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

[Kelly Anderson]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 clearly said "some"... and I assumed it was a fairly small group. It
does, however, include at least one Obama administration appointment.
:-)  I think I understand liberalism relatively well, except for the
part how anyone could believe that sack of ideas.

>> 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.

There are a few that are "just camping"... especially in Southern
California and various national parks. We hear from time to time about
people setting up homesteads in Yellowstone. Brrrr. But again, it is a
fairly small piece of the overall problem. I just found it interesting
that there was no mention of that segment in the government numbers.

> 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.

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.

>> 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.

Absolutely not. By myself, I would be happy enough though. With my
kids, it would be a nightmare. There is an increase lately of homeless
families, attributed mostly to government interference in housing
leading to the recent "housing crisis." I can assure you that would
never happen in a libertarian utopia. What would happen in a
libertarian utopia is that every now and again, a structure would
collapse, and people would be crushed because there would be no
building codes in a libertarian utopia. You can see what happens
because it's what happened in the Haiti earthquake. On the other hand,
housing would be much cheaper, especially at the low end. I've also
spend months in Brazilian favelas in Sao Paulo and about ten days in
pre earthquake Haiti. These shanty towns steal electricity for tin
roof shacks built out of plywood. But the vast majority of those
shacks in Sao Paulo had a television in 1985 ;-) Weird huh?

Now let's do an exercise. Suppose that we imposed US style building
codes in Haiti after the earthquake. 90% of those people would remain
homeless FOREVER. We have the same thing in America but it isn't as
noticeable here because we are such a rich country. Shanty towns are a
rarity in America. I did have friends living in old slave quarters in
Georgia when I was small, that was as close as I've personally
experienced here, and it was pretty horrible. Not as bad as the
favella though.

I have limited (but not zero) experience with personal poverty, but I
have been around poverty quite a bit more than the average American.
Especially the "real" poverty that exists in other parts of the world.
I am sympathetic to poverty. But as Stewart Brand has noted, shanty
towns are a step up from rural poverty. A step up that is not
available to Americans. Would be in a libertarian utopia. I think
living in a shanty town would really light a fire under most welfare
recipients in the US. There would be many fewer "jobs Americans won't
do" in such a state.

>> 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.

Good, it's nice that we have one point of agreement to work from. It
might be enough.

>>> 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.

Ah.

>>> 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,

OK

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

Perhaps, but I think it applies in this context too.

>>> 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.

I think it mitigates the work and actions of the German people. It
somewhat excuses them for following Hitler, at least at first. I think
we can agree that he himself is beyond historical redemption.

> 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.

>> 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.

Fair enough. For the record, I didn't assume you were that kind of
hippie, but asked this as more of a rhetorical question. There is a
common liberal misconception that "savage" man lived more in harmony
with nature and each other. I'm hoping that misconception is going
away as we learn more about these cultures.

>>> 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?

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 (except in some very limited ways) there
will always be limits on resources. For example, there are limited
amounts of "blood minerals" that we discussed a few weeks ago.

In the general sense that the earth cannot hold 400 billion trillion
people, 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. You also have to look
at WHY we have enough now. Partially, because in the past, we have had
limited socialism. A recent poll showed that 30ish percent of
Americans believe we are in PERMANENT decline now. I hope that isn't
true, but if the socialist programs continue, I fear we will be.

>> If everyone's basic needs were met
>> without work,
>
> Huh?  Without work?  Where did I ever say anything like that?  I didn't.

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?

>> 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.)

Yes, exactly. You need look no further than communist Russia to see
that. I did spend a week in communist China in 1987, and while it
wasn't enough to see what was really going on, the service was
horrible. I'd bet the service in China today is very good.

>> 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".

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

>>> 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.

If one side demilitarizes unilaterally, they will be attacked by those
who have not. Is that so hard to understand or believe? There are
exceptions to this rule... e.g. Switzerland, Tahiti, but there are
special circumstances in those cases. History is full of examples of
soft societies being over run by the barbarian hordes.

>> 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..

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?

>> 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!

We've been taking starting steps to unilateral disarmament for years.
We are disassembling our nuclear legacy from the cold war. We are
helping the Russians to do the same. These are good things to do. But
what enabled that? The END of the cold war did.

Both the republicans and the democrats rule from positions of fear.
Fear of different things, to be sure, but the ruling classes want us
to all be afraid.

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, even if I can't quite
go all the way there with him... not quite, yet. Almost... I keep
going back to Charles Lindberg, and have to put on the brakes a bit.

>> 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..

This isn't just talking. We have spent more to enforce Iraq's borders
than our own. Do you believe we should have an open door policy with
Mexico?

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?

>> 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.

Sad, but true in both cases.

> 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.

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

>> 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.

Israel is certainly a complicating factor. I won't even pretend to
know how to solve all of that...

But if oil were not at issue, most Americans would be perfectly
satisfied to let the arabs go back to fighting amongst themselves, as
they did from 800 to 1900.

>> 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".

I'm the one who said the US was drunk on oil. Again, I differ from
most conservatives by being a strong advocate of smart application of
alternative energy sources. It makes me cringe to hear Rush Limbaugh
talk about oil and alternative energy. Nevertheless, I think this
problem is solving itself, in much the same way that the whale oil
crisis was solved, through capitalism.

>> 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??!!!

Now who's spewing party line tripe. You KNOW it isn't that simple. You
would probably agree with Ron Paul's international approach then...

Also, half of those wars are Islam on Islam wars. How do you explain
that if it's all the big bad west?

>> 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.)

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.
2) Power seeking governments impede capitalism and are thus counter productive.
3) There are evil people in the world that any system must compensate for.
4) Religion is worst when promoting anti-scientific positions.
5) Science is done by people and is not only not infallible, but also
susceptible to human failings and politics.
6) We live in a resource constrained world.
7) Individual politicians are often worse than governments, and rule
through fear.
8) Aliens did not help the Egyptians build the pyramids, and the
pyramids built Egypt.
9) Freedom is the single most important political concept.
10) Mothers are the core of society, when we undermine motherhood, we
do so at our peril.

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

That is helpful.

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

I feel the same way, otherwise I would not continue the discussion. :-)

-Kelly
The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other
people's money.