[ExI] Homelessness (was Re: Social right to have a living)

[Jeff Davis]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Kelly Anderson
>>
>>> Ok Jeff. So what do we do about homelessness?
>>
>> I consider homelessness part of the larger problem of social and
>> economic decay,
>
> I've heard some liberals state (seriously) that the biggest mistake
> mankind ever made was to come in from the rain and begin agriculture.
> So according to that method of thinking, the purest, best state for
> humanity would be for us ALL to be essentially homeless.

They were hippies.  It's a narrow class of liberal.  And even a narrow
class of hippie. The macrobiotic, Koom-bah-yah, crystal vibration,
back-to-nature kind of hippie.  Not all us old hippies slash liberals
are of that type.  Not being a liberal yourself, it's understandable
you would not be fully versed in liberal phylogeny.
>
> I don't state this to be provocative, but to point out that
> homelessness isn't the end of the world,
> just the end of access to a
> certain kind of civilization for those who are homeless.

Interesting apologism for that sort of conservative heartlessness
exemplified by Reagan's "they're just camping" comment.  Don't go
there.

Homelessness IS the "end of the world" -- which is to say the end of
dignity and the beginning of a sanity-destroying horror -- for most
homeless folks, in the same sense that falling from a tall building is
"the end".  It's not relevant, but glib and heartless, to observe that
one remains perfectly healthy until impact with the pavement.

>
> I could be perfectly happy in a perpetual camp out,

If it was involuntary?  I doubt it.  For one thing, as you yourself
observe below, involuntary homelessness -- in your case involuntary
"camping" -- might cost you your children.  At the very least, the
financial causes of your homelessness would also mean a severe strain
on your ability to care for your kids, which is up there with the
worst horrors imaginable. And if somehow you managed to meet their
physical and emotional needs, you would be living in constant fear of
having them taking from you.  Homelessness is NOT camping.  If forced
on you, you would NOT be perfectly happy.

> but DCFS would
> remove my children from me if I did. Another example of the loss of
> liberty we face in our home-filled society. Normal has become overly
> important in the US.
>
>> and would prefer to discuss the larger challenge of a
>> new system of governance -- a rational system of governance --
>> designed to address the circumstances -- social, cultural, political,
>> human behavioral, and technological -- of today's world.
>
> That sounds like a good goal. A bit much for one email :-)  but my
> answer would be a system with the absolute maximum amount of freedom
> possible without impinging upon the freedom of others. Lest you think
> this a purely libertarian pov, I include protection of the environment
> as necessary to avoid damaging others.

Thank you for that.  By way of reciprocation let me say that I stand
with you in supporting every person's right to arm themselves,
particularly for community and self-defense.

>> If this seems like a dodge, then I defer to the practical and
>> compassionate and EXPLICIT suggestions of John Grigg, who to his great
>> credit, always seems to have his feet planted solidly on the ground
>> (unlike moi).
>
> I don't know exactly what you are referring to here. Could you be more explicit?

Check John Grigg's post to this thread.
>
>> Simply put. if you create the conditions for people to feel safe, they
>> will work steadily to resolve problems both personal and societal.  If
>> however, people are constantly stressed by unrelenting vulnerability
>> in a ruthless social environment, then any spark can unleash the dark
>> forces of barbarism.
>
> Ok, so the core of my proposed civilization
> is freedom, and the core of your proposed
> civilization is safety.

           <snip misapplied Ben Franklin reference>

My bad.  I had introduced the larger overarching issue of governance,
but then kinda backtracked with a summarizing comment on the physical
and emotional safety of homeless persons.  Not national safety,

I believe, regarding safety, that Franklin was speaking of threats to
national(and by extension, personal) safety from foreign aggressors .

>> We've had thousands of years of seeing how humans behave and how that
>> gets us all in trouble.
>
> We have accomplished great things in
> the last few thousand years.

Apologism again.  Very lame argumentation.  "Great accomplishments" do
not and cannot exculpate criminality.  Hitler built the autobahn, so
he gets a free pass on the holocaust?  I don't think so. Neither do
you. Doesn't even count toward mitigation.

Humanity has made very little progress toward preventing the damage
caused by human behavioral failings.

> I ask again, would you like to climb
> back up into the trees?

First, you never asked.  You implied, but failed to tell me about it.
Second, I'm not that kind of hippie.  Third, "up into the trees" is a
bit further "back to nature" than the macrobiotic Koombahyah
lifestyle.  Please. for the sake of a coherent discussion, try to
maintain continuity from one paragraph to the next.

>
>> Since we now have technology enabling a level
>> of productivity sufficient to meet  -- AT LEAST -- everyone's BASIC
>> needs, there is no longer any reason for the war of all against all.
>
> But don't you see? We don't.

But don't YOU see, we do?

> If everyone's basic needs were met
> without work,

Huh?  Without work?  Where did I ever say anything like that?  I didn't.

> very soon nobody's basic needs would be met.

Presumably because no one would be working and then nothing would be
produced and then "nobody's basic needs would be met"? (State what you
mean explicitly.  If I have to guess, then I'd just as well go off in
the corner and talk to myself.)

> We would
> either overpopulate to the point that the whole system would collapse
> into starving chaos, or we would just all stop doing things for each
> other outside of our local groups and collapse into tribalism. I don't
> think you can stop the basic forces of Darwinism, and that's what you
> are asking to have happen. I'd love to suspend the law of gravity now
> and again too. :-)

This is conservative projection from conservative dogma.  Nonsense out
of nonsense.  I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that we will have
to end our "discussion" and go our separate ways.  So much of what you
say is founded on underlying assumptions that I find -- how can I say
this politely -- "unpersuasive".

>> To achieve that lasting peace, and reap the economic benefits of a
>> demilitarized world -- trillions saved on weapons and an end to the
>> cycle of destruction and rebuilding -- we have to find a way to
>> prevent the ruling elite -- those who start and benefit from wars --
>> from victimizing the rest of us with their pathology of ambition and
>> power.
>
> Now there is something that is hard to disagree with. I would love to
> be able to demilitarize. The only problem with that is that everyone
> has to demilitarize together,

Has to?  Has to?  You're so rigid.  Loosen up.

> and I see no way to accomplish that.

I understand.  We all have our strengths.  I for instance have some
suggestions about how to start this, and I feel confident that once we
all get together to work on it, synergy will take hold, and we'll find
our way..
>
> The United States could and probably will have to unilaterally
> decrease the size of their military presence around the world.

Well there you go!  So, (1) a START at disarmament can in fact be
unilateral. And (2) it's the first step in the necessary MULTILATERAL
effort.  Excellent work!

> There
> are more US military service men protecting South Korea from North
> Korea than there are protecting the US southern border from Mexican
> drug lords!

This is just what I'm talking about.  You lump together the
conservative talking (bigotry, actually) points -- drugs(druggie
low-lifes), border security (spics, no one talks about the Canadian
border)), immigrant labor("illegal" spics), and Mexican drug gang
violence  ****IN MEXICO****(drugs and killer spics).  This isn't
discussion. it's just a right-wing recitation, Koombahyah without the
poetry or uplift..

> But getting rid of the whole enchilada only kicks the ball
> down the field so far. Someone on this list recently said that 80% of
> our economy could be attributed to the rule of law, well friend, that
> same 80% comes from the power of the military too.

After Bush and Obama the "Rule of Law" is clearly a fiction.  And
militarism is terminal criminal psychosis.  Terminal because it kills
the nation, criminal because it's mass-murder done for profit, and
psychotic because, in contrast to a cannibal who feeds on others,
which is borderline rational, feeding on one's own until the nation
dies is clearly insane.

>
> But, if you can do it, that would be swell.
>
> Step one. Stop the western addiction to oil. That's what all the fuss
> is about in the Middle East,

No.  The US "addiction" to oil is a factor.   However, while
economically problematic is not at all what ALL the fuss is about.
The owners of the oil are thrilled to sell it to us.  Couldn't be more
thrilled, and love the idea of market forces setting the price.  Is it
too expensive?  Whose fault is that Mr. Free Market Capitalism?  The
fuss is about Western support for Arab dictatorships.  Support aimed
at getting the oil on the cheap.  And of course, it's about Israel.

> which is the core of almost all the
> world's problems these days.

This is the drunk slash liquor-store bandit blaming the liquor
companies for his "problem".

> Something like 23 of the last 25 inter
> state wars have involved at least one Islamic country.

Yeah.  Islam is the problem.  Why won't they let the West rob them,
subvert their governments, violate their culture, murder and expel
their peoples and replace them with Jewish colonists, and make
perpetual war on them to keep those colonists safe???!!!  Those
barbaric Islamofascists!!!  So damn touchy. How dare they??!!!

> Sad.

Indeed.

>
>> Can we design a system to do that?
>
> Probably not. But perhaps with more intelligence, it can be achieved.
> And I'm talking superhuman intelligence of the AGI sort.

And I'm talking entirely human intelligence of the compassionate
liberal type. (NOT the spineless PC liberal type, which I despise.)

                    *****************************

For the record, while I warmly embrace both "liberal" and "hippie", I
currently favor, for myself, the term "hard left progressive".

                     *****************************

It's not personal.  I'm sure you're a fine fellow.  We just disagree.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "We don't see things as they are,
        we see them as we are."
                   Anais Nin