Comments on: Race, wealth, and homeownership

By: Valentine Joseph

Valentine Joseph — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:16:09 +0000

Oh boy, who will be courageous enough to point this out to the black community? We all know how current black leaders love to play the victim, but will they point this fact out to shift the way they do things and advocate for a more libertarian point of view? I am willing to bet NO. But this article is quite interesting

By: Antiquated Tory

Antiquated Tory — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:41:27 +0000

A friend of mine writes on this subject:
“It’s also possible that cultural attitudes played/play a part in lower levels of black home ownership. Not all people have the same attitude toward ownership. For instance, my father had no interest in owning a home. He came from a family of renters in a venerable neighborhood of tenants in urban Germany. After moving to the States he rented for the rest of his life. He could have bought but had no interest in doing so. He viewed home ownership as a burden– not as a source of freedom. I also know many NYC area tenants who have no interest in owning… And in my years of peering at mortgage fraud, it’s frequently struck me that many defaulting owners in low income neighborhoods were primarily attracted to the ‘no more landlord’ part of home ownership and were uninterested in other aspects. Ownership was thrust on them– frequently as an anti-racist ideal.

By: Positive Liberty » “Never a Neutral State” - Answering a Question

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:15:17 +0000

[...] Will of the League of Ordinary Gentlemen writes, Kuznicki also highlights an interesting distinction between welfare programs that emphasize capital accumulation and eventual self-sufficiency (like the Federal Housing Administration, which provided loans to low-income homebuyers, or the GI Bill, which funded millions of Americans’ college education) and welfare programs aimed at addressing immediate material needs (food stamps, for example, or rent subsidization). This distinction is significant because many of the New Deal’s racially-segregated programs fell into the former category, whereas later, race-neutral welfare policies weren’t geared towards wealth accumulation. In short, [Kuznicki argues] that Black Americans were frozen out of a system that helped create the American middle class. By the time segregation ended, our approach to social welfare already shifted to a needs-based system that was less equipped to encourage social mobility. [...]

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:54:59 +0000

Thanks.

(The personal sympathy comes from a couple of Uncles I have down in Tampa who are absolutely delightful. They’ve been married since the 60’s. Not in the legal, sense, of course.)

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:04:37 +0000

Would I be allowed to look at stuff that has actually been attempted (for example, Johnson’s War On Poverty) and say “okay, that didn’t work”?

Or do I have to take the attitude that Johnson just didn’t have the right people implementing his plans and they weren’t funded well enough?

By: North

North — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:00:28 +0000

Hey Joseph, maybe I can help. I’ve read quite a few libertarian pieces. I think Jay’s position can be simplified down as follows:
-Generally government should not be involved in marriage.
-If it is involved in marriage and can’t be extricated from its involvement (the current situation) then the government should apply it’s involvement as evenly as possible to the maximum number of citizens.
-Thus government involvement in marriage (specifically civil non-religious marriage) should address the needs of same sex couples.

I think this is close to Jay’s position though I think he has some laudable personal sympathy to the needs of same sex couples in addition to that.

By: Jivatman

Jivatman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:31:59 +0000

Being ‘hopeless’ is not what gets you arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison.

Nope, that’s from the war on drugs and gang wars related to illegalized drugs.

Look up the difference in penalties on Crack vs. Cocaine, the former segregationists found a stealthy and perhaps even more effective way to oppress than they had before.

By: Sam M

Sam M — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:10:40 +0000

“I only ask because Kuznicki’s article – which is worth reading in full – is a real challenge to conservatives and libertarians who are generally suspicious of just about anything subsidized by the federal government.”

Is it really all that much of a challenge? It posits that the federal government, as an institution, is subject to capturte by all sorts of vile special interests groups, even to the point of impoverishing vast swaths of its own people.

And this somehow argues for a larger role for the federal government in guiding the futues of said impoverished people?

Let’s say some guy broke into my house, punched me in the face and stole everything I own. A few years later, he promises that he is contrite, and offers to become my life coach. Should I take him up on the offer? Should I put my kids’ education, my health care, and my retirement under his control?

Look. As Jaybird points out, getting the feds out of it is hardly an option. But as Jamelle points out, reparations aren’t an option either. So what we are left with it a “vector,” leading us towards one of these responses or the other.

My vector leads me away from the institution that f-ed it up in the first place. The article points us towards that institution.

An institution that has proven itself to be serially irreponsible with regard to finances. That is leading us doen a fools path even with popular programs like social security and medicare.

You want to hitch black families to that wagon?

By: Herb

Herb — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:16:17 +0000

No offense, Jaybird, but…considering that you think the government shouldn’t be involved at all, I’m not surprised you have no idea what they “can and should do to remedy the lingering effects of its past discrimination.”

That seems to be a common problem among small government/libertarian types who think “governs least” means “governs not at all.”

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:01:50 +0000

There is also this:

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/06/theyre-coming-to-get-you-barbara/