Socialist Man in the Big Easy
Through socialist policies and redistribution, New Orleans has raised from its ruin a new socialist man. However, instead of working for the collective, this risen New Orleans man does not work at all. He does not live for the collective but lives at the expense of the collective. This reality is drastically different from what Marxists had in mind when referring to the man created from socialism. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (46)
Manuel Lora
This article is nonsense. What New Orleans needs is more money and better administrators and the right politicians in office. This free market stuff is overblown.
Published: September 25, 2006 9:12 AM
banker
The above post was a sample of sarcasm, no? If only it was...
Published: September 25, 2006 9:23 AM
Scott D
Yep. Just try hard enough, and we're sure to find the "right" people to put in office. It's not the system that's the problem, just stupid voters. And more money, yeah, that's the ticket. Hey, maybe the Fed can help us with that one...
Published: September 25, 2006 9:27 AM
Daniel J. D'Amico
Vedran,
I know you're addressing typical leftists who support the living wage as a cure all for social problems, and pointing to New Orleans as a counter-case, but are there people in New Orleans promoting this argument? I remember before Katrina there was plenty of living wage activism in the big easy. Do these people still have ground to stand on in the local context (pardon the pun)? Who are they and what are the particulars of what their slinging? Otherwise another great story, and a welcome fiesty bit of in your face radicalism. Keep up the good work.
Dan
Published: September 25, 2006 9:36 AM
Chris Meisenzahl
Great work again!
Published: September 25, 2006 12:05 PM
Thantor
Very nice article. If more libertarians would focus on the flaws inherent in our welfare system instead of incessantly digging at the victims of that system, we would be much better served. After all, as you point out, it is only human nature to exert the least amount of energy required to achieve our desired ends. Unless someone is thoroughly grounded in a free market morality based on libertarianism, it should be no surprise that they take handouts instead of working. Also time preference vis a vis Hoppe could come into play here. A victim of a disaster of the magnitude of Katrina, seems to me less likely to worry about setting aside for the future.
My only qualm about your article is that it is somewhat out of place here. In case you haven't heard, only illegal immigrants should be stopped from taking advantage of our welfare system. The groups of Mexicans waiting around for jobs are much more deadly to the free market than those waiting in line in New Orleans for government checks.
Published: September 25, 2006 12:58 PM
F L Light
Unregulated welfare is the rule
Of nature, than the government less cruel.
©2006 F L Light
Published: September 25, 2006 1:16 PM
Joe
Vedran Vuk wrote ...
> The welfare state must be destroyed to begin the process of change.
But what or who is going to destroy it? Surely not the welfare recipients or the politicians. The "voters" (the set of which overlaps the former two)? Will it collapse as result of its own bankruptcy (and how will that affect the rest of us)?
Published: September 25, 2006 1:37 PM
kfsrules
I agree that certain individuals take advantage of welfare and/or extra government handouts such as trailers. This is a selfish use of a good idea. However, the state government locked out many members of the poor community from their "project" apartments solely because they "said so." For some of the large project complexes, there is no structural hazard. So honestly, if those people want to abuse the government while the government locks them out of their homes because of the government's hatred of public housing, then so be it.
Published: September 25, 2006 1:45 PM
Gov't. Cheese
Great analysis ... well written ... and oh so true!
Hard to believe this comes from a college student. Perhaps there is still some hope for the future.
Published: September 25, 2006 2:36 PM
Coldsack
Give a man a guaranteed fish every day for the rest of his life, and he will become a dependent child, unable to fish for himself, and turning into a pillar of hate whenever the fish is delayed or imperfect.
Published: September 25, 2006 2:38 PM
Zena
You know, my ex-husband always ranted and raved about the horrible people who had to live on welfare, ....until he WAS ELIGIBLE for it HIMSELF. This Author is a fraud and most likely a hypocrite. If this is all you get with this website, I don't need another downer.
Published: September 25, 2006 3:31 PM
Rob Spear
Zena's example shows the seductive evil that is the welfare state. No doubt her ex-husband was a decent human being until he got sucked into taking welfare.
Published: September 25, 2006 5:21 PM
Leigh
Well Zena, I'm sorry your ex-husband is a hypocrite... but.. How is this author a fraud, exactly? Nevermind.. As far "not needing another downer," you're right, this site is a downer. If you want to go stick your head in the sand on another website, that's your preogative. This site is for people who want to understand reality, and reality is... well, a major downer.
Getting rid of the welfare system is like a Chia pet. It takes time, but eventually it springs to life and is much more beautiful than when you started.
ps, i swear i've never had a chia pet... i am just using it as an analogy.
Published: September 25, 2006 10:25 PM
averros
Zena - it YOUR fault that you married a hypocrite, no?
Published: September 25, 2006 10:38 PM
Scott D
A downer? I don't think so. I get quite a bit of satisfaction to read articles that justify and elaborate upon the growing distrust that I've felt for the state. I've gradually felt myself drawn to what I see as unvarnished truths that most people would rather ignore. The last few months have been quite an adventure of discovery and self-analysis.
The good people here are concerned about the welfare state precisely because it is both destructive and seductive. Aside from the harm that wealth-redistribution policies wreak upon productivity and living standards in general, they also erode our ethics. Wouldn't your husband's reversal serve as a testament to this?
Published: September 25, 2006 11:14 PM
Joe
Leigh, even though I've never owned a Chia pet either, it's not too difficult to understand and visualize how to make it grow, since most of us have learned about germination, experimented with it, or otherwise seen other plants grow.
However, how many of us have seen the state recede in any permanent way? Remember Bill Clinton announcing "the end of the era of Big Government"? Have you checked the latest welfare statistics (see Reason, June 2006)?
I'm pretty sure that if I add some water to a Chia pet, it will start to grow, but I have yet to see a "first step" (strategy, tactic, proposal, etc.) for ending the welfare state that has born fruit (or has any chance of bearing fruit in, say, the next fifty years).
The Mises Institute does a great job of educating many of us, But there's six billion on earth and 300 million in the U.S. Granted that you don't need 100% "conversion" to effect change, but the overall trends are not encouraging.
Published: September 25, 2006 11:58 PM
unaccountable
"A simple look at Craigslist.orgreveals the plentitude of homes available in the area. These are houses available for rent on just one website which hardly represents all rentable properties in New Orleans."
A simple look is precisely that. A litte more work might get you the actual numbers of rentable accomodation in safe areas available and the uber waiting to move into their "own" (previous)properties vs. those who just need a place to stay. Property fetishisation??
"Why is the murder rate for July in New Orleans higher than last year with half the population around?"
Simple the same pre-socialistic rate/1 is lower than the socialist rate/1/2
"Can a left-liberal please e-mail me with their reasoning on why these people are committing crime instead of working when there are countless jobs at outstanding wages? "
Simple... they can't count
Published: September 26, 2006 7:51 AM
John Delano
Limbaugh read this article on his radio show.
Published: September 26, 2006 12:51 PM
Paul
Well done, lad. Well done.
Published: September 26, 2006 1:26 PM
Matt
Article was great, I completely agree. I sent a copy to my liberal father; he needs to get an edumucation from this one.
(Heard it on Rush Limbaugh) Frantically was searching for it, I had to send it to my dad.
Thanks!
Published: September 26, 2006 3:38 PM
George Gaskell
But what or who is going to destroy it? ... Will it collapse as result of its own bankruptcy (and how will that affect the rest of us)?
Yes, it will destroy itself. Just as the welfare-warfare state caused the collapse of the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Soviets, etc.
Published: September 26, 2006 5:01 PM
Ohhh Henry
I'm pleased to hear that Limbaugh read the article, but it would seem that he is completely blind to the destructiveness of the other half of the welfare-warfare state. Republican apologists lament the welfare system but will not attack the president over it because they believe that (a) it is necessary to pander to the welfare enthusiasts in order to gain political power so that the "truly important" mission of the War on Terror can be accomplished; and (b) tax cuts will magically lead to greater and greater tax revenues which will allow all of the welfare bills to be paid in the long run.
Published: September 26, 2006 8:21 PM
rANDI
I went through those job and rental listings. So few rentals for under a thousand dollars, and most jobs were under 11 dollars an hour, and many were part time.
I've heard that those trailer parks are no picnic to live in, rampant crime, et cetera. And I think it's hard to believe that people prefer a life of crime to one of honest labor if housing and good-paying jobs are so freely available.
It's easy to be critical of people when we are not familiar with their circumstances. Most of those cheaper rentals were for 1 BR. If you have three kids to clothe and feed, you're going to want a two or three bedroom, which were much pricier, in a secure neighborhood, within commuting distance of where you'll be working.
The social dynamics of trying to get restarted after the kind of dislocation so many of those people endured is so difficult to comprehend, let alone understand using the simplistic reasoning of this article. It's not just about having a place to live and work; it's about yours and your children's social lives, going to school, caring for a pet, walking to the grocer's, feeling safe, dealing with the neighbors, paying your other bills, dealing with health issues (I heard many hospitals were still inadequately staffed, etc).
I don't know how old the author of this article is, but it doesn't sound as though he has a firm grasp of what it means to be socially integrated. An apartment and a paycheck may be enough for a young, single person, but it goes far beyond that for those in that city who had been established for years and have a family to support. That's my take on things.
Randi
Published: September 27, 2006 3:10 AM
liberalandproud
Well said Randi.
Published: September 27, 2006 8:32 AM
Joe
George,
Yes, it will destroy itself. Just as the welfare-warfare state caused the collapse of the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Soviets, etc.
To take the most recent example, the Soviet empire lasted seven decades (1917 to 1989). But was it really destroyed or is it smoldering in the ashes? The empire may be gone but the bulk of the welfare state behind it seems not much changed.
The earlier example of the Romans isn't very inspiring either. The western Roman empire lasted for five centuries and the "recovery" took about twice as long.
Published: September 27, 2006 8:39 AM
Vince Daliessio
Randi;
Not to appear callous (indeed I am a little older and possessed of responsibility than Vedran is), but ti is a HUGE leap from "the current housing situation facing families is inconvenient" to "the taxpayers should fund Federal meddling".
And while the federal (and state, and city) government has a huge responsibility for what happened in New Orleans, instead of making them compensate actual losses for which they are responsible, they are instead allowed to get away with blowing taxpayer dollars on crony contracting and good old-fashioned graft, with little or no actual compensation for actual losses.
As far as crime goes, we are only subject to what we tolerate. These folks who are living on handouts dare not bite the hand that (literally!) feeds them by demanding better law enforcement. They are trapped.
Crimes begetting crimes - where have we seen this before?
Each level of government should be hauled into court, its liabilities decided by a judge and jury, and the losses of each person compensated. And the government should get out of the levee and housing business once and for all.
Published: September 27, 2006 10:08 AM
Reactionary
Randi,
The people in these trailers are not working people with nuclear families. They are simply continuing with the same lifestyle they had prior to the destruction of their public housing project or Section 8 leasehold.
Published: September 27, 2006 10:24 AM
Francisco Torres
The social dynamics of trying to get restarted after the kind of dislocation so many of those people endured is so difficult to comprehend, let alone understand using the simplistic reasoning of this article.
The problem, Randi, is that you place too much emotional weight on the issue. The fact is that the previous conditions are gone - all those houses are gone. Saying that the only cheap rents there are for one bedroom houses and that families were accostumed to having three bedrooms and a doghouse is really making an argument from emotions, but not a rational argument. The issue is if the federal government should be subsidizing homes to people that lost theirs; it may be tragic, but surely it was their decision to establish or homestead in such a flood-prone place, so why should people that made better provisions pay for the decisions of the foolish?
And I think it's hard to believe that people prefer a life of crime to one of honest labor if housing and good-paying jobs are so freely available.
Well, believe it, because given the economic choice, SOME will value the free housing and the dole more than the security of a rental home community or a stable job. People DO make economic choices, Randi.
Published: September 27, 2006 10:39 AM
Elizabeth M
I'd just like some clarification of the following:
"If there are houses available, why do people still request trailers? It's really simple. Free is always better. Sure, there are homes available but who wants to pay when they don't have to."
Does this apply to *everyone* who has requested a FEMA trailer? That's the impression I'm getting. What about hard working people who have FEMA trailers at their homes, who come home after a full day of work, do work on their ruined homes, then crash for the night in their trailer? Are they bums?
What about people with destroyed homes who still have mortgages on them? Are they bums if they wish to have a trailer?
I live in a trailer with 2 other staff from work. I cannot afford an apartment if I wish to fix my house. Either one or the other. I get the impression that you would prefer I let my house go to blight or sell it for pennies on the dollar?
I just want to give up. I try to do the best I can but guess I'm just a typical New Orleans bum.
Published: September 27, 2006 7:10 PM
CAITM
Elizabeth M. My mom, who lives in La and works in Hammond knows a lot of people commuting from N.O. and Metairie in the same situation. 2 of my cousins are like this also. We hear ya!
Published: September 27, 2006 9:42 PM
banker
Floridians have their own problems. We don't need to have New Orleans problems FORCED onto us. I mean, if your hungry you don't break into your neighbor's house and empty his/her fridge, do you? Then why do you expect people to sympathize with those who live off the federal government dole?
If Mexicans can make it from the border all the way to places like North Carolina with nothing but the clothes on their backs, then there is really no excuse for living in a flood zone below sea level. Maybe you should just have saved money for a rainy day instead of holding your left hand out for money and holding a hand gun in your right hand (metaphorically speaking).
Published: September 27, 2006 9:58 PM
Vince Daliessio
Elizabeth;
1) Did the hurricane directly damage your house, or was it the breach of the levees?
2) Who owns the levees?
3) Did you have homeowners' insurance?
4) If not, is it because you couldn't obtain it?
5) If not, wasn't subsidized Flood Insurance available?
Compassion is one thing, being forced to pay for the compounded economic mistakes of government, insurance companies, and individuals is quite another.
No one has a right to money stolen from taxpayers, not flood victims, not crony corporations, NO ONE.
Published: September 28, 2006 12:16 PM
K Milt
Excellent piece!
I think it is safe to say that there isn't any normal person who doesn't have compassion for others who have experienced loss such as this. There were so many who were willing, and who did help.
It is high time, however, for the government to stop the flow of (our) money, and for these people to get up and get busy and help themselves. The whining is getting pretty old.
This rampant welfare mentality is a drain on our society. This mind set is passed on from one generation to the next. There are countless able-bodied people living in our great country who refuse to work, but who feel oh-so-entitled to that government check (which of course is far too paltry a sum for them to live in the manner to which they believe they are entitled). The definition of 'poor' in this country has taken on very new meanings. It no longer refers to having ones' necessities met; it often tends to refer to the fact someone may have only one television, and worse yet, it isn't even plasma!
Published: September 28, 2006 1:50 PM
crazy socialist
No, there is no shortage of housing in New Orleans--there's a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing, in areas where people do not feel unsafe.
You've clearly got a lot of learning to do. There's more to social change than just whining about socialism. You shouldn't make such inflammatory comments about a situation you only understand a fragment of. New Orleans is wraught with social problems that are deep-seated and extend beyond your shallow, vapid analysis.
FYI, crime was an issue in New Orleans long before the "socialist man" was raised out of the post-Katrina mess. Perhaps if you'd lived there for longer than the trivial amount of time you've been visiting for school, you'd understand something of the cultural elements of what's happening in New Orleans.
What a presumptuous, offensive, entirely uneducated article. Inflammatory nonsense, and quite caustic to anyone native to the city, I'm sure.
Published: October 1, 2006 10:10 PM
crazy socialist
Also, asking the federal government to assist this city is not unreasonable, especially since the federal government is essentially stealing (and making billions from) all of Louisiana's off-shore oil revenues.
Louisiana is the only state with off-shore drilling not receiving such revenues. The state could recover from this disaster exponentially faster with a fraction of the revenues accrued from its offshore drilling, and federal emergency assistance would not be needed to nearly the extent it has been, if at all.
Published: October 1, 2006 10:17 PM
Francisco Torres
No, there is no shortage of housing in New Orleans--there's a shortage of AFFORDABLE housing, in areas where people do not feel unsafe.
Just how much would it have to be in order to be "affordable"? Since the term is terribly subjective, your contention reads like a non sequitur.
FYI, crime was an issue in New Orleans long before the "socialist man" was raised out of the post-Katrina mess.
The "socialist man" existed LONG before Katrina - that is the point of the article. Since the people living there were accustomed through government hand-outs to depend on the State for almost everything, the article points out that people still want the same treatment even if they have to live in a crime-infested area, your "affordable housing" argument notwithstanding.
What a presumptuous, offensive, entirely uneducated article. Inflammatory nonsense, and quite caustic to anyone native to the city, I'm sure.
Translation: "Economic law does not apply here. How dare you say people in N.O. act according to the opportunity costs like everybody else in this universe!"
Louisiana is the only state with off-shore drilling not receiving such revenues [that the Federation takes for itself]. The state could recover from this disaster exponentially faster with a fraction of the revenues accrued from its offshore drilling,
You mean the people of Louisiana would benefit if they could just exchange one thief for another?
Published: October 1, 2006 10:56 PM
crazy socialist
Um, no. Your "translation" of my words is completely inaccurate. Perhaps that's what you'd like me to have said, so you can continue soapboxing and whining about people needing financial help, but that's not the case. Not even close!
There is a huge sector of displaced New Orleanians who require affordable housing (operationally definining "affordable" as "pre-Katrina rates," which is an understood description of the cost among people in this city). In case you missed this, 80% of the city was wiped out in the storm. That leaves 20% without the same degree of structural damage (i.e. inhabitable) and only a scant amount of rebuilt homes elsewhere. There are thousands of residents who cannot come home because of this housing SHORTAGE. Also, in case you missed this too, rent gouging has been an enormous problem in the city, making it difficult for any but the wealthier middle to upper classes able to afford anything. Even people with "good" jobs (paying in the 30-40,000 range) are having moderate difficulty with rent rates.
Many, many residents of New Orleans are elderly, and owned, without debt, their pre-storm properties. Condemning them as lazy or unwilling to work is irresponsible. What shall we do about those who paid their dues by working all their lives, owned their homes, and are now homeless and jobless/retired/disabled, with their only options being to find rental units for $1200+ a month in the wealthiest areas of the city, or leave their home city altogether?
Of course there are people taking advantage of the social welfare system in New Orleans (and ALL other cities and places with deeply-rooted social problems). What gives you or anyone who is not a researcher any room to assume these hustlers make up the majority of the huricane homeless? There are a great many people who are unable to work and unable to find housing due to actual obstacles (age, disability, mental illness, physical disease, etc.). Not everyone is a drug peddling "leech," as this author appears to think. It's offensive to me, and my family, and people like us, who have worked for 20 years in this city, to read such dribble. And "economic law?" Last I checked, it was "economic theory," and it's applied to different areas as the local governments see fit. If the Federal government wanted to get involved this time, to salvage thousands of people from destitution, that was their choice. New Orleans barely has an economy right now, which is why jobs are offering ridiculous wages for super-low skilled work: they're trying to get people to come back and work. The people who are coming back consist of two groups: those unable to work, and those unwilling to work (opting for using the system and selling drugs, hence the crime). These things are problems, but how can anyone, with a clear conscience, just write off the rest of the people affected (the elderly, disabled, those poor before the storm but owning a home free and clear, and now unable to locate housing within their income brackets...)?
You should watch out about putting words in people's mouths, first of all. Second, you should try to understand the nature of a city-wide demise in infrastructure and its implications for economics and social issues before you start pointing fingers. Not everyone in New Orleans is a devious, thieving drug-pusher. Many are simply displaced and stripped down to zero resources. Of course the government is going to handle this unconventionally for awhile. But lucky for you, you can stop worrying. The tax-funded federal dollars are being cut off for most programs in October 2007. Your miniscule tax contribution to the area will be safe again.
And using Craigslist as evidence for abundant housing? Please. I don't see any listings on there for the 9th Ward or the upper 8th or Gentilly or the East or Lakeview or Mid-City or the Treme or the lower Bywater, or far Uptown. Why? Oh yes, because those areas HAVE no housing available. They have no running water or phone lines or businesses either. Half a million citizens pre-Katrina...housing availability in 20-35% of the city (and rent costs skyrocketing in response to supply & demand)...how is that not a shortage?
Overall, this is an unprecedented situation affecting an enormous number of people. If you expect it to fit your criteria for "economic law," the simple answer is, it won't. It's a unique situation that requires unique handling, and unique attention to human interest. It is NOT a cesspool of miscreants grasping for a handout.
Published: October 2, 2006 1:30 PM
crazy socialist
Louisiana is not exchanging any sort of thief for another in demanding its offshore oil revenues. It could be entirely self-sufficient with those revenues, and in the existing model, where states are entitled to revenue generate by off-shore oil drilling, it has no reason not to ask.
I don't see why you're so opposed to this. In fact, it seemed like something people on this site would appreciate: the state using its own resources for its own recovery. The federal government would not need to play such a moumental financial role in most anything related to Louisiana's rebuilding if they entitled the state to oil revenues. The truth is, Louisiana produces such a fantastic amount of revenue, that the government refuses to part with it. Louisiana is not a "theif" for wanting money for its products. The federal government IS, for claiming ownership of something that by all existing standards, should go to the state.
Published: October 2, 2006 1:35 PM
crazy socialist
I should have said:
"The people who are coming back *largely* consist of two groups..."
(there are those coming back who want to work--and do find work--but not enough as of right now)
Published: October 2, 2006 1:40 PM
crazy socialist
Translation: "Economic law does not apply here. How dare you say people in N.O. act according to the opportunity costs like everybody else in this universe!"
I just can't get over this. Come down here and find some "opportunities" that are widespread enough to leave every person who was displaced viable for the future. Do you understand the scope of what happened here?!
"What's wrong with you, New Orleans? Why can't you 'act like the rest of the universe,' even though you're in a state of devastation, essentially operating under martial law, have only a fraction of pre-Katrina jobs available, and are facing a cost of living that is higher than you've ever seen! You're just a city of lazy beggars and criminals, aren't you?"
Published: October 2, 2006 1:51 PM
crazy socialist
And Randi,
Yes, there ARE plenty of "normal nuclear families" in these FEMA trailers. Many, many of them, actually. Some people from the projects are using trailers as well, but hell, my boss at work and his family live in a FEMA trailer. My mother and father, both retired residents of the Lakeview neighborhood, live in a FEMA trailer. So do their friends and their friends' families. Don't let callous people try to brush off the situation as affecting only the criminals and people with the "section 8 lifestyles." They don't understand, or are willfully ignorant of the scenario here.
Published: October 2, 2006 1:55 PM
Brian Nickerson
Crazy Socialist,
First, I'd like some hard data on any of the positive, numerable claims you have thus far made. Anyone analyzing your points would, and if you intend to stand on them, you are obliged to provide them, lest you be considered an intellectual pariah.
Second, I think the point of the article was that things were this way (rampant government dependancy which compounds the tragedy of a disaster) since before the hurricane hit. That means that pre-existing conditions can, rather effectively explain the continuance of problems now. If this wasn't the main point, it certainly looks to it as an example to sustain a point I missed.
Third, housing doesn't need to be available everywhere to be available. If rent were $1,200 for an apartment (or if a mortgage ((preferrably non-adjustable rate)) on a place cost something similar) across town, and if you got a full-time job at $11 an hour, that's what, $14,400 a year in rent against 22,880 income. Minus obscene taxes you're right, you're screwed.
You can live on $8,480 a year, if you're frugal.
Obviously, these conditions will not last forever. Either A you'll get smart, hoard cash and move to a place you can afford (trying to sustainably consume more than you can afford is a practical example of abject stupidity, insanity or childishness) or B the prices of housing will fall as new housing is built and you can wait for that. Hell, let's assume something that never happens, happens here: Speculators (of the housing construction variety here) construct more houses than are actually needed, like say, Atari manufacturing more copies of a videogame than exist systems to play it...Well they will have to sell off excess stock if they want to avoid otherwise inevitable losses, will they not? If sharks smell more fish than there actually are, some of them will go hungry.
I suspect such a condition (or an accurate, measured effort to meet the demands of consumers) could come about much faster without all these disaster agencies sticking their beaks where undesireable. Perhaps the most devastating effect of welfare statism is the ingraining of feelings of entitlement and dependancy that go with it. Do I offend you? Does it matter? This is not personal, I'm trying to say, don't wear your personal interest in a discussion on your sleeve. It's weak, and it comes across as an appeal to emotion, a basic, and often (indeliberately) used arguementative fallacy. Besides, the point was made. Jobs and houses are available in New Orleans, and outside New Orleans. You say, 'should people just uproot themselves?' (I paraphrase the common root of this position) I say YES. If they have the guts to take charge of their own lives, they would. They would have left New Orleans long ago knowing that flood insurance will not stop a flood. You say there are families in these trailer parks, do the parents love their children enough to raise them without kow-towing to outside forces? Are the places where housing is available worse than the places where they are now? Is feeling unsafe worse than being objectively assured of real danger from minute to minute? For that matter you seem to suggest that in order to be available it must be under a certain (unspecified) price and that people must feel safe, which would require impossible things be accomplished to accomidate folks.
So you may ask if I were an adventurous entrepreneurial type how would I help the situation? Either A, with work and available housing to provide in the area, I'd offer jobs at negotiable wages, and housing (likely apartments) at negotiable prices. What jobs would I offer? Anything that could turn a profit, and further repair/security/everyday stuff wouldn't be a bad choice. Assuming a classical liberal society or market anarchist society for convenience, people would carry guns likely negating the threat, but assuming it present and greater than their firepower can negate, I could offer a premium rate to particular consumers willing to pay for security. Given the low, low low ultra low value of real estate in disaster areas - I could acquire housing by buying existing examples or building some out of wreckage - at a cheap enough price and afford to sell it to large numbers of customers with low enough prices to attract them. The problem is, regulation and the so-called solutions in practice now prevent any such beneficient enterprise from succeeding.
As an aside, don't draw personal attacks into a discussion, it shows a remarkable lack of tact and taste, and in some degree admits weakness in one's own argument.
Published: October 3, 2006 6:43 PM
Peter
What do you mean "its own resources"? The oil properly belongs to whoever discovers it and drills for it - i.e., some oil company, not the state. Whatever the state gets is just theft (unless the legitimate owner gives it freely. In which case it's stupidity!)
Published: October 3, 2006 10:51 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
I don't know how long Vedran has been living in New Orleans. It is interesting, however, that crazy socialist seems to make the assumption that Vedran only moved there for college. Maybe this is true. I know Vedran and I can't remember, so it seems even less likely that crazy socialist knows and very likely that he makes the assumption in an attempt to discredit Vedran for his own ideological purposes rather than to get at the truth.
Published: October 6, 2006 11:40 AM
Christopher
Mankind is motivated by one principle - 'need and greed' and not necessarily in that order. That why and how capitalism works. This article is suggesting that the situation is either black or white but life is made up of shades of grey in reality.
To my way of thinking if a family lost their home completely, offering them a trailer is a fair assistance and the act of a responsible society, however I agree that those people can not be left to live off handouts and any financial assistance should be tapered to end to put that labour force back in the market and taking it's share of responsibility in society. Thus you act in a socially responsible way for the community to recover, without creating a 'nanny' state, but this takes careful and good management to run such an operation and I suspect (not living in the area) that this and common sense are what have been lacking.
Christopher
Published: October 7, 2006 12:55 PM