Okay, this isn’t necessarily my solution, just the most recent thing I’ve come up with, but it would take a LOT of effort for it to happen, and there are probably a great many problems to it as well (my more conservative brethren can speak up now). But, here’s my idea.
I think urban centers that have experienced the negative affects of absentee landlords (many slum lords) and now the recent foreclosure crisis, should make homesteading mandatory in those neighborhoods. What homesteading means is that a home must be owner occupied, they must live there. I slightly looser option would be that all owners of property in that zip code or neighborhood must live in the same neighborhood. Basically, this would mean you can only own property in the neighborhood if you lived in the neighborhood.
One of the primary things I believe this will do is create a vested interest in the community. Many of our problems today from slum lords to sweatshops exist because we are able to distance ourselves from the injustices we often passively (or actively) contribute to and participate in. Requiring all owners of pieces of a community to actually be a part of that community would create geographic proximity that would build awareness and sensitivity to the problems within that community.
As it relates to the foreclosure problems currently, it would force banks to liquidate the properties in a community, rather than being able to sit on vacant houses in hopes of riding out the low parts of the real estate trend. And, those properties would then be available to people who are interested in living in that particular community and not a wealthy investor who is interested in the bottom line rather then the interest of the people in the community. This would more then likely drop the value of the property in a neighborhood considerably, since those interested in purchasing and living in the neighborhood might not have the financial means to offer what the previous market values might have been. However, the benefits of increased homeownership in a community, vested interest, and the possibility for individuals to build equity would far outweigh the loss in property value.
It seems this sort of thing has been done in a few cities before, but the goal was more for a sort of ‘urban renewal’ that brought middle and upper class folks back into cities. It in effect pushed the people of the neighborhood out and basically gentrified the neighborhood to the degree that the original people of the community were no longer there. I think efforts toward this sort of required homesteading would need to be done sooner in a city facing a lot of abandon and foreclosed houses, so that the original community isn’t displaced.
I haven’t thought through all the ins and outs but it seems like, with the right planning, it could be a very beneficial solution to many urban neighborhoods.
I agree with you that this could vastly improve some neighborhoods that have turned into crime-ridden dens or ghost towns. But I also think you mention the biggest sticking point: the banks wouldn’t be able to hold onto these properties for very long.
Banks like to have as much control over assets and the lives of people as they possibly can. Some banks aren’t even listing some properties on the market now because of the foreclosure crisis; they’re waiting until the properties already listed sell.
Requiring them to unload or move into the house within a set period of time would definitely get threaten their local power. Banks are already so politically connected (funding mayoral races, county government seats, etc.) that the proposal, as much as it would help communities and homeowners, would have some heavy opposition.
But this may be one small step in the process of taking some of the power away from the banks, and your idea should be discussed more widely, even if just to shake up the financial centers of power a little big.
Thanks for posting this Ariah. I’ve linked to you on Shak & Jill (www.shakandjill). Interesting subject!
Certainly it is not a good thing when owners of rental property do not maintain the property for the benefit of their tenants. The tenants are paying for the right to occupy the property and presumably for the landlord to maintain it to a certain degree. Clearly, many times it is the case that tenants don’t get what they pay for, because the owner may not maintain it in a way that makes the rent paid by the tenant a fair bargain for what they get in terms of a quality living space.
So, problem granted – what is the solution?
There are multiple protections against this built in to the free market. For example, if I am a tenant and my landlord does a poor job of providing me a good living space in exchange for the rent I pay, then I have the right to move out, or not renew my lease at the end of its term. No landlord can make someone rent his or her space, just as no restaurant owner can make someone eat at his or her restaurant if its food is not palatable, and no other business person can require others to do business with them. So, to a certain extent at least, the tenant must take up for himself, refusing to rent if the landlord refuses to deliver a good product. This should be the “vested interest” that the landlord has, that is, that his property will not stay rented unless it is attractive enough to potential tenants.
Obviously, in many areas it is the case that the rental property offered is not very good. So, why is that so, and how to fix it? I would submit to you that government intervention is part of the problem rather than a likely solution. I won’t pretend to know all the numbers here, but certainly it is true that a large portion of so called “low-income” rental housing is paid for by the government under Section 8 and other programs. Now, in order to be Section 8 certified, landlords must have their properties evaluated by the government to be sure it meets Section 8 standards before it will pay the rent for families who qualify for the program. Having the government inspect the rental spaces and then pay the rent is certainly huge government involvement. If government action and involvement is the solution to this problem, then why are these rental spaces and neighborhoods still in such bad shape? If this government involvement has not solved the problem, then what makes you think that any more or different government action will help?
I think the reason that governmental involvement like this is part of the problem is that it takes out the normal market forces that should drive this exchange between landlord and tenant. If I am a Section 8 tenant, and therefore it costs me nothing to live in the space, then I do not have the same motivation to push for better maintenance of the space. It is a simple maxim that when you work for something and pay for it yourself, you care more about it than you do if it is provided to you for free. Sure, I’d like to live in a nice place, but heck, it’s free, so maybe I won’t complain so much.
As for your suggestion that landlords not be permitted to own property unless they live nearby, that brushes up against one of the more important freedoms that we have in this country, which is the right to private property. In general, we can own whatever we want to own with minimal interference from the government. Whether it would solve the problem of blighted areas or not to have landlords be required to live in the neighborhood themselves is doubtful. Whether it is constitutional or not is even more doubtful, but let’s look at whether it would work or not anyway.
If it worked to bring up the standard of the available housing because the landlord would want to live in a nicer place, then the housing would be worth more, and therefore the poor people that you are trying to help would be pushed out. How would you stop this? Obviously if a property owner repairs or renovates his units he will have to charge more in rent for them in order to make the money back, or do you expect that he will plug all kinds of money in to fixing the places up and then charge the same rates? Would you make a landlord spend more on improvements than he could make back in rental income?
Force the banks to “liquidate” the properties they take by foreclosure? That is exactly what banks do with foreclosures. Don’t you wonder why people want to buy foreclosures? Because they are such a bargain! Look at the property record for any property that has been foreclosed on and then sold by a bank. The numbers will look something like this: Owner purchased for $100K, borrowing $95K from the bank in order to do so. Owner defaults, and bank forecloses on the house, auctioning it off for $60K, which was the highest bid. Occasionally, the bank may bid on its own foreclosure at auction and buy it back for that $60K, then try to sell it for a little more, but usually to no avail. Either way, a $100K house gets picked up by someone for much less than it sold for originally.
This also illustrates that the specter of big banks salivating over the prospect of foreclosing on homeowners is bogus, because banks never make a profit on foreclosing on someone’s home. They lose big time when that happens.
Also, when you just toss out there that banks should be forced to sell rather than sit on houses, you forget a couple of other things. First, holding those properties is not without costs. Each house represents a loan of money that the bank made to some person that they could not collect back in the form of payments. Banks make money on money – that is, loaning it out or investing it in the hope of a return in the form of money from interest of dividends from profit. When they have to take a house back instead of that money, they get hurt. So, to suggest that the banks are selfishly just holding on to the houses as if that is the thing they most want to do, then you are just not thinking accurately about the situation.
Secondly, as for suggesting in general that banks should be the ones to take a hit financially, you forget that banks are not just faceless entities. Banks are owned by shareholders, who include rich fatcats, but also school teachers, bus drivers, factory workers, and sometimes even bloggers. So, when you root for the banks to take a hit, you are rooting for every shareholder in the bank to take a hit, which means lost money from retirement funds, etc. Even if you don’t own stock in a bank, when it goes down you hurt as well because of the interconnectedness of the world’s economies. If Bank of America loses tons of money because it has tons of foreclosures, then lays off its workers who then stop buying goods and services from Wal-Mart or Aldi, then Wal-Mart and Aldi stop buying food and goods and services from their suppliers, and lay off their workers, and the downward spiral continues. It is never as simple as just sticking it to The Man or the fatcats, or the big corporations, or whatever. We are all in it together to a very large extent.
This has rambled on quite a bit, but my main point is this: sure, there are some people who are richer and some who are poorer. Some people who are poor because they made bad choices and some who are in spite of making all the right choices. Likewise there are some people who have plenty because they worked hard and played by the rules, and some who stepped on others to get what they have. However, I challenge anyone to tell me what earthly system is on the whole better at rewarding good work, punishing wrongdoing, and providing a decent standard of living to all than capitalism.
A few links to some essays by an economist who does a much better job of making these points:
“The Entrepreneur As American Hero”
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2005&month=03
“Capitalism and the Common Man”
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/fee/capitalism.html
“Greed Versus Compassion”
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/fee/greed.html
Ariah,
I think this is a great idea, although impossible to enforce. Capitalism, and the folks that control the wealth, carry far too much power and influence for us to make this a reality. I think it is a good idea to start with, and we need to brainstorm from it.
Maybe we could get rid of one crappy house per block and make that lot a playground, or a garden – owned by the entire block…
Thanks Kathy
Chris,
I definitely hear you on the seeming impossibility of it. However, I found a few articles about major cities that did something similar. I wonder if neighborhoods (say Near North) lobbied for this if the collective force of the neighborhood might be able to overpower those who wouldn’t want it to happen. I might just be dreaming, but I say aim high.
Though, if your right, maybe we do end up with gardens and playgrounds. I wonder though.
ariah, thanks for participating in our experiment. it’s crazy how eager people are for this sort of thing. peace. ben
I like the homesteading idea. But of course it’s gonna lead to yuppies, buppies, and guppies taking over. Owning property requires capital. Poor people have no capital; therefore they won’t be the ones benefiting.
That is an interesting idea. I think it might work with some small variations, but doubt it would really ever happen since legislators at various levels would have to actually agree 🙂 It is a thoughtful long-range solution, better than some of the short-sighted stuff we are seeing from politicians.
I don’t think it helps in talking about what to do about blighted areas, or helping the poor, etc. to costantly just dump on “yuppies”, “buppies”, “the wealthy”, etc. (whoever they are.) Of course if you want to own property you are going to have to have the money to do so, so yes poor people will not be buying houses. (By the way, in large part the big foreclosure crisis was caused by giving loans to people who should not have had them, because they did not have the money to afford them, or did not have the proven credit track record to rate them, and so they lost their houses to foreclosure.) In this case, should banks holding foreclosures just give them away, or sell them for whatever any given non-yuppie, bubbie, or wealthy person has in their pockets? Should the government take those properties from banks, or “slumlords”, and give them away? Putting aside whether that is right or wrong, or constitutional or not, none of those things is a long term solution to the problem of some people not having enough money to get by in a reasonably healthy, well-nourished, safe, comfortable way. Simply pitting rich against poor and poor against rich is no solution. Opportunity made available to all, and a level playing field are things that can and should be offered to all, even with government involvement in things such as providing good education and prohibiting discrimination, etc. The rest of the solution is personal effort on the part of individuals, families, and communities. If people will not decide that they want more and better and then work for more and better, then no matter how much is taken from others and given to them, they will only end up with less and worse. The slumlord thing is a prime example. If ppl would rise up and refuse to rent from these jerks, then they would have to clean up their places in order to attract tenants. Instead, in large part in poor areas, government pays the rent, and so there is no economic motivation to demand better in exchange for their money, since it is not their money.
Aaron,
I really appreciate your thoughts on this. You’ve written a lot so I’m not sure I’ll respond to everything you addressed but here are a couple thoughts:
The right to own land where ever you want seems to only be an opportunity afford the wealthy. And on that note, it seems that the wealthy, and well-organized, also manage to keep out those they don’t want even if the person might have the money (I remember stories about communities in Nashville). Homesteading seems like a possibly decent option, slight limitation, but definitely a way to put power in the hands of the members of a community.
Your comments at the end of your last comment (above) bothered me a little. You seem to place all or most of the blame on people who have chosen not to take control of their situation. I understand on a purely economic and capitalist level, that makes sense, but often it doesn’t work out that way. I guess I’m just wondering if you could hypothesize a situation where a poor person, at the hands of a slumlord, might not have the ability, knowledge or resources to free themselves from the situation and demand better. Just wondering.
Ariah –
I don’t have enough time to give you a full response at the moment, but I will soon.
Meanwhile, a couple of things:
Yes, of course I understand that sometimes people are taken advantage of and may not know what to do, and I care, but I’ll have to get back to you with more on that.
Also, you say you may not respond to everything I addressed, but would you please give your take on a couple of things: 1)Do you think that a neighborhood can be both nice enough that the landlord won’t mind living there (since if homesteading was required, that is what you assume will happen RE the conditions of the housing), and also stay just as affordable to the presumably poor tenants who don’t have enough money or power, etc. to demand change?, and 2) the Walter Williams essays I linked are only a page or so each – would you read and let me know your take on his argument that capitalism is the best thing for everyone, not least for the poor?
Aaron,
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that I wasn’t going to respond, it’s just you wrote so much I felt like I was going to miss points you brought up. Thanks for asking those specifics.
1. As to a homesteaded neighborhood. What I sort of pictured is that the “value” of a neighborhood might drop considerably since those landlords who have the money, probably wouldn’t choose to live there. In their place though would be others who’ve lived in the neighborhood for a while, or would willingly live in the neighborhood, who might not have been able to compete with the wealthier investors. I believe those landlords with the resources to afford duplexes and apartments in a neighborhood that are willing to live in that neighborhood will be the ones who actually care about the well being of the people of the neighborhood.
2. The whole capitalism discussion could be an extremely long one. I just read Greed vs. Compassion. Let me first say that, having taken economics my freshman year of college, I felt that A) Capitalism seemed like the best system for “progress” in our selfish sinful world, B) Christians should be living and exemplifying an entirely different system, based on love and grace. Capitalism in it’s purest form, does not take into account human rights in any way. Under capitalism, slavery makes complete sense, as does child labor, prostitution, sweatshops, and more. What doesn’t make sense is unconditional love for your children, caring for an elderly parent, selfless acts of service for your spouse, nor any other kind, graceful and compassionate gesture.
Capitalism is driven toward progress, and I can see how byproducts of that can often be to the benefit of everyone, including the poor, however, if no one is there raising a voice for the voiceless, than capitalism will trample the lives of many in its path.
Ariah –
Let me answer your questions from above first, and then comment on your comments to my questions later. I’ll try not to be long-winded.
As for your assertion that “right to own land where ever you want seems to only be an opportunity afford[ed] the wealthy”, I have to say, not exactly true. The opportunity to own land is available to anyone in this country. If you have the money, or can borrow the money, then you can buy any piece of land that you want. If you do not have the money, or cannot borrow the money because of your income or poor credit track record, then no, of course you cannot buy. However, plenty of people from lower incomes buy houses, just not the really expensive ones. Discrimination based on race, rex, color, national origin, etc. is prohibited by law. So it is not accurate to say that the “right to own land” is only “afforded” to the wealthy as though by some system to keep others out. Do you want the law to be such that owners of land must sell for whatever some particular individual can pay, even if there are others willing to pay more?
There are two possible solutions to the problem of ppl not having enough money to buy or rent a good place:
1) Make more money. I am not just being flippant. Seriously, do what needs to be done to make enough income to be able to afford a decent place. No one is stopping you from doing so. Work more, work harder, learn more so you can do better for yourself. Ask for help if you don’t know what to do. There are plenty of people who are willing to help you along the way. What good does it do (and how true is it really anyway) to say that some rich bogey man is out there trying to keep you from doing that?
Your solution seems to be that government should take some action that will wipe out the value of the property in a given neighborhood in order to make it more affordable for lower income people. Firstly, that is taking from one and giving to another, which is not morally correct and most likely unconstitutional. Secondly, to think that it necessarily would drop the price anyway is a misunderstanding of how the market works. Sellers sell to whoever will give them the most money. If the property is worth paying a certain amount of money for, then that is what it would draw from buyers. (You can’t make a seller sell to the lowest bidder just because they really would like to have the place.) Even if you could create a temporary drop in sales prices by flooding the market with lots of homes, when those folks sell or decide to rent them out the next time around, the price or rent will be set my market forces to whatever they are worth. So, at max, you’d get a one “generation” windfall for some lower income folks, who would then sell to the highest bidder next time around, defeating the original purpose of your plan.
Also, I’d like to know where in Nashville or anywhere else someone was not allowed to buy property for any reason other than not having the money to do so. If that happened, then it was illegal discrimination, and there are plenty of places to seek redress and plenty of public interest, pro-bono legal outfits who would be happy to help any aggrieved would-be buyer with a problem like that. I am sure there may be isolated instances where discrimination like that is attempted, but I seriously doubt that it could be shown to be the norm, or anything like a primary cause for lack of good housing being available to all. Nevertheless, any place it happens it cannot legally stand.
2) If there are not enough places to live for people who have only a little money to buy or rent a place, then some enterprising business person will see the need and build housing that lower income people will want to buy or rent. In any given city there are builders who build on the low end and on the high end. They are all in it to make money, which is how they benefit. Their buyers benefit by having a place to live that is within their budget. I know a little about the real estate market, and can tell you that builders on the high end or low end make about the same money. Smaller houses make less, but you build more. Bigger houses make more, but you build less. So, to say that builders are not willing to build the low end houses is just not factually accurate. All along the way, by the way, construction workers, supply houses, plumbers, electricians, house cleaners, etc. make money to support themselves and their families. The rich homebuilders don’t just sit on the money they make, but rather they spend it and invest it in ways that make money, again, for everyone.
My point is that taking property (whether by actually taking or by manipulating the market) from some to give it to others is not a net benefit to anyone, not even the poor. Even if there is a short term benefit, it is very short lived, and hurts many more people than it hurts, such as all the people who lose money and lose jobs if you stick it to the banks by making them sell.
As to your question RE I could “hypothesize a situation where a poor person, at the hands of a slumlord, might not have the ability, knowledge or resources to free themselves from the situation and demand better.” Short answer: yes, of course. As noted before, there are codes regs and health and safety laws and antidiscrimination laws, the Uniform Landlord and Tenant Act, and many other things that exist (and rightly so) to protect renters. There are public interest attorneys everywhere that are willing to help. Look, I have lived in places before where the housing was dangerous and the landlord was a jerk. I lived on one place where the wiring was so bad that the stove arced and flash-welded a pot to the heating element, mold grew on shoes left in the closet, and drunks would wander in if you did not lock the door. The landlord totally stole my tv. What did I do? I moved to another cheap place where the landlord was not a jerk. I know some people need help, but the solution should not be to make landowners renovate their properties to the point that they cannot afford to charge low rents, or force banks to sell at cut-rate prices – that is, to massively take from everyone else just to help a few. Especially when, as noted above, that help is speculative and short lived at best, as noted above.
And by the way, I don’t blame ppl for being poor. My grandfather was a sharecropper, my dad was a public employee, and I am not made or money myself, but I have the opportunity to do whatever I want to do with myself. By the way, who is to blame for people being poor? Rich people? It is bogus to think that rich people want to keep people down. The best situation there can be for rich people, who presumably own businesses, rental properties, food stores, car companies, etc., is for as many people as possible to earn enough money to buy their wares and use their services. If they just go about crushing people, and shutting them out, etc. then who is going to buy their stuff?
No one likes to hear it, but an argument can be made that politicians who purport to want to help the poor really want poor people to stay that way, and for their numbers to swell. Listen to certain candidates. What they talk about is taxing “the rich”, in order to provide services, help, subsidies, scholarships, etc. to those who have less money. They are seeking votes on that basis. It stands to reason that the more people there are who need those programs, then the more people they have who will want to vote for them.
Sorry, for taking up so much space!
Oh, well, since this is so long already, another comment on homesteading:
You assume that all non-neighborhood-dwelling landlords are bad, or at least that generally they are. Well, what if there were some really good landowners who provided a good rental product at affordable prices, and made good money doing it? They would create an incentive for other landlords to do a better job of offering good housing, or else lose their tenants. This would be a good thing – the kind of thing you want landlords to do, right? What if they wanted to do the same thing in multiple neighborhoods or cities, and therefore could not live in all the neighborhoods in which they owned. In that case, your homesteading rule would prevent that landowner from doing a good thing for the tenants and community.
my point is that you have to think potential solutions to real problems like this all the way through, and from every perspective. Unintended consequences can defeat the best of intentions.
Another thing to consider: I had an ethics professor once who suggested a good guiding principle that should be used by all policymakers, leaders, public servants, and public interest advocates in order to produce fair, equitable, and useful systems for all:
“Don’t make policy based on who you are, or who you want to benefit, but rather make policy as though you don’t know what race, sex, religion, marital status, financial means, etc. you may possess when you walk out the door to the world to live under the system you are creating.”
Aaron,
As a closet Economist, I applaud your systematic approach to a market-based view of poverty and housing. Your statement: “My point is that taking property (whether by actually taking or by manipulating the market) from some to give it to others is not a net benefit to anyone, not even the poor. Even if there is a short term benefit, it is very short lived, and hurts many more people than it hurts, such as all the people who lose money and lose jobs if you stick it to the banks by making them sell.” is succinct.
Yet, there really is a side to this conversation that cannot be captured by metrics, Adam Smith, or Hernando De Soto (my personal hero in Economics). That side: Institutional racism, especially in Colonized Nations. America was built on the back of free labor from African and Latin and Native (and even white) slaves, and the consequences of that slavery and wealth-grab are still being felt today – both monetarily and in the psyche of the “havenots.”
That is why real money is called “old money.” It is old because it can be traced back to plantations, slavery, and genocide.
How do we account for that? There has to be a subjective, more human side to this conversation…
Chris,
Thanks for chiming in. One of the things that popped in my head as a response, though obviously not addressing everything Aaron mentioned (Aaron, I definitely think you said a lot of stuff I agree with, I’m still processing all of it), is something I’ve heard John Perkins say.
He uses the analogy of a baseball game. It’s sort of like, say one team was cheating all along, and they are up by like 40+ runs and it’s the top of the 9th inning and the other team finally catches them cheating. (That’s our history)
What happened then is the cheating team said, “Sorry for cheating, we won’t do it anymore, things are fair now, let’s finish up the game.” But we don’t change the score, or anything, it’s still 9th inning and one team is up 40+ runs. (that’s where we are)
I really think in a very pure sense, capitalism could make some sense, but unfortunately our past and present have created an extremely uneven playing field.
I have to say, I totally reject the cheating/slavery/plantation analogies as explanations of why there is economic inequality in the US in 2008. That is a history unique to the United States, but the reality of rich and poor is universal and stretches across the entire course of human history. We did not invent rich and poor here.
As for specifically the plight of the descendants of slaves in the US, you gotta read “Black Rednecks & White Liberals”, by Thomas Sowell.
Nothing I or anyone else has or will ever get is a result of slavery. If this were 1860, yes. If this were 1960, maybe just a little. But today, no.
Pick a single person you know and try to apply that the cheating/slavery/plantation explanation for why they are where they are.
Wow a lot has been said and discussed. I tried to read carefully through all the points and counterpoints but haven’t read some of the articles linked to by Aaron, but feel I would be remiss for not chiming in.
First – slavery is a common trend across the world and is still occurring in parts of Africa and Asia. The long-term negative impacts are huge and yes I think we in America should be beyond using slavery as an excuse for poverty – but there is still latent and systematic discrimination. Ever heard of redlining? It still occurs to some degree or another we have just gotten more creative about how it occurs. Slavery may have ended in the 1800’s but African-American’s didn’t get full legal rights as US Citizens until the 1960’s and racism is still very present in many parts of the country. To think otherwise is idealistic and naive.
Second – I would agree in general that a person can “work themselves out of poverty” but know realistically that is impossible. If a single mother is working 60 hours a week at 3 part-time jobs just to put food on the table how can you expect her to find help to improve her education to get a better job and buy a house? It is almost impossible even with all the government interventions. And sadly in most cases her children will not do well in school because they aren’t receiving educational help at home. This is where the Church can step in and at least help end the generational poverty. It isn’t fair to say that someone working minimum wage jobs is able to magically “do what needs to be done to make enough income to be able to afford a decent place. No one is stopping you from doing so. Work more, work harder, learn more so you can do better for yourself. Ask for help if you don’t know what to do.” I know there are great stories about that happening and that is inspiring, but its not a common experience.
I want to be a conservative and support capitalism but I’d agree with Ariah and others that Christianity isn’t capitalism – nor is it socialism. Christ came to redeem us and we should be working to bring redemption throughout all the world so that everyone would call upon Him. We need to redeem (spiritually, physically, emotionally and not least of all economically) our neighbors whoever they are (yuppie or poor or whomever). The church needs to be this redemption and not leave it up to the government or the free market.
Nick –
I can agree with a lot of what you said here.
I don’t mean to imply that slavery has no negative effects, regardless of where or when it occurs. I also don’t mean to say that there is no racism in America, but only that it is not sanctioned by law and practiced and celebrated by the masses as it has been in the past. I only mean to say that in America in 2008, the continuing effects of slavery and racism are minimal in comparison to other influences and opportunities and protections that impact the daily lives of Americans. You may likely still disagree with that refined point, but I thought it was still worth refining to be sure I say what I mean to say. Also, there is plenty of idealism and naiveté to be found on all sides of the discussion here and elsewhere on these topics, for sure.
Even if you grant that some people today suffer the consequences of slavery or any other bad thing that happened to them or their ancestors, what specifically does that accomplish? If I say, “I am in worse shape today because my great-great-grandparents were slaves”, or as is true in my case, “because my grandfather was a sharecropper and a wife-beater and a child-abandoner”, what does that do for me? My answer is: Nothing. At least nothing positive. If every day of my life my parents or my teachers or my schoolbooks or my leaders or the media tell me that people like me have it hard because of what happened to my ancestors, what good does that do for me?
Look at it this way: If I have a broken leg, does it really matter how it got broken? Whether some one attacked me, or I had an accident, or I broke it while committing a crime, or a tree fell on me, the solution to my broken leg is the same – get it fixed! Do I fix the break one way if I was an assault victim versus if tree fell on it? I can learn all I want about how it happened, or why it happened, or who is to blame for it happening, but none of those things fixes it.
So, do you do something different for the poor who are poor because of slavery a hundred and forty years ago versus those who have some other misfortune or injustice in their background, however directly or tangentially that impacts their current condition, or just deal with their present reality?
As for working your way out of bad financial situations, let me refine that point as well. Yes, I understand that some people have it harder than others because of bad things that have happened to them, and I do understand that not every person will be able to work their way out of it alone. Sometimes it takes months, or years, or generations, but the opportunity to do so is present in this county and under this system in a way that is not found elsewhere.
My point there was a public policy point and not a religious point anyway, that main point being that what the public/government should give poor people most prominently is protection and a level playing field, as opposed to giving them cash and goods and housing taken from others.
If you think that most ppl can’t work their way to being able to afford good housing, then what is your suggestion for governmental involvement?
I like and agree with this comment of yours most of all: “The church needs to be this redemption and not leave it up to the government or the free market.” You seem like a thoughtful guy – thanks for commenting on my thoughts.