Society's Obligations

[Choboman]

What is the minimum standard of living a society (I live in US so I'm thinking primarily about them) must provide its citizens when they are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves? Hard-line libertarians and social Darwinists might believe that society owes the individual nothing - that if he can't/won't work than he deserves to starve and make room in the gene pool for fitter citizens. Utopian socialists might argue that everyone [rich or poor, capable or not] should get an equally prosperous [or sparce] lifestyle regardless.

As a society, the US seems to believe that there should be some safety net. For instance, hospitals are required to admit people with significant illness or injury regardless of their ability to pay. But the overall level of support required isn't clearly defined, and there doesn't seem to be any universal consensus on where the line is. I'd be interested in hearing what the forum thinks we owe to our fellow man. How well are we expected to take care of (and pay for) my neighbors who can't (or won't) take care of themselves?

[PAstrychef]

People shouldn't starve, live on the streets or be unable to get medical help as appropriate. People on the dole (to use the UK term), are either temporarily out of work and aim to get back to work as fast as they can or are effectively incapable of being employed (for a host of reasons). The numbers of people scamming the system are small. There are way more doctors scamming for the government check than there are welfare cheats. And any system will have some people using and abusing it for their own profit at the expense of the public good. If access to health care was added to the current social safety nets I would be pretty satisfied.

[sje46]

Support a system where, if you were conscious before your birth, and you didn't know what kind of life you will be born into, you would like the system.

I hope that wasn't confusing. But pretty much, a lot of people are well off and support tax breaks for the rich, etc, arguing that if the poor wants to have that same amount of money, they'd have to work harder for it. If you weren't aware of whether you were going to be born into a poor minority family in a bad section of town, or the son of a white billionaire, would you still support that system?

I think pretty much we have to get rid of institutional discrimination. A lot of social minorities, for example, tend to live in poor neighborhoods with bad school systems, and therefore don't do as well. A lot of their fathers are in jail, so they only have one parent. The school system was designed by whites which disadvantages them. This is especially true of Native Americans...I think it's the Navajo who have a much different style of education. They tend to be more communistic, work together, contribute what they're good at, whereas the Euro-American system is all about what you can do on your own. These Navajo kids have to take tests by themselves instead of pooling together everyone to work on it together...which is how their society works.

Or African Americans (aka Black American culture...not just "blacks" in general). African American parents tend to be more direct with their commands, whereas European American parents tend to phrase things like questions. "Billy, would you mine cleaning up your blocks?" At schools, if the teacher asks a young black child this, the black child, not used to this kind of question, thinks it's actually a question, and not a command, and thus is less likely to feel guilt for saying no. He just won't understand what's wrong. There is a cultural disconnect.

Pretty much, there are huge groups of people put at a disadvantage simply because they differ from the majority...which the majority is pretty much blind to, and tend to blame the minorities for not working hard enough. It could be true that minority X is, on average, less hardworking, but the reason for this isn't just because they're lazy, but because of decades of discouragement and poor environment. Hopelessness. Unconscious and systematic racism. Telling them to just work harder is too simplistic, and won't solve anything, and will probably make the problem worse, because it makes them seem like its the minority's fault for being so lazy, or for taking advantage of welfare, etc. It's not that simple.

We need more representation of minorities (racial, ethnic, class, gender, orientation, etc) in positions of power in order to even things out a little better. A child born in almost any circumstance (besides genetic advantages or physical/metal handicaps) needs the same shot in life as any other child.

[thorgold]

The obligations, and role, of society is an intristic subject, but one well described by a summary of John Locke's Social Contract theory. Without order, and therefore with total freedom, mankind tends to enter a very unfortunate state. Total personal freedom, aka anarchy, leads to conflict and death; people just don't get along when there is no order whatsoever. Therefore, people sacrifice certain liberties to a governmental body in order to obtain greater safety - safety from being killed by forfeiting the freedom to choke a stranger if you feel like it. In short, the role of society is to provide a maximum level of safety and comfort while maintaining as much personal freedom as possible.

Therefore, what society is obliged to provide its people, or specifically those unable to provide for themselves, is an individual opinion. The balance between freedoms revoked and safeties gained is a matter of personal belief, as is every thing in this mess called postmodernity.

Personally, the obligation of providing for those unable to provide for themselves falls on the individual, or on charitable persons - society itself is not obliged to provide any support. Social programs that provide assistance for the infirm are basically forced "charities" - they reach for the same goal as charitable organizations, however they force people not interested in such charity to participate whether they want to or not. From such social programs arises a whole mess of moral dilemmas - I'm against abortion, so should my money be forcefully taken and given to fund programs that are against my beliefs? John Citizen is for the legalization of drugs, so should he pay to finance anti-drug campaigns?

The obligation of society is to prevent us from killing each other and ourselves through the passage and enforcement of laws - not to regulate social interaction itself, or to pick sides in morally ambiguous issues.

[omgryebread]

Society is not obligated to do anything. However, it is in the best interests of each person to encourage a society that feels obligated to do what that person feels is beneficial to that person. I happen to think that medical care, food, education, and equal opportunity (to jobs, investments, etc) as well as stuff I'm probably forgetting is a good thing for society to provide. I feel that a society that does feel obligated to provide those things, and does provide those things, is better for me personally than a society that does not.

[Azrael]

I think pretty much we have to get rid of institutional discrimination. A lot of social minorities, for example, tend to live in poor neighborhoods with bad school systems, and therefore don't do as well. A lot of their fathers are in jail, so they only have one parent. The school system was designed by whites which disadvantages them.

I just want to point out that you're mixing racial and socioeconomic causes incorrectly and with reckless abandon. A school system created by whites does not inherently disadvantage blacks. A school system created under the assumption of economically stable, two parent families can certainly disadvantage those who don't fit that bill. This really isn't a racial issue, and phrasing it as such can be falsely inflammatory.

Or African Americans (aka Black American culture...not just "blacks" in general). African American parents tend to be more direct with their commands, whereas European American parents tend to phrase things like questions. "Billy, would you mine cleaning up your blocks?" At schools, if the teacher asks a young black child this, the black child, not used to this kind of question, thinks it's actually a question, and not a command, and thus is less likely to feel guilt for saying no. He just won't understand what's wrong.

Can you cite or support that assertion in any way?

[Izawwlgood]

Hard-line libertarians and social Darwinists might believe that society owes the individual nothing

That's not true at all; even the most absurdly die hard libertarians believe society owes each and every individual protection against tyranny, including infringement upon their ability to procure a living. Even the laziest of lazies should be protected from crimes against their person and business.

Personally, I feel society (by which I presume you mean the government, and not just the free citizens of the USofA) should, with tax revenue, be involved in very little. It should provide funding to local charities (soup kitchens and the like) that cannot meet demand, and economic assistance to those who meet a certain criteria. I don't understand the medical insurance industry well enough to make strong assertions one way or the other, but I feel those who cannot afford insurance should be assisted in procuring it, which is as I understand it, better to hospitals simply chalking up losses on those who are unable to make their medical payments.

If you want to determine what is the minimum that compromises our living standards, I think that's a separate question than what society owes the individual.

[sje46]

I think pretty much we have to get rid of institutional discrimination. A lot of social minorities, for example, tend to live in poor neighborhoods with bad school systems, and therefore don't do as well. A lot of their fathers are in jail, so they only have one parent. The school system was designed by whites which disadvantages them.

I just want to point out that you're mixing racial and socioeconomic causes incorrectly and with reckless abandon. A school system created by whites does not inherently disadvantage blacks. A school system created under the assumption of economically stable, two parent families can certainly disadvantage those who don't fit that bill. This really isn't a racial issue, and phrasing it as such can be falsely inflammatory.

I really don't understand how it isn't a racial issue that a disproportionate amount of black fathers are in jail. And yes, a school system created by whites doesn't inherently disadvantage blacks, but a school system controlled by a majority without enough input from the minority probably will disadvantage the minority.

Or African Americans (aka Black American culture...not just "blacks" in general). African American parents tend to be more direct with their commands, whereas European American parents tend to phrase things like questions. "Billy, would you mine cleaning up your blocks?" At schools, if the teacher asks a young black child this, the black child, not used to this kind of question, thinks it's actually a question, and not a command, and thus is less likely to feel guilt for saying no. He just won't understand what's wrong.

Can you cite or support that assertion in any way?

Rogoff's The Cultural Nature of Human Development, page 211 (according to Google Books). I can't find the exact study, because I left my book at my dad's.

Also, this.

Culturally, Black parents generally give directives (Steinberg, Lamborn,
Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). White parents tend to give choices and expect the child to
choose the desired option (Delpit, 1988). This teacher was raised by such parents and
brought the practice of questioning to her classroom. The practice did not work for
Marcus. After her smirk, I modeled for the teacher the intonation and phrasing which
would elicit the response she wanted. In a kind but firm voice, I said, ―Marcus, put your
things away and go over to circle time.‖ Marcus looked a little panicked when he first
saw me. But when he saw my smile, he quickly responded to my directive, stopped his
task, and walked over to circle time with his peers in the orderly fashion the teacher
coveted. The teacher was amazed. I smirked in return--and ducked back out the door
(Reynolds, 2009).

I can't find proper versions of those studies cited online though.

[Azrael]

All from wikipedia:

Poverty:
8.6% White
23.2% Hispanic
24.7% African-American

Incarceration (adult males):
0.7% White
1.9% Hispanic
4.8% African-American

Incarcerated:Impoverished Ratio
12.3 White
12.2 Hispanic
5.1 African-American

Now you can point to the racial aspect. It's called data.

[sje46]

Right? Well it's pretty common knowledge that minorities, including blacks, are overrepresented for poverty and incarceration. I didn't think I needed to provide a citation on that. I'm not really sure how that goes against anything I said. Because the high levels of poverty and incarceration make certain minorities more likely to not succeed in life (if all your friends went to jail instead of college, that may prime you to commit crimes instead), this makes it more difficult for most of the members of that minority group.

[Choboman]

If you want to determine what is the minimum that compromises our living standards, I think that's a separate question than what society owes the individual.

You make a valid point. They are different questions, but I do think that they're related and that it's helpful to look at the two questions together.

For myself, I would tend to agree that society owes us very little, but I suspect that it's in our best interest to provide a minimum standard of welfare even for those who don't provide for themselves. I believe that casual acceptance of other's misfortune erodes the social contract and will lead to a society that is less harmonious, less friendly, and more violent over time. (No, I have no proof of this - just a generalized belief.)

The harder question to me is what that standard should be. How low should we set the safety net? On some levels, ease and comfort undermine our hard-wiring to strive and better ourselves. Also, the money spent to 'give people a free ride' has to come out of the pockets of those who are working and producing. But dramatically low lifestyles create self-reinforcing situations that are hard to get out of. Poor nutrition and inadequate sleep hampers brain development and learning. Without an address and permanent contact information it's difficult to get a job. So the minimum standardard should be less than comfort but more than survival. I'm comfortable with contributing money so that my neighbor doesn't starve or freeze to death, but not so that he gets to eat filet mignon and have his own apartment for free.

Shelter - All citizens should have access to protection from the elements, and from hostile people (many homeless won't go to shelters because of the frequent robberies and assaults there.) I am imagining those coffin hotels that are becoming popular in Japan - cramped, uncomfortable, but safe and warm.
Nutrition - Everyone should have access to nutritious and healthy food and potable water sufficient to maintain general health.
Health - We already provide access to emergency treatment for severe conditions. I think that we should also provide general low-level preventive care, if for no other reason than that it's cheaper to treat the underlying issues than it is to let them get out of hand and deal with the consequences later.

[Izawwlgood]

Slate just posted a fairly intriguing article on how different people suffer prisons differently, and thus, the punishment may need to be adjusted to the individual to varying degrees. I think the same logic can be applied to what compromises a standard of living. If I'm used to three meals a day and not doing manual labor, and I lose my job and am forced to take a gig shoveling coal and only able to afford two meals a day, I'm going to suffer a lot. But say instead, I lose my job and am forced to take a gig that pays less, and thus, have to move into a smaller apartment. I can no longer afford Whole Foods organic awesomeness, but have to start buying cheaper foods. I'm not below the 'poverty line', but I'm suffering compared to my standard of living.

So yeah, standard of living. Perhaps setting a dollar amount is the most sensible way to go about this, and adjust for number of dependents. I'm no economist, but have for the last 4 years lived on the equivalent of 30k a year. I say equivalent because I'm making less now, but health insurance is included in the student stipend. I think the way I live is fairly extravagant, but I don't have any dependents. So I'm definitely not at the poverty line.

For myself, I would tend to agree that society owes us very little, but I suspect that it's in our best interest to provide a minimum standard of welfare even for those who don't provide for themselves.

I don't disagree, on two fronts actually. A) When you factor the return on investment of certain social welfare, you find it, especially with education, is profitable in regards to diminishing crime, and B) Charity is a wonderful calling, and helping someone is a great thing.

I don't like the concept of taxes being spent in what amounts to forced charity, but I'm very uncomfortable with the notion of simply letting people fall through the cracks of society. It isn't a level playing field; being born surrounded by drugs and lack of education does not prime you for success, and that wasn't due to any fault of your own. While private charities can be, and are, very effective at bringing resources to those in need, I don't trust abject altruism to save everyone.

I'm admittedly conflicted on the subject.

[idobox]

The only right answer to this question, like many others, is :"it depends"

What society owes depends on the culture of the people forming that society. Even values that seem evident to us nowadays are not universal. For exemple, in the past, many cultures accepted homicide under certain conditions (duels, revenge, sacrifice, rite of passage to adulthood...); in those cultures, people didn't expect society to protect them from getting killed.
Another example: if a culture believes diseases are a divine punishment, and helping a sick person is a blasphemy, a healthcare system would be considered a bad thing.

Another, much more pragmatic exemple. In France, the government passed a law to fight illegal downloading. In the initial law, culprits would have been forbidden from having internet at home. The conseil constitutionnel, kind of the equivalent to the supreme court, blocked the law, saying that access to the internet is a fundemental right or something.
Ten years ago, no one would have cared, because the French people did not consider society had to protect the access to internet, and now they do.

The standard of living also is a tricky question. A minimum wage worker, or even an unemployed person, in rich countries, has a higher quality of life than a significant part of the world population.
The points raised have more to do with wealth repartition, which is a little different. To keep it simple, the left wing wants to distribute wealth, while the right wing says people who have money deserve it. That's how you end up with countries like North Korea where everyone has the same amount of nothing, and the USA, the richest nation in world, with still a lot of poor people, and a few very rich people.

In my opinion, the right amount of social protection in a country is the amount of social protection the people want. It's when the governing power decides against the population will that you have a problem.

[Spambot5546]

Right? Well it's pretty common knowledge that minorities, including blacks, are overrepresented for poverty and incarceration. I didn't think I needed to provide a citation on that. I'm not really sure how that goes against anything I said. Because the high levels of poverty and incarceration make certain minorities more likely to not succeed in life (if all your friends went to jail instead of college, that may prime you to commit crimes instead), this makes it more difficult for most of the members of that minority group.

He asked for a citation for your claim that black people talk like this, whereas white people talk like this. That certain ethnic minorities are more likely to come from poor socioeconomic upbringing, and thus more likely to be in a poor socioeconomic condition later in life, is a known and established fact.

In other words this

Or African Americans (aka Black American culture...not just "blacks" in general). African American parents tend to be more direct with their commands, whereas European American parents tend to phrase things like questions. "Billy, would you mine cleaning up your blocks?" At schools, if the teacher asks a young black child this, the black child, not used to this kind of question, thinks it's actually a question, and not a command, and thus is less likely to feel guilt for saying no. He just won't understand what's wrong.

Is an odd statement which sounds super racist and could use some justification, whereas this

I think pretty much we have to get rid of institutional discrimination. A lot of social minorities, for example, tend to live in poor neighborhoods with bad school systems, and therefore don't do as well. A lot of their fathers are in jail, so they only have one parent. The school system was designed by whites which disadvantages them.

Is a known statistical fact.

[Choboman]

It seems to me that you're making the argument that minorities tend to be poor, and that poor is a self-reinforcing condition (poor people get inferior schools, don't have a supportive learning environment, can't make the right contacts, etc.).

While this may certainly be true, it doesn't seem like an indication of racial discrimination as much as economic discrimination to me. It's true that the children of poor people have a harder time succeeding than the offspring of wealthy people, but that alone doesn't doesn't prove racism.

I do believe that racism still exists in the US (though its getting less prevalent with every generation), but I don't think you're framing your argument very well.

[sje46]

Right? Well it's pretty common knowledge that minorities, including blacks, are overrepresented for poverty and incarceration. I didn't think I needed to provide a citation on that. I'm not really sure how that goes against anything I said. Because the high levels of poverty and incarceration make certain minorities more likely to not succeed in life (if all your friends went to jail instead of college, that may prime you to commit crimes instead), this makes it more difficult for most of the members of that minority group.

He asked for a citation for your claim that black people talk like this, whereas white people talk like this. That certain ethnic minorities are more likely to come from poor socioeconomic upbringing, and thus more likely to be in a poor socioeconomic condition later in life, is a known and established fact.

So is there a problem? We all agree that this is a fact, yes?

Or African Americans (aka Black American culture...not just "blacks" in general). African American parents tend to be more direct with their commands, whereas European American parents tend to phrase things like questions. "Billy, would you mine cleaning up your blocks?" At schools, if the teacher asks a young black child this, the black child, not used to this kind of question, thinks it's actually a question, and not a command, and thus is less likely to feel guilt for saying no. He just won't understand what's wrong.

Is an odd statement which sounds super racist and could use some justification, whereas this

I already gave a citation. How is noting ethnic differences racist? AFrican American families, Navajo families, Mayan families, Zimbabwean families...they all raise their kids different ways. I'm not passing judgement on any of them, so I fail to understand your charge of racism. Failing to understand the difference in culture for minorities will only result in greater problems for them. You shouldn't see someone stating a fact about a culture, and then tell them that that sounds racist...that implies that you consider that fact to be reflective of inferiority. African American parents are more likely to be more direct in their commands to their children than European Americans.. This is a scientifically supported fact.

I think pretty much we have to get rid of institutional discrimination. A lot of social minorities, for example, tend to live in poor neighborhoods with bad school systems, and therefore don't do as well. A lot of their fathers are in jail, so they only have one parent. The school system was designed by whites which disadvantages them.

Is a known statistical fact.

Yes...it is a known statistical fact.

Excuse me if I seem a bit confused...but it seems like you're criticizing my argument, while at the same time agreeing with it.

[Spambot5546]

You made two different arguments. One of the arguments was that ethnic minorities are more likely to be sociologicaly disadvantaged. The other argument was that "black people all do X and white people all do Y". You only provided data for the first.

[sje46]

You made two different arguments. One of the arguments was that ethnic minorities are more likely to be sociologicaly disadvantaged. The other argument was that "black people all do X and white people all do Y". You only provided data for the first.

Except I didn't say "all", and I did provide a citation. Do you want the exact means, standard deviations, etc? Because I honestly don't have any. My single argument is that there are cultural differences between ethnic groups, and that when these ethnic groups are underrepresented, they are at a disadvantage in the system which gives undue preference for the majority group. Society is obligated to fix these discrepencies.

[Spambot5546]

My work filter blocks "JournalOfAfricanAmericanMales.com", so i'm only going of the text you posted, but it sounded a lot more like an anecdote than data. Given that, i countered it with my own anecdotal experience that children are never given "options" over "commands" by any parent or teacher of any ethnicity.

But even if we accept it as true that six year old black kids have to be told twice to sit down in school, if that's the best example of our "white schools" being unfit to educate black children then it's a pretty shitty argument. I'd stick to your first one. The math behind that one is a lot stronger.

[Azrael]

My work filter blocks "JournalOfAfricanAmericanMales.com", so I'm only going of the text you posted, but it sounded a lot more like an anecdote than data.

Especially when later in the paper the researcher (Rema Reynolds) states:

Because the sample size is limited to nine case studies, findings will not be generalizable

However, I'm trying to dig up the cited (Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992) paper.

EDIT: Here's the summary

I do not believe the author (Reynolds) of the paper that sje cited ("Culturally, Black parents generally give directives") is justified in making that conclusion. We also don't have full text, so that could explain it -- perhaps the study does find a higher rate of authoritative parenting in African-American vs white parents. However:

FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Previous research findings suggest that adolescent competence is higher among youngsters raised in
authoritative homes—home in which parents are responsive and demanding—than in other familial
environments. Three components of authoritative childrearing contribute to this competence.
• parental acceptance or warmth
• behavioral supervision and strictness—control
• psychological autonomy granting or democracy

SOCIALIZATION OF ACHIEVEMENT IN THE FAMILY
Can ethnic differences in school performance be explained by ethnic differences in the use of authoritative
parenting? According to previous research by Dornbusch, no.

Findings from this study:
• Across outcome variables not related to school, the researchers found that youngsters from authoritative
homes fared better than their counterparts from non-authoritative homes in all ethnic groups.
• When they looked at school performance, they found that White and Hispanic youngsters were more
likely to benefit from authoritative parenting than were African American or Asian American youngsters.
• Within the African American and Asian American groups, youngsters whose parents were authoritative
did not perform better than did youngsters whose parents were non-authoritative.
• African American students' school performance was even unrelated to their parents' level of education.

The paper states almost the exact opposite of Reynold's and sje's contention. Within the African American community they did not find a performance gap between students from authoritative and non-authoritative parenting.

[Glass Fractal]

I don't like the concept of taxes being spent in what amounts to forced charity

Is there another use of taxes? They're used to benefit society in various ways, which helps people, which would be charity, just a bit more indirect.

[Izawwlgood]

I don't like the concept of taxes being spent in what amounts to forced charity

Is there another use of taxes? They're used to benefit society in various ways, which helps people, which would be charity, just a bit more indirect.

The question is how should taxes be applied. IMO, Privatized police and fire fighting is a bad idea. As is privatized road works and transportation. Same with water, electricity, etc.
Whether or not the government should be paying for schools, health care, welfare, etc, is another matter, one I'm not sure I feel it should be, but admittedly have a hard time separating the freedoms granted from municipalities vs. the freedoms granted from schools, health care, and welfare.
Considering the government contracts lots of work out to private companies, on all levels, makes me wonder why the government doesn't simply lower income tax, and allow individual districts to manage their own activities. Of course, this ideology breaks down with the extremely poor; why would a pot hole repair man venture into a crappy neighborhood if they can't pay for it?

A total purist libertarian is going to claim the only thing a government should be involved in is the enactment and maintenance of a standing army, that should strictly be used for the purposes of protecting the freedoms of it's citizens. I don't think that's very practical or pragmatic, but I side closer to that notion of governance than it's opposite.

[Dark567]

The question is how should taxes be applied. IMO, Privatized police and fire fighting is a bad idea. As is privatized road works and transportation. Same with water, electricity, etc.

Water and electricity? A lot of this is privatized across the US, and I have a hard time justifying how it could be bad, it at least certainly isn't terrible. (I pay about $20 for electric a month and have never had an outage)

I mean, maybe it could be better if it were nationalized or state or county owned, but it is nowhere in the same league of comparison to privatized police.

[Choboman]

It's hard for me to stay strictly on topic with this discussion, because there are so many closely related issues that all factor in.

I believe that for the social contract to be sustainable, you need to have a balance between priviledges and obligations. If someone is granting me the priviledge of healthcare that I didn't pay for, do I have the implied obligation to not abuse the system and (to the best of my ability) to lead a healthy lifestyle that doesn't cause health issues and waste his money unnecesarily? As one of the paying members of society, I feel happier paying for some guy's chemotherapy if he's not still smoking 2 packs a day. Americans have horribly unhealthy lifestyles - we're overweight, overstressed, and don't get enough exercise, and this drives up our health care costs badly. However, this creates an awkward scenario where the government is enforcing behavior. Do we want to live in a society that tells you what you're allowed to eat or do? I'm not sure how to reconcile this competing ideas.

[nitePhyyre]

My single argument is that there are cultural differences between ethnic groups, and that when these ethnic groups are underrepresented, they are at a disadvantage in the system which gives undue preference for the majority group. Society is obligated to fix these discrepencies.

I disagree with this notion entirely. If the culture of a minority is incompatible with the culture of the majority, then the minority should abandon their culture for the culture of the majority, or they should go somewhere where they are in the majority. To say that millions of people should twist their society out of shape for a handful of people instead of the handful joining the society that they live in, is absurd.

That being said I don't think that blacks main problem is a culture difference. It just the fact that they are poor, and that has momentum. Oh, and whites are fucking racist too, that doesn't help.

OP et al., I think one problem with identifying where the 'line' should be is that in a non-stagnant society, it should always be going up. idobox's example of France and the internet is a good example of this. 50 years ago a respirator was considered an extraordinary procedure, now it is common place.
"Today, exactly what things should be considered the minimum standard of living?"
and
"What algorithm should we use to determine minimum standard of living going forward?"
are 2 different questions. I'm not sure which one is really being asked.

In general if a government handles everything that tends toward a natural monopoly, severely limits negative externalities, all while avoiding regulatory capture, you are going to be doing pretty good for yourself.

Incarcerated:Impoverished Ratio
12.3 White
12.2 Hispanic
5.1 African-American

For those of us that suck at stats, what does this mean? there are 5.1 blacks in jail for every 1 impoverished black?

[jakovasaur]

People on the dole (to use the UK term), are either temporarily out of work and aim to get back to work as fast as they can or are effectively incapable of being employed (for a host of reasons). The numbers of people scamming the system are small.

Is there a citation for this? Not that I doubt it, exactly, but I'm curious how you would prove this.

[Thesh]

Incarcerated:Impoverished Ratio
12.3 White
12.2 Hispanic
5.1 African-American

For those of us that suck at stats, what does this mean? there are 5.1 blacks in jail for every 1 impoverished black?

5.1 in poverty for every 1 incarcerated. One thing it does show is that poverty and incarceration don't correlate between all races. This is an indication, IMO, that there is a cultural difference among many african-americans that results in higher crime rates. In 2009, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, of the homicides in which we know the race of the offender, more were committed by blacks than by whites (note that in these statistics white and hispanic are usually combined). The UCR only gives data on race for homicides, but homicide rates usually correlate pretty well to overall violent crime rates, so I think it's safe to say that blacks commit at least 40%-50% of the violent crimes in this country. Violent crimes, of course, result in longer prison sentences. If a race is committing a disproportionate number of violent crimes, it will have a significant effect on incarceration rates.

Homicides by race, age and sex:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_03.html

Now, property crimes loosely correspond to poverty rates since the 80s, but not really. Between the 60's and 70's, property crime increased significantly while poverty decreased significantly. In 1989 and 2004, poverty rates were the same with property crime rates being significantly lower in 2004. Violent crime rates do not really correspond to poverty either, less so than property crime. So yeah, there is a lot more to it than poverty. Some part of it may be education, but I suspect social/cultural factors are a huge contributor. Not saying that poverty doesn't contribute, but it is definitely not the only factor.

See graphs:

Violent crime rates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... 3-2005.jpg

Property crime rates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... e_Rate.jpg

Poverty rates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... meline.gif

Somewhat off topic, but I notice that as violent video games became more common, violent crime rates dropped... Just saying... It would be interesting to do a more detailed study of prison inmates to see if there is a correlation... Just so we can say "Suck it, Jack Thompson and kind!"

[Deep_Thought]

Somewhat off topic, but I notice that as violent video games became more common, violent crime rates dropped... Just saying... It would be interesting to do a more detailed study of prison inmates to see if there is a correlation... Just so we can say "Suck it, Jack Thompson and kind!"

There have been several hypotheses proposed for that drop in violent crime. The authors of 'Freakonomics' attribute the decline to Roe Vs. Wade. Another explanation is the removal of lead from petrol, which can cause lots of nasty health problems in childhood including increased aggressiveness.

EDIT: P.S. Just found this which is a pretty decent discussion of the drop in crime. Unfortunately it does not mention video games.

[Izawwlgood]

The question is how should taxes be applied. IMO, Privatized police and fire fighting is a bad idea. As is privatized road works and transportation. Same with water, electricity, etc.

Water and electricity? A lot of this is privatized across the US, and I have a hard time justifying how it could be bad, it at least certainly isn't terrible. (I pay about $20 for electric a month and have never had an outage)

I mean, maybe it could be better if it were nationalized or state or county owned, but it is nowhere in the same league of comparison to privatized police.

Aren't most private municipalities contracted by the government? I pay electricity to NSTAR electric, which is overseen by the Regional Transmission Organization which is federally run.

[Dark567]

Aren't most private municipalities contracted by the government? I pay electricity to NSTAR electric, which is overseen by the Regional Transmission Organization which is federally run.

At least in the cities I have lived, no. The electric companies are government granted (and heavily regulated) monopolies, but not contracted by the government. The government isn't paying the electric companies(well other than for its own electricity), you are.

[Izawwlgood]

Okay, but those monopolies are heavily regulated by the government. Meaning, they either pay dues to the government for the right to run their business, or, they are subject to the regulation of the government, which may include price fixing and the like. My point is, municipalities aren't run like a local coffee shop, they aren't truly privatized businesses, for whatever amorphous usage of the term 'truly privatized' I'm thinking of.

[Glass Fractal]

I don't like the concept of taxes being spent in what amounts to forced charity

Is there another use of taxes? They're used to benefit society in various ways, which helps people, which would be charity, just a bit more indirect.

The question is how should taxes be applied. IMO, Privatized police and fire fighting is a bad idea. As is privatized road works and transportation. Same with water, electricity, etc.
Whether or not the government should be paying for schools, health care, welfare, etc, is another matter, one I'm not sure I feel it should be, but admittedly have a hard time separating the freedoms granted from municipalities vs. the freedoms granted from schools, health care, and welfare.
Considering the government contracts lots of work out to private companies, on all levels, makes me wonder why the government doesn't simply lower income tax, and allow individual districts to manage their own activities. Of course, this ideology breaks down with the extremely poor; why would a pot hole repair man venture into a crappy neighborhood if they can't pay for it?

Well the question then becomes why do we need those things to be publicly owned, paid for by tax money? I really don't see the difference between "you have to give money so other citizens don't die of thirst when they loose their job" and "you have to give money so other citizens don't die of malaria when they loose their job".

[Izawwlgood]

Flawed analogy; if those citizens stop paying their taxes, their water gets shut off.

But ostensibly, I see the difference as "I don't smoke, so why should I pay for someone else's emphysema". My analogy is flawed because it's actually more akin to insurance, where we all pay x amount and some people use none of, some people use some of it, and some people use lots of it.

Again, the difference just comes down to personal preference. I'm not a fan of welfare, and I'm not a fan of government mandated health care. The private sector failed the latter, so some overhauling is required, but it still comes down to the degree of involvement you want to see your government taking. I don't think governments are particularly good at managing things, and trust them less than privately run businesses, so, that's where my preference lies.

[Glass Fractal]

Flawed analogy; if those citizens stop paying their taxes, their water gets shut off.

They're still allowed to use water fountains in publicly owned buildings.

Actually, they'd probably be arrested, but if they weren't there's no law that says you're forbidden from drinking from the public water supply because you don't pay taxes. Tourists do it all the time.

Again, the difference just comes down to personal preference. I'm not a fan of welfare, and I'm not a fan of government mandated health care. The private sector failed the latter, so some overhauling is required, but it still comes down to the degree of involvement you want to see your government taking. I don't think governments are particularly good at managing things, and trust them less than privately run businesses, so, that's where my preference lies.

My preference for the government in this case is that making sure that it gets done at all is, for certain things, far more important that having it get done as efficiently or as cheaply as is possible.

[Dark567]

Okay, but those monopolies are heavily regulated by the government. Meaning, they either pay dues to the government for the right to run their business, or, they are subject to the regulation of the government, which may include price fixing and the like. My point is, municipalities aren't run like a local coffee shop, they aren't truly privatized businesses, for whatever amorphous usage of the term 'truly privatized' I'm thinking of.

Right, but at the same time they aren't outright owned by the government either. Unlike the police, which I imagine being run in any sort of even remotely privatized way would be a disaster.

[broken_escalator]

Again, the difference just comes down to personal preference. I'm not a fan of welfare, and I'm not a fan of government mandated health care. The private sector failed the latter, so some overhauling is required, but it still comes down to the degree of involvement you want to see your government taking. I don't think governments are particularly good at managing things, and trust them less than privately run businesses, so, that's where my preference lies.

I think that depends more on what the government is managing. The US postal service seems pretty well run, and has fairly high ratings. They don't pull in profits, but they are self sufficient according to the union for letter carriers. The USPS also makes up a fairly large number of jobs, and most of the employees do receive benefits. From some more USPS stats: "The USPS employs 685,000 career employees and 101,000 non-career staff, making it the second-largest employer in the United States (behind Wal-Mart). The Postal Service employs more workers on U.S. soil than General Motors, Ford and Chrysler combined."

I'm not disagreeing with you and saying the government is great at everything. But there are instances where the government is pretty damn good at managing things. And we still have private options like FedEx for delivering our parcels.

[Izawwlgood]

You shouldn't bring up the USPS, as they've been bankrupt for ages, and are heavily outcompeted by FedEx. The USPS is a fantastic example why even given the ridiculous boons being a government business grants you (for example, a complete and utter monopoly and legal protection over post boxes), the government still does an abhorrent job at getting it done.

My preference for the government in this case is that making sure that it gets done at all is, for certain things, far more important that having it get done as efficiently or as cheaply as is possible.

Right, as I said, this is where my preference falls to practicality. As I said earlier, I know a good deal of private charities do a good job of getting resources to those who need it, but I wouldn't ever suggest relying on them to provide for the nations homeless, or the nations drug addicted, or orphanages, etc. There needs to be some middle ground. Which isn't to say society owes everyone everything, but I also don't believe society owes everyone nothing.

[broken_escalator]

Damn, I didn't realize they had a huge deficit. I hate when professors tell you something and then its not true.

I change my stance to agreement in light of this evidence, my bad!

[nitePhyyre]

Thanks, Thesh!

This is an indication, IMO, that there is a cultural difference among many african-americans that results in higher crime rates.

I doubt that blacks actually commit more crime than anyone else. It possible that the higher level of black people in jail is that they are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and given inordinately long prison sentences. See Hurricane - Bob Dylan

[Thesh]

You can make that argument, but it's a weak one. The UCR on homicide offenders is based on police reports and not convictions, and you can also look at the reports on race of offenders and victims which shows that people tend to kill within their own race. With about 50% of victims being black and 12.4% of the country being black, it seems pretty solid that blacks commit a disproportionate number of homicides, and it is a fair assumption that they commit a disproportionate number of robberies and assaults as well (since these tend to correlate to homicide rates). Violent crimes have longer sentences, so this will contribute significantly to a disproportionate number of blacks in prison.

While some of it may be due to blacks being more likely to be convicted, it most likely isn't enough to significantly alter the statistics.