Homelessness

[Veloxyll]

Also, what about the Homeless people who's work shut down, and they couldn't find a new job before the bank Defaulted on their loan and reclaimed their property. A lot of people live on a very tight budget, losing their job could quickly send things down the gurgler, if they've at least got a welfare system to fall back to, they can probably work with the bank to negotiate a new contract till they can get a job and thus not be another homeless person.

Frankly, I'm deeply insulted by your insinuation that all, or the majority, of homeless are just lazy.

And do you know WHY the government pays (or should pay) for welfare? The name is a hint, but the core of the matter is that people simply wouldn't pay enough to support a significant number of people of their own free will. Economic Theory also tells us that around 5% unemployment is acceptable for a nation. So who is going to pay for that 5%? They still have to live too.

[Drew]

As I mentioned earlier, 40% of the homeless are actually employed.  They just don't make enough money.

[Jon]

Also, what about the Homeless people who's work shut down, and they couldn't find a new job before the bank Defaulted on their loan and reclaimed their property. A lot of people live on a very tight budget, losing their job could quickly send things down the gurgler, if they've at least got a welfare system to fall back to, they can probably work with the bank to negotiate a new contract till they can get a job and thus not be another homeless person.

Frankly, I'm deeply insulted by your insinuation that all, or the majority, of homeless are just lazy.

And do you know WHY the government pays (or should pay) for welfare? The name is a hint, but the core of the matter is that people simply wouldn't pay enough to support a significant number of people of their own free will. Economic Theory also tells us that around 5% unemployment is acceptable for a nation. So who is going to pay for that 5%? They still have to live too.

You make a good point. I really never thought of any of that. I guess I really don't know much about this topic..
But we all learn from our mistakes, right?

As I mentioned earlier, 40% of the homeless are actually employed. They just don't make enough money.

How could you have a job while homeless?    When you say homeless I assume you mean living on the street; you could have a job while living with a friend, but that would mean having a home, so..   
Wow. I'm.. A bit stupid, I guess.

[Bex]

Wow. I'm.. A bit stupid, I guess.

I think you're mostly just young, and still figuring out the world. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Eral]

Jon, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I wasn't meaning to attack you. You said you agreed with Guildmasterron, and I wanted to give you another perspective. I figured that poverty and homelessness were something you haven't have a lot of experience with, because I don't think you would have the same attitude if you had. It's lucky I deleted most of the stuff I was originally going to post, if you think what I did post was brutal. Originally I was ignoring Guildmasterron because I believed he was trolling - but when his ideas seemed sensible to you I was concerned. When I'm concerned I get snippy.

I read a report from a Washington newspaper a few years ago, saying that a recent survey of the people living in a shelter there found a number of people who had jobs but had lost access to affordable housing and had nowhere else to go. One of the woman who was interviewed for the survey was a bank clerk. Here in Australia, most  homeless people suffer from mental illness: most of the hospitals that provided long-term care have been shut down in favour of 'Community-based Care' which appears to mean going to prison or living in a cardboard box being fed by the Salvation Army once a day. If that was my life I'd beg and then spend the money on booze too.  

It is interesting to note that just before the last rounds of cuts to welfare services, mental hospitals, etc there was a wave of "Beggars are really very rich, don't give them any money" stories in the news. I always find it difficult to decide what to do when approached by a beggar- if I'm giving to a charity I always make sure the money is going to the person it's meant to help: and it seems wrong (not to mention pointless and stupid) to ask "Well, that depends- what you are going to do with it?"  I am torn between being ashamed that people have reached a point where begging is a viable way to live and feeling I should help and wondering if they are hoaxing me. I always feel awful whether I give money or not.

[Drew]

There are a great many places in the US where minimum wage means you can either feed your family or give them shelter.  If you are in such a situation you will not be able to extricate yourself without help.  It's not like a person in such a situation could afford to go to school or get better job training.

[Joe]

Joe, I am really impressed by your concern and compassion for those less fortunate than yourself, and would like to say don't let the fellas tease you out of your feelings that it is wrong for a government to allow its citizens to go without shelter or food especially when there is more than enough money to assist them.

Private citizens can't, unfortunately, be counted on to assist the needy entirely. They just won't do it for a number of reasons. It is our moral responsibility to help the less fortunate in some way. If people abuse the system, too bad. By taking that system away you are not punishing its leeches, but those who honestly depend on it.

Here in Australia, most  homeless people suffer from mental illness: most of the hospitals that provided long-term care have been shut down in favour of 'Community-based Care' which appears to mean going to prison or living in a cardboard box being fed by the Salvation Army once a day. If that was my life I'd beg and then spend the money on booze too.

That is basically the situation in the United States. From Wikipedia:

Social changes, such as the movement to recognize the rights of those considered mentally ill, could lead to increased homelessness, as such people can no longer be involuntarily committed to mental hospitals. Such a change occurred in the early 1980s in the United States, where it is now estimated that half of all homeless persons have some form of mental illness. In some cases, it is not always clear which came first; the homelessness or the mental illness.

It is interesting to note that just before the last rounds of cuts to welfare services, mental hospitals, etc there was a wave of "Beggars are really very rich, don't give them any money" stories in the news. I always find it difficult to decide what to do when approached by a beggar- if I'm giving to a charity I always make sure the money is going to the person it's meant to help: and it seems wrong (not to mention pointless and stupid) to ask "Well, that depends- what you are going to do with it?"  I am torn between being ashamed that people have reached a point where begging is a viable way to live and feeling I should help and wondering if they are hoaxing me. I always feel awful whether I give money or not.

'Way I figure it, the worst you do is lose some change. The best you do is help someone who struggles to find food from day to day. I could cry sitting here and thinking of that old man in the rain. An old man. When I gave him my change he said, "God bless you". He needs God's blessing more than me.

"Can ya spare some change for a hamburger, please?" I don't know if he really bought a hamburger. I don't really care at this point. If drinking makes his life on earth happier or easier, well, he kinda has a unique choice to make in that regard.

[guildmasterron]

Nope, wasn't trolling, but I know I went way off topic here and for that I apologize. I certainly don't regard most homeless as being lazy and not worthy of help. However, I am against all social welfare programs.

I'm a libertarian.

However, here I am primarily a gamer. In the future I will leave political issues alone here, because that was not why I joined this list.

As I was saying in my first post, a good friend of mine worked for various private homeless agencies for several years. He invested $100,000 of his own money and was hounded by various government agencies for his efforts. He contracted Hepatitis C and died in 2001.

I believe in being charitable, but I want to decide where my money goes and why.

And that's all.

[Eral]

Since Guildmasterron is uncomfortable discussing politics (he mustn't have seen enough of our unlocked threads) if there is anyone else who could further explain the libertarian belief in no social welfare, I would be interested. I understand the concept of no-government-interference, but Wikipedia states that libertarians believe that people being poor/homeless/etc is umm, sort of natural and acceptable. This seems a little callous, to me, and I wonder how many poor and homeless people are libertarians. It seems to me to be a position you would only take as long as you were not the person for whom it is considered natural and acceptable to live on $2 an hour or less. Is this "sink or swim" given a better name?

Also, the idea that a private organisation would administer charity more efficiently seems to be based on fictitious beliefs. If the purpose of a capitalist business is to make a profit, why would any company take on the business of providing assistance to the needy? Groups like the Salvation Army and church-associated charities that do function as businesses (in that they pay wages and operate stores, etc) are always turning people away. They never have enough money for the services they believe are necessary. I believe it's a flawed concept, like expecting hospitals and schools to make a profit. Society benefits when it's citizens are fed, clothed, educated, cared for medically, and with a sense of purpose in life. Productive citizens=economic benefit. Perhaps the real question is long term vs short term.   

[Drew]

The libertarian ideology states that government should provide order, military protection, and basic services like roads.  That's essentially all they think government should do.  They believe businesses will be better off without the government trying to regulate them.   They believe that a free economic system  without money wasted funding government programs will actually mean everyone has more money.  This is because a great many new businesses would arise from such a boom placing a premium on workers, thus causing employers to compete.  This translates into more money for workers.  With such a system in place, libertarians believe issues such as unemployment and homelessness will actually go away on their own.  So it isn't a callous perspective, per se. Socially, libertarians are very easy for a personl like me to see eye to eye with.  They want government to be just as laisez faire socially as they want government to be fiscally.  Their ideas on regulation and government programs in general are, in my opinion, horribly misguided.

EDIT:  I didn't elaborate enough.  Added more detail.

[Eral]

In a society where capitalism has free rein, the market will pretty much dictate cycles of employment. Boom and bust. The only people who really benefit from that are people whose skills are valuable/specialised, because employers have to compete to gain their services. People who work in areas where skills are not specialised have to take what they can get. I believe that's why we have many people working for $2 an hour already. In America. So, I hesitate to accept that no social welfare would be a good idea. It seems to be an "I'm all right, Jack" kind of attitude. Relying on the goodness of human nature in a society where making money is the main priority seems like a non-starter to me.
Also, would the government fund arts, education, museums, libraries, hospitals under libertarianism?

[Drew]

Also, would the government fund arts, education, museums, libraries, hospitals under libertarianism?

Remember the country you are talking about.  The american government doesn't fund hospitals now. (Except for VA hospitals and military treatment facilities.)   Regarding arts and education.....no, a libertarian government would not fund this.  A cornerstone of libertarian thought is that the private sector will do everything better.  Libertarians are in favor of privatising arts and education.  They would rather see the private sector run the museums, too.  They would still fund libraries.

[Drew]

Relying on the goodness of human nature in a society where making money is the main priority seems like a non-starter to me.

Yep.  I think it's Canada's fault that this type of thought still is thrown about in the US.  The economy in Canada is falling apart.  Most Americans attribute that to the fact that Canada has socialized medicine.  They are obviously wrong, though.  Canadians don't have economic trouble because they are socialists.  The reason they have economic difficulty is that they are stupid.  Also, they don't know how to pronounce "about" correctly.  Stupid Canadians!!!

[Dark Raven]

I've been blinded by that pink. 

America needs to be a bit more Socialist IMO. Medicine has always been an issue in the States, which is why we should have it set up like some of the European countries.

[Eral]

I thought state governments did fund hospitals. Do you mean that all hospitals in America are private? No public hospitals?  People have to pay out of their health insurance/pockets for all their medical treatment?   This can't be. (No wonder I was so confused by that episode of ER showing the man with lung cancer and no health insurance leaving the hospital without being referred for further treatment.)

Libertarianism might also then see the end of secular education, unless a rich atheist decides to be philanthropic. Again, I wonder how people who live in poor areas would be able to access education. Umm, I am beginning to suspect "libertarianism" is code for "super-capitalism", where the rich contrive that they are supplied with an endless source of exploitable, poor, uneducated workers and a monoply on the comforts of life. It may be the commie in me coming out for a walk, but I am somewhat concerned that "freedom" is implied in the word "libertarianism", as it seems to be the kind of word Orwell's NewSpeak might have contained. Freedom from poverty for some, freedom from education and health benefits for others?

ooh. Scary.  

*I would like to suggest that Canada's economy is not falling apart - it is merely being affected by the capitalist cycle of boom-and-bust that everyone in government seems to think brings so much benefit to us all.

EDIT: Removed some patently commie statements. I'm trying to be moderate. The Dwarven moderator will be proud. 

[Dark Raven]

EDIT: Removed some patently commie statements. I'm trying to be moderate. The Dwarven moderator will be proud.

Afraid I'm not.

[Joe]

Libertarianism is called what it is because it refers to freedom from government control.

[Aurora]

Also, would the government fund arts, education, museums, libraries, hospitals under libertarianism?

Remember the country you are talking about.  The american government doesn't fund hospitals now. (Except for VA hospitals and military treatment facilities.)   Regarding arts and education.....no, a libertarian government would not fund this.  A cornerstone of libertarian thought is that the private sector will do everything better.  Libertarians are in favor of privatising arts and education.  They would rather see the private sector run the museums, too.  They would still fund libraries.

Most of the libertarians I know don't want to fund anything, although a few would grudgingly support roads. Any taxation is theft at gunpoint.

Life is so unbearably difficult when you're forced to make do on just under $100,000 a year.

[Ghreyfain]

Er... I sort of thought the Canadian economy was doing pretty decent these days.

[Eral]

You know, if we had "libertarianism" here, not all the rich people would support it. In the very rich suburbs they are dead against development, and are always opposing bids by developers to build units/townhouses on blocks of land, saying that it is detrimental to the character of the area. The poor areas never object to units/townhouses, I think because it is good for land values if there are some nice buildings in the street. Also they don't seem to resent other people sharing the facilities their area doesn't offer.

Joe: Or it could be called "libertarianism" to make it sound like a palatable idea to anyone who isn't a developer/business owner. Because otherwise we might start thinking about things like heritage values of buildings,and preservation of bushland and parkland, which would be very inconvenient for the people imagining a future where only their moral perception of what causes harm to another person stops them from making a whole lot of money. Enough to make everyone who lives downstream from a chemical factory very nervous indeed.

BR, you are probably the only person who thinks that.

And see? Canadian economy already on the up-and-up.

[Jon]

Relying on the goodness of human nature in a society where making money is the main priority seems like a non-starter to me.

Yep.  I think it's Canada's fault that this type of thought still is thrown about in the US.  The economy in Canada is falling apart.  Most Americans attribute that to the fact that Canada has socialized medicine.  They are obviously wrong, though.  Canadians don't have economic trouble because they are socialists.  The reason they have economic difficulty is that they are stupid.  Also, they don't know how to pronounce "about" correctly.  Stupid Canadians!!!

Care to elaborate? I find that pretty interesting.

[Ghreyfain]

It was sarcasm.

[Jon]

   Right.
I just heard a couple things about Canada in my school a week or two ago about how "Canadians are stupid, their economy is failing because of it, my iPod is broken" and naturally I didn't pay much attention to it as I knew too well those who were rambling.  But then Drew said something about it I thouht it may hold some water to it.

My bad, again.

[Bex]

You could hardly be expected to know about manly pink sarcasm. It's only been invented just this week, and is now in beta-testing.

[Eral]

Especially as that isn't Manly Pink. That must be why I wondered at Drew's use of pink text for his irony. If it had been Manly Pink all would have been clear to me.