Printable View
bae: That sounds like a lot of hassle/expense just to put himself in proximity of several schools. Aren't there lots of schools on the mainland, too? Was that your theory?
dmc: I can't imagine what type of personality would choose to be homeless. That sounds like a miserable existence.
Jane: I don't understand why your cousin would think you're likely to change your political/philosophical leanings "after all these years."
There's a lot about this thread I don't understand.
It was painful to see and smell him? Sad? Embarassing? Revolting? It made you angry? What was your experience of him?Quote:
Originally Posted by dmc
I don't know whats so hard to understand. He was in the way and he was revolting. Maybe he does provide a good example for some as to what bad choice's in life lead to.
I would argue that many (not all) have become wealthy on the backs of those who struggle to get by. If you employ 100 people and pay them less than a living wage while the company earns more than is required to keep the business healthy, then the zero-sum in this situation is reality that the profit means more to you than the well-being of your employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Here's a radical idea proposed by St. Augustine: "Determine what God has given you, take from that what you need. The remainder is needed by others." At this point, I think this should be a personal choice and not a political imperative. However, it's certainly not our current mindset or modus operandi either individually or collectively.
I actually don't believe in a zero-sum game when it comes to "wealth" but it depends on how you define wealth. With all the abundance available, and the way nature works, there is enough for everyone's need. But, to paraphrase the famous quote, those who have a "what's mine is mine" mentality tend to foster a separation-from-others mentality that leads someone being up and someone being down which leads to perceptions of fear and scarcity, which leads to there not being enough for everyone's greed.
I work across the street from the largest men's shelter for the homeless in this region. Buses from the county drop off homeless here weekly. During nice weather they render the nearby city park unusable by anyone other than their groups. I am talking about a hundred people out milling around at any one time.
Vagrants or the homeless, whatever you want to call them--are threatening in large groups. They shout obscenities, fall into random fights in front of you where you are physically in danger, strew their stuff all over the area, and urinate and defecate wherever. There are killings in this 1 block area about every 2 years.
I am stunned by the naivete in thinking that providing charming cottages will solve this. But hey, go for it. Let's just buy each homeless person a Tumbleweed house, problem solved.
I would like to know for each person who has answered on this thread: when is the last time you were surround by 10+ homeless men? Not just one lone guy, but 10+? I am, daily, in that situation.
You know that philosophy that says people who are liberal when they're young and idealistic turn conservative as they become wiser? We hadn't talked for years...Quote:
Originally Posted by onlinemoniker
IL, I'm curious--if you are against the shelter in your area, where should these people be housed?
As for me, I don't think buying each a Tumbleweed House is the answer, although there are real problems with the shelters that are available. If we think creatively we can figure out a way to provide safe shelter for people who don't have it. I'm not a city planner, or an architect, but I can certainly see the possibilities in individual pod housing that keeps the homeless safe, and keep neighbors feeling safe.
As I said to redfox when she responded to dmc's question, I don't have to give you a resume of my interactions with the homeless, and I do have one and I'll leave it at that.
Dismissing them and wishing them away is simply not going to solve anything.
There was some kind of pilot program here for awhile wherein they found apartments for the homeless. They followed one fellow who cleaned up his act quite a bit. I guess living on the street--unable to bathe or easily find a bathroom, being scorned--leads to depression and worsening substance abuse. Who knew? (Insert sarcastic tone.) Many of the homeless are mentally ill, but Reagan led the way in clearing out mental hospitals as a cost-cutting move. So this is what we get.
Frankly, the "I got mine" mentality sickens me. So many of those who hold that view have been lucky from the get-go -- born of the majority race/religion/ethnicity, not visibly handicapped, typically educated. As Molly Ivins used to say, "...born on third base and thought [they] had hit a triple." People who believe that others are where they are in life entirely out of their own choices, ought to get into the real world and meet some of these folks. None of us chose to be born the race we are, to be the gender we are, or in the country we were born to the parents we have. Maybe in some rose-colored world everyone is treated equally. But real life is quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
And while it's admirable to think that problems of poverty and xenophobia can be handled in the private sector, again, real life is quite different. I believe we should help those who need help. That does not mean elevating them to the highest levels of society -- it means providing the shelter, food, and medical care necessary to help them become as much a part of society as possible. We, too, have housed people who were having trouble finding their footing. But there's a limit to how many people we could serve that way. My almost-80-year-old mother believes we should help, too, but she doesn't have a spare room or the wherewithal at 80 to take on the task.
Government has evolved (at least in representative governments) to be a (fairly) impartial proxy for policies that voters have decided should exist. We decided it might be bad to just let invaders roll across the borders. So we have armed forces and a border patrol that watches for people and goods we don't want in this country. We used to let food producers and drug companies regulate themselves until it was plainly obvious they could not/would not do it themselves, so most of us voted to regulate those companies for the sake of safety.
If the majority of a government's citizens have decided our long-term interests are served by providing a sustainable useful net of basic services, and, despite all exhortations from the right, the private sector cannot/does not do it, then how does it get done? The need does not go away. The public apparently has no interest in the public executions it would take to eliminate spending tax dollars on the homeless and the severely handicapped and the deeply mentally ill. Maybe we made a huge mistake in letting the Code of the West go away. If the issues cannot be addressed by individuals, what collective takes on those tasks?
I am deeply affected when I see people on the street begging or keeled over drunk. For whatever reason, when I see another struggling human, I visualize them as a child. It pains me that I live in a society that doesn't seem to care. Who knows what life scenario they have had to endure? Child abuse, alcoholic parents, mental illness... Sometimes I think if I were in that state I too would choose the streets. And the other alternative, institutions that housed the mentally ill no longer exist.