2 ms·
"net negative producers now being even more negative by virtue of having a living space paid for with little signs of improvement" I will accept this argument
by ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"net negative producers now being even more negative by virtue of having a living space paid for with little signs of improvement"
I will accept this argument the day we finally remove net negative producers from society, like Wells Fargo, which comes up with new financial fraud every year, and gets away with it.
Or snake oil salesmen that sell supplements that don't even contain whats written on the package, polluters, Tabacco and other assorted merchants of addiction and death that are all net negative to society to make a tidy profit.
Additionally - if you commit murder, you get food and housing, but if you refuse to work, you starve to death?
What would it cost us to make sure everyone has access to basic food like rice, 0.3% of GDP?
- HideousKojima 5y ago>What would it cost us to make sure everyone has access to basic food like rice, 0.3% of GDP? If a homeless person trades their rice for money/drugs, do you propose giving them even more rice, or just letting them starve?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoSo because 20-30% of homeless people have drug problems we should let the rest of them suffer so as not to waste resources?
- HideousKojima 5y agoI never said that? When that 20-30% use of a vastly disproportionate amount of the resources then I think we should create solutions that are more focused on those who actually need it, instead of blanket "just build more houses bro" solutions.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoNo, we should focus on 'lets dismantle the financial pyramid scheme" because it would help 70% of homeless people and 90% of society as a whole. Also because eventually this mug's game will collapse and make us all miserable. We've already been forcing people back into offices just to prop up fantasy property values in city centers.