AuH20
07-23-2013, 10:33 AM
As always, an interesting read. It sounds like Robert Reich and other progs are shocked that certain citizens had the gall to leave state mandated hellholes of their own choosing. It's pretty easy to understand. Fight or Flight. And since the former has been nullified by legal edict, the latter occured.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=222962
In response to Robert Reich's absurd claim that predominantly white suburbia should rescue the city hell or high water:
Here's the real "awkward" question -- what is your rational response when crime starts to move higher where you live? Should you simply sit and take it as your cars are stolen, your building defaced, your daughter raped, your grandmother mugged on the way back from church, and in addition pay ever-higher taxes in order to "suppress" these changes? Or is it more rational to move and let the animals fight among themselves -- a process that continues until there are only animals left?
Exactly who's fault is it when someone chooses to rape, rob, beat someone, murder, deface or steal someone else's property and generally behave like a thug? If you argue that it's anyone's responsibility other than the person doing it then you are claiming that all men and women are not equal, that some are lesser, and that those who are lesser are incapable of taking care of themselves -- that they are infants or worse -- not really human.
That's not really what you're calling the folks who you claim are "oppressed" -- right?
Why? Because neither they, or you, can force people to stay in a given place and reasonable, law-abiding, peaceful citizens will leave such an environment irrespective of their race, color or creed -- at which point you have no jobs, no chain grocery stores with reasonable prices and no economic opportunity. Eventually the thugs find themselves with no ambulances, no street lights (because they stole all the wiring) hulks of burned out buildings and no tax revenue for pay for services. Then people like Robert wring their hands and whine when the city cannot pay its cops, firefighters, EMTs and teachers -- and economically collapses.
There are those who want to call that decision "white flight." I call it rational behavior. When some group wants to behave like a pack of wolves and on top of it the city government makes it difficult or impossible for the rest of the people to defend themselves don't be surprised when those good and decent individuals and families say "screw that!" and leave.
They can, they have, they will and they should.
I know people who had multiple vehicles and wheels stolen from their cars in the 1970s and 1980s in Detroit, from the parking lot of their workplace, in broad daylight. More than once they came out to their car after work to find their car on four cinder blocks. Yes, the thieves were that brazen. They weren't worried about the shop-owner popping out of the front door with a 12ga and splattering them all over the sidewalk. Why not? Because defending your property in that fashion would be "illegal".....
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=222962
In response to Robert Reich's absurd claim that predominantly white suburbia should rescue the city hell or high water:
Here's the real "awkward" question -- what is your rational response when crime starts to move higher where you live? Should you simply sit and take it as your cars are stolen, your building defaced, your daughter raped, your grandmother mugged on the way back from church, and in addition pay ever-higher taxes in order to "suppress" these changes? Or is it more rational to move and let the animals fight among themselves -- a process that continues until there are only animals left?
Exactly who's fault is it when someone chooses to rape, rob, beat someone, murder, deface or steal someone else's property and generally behave like a thug? If you argue that it's anyone's responsibility other than the person doing it then you are claiming that all men and women are not equal, that some are lesser, and that those who are lesser are incapable of taking care of themselves -- that they are infants or worse -- not really human.
That's not really what you're calling the folks who you claim are "oppressed" -- right?
Why? Because neither they, or you, can force people to stay in a given place and reasonable, law-abiding, peaceful citizens will leave such an environment irrespective of their race, color or creed -- at which point you have no jobs, no chain grocery stores with reasonable prices and no economic opportunity. Eventually the thugs find themselves with no ambulances, no street lights (because they stole all the wiring) hulks of burned out buildings and no tax revenue for pay for services. Then people like Robert wring their hands and whine when the city cannot pay its cops, firefighters, EMTs and teachers -- and economically collapses.
There are those who want to call that decision "white flight." I call it rational behavior. When some group wants to behave like a pack of wolves and on top of it the city government makes it difficult or impossible for the rest of the people to defend themselves don't be surprised when those good and decent individuals and families say "screw that!" and leave.
They can, they have, they will and they should.
I know people who had multiple vehicles and wheels stolen from their cars in the 1970s and 1980s in Detroit, from the parking lot of their workplace, in broad daylight. More than once they came out to their car after work to find their car on four cinder blocks. Yes, the thieves were that brazen. They weren't worried about the shop-owner popping out of the front door with a 12ga and splattering them all over the sidewalk. Why not? Because defending your property in that fashion would be "illegal".....