How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

[PRB]

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.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Smaller government. It took from 1789-1849 for the federal government to spend the first stolen billion dollars.

 

[fisharmor]

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:

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.

 

[ILUVRP]

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 .

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

 

[Zippyjuan]

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.

 

[torchbearer]

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.

 

[tod evans]

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....

 

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

 

[69360]

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.

 

[Southron]

It depends on what you value.

 

[PRB]

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.

 

[PRB]

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??

 

[specsaregood]

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

 

[LibForestPaul]

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

 

[tod evans]

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...

 

[thoughtomator]

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.

 

[Schifference]

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........

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

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

 

[fisharmor]

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.