I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. Apparently, there are people who deny that such a phenomenon as "oppression of the poor" even exists -- while another group seems able to primarily offer as probative examples only the consequences of being poor, which might rightly be distinguished from "oppression" in the sense of an intentional activity.
I think it might be possible to examine more specifically how wealth is used to co-opt the mechanisms of state power in its own interests at the expense of the poor. Vagrancy laws and selective enforcement of environmental protections come to mind. In many municipalities, for example, it is essentially illegal to be homeless.
This puts the dispossessed in the odd position of being criminals -- and, to a large degree "rightless" -- simply by virtue of their economic condition.
So this brings us to the next question: why did you spare this awesome and insightful comment of yours until now, after you were asked about your own opinion? Why didn't you include it in the original post? It would've been a great and worthwhile post if it was formulated like this and I and many others I'm sure would've gladly participated in a more serious way than they did. It's not that anyone is asking you to write a humongous essay.
Well, I obviously could not have made the above comments if I had not simply asked a question and observed the replies. I mean, I can't post an observation about a discussion that has not yet occurred.
But apparently the post was problematic -- so I will avoid making similar posts in the future.
Well, regardless of discussion from others in here, I for one would like you to expand on your comment up there. Maybe you could make a second post, going into more depth on this topic?
There is value in finding out for oneself. Give away all worldly possesions and cash. Then discover if you we distinguish the difference between oppression and a consequence. I do know that intentional poverty is easier to handle than un-intentional. But who does that?
:D I say, learning to be complacent is the KEY to surviving any condition and/or situation. Hell, it's worked for me soooooo many times it's just Nuts how handy it is! It's shown me that all things are subject to change at any given time, that all things are quite temporary even when they last a little longer than planned ;) ~wise owl speaks~
Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 07:56 (UTC)Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 14:31 (UTC)I think it might be possible to examine more specifically how wealth is used to co-opt the mechanisms of state power in its own interests at the expense of the poor. Vagrancy laws and selective enforcement of environmental protections come to mind. In many municipalities, for example, it is essentially illegal to be homeless.
This puts the dispossessed in the odd position of being criminals -- and, to a large degree "rightless" -- simply by virtue of their economic condition.
Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 15:09 (UTC)Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 15:17 (UTC)But apparently the post was problematic -- so I will avoid making similar posts in the future.
Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 15:26 (UTC)Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 15:30 (UTC)Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 15:58 (UTC)Re: Classy post.
Date: 23/11/10 20:04 (UTC)Re: Classy post.
Date: 24/11/10 18:46 (UTC)