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

[Jeff Davis]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Remember that you are talking to a formerly homeless person. It was only a few months, but long enough to know it wasn't the end of the  world for me.

And I was "homeless" for many years.  And after the first week, it was
voluntary.  And I loved it.  It was very close to the freedom that
most people talk about, and buy sailboats to dream about.

It was in the SF Bay Area.  I started out in an econoline van and
worked my way up to a small  motorhome.   If my wife would let me, I'd
go back in a minute.  Houses are monstrous money-eating tar pits where
you collect your "stuff" until you're buried alive in the
responsibility to take care of it all.

When I was living in my van/motorhome I had only what I needed, could
easily keep track of it, and never had to pack when I went on a trip.

I think everyone should have the liberating experience of a
"successfully homeless" -- thrifty-yet-comfortable -- lifestyle.
Instead, it's enslavement to "home ownership", The Johnny Rocco
("Yeah. That's it. More. That's right! I want more!") lifestyle
standard.

Ah well, to each his own.

I mention this because, after Samantha's comment (that my
characterization of homelessness was overblown), and upon further
reflection, I realize that my attitude is the liberal-standard-outrage
v. 1.9.70.  I've taken the word "homeless", fleshed it out with
imaginary (ie projected) unpleasant details, thrown in some imaginary
(ie projected) human suffering, submitted these briefly to my mirror
neurons for some first person vicarious "experience" -- okay, it's bad
-- and then mounted my liberal high horse to tilt at windmills or
conservatives, as it pleased me.

So seeing as my attitude is concocted out of fictional musings --
except perhaps for the couple I read about from Oregon who had lived
in their house for 28 years until it was foreclosed on -- don't recall
why -- and then committed suicide, or the street woman in my Mission
District neighborhood in San Francisco, whose face was always hidden
in the hooded darkness of her geasy(?) black parka and onto who's
known unknown narrative I layered my vague but horrific imaginings, or
the women in the parking lot in Santa Barbara, now houseless, now
husbandless living in their cars -- so I'll get off my horse.

"Go, my four-legged brother, run free!"

>> Humanity has made very little progress toward preventing the damage
>> caused by human behavioral failings.
>
> But in no place is that damage as minimized as in America.

The American experiment is over.  The cancer of militarism is
terminal.  For me personally, it allows me to notice the irrationality
of my own nationalism, and try in some degree to let it go.   Change
is a constant.

> There is a
> common liberal misconception that "savage" man lived more in harmony
> with nature and each other

Is it a misconception?  Were you there?  They didn't have traffic
noise, or asthma,... or taxes.  ;-)

> We may not be able to get past this one... however, I'll try one more
> time... While we are not very close to the carrying capacity of the
> earth for humans right now

I just love it.  Note the "right now".  "But in the future you better
just look out!  We're doomed!  We're all doomed!  All the stuff will
be used up, and, and...."

<snip continued Henny Penny trembling over "the end of ***enough*** "

>... there are limits. There will always be these sorts of limits.
> Saying that there happens to be enough for everyone at this particular
> moment in time is meaningless in the long term.

There is 13.7 million times more light energy coming from the sun than
is intercepted by the disk of the Earth.  There is the asteroid belt,
the oort cloud and the Kuiper belt, for raw materials.  We are in fact
headed into a regime of ever more "stuff", ever diminishing limits.
That's what I see in "the long term".

i believe what is happening here is that you are naturally concerned
about having enough stuff (to survive), an instinct to be protective
of your "stuff" and a narrative of "limits" that complements your
perceived need to protect your stuff.  I understand.  Mammals are
acquisitive and territorial by nature.  So when someone says "Oh,
don't worry, there's plenty of stuff for everybody", you naturally
start to worry about your stuff, that they'll maybe notice all your
stuff, and probably want to come and take some of it.

There's plenty of stuff on the planet for now, and the future for
humanity is off planet and out of the gravity well, where there's
waaaaaay more stuff.  And by the way, robots will do so much work for
us, that there'll be lots more finished goods for everyone, for way
cheaper than now.

And the basics, the necessities,... well, being necessities, they'll be free.

You project the limits of today onto the future.  I project the
abundance of future onto a social model of the present.  I think your
projections are flawed because the future will not be so limited.  And
my projection is likely to fail because, abundances aside, the social
model of the present will not be the social model of the future, a
whole raft of unforeseen synergies will see to that.

 > You also have to look
> at WHY we have enough now. Partially, because in the past, we have had
> limited socialism.

Finally you see that socialism is the source of all progress.  Out of
darkness you've come to the Extropian's list and seen the light.
Bless you, my child. (Do I actually have to put a friggin' smiley
here!!??)

       <snip pre-enlightenment backsliding>


"Ahem." (clears his throat)  "Where's my damn horse?  Yo! Trigger, git
over here you four-legged victim of anthropic superiority."

Sorry, bro, but the above screed is all human greed, "It's mine you
can't have it!"  "Property rights!  Property rights!"

Let us rise above that.

> The whole premise of socialism is that some people, at the economic
> bottom of things, don't need to work, and will be supported by
> society. Are you telling me you aren't THAT kind of liberal?

I'm telling you that the whole premise of socialism is that we're all
in this together, and that you don't throw Aunt Lavinia into the
landfill because her kids were all killed in the war and her husband
Elmo got colon cancer and spent all their money on coffee enema
alternative therapy at a clinic in Guadalajara.

Socialism is ACTUALLY caring for people, not dumping them on the side
of the road with a sign that says "Rand Inevitably Provides."

<snip>

> Perhaps, but let's go back to basics. Do you believe in basic
> economics? Adam Smith resonate with you at all?

"Wealth of Nations".  I Googled it and then Wikipediaed it and okay,
your basic economic theory.  But then, quite by accident I came across
this article in the Asia Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MG02Dj03.html

wherein I find the following quote:

"...I pointed out that I wasn't sure why economists still refer so
extensively to Adam Smith.

He's been dead for centuries; didn't live in China or India; and he
had a colonial view of the world; and when the world's population was
well under 1 billion...."

I'm not challenging the value of Smith's contribution or the validity
of his observations or axioms.  But since the world is changing so
fast that it makes my head spin, I'd like some kind of sense of what
the future conditions will be like -- in regards to productivity --
before guessing about what future economics will look like.  Central
to that future context, in my view, will be a level of automation and
consequent productivity, that will overtake the demand what we
currently think of as basic human needs.  Such an Economy of Abundance
could result in two classes of goods, non-market-based (entitlements,
free basic necessities), and market-based (limited for whatever
reason).

But that's as far as I want to go into future fantasy.  Now it's your turn.

       <snip my appeal for world peace.  I'll
            never get the tiara with ***this*** nose>

> Let's talk motivation. In your proposed society, is money a prime
> motivator? Perhaps you believe there are motivations that are more
> important than money. There are, if you are Bhutan... but would you
> like the whole world to become Bhutan?

Can't say.  Haven't been there.  Do they make a good meatball
sandwich?  Chow fun?

                          <snip>

> Ron Paul is very good at explaining why we should get out of the rest
> of the world. I think he has a very good point,

I like Ron Paul.  He's a good man, a decent
man, a principled man, a truthful man.
Clearly unelectable.  ;-)  Which is why I'll vote for him.
>
    <snip gratuitous complaint re Mexicans>


> Do you believe we should have an open
door policy with Mexico?

Mostly.  It's basically what we have now, but sullied by politics and
bigotry.  They come here, they work, they're part of our community,
economy, culture, and identity as a nation of immigrants.  It is a
black mark on America that they are treated so disrespectfully.

>
> Here is what I do believe. I believe we should increase the number of
> legal immigrants from Mexico by about 10x. I believe that the feds
> could come up with a reasonable "guest worker" program. I believe that
> if we legalized drugs, the whole border war problem would evaporate.
> Does that sound like "right wing" Koombahyah?

Hell no!  Sounds damn fine to me.  What's the rationale for the 10x
increase?   And hey immigration peoblem solved, drug problem solved,
drug war problem solved.  Excellent work'

 What by the way is the right wing Koombahyah?  Ballad of the Green Berets?

>The difference between us is that I see social programs as cannibalism too.

And I acknowledge the "moral hazard" problem.
Maybe we can talk about that another time.


>...about oil and alternative energy.  ... I think this
> problem is solving itself, in much the same way that the whale oil
> crisis was solved, through capitalism.

I feel the same way, that's why I don't pay much attention to either
the energy "crisis" or the global warming "crisis".

                              <snip>

> So boil it down, what are your top ten beliefs? I'll give you mine
> (though I reserve the right to modify just what my top 10 are...):
>
> 1) Capitalism is the greatest single force for good in the history of
> the world because it promotes technology.

Science is the greatest because it promotes understanding and technology.

> 2) Power seeking governments impede capitalism and are thus counter productive.

"Power-seeking goverments" is redundant.  Efficient government is a
contradiction.  The best government is that which governs least.
.
> 3) There are evil people in the world that any system must compensate for.

Holding those in the highest positions of power accountable to the law
will markedly reduce the "evil" in the world.

> 4) Religion is worst when promoting anti-scientific positions.

Science works, religion doesn't.  Religion is obsolete.

> 5) Science is done by people and is not only not infallible, but also
> susceptible to human failings and politics.

Of course..

> 6) We live in a resource constrained world.

Once true, now mostly a myth.

> 7) Individual politicians are often worse than governments, and rule through fear.

Politicians should at all times live in fear of the rule of law,...or be honest.

> 8) Aliens did not help the Egyptians build the pyramids, and the
> pyramids built Egypt.

Huh?.

> 9) Freedom is the single most important political concept.

Everybody says freedom is important.  It's iconic.  But is it true?  I
can't say.  I've lived in a free (so they say) society all my life
and, without meaning to be cute, I'm not sure I know what freedom is,
having nothing really to compare it to.  To me money is freedom and
lack of money is non-freedom.

> 10) Mothers are the core of society, when we undermine motherhood, we
> do so at our peril.

I will not sully motherhood with a snarky remark.   Whoops!  Too  late.

Best, Jeff Davis

 "Everything you see I owe to spaghetti."
                    Sophia Loren