How exactly was "Life better in the past"?

[PRB]

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.

 

[PRB]

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.

 

[PRB]

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.

 

[PRB]

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.

 

[PRB]

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.

 

[phill4paul]

People died sooner. There was no expectation of living longer through science. Quality over quantity. No safety net. No time for bullshit. Each day was lived as if it would be the last.

 

[PRB]

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.

 

[PRB]

People died sooner. There was no expectation of living longer through science. Quality over quantity. No safety net. No time for bullshit. 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?

 

[TaftFan]

It depends on what you value.

Bingo.

 

[PRB]

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?

 

[The Bavarian]

Back in the day I could own a fully automatic Thompson submachinegun.

 

[PRB]

Back in the day I could own a fully automatic Thompson submachinegun.

is that enough for you to trade the modern luxuries for and go back to the past? Or are you just saying in THIS respect, your life was better?

 

[tod evans]

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.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, facts are facts and it's way less than 5% who actually do...

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

50 years ago was 1964, most families had cars.
100 years ago 1914, most families had horses.
This is relevant to what?
The percentage of an annual salary required to secure transportation has increased...

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?

So are you arguing that being in debt to age 65+ in order to secure housing for a family is a good thing?
Is this somehow better off?
It sounds as though you're arguing contrary to your premis....

Or are you arguing that young families shouldn't go into debt for housing? (That position has some merit)

If they didn't buy gizmos, they'd probably be better off.

I agree with this...............To an extent.

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?

Since comprehension seems to elude you this evening strike "could" from "could raise a family" and replace it with "did" as in

"In the "good ol' days" a man did raise a family and acquire "real property" paid in full before he was 40"

Their trinket count must not be weighed by comparing trinkets to today but to their social equals then...

Any other comparison is dishonest.

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?

What kind of disjointed assertion is this?

Technology is transitory, what might make life "better" today will be outdated tomorrow.

So "better" requires a constant influx of wealth to stay current.

Depleting ones wealth is "better" for whom?

 

[Origanalist]

Haven't we already been down this road with the same OP?

 

[PRB]

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, facts are facts and it's way less than 5% who actually do...

Facts? Really?

Do tell. Why can't it just be they have different consumption habits and therefore appear to be unable to afford it?

 

[acptulsa]

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.

My you are a soulless troll, aren't you?

So, a man has no right to bemoan the fact that our parents or grandparents were free, and bore children into a free country in the expectation that it would always remain free, but we cannot bear our children into that expectation?

How are you going to convince a human male that this isn't a problem...?

All right troll, bite on this: Back in the day, you had hope of opening a small business and making a living from it. You didn't have to have a federally-approved kitchen to bake and decorate a cake for a friend's birthday. You didn't need to buy someone overpriced abortions, drugs for dementia (as if any one person could need all three) and birth control to hire them for you hot dog stand. It didn't take three lawyers and five CPAs to maintain compliance and operate in this nation. Maybe it did if you were Sears, Roebuck, but not if you were a tree trimming service. You could open a gas station without having to pay the EPA a million dollars to inspect your tanks.

Today, not so much. Is this not hope? Is it not possible for a human to be happy to be master of his or her own destiny? Does the pursuit of happiness still count, or is that one of the parts of the Constitution that is hopelessly outdated and irrelevant to the modern breed of Homo Mechanicus?

Haven't we already been down this road with the same OP?

A thousand times. But he's paid to try to convince the kids that freedom isn't as good as an XBox 360, so he will do it over and over again at least until he gets halfway good at it.

 

[PRB]

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, facts are facts and it's way less than 5% who actually do...



50 years ago was 1964, most families had cars.
100 years ago 1914, most families had horses.
This is relevant to what?
The percentage of an annual salary required to secure transportation has increased...

How exactly has percentage of annual salary required to secure transportation increased?

You're talking about transportation, not "personal transportation on demand", are you?

So while a new car may cost $30K, an old car does not, and sharing rides, using transportation does not. While it's not available everywhere, it's just not true that it REQUIRES a greater portion of your salary to secure the minimum.

You can STILL own a horse instead of a car, while it's not legal to ride them everywhere, for the places that are, you can still use it in place of a car. What? Are you going to tell me places where riding horses is legal costs more than places which ban it?

 

[Schifference]

Troll thread??

 

[PRB]

My you are a soulless troll, aren't you?


All right troll, bite on this: Back in the day, you had hope of opening a small business and making a living from it.

Good luck if you're black.

 

[PRB]

Is it not possible for a human to be happy to be master of his or her own destiny?

Tell that to the slaves who were not free until 1865 and blacks who were not equal until civil rights movement. and gays who couldn't marry until 2009.