Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 297

Thread: How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

  1. #1

    How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

    First of all, I'm just as anti-tax and anti-federal reserve as the rest of you. But I don't think I need nostalgia or conspiracy theories to advocate for a sound and responsible monetary policy, and freer economic policy.

    I keep hearing, over and over, mostly from conservatives, that somehow life was better in the past. I still don't understand why, to me, most of the arguments are based on cherry picking the favorite traits of the individual, a bit like people saying "poor people have better lives than me" which if true, one should logically give up his wealth to pursue the alleged "better and poorer" lifestyle he claims he admires or is jealous of.

    Here are the common arguments and explanations I hear a lot

    1. Population was lower, population density was lower
    2. Less government existed, people had more rights
    3. Cost of living was allegedly lower
    4. People supposedly worked less or more people were employed

    What seems to be conveniently ignored are
    1. Blacks and gays had less rights
    2. Less diversity and interaction between people of different skin color
    3. Cost of living while higher today, so are salaries
    4. People CAN still be employed today if they were not so picky about what they wanted to work as
    5. Consumption is everything but static
    6. Technology has put so many people out of work, and tools obsolete

    The only thing, on balance, that I can personally think of, which would have a net "better" for any time in the past vs today, in US, would be higher cost of medical care today. That's close to a deal breaker, everything else, as far as I can tell, are better. But I'm willing to listen to what I'm missing.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Smaller government. It took from 1789-1849 for the federal government to spend the first stolen billion dollars.
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 08-19-2014 at 02:30 PM.

  4. #3
    I recognize that things never were the way they were.
    I'm really only interested in the future, and in letting the past and present serve as guides for what the future could be, or will be if we're not careful.

    To that end:

    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Blacks and gays had less rights
    There was never a time, and never will be a time, when blacks and gays have less or even fewer rights.
    Either every human being has the same rights, or rights do not exist.
    If you accept the premise that at certain times or in certain places or situations any particular person can have fewer rights or less of a right than others, for any reason whatsoever, then you are not talking about rights. You're talking about privileges.

    In the future I'd like to be discussing, I would really prefer that this future include this unanswerable fact - that we would even harp on it!

    No future that includes "liberty lovers" who make this mistake is a future I look forward to!

    No future that considers this simply an innocent slip of the tongue is a future I have any intention of working toward!

    If you accept that someone's rights can possibly be lesser or greater than others, you march straight into the question of who shall be the arbiter of those rights. The answer is at once obvious and horrifyingly anti-liberty.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  5. #4
    i feel sorry for the new gen people as the think all this bs going on now is normal .

    i remember things like ward and june clever with the beaver and wally .

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i feel sorry for the new gen people as the think all this bs going on now is normal .

    i remember things like ward and june clever with the beaver and wally .
    +1 All the stories about Millenials/hipsters on food stamps and such...and that there is an entire generation now who has no memory of a time when the regime was not at war or generally being fascist at home/abroad...pity the future, for it is full of fail.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  7. #6
    1) Things always change
    2) The "good old days" weren't as good as we think they were. We tend to focus on the challenges we face today while we remember the good things more in the past.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-19-2014 at 04:19 PM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    1) Things always change
    2) The "good old days" weren't as good as we think they were. We tend to focus on the challenges we face today while we remember the good things more in the past.

    Once the people are indoctrinated with nationalistic beliefs, and the infrastructure to protect them from some constantly-changing and ever-expanding definition of an enemy is in place, there is no ability for the people to regain liberty. By the time all of the pieces are in place, not only is opportunity to regain freedom lost, but the will to achieve freedom has also evaporated. The people will truly love Big Brother.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  9. #8
    Fish hit the civil rights BS out of the park so there's no need to address that..

    How 'bout we move on to wealth/salary/property ownership?

    Do you know what "real property" is in the legal sense? If not look it up.

    In the "good ol' days" a man could raise a family and acquire "real property" paid in full before he was 40, in todays world most 65y/o's are still carrying a mortgage with both husband and wife working.

    Trinkets and technology may be a bargaining chip to you in this discussion but to me they're no different than the tube-type B&W Tee-Vees of the 50's and 60's..Technology is a transient thing....



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Fish hit the civil rights BS out of the park so there's no need to address that..

    How 'bout we move on to wealth/salary/property ownership?

    Do you know what "real property" is in the legal sense? If not look it up.

    In the "good ol' days" a man could raise a family and acquire "real property" paid in full before he was 40, in todays world most 65y/o's are still carrying a mortgage with both husband and wife working.

    Trinkets and technology may be a bargaining chip to you in this discussion but to me they're no different than the tube-type B&W Tee-Vees of the 50's and 60's..Technology is a transient thing....
    +rep ...and an antique tube TV is worth more in the market than the modern flat screens in real dollars.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  12. #10
    Wages have not risen in proportion to cost of living.

    Middle class is more or less gone.

    30-40 years ago a person could leave high school and go right into a well paying factory or blue collar job. They could support a family on one income and own a home.

    All that is gone.

  13. #11
    Supporting Member
    North Carolina



    Posts
    2,946
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    It depends on what you value.
    Equality is a false god.

    Armatissimi e Liberissimi

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    There was never a time, and never will be a time, when blacks and gays have less or even fewer rights.
    Tell that to the people who couldn't vote, were forced to drink from different fountains, and couldn't marry people who had a different skin color. Saying they had the same rights does nothing to the people who were not legally protected the same way.

    Either every human being has the same rights, or rights do not exist.
    Says who?

    If you accept the premise that at certain times or in certain places or situations any particular person can have fewer rights or less of a right than others, for any reason whatsoever, then you are not talking about rights. You're talking about privileges.
    Maybe I am.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by 69360 View Post
    Wages have not risen in proportion to cost of living.

    Middle class is more or less gone.
    Maybe because they moved up, but why do you say that?


    30-40 years ago a person could leave high school and go right into a well paying factory or blue collar job. They could support a family on one income and own a home.

    All that is gone.
    So the fact less people need to work blue collar jobs to support a family is a DOWNSIDE??

  16. #14
    I remember fondly the days of riding in the back of the pickup truck, on farmroads, on interstates, wherever.

  17. #15
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    First of all, I'm just as anti-tax and anti-federal reserve as the rest of you. But I don't think I need nostalgia or conspiracy theories to advocate for a sound and responsible monetary policy, and freer economic policy.

    I keep hearing, over and over, mostly from conservatives, that somehow life was better in the past. I still don't understand why, to me, most of the arguments are based on cherry picking the favorite traits of the individual, a bit like people saying "poor people have better lives than me" which if true, one should logically give up his wealth to pursue the alleged "better and poorer" lifestyle he claims he admires or is jealous of.

    Here are the common arguments and explanations I hear a lot

    1. Population was lower, population density was lower
    2. Less government existed, people had more rights
    3. Cost of living was allegedly lower
    4. People supposedly worked less or more people were employed

    What seems to be conveniently ignored are
    1. Blacks and gays had less rights
    2. Less diversity and interaction between people of different skin color
    3. Cost of living while higher today, so are salaries
    4. People CAN still be employed today if they were not so picky about what they wanted to work as
    5. Consumption is everything but static
    6. Technology has put so many people out of work, and tools obsolete

    The only thing, on balance, that I can personally think of, which would have a net "better" for any time in the past vs today, in US, would be higher cost of medical care today. That's close to a deal breaker, everything else, as far as I can tell, are better. But I'm willing to listen to what I'm missing.
    1. wrong
    2. wrong
    6. wrong
    not worth debating

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    So the fact less people need to work blue collar jobs to support a family is a DOWNSIDE??
    No brain-child the fact that the average man can't support his family, educate his children and pay off his property before he's 40 is the "downside"..

    Hell with both parents working and the state 'educating' their children only a very small percentage of the populace is able to settle their debt on their real property before they reach 65..

    But hey! At least they've got gizmos...



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Used to be that if you took a dollar and buried it in your yard, and your grandchild dug it up, he could enjoy the same spending power that you buried. Something to be said for that.

  21. #18
    In years past people were more self reliant and could survive with very little.
    Grandma could be known for her great tasting cookies and decide to bake them and sell them to friends prior to opening up her cookie store.
    A home owner that lost their job or fell on hard times could take in borders without being cited with zoning violations.
    There were more woods and more wild animals. Anyone could wander off into the woods and procure some dinner.
    All or most gadgets were basic mechanical devices that the homesteader knew how to fix.
    People lived together in communities and actually communicated with those they lived with. Today you can live in the same house with a family and spend all your time absorbed on the computer, television, gaming or whatever.
    There is less waste of resources when physical labor is necessary to acquire them. Water, heat, lights, trash........

  22. #19
    Things I've heard from recent college grads:

    "I'm using my Masters in Economics to sling cappuccino at Starbucks"

    "I graduated with a BS in Aerospace Engineering and can't find a job, so Im going back to school so I don't have to pay back student loans till later"

    Number 1 on my list would be that there was a lot less regulation back then.

    Things back when were designed to last, not designed to break (planned obsolescence).

    -t
    Last edited by tangent4ronpaul; 08-19-2014 at 07:01 PM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PRB View Post
    Tell that to the people who couldn't vote, were forced to drink from different fountains, and couldn't marry people who had a different skin color. Saying they had the same rights does nothing to the people who were not legally protected the same way.
    But that is exactly what I am saying. Those people had - have - a right to life, liberty, and property. They have, and had, a right to travel. They have, and had, a right to bear arms, a right to free speech, a right to worship as they choose.
    The fact that the state sanctioned some people curtailing the rights of other people doesn't negate the fact that those people had rights.

    Everyone has the same rights, or nobody does. If that's not the case, then no, you're not talking about rights, you're talking about privileges.

    I think I'm agreeing with you more than you're comfortable with. Life was not better in the past - it was decidedly worse in some respects, but in ways you're not getting.

    It was worse because society had taken concepts that we are supposed to have based our state on, and turned them upside-down, so that they were the exact opposite of what was intended.
    When TJ wrote that we are all endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, he was choosing his words carefully.
    If we are endowed with those rights by our creator, that means that the state is very much not the entity which endows us with our rights. Unless we can show that the state is our creator, then the document we founded this whole thing on - the document we used as justification for killing a whole lot of folk - denies the idea that the state is where we get our rights from.

    If our rights are inalienable, then that means the state is very much incapable of taking our rights away from us.
    Sure, the state can trample on them, the state can pretend they don't exist, but the state can't take them away.

    I am very much not arguing over angels dancing on a pinhead. This is a very important distinction, and like I said, I'm not working toward a future that doesn't include this.

    If your rights are not inherent to your humanity and inalienable, then they are not rights. They are privileges.
    And if they're privileges, then the immediate question becomes who is it who gives you those privileges.
    Because whereas rights are assumed to belong to every human being, privileges are not.
    Privileges assume that you have nothing, you start with nothing, and you're given what someone else assumes you're going to need.

    Rights assume that you start with your rights.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by LibForestPaul View Post
    1. wrong
    2. wrong
    6. wrong
    not worth debating
    Correct me please.

    1. Why was there a civil rights movement if blacks and gays were already equal?
    2. Really? So the amount of people who drank in same fountains and ate at same tables never changed? or decreased?
    6. Do tell, where i am wrong.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    But that is exactly what I am saying. Those people had - have - a right to life, liberty, and property. They have, and had, a right to travel. They have, and had, a right to bear arms, a right to free speech, a right to worship as they choose.
    The fact that the state sanctioned some people curtailing the rights of other people doesn't negate the fact that those people had rights.

    Everyone has the same rights, or nobody does. If that's not the case, then no, you're not talking about rights, you're talking about privileges.

    I think I'm agreeing with you more than you're comfortable with. Life was not better in the past - it was decidedly worse in some respects, but in ways you're not getting.

    It was worse because society had taken concepts that we are supposed to have based our state on, and turned them upside-down, so that they were the exact opposite of what was intended.
    When TJ wrote that we are all endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, he was choosing his words carefully.
    If we are endowed with those rights by our creator, that means that the state is very much not the entity which endows us with our rights. Unless we can show that the state is our creator, then the document we founded this whole thing on - the document we used as justification for killing a whole lot of folk - denies the idea that the state is where we get our rights from.

    If our rights are inalienable, then that means the state is very much incapable of taking our rights away from us.
    Sure, the state can trample on them, the state can pretend they don't exist, but the state can't take them away.

    I am very much not arguing over angels dancing on a pinhead. This is a very important distinction, and like I said, I'm not working toward a future that doesn't include this.

    If your rights are not inherent to your humanity and inalienable, then they are not rights. They are privileges.
    And if they're privileges, then the immediate question becomes who is it who gives you those privileges.
    Because whereas rights are assumed to belong to every human being, privileges are not.
    Privileges assume that you have nothing, you start with nothing, and you're given what someone else assumes you're going to need.

    Rights assume that you start with your rights.
    this is just semantics. So change the word to privilieges and I care not what your assumptions are, the facts tell what people were legally allowed to do.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by tangent4ronpaul View Post
    Things I've heard from recent college grads:

    "I'm using my Masters in Economics to sling cappuccino at Starbucks"
    What did people in the past with Masters in Econ do?

    "I graduated with a BS in Aerospace Engineering and can't find a job, so Im going back to school so I don't have to pay back student loans till later"
    That is actually rare, I'd be interested in where he got his degree and what jobs he's looked for. His choice of deferring debt is stupid altogether.

    Number 1 on my list would be that there was a lot less regulation back then.
    Tell that to blacks who couldn't vote and gays who couldn't gay marry. Yeah, totally less regulations now!

    Things back when were designed to last, not designed to break (planned obsolescence).

    -t
    There's no law that's preventing you from designing and making things that last, it's just not profitable.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    In years past people were more self reliant and could survive with very little.
    Who says they can't now?

    Grandma could be known for her great tasting cookies and decide to bake them and sell them to friends prior to opening up her cookie store.
    Who says she can't now?

    A home owner that lost their job or fell on hard times could take in borders without being cited with zoning violations.
    Take in borders? what does that mean? You mean orders?

    There were more woods and more wild animals.
    So life was better when less people developed land for capitalist purposes? what kind of hippie are you?

    And what is your less government solution to having more wildlife?

    Anyone could wander off into the woods and procure some dinner.
    All or most gadgets were basic mechanical devices that the homesteader knew how to fix.
    How is that different today? you're mad that gadgets are more complicated or people don't learn?

    People lived together in communities and actually communicated with those they lived with. Today you can live in the same house with a family and spend all your time absorbed on the computer, television, gaming or whatever.
    So less entertainment and people were forced to talk to each other more, while today you have the option of either.

    There is less waste of resources when physical labor is necessary to acquire them. Water, heat, lights, trash........
    So life is better when it costs more to live, you're complaining that stuff is too cheap so people waste more often? Again, I sense an anti-capitalist hippie in you.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    Used to be that if you took a dollar and buried it in your yard, and your grandchild dug it up, he could enjoy the same spending power that you buried. Something to be said for that.
    actually, if it was in good condition, some coins and bills could be better than face value as collectibles at the least.

  30. #26
    People died sooner. There was no expectation of living longer through science. Quality over quantity. No safety net. No time for bull$#@!. Each day was lived as if it would be the last.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    No brain-child the fact that the average man can't support his family, educate his children and pay off his property before he's 40 is the "downside"..
    I disagree with your premise that the average man cannot, at least not for anything but his choices on where to live, what he buys.

    How many cars did people have 50-100 years ago per household?

    Hell with both parents working and the state 'educating' their children only a very small percentage of the populace is able to settle their debt on their real property before they reach 65..
    Nobody forced them to take those debts, they want to keep up with the Joneses or "not waste money paying the landlord's mortgage" what does that do? Feed demand which increases prices. What happens when you stop buying something? Ever heard of a housing bubble?

    But hey! At least they've got gizmos...
    If they didn't buy gizmos, they'd probably be better off.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    People died sooner. There was no expectation of living longer through science. Quality over quantity. No safety net. No time for bull$#@!. Each day was lived as if it would be the last.
    Life is better when life was shorter?! Life was better when people lived in fear and risk rather than being free from worry?

    Wait, I thought people lived in fear today, like every city is full of trigger happy cops. Which one is it?

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    It depends on what you value.
    Bingo.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Fish hit the civil rights BS out of the park so there's no need to address that..

    How 'bout we move on to wealth/salary/property ownership?

    Do you know what "real property" is in the legal sense? If not look it up.

    In the "good ol' days" a man could raise a family and acquire "real property" paid in full before he was 40, in todays world most 65y/o's are still carrying a mortgage with both husband and wife working.
    I never understood what "could raise a family" meant.

    Did they have the same size house, same number of cars, kids have same number of toys, going on vacation the same amounts of time?





    Trinkets and technology may be a bargaining chip to you in this discussion but to me they're no different than the tube-type B&W Tee-Vees of the 50's and 60's..Technology is a transient thing....
    So you must not have bought any, or you blame nobody but yourself for having them, right?

    If you lost your broadband, cellphone, and color tv, flat screen tv, cable, let's say you didn't have to pay for it either, you'd have no complains because they DON'T MATTER, right?

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Rand's "bold" and "aggressive" stand -- Life at Conception Act
    By VoluntaryAmerican in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 12:36 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 06:08 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 06:24 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 05:49 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-18-2007, 01:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •