&ab_channel=SomeMoreNews
For those that won't click the video it can be summed up by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
In the Discworld series of novels, Sam Vimes is the curmudgeonly but incorruptible captain of the City Watch of the medieval city-state of Ankh-Morpork. The boots theory comes from a passage of the 1993 novel Men at Arms, the second novel to focus on the City Watch, in which he muses about his experiences of poverty as compared to his fiancée Lady Sybil Ramkin's conception of poverty:
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
@zahlanzi saidSo, here we are again having to face the 'fairness' concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oet62-F2Q9c&ab_channel=SomeMoreNews
For those that won't click the video it can be summed up by this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
In the Discworld series of novels, Sam Vimes is the curmudgeonly but incorruptible captain of the City Watch of the medieval city-state of Ankh-Morpork. The boots theory comes from a passag ...[text shortened]... d still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
If a guy across town buys $50 boots, and Mr. Vines buys several cheaper boots, I just cannot see how the life of one has any relevance to the life of the other. I just can't. They each make choices in life.
How else to ask/say it? And, Never forget the ole Avjoe adage....Some people work harder than others. They should make that a factor in the observation.
@averagejoe1 said
So, here we are again having to face the 'fairness' concept.
If a guy across town buys $50 boots, and Mr. Vines buys several cheaper boots, I just cannot see how the life of one has any relevance to the life of the other. I just can't. They each make choices in life.
How else to ask/say it? And, Never forget the ole Avjoe adage....Some people work harder than others. They should make that a factor in the observation.
https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/georgecripov.html
Think for a moment how it would strike a rational being who had never been on the earth before, if such an intelligence could come down, and you were to explain to him how we live on earth, how houses and food and clothing, and all the many things we need were all produced by work, would he not think that the working people would be the people who lived in the finest houses and had most of everything that work produces? Yet, whether you took him to London or Paris or New York, or even to Burlington, he would find that those called the working people were the people who live in the poorest houses.
Nah...
The real poverty trap is...
Kids when you can't afford them.
Drugs/Alcohol/etc
Not saving.
Not staying with a job until something better comes along.
Not improving your education or skills.
Wasting money on material crap.
In order to succeed in life from nothing you have to start young and avoid the problems.
The problem with that is convincing young people to do what is needed to succeed.
I am an example.
I didn't care and I didn't think it would affect me in my old age.
Then...
Then you get into the whole thing about "why didn't my parents pay for that house their whole life and leave it to me so I can have an easier time at succeeding?"
People with money or comfort can look back at that old man or woman who started it all but we don't have that with young people of today.
They don't want to be the sacrifice to make the future family successfull.
@endlame saidThis is a pretty good list to start with, but there are some other things which help a lot:
Nah...
The real poverty trap is...
Kids when you can't afford them.
Drugs/Alcohol/etc
Not saving.
Not staying with a job until something better comes along.
Not improving your education or skills.
Wasting money on material crap.
In order to succeed in life from nothing you have to start young and avoid the problems.
The problem with that is convincing young p ...[text shortened]... to succeed.
I am an example.
I didn't care and I didn't think it would affect me in my old age.
# being born into a household where information is valued and money management is taught
# not being born with a physical or mental handicap which can't be fixed early
# having a reasonable share of luck in your everyday environment, like an absence of earthquakes or psychopaths
A small case study from my long-ago past, a neighbour family of 4 whom I trained to budget.
He was a tradesman carpenter, she was a teen pregnancy, they had 2 small kids and couldn't pay the mortgage. He worked huge overtime to try to save, she had no idea of budgeting. His overwork led to illness, no sick pay for carpenters, savings disappeared. She bought canned beans to stock up for the sick times.
He gave me his paypacket unopened each week, I gave them each an amount and helped her make a shopping list. At the end of one year, their mortgage payments were paid a month ahead, they had money in the bank, everybody was much less stressed and years later the guy had someone working for him.
To my mind, there was luck involved in that. If his neighbour had been another like himself, their situation would not have changed. If his neighbour had been someone like AvJoe, I doubt the lessons would have been offered.
@kewpie saidYou know, it is impossible to get personal about someone when you know not what they do. Me, that is. But as a Forum is about issues, concepts and ideas, a personal response would be irrelevant, would it not? So, I guess it would be fruitless for me to comment on your thoughts and baseless claims about AvJoe. You gotta understand I spend a lot of time trying to break down statements like one just said on the forum, that everyone on the earth has a right to housing. They don't, so it is fun to run all that around......it is not fun to get personal, so I will leave that to you. There are Marxists on this Forum, and you want to instead get after a person who constantly preaches self reliance, and appeals to Americans to eschew dependence. (me). Strange indeed.
A small case study from my long-ago past, a neighbour family of 4 whom I trained to budget.
He was a tradesman carpenter, she was a teen pregnancy, they had 2 small kids and couldn't pay the mortgage. He worked huge overtime to try to save, she had no idea of budgeting. His overwork led to illness, no sick pay for carpenters, savings disappeared. She bought canned beans ...[text shortened]... changed. If his neighbour had been someone like AvJoe, I doubt the lessons would have been offered.
But tell us, while on that subject, do you think everyone has a right to housing, notwithstanding the wording of the Declaration of Human Rights?
@averagejoe1 saidI think that's something you founding fathers said best:
You know, it is impossible to get personal about someone when you know not what they do. Me, that is. But as a Forum is about issues, concepts and ideas, it would be irrelevant, would it not? So, I guess it would be fruitless for me to comment on your thoughts and baseless claims about AvJoe. You gotta understand I spend a lot of time trying to break down statements l ...[text shortened]... ink everyone has a right to housing, notwithstanding the wording of the Declaration of Human Rights?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
That's it regarding rights. Absolutely nothing else.
The right to life means that governments may act only to prevent killing without the consent of its subject.
The right to liberty means that governments may act only to prevent imprisonment.
The right to pursuit of happiness means that governments may act only to resist actions which prevent others from being able to pursue happiness. It grants no other rights whatsoever.
Rights are one thing, needs and wants quite another. Conflating rights with them is a sure way to polarise everyone, and that's not good for anyone.
Back to your FDR document:
[83] The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.
[84] The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.
[85] The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.
[86] The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.
These are needs, i.e. necessary. That doesn't means they're rights. They have to be acknowledged and respected, but they're not automatic entitlements, in spite of assorted amendments made by various governments to the US Constitution.
If I am born in a desert, and nobody offers me water, I will die.
If I am born in a famine, and nobody offers me food, I will die.
If I have no way to be warm, and nobody offers me shelter, I will die.
These are facts.
***
If you object to my use of your username as an example of intolerance, then you should be refraining from the dem-lib-marxist-freestuff insults that you hand out to all who are not agreeing complaisantly with every oversimplified bit of nonsense that you post.
... there but for the grace of God go I ...
@kewpie saidOK. Assuming all you say is true..................
I think that's something you founding fathers said best:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the cons ...[text shortened]... every oversimplified bit of nonsense that you post.
... there but for the grace of God go I ...
I just fired my gardener for being mean to my neighbor, had to. So, he has no income, no place to live, (no 'housing'...) no food. I invite you to tell us all where and to whom he goes to have his rights fulfilled. Which way does he turn out of my driveway to go to the guaranteed housing and the food and the free stuff you mention.
That is, specifically tell me where he should go before it gets dark today, to make a home, and please tell us from whom this right flows.
Why did you write all that stuff,,......you see the basic premise, can you just get to the meat of the matter?
@averagejoe1 saidCan't you actually read? I said, no rights. It's his problem to sort out. Assuming you are telling the truth about your motive for sacking him. Now tell me, if you want to post in a debates forum, why don't you want to listen to what others say? It's a forum, not a soapbox.
OK. Assuming all you say is true..................
I just fired my gardener for being mean to my neighbor, had to. So, he has no income, no place to live, (no 'housing'...) no food. I invite you to tell us all where and to whom he goes to have his rights fulfilled. Which way does he turn out of my driveway to go to the guaranteed housing and the food and the ...[text shortened]... write all that stuff,,......you see the basic premise, can you just get to the meat of the matter?
@kewpie saidOK, I'll give you that, you seem to have replaced the word/concept of 'rights' with the word needs, I think. That when right over my head. So, in retrospect, I should have queried that, the fact that you avoided my question as it pertains to rights.......Because, Shav uses the word rights.....as stated in the Declaration articles.
Can't you actually read? I said, no rights. It's his problem to sort out. Assuming you are telling the truth about your motive for sacking him. Now tell me, if you want to post in a debates forum, why don't you want to listen to what others say? It's a forum, not a soapbox.
So, can you respond to rights, and not pontificate (which you ask me NOT to do??) as you did above? My question was, does someone have a right to housing? It is THAT simple. Shav says yes, what say you?
If you agree with him, I will next ask where and from whom these rights come from.....which I have already asked, but neither of you will comment on. Any explanation will be appreciated, it does not even have to be a yes or no, but surely should be convincing.
@averagejoe1 saidRepeating what I already said: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in my opinion the only true rights.
OK, I'll give you that, you seem to have replaced the word/concept of 'rights' with the word needs, I think. That when right over my head. So, in retrospect, I should have queried that, the fact that you avoided my question as it pertains to rights.......Because, Shav uses the word rights.....as stated in the Declaration articles.
So, can you respond to rights, and ...[text shortened]... ation will be appreciated, it does not even have to be a yes or no, but surely should be convincing.
A human being needs food, water, air and warmth to survive, and it's in the nature of humans and some animals to want to assist where some of their fellow beings lack these necessities. Sometimes we offer this help ourselves, sometimes we ask other members of the tribe to help, sometimes we ask our governments to help. Some people don't think help should be given or even offered.
I don't think much of the Declaration of Rights, I think it tries too hard. Treats way too many needs and wants as entitlements.
We have a political slogan in my country: a hand up, not a hand out. Don't give cash to a deadbeat, buy schoolbooks for his children to get an education. The children didn't do anything to deserve being born poor and ignorant.
@kewpie saidYou are writing of 'charity'. I guess I could too, as I work in it in my retirement, but we would have to start a separate thread on charity, would we not? Why do libs switch horses all the time.
Repeating what I already said: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in my opinion the only true rights.
A human being needs food, water, air and warmth to survive, and it's in the nature of humans and some animals to want to assist where some of their fellow beings lack these necessities. Sometimes we offer this help ourselves, sometimes we ask other members of th ...[text shortened]... ldren to get an education. The children didn't do anything to deserve being born poor and ignorant.
Your first paragraph, no question, so we are good there. But, please, Note that you do not even MENTION housing in your post. Shav said housing is a right. I asked you if housing is a right. Do you think housing is a right?
For the record I am off to a Saturday lunch soup kitchen (we serve more than soup), or I would go count up how many times I have mentioned 'housing' in this post. That is the subject of the post, Kewpie. Not charity.
Can you at least tell Shav he is wrong, if you don't want to converse with me? We have a membership here to entertain!