3 ms·

What would you suggest? Homelessness is not a punishment society forces onto people. It's an issue for all of society and affects everyone. Pointing fingers and

by sinker 8y ago

What would you suggest? Homelessness is not a punishment society forces onto people. It's an issue for all of society and affects everyone. Pointing fingers and shunning and saying that these people are worthless and deserve everything that get, even if true, isn't a solution to the issue. It seems that if it were possible you would prefer to just eradicate every homeless person out there. Of course that's not possible, so realistic solutions have to be tried. In a sense the vast majority of us are a drain on society at small and large. The people doing the work of growing food, maintaining and building infrastructure, providing medical care, pursuing scientific advancement are a small number. My sense is that most people living in developed countries are doing so on the backs of others. It's easy to point at homeless and say they need to "earn their way," but did we really "earn" that car or earn that house. Did you "earn" your vaccinations. In the sense that you purchased it, did you earn it. How much did sitting in an office or stacking bricks or breaking concrete go towards actually earning the invention of that piston engine or the discovery of the measles vaccine? How much does the effort of sitting in a cubicle translate to the effort of constructing a house or growing a garden. Very little anyone possesses is individually earned. We're all profitting from centuries of technology and advancement we had no part in. The humane thing to do is share what we did not reap with people less advantaged. So as long as there are societies there will always be people living on the fringes of those societies. There will always be elderly, babies, children, criminals, mentally ill, physically handicapped, low income earners, etc. Nonetheless those people are also apart of society. Supporting people on the fringe is an act society does to support itself.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
The solution is to end social welfare programs, institute anti-vagrancy laws that force the drug addicts to work for a living, and end illegal immigration to create jobs for unskilled legal residents. There will still be aid to the poor, but it will be in the form of charity, which is more sensitive to those abusing the aid. Ending all unconditional government safety nets will undoubtedly cause more suffering for the poor in the short run. But in the long run, it means fewer single women having childen that they need government aid to support (welfare is a major contributor to increasing rates of single parenthood), and who are far more likely to end up in poverty as adults. It also means fewer people who are able-bodied becoming a drain on society from a life of irresponsibility (partying with their friends while living on welfare). Forcing a structure and discipline on these people's lives is in the interest of society, because it means they become contributors to the economy instead of a drain. The long term effect of a more efficient economy is a substantially higher standard of living for all classes, including the poor. There are countries in the world that have much lower levels of homelessness and drug-abuse, and much higher rates of economic growth, than the US. You're pretending there is no alternative to the current path except genocide (which you accuse me of supporting), and that's very disingenuous.

by sinker 8y ago

CryptoPunk 8y ago

The solution is to end social welfare programs, institute anti-vagrancy laws that force the drug addicts to work for a living, and end illegal immigration to create jobs for unskilled legal residents. There will still be aid to the poor, but it will be in the form of charity, which is more sensitive to those abusing the aid. Ending all unconditional government safety nets will undoubtedly cause more suffering for the poor in the short run. But in the long run, it means fewer single women having childen that they need government aid to support (welfare is a major contributor to increasing rates of single parenthood), and who are far more likely to end up in poverty as adults. It also means fewer people who are able-bodied becoming a drain on society from a life of irresponsibility (partying with their friends while living on welfare). Forcing a structure and discipline on these people's lives is in the interest of society, because it means they become contributors to the economy instead of a drain. The long term effect of a more efficient economy is a substantially higher standard of living for all classes, including the poor. There are countries in the world that have much lower levels of homelessness and drug-abuse, and much higher rates of economic growth, than the US. You're pretending there is no alternative to the current path except genocide (which you accuse me of supporting), and that's very disingenuous.