental barriers are. Some people think locked doors and windows make a house secure.) Then he has to overcome the programming of a citizen to not risk prison/shame/all associated consequences of being a criminal. He has to suppress any long term plans, to resolve this short term issues.

By making his drug of choice illegal, we have started his training to be a criminal, by sending him to prison, we have advanced his training. We have directed his attention more and more on short term goals, as long term goals get further out of reach, and long term planning seems more and more like pipe dreams.

Now contrast this to a prescription drug addict. Drugs come from the pharmacy, and that means keeping a job and keeping up appearances. This can go on for decades, (like it did for my grandma) until some piece falls out, and the house of cards falls.

We associate addicts with crime because we trained them to be criminals. It's not because they are broke, or the unemployed would be convicts. It's not the drugs, or prescription abuse wouldn't work for decades (though busting doctors has really accelerated how fast we can push prescription addicts into the Justice system...).

We train criminals. We train the nonviolent ones to be violent. This is the choice we have made, but it doesn't have to be this way. We can make better choices, but first we have to look at our current choices and their effects.

On a different tack, do I want addicts in tax supported prisons or shelters?

No.

I want them on street corners with cardboard signs, get clearly marking the road they went down for kids considering their future plans.

As a kid, you know the other kids that are doing drugs. But it is hard to associate these young, healthy users with the burnouts under overpasses. Drugs being illegal makes addicts disappear until they are too far gone to hide, anymore. This also makes it harder for kids to associate steps 1, 2, and 3 with leading to steps 18, 19, and 20.

When we are young, we all think we will be the exception...

In early 20th century London, the factor most correlated with child remaining member of lowest income group throughout life was whether or not mother was a heavy consumer of alcohol.

Sad truth I've observed is that the demographic of the children most often seen sitting on the bench beside the Principal's Office is not much different than the demographic of the proportion of the population found in prisons. The behavior is already evident by the time these kids are 6 years old. I practically bend over backwards to avoid reinforcing this trend when I am the one who has to mete out minor justice to the youngest citizens, but it is only very, very rarely the case that a girl recently immigrated from Bangladesh is the child hitting another child over the head with a wooden truck.

Riggerjack wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:14 pm

If prison construction was up to me, I'd take a page from the second prison in papillon, the large concrete cell, that the prisoner only leaves for release. Add a shower controlled by the guardroom, a barred window into the cell on each side (most people need human interaction), and an out of reach big screen running Khan academy 12 hours a day. Parole is only available to prisoners with a HS diploma or a GED. Food delivered by robot, any prisoner transport is a special occasion, and secure.

Sounds just like middle school.

Sounds just like middle school.

Yeah, and to the same purpose.

Might want to take into account the fact that there is a solid percentage of the population which is incapable of passing a high school equivalency exam. Imagine the inhabitants of a forum which if combined with the inhabitants of this forum would result in a population with average IQ and functioning.