You know their answer will be that the homeless just need to work harder.
And “stop doing drugs” as if homeless people are the only drug users and the rich never use them.
I’ve started getting angry when people declare that they refuse to give money to people begging because they’ll just use it on drugs. More because of how frequently it comes up.
They aren’t obliged to help anyone but just assuming every homeless person is a drug addict is so condescending.
And even if they were they are still a person and the money they beg for will is some part contribute to feeding them. You can’t subsist off of drugs.
I see the same people burn money on the dumbest shit but act like giving money to homeless people is a sin against God.
If a homeless person is going to use that money for drugs or alcohol, good. I would too if I was homeless and needed to forget it for a little while.
What about people who are homeless because of drugs and alcohol? Is it morally justified to be codependent?
You’ve got it backwards. Drug addiction is a symptom of unfulfilled needs, not so much the other way around. See this short video on the “Rat Park Experiment”.
No happy, fulfilled person is going to say one day “I think I’ll go be a heroin addict.” People who can’t get their basic needs fulfilled use drugs (and other addictive things) as a substitute for the fulfilling things they can’t access for other reasons.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
this short video on the “Rat Park Experiment”
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Can you explain how never giving a homeless person any money will elevate them from their plight?
If not, then giving them money is, at worst, incidental and, at best, an improvement to their situation.
I don’t give money to homeless people anymore.
I used to work near a shelter and I’d get chased and harassed for money, I got threatened and yelled at regularly, and I got mugged once. Now being around the homeless makes me incredibly uneasy.
I donate to food banks and the shelters, but no way am I ever giving some unaccountable homeless person cash. If they want my help they can go through the proper channels, I know many won’t, but I don’t have the tools to find or help those people.
And you’re not obliged to. There’s nothing immoral about not going out of your way to help people especially at risk to yourself.
While they are people and should be treated with dignity and not like animals, they are still people and like any stranger can be dangerous and unpredictable, especially in desperation.
Not to mention at least near where I live about a third of the homeless are mentally ill due to the state’s incapacity to care for such people.
It’s similar where I live.
I feel bad mainly supporting the shelters because there are a lot of stories about people who go in and get robbed or assaulted and they avoid them after. They tend to build camps which get perennially torn down by the city/cops. I wish there was a better way to help those people.
The only reason not to give food, clothing, or cash is because I’m already late for work or I have nothing to spare right now. I try to find something even if it’s just a smoke or something.
Assuming those other people are all bad or at the very least less than the good people?
Using that as a reason to not help people? And love sharing it?
Using the same money on dumb wasteful shit for yourself?
I think the people you’re running into are just run of the mill conservatives.
I seriously think that being drug use enabler is not a good thing. If you know that particular homeless person has drugs problem better buy him a sandwich or give warm clothes than give money.
Are you posting these links in reply to me because you think I am suggesting the homeless need to work harder?
No just resources, if you had that conversation with a coworker.
Thanks, sorry for the misinterpretation!
All good!
Luckily they unionized…
Exactly that. Homelessness isn’t a social issue that needs to be solved, it’s the consequences of the unhomed’s poor choices and absolutely nothing else.
Arguing with willful ignorance is fucking exhausting, you literally can’t get them to see past their blind beliefs because most of them wear “you can’t change my mind” like a badge of honor.
It is a social issue. People being incapable of taking care of themselves is inevitable. All civilizations had these issues. Families, churches and general generosity of neighbors have always been used to mitigate this.
Now with the wealth gap increasing and the individualistic philosophy in our society with not noticing and tending to these early on. We only notice once the person is a full blown junkie. Many needed help for a a short moment in life and could of become autonomous after, many are both permanently incapable of autonomy. Either way society have to deal with them. We have enough resources! For the price of just one of those opulent pick up we could probably shelter one person for 2-5 years.
Not so much willful ignorance as backwards reasoning. They desperately want to believe the world is fair and they earned whatever success they’ve had in their lives, so they adopt beliefs that lead to those conclusions.
I struggled with it a lot in my 20s. If you’ve grown up with the idea that the world is basically a pretty decent place, it’s hard to accept how fucked up everything is, so there’s a natural tendency to try to explain away the things you learn about so you don’t have to confront the harsh reality directly.
it’s the consequences of the unhomed’s poor choices and absolutely nothing else.
Classical Liberal / Libertarian here and this is wrong. Life can be massively unfair / unkind and it’s not unusual for people, even ones who make solid choices, to end up in bad situations.
What so many of my Libertarian fellows seem to miss is that we’re allowed to have empathy. Do I want the Government taking my money to redistribute it? Absolutely not but that does not excuse us from acting on our own. In fact I’d argue we have MORE of an obligation for individual action to help those less fortunate.
Come at me.
“Libertarian” always seems like a misnomer. Libertarians only want people like themselves to experience liberty. They aim to do nothing to address inequities like social and systemic discrimination against LGBT+ people, BIPOC, women, and others. They aim to do nothing to address poverty. It’s social darwinism at its ugliest. This is why they are practically indistinguishable from conservatives here in the US – the way they arrive may look different, but the outcomes are the same. At best, they are wearing blinders. At worst, they actively support the power structures and systems that result in things like poverty and abuse.
People who legitimately do seek liberty should instead be looking to things like anarchism, which is interested in addressing the root causes of all of these problems, such as hierarchies and the state.
“Libertarian” used to be a synonym for left-wing anarchism until Murray Rothbard purposefully co-opted the term and even bragged about it.
Yep it’s just a propaganda campaign.
Fellow left-wing anarchists: should we just give up on trying to reclaim this word? What do you call yourself among people who don’t know the context?
In Europe it’s way more ambiguous. Also: you can simply specify “left-wing”, or “right-wing” libertarian.
I usually just say “anarchist”, though ;)
People who legitimately do seek liberty should instead be looking to things like anarchism
Interestingly, ‘libertarian’ was originally a euphemism for ‘anarchist’, until it was co-opted by the right
You can’t fully experience liberty unless everyone is free
There is equality and there is equity. Libertarians are for equality even if it creates non-equity.
Let me give an abstract example so that it is not politically charged. Suppose that there are green-skinned people in our society that for some historical reason value writing poetry above all else. And they are trying to earn their living by writing poetry and sometimes having second part time usually low paid job to support themselves.
Libertarian would say that these green people has absolute right to do so, and face consequences of their choice. This is liberty.
People who advocate equality would say - no, there is systemic green-ism that leads to green people being consistently underpaid, having less percent of them in high level jobs like CEO, and so on. They then propose all sorts of laws that will treat green people differently so that the average salary, average number of CEOs per 100,000 population and other similar metrics associated with “success” are the same for green people. This kind of differential treatment of green people is absolutely against to liberty minded people, that includes libertarians, that think that the laws should be the same to all people, regardless of their skin color, genetics and so on.Interesting that the systemic discrimination in your case is due to a conscious choice and not systemic discrimination.
You describe the origins of “starving artist” and not “oppressed race” IMO.
I assumed he was loosely referring to religion. “Go forth and multiply” [regardless of available support] is a huge source of suffering in the world.
I’ve had this conversation, he thought everything would be fine if we eliminated zoning laws.
Hell yeah, now Industry can have its workers live next to them, no more commutes! They’ll be so healthy :) /s
I mean, wasn’t the elimination (or extreme relaxation by American standards) of zoning laws one of the ways Tokyo has been able to afford to house so many people at such affordable rates?
Not saying we need kindergartens between the sewage recycling plant and the land fill, but being able to build housing over shopping centers would be nice.
Their actual answer is volunteer donations.
And considering how many libertarians think that poverty is essentially due to personal choice, we can all imagine how many of them are willing to voluntarily donate money to helping the poor.
We just need more Billionaires and they will solve the problem since they ara morally superior and know whats best!!! /s
That may be, but they think that it is greater evil to forcefully take money from somebody else (through obligatory taxes) and spend on homeless than letting homeless be homeless.
They’re wrong.
Oh yeah, I know that’s what they think, it’s just a bit silly that they advocate for charity to solve homelessness while at the same time they more or less want the homeless to literally die
Something, something, invisible hand of the free market and Social Darwinism. Dead people can’t be in poverty, right? Problem solved!
Easy: Let them starve and the invisible hand will take care of their bodies
I like this meme, and praise Dale raise hell, but I really like Jeff Gordon :/
if there’s enough people who can’t afford a home, there will suddenly be a lot more homes on the housing market - thought that one was obvious… /s
Raise Hell, Praise Dale!
Charity.
I wonder why communist China has so many homeless if homelessness is a feature of capitalism
Got any sources on Chinese homeless populations compared to American homeless populations?
Yes, we should all look at how we eradicated homelessness in SanFrancisco with leftist policies, and spread that shining example to every city.
wHy cAnT sAn fRaNcIsCo sOlVe tHe sYsTeMiC pRoBlEm oF hOmElEsSnEsS? CHeCkmAte! RiP lEfTiSm 🤓
Every state in the USA is still capitalist regardless of which party is ruling
I mean, yes, technically that isn’t wrong.
But let’s be real, to say (or imply) that all regions operate at the same level of “capitalism” is a disingenuous argument. It seems that if the housing issue in the US were this truly the fault of capitalism, then one would expect that more leftist variations to produce better results for solving homelessness.
While not familiar with the data on this, it’s my understanding that large cities in left leaning states tend to do worse at finding/providing long term housing to unhoused people.
I’m open to looking at contrary data, but that’s really what it’d take to sway my opinion on the matter.
