Thursday, April 21, 2011
Benton Harbor Takeover Sparks Furious Reaction
For grade due 29 April 2011. Is this government takeover morally justified? Legally justified? What are the economic implications of disenfranchising specific populations?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The economic implications of disenfranchising specific populations are positive. For example take price discrimination, by doing so we allow those who otherwise wouldn't have had something have it while still making a profit and the firm also reaps profits from charging others more. By negatively disenfranchising the rich the poor reap the benefits. Unless of course you believe it will decrease productivity of the wealthy of course.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though ever since GE left town the city has been a hell hole. If the government takeover is moral is up to you. There are two ways of looking at the situation. If government is to maximize personal freedom through minimizing its own role then the government is not justified. If the opposite is true and it wants to maximize personal freedom through minimizing its control then it is not morally justified. (in both cases assuming that both sides have been vested power by the people of the city)
But on the other hand golf is fun so they should be allowed to build a golf course, I mean the rich are already paying more for product x shouldn't they get some benefit?
This government takeover is neither morally justified nor is it legally justified. This takeover, if allowed, will allow the government to do this in other parts of the country. Disfranchising the specific populations will cause outbreaks, as seen with the article. Other complications include the wealthy laying off workers, thus the unemployment rate increases. Vice versa, the same thing may happen to companies. As workers protest, company productivity is decreasing due to the lack of workers working.
ReplyDeleteThe government takeover is not morally or legally justified. It seems that if the "test case" of Benton Harbor works, this will start taking place throughout our entire country. Economic implications of the disenfranchisement are all the people in these small towns and cities, now jobless, and can't pay their bills.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the government takeover is morally justified or legally justified. If this trial run is let by without any consequences then if will move like wild fire across the country. Implications of this government takeover are all the small town people will be out of work but the wealthy will be much happier because to them this is what they deserve due to all the money they have invested.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is justified in any sense. If this "test" goes over without a fight, this situation will happen in other places. The implications are that the people in power (generally the wealthy) will enjoy benefits at the cost of the poor. Disenfranchising certain populations can serve to manipulate policy, resulting in economic situations that take advantage of those without a say.
ReplyDeleteBenton Harbor is in all others words a shithole. The government in this case should step in if more than half it's residence live below the poverty line. It's ridiculous that this place can continue to exist on its own.
ReplyDeletethis takeover isnt justified the residents have no say in the matter whatsoever and it is completely unethical, perhaps the govt could have sent in workers to make things run more smoothly as aids but a takeover with mass layoffs is outrageous.
ReplyDeleteThis takeover is not at all justified at any level. Disenfranchising populations could lead to riots and outbreaks that could be violent. These plausible riots would be stimulated by the government's transformation of the town's economic ideals. In essence, people don't like it when a bigger entity swiftly takes over something.
ReplyDeleteThe takeover was not morally or legally justified. I am certain that the former residents are extremely annoyed by the Governor's decision. Most of them will probably not be able to afford another home and will forced to stay at a homeless shelter. However, I like golf courses as well so I think the evicted citizens should just find a cardboard box to live in on the side of a road. This solution is a win-win for both sides.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion as a third party I feel bad for the lower class so I lean towards "not just" both legally and morally. What's happening is like if a mother has two children and she takes the cookie away from both children yet her favorite child still gets candy later. The rich will still benefit whereas the poor are at a loss and will riot. As seen in the chaos happening in Africa now, riots spread so the rest of the country better be prepared.
ReplyDeleteThe entire American political process is built on a single, fundamental right: the vote. Without a political voice, the people might as well be cattle, for they will be controlled indefinitely by whoever has political agency. This disenfranchisement, however insignificant it may seem, it the first in what may become a string of violations on and impediments to American liberty. This practice must be stopped now, before enough Americans are subjugated that we no longer have a voice as a people.
ReplyDeleteThe government take over is neither morally or legally justified. If the government officials let this slide by without a trial or consequences this will cause chaos through the nation. The fact that the government is abusing its powers to achieve its goal doesn't represent a democratic government.
ReplyDeleteThis government take over is not morally or legally justified. The residents have no say in the matter, its just the government doing whatever they feel like. The government officials are over using their powers just to get what they want by any means necessary. The nation will have an uproar because the Americans have a the right to a vote, and if they officials are just doings what they want instead of consulting the people, all chaos will break out.
ReplyDeleteThe government takeover is not justified, morally or legally. It strips Americans of their right to have a say in their government. It also leaves many people in these little towns out of work. And poor. And sad and stuff.
ReplyDeleteNo, the government takeover is not morally or legally justified. The residents have no control over the situation and their opinions are completely ignored. By disenfranchising specific populations, some people will gain but many others will lose. It's simply not fair.
ReplyDeleteThis government is neither morally justified nor legally justified. There will be riots amongst Americans because they had no say in this issue and the government didn't care to here about their thoughts. Without the right to vote, U.S. Citizens will try to overthrow the government and take control of the country.
ReplyDeleteGovernment is not justified in any way for this takeover. If This succeed, it would be the beginning of the abolition of the rights to vote and freedom of speech. It would also lead to a series of future takeovers. Americans will protest, riots will break out, and chaos will engulf the whole country. Unemployment will rises and real GDP reduces significantly.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the government takeover is morally or legally justified. It seems that if this "test case" of Benton Harbor is successful (which it hopefully wont be), this will spread throughout. Economic implications of the disenfranchisement are all the people in these small towns and cities, now jobless, and can't pay their bills. And to marcus, I'm not a cow even though I don't vote...
ReplyDeleteThe government takeover is definitely not justified. Basically, this "experiment" will encourage a greater income disparity. The rich will be satisfied because they feel they deserve their wealth, while the poor, on the other hand, become unemployed and can eventually even become homeless. Holding this experiment will only make it spread throughout the country.
ReplyDelete