An Analysis of the Crime of Poverty, Henry George, 1885
What is the author arguing?
Henry George is arguing that the private ownership of land is causing poverty for others, and that in having land titles, and owning more land than is needed it is taking away from job opportunities for others. The author speaks about the “absurdity” of even taking claim to land that has been put on the earth everyone’s right to use the land for the resources they need to provide for their families by God. This argument is passionately given as the author is trying to get across that holding private land titles and passing it down to future generations is outrageous because the dead do not have a right to land since it is here for people to live off of and support their families.
How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?
Henry George states that social conditions make people choose between doing what is perceived to be in good conscience or making a living for themselves and their families. He speaks about over production and how it makes no sense that that exists if people are still in need. Due to the lack in wages that laborers are making, they are only able to buy the bare minimum essentials, with many working just to barely make it by. The emotional quality of this argument to me was when he spoke about the children who have had to work and miss out on school, therefore being uneducated and being used to having to do so, not knowing any better, Also how there were instances of children being murdered for the insurance money by their own families. The author is deeply adamant that poverty is something that is not necessarily something that is one’s fault, but the fault of society as a whole due to greed and that it affects scores of people of all nationalities world wide.
What is historical relevance of this document?
To have an address that clearly broke down the faults in society between the wealthy and poor, and providing other options that would be for the general good such as substituting taxes on capitol and labor with land value taxes so that the larger cities would be paying more instead of the poor, thus freeing up money to use for upgrading cities with parks , library’s and other resources was important to inform the general public that there were alternate ways to end the “crime of poverty.”
Do you find the author’s argument convincing?
I was convinced by the 2nd page of Mr. George’s address. He is descriptive in his argument against poverty and brings many different factors to the issue of poverty and land ownership. He is stern but eloquent at the same time. Using the example of animals in the wild and how you don’t see one certain animal doing better than the overall herd or group of animals, and comparing that to society where while some are starving and others are extremely wealthy was in fact, an excellent point and still is relevant in today’s society.
Michelle, you did an excellent job and pointing out many supporting statements throughout your TA analysis such as one interesting fact I found very compelling is how families killed their children for the life insurance money. I agree how Henry George states that "If poverty is therefore unnecessary then it is a crime for which society is responsible and for which society must suffer." The author does emphasize deeply when appealing his ethos and how involved children were affected by poverty witch makes his writing even more convincing because as you pointed out in your TA analysis, no children should be appointed to such duties in having to miss school to be laborers starting at a very young age. You brought up very good points that the author made such as the "ownership of land" and how it's fairly not right to have land passed down after generations because the deceased should not be able to with hold land even though they are deceased. It's true on how it doesn't give an optimistic opportunity for the unfortunate to jump at better opportunities in life to obtain new land for means of living and surviving. You summarized what exactly Henry George wants to say and that although it wasn't directly related how there was crime occurring because of poverty but more how society has created and diminish any opportunities for the working class to become wealthy is a crime, and therefore created poverty which 80% of society is considered the "working class" or "poor class".
ReplyDeleteI thought the Henry George put together a really good argument as to why things are so bad. He also showed a very important viewpoint from the area where many people were making great fortunes (at the expense of others), showing that there were successful, well educated people who saw the injustice in the inequality. I was actually thinking the exact same thing as far as how well the author was convincing me personally of his stand point. The final two paragraphs where he laid out a realistic sounding option of having all taxes based on land value actually made me think seriously about how that might help, whereas throughout the rest of it I was just passing off his argument as too idealistic.
ReplyDeleteHenry George's argument is in direct contrast to what William Graham Sumner had to say in his book two years earlier. Henry George is clearly an opponent of Social Darwinism and, mostly likely, laissez-faire. His argument reminds me of the native American argument that man cannot own land. The concept of land ownership as the source of poverty is intriguing to me. It seems true today that those in the worst poverty own no land. If you think of the ghettos and other extremely urban neighborhoods in our largest cities, there is poverty and no land ownership by the residents. We do have regions of our country, such as the Appalachian Mountains, where there is some land ownership and poverty, but the cause of their poverty is still often due to land ownership. Large companies used to own large tracts of land in these areas and employed the majority of the population; but, when the companies either left or closed up shop, virtually everyone in the area became unemployed. No other major industries moved back in and with no source of income for the area land values dropped, so that even those who owned their land succumbed to poverty. The idea of taxation of land and land only is also intriguing to me. It would certainly aid those of us who own no land and have employment, but I am unsure if it would be any help to the unemployed. In fact, it could just cause another increase in unemployment today. Business owners who also own the land on which their business resides, would find ways to compensate for the taxation and it would likely impact employment. So, I am not sure that Henry George’s proposed solution would resolve anything in our modern world. I think the issue of modern poverty is too complex to have just one solution.
ReplyDelete* LETS JOIN AND FEEL SENSATION TO PLAY *
ReplyDeleteSabung Ayam
Sabung Ayam Bali
Sabung Ayam Filipina
Sabung Ayam Online
Sabung Ayam Peru
Sabung Ayam Online Terpercaya
Jadwal Bola Malam Ini
* VISIT OUR SITE AT *
www.gorengayam.org
* ONLY HERE YOU CAN FEEL CONTINUOUS VICTORY *
http://panggangayammarketing.blogspot.com/2018/09/fungsi-belut-untuk-kesehatan-ayam-aduan.html