There is difference though. We kinda are not microbes.
Size is relative.
Homelessness is another example. It costs a community way more to deal with the homeless compared to just giving them homes. Even if you make laws against homelessness because now someone has to get out there, check on them, get them in custody or out of the town and so on and so forth. Do you know why most dictatorships fall apart? They become to expensive at some point.
If you give away homes (as with giving away anything), they are not respected; they don't come at a cost. It used to be that the cost was personal shame, but that is meaningless now.
There are housing projects where the rent is less than $20 a month, and they are decrepit warrens filled with multi-generational welfare families that have no intention whatsoever of walking away from the cheap rent, and the food stamp money.
Without the intention to attack you but I vaguely remember that you support laws against loitering. But why? In a completely free market economy and without any regulations homeless people should certainly have the right to spend their time where ever they want.
Because they are abusing places that are not for camping, and that they do not share in the cost for the upkeep—and they
become the central cause of ruination for these areas...through litter, soiling, and defacement. When they infest a park, people stop bringing their children there, and are generally ill at ease when they themselves visit—or more likely
have to pass through. Tourists enter oblivious—at first, but quickly realize that this is not a place they want to be.
It is not too different in this respect, from having a troop of homeless living in the lobby of one's own apartment building. Again, they don't pay for use or upkeep, and they represent a danger to those who do.
I always feel like you simply don't want to see the consequences of the capitalist system around you for the lack of better words. And if someone stands out like a sore thumb in this system it's the homeless people.
The single, number one, overarching goal of the homeless should always be that of getting off the streets, and into some kind of legitimate housing, and arranging a legitimate income. If they are not actively doing this, then they are contributing themselves to the problem. I have seen some homeless trying to sell artwork to earn money, I have seen other homeless spending the bulk of their day begging on a corner—for years; sometimes ten years... even refusing offers for jobs because the corner provides with no strings.
If you pay them a dime, it cements them to the spot in hopes of getting another. That money will never go towards recovering their life; only facilitating either their drug fueled downward spiral or their continual stagnation. One can certainly point to publicized exceptions, but they are just that...the exceptions.
If a community lives happily as cannibals for thousands of years which some do that's their thing.
That's not 'their thing' that's murdering citizens.
Besides you Americans have also this interesting view point where you mostly measure success in terms of money and income. As a society that is. You rarely if ever ask the question what's necessary for living a happy and fulfilling live.
... if you own 1 million or 1 billion dollars doesn't seem to have any impact on what ever if you live a good live.
I don't see the point. But if they've managed to earn it—or were even legitimately given it, then it is rightfully theirs to have. This includes the perpetual gains due to interest; they are loaning the use of their money.
...you Americans tend to collectively ignore systemic issues which do exist. And you favour personal responsibility over regulations/authority here.
Absolutely.
I mean imagine if the US would get rid of all traffic laws
It's almost like that already. We have pedestrian and cyclists that pay no heed to their obligation, and nut-job groups pushing for laws that seek to enforce the pedestrian (and cyclist) lunacy. Our police in New Orleans were REPRIMANDED for enforcing traffic laws against scofflaw cyclists who endanger everyone on the road by ignoring traffic signals, and riding their bikes in any direction they please—including diagonally against traffic, across three lane intersections; which I've witnessed first hand.
Cuba is an extreme though at least in my view. Not everything has to be about extremes nor did I say we have to follow a Cuban model of life.
No, the purpose was to illustrate that if someone doesn't have marketable skills, that's on them, and they need to solve that—and not by forcing others to pay their way; by legislation or criminal enterprise.
Homelessness is another example. It costs a community way more to deal with the homeless compared to just giving them homes.
It's not worth it in the end; sloth begets sloth, and the problem gets worse and worse over time. It is another form of addiction. They become addicted to the help. It should be no surprise that the areas that spend the most on services for the homelessness attract the homeless [like flies].
Without the intention to attack you but I vaguely remember that you support laws against loitering. But why? In a completely free market economy and without any regulations homeless people should certainly have the right to spend their time where ever they want.
It's because they are using city services without paying any form of upkeep. They
become the chief cause of the need for upkeep. We used to have anti-vagrancy laws here; someone managed to undo them, and now we have an unwashed tide of loiterers here, permanent fixtures on every major intersection begging for money, and squads of them roaming the French Quarter. Every single day the city has to disinfect the slates of Jackson Square, because of human urine and feces.
So you do agree that no one should inherit something? Good idea Gizmo!
No. If the money was legitimately amassed, then the owner should be able to bequeath it to whomever they please. This means a 200 million dollar lottery winner could leave it all in a trust to care for their pets. It's either theirs, or it's not.
Because you get already a lot of things for free you never "deserved" so to speak. Like your citizenship for example or your right to vote or what ever else is written in the constitution. You did absolutely nothing for those privileges except that you had the luck to be born by parents which happend to be in the right country which grants you those privileges which at some point someone in history declared as god given unalterable rights which the founding fathers held as self evident. But in truth they aren't self evident.
No. Those things aren't free, they were paid for in blood to create this country. To a far (far) lesser extent, a family inheritance was paid for at some point, for that person's family to have. Whether or not their descendants actually deserve it is irrelevant, because it was theirs to give to them. This applies to the Constitution as well.
Do you know when this natural born curiosity stops? The moment children come in to the school. It's crazy. The number of questions children ask drops dramatically.
That might be the effect of peer pressure, and not wanting to be seen as not knowing. Myself, I got in trouble for that. I questioned everything.
BTW: had you ever seen this:
Treat someone like a dog and he will bite one day. History I think is on my side in this one.
That assumes maltreatment.
And the growing opiate epidemic? Why do you think this happens so often among white supposedly middle class families?
Mental defect.
For the first time a lot of people have the feeling their children will be worse off than they or their parents have been.
I don't think that is for the first time; I perceived (at a young age) that it seemed to be this way since before I was born.
And I am afraid Giz you will not solve this issue by simply telling people to shut up and suck it up. It will just make it worse.
It can only be solved by better parenting, and proper education.
Damned if I can't find the video of it, but there is a short clip of a father leaving for work, and his son sets up a lemonade stand in the front yard. Across the street another kid sets up his own lemonade stand. The first kid uses perfect lemons, and clean classes. He carefully draws a professional looking sign, and sets his price. The other kid's efforts are of distressingly poor quality in everything; (this a point in the video). The other kid makes no sales. In the end (the part meant to terrify), the first kid's father returns from work, praises his son's efforts—and then admonishes that he be sure to split the profits with his neighbor across the street.
Give people their dignity by not making them worry about if they will have enough on their plate or a full fridge. Where they can make their own decisions without someone telling them what to do.
How can they have their dignity if they rely on (
and are okay with!) accepting the charity of others for their most basic needs? (...and for the most part indefinitely.)
