How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Economic liberalism insisted upon judging the social events engendered by the Industrial Revolution as it began in England in the eighteenth century from the economic viewpoint; and thus failed to understand the situation.
In 1607 the Lords of the Realm placed the problem in stark relief with this momentous pronouncement “The poor shall be satisfied in his end: Habitation; and the gentleman not hindered in his desire: Improvementâ€.
This view takes for granted a purely economic progress achieved at the cost of social dislocation. The citizens must leave the land to achieve a great economic success for the nation. This view only hints at the tragic poor clinging to his hovel as the rich achieves public improvement and thus profits greatly in the process.
Enclosures has been christened as the “revolution of the rich against the poorâ€. “The fabric of society was being disrupted; dissolute villages and the ruins of human dwellings testified to the fierceness with which the revolution raged, endangering the defenses of the country, wasting its towns, decimating its population, turning its overburdened soil into dust, harassing its people and turning them from decent husbandmen into a mob of beggars and thieves. Though this happened only in patches, the black spots threatened to melt into a uniform catastrophe.â€
The Tudor and early Stuart statesmen fought constantly to create and modify laws that would attempt to facilitate this economic progress while comforting the weak and poor during this revolution of dramatic change. The rapid rate of change was afforded through the destruction of the underclass despite the law making efforts of the ruling aristocracy.
If the Tudor and early Stuart statesmen had not maintained a policy directed at alleviating the pain of the transition, the rate of that progress might have been ruinous, and have become degenerative instead of a constructive event. It is this rate of change that determined “whether the dispossessed could adjust themselves to changed conditions without fatally damaging their substance, human and economic, physical and moral; whether they would find new employment in the fields of opportunity indirectly connected with the change.â€
Quotes from The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time by Karl Polanyi
The following is a condensation of the “Poor Laws†developed by the Tudor and Stuart administrations as delineated in Wikipedia:
The Poor Law was the system for the provision of social security in operation in England and Wales from the 16th century until the establishment of the Welfare State in the 20th century. It was made up of several Acts of Parliament and subsequent Amendments.
For much of the period of the Poor Law, the dependent poor were classified in terms of three groups:
The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should be looked after.
The able-bodied poor normally referred to those who were unable to find work - either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills. Attempts to assist these people, and move them out of this category, varied over the centuries, but usually consisted of relief either in the form of work or money.
The 'vagrants' or 'beggars', sometimes termed 'sturdy rogues', were deemed those who could work but had refused to. Such people were seen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as potential criminals, apt to do mischief when hired for the purpose. They were normally seen as people needing punishment, and as such were often whipped in the market place as an example to others, or sometimes sent to houses of correction. This group was also termed the idle poor.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
coberst;1153553 wrote: How did the “Poor Law” became a poor law for the poor?
Economic liberalism insisted upon judging the social events engendered by the Industrial Revolution as it began in England in the eighteenth century from the economic viewpoint; and thus failed to understand the situation.
In 1607 the Lords of the Realm placed the problem in stark relief with this momentous pronouncement “The poor shall be satisfied in his end: Habitation; and the gentleman not hindered in his desire: Improvement”.
This view takes for granted a purely economic progress achieved at the cost of social dislocation. The citizens must leave the land to achieve a great economic success for the nation. This view only hints at the tragic poor clinging to his hovel as the rich achieves public improvement and thus profits greatly in the process.
Enclosures has been christened as the “revolution of the rich against the poor”. “The fabric of society was being disrupted; dissolute villages and the ruins of human dwellings testified to the fierceness with which the revolution raged, endangering the defenses of the country, wasting its towns, decimating its population, turning its overburdened soil into dust, harassing its people and turning them from decent husbandmen into a mob of beggars and thieves. Though this happened only in patches, the black spots threatened to melt into a uniform catastrophe.”
The Tudor and early Stuart statesmen fought constantly to create and modify laws that would attempt to facilitate this economic progress while comforting the weak and poor during this revolution of dramatic change. The rapid rate of change was afforded through the destruction of the underclass despite the law making efforts of the ruling aristocracy.
If the Tudor and early Stuart statesmen had not maintained a policy directed at alleviating the pain of the transition, the rate of that progress might have been ruinous, and have become degenerative instead of a constructive event. It is this rate of change that determined “whether the dispossessed could adjust themselves to changed conditions without fatally damaging their substance, human and economic, physical and moral; whether they would find new employment in the fields of opportunity indirectly connected with the change.”
Quotes from The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time by Karl Polanyi
The following is a condensation of the “Poor Laws” developed by the Tudor and Stuart administrations as delineated in Wikipedia:
The Poor Law was the system for the provision of social security in operation in England and Wales from the 16th century until the establishment of the Welfare State in the 20th century. It was made up of several Acts of Parliament and subsequent Amendments.
For much of the period of the Poor Law, the dependent poor were classified in terms of three groups:
The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should be looked after.
The able-bodied poor normally referred to those who were unable to find work - either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills. Attempts to assist these people, and move them out of this category, varied over the centuries, but usually consisted of relief either in the form of work or money.
The 'vagrants' or 'beggars', sometimes termed 'sturdy rogues', were deemed those who could work but had refused to. Such people were seen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as potential criminals, apt to do mischief when hired for the purpose. They were normally seen as people needing punishment, and as such were often whipped in the market place as an example to others, or sometimes sent to houses of correction. This group was also termed the idle poor.
I don't really understand what you're asking...or are you reading a history book and just commenting generally on what you've read?
Quote: How did the “Poor Law” became a poor law for the poor?
Well, what else could it be called and who else could it be for?
Don't forget that before the Industrial Revolution there were many landed gentry who had country seats (mansions) with hundreds of acres of land to be farmed. Generations of families would work for one "family" of gentry. But their homes were tithed to their jobs so if they lost their job they lost their home. Also, younger children for whom there was no steady work on the land would go to the big cities to work in industries. Furthermore, there was the Parliament Act of 1911 wherein the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, proposed the introduction of a land tax based on the ideas of the American tax reformer Henry George. This new tax had a major effect on large landowners (the majority of the Upper Classes) who had to reduce their expenditure by letting some of their tenants go.
The Industrial Revolution made thousands of people redundant. Yes the Lords and the Gentry tried to help, but even today the help given is different from the help needed when people with money give to those without without really understanding what it is they need.
Enclosures were often lands owned by the Gentry although they did also enclose common land where people took their animals to feed on the rich pastures. It would be interesting to know where your slightly over-emotive quotation about enclosures came from? Was it also from Karl Polanyi?
It's confusing because you're mixing up Tudors and Stuarts (1485 Battle of Bosworth - 1714 when Queen Anne died) with the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The Poor Law also walked hand-in-hand with the doctrine of Laissez-Faire which was a practice of minimum government intervention in the populace's (working classes?) economic affairs, doing only what was necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights. For the poor who could not survive there were also almshouses and workhouses, although many preferred to starve rather than enter there.
It sounds like you have a strong interest in British history. You might find it interesting to take a course in British history as it is a complex study and you would be guided through it rather than left to swim in a confusing morass of names and dates, etc.
Alternatively, perhaps choose some books recommended by a college or university rather than an over dramatised account that may not have been fully researched.
Finally, as our Professors told us, don't forget that history is always written by the winning side and that there are at least two sides to every story!
Good luck with your ongoing research.
Economic liberalism insisted upon judging the social events engendered by the Industrial Revolution as it began in England in the eighteenth century from the economic viewpoint; and thus failed to understand the situation.
In 1607 the Lords of the Realm placed the problem in stark relief with this momentous pronouncement “The poor shall be satisfied in his end: Habitation; and the gentleman not hindered in his desire: Improvement”.
This view takes for granted a purely economic progress achieved at the cost of social dislocation. The citizens must leave the land to achieve a great economic success for the nation. This view only hints at the tragic poor clinging to his hovel as the rich achieves public improvement and thus profits greatly in the process.
Enclosures has been christened as the “revolution of the rich against the poor”. “The fabric of society was being disrupted; dissolute villages and the ruins of human dwellings testified to the fierceness with which the revolution raged, endangering the defenses of the country, wasting its towns, decimating its population, turning its overburdened soil into dust, harassing its people and turning them from decent husbandmen into a mob of beggars and thieves. Though this happened only in patches, the black spots threatened to melt into a uniform catastrophe.”
The Tudor and early Stuart statesmen fought constantly to create and modify laws that would attempt to facilitate this economic progress while comforting the weak and poor during this revolution of dramatic change. The rapid rate of change was afforded through the destruction of the underclass despite the law making efforts of the ruling aristocracy.
If the Tudor and early Stuart statesmen had not maintained a policy directed at alleviating the pain of the transition, the rate of that progress might have been ruinous, and have become degenerative instead of a constructive event. It is this rate of change that determined “whether the dispossessed could adjust themselves to changed conditions without fatally damaging their substance, human and economic, physical and moral; whether they would find new employment in the fields of opportunity indirectly connected with the change.”
Quotes from The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of our Time by Karl Polanyi
The following is a condensation of the “Poor Laws” developed by the Tudor and Stuart administrations as delineated in Wikipedia:
The Poor Law was the system for the provision of social security in operation in England and Wales from the 16th century until the establishment of the Welfare State in the 20th century. It was made up of several Acts of Parliament and subsequent Amendments.
For much of the period of the Poor Law, the dependent poor were classified in terms of three groups:
The impotent poor could not look after themselves or go to work. They included the ill, the infirm, the elderly, and children with no-one to properly care for them. It was generally held that they should be looked after.
The able-bodied poor normally referred to those who were unable to find work - either due to cyclical or long term unemployment in the area, or a lack of skills. Attempts to assist these people, and move them out of this category, varied over the centuries, but usually consisted of relief either in the form of work or money.
The 'vagrants' or 'beggars', sometimes termed 'sturdy rogues', were deemed those who could work but had refused to. Such people were seen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as potential criminals, apt to do mischief when hired for the purpose. They were normally seen as people needing punishment, and as such were often whipped in the market place as an example to others, or sometimes sent to houses of correction. This group was also termed the idle poor.
I don't really understand what you're asking...or are you reading a history book and just commenting generally on what you've read?
Quote: How did the “Poor Law” became a poor law for the poor?
Well, what else could it be called and who else could it be for?
Don't forget that before the Industrial Revolution there were many landed gentry who had country seats (mansions) with hundreds of acres of land to be farmed. Generations of families would work for one "family" of gentry. But their homes were tithed to their jobs so if they lost their job they lost their home. Also, younger children for whom there was no steady work on the land would go to the big cities to work in industries. Furthermore, there was the Parliament Act of 1911 wherein the Chancellor of the Exchequer, David Lloyd George, proposed the introduction of a land tax based on the ideas of the American tax reformer Henry George. This new tax had a major effect on large landowners (the majority of the Upper Classes) who had to reduce their expenditure by letting some of their tenants go.
The Industrial Revolution made thousands of people redundant. Yes the Lords and the Gentry tried to help, but even today the help given is different from the help needed when people with money give to those without without really understanding what it is they need.
Enclosures were often lands owned by the Gentry although they did also enclose common land where people took their animals to feed on the rich pastures. It would be interesting to know where your slightly over-emotive quotation about enclosures came from? Was it also from Karl Polanyi?
It's confusing because you're mixing up Tudors and Stuarts (1485 Battle of Bosworth - 1714 when Queen Anne died) with the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
The Poor Law also walked hand-in-hand with the doctrine of Laissez-Faire which was a practice of minimum government intervention in the populace's (working classes?) economic affairs, doing only what was necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights. For the poor who could not survive there were also almshouses and workhouses, although many preferred to starve rather than enter there.
It sounds like you have a strong interest in British history. You might find it interesting to take a course in British history as it is a complex study and you would be guided through it rather than left to swim in a confusing morass of names and dates, etc.
Alternatively, perhaps choose some books recommended by a college or university rather than an over dramatised account that may not have been fully researched.
Finally, as our Professors told us, don't forget that history is always written by the winning side and that there are at least two sides to every story!
Good luck with your ongoing research.
-
scholle-kid
- Posts: 765
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:53 pm
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
I googled your name 'coberst' and you are considered a troll on some of the many forums and message boards your signed up as a member on, and a very large percentage of them you post some copy and paste thing and then instead of debating or discussing the topic you either ignore completely or copy and paste again. Do you have any knowledge about anything you post anywhere on the web?? just asking .
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Sounds like you have a lot of reading to do. If you read philosophy books without understanding the times they were written things get very confusing.
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Try also reading E P thompson the makimng of the english working class.
The Making of the English Working Class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
couldn't find an online copy.
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adam Smith - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations - The Adam Smith Institute
Surprisingly relevant even today
or engels
The condition of the working class ... - Google Book Search
Horrible in translation to read and very racist-which is great fun to point out to socialist that haven't bothered reading it.
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Try also reading E P thompson the makimng of the english working class.
The Making of the English Working Class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
couldn't find an online copy.
Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adam Smith - An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations - The Adam Smith Institute
Surprisingly relevant even today
or engels
The condition of the working class ... - Google Book Search
Horrible in translation to read and very racist-which is great fun to point out to socialist that haven't bothered reading it.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Happy 75th Birthday Coberst.
Have a great day. :-6
Here's some historical Happy Birthday messages for you too.
Have a great day. :-6
Here's some historical Happy Birthday messages for you too.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
PS. I posted the pictures because I liked them. I suddenly thought you might be offended, please don't be as I never intended any offence or whatever.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Is 'whatever' offensive? That's not meant to be either. 
Rap takes feet out of mouth.
I'll just slink off and hide my head somewhere now.
Rap takes feet out of mouth.
I'll just slink off and hide my head somewhere now.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
scholle-kid;1153568 wrote: I googled your name 'coberst' and you are considered a troll on some of the many forums and message boards your signed up as a member on, and a very large percentage of them you post some copy and paste thing and then instead of debating or discussing the topic you either ignore completely or copy and paste again. Do you have any knowledge about anything you post anywhere on the web?? just asking .
Coberst is no troll. Different. Not as sociable as others. But no troll.
Nothing he does incites anger or attacks. The only negativity I've seen is when people get frustrated with his lack of response. He used to respond. I think he's sinking deeper into his own personal abyss.
But he does no harm. He is no troll.
Coberst is no troll. Different. Not as sociable as others. But no troll.
Nothing he does incites anger or attacks. The only negativity I've seen is when people get frustrated with his lack of response. He used to respond. I think he's sinking deeper into his own personal abyss.
But he does no harm. He is no troll.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Rapunzel
I have become interested in the source of our American form of self-regulating market especially because of the catastrophe that has beset the world as a result of our failure to regulate this self-regulating market.
The source of our system is from the UK and I wanted to better understand the whole matter. Also I am certain that few Americans have any idea regarding how this system came about.
If you are famaliar with why these Poor Laws failed you might enligten us.
I have become interested in the source of our American form of self-regulating market especially because of the catastrophe that has beset the world as a result of our failure to regulate this self-regulating market.
The source of our system is from the UK and I wanted to better understand the whole matter. Also I am certain that few Americans have any idea regarding how this system came about.
If you are famaliar with why these Poor Laws failed you might enligten us.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Accountable;1153610 wrote: Coberst is no troll. Different. Not as sociable as others. But no troll.
Nothing he does incites anger or attacks. The only negativity I've seen is when people get frustrated with his lack of response. He used to respond. I think he's sinking deeper into his own personal abyss.
But he does no harm. He is no troll.
Thanks for the good word. I guess that I am becomeing a bit jaded. Posting on many of these forums is often like visting a frat house, but I am trying to serve as a role model for anyone who might desire to become a self-acualizing self-learner.
Nothing he does incites anger or attacks. The only negativity I've seen is when people get frustrated with his lack of response. He used to respond. I think he's sinking deeper into his own personal abyss.
But he does no harm. He is no troll.
Thanks for the good word. I guess that I am becomeing a bit jaded. Posting on many of these forums is often like visting a frat house, but I am trying to serve as a role model for anyone who might desire to become a self-acualizing self-learner.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
coberst;1153707 wrote: Rapunzel
I have become interested in the source of our American form of self-regulating market especially because of the catastrophe that has beset the world as a result of our failure to regulate this self-regulating market.
The source of our system is from the UK and I wanted to better understand the whole matter. Also I am certain that few Americans have any idea regarding how this system came about.
If you are famaliar with why these Poor Laws failed you might enligten us.
If you will excuse me answering in lace of rapunzel. they didn't fail things progressed. you're looking at a snapshot in time and it is not in context. The author of the article is leaping about across the centuries and not really making any coherent points. If you want to know how your American capitalist system came in to being and where a lot of the ideas came from that shaped your nation you need to have a better understanding of the enlightenment and what ideas led up to and came from it.
Adam Smith the Wealth of nations is regarded as the seminal work of capitalist theory, socialism also has the same roots and the terminology of adam smith is also the terminology of socialism. of the division of labour, capital and labour and class. It's kind of required reading in any study of the capitalist system, I would have thought it would be covered at least in general terms in any basic school history course or economics course never mind further education. It's where capitalism was given it's name. Some of his ideas would freak out some american commentators as socialist as he also argues that some things are too important to be left to private industry like education and welfare. It was written in 1776. Some of the references to the ameican colonies might interest you. The link i posted is to an online copy of the book. Despite the age it is actually quite readable although many of the references might be obscure to an american whereas we get taught european history as a matter of course.
The impact of the industrial revolution was felt in britain first because we to a large extent actually started it. Whether we were because of the societal structure we had-a burgeoning middle class with wealth and influence or because of the industrial revolution itself-cause and effect did one cause the other is something historians like to argue about. Our unique position as an island nation also played a part as we did not have resources diverted in to large standing armies but could put more resources in to weapons research that gave us an edge when it came to mass producing muskets and gunpowder and the like. Up until 1776 you were very much a part of it and many of the ideas come from that connection.
The self regulating market did not spring in to being one day in isolation from the world around it. What has happened in our time was because of a lack of regulation. It wasn't capitalism that failed rather state corporatism became the accepted credo and went away from a truly capitalist economic system. Self regulation is an aberration doomed to failure as it ignores the society around it and assumes it stands alone from society.
Actually reading over this. I have assumed you were referring to the economic system and not the welfare one that the reference to the poor laws might suggest. correct me if i am wrong.
posted by jester
Generally speaking I think the upper classes, the more wealthy, land owner equivalents for today, business owners/ employers, etc. forget benevolence towards the employees that helped them make it into being more wealthy. And the employees forget that 1. the opportunity in developed countries is there for them to move into being more wealthy by wisdom and hard work. 2. there are laws to protect them from 'lordship'.
Resentment builds between the welthy and common man when the common man forgets he has both protection and opportunity and the walthy forgets that its his workers that get him where he is.
It further builds down the line when the wealth is passed unto the next generation of wealthy without the next generation earning it, in general the subsequent generations of wealthy tend to regard the common worker less and less, and the reaction of the common worker is to regard classism and become more entrenched in the idea that they are 'stuck' at thier station.
I realize it hasnt always been this way, but today- opportunity is what sets apart the poor from the wealthy.
Ooh jester. Are you becoming more left wing in your outlook? Education and opportunity as the right of every american regardless of their ability to pay?:sneaky:
I have become interested in the source of our American form of self-regulating market especially because of the catastrophe that has beset the world as a result of our failure to regulate this self-regulating market.
The source of our system is from the UK and I wanted to better understand the whole matter. Also I am certain that few Americans have any idea regarding how this system came about.
If you are famaliar with why these Poor Laws failed you might enligten us.
If you will excuse me answering in lace of rapunzel. they didn't fail things progressed. you're looking at a snapshot in time and it is not in context. The author of the article is leaping about across the centuries and not really making any coherent points. If you want to know how your American capitalist system came in to being and where a lot of the ideas came from that shaped your nation you need to have a better understanding of the enlightenment and what ideas led up to and came from it.
Adam Smith the Wealth of nations is regarded as the seminal work of capitalist theory, socialism also has the same roots and the terminology of adam smith is also the terminology of socialism. of the division of labour, capital and labour and class. It's kind of required reading in any study of the capitalist system, I would have thought it would be covered at least in general terms in any basic school history course or economics course never mind further education. It's where capitalism was given it's name. Some of his ideas would freak out some american commentators as socialist as he also argues that some things are too important to be left to private industry like education and welfare. It was written in 1776. Some of the references to the ameican colonies might interest you. The link i posted is to an online copy of the book. Despite the age it is actually quite readable although many of the references might be obscure to an american whereas we get taught european history as a matter of course.
The impact of the industrial revolution was felt in britain first because we to a large extent actually started it. Whether we were because of the societal structure we had-a burgeoning middle class with wealth and influence or because of the industrial revolution itself-cause and effect did one cause the other is something historians like to argue about. Our unique position as an island nation also played a part as we did not have resources diverted in to large standing armies but could put more resources in to weapons research that gave us an edge when it came to mass producing muskets and gunpowder and the like. Up until 1776 you were very much a part of it and many of the ideas come from that connection.
The self regulating market did not spring in to being one day in isolation from the world around it. What has happened in our time was because of a lack of regulation. It wasn't capitalism that failed rather state corporatism became the accepted credo and went away from a truly capitalist economic system. Self regulation is an aberration doomed to failure as it ignores the society around it and assumes it stands alone from society.
Actually reading over this. I have assumed you were referring to the economic system and not the welfare one that the reference to the poor laws might suggest. correct me if i am wrong.
posted by jester
Generally speaking I think the upper classes, the more wealthy, land owner equivalents for today, business owners/ employers, etc. forget benevolence towards the employees that helped them make it into being more wealthy. And the employees forget that 1. the opportunity in developed countries is there for them to move into being more wealthy by wisdom and hard work. 2. there are laws to protect them from 'lordship'.
Resentment builds between the welthy and common man when the common man forgets he has both protection and opportunity and the walthy forgets that its his workers that get him where he is.
It further builds down the line when the wealth is passed unto the next generation of wealthy without the next generation earning it, in general the subsequent generations of wealthy tend to regard the common worker less and less, and the reaction of the common worker is to regard classism and become more entrenched in the idea that they are 'stuck' at thier station.
I realize it hasnt always been this way, but today- opportunity is what sets apart the poor from the wealthy.
Ooh jester. Are you becoming more left wing in your outlook? Education and opportunity as the right of every american regardless of their ability to pay?:sneaky:
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
gmc;1153877 wrote: If you will excuse me answering in lace of rapunzel. they didn't fail things progressed. you're looking at a snapshot in time and it is not in context. The author of the article is leaping about across the centuries and not really making any coherent points. If you want to know how your American capitalist system came in to being and where a lot of the ideas came from that shaped your nation you need to have a better understanding of the enlightenment and what ideas led up to and came from it.
Thanks gmc
I studied history rather than economics, so your whole answer is far better and far more concise than any answer I could have given.
Thanks gmc
I studied history rather than economics, so your whole answer is far better and far more concise than any answer I could have given.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Jester;1154032 wrote: Ah friend, I didnt say education and opportunity by 'Right', I said by 'wisdom and hard work' opportunity is made! It looks like the UK will be going the same way as America Jester. We have had free further education but Labour want to make everyone pay for College and University. I'm all for it providing free scholarships are in place for those who earn a place through hard work.
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Jester;1154032 wrote: Ah friend, I didnt say education and opportunity by 'Right', I said by 'wisdom and hard work' opportunity is made!
But surely the crux of the matter is that education and access to it are so important to it for the general betterment of society it should not be left to chance but requires government action? To put it in perspective for you Scotland had the highest literacy rate in europe at this time. (1776 I mean) Education was free and open to all up to primary level (john knox and the Presbyterians everyone should be able to read the bible for themselves). and anyone who could pay could go further to secondary school and even attend lectures at the university, the emphasis was on as broad a scope as possible. If you ever wonder why there have been so many scots scientists and engineers that shaped the modern world that's the reason for it.
posted by jester
I realize it hasnt always been this way, but today- opportunity is what sets apart the poor from the wealthy.
If poverty prevents the child of poor parents getting a good education and restricts access to opportunity as a consequence how do you set about making a fairer society where a child isn't handicapped by being born in to a poor household? The poor are not all that way from choice-sometimes they just can't get put a rut. Even the tudors and stuarts recognised there was a difference between able bodied poor and vagrants.
Education is more than being able to read and write
posted by peter lake
It looks like the UK will be going the same way as America Jester. We have had free further education but Labour want to make everyone pay for College and University. I'm all for it providing free scholarships are in place for those who earn a place through hard work.
It's ironic isn't it? all those MP's not to mention a prime minister that benefited from state supported (it was never free tertiary education) now want to prevent the next generation getting the same advantage. You seem to be under the illusion you don't need qualifications any more to get to college or university. There is I think an over emphasis on the virtues of purely academic subjects- and things like drama and media studies are not "real" university subjects anyway IMO -best learned on the job. labour also fiddled the figures by changing the name to create more universities. They're a bunch of tossers.
Most of the great innovations and inventions have come not from applied "worthwhile " research but rather from people trying to find out things that interested them. Lasers must be one of the classic examples. There was no application in mind they were just experimenting to see what would happen, yet today they are everywhere.
You cannot put a value on things like education, it's priceless and to restrict access is to restrict opportunity and impoverish the society you live in. Arguably some of the problems we currently face stem from putting too much value on whether something can generate wealth as the sole measure of worth. Perhaps some things are so intrinsic to society they should be supported by society as a whole for that reason alone. (be it education or welfare). How you do it is of course a whole different argument.
But surely the crux of the matter is that education and access to it are so important to it for the general betterment of society it should not be left to chance but requires government action? To put it in perspective for you Scotland had the highest literacy rate in europe at this time. (1776 I mean) Education was free and open to all up to primary level (john knox and the Presbyterians everyone should be able to read the bible for themselves). and anyone who could pay could go further to secondary school and even attend lectures at the university, the emphasis was on as broad a scope as possible. If you ever wonder why there have been so many scots scientists and engineers that shaped the modern world that's the reason for it.
posted by jester
I realize it hasnt always been this way, but today- opportunity is what sets apart the poor from the wealthy.
If poverty prevents the child of poor parents getting a good education and restricts access to opportunity as a consequence how do you set about making a fairer society where a child isn't handicapped by being born in to a poor household? The poor are not all that way from choice-sometimes they just can't get put a rut. Even the tudors and stuarts recognised there was a difference between able bodied poor and vagrants.
Education is more than being able to read and write
posted by peter lake
It looks like the UK will be going the same way as America Jester. We have had free further education but Labour want to make everyone pay for College and University. I'm all for it providing free scholarships are in place for those who earn a place through hard work.
It's ironic isn't it? all those MP's not to mention a prime minister that benefited from state supported (it was never free tertiary education) now want to prevent the next generation getting the same advantage. You seem to be under the illusion you don't need qualifications any more to get to college or university. There is I think an over emphasis on the virtues of purely academic subjects- and things like drama and media studies are not "real" university subjects anyway IMO -best learned on the job. labour also fiddled the figures by changing the name to create more universities. They're a bunch of tossers.
Most of the great innovations and inventions have come not from applied "worthwhile " research but rather from people trying to find out things that interested them. Lasers must be one of the classic examples. There was no application in mind they were just experimenting to see what would happen, yet today they are everywhere.
You cannot put a value on things like education, it's priceless and to restrict access is to restrict opportunity and impoverish the society you live in. Arguably some of the problems we currently face stem from putting too much value on whether something can generate wealth as the sole measure of worth. Perhaps some things are so intrinsic to society they should be supported by society as a whole for that reason alone. (be it education or welfare). How you do it is of course a whole different argument.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Most of what you are talking about happened after the period of British history I know a bit about, but I'll chuck in my two pence worth on the off chance it'll stir someone up to correct me.
It was an early attempt to help the genuinely needy, but because the process of industrialisation was not really understood (I don't think the word "economics" even existed at the start of this period - they talked about the common wealth) and laws were made by the wealthy landowners who thought that poverty was a result of the laziness of the sufferers, the Poor Laws just didn't address the problems. They addressed the symptoms.
The idea seems to have been to encourage the poor to improve themselves, but the failure to realise that once you get below a certain point it is very difficult if not impossible to help yourself led to disaster, in for example, the case of the Irish famines at the end of the period referred to.
Self regulating systems ALWAYS seem to benefit the powerful at the expense of the poor. Hence the long running complaint that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
It was an early attempt to help the genuinely needy, but because the process of industrialisation was not really understood (I don't think the word "economics" even existed at the start of this period - they talked about the common wealth) and laws were made by the wealthy landowners who thought that poverty was a result of the laziness of the sufferers, the Poor Laws just didn't address the problems. They addressed the symptoms.
The idea seems to have been to encourage the poor to improve themselves, but the failure to realise that once you get below a certain point it is very difficult if not impossible to help yourself led to disaster, in for example, the case of the Irish famines at the end of the period referred to.
Self regulating systems ALWAYS seem to benefit the powerful at the expense of the poor. Hence the long running complaint that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
posted by clodhopper
Self regulating systems ALWAYS seem to benefit the powerful at the expense of the poor. Hence the long running complaint that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Funnily enough those most in favour of self regulation are usually the ones in industries that don't want anyone watching what they are doing and are in a position to rip people off or exploit them or a situation in some other way be it financial services or say a manufacturer that would prefer not to have to dump waste chemicals in a safe manner or follow safety protocols-all in the name of being able to maximise profit and make more jobs and benefit the economy and you must be anti-business if you would have it otherwise. Somehow they convince people that to question what's going on is somehow morally wrong.
Self regulating systems ALWAYS seem to benefit the powerful at the expense of the poor. Hence the long running complaint that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Funnily enough those most in favour of self regulation are usually the ones in industries that don't want anyone watching what they are doing and are in a position to rip people off or exploit them or a situation in some other way be it financial services or say a manufacturer that would prefer not to have to dump waste chemicals in a safe manner or follow safety protocols-all in the name of being able to maximise profit and make more jobs and benefit the economy and you must be anti-business if you would have it otherwise. Somehow they convince people that to question what's going on is somehow morally wrong.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
gmc: I suppose that's the big opportunity in the present financial crisis: We might be able to make big businesses and the self important creeps who run them more accountable. It's waaay overdue.
I reckon the Board of, say, Exxon might be a little more careful about tipping tankerloads of crude oil into the ocean if their personal fortunes were used to clean up the mess. Ok, I know it's not as simple as that, but I do like the idea.
I reckon the Board of, say, Exxon might be a little more careful about tipping tankerloads of crude oil into the ocean if their personal fortunes were used to clean up the mess. Ok, I know it's not as simple as that, but I do like the idea.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
Clodhopper;1154382 wrote: gmc: I suppose that's the big opportunity in the present financial crisis: We might be able to make big businesses and the self important creeps who run them more accountable. It's waaay overdue.
I reckon the Board of, say, Exxon might be a little more careful about tipping tankerloads of crude oil into the ocean if their personal fortunes were used to clean up the mess. Ok, I know it's not as simple as that, but I do like the idea.
We could at least take steps to ensure they lose their pension etc if they render a company bankrupt.
I reckon the Board of, say, Exxon might be a little more careful about tipping tankerloads of crude oil into the ocean if their personal fortunes were used to clean up the mess. Ok, I know it's not as simple as that, but I do like the idea.
We could at least take steps to ensure they lose their pension etc if they render a company bankrupt.
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
How did the “Poor Law†became a poor law for the poor?
We could at least take steps to ensure they lose their pension etc if they render a company bankrupt.
gmc: Seems that might be on the cards, if the threatening noises coming out of Westminister mean anything in this case. It's hard to tell.
But there is the opportunity to put in place a better system now, and at least Brown and Obama both seem to recognise it. Whether they can actually DO it...ah. Hope so...
gmc: Seems that might be on the cards, if the threatening noises coming out of Westminister mean anything in this case. It's hard to tell.
But there is the opportunity to put in place a better system now, and at least Brown and Obama both seem to recognise it. Whether they can actually DO it...ah. Hope so...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."