Do you have a reliable way to discern between the two?
Well, that system isn’t working too well either.
If it were, prisons wouldn’t be so full, would they.
Are outcomes binary? How would society function in the absence of any law or code of conduct? It’s hateful to enact incentives?
That is not a reason to disenfranchise people. The “no reason” was speaking to the latter issue: whether otherwise legal voter should be effectively disenfranchised. You are arguing there is a reason for voter ID laws broadly. Something for which I said there was no demonstrable need, not that there was no “reason”. So spare me the lecture.
Sure - it has to do with whether one is active or passive.
If I am driving and I get hit by a drunk driver and we both die, I was placed in a bad situation and the drunk suffered the consequence of his bad action. I am entitled to sympathy; the drunk isn’t.
I think the difference between poverty apologists and regular people is the length to which either will go to say “it wasn’t his fault”, especially when they say “it wasn’t his fault because he’s poor”. And then we have these increasingly strained scenarios where the poor person can’t return his library books on time because he - well, make up a reason, however remote - he’s working two part-time jobs to support his family. And then when it gets pointed out that almost three-quarters of poor households do not have even one full-time, year round worker, it’s something else - poverty hurt his brain, so that he cannot be expected to act as a normal adult acts and get his books back on time so somebody else can use them.
In situations like the library, it isn’t always all their fault. But it isn’t usually none of their fault either. And sympathy is reduced accordingly.
Regards,
Shodan
Here’s another one that I’ve seen at least twice:
Every time there’s a push somewhere to tighten vehicular emissions with the aim of reducing pollution, someone comes out of the woodwork to protest, as getting the cars inspected (to make sure they’re not polluting unduly), and then getting them repaired (if they ARE polluting unduly) is apparently a monstrous burden on the car-driving poor.
So now, the rest of us are apparently expected to breathe more polluted air than otherwise, because the poor can’t manage to maintain their vehicles. This example is good, as it pits a Tragedy of the Commons type situation vs. onerous expectations for the poor.
And as library fines go, there’s clearly a balance to be struck between making them so high that people don’t check books out vs. making them so low that people ignore the fines and reduce the library’s ability to function properly. And pretty much anything like that is going to disproportionately impact poor people. No real way around that, save doing something more punitive and ridiculous like sentencing library offenders to community service hours or corporal punishment.
But it comes back to responsibility in my mind; if you freaking agree to pay your fines, then that’s it. It’s not really important that you had extraneous circumstances, or some sort of god-awful sob story; you’re still on the hook for those fines and being poor doesn’t excuse that. Maybe the library should have some sort of fine forgiveness in exchange for volunteer service, or maybe work out a payment plan or something- that would be fine by me.
But merely hand-waving and saying “but they’re poor, and it’s so HARD” isn’t a reasonable excuse as to why people don’t do what they’ve agreed to do.
Three non-sequiturs in one response. Bravo.
How bout this thread?
There are two problems that occur when discussing the poor mentality. The first is the strawmen that are always thrown up. Discussing somebody that is poor but wastes a ton of money invariably gets drawn into a discussion of a single mom with 3 kids, deadbeat dad that can’t get a job that pays better than WallyWorld. The issue is not about people doing whatever they can to escape their circumstances but never getting ahead; the issue is people that can’t afford to keep their utilities on but yet are always going out to dinner.
Which brings me the the second problem, Americans in general do not want to hold people responsible for their choices. I am tired of hearing on sports radio about a 18 or 19 year old “kid” that should be excused for making a stupid choice. Parents that excuse their kids behavior - I see this ALL the fucking time. Apparently kids should not get Fs for refusing to do any work or put any effort into leaning because, you know, they don’t like math. So you choose to spend $200 on your girl/boyfriend’s birthday present even though you couldn’t pay the $80 water bill and I guaranty there will be half-a-dozen people rationalizing it rather than saying, “Hey, she/he doesn’t need a watch but you need water. Your priorities are all fucked up.” Oh no can’t say that - who am I to judge their priorities? I’ll tell you who I am. I’m a person who makes sacrifices on non-necessities to make sure the necessities are paid. I’m the person who is teaching my son to cook simple healthy meals because they are cheaper than Taco Bell & Panda Express everyday and in college, money may be tight (and if the thread I linked to is any indicator, people will bitch about how dare I expect people to have basic survival cooking skill when they can spend twice as money on pre-processed crap)
And the third problem and actually absolves poor people [somewhat] is that it is really expensive to be poor in this country. How much does it cost to bounce a check? Pay an extra $300 you can’t afford for a payday loan because your tire is popped. For the lesson on APR, I had my students calculate the APR on those rent-to-own stores. After combing through all the bullshit they have APR’s from 150% to 300%.
But don’t you see that the consequences are simply much more severe for poor people?
A poor good parent can explain all those things, and if the kid doesn’t learn, then they’re banned forever.
A rich good parent can explain all those things, and if the kid doesn’t learn, can implement some other punishment and the kid gets to keep using the library.
If my kid racks up fines at the library, I’m going to make them do extra chores and save part of their allowance until they pay off the fine. They’ll learn an important lesson, the fine will be paid, and they’ll get to keep using the library. But this path only exists because I have the money that pays for their extra chores and their allowance to pay the fine. If I didn’t have it, well, sorry kid. Them’s the breaks. You’ve learned that actions have consequences, and that those consequences are severe, irreparable, and heartless.
It’s possible to understand that actions have consequences and that the consequences are unfairly meted out.
Rich people by far cause more pollution per capita due to their outsized energy footprint than poor people do. Yet, somehow you find a way to focus on poor people struggling to afford transportation to work as the abusers of the commons, not the people building and heating 4,000 square foot homes and making multiple trips by jet per year.
I think to some extent, many of these issues come down to a question of whether you want to solve a problem, or find someone to take responsibility for it. If we want poor kids to be able to read, let’s figure out a way to teach them that not returning your books on time has consequences without banning them forever. If we want to lessen pollution, then let’s make better mass transit available. If we, as a society, think that the democratic value of letting every citizen vote is important, then let’s find a way to authenticate who is and is not a citizen without placing an unequal burden on them.
Sure, poor people make lots of bad decisions. But so do rich people.
I think most people would agree with that statement, but in the real world, the situation is what it is.
Can you elaborate on this? Specifically how you think this dichotomy contributes to the disconnect?
No necessarily. Little Free Libraries seem to be doing well enough. There are 36k of them. I don’t mean to argue they can replace the library system, but rather that the system of incentives and resources is not as limited as some would think.
Not serving the very people libraries were generally created to serve hurts their ability to be a library too. Ultimately, I see this as similar to the situation the video rental stores faced. Their reckless use of late fees ultimately contributed to their downfall because they eroded and antagonized their customer base. Their position should have been easier to manage given the relationship they had with their customers was already transactional, and because their customers generally had the resources and time to comply with their rules (obviously they didn’t). That said, it was a disaster, and as soon as there was a better option, people left.
Ultimately, libraries don’t want people to keep books out past their due dates, so if the policy of late fees they enact fails to achieve that goal, and pushes out a large percentage of their users, why would anyone defend the system? It clearly is not serving the needs of the people on either side. It doesn’t mean late fees are de facto bad rules, or that poor people shouldn’t be expected to follow rules, it just means the system they created has broken down and is no longer working. the response to someone pointing this out should be to fix the system rather than asking about what other cudgel we can use to teach poor people a lesson.
Libraries were created to serve people who bring the books back. That way somebody else can read the book who will also bring it back.
Regards,
Shodan
Totally missing the point. My point was that when you have a car, there’s an expectation that you’ll do all the things to keep it safe, roadworthy and legal. Stuff like state safety inspections, emissions inspections, needed repairs, state registrations, etc…
Making excuses for the poor and their transport woes due to emissions testing is no more than a version of making excuses for poor drivers not having functioning turn signals or headlights or tires that are adequate to stop their car in the rain. I for one, don’t give half a fuck if some poor person can’t get to work on a rainy day because they can’t afford adequate tires, if it means that some other innocent driver won’t be involved in an accident as a result. How would you feel, if say… some beloved family member was killed or seriously injured in that situation? Would you give the poor guy a pass because he couldn’t afford non-bald tires, or his headlights weren’t working because he didn’t have the time to replace them?
Why are emissions repairs any different? All of these things hurt others when they’re neglected. It’s a basic expectation of responsible car ownership to take care of these things. Being poor has nothing to do with it. It may suck worse, but it doesn’t absolve them of that responsibility.
Yes, that’s a valid point.
But I’m not missing it. I’m pointing out that it’s not the only valid one. If I may paraphrase:
My point is that when you have a planet, there’s an expectation that you’ll do all the things to keep it safe, clean, and livable. Stuff like using a reasonable amount of limited resources, keeping unnecessary travel to a minimum, etc.
Why is luxury spending any different? All of those actions hurt others when they’re done. It’s a basic expectation of responsible citizenship to take care of these things. Being rich has nothing to do with it. It may suck to have all that money and nothing to waste with it, but it doesn’t absolve them of that responsibility.
It looks to me like we both have good points. But you seem to focus only on the points that show that poor people ought to improve their actions. I’m pointing out that rich people make bad decisions, too. Based on the thread topic, does that make me a poverty apologist? Does it make you a wealth apologist?
What do the actions of the non-poor have to do with people around here making excuses for irresponsible behavior by the poor, unless you’re trying to deflect the debate somehow?
I think both are worthwhile, and focusing more on punishment has a better chance for long term outcomes to be better. If it’s a choice between a handout to an otherwise capable person so that person doesn’t commit crimes, and incarcerating that person at a higher cost - I’m choosing to build more prisons and I’m willing to pay for it. Otherwise it’s a hecklers veto on the social contract. I also think a whole hell of a lot of things shouldn’t be crimes, so there’s that.
Other than driving or going to bars, what do you need an ID for?
Its still an extra burden that we put on one class of people that we do not put on the general public.
That combined with comments from Republican party officials saying that voter ID laws are in fact meant to result in voter suppression puts many voter ID proponents in the mustache twirling partisan crowd.
Democrats have been known to move local election (particularly school board elections) to some whacky date so that the only thing being voted on that day is the school board or city council election. The strategy seems to be to get only the truly motivated to participate in those elections and this tends to fall in favor of candidates endorsed by teacher’s unions and AFCLME.
In my state, you need one to apply for welfare.
Regards,
Shodan
Not exactly. It should be, but it isn’t. The Constitution says the “right” to vote may not be denied for this particular reason or that, but nowhere positively affirms voting as a right of U.S. citizens.
And even at that, it’s oddly specific- people can’t have their right to vote abridged for color, race or previous condition of servitude (15th amendment), based on sex (19th amendment) or for failing to pay a poll tax or any other tax (24th amendment).
There’s no positive guarantee of voting rights in the Constitution- just a small handful of ways that the government can’t deny or abridge the “rights”.