4 ms·

I guess I'm an old fashioned US citizen and resist your sentiment. I'm of the opinion that if you grab a random adult, inspect them, ask them about their lives

I guess I'm an old fashioned US citizen and resist your sentiment. I'm of the opinion that if you grab a random adult, inspect them, ask them about their lives, look at their health, abilities, check out their finances, family, and all the rest - then you'll come to the conclusion that, for the vast majority, they themselves are best able to take care of themselves. "Our civilization needs to take care of everyone" is simply impossible when there's a disaster and people are on their own. If our opening bid is "we (civilization) will take care of you, <random capable adult>", then I believe we set people up to be helpless when they are stranded. It's presupposed weakness. Conversely, when people have freedom to make their own choices on how they conduct their lives, those self-support muscles and brains are strengthened. It's agency, it's people power. What is a challenge for me with this philosophy is, how should we then help legitimately disadvantaged, sick, threatened people in society to survive and thrive if we assume most people can take care of themselves? At the bottom, obviously there are street urchins who are not cute and do need saving. Perhaps the social safety net needs to be retooled to apply the most intense resources at the very bottom and then trail off rapidly such that resources are not spread too thin. This might focus the drive of capable, healthy individuals to take care of themselves as government service offerings would supply an uncomfortable/barely tolerable living. People in real dire straits, like the homeless, need the most resources in my opinion. Homelessness should be declared illegal so that civil liberties aren't an issue when we force these people to work or become wards of the state if they are not capable. I don't understand the freedom arguments in favor of the homeless; I would argue purely from a public health standpoint we (civilization) have the right force these people out of their predicament.

projektir 10y ago
It's best for a person to take care of themselves, but it's foolish to expect that when they never got the resources, whether that's financial, mental, educational... > Homelessness should be declared illegal so that civil liberties aren't an issue when we force these people to work or become wards of the state if they are not capable. I think that's called slavery. That seems like the direct opposite of giving people agency and, if anything, the attitude that created all these problems in the first place. USSR tried outlawing homelessness at one point, I think, but there wasn't exactly a job shortage or someone trying to make money off of the desperate.
- EdSharkey 10y ago
  > I think that's called slavery. That seems like the direct opposite of giving people agency and, if anything, the attitude that created all these problems in the first place. People aren't given agency by other people, they're born with it. Agency can be denied a person though, especially when they break serious-enough laws. That's all I'm talking about. Now I just need to convince enough people to agree with me that scoffing the "must live in a domicile" law dips into the felony range of crimes. I contend it's not humane to allow people to live on the street. It's in no one's interest for people in the community to live dangerously like that. Depending on the person's situation, a break from their downward spiral might set them on a path back upward. There's no guarantee the individual will be helped by incarceration, but it's needed for the health of the community. And incarceration due to homelessness wouldn't be permanent, they didn't murder anyone by sleeping on the street. Obviously, jailing a person for homelessness doesn't fit the crime, too. Case workers would have to decide what to do with people depending on their situation. Return them to their family? Send them to a workhouse to do their time on the farm? Put them in a home to get medical or mental care? I think this is where the social safety net needs the $$$ concentration. You think the prison industrial complex shouldn't extend to the homeless? Ok, let's write the laws that way: every dollar a person earns at a workhouse goes to them once they leave the house.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Agency is an illusion of our neurology. Our thoughts and actions are determined (or at least constrained within a small set of random possibilities) at any given moment by our genetics and our past environment.
    - EdSharkey 10y ago
      I agree, I cannot find weakness in your arguments. I wish I could upvote you more than once. :) "Illusion" strikes me as having a negative connotation, though. Could we say "Agency is the result of computation in our neurons" instead? We run simulations in our sleep to solve for problems we encountered the previous day. We're simulating things all the time with our computers. We're not mindless automata, I'm sure. Although 'mind' could just be explained by the small set of random possibilities you refer to. But, I suspect that because I can ponder about what you've written and not segfault and die means I'm not mindless.

projektir 10y ago

It's best for a person to take care of themselves, but it's foolish to expect that when they never got the resources, whether that's financial, mental, educational... > Homelessness should be declared illegal so that civil liberties aren't an issue when we force these people to work or become wards of the state if they are not capable. I think that's called slavery. That seems like the direct opposite of giving people agency and, if anything, the attitude that created all these problems in the first place. USSR tried outlawing homelessness at one point, I think, but there wasn't exactly a job shortage or someone trying to make money off of the desperate.

EdSharkey 10y ago
> I think that's called slavery. That seems like the direct opposite of giving people agency and, if anything, the attitude that created all these problems in the first place. People aren't given agency by other people, they're born with it. Agency can be denied a person though, especially when they break serious-enough laws. That's all I'm talking about. Now I just need to convince enough people to agree with me that scoffing the "must live in a domicile" law dips into the felony range of crimes. I contend it's not humane to allow people to live on the street. It's in no one's interest for people in the community to live dangerously like that. Depending on the person's situation, a break from their downward spiral might set them on a path back upward. There's no guarantee the individual will be helped by incarceration, but it's needed for the health of the community. And incarceration due to homelessness wouldn't be permanent, they didn't murder anyone by sleeping on the street. Obviously, jailing a person for homelessness doesn't fit the crime, too. Case workers would have to decide what to do with people depending on their situation. Return them to their family? Send them to a workhouse to do their time on the farm? Put them in a home to get medical or mental care? I think this is where the social safety net needs the $$$ concentration. You think the prison industrial complex shouldn't extend to the homeless? Ok, let's write the laws that way: every dollar a person earns at a workhouse goes to them once they leave the house.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Agency is an illusion of our neurology. Our thoughts and actions are determined (or at least constrained within a small set of random possibilities) at any given moment by our genetics and our past environment.
  - EdSharkey 10y ago
    I agree, I cannot find weakness in your arguments. I wish I could upvote you more than once. :) "Illusion" strikes me as having a negative connotation, though. Could we say "Agency is the result of computation in our neurons" instead? We run simulations in our sleep to solve for problems we encountered the previous day. We're simulating things all the time with our computers. We're not mindless automata, I'm sure. Although 'mind' could just be explained by the small set of random possibilities you refer to. But, I suspect that because I can ponder about what you've written and not segfault and die means I'm not mindless.