Land Grabs And Squatters

[dennisr]

The K's control the purse strings for CABA? Can I have source with that?

Those laws were passed something like 9 years ago next to nothing has happened, I'm not aware there was any federal element in the funding.

Cite sources, is this some sort of academic paper? Thought this was a discussion where I was free to submit my feelings on a subject. KMA

 

[pauper]

Cite sources, is this some sort of academic paper? Thought this was a discussion where I was free to submit my feelings on a subject. KMA

You're right, I apologise. Best to go with feelings on this one.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I can make this longer, but I wont.

Basically, my point, that you dont get, is that these people deserve a decent place to live. Does not matter if they earned it or not, if they work(ed) for it. They deserve it just because they are poor, because they are the lower strata, the most vulnerable people, the people with less rights, the people who live in worst conditions, the hardests lives. Thats why the deserve a decent life independently if they earned it or not.

And the deep philosophical divide opens. Matias, I think you have highlighted the distance between our interpretation of rights. In the US you have the right to a house. That means if you can't afford one now you have the right to take an extra job, go to school at night to get a better job, save your money and then buy a house.

What you are saying is that you think that because someone is poor their right to a house is that someone should give them a house. Is that true?

 

[Matiasba]

And the deep philosophical divide opens. Matias, I think you have highlighted the distance between our interpretation of rights. In the US you have the right to a house. That means if you can't afford one now you have the right to take an extra job, go to school at night to get a better job, save your money and then buy a house.

What you are saying is that you think that because someone is poor their right to a house is that someone should give them a house. Is that true?

What Im saying is that everyone has the right to a decent home, and if there were people living in villas and asentamientos, then this complex social construction called State must make the situation change. These societies we re living on produce poverty, make people poor, millions and millions. And on the other hand, the greatest fortunes are allowed. So the state support this social situation, this inequality, of one person having thousands of castles and entires families living in villas. I dont think its fair. IMO the State must regulate that. Of course, by taxing these fortunes to give these poor people a decent home. So instead of having a thousand castles, or the posibility to, maybe that people will get 900 castles, and that hundred goes to the poor to live a little bit more decently.
It is a lie that market or competition makes everyone better. It produces misery, poverty, violence, etc. Lots of people excluded from the most basics rights. Famine. Death. We have 2/3 of humanity under the poverty line, and the other side of the coin is people with billion dollars that cant been spent in two lives.

So, yes, I believe in the State correcting these situations, but its not like giving them everything so they wont have to work, progress, etc, these programmes as I said are more complex, they give them credit to pay it in "cómodas cuotas", or they make them work in their houses as it happens in Uruguay. These are programmes of social inclusion, Procrear, Progresar, etc, they make these excluded get into the society again, thats why the people in negro is heavily subsidized in this country, lots of social programmes. Poor people keep coming here because they live better here than in their home countries or provinces. So if they prefer living in a villa go picture how do they live in Bolivia or Paraguay or Chaco. The state must protect these people, must be sure they have work, a house, human rights, health, education, etc. Just because they are human beings. The whole point is to live better, everyone, thats why every state have this kind of help, and if they dont, they have another similar economic policies to make them progress, so the result, the final social situation whatever it is, is more of what the State does or did instead of what people earn.

 

[PhilipDT]

Basically, my point, that you dont get, is that these people deserve a decent place to live. Does not matter if they earned it or not, if they work(ed) for it. They deserve it just because they are poor, because they are the lower strata, the most vulnerable people, the people with less rights, the people who live in worst conditions, the hardests lives. Thats why the deserve a decent life independently if they earned it or not.

I could make this longer too. There are so ways I could respond this. On some level I actually agree with you, everyone deserves a decent place to live whether they work or not. Anyways, just one question.

Do you think it's right to make the residents of one country, many of whom live in abject poverty themselves, pay to support people from other countries who voluntarily choose not to work? Do you think it's sustainable?

 

[Matiasba]

Do you think it's right to make the residents of one country, many of whom live in abject poverty themselves, pay to support people from other countries who voluntarily choose not to work? Do you think it's sustainable?

As I said before, the idea of the Human Rights declaration, is to live better. All of us. So it doesnt really matter which country are you from. Just imagine a country very prosperous, having everything ok, with a neighbouring country extremely poor (I think Haiti-Rep. Dominicana could fit, althought Rep. Dominicana is not that rich)... or imagine one big country that is prosperous and the rest of the world very poor. How sustainable is that. No matter what wall you could put, immigration will happen, sooner or later, cause people move. You cant get control crazy with immigration, thats not sustainable. People move, meet another country people, get married, explore, you cant live in a bubble.
So we re in a world of integration, thinking of a country isolated is a 19th century idea.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

Matias,

I understand your empathy for the poor and underprivileged. We share the same empathy. However, I think your perspective of the 1000 castles isn't appropriate. If the State has has a moral imperative to provide for the poor it does so with tax money. That tax money comes from everyone, not just the super wealthy. It comes from people who are not rich who work hard to make a decent living for themselves and their family. Is that fair and equitable for them?

There are other questions such as who decides where the "poverty" line is and does giving handouts reduce a person's desire to better their standard of living or does it essentially trap them into permanent mediocrity? I know firsthand people from the rural South USA that have explained to me that they have a higher standard of living using public assistance than they would have if they went to work. So they sit at home as unproductive members of society. That is not hearsay or 3rd person. That is direct experience.

 

[EricLovesBA]

The state must protect these people, must be sure they have work...

This is another one in that divide that Dirtboy was talking about. In the US we don't grow up with the idea that the state is responsible for giving us a job. I've heard that here quite a bit - seems to be a popular view. I mean don't me wrong - in the US the state likes to say it's "creating jobs" with its policies, which is another can of worms, but it is more in the light of creating the best possible conditions for jobs to emerge in the economy, not that the state directly owes each and every person a job. All this redistribution of wealth mentality creates a disincentive for entrepreneurs along with all the other strange policies like closing the borders against, trade, products and resources that would help things along.

I was watching a Dan Kennedy video recently, and it was sparking some interesting questions about the general attitude of abundance and scarcity mentalities, and how that plays into the idea that wealth must be equally distributed. It's a fascinating topic because there is a point at which something is more like a natural resource in a passive state - like oil in the ground, a tree in a forest, etc, and at some point, people put their work, creativity, ingenuity, etc into creating something. The new thing has value which comes from the wellspring of people's minds, but the difficulty comes from how do we share those natural resources, and how do we share the ideas which transform them, i.e., is the intellectual property best patented and hoarded, or open source - something owned by humanity? The work we do is easier to see that it should be rewarded directly. But even though I do believe in property rights, I do really wonder what is so fair about people owning and inheriting vast resources such as land, minerals, water, petroleum, etc, as well as ideas such as advances in medicine, etc etc. It's quite a challenge, and to my mind the root of the divide is really there, not on the surface ideas we're debating. I think those who want to redistribute wealth feel the unfairness bubbling up from these deeper issues about how does a baby born to a rich family owning vast oilfields or in a country that does, have more rights to basic human needs than one born in a fly infested desert region of a country with no diamonds, oil, wealth, or technology or even arable farmland to subsist upon? We can all be free and equal in our rights to pursue happiness, but at what point do the prohibitive unequal conditions make that virtually impossible?

 

[RichardP]

Matias, If we all followed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world would be a paradise. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Not all share the philosophy of being my brother's keeper.

 

[Matiasba]

Matias,

I understand your empathy for the poor and underprivileged. We share the same empathy. However, I think your perspective of the 1000 castles isn't appropriate. If the State has has a moral imperative to provide for the poor it does so with tax money. That tax money comes from everyone, not just the super wealthy. It comes from people who are not rich who work hard to make a decent living for themselves and their family. Is that fair and equitable for them?

There are other questions such as who decides where the "poverty" line is and does giving handouts reduce a person's desire to better their standard of living or does it essentially trap them into permanent mediocrity? I know firsthand people from the rural South USA that have explained to me that they have a higher standard of living using public assistance than they would have if they went to work. So they sit at home as unproductive members of society. That is not hearsay or 3rd person. That is direct experience.

If exists a situation like we have it, thats because the taxes the state is recollecting dont work (apart from corruption, etc). The State must have progressive taxes, more richer more taxes, and if I see opulence, then the rule says we can not see poverty. Thats why I talked of the 1000 castles, because we have an unbalanced situation.


About mediocrity, I said, every social plan has this emphasis on the progress. I already talked here of two of the seven daughters my maid has, they are being paid to assist a different courses, like photography or dance, or several different "talleres", like learn to weave. The AUH is more like an investment in education than anything else, lots of kids are now out of the streets compared to 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, they are now in school...
These social programmes are maid to encourage people... we currently have another social problem, the generation called ni-ni (ni estudia ni trabaja), basically young people (aged 14 to 22) that are in the streets, robs, drugs, etc, and there are these social programmes, not planes (theres a difference), that want them inside, doing different stuff...