Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday May 21 2018, @08:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the richest-country-in-the-world dept.

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html

"Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."

The figure includes the 16.1 million households living in poverty, as well as the 34.7 million families that the United Way has dubbed ALICE -- Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. This group makes less than what's needed "to survive in the modern economy."

"Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem," said Stephanie Hoopes, the project's director.

California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.

Many of these folks are the nation's child care workers, home health aides, office assistants and store clerks, who work low-paying jobs and have little savings, the study noted. Some 66% of jobs in the US pay less than $20 an hour.

See also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @04:29PM (29 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @04:29PM (#682248)

    i dont have the family you speak of anymore, and would like for a safety net to exist should i be unable to work. pensions are gone, but badly managed 401ks still offer some hope.

    but you did not discuss how to get other people better families, you guys drifted from the 'because i was born better than you i dont want you to have free hand outs from the government that isnt your mom' to something else.

    i was hoping to hear why basic scraping the bottom minimums to keep a guy from losing everything after he lost his family and the government isnt supposed to replace them... are somehow bad.

    ill try to be better looking when i am recinarnated. maybe that will help. it helps for endangered creatures when they are cute, right?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @04:35PM (10 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday May 21 2018, @04:35PM (#682253) Journal

    He's not really about freedom. Not in the larger sense, and not in the final analysis. He's about *his* freedom to do what *he* wants and to Hell with the rest of society. I'm somewhere between puzzled and maddened that so few people can see this. The guy's so completely self-centered he's become a human Mobius strip.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @05:12PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @05:12PM (#682272)

      I think plenty of people see TMBs scummy self-centered nature, but on the flip side he has a LOT of compadres. These are people angry that the American Dream has failed them, and you can even see it with TMB who pretends he is a super successful self-made man yet he lives with a roommate who also has occasional kids. Unless he's that pathetically lonely then he's just another loud mouthed braggart trying to cover his own insecurities.

      Anyway, yeah these people are incredibly selfish and narrow minded with the unfortunate need to be the loudest in the room.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday May 21 2018, @05:18PM (#682276) Journal

        I wish more people would get up his beak about it, though. Anyone *that* full of shit ought to squelch when he walks...

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:46AM

          by dry (223) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:46AM (#682530) Journal

          It quickly becomes frustrating, like banging your head on a wall. The only way he might change is through a life altering event and even then he is so set in his ways and so sure they're right...

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Monday May 21 2018, @05:36PM (5 children)

      by NewNic (6420) on Monday May 21 2018, @05:36PM (#682284) Journal

      The central theme of his posting history is "I've got mine, screw you".

      The hilarious part of it is that he actually thinks he is successful in life, whereas he has almost completely failed. He has nothing to show for his years. When he dies, who will mourn him?

      He has described periods of his life when he did not work, I wonder how much he leached off the state during that time.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @08:16PM (1 child)

        You wish, sweety. I take care of the folks I give a damn about when they need a hand. I won't have you fuckwad progressives telling me I'm morally obligated to work to support people I've never met though. I don't wish those folks ill. You guys though? May you be ass-raped by a cactus with herpes.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday May 21 2018, @08:47PM

          by NewNic (6420) on Monday May 21 2018, @08:47PM (#682380) Journal

          You wish, sweety. I take care of the folks I give a damn about when they need a hand. I won't have you fuckwad progressives telling me I'm morally obligated to work to support people I've never met though.

          In denial much? Your statement is the very essence of "I've got mine, screw you".

          I don't know if you are Christian, but if you are, you might like to review this page and ponder on whether any of these encouraged people to only help those people one knows:
          https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-helping-others/ [biblestudytools.com]

          --
          lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:22AM (2 children)

        by ChrisMaple (6964) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:22AM (#682488)

        Conservatives: I want more, so I'll earn it. Liberals: I want more, so I'll have the government steal it for me.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:52AM (1 child)

          by dry (223) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:52AM (#682531) Journal

          In my experience with conservatives, its more like, I want more so I'll rip some people off. They're the hardest ones to get to pay their bills even though they can usually afford it and they're very good at rationalizing why they don't need to pay their way.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @09:23AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @09:23AM (#682581)

            And in my experience Republicans are by far the CHEAPEST. They don't want to pay for anything they don't have to, unless they are schmoozing their way up the social ladder and don't want people badmouthing them so they plateau at a certain tier.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @10:19PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 21 2018, @10:19PM (#682416) Journal

      He's not really about freedom. Not in the larger sense, and not in the final analysis. He's about *his* freedom to do what *he* wants and to Hell with the rest of society.

      Even if that were true, that's the standard state for humanity. We should instead consider the real question, "Is he harming someone with his selfishness?" I believe the answer would be no.

      I'm somewhere between puzzled and maddened that so few people can see this.

      Well most people are blinded to some degree by ideology and emotion. But it doesn't all blind in the same way. So of course, their blindness doesn't cause them to see what your blindness causes you to see.

      I think it's a reasonable request in these threads to forgo the phony, moral signaling and instead explain, plainly as you can and with sufficient backing - evidence or reasoning, why there is harm and what sort of behaviors would make that better. TMB's first post makes a good point. There is no end to what is considered "needed" for a poor family. No one ever came up with a serious rebuttal to that, it just all slid eventually into thread detours like this one speaking of TMB's alleged selfishness.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @08:09PM (17 children)

    Because the government has to steal it from me to give it to you. When I work, I work for myself and those I give a damn about. I do not work for some shitstain who can't figure out how to live or doesn't want to work and is demanding comfort be handed to them. If they offered anything of value to society, society would be rewarding them for it in the form of a paycheck. Instead they suck the blood from society and give nothing in return but hatred and violence. They are parasites.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday May 21 2018, @08:49PM (13 children)

      by NewNic (6420) on Monday May 21 2018, @08:49PM (#682383) Journal

      IOW, "I've got mine, screw you".

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @10:32PM (12 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 21 2018, @10:32PM (#682422) Journal
        You're missing nuance. What TMB did to "get his" could be repeated by most of these people. If they didn't do that, then it indicates they didn't want wealth, success, whatever enough to try for it. It is at that point, we say "screw them". If they didn't want that stuff enough to try for it, I'm not going to want it for them either.

        I get that you and many others feel most poverty is due to forces beyond the victims' control rather than the usual suspects like drug abuse, financial incompetence, sloth, and bad attitude. We just don't agree with you on that.
        • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday May 22 2018, @10:41AM (11 children)

          by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @10:41AM (#682593) Homepage Journal

          OK khallow, looks like you've found the crux of the disagreement, so this definitely needs further examination by those interested.

          What TMB did to "get his" could be repeated by most of these people.

          I very much doubt that "most" is accurate here. "Some", certainly, but "most" seems highly unlikely. Even if "most" is accurate, it's that desperate few others that want to and simply can't that really need help on compassionate grounds. Where the two camps differ is whether they have sufficient empathy for that group to justify acting in their aid.

          It is at that point, we say "screw them". If they didn't want that stuff enough to try for it, I'm not going to want it for them either.

          Trying is very much not the same thing as succeeding. Where you're going wrong is assuming that everyone has potential that at least equals TMB. People have genetic differences and different backgrounds. There absolutely is not equality of opporunity. Many are born into holes so deep, they'll never climb out even if they scramble up their whole life.

          I get that you and many others feel most poverty is due to forces beyond the victims' control rather than the usual suspects like drug abuse, financial incompetence, sloth, and bad attitude.

          It doesn't have to be most poverty. The point is, giving basic help to all the poor ensures that the few that really are broken (I think you already acknowledged their existence) get the lifesaving aid they so desperately need, without impacting the haves very significantly at all as a percentage of income.

          On a tangentially related point, it's arguable to what to degree each of your examples of drug abuse, financial incompetence, sloth and bad attitude, are under the victim's control. Typically, each of these characteristics will have been shaped by external environment in combination with genetics. Hell, I'm not even sure free will exists in any meaningful sense.

          We just don't agree with you on that.

          What we don't agree on is whether people that repeatedly make bad choices deserve to suffer (in the extreme, to the point of starvation, hypothermia and death, or jail if they can stomach resorting to crime).

          --
          If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 22 2018, @12:39PM (10 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 22 2018, @12:39PM (#682614) Journal

            I very much doubt that "most" is accurate here. "Some", certainly, but "most" seems highly unlikely. Even if "most" is accurate, it's that desperate few others that want to and simply can't that really need help on compassionate grounds. Where the two camps differ is whether they have sufficient empathy for that group to justify acting in their aid.

            I'd put it above 90%. Most people in the US have it figured out well enough to get by. Even the dumb ones.

            Trying is very much not the same thing as succeeding. Where you're going wrong is assuming that everyone has potential that at least equals TMB. People have genetic differences and different backgrounds. There absolutely is not equality of opporunity. Many are born into holes so deep, they'll never climb out even if they scramble up their whole life.

            So what? It's not that hard and you can try more than once. Sure, this is a comfortable myth that rationalizes your nanny impulses.

            It doesn't have to be most poverty. The point is, giving basic help to all the poor ensures that the few that really are broken (I think you already acknowledged their existence) get the lifesaving aid they so desperately need, without impacting the haves very significantly at all as a percentage of income.

            Or we could just give the help to the ones who need it.

            On a tangentially related point, it's arguable to what to degree each of your examples of drug abuse, financial incompetence, sloth and bad attitude, are under the victim's control. Typically, each of these characteristics will have been shaped by external environment in combination with genetics. Hell, I'm not even sure free will exists in any meaningful sense.

            As I've noted before, everything is arguable, no matter how tenuous their connection to reality. You can "argue" these things, but there's not much point to doing so.

            What we don't agree on is whether people that repeatedly make bad choices deserve to suffer (in the extreme, to the point of starvation, hypothermia and death, or jail if they can stomach resorting to crime).

            Why do you say that? For example, if I go into remote wilderness unprepared then all those things (aside from jail) are quite possible. Further, it's a rather predictable consequence. At that point, it goes beyond merely being deserved to getting what you want. If you don't want starvation, hypothermia, death, etc, then make better choices. Finally, there's the cost to society, if they try to bail me out. The rescue effort could kill more people than were at risk in the first place.

            Second, we ignore here the peculiar economic concept of "moral hazard". It's the idea that if you reduce the negative consequences from a behavior, then you get more of the behavior. But repeatedly bailing out people who routinely make bad decisions is not something I think should be encouraged, even if they suffer a bit as a result.

            It works in reverse too, but I'm not so enamored of preventing bad behavior that I want to make it artificially onerous. It's its own reward. So no bailing people out when they smoke and drink their wages instead of saving it. But similarly, no sin taxes or war on drugs to make the burden on those people artificially high.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:04PM (9 children)

              by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:04PM (#682618) Homepage Journal

              I'd put it above 90%. Most people in the US have it figured out well enough to get by. Even the dumb ones.

              Often the ones that don't (e.g. homeless) drop completely off the radar as politicians and media like to ignore them (unless they become criminals).

              Or we could just give the help to the ones who need it.

              That involves the implementation of some kind of assessment process that typically winds up costing a similar amount to just giving a baseline safety net to all of the unemployed / poor. And worse, it's almost impossible for any such assessment process to be completely fair. Either some of those that don't "deserve" help get it, or some that desperately need it perish without it. The more compassionate option of the two in a prosperous, civilized society is the first one.

              As I've noted before, everything is arguable, no matter how tenuous their connection to reality. You can "argue" these things, but there's not much point to doing so.

              That maybe so for some arguments but I don't think that applies to what I said. What you called "sloth" can be a symptom of other problems such as depression due to the hopeless situation these people are already in. Financial incompetence can be due to a lack of intelligence combined with poor education and they may not even realize that it's a problem that needs fixing. There are plenty of people in such situations that desperately want to be out of them. I don't think your suggestion that they simply keep trying will work. It works for some people, but over a population of millions there will always be some hard luck or broken cases.

              Why do you say that? For example, if I go into remote wilderness unprepared then all those things (aside from jail) are quite possible. Further, it's a rather predictable consequence. At that point, it goes beyond merely being deserved to getting what you want. If you don't want starvation, hypothermia, death, etc, then make better choices. Finally, there's the cost to society, if they try to bail me out. The rescue effort could kill more people than were at risk in the first place.

              Second, we ignore here the peculiar economic concept of "moral hazard". It's the idea that if you reduce the negative consequences from a behavior, then you get more of the behavior. But repeatedly bailing out people who routinely make bad decisions is not something I think should be encouraged, even if they suffer a bit as a result.

              I'm certainly not suggesting that there should be no downsides to making bad decisions. I don't think many other people would think that either, even commies. It's really a question of what degree of suffering and harm is considered tolerable in society. That's where your camp and my camp disagree. I think there should always be a baseline level of help, that people can refuse if they wish, to prevent starvation and death. You do not and neither does Mr. Buzzard.

              --
              If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:54PM (5 children)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:54PM (#682759) Journal

                I want to thank you for fighting the good fight here. This site is infested with gibbertarian shitheads who think "fuck you, I got mine" is in the Gospel somewhere, and it's nice to know I'm not the only one pushing back. You're articulate, humane, and most importantly correct :)

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:16PM (4 children)

                  by acid andy (1683) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:16PM (#682766) Homepage Journal

                  Thanks Azuma. :) It gives my gray matter a bit of a workout and I'm genuinely fascinated by what chain of reasoning makes these Soylentils tick. It might help to uncover something about just how fucked up human civilization seems to be right now, why, and even how to fix it. If a single thing written on here helps someone else, so much the better as well.

                  The funniest thing of all about it is that I used to think my politics was slightly right of center. Then the western world seemed to totally lose the plot.

                  --
                  If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:35PM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:35PM (#682771) Journal

                    It's not complicated, what makes them tick. It's simple, half-unconscious selfishness, and that informs everything they say and do. They like to pretend they're coming at this from a principled position and that their politics are the end result of research and thorough thought experiments, but it's clear as daylight they came to a conclusion first and are now bending reality around that conclusion to maintain it.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:22AM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:22AM (#682860) Journal

                    It gives my gray matter a bit of a workout and I'm genuinely fascinated by what chain of reasoning makes these Soylentils tick.

                    The funny thing is that I don't have the same problems figuring you out. Maybe someone ought to think about that.

                    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday May 23 2018, @11:38AM (1 child)

                      by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday May 23 2018, @11:38AM (#683057) Homepage Journal

                      The funny thing is that I don't have the same problems figuring you out. Maybe someone ought to think about that.

                      Oh khallow, it's awfully polite of you not to mention what you concluded.

                      --
                      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:19AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:19AM (#683368) Journal

                        Oh khallow, it's awfully polite of you not to mention what you concluded.

                        Indeed. But moving on with my polite but acidic insinuation, there is this pattern where some people have all sorts of trouble figuring out other people who have a worldview sufficiently different that disagreement occurs. It'd probably help, if they actually listened every once in a while.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:09AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:09AM (#682857) Journal

                Often the ones that don't (e.g. homeless)

                The number of homeless is around 0.5%. You'll need to find twenty more such groups just as big in order to get to 10%.

                drop completely off the radar

                The US Census does a pretty good job of finding them. They aren't that invisible.

                That involves the implementation of some kind of assessment process that typically winds up costing a similar amount to just giving a baseline safety net to all of the unemployed / poor.

                But it has the virtue of giving help only to those who need it. I used to be interested in UBI (universal basic income) and such. But I've never heard a good argument for it aside from the supposed low bureaucratic overhead. US Social Security is a similar program, basically a modest UBI for old people, but it's so poorly implemented that it's a looming, fiscal disaster (though not the most looming of such US programs, that goes to Medicare).

                It's really a question of what degree of suffering and harm is considered tolerable in society.

                It's also a question of how much suffering you are willing to cause in order to ease that suffering. These programs are not zero cost. They have substantial trade offs. I can't take someone seriously who claims to care about compassion and suffering, yet can't be bothered to care about the suffering that their proposed policies cause.

                People like TMB care in the first place because these policies harm them. That sort of selfishness is universally recognized in democracies, consider such examples as the right to self-defense or the right to protest for causes you support. I think it's time to consider their suffering rather than the few worst humans of society.

                • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:08PM (1 child)

                  by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:08PM (#683074) Homepage Journal

                  The number of homeless is around 0.5%. You'll need to find twenty more such groups just as big in order to get to 10%.

                  The US Census does a pretty good job of finding them. They aren't that invisible.

                  It's a hard statistic to estimate. Those that aren't in shelters generally don't fill in forms or stand and be counted. Either way, we have drifted from the original point:

                  What TMB did to "get his" could be repeated by most of these people.

                  I took "these" people to mean the poor, which would mostly intersect with the unemployed, though some in employment are as poor. I did not take it to mean the entire US population. The 90% figure was yours, not mine.

                  But it has the virtue of giving help only to those who need it. I used to be interested in UBI (universal basic income) and such. But I've never heard a good argument for it aside from the supposed low bureaucratic overhead. US Social Security is a similar program, basically a modest UBI for old people, but it's so poorly implemented that it's a looming, fiscal disaster (though not the most looming of such US programs, that goes to Medicare).

                  At least we both seem to acknowledge that there are people that do need help and hopefully both agree that they should be given it. This last point is a view I don't think TMB shares what with his apparent social Darwinianism. We can quibble over how many need help and how the help should be metered out. My position is generally that the help must not be abolished and a catch-all is always morally better than letting people die even if they're fewer than one million.

                  It's also a question of how much suffering you are willing to cause in order to ease that suffering. These programs are not zero cost. They have substantial trade offs.

                  Until your stated suffering approaches the intensity of starvation or hypothermia, or significantly affects an overwhelming majority of the entire population, I'm not interested.

                  --
                  If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:24AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:24AM (#683370) Journal

                    Those that aren't in shelters generally don't fill in forms or stand and be counted.

                    Unless they do.

                    I took "these" people to mean the poor, which would mostly intersect with the unemployed, though some in employment are as poor.

                    You're still not to 90%.

                    My position is generally that the help must not be abolished and a catch-all is always morally better than letting people die even if they're fewer than one million.

                    Unless, of course, it hurts more people than it helps.

                    Until your stated suffering approaches the intensity of starvation or hypothermia, or significantly affects an overwhelming majority of the entire population, I'm not interested.

                    What do you think making people poorer does in the first place? That already is the primary metric you've cited for causing suffering in the first place.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:38PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:38PM (#682401)

      You are a small red stick.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:18PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:18PM (#682444)

        A Baton Rouge, so to speak. Not helping is harming. Let me show you on the doll where the little red stick didn't touch me.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @05:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @05:22AM (#682536)

      They [the poor] are parasites.

      There are parasites in our society, but they are the rich not the poor. The rich parasites skim off the value created by the folks who actually perform work. They scheme to pay the workers as little as they can get away with, and keep the remainder for themselves without working for it. Parasites!

      But, you might protest that the rich have earned their positions of power and wealth. No, the vast majority simply inherited these. And, if you go back far enough, their great, great... great ancestors stole their wealth.

      When those ancestors lived, there was no private property. Everything was held in common. Nobody had to beg a rich parasite for his leavings to survive. The ancestors of today's rich parasites had to both steal "their" property from the commons, and had to force the peasants to work for them both with simple force, and by preventing access to the resources that had previously been held in common by all.

      Recommended reading:
      What is Property? - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
      https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen [theanarchistlibrary.org]