ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- www.ted.com Robert Neuwirth, author of Shadow Cities, finds the worlds squatter sites -- where a billion people now make their homes -- to be thriving centers of ingenuity and innovation. He takes us on a tour.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers are invited to give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes -- including speakers such as Jill Bolte Taylor, Sir Ken Robinson, Hans Rosling, Al Gore and Arthur Benjamin. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, and Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, politics and the arts. Watch the Top 10 TEDTalks on TED.com, at
www.ted.com/ind...
He makes a case for how these people are able to live, prosper, and experience freedom- all without government.
Then at the end he makes some magical jump that somehow government is going to make things even better. It's completely non sequitur.
His argument is government and outside help can augment their lives. Same with what you just said. It makes complete sense to me.
And by the way, tenants (renters) in the U.S. have only 30 days "guarantee" they won't be evicted. Landlords can and often do throw them out at will for no cause and then keep their security deposit and cost them huge inconvenience and cost. Tenants have almost no rights because of this. This is happening to someone I personally know as I type this - being thrown out in selfish retaliation because he was injured and is unable to return to work for the landlord in spite of paying rent on time.
Thank you for this view of a different reality . . .
I am no talking about the government selling or distributing the produce. I am talking about the workers receiving all the profit that they generate rather than land owners skimming some off for themselves despite not have done any work. The function of the state would be to designate which areas are to be used for which purposes - growing cereals, raising livestock, etc. I am not against a free market I am against financial elitism based on the false premise of land ownership...
I see. I guess the issue I have with abandonment of property rights is, what if you're farming a stretch of land next to a river to feed your family, and someone comes along, puts his goats there, and they eat all your crops. Let's assume that the population is dense and you don't have many choices if you want to grow close to where you live. Was he wrong to put his goats in your field? By what authority was he wrong? If no one owns the land, sucks for you, you don't have any rights.
well done
Thank you
It is both sad and inspiring to see this talk. Freedom and security is worth living in squalor. He did not address the safety of living in these slums. The crime or corruption.
People opting out of one society to form another.. But is it better? He did not show even one school. Maybe I'll read the book as suggested.
Somebody tell him that his hair fell down his shirt
There we go. It kept freezing on the damn Ted site.
Sorry, but this guy needs to approach this differently. Just because these towns have the "ability" to grow and develop allows us to turn a blind eye to the ridiculously poor quality of life there?? Whatever. He should have focused more on how to improve them, rather than "they can improve".
The trend of migration into urban areas and squatting alongside are growing across the world. These squat communities are beginning to gain a greater voice in government and society. The proposed solutions should center around legal recognition of them along w/ no government intrusion when such communities have provided affordable housing for many along w/ opportunities to enter the urban areas.
The people who work on the land to produce food or procure mineral resources are not the ones who benefit the most from the work they do. The land owners benefit purely on the basis of owning the piece of land. If the land is owned by a democratically run state then the produce is generated for the betterment of the society as a whole rather than the bank accounts of the supposed land owners...
NICE
yes*indeed, where lies the greatest adversity, rest the highest potential for growth and wonderment, unbounded beauty, creativity and unexpected change, will always arise from what man or nature oppresses and challenges the most . . .
Such is the nature and history of life . . .
"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but rather the one most responsive to change."
~ Charles Darwin
Truth be told is truth to behold . . .
BL*M
@TheMost Eccentric
You are talking about anarchy. Taking the concept too far.
Basically instead of corporate owners monopolizing large amounts of land for their own profit it would be those actively living on and working the land who have all the rights. The concept of holdings and rent would no longer exist. If you want to build a store you get a permit and have all the rights of the land, but you do not need to buy or lease it.
What few know is that the reason these communities exist is because of the society standards we have collectively allowed to be foisted upon us. So many believe they are better somehow and have been conditioned to believe that they are "middle class" when in truth they are one paycheck away from homelessness themselves.
When they lose their good career or job and have debt and then poor credit and then can not find another job or place to live BECAUSE of poor credit they too will be THERE!
State ownership made the Russians wait in lines for bread. Private ownership gave us bread waiting in lines for us. Everyone benefits from the elements of competition and voluntarism that capitalism offers. Do you own the computer you use? If you don't, I'll bet you wish you did.
What, like zoning? When city governments do it, they create ghettos and increase automobile dependency. I don't even want to know what happens when an entire state, let alone national government authority, does it!
What's wrong with letting people determine how to use their own land? You sound pretty badly against the free market to me. You say that a family or a business owning some land is based on a false premise, but a government owning it all is natural and okay?
"different reality"? Ah fuck.
lol but more likly brake the world give me all the power in the world i mite be able to fix this mess we are getting into first thing ill do cash gone that just the start lol reform school reform work reform the ways of living i would first take the no jobs people go over what their can do and what their cant do and then see how smart their are and then we put them to work all people will be well trained to be what their can all working meaning more time for funn all helping others controlling
Democratic decision making processes create winners and losers and cannot lead to a truly egalitarian society. No political system can. But elaborate on how evil results from "property rights" but not "common ownership".
this is fake
Property rights always work. What he describes is obviously not property rights but politicians making people go into debt for what is already their property which they clearly homesteaded. Would it kill people to make proper distinctions?
Otherwise, the presentation was very interesting.
"Commie nutbags"?
Go away...
the populations. no fat people or lazy people or greed people cleaner living + making the world a better best no power mad people.. he and the people that makes this happen will be reminder for all time there be no need for care home as we know them today people well die of old age have kids when their want not when their do not lol who should i tell or who well help
Land ownership is based on a false premise. Who owned the land in the first place. No one. Now that all land is owned by someone people who do not own land cannot claim any for themselves. There is inequality inherent in this system. A few people in the past were allowed to claim land for themselves usually by forcing other people off the land at gun point but now there is no more land to claim. The whole concept is based on the domination of other people by a powerful few and that is unfair...
Why are you talking about city planning? That is another conversation entirely. In any case ghettos are the result of people not being able to afford decent housing. Another product of land ownership.
I am not talking about government owning the land. I am talking about the whole concept of land ownership being done away with. The hypothetical family you speak off require money to buy the land in the first place but who has the right to take that money? Who owned the land in the first place?