But it should be. In New Orleans we had a vagrancy law, and it kept the appearance of the city, made it attractive to tourists—the city's life blood. Someone managed to repeal it, and now we have packs of street punks and year-round professional panhandlers; living in tents under the main arteries into the city.
When you live in the wild, you forage, and sleep where you please, but when you live in a city, you are effectively a guest, or are part of a tribe living on tribal lands. In a tribe (or clan) the members cooperate and contribute to the upkeep of the city—most homeless don't—most choose to be an active detriment to a city... leaching [daily] from residents, and costing the township money through the various services, and organizations (like the Police) that have to interact with them.
People can become homeless, and successfully climb back out of it; stand up again, and re-join the society; homes can include RVs, and even cars for sake of recovery path; employment is a must. Quite a bit of them don't want this; they want to eat hand to mouth from the free gifts they collect from people who wish them well on their recovery—which they have no intention of ever doing... Not everyone of course, but when you see functional [even college degreed] people who stay that way for decades, it's because they want to... and that is by definition parasitical—because it's not symbiotic.
I'm too amused applying Gizmo's post to rich people instead to comment on it any further. But according to your recurring posts hobos sure are a mighty threat for how incapable of effort they are at the same time
As of what I think, It's undeniable there's irony in it, but, it's a wee bit more than "some cathedral", on the pansy artsy culturaly sense, and in the plain practicality sense. It is, or, rather, was, the single post visited landmark in France. Neglecting it especially when the damages are relatively minor is far from a good idea, especially if optimistically assuming the profits and upkeep of it generate a net positive that could actually be used to adress social matters like these.
It also is worth noting that it's not really money that would be coming otherwise if not for this excuse, isn't it? Even the instances of companies and individuals that do actually pour considerable amounts of money into charities and NGO turned to donating to this for the PR. I'd say it's better than if they didn't at all, even as cynical as it is. With the money raised thus far AFAIK most if not all of the notable "plastic islands" of the oceans could've been cleared, but as Fish said, I think Notre Dame's relief effort itself is more indicative of how much *could* they change than an impediment.
But it should be. In New Orleans we had a vagrancy law, and it kept the appearance of the city, made it attractive to tourists—the city's life blood. Someone managed to repeal it, and now we have packs of street punks and year-round professional panhandlers; living in tents under the main arteries into the city.
By pushing those people out of society you're not making the issue dissapear, you just make sure that it's not visible anymore. It becomes a problem of the subburbs or other surounding areas, or simply other cities. Remember maybe that South Park episode about beggars? If not than you should watch it. The issue with people is, that they are well, people. They are not like cattle and just do what you expect from them. But it makes it easier for the city to ignore those issues and the causes if you make laws against it, just push it away. However, at some point you might run in to serious issues, If you keep ignoring it. They tend to come back worse later.
Like the Bonus Army.
The Bonus Army were the 43,000 marchers—17,000 U.S. World War I veterans, their families, and affiliated groups—who gathered in Washington, D.C. in the summer of 1932 to demand cash-payment redemption of their service certificates. Organizers called the demonstrators the "Bonus Expeditionary Force", to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Forces, while the media referred to them as the "Bonus Army" or "Bonus Marchers". The contingent was led by Walter W. Waters, a former sergeant.
(...)
On July 28, U.S. Attorney GeneralWilliam D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
While not all homeless people today are veterans, some are. So I am a bit surprised how quick you are in throwing all beggars or homeless people in the same basket.
When you live in the wild, you forage, and sleep where you please, but when you live in a city, you are effectively a guest, or are part of a tribe living on tribal lands. In a tribe (or clan) the members cooperate and contribute to the upkeep of the city—most homeless don't—most choose to be an active detriment to a city... leaching [daily] from residents, and costing the township money through the various services, and organizations (like the Police) that have to interact with them.
I am not sure if you're really helping the case when you describe a large number of human beeings, everyone with different reasons, capabilities and motivations as 'leaches'. I think I already asked you this once, but how many homeless people do you actually know? I mean really? Like did you had some profound experience here, or talking to them, trying to learn something like their motivations and reasons for their behaviour and lifestyle? I am just curious.
While every individual has a responsibility, we are also a society. Treating humans with dignity, should never depend on the character, personality or motivation of a person. We should simply do it, because we've seen time and time again the consequences if we as a society don't. Social issues like homelessness can hit everyone. 60% of the american house holds are just one big medical bill away, from catastrophic failoure as they have not much more than 1000$ on their bank accounts. The US middle class is shrinking fast while the standard of living is becoming more expensive and loans are stagnating. In my opinion, the US society is a social powder keg just waiting to explode. I am honestly not worried about Trump and his presidence, he's not Hitler. I am worried about the person that will be actually intelligent enough to exploit the social issues in the US.
Homelessness and poverty are a real drain on the economy and if left unchecked and even worse, on society. It might cost you a lot more in the end if you decide not combat the reasons for it.
People can become homeless, and successfully climb back out of it; stand up again, and re-join the society; homes can include RVs, and even cars for sake of recovery path; employment is a must. Quite a bit of them don't want this; they want to eat hand to mouth from the free gifts they collect from people who wish them well on their recovery—which they have no intention of ever doing... Not everyone of course, but when you see functional [even college degreed] people who stay that way for decades, it's because they want to... and that is by definition parasitical—because it's not symbiotic.
Yes, some can climb out of homelessness, poverty you name it and everyone should try it and it serves as positive example that it's possible and that we should always give our best. But we have also to remember, that this can also lead to the so called, Survivorship bias or survival bias (which) is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (correlation proves causality).
Some people can also win the lottery, beat cancer, fly to the moon, dead lift 1000 pounds. Doesn't mean everyone can.
What I am proposing is that we find ways to empower people, rather than to shame, blame or otherwise punish them, giving them actually a good and realistic chance to find their own solutions and taping in their own potential. And yes, maybe we as a society have also to accept, that a small percentage of people will never work for their living, for what ever reason. Without any offense, but I don't think you know how cripling a severe anxiety dissorder can be or other forms of mental instability in a society, that's believing such people to be weak or otherwise abnormal. But we have the tools and possibility, to offer everyone a live in dignity. And I think we should do it. It costs us less in the end.
Do you know who would very probably also agree with this simple image trying to describe a complex social issue?
Those two lovely figures:
As anyone can easily testify. There was full employment in the Soviet Union. There was no begging. And no homelessness. Because everyone who was it, ended up in a Gulag.
According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.
The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.
This is a "defect" according to Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. (Chapter 5, Section 3, "The First Phase of Communist Society")
In accordance with Lenin’s understanding of the socialist state, article twelve of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states:
In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”
Btw wasn't there an insurance for some crap like that happening to Notre Dame? Or if the fire started from the builders crap wiring, they were already fixing it, wouldn't they be liable to compensate or their insurance pay for it?
If you got an hour to kill and want to watch some soul killing shit there is this.
TL,DW of it this. Seattle is covered in feces of the homeless who wander the street setting fire to things, the police are powerless to do anything because the mayor and the DA don't want to seem like meanies and refuse to press charges on drug dealers.
If you got an hour to kill and want to watch some soul killing shit there is this.
TL,DW of it this. Seattle is covered in feces of the homeless who wander the street setting fire to things, the police are powerless to do anything because the mayor and the DA don't want to seem like meanies and refuse to press charges on drug dealers.
That was hard to watch. Damn, some american cities are fucked up bad.
Although I disagree with the notion the documentary seems to make that they need more police to crack down on homeless people. What's the point of that? It won't solve the problem causing such degree of homelessness and addiction and desperation.
If there's such a big problem with them being on the street, why not drop them in the hundreds average of empty buildings with little to no hope of selling there are in each standard city, so they can sleep there instead of bank booths? They don't even need to have power or running water like social housing does (inconsistently but still), so it'd be way cheaper than to have a subset of the police force basically permanently assigned to them. So all they really need to get out there for is "urban foraging", as I'd like to call it. It literally stops them from being homeless to then just be normal poor people tht then you don't need to think about anymore.
If you got an hour to kill and want to watch some soul killing shit there is this.
TL,DW of it this. Seattle is covered in feces of the homeless who wander the street setting fire to things, the police are powerless to do anything because the mayor and the DA don't want to seem like meanies and refuse to press charges on drug dealers.
If there's such a big problem with them being on the street, why not drop them in the hundreds average of empty buildings with little to no hope of selling there are in each standard city, so they can sleep there instead of bank booths? They don't even need to have power or running water like social housing does (inconsistently but still), so it'd be way cheaper than to have a subset of the police force basically permanently assigned to them. So all they really need to get out there for is "urban foraging", as I'd like to call it. It literally stops them from being homeless to then just be normal poor people that then you don't need to think about anymore.
You mean the same buildings that are most likely condemned and deemed unsafe? I can hear the cry now, "You don't care about the homeless, you let them get killed in unsafe buildings with unclean conditions".
Second, who is going to make pay to fix them up? The taxpayers? The same people who had to pay for their own goddamn mortgage or rent are expected to give freeloaders their money?
Waste food is the same problem. Companies would gladly give excess food away if they knew they weren't going to get sued because the stated expiration date isn't exact and sometimes food is still good?
Again, the problem with social justice warriors is that they make it seem like their grievances are just so easy to solve if only if the evil greedy people and racists got out of the way. It could never be the fault of fucking freeloaders.
Oh, please don't pretend like providing homeless people requires so much in taxes that it would ruin the whole nation.
I am sick of it. Billions of dollars are WASTED(!) on useless defence equipment of which half isn't even always working properly or delivered like promised and there is even more billions lost due to taxes but we're always in this but ... but who's gona pay for all of dem leaches! I am sick of it. Not once has anyone of you ever complained about the completely overblown defence budged or tax loop holes that strange enough no ones ever really fixing or where have you guys been when they decided to bail out banks? Banks which caused a housing crysis which still hits millions of Americans.
Who's going to pay for it ... my ass. Give me a brake. Be at least honest and say you simply DON'T want that anyone pays for them.
Not once has anyone of you ever complained about the completely overblown defence budged or tax loop holes that strange enough no ones ever really fixing or where have you guys been when they decided to bail out banks? Banks which caused a housing crysis which still hits millions of Americans.
Except I did, dummy? Literally on first page in this thread, using the same term "loopholes" sticking with your sick mind as a buzzword you never used on NMA before until now, guess why. The same goes for Yuropean banks, I wrote years ago the bailout was a scam putting taxpayers' money into private pockets of Germans and French banksters instead of poor Greek retirees. Fuck off, you useless parroting poseur.
As Valcik already said, I have posted MANY times about fixing loopholes and explained MANY times about the need for a high defense budget.
I posted that I am for mental health and rehab facilities, not just in a no strings attached, mamsy pamsy way you want things done.
These people are adults and they should be treated like one. They say they want help, the government will FORCE them to get clean. They say they don't want to be a burden to society, the government can FORCE them to work.
Remember how I talked about the fucking idiot who thought that she was too fucking good to eat regular food and wanted organic only? Give me a fucking break.
I am willing to help people who ACTUALLY WANT HELP, not fucking freeloaders.
If there's such a big problem with them being on the street, why not drop them in the hundreds average of empty buildings with little to no hope of selling there are in each standard city
Because not everywhere is Detroit with miles upon miles of empty city. With places like Seatlle of San Francisco, housing being at a stuipidly high premium is one of the things exacerbating the problem. People seem to have this idea the homeless are just a bunch of drunks and addicts, sure they're there but most of them have mental problems. We used to have these people committed but the wave de-institutionalization that swept the western world post WW2 saw most of the mental health facilities shuttered.
Not to mention places like Seattle have homeless friendly policies. More homeless meaning more demand for space, more demand for facilities, which only draws in even MORE homeless. It is literally a self perpetuating cycle.
If you want cheaper homes and ore of them, let developers build more homes. Stop slamming them with red tape, stop forcing them to make homes MORE expensive because they have to have fucking solar panels to please the goddamn hippies. Stop supporting retarded ass policies like fucking rent control, which only serves to discourage new development.
