5 ms·

I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a mo

by blunte 7y ago

I find it fascinating that it seems so many people are against (sometimes vehemently) against others getting free food and shelter. There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.

throaway1990 7y ago
that's impossible, all 5 levels? Forget it
- thepete2 7y ago
  I recall that level 5 (self actualization) is something only 2% of people achieve currently.
  - gbjw 7y ago
    Does Gallup do that survey? ('Are you self-actualized?') I suspect you're joking, but the notion that self-actualization can be measured with percentage points is a perversion of the term.
fragsworth 7y ago
I think the fear some people have is that if everyone has free food and shelter, we'll lose a massive portion of the labor force because they would have no need to work. It is not clear at all to me that it would be objectively good or bad, but some people appear to have picked the other side because they think we'd lose a lot of our nice things.
- avianlyric 7y ago
  That makes the assumption that people don’t get bored doing nothing, and that peoples only motivation for work is money. I’ve always felt that’s a very reductive view of humanity. Boiling us down to simple automatons that only seek to eat and reproduce, nothing more. I would hope the vibrancy of human civilisation would be enough to show that isn’t true. Unfortunately people that seem to have little faith in humanity, alway believe that they, and their peers, are special and that the rest of humanity is a lost cause. That always makes me a little sad.
- blunte 7y ago
  I wonder what it would be like (in a fantasy scenario) if everyone had their needs provided for at a basic level, and they could choose to spend their time doing whatever they felt passionate or curious about. For example, some people might learn to play one or more instruments; others might become gardeners; others painters, tinkerers, makers, hackers (as in builders), cooks, and so on. I don't believe most people would just sit on their asses and do nothing. Some people really enjoy business and trade, and they would probably just work on creating some kind of business that they enjoyed (like procuring and selling high quality lamps!... and eventually designing their own). We know that people tend to work harder at something they care about. So if we all got to work on things we cared about instead of what was available or what paid (or paid best), it's fathomable that society might have a higher and higher quality output. It's impossible to know since we can't really test it, but I like to imagine that scenario.
hpoe 7y ago
I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that fail to understand the very things that led us have a society that even has the capability of eliminating hunger are the very things they are trying to destroy. Every advancement, every push for "just a little bit more welfare", or "think of the children" has behind it the unspoken assumption that the government can do a better job with my means to help people than I could. This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do. Every inch of additional power that the government gets is an advancement that is set in stone and can only be rewound with great effort. So please don't paint me as an amoral monster, I do care, but I also recognize that sometimes emotionally driven responses that are executed without much thought and planning, like California banning plastic bags, can cause a lot more harm than good, especially in the long run.
- nexuist 7y ago
  > This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do. Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that." Have you noticed that it is only American government (outside of dictatorships) that is highly despised by most of its citizens? Where is this anger from European, Canadian, Asian, South American citizens towards their governments? Could it be that those countries have a functional government that, despite failing in some areas, overall exceeds in providing basic necessities (i.e. healthcare) to its populace? The idea that government will always fail is itself an unspoken assumption you are making. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have an efficient government if we wanted - the first step is to believe it's possible, like it has been possible in 100+ other countries.
  - hpoe 7y ago
umvi 7y ago
If people are getting free food and shelter during a crisis, it's one thing. But if they are getting it 24/7/365 year after year, it's a red flag that they aren't self-reliant. The solution is not to pour more money into ensuring their needs are met but to examine why they are not able to sustain themselves. Maybe they have no skills because they dropped out of high school. Maybe they are in and out of prison and can't find a job so they keep turning back to illegal activities to make money. Maybe they are truly have a physical disability and cannot help themselves. But there are a LOT of people that would benefit from being paid to work and learn some new skills (even if it's janitorial work at government facilities or indexing/archiving work at museums, etc.) vs. a check in the mail. Of course, a check in the mail is much easier to implement than evaluating an individual's circumstances and helping build them up in a way that will make them more self-reliant in the future.
- organsnyder 7y ago
  The way our welfare system is structured in the United States, maintaining access to food and shelter is a huge amount of work and stress. Developing skills and gaining employment is difficult in the best of times—yet we insist on making it even harder.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Well then we may need to restructure in order to create a more effective system. Society does not benefit from people who are completely reliant on the government to meet basic needs.
    - organsnyder 7y ago
      That's an untested assertion. It's possible that society actually would benefit from every person being freed up from the stress and distraction of worrying about how to pay for basic necessities. Imagine how much creativity is being squandered by people being forced to work whatever job they can find just to make ends meet.
      - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by blunte 7y ago

throaway1990 7y ago

that's impossible, all 5 levels? Forget it

thepete2 7y ago
I recall that level 5 (self actualization) is something only 2% of people achieve currently.
- gbjw 7y ago
  Does Gallup do that survey? ('Are you self-actualized?') I suspect you're joking, but the notion that self-actualization can be measured with percentage points is a perversion of the term.

fragsworth 7y ago

I think the fear some people have is that if everyone has free food and shelter, we'll lose a massive portion of the labor force because they would have no need to work. It is not clear at all to me that it would be objectively good or bad, but some people appear to have picked the other side because they think we'd lose a lot of our nice things.

avianlyric 7y ago
That makes the assumption that people don’t get bored doing nothing, and that peoples only motivation for work is money. I’ve always felt that’s a very reductive view of humanity. Boiling us down to simple automatons that only seek to eat and reproduce, nothing more. I would hope the vibrancy of human civilisation would be enough to show that isn’t true. Unfortunately people that seem to have little faith in humanity, alway believe that they, and their peers, are special and that the rest of humanity is a lost cause. That always makes me a little sad.
blunte 7y ago
I wonder what it would be like (in a fantasy scenario) if everyone had their needs provided for at a basic level, and they could choose to spend their time doing whatever they felt passionate or curious about. For example, some people might learn to play one or more instruments; others might become gardeners; others painters, tinkerers, makers, hackers (as in builders), cooks, and so on. I don't believe most people would just sit on their asses and do nothing. Some people really enjoy business and trade, and they would probably just work on creating some kind of business that they enjoyed (like procuring and selling high quality lamps!... and eventually designing their own). We know that people tend to work harder at something they care about. So if we all got to work on things we cared about instead of what was available or what paid (or paid best), it's fathomable that society might have a higher and higher quality output. It's impossible to know since we can't really test it, but I like to imagine that scenario.

hpoe 7y ago

I want to help other people I donate a decent chunk of my paycheck to humanitarian and other charitable efforts. I hate seeing people hungry, I grew up in a difficult situation and I hate seeing children go hungry. My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that fail to understand the very things that led us have a society that even has the capability of eliminating hunger are the very things they are trying to destroy. Every advancement, every push for "just a little bit more welfare", or "think of the children" has behind it the unspoken assumption that the government can do a better job with my means to help people than I could. This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do. Every inch of additional power that the government gets is an advancement that is set in stone and can only be rewound with great effort. So please don't paint me as an amoral monster, I do care, but I also recognize that sometimes emotionally driven responses that are executed without much thought and planning, like California banning plastic bags, can cause a lot more harm than good, especially in the long run.

nexuist 7y ago
> This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do. Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that." Have you noticed that it is only American government (outside of dictatorships) that is highly despised by most of its citizens? Where is this anger from European, Canadian, Asian, South American citizens towards their governments? Could it be that those countries have a functional government that, despite failing in some areas, overall exceeds in providing basic necessities (i.e. healthcare) to its populace? The idea that government will always fail is itself an unspoken assumption you are making. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have an efficient government if we wanted - the first step is to believe it's possible, like it has been possible in 100+ other countries.
- hpoe 7y ago

umvi 7y ago

If people are getting free food and shelter during a crisis, it's one thing. But if they are getting it 24/7/365 year after year, it's a red flag that they aren't self-reliant. The solution is not to pour more money into ensuring their needs are met but to examine why they are not able to sustain themselves. Maybe they have no skills because they dropped out of high school. Maybe they are in and out of prison and can't find a job so they keep turning back to illegal activities to make money. Maybe they are truly have a physical disability and cannot help themselves. But there are a LOT of people that would benefit from being paid to work and learn some new skills (even if it's janitorial work at government facilities or indexing/archiving work at museums, etc.) vs. a check in the mail. Of course, a check in the mail is much easier to implement than evaluating an individual's circumstances and helping build them up in a way that will make them more self-reliant in the future.

organsnyder 7y ago
The way our welfare system is structured in the United States, maintaining access to food and shelter is a huge amount of work and stress. Developing skills and gaining employment is difficult in the best of times—yet we insist on making it even harder.
- umvi 7y ago
  Well then we may need to restructure in order to create a more effective system. Society does not benefit from people who are completely reliant on the government to meet basic needs.
  - organsnyder 7y ago
    That's an untested assertion. It's possible that society actually would benefit from every person being freed up from the stress and distraction of worrying about how to pay for basic necessities. Imagine how much creativity is being squandered by people being forced to work whatever job they can find just to make ends meet.
    - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]