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

[Kelly Anderson]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

So you were one of the people that the government did not count. ;-)

> 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.

My girl friend is a hoarder. I'm with you there brother.

> 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.

Lots of people retire to that, and I don't think they are considered
homeless in the sense that they need government handouts.

> 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.

I can't disagree with that.

> 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.

ROFLMAO. Thanks.

> 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!"

You're the man!

>>> 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.

I think the militarism is reversible. At least I hope that it is.
Perhaps when we are no longer the single world superpower, and can't
afford to be the police state of the world, we'll get back to founding
principles. Might happen sooner if Bachmann or Paul are elected... ;-)

>> 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.  ;-)

They also drove herds of buffalo off of the cliff to eat one or two of them.

>> 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".

Eventually, we'll run out of some of the important stuff, like oil or
blood minerals. Temporarily, at least, that's going to cause friction.

> 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.

No, it just has to do with the nature of exponential growth.

> 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.

That pushes the problem out, but does not solve it entirely.

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

I hope not.

> 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.

No doubt it will be interesting. I don't think I made a prediction,
other than that at some point, we will have shortages of some
things... as long as we have Malthusian growth. Perhaps AI will save
us from Malthus. It's possible.

>  > 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!!??)

You're soooo funny. ;-)

>       <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.

I can get above property rights once all property is digital. Until
then, I think property rights are the only thing that will get us
there.

>> 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.

Look, I never said that disadvantaged people shouldn't be helped. I am
all for charity. I'm not Ayn Rand on that point, she's a cold
heartless beast in some regards. However, I just don't see it being
the government's job to provide all charity. I think there is more
room for NGOs to care for Aunt Lavinia. You keep saying that I'm an
animal that hates useless people. I am not. I merely want the
government out of Aunt Lavinia's bedroom, and kitchen, and living room
and roof.

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

No. Socialism is everyone being EQUALLY miserable. Together.

> <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.

Do you believe in the future of money? It basically boils down to that.

>       <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?

I'm sure they make some mean dishes using sour goat's milk.

Bhutan has become important because they measure Gross National
Happiness... as the most important national measurement as opposed to
GDP. It is an interesting exercise, really.

>                          <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.

I would too. How did that happen?

>> 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.

It is a black mark on congress that it has been allowed to get to this
point. Once again, politicians create division, then eat off the power
of the chaos.

>> 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?

We need more growth, especially at the low end of the economic
spectrum. We aren't building enough new Americans to do that stuff,
and we think we don't have to anymore. Maybe it should be 100x. The
point is that we don't let enough Mexicans in legally, and I don't
know why.

> And hey immigration peoblem solved, drug problem solved,
> drug war problem solved.  Excellent work'

Yeah!!

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

Sure. Whatever.

>>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.

OK

>>...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".

I'm more concerned about energy than global warming... and I am more
concerned with long term trends than with crises.

>                              <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.

Capitalism has turned the number of scientists from dozens in 1750 to
millions today. Science is good, and capitalism creates more of it, so
I stick with my original stance.

>> 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.

Why are we arguing?

>> 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.

Yeah, that worked for DSK. :-)

>> 4) Religion is worst when promoting anti-scientific positions.
>
> Science works, religion doesn't.  Religion is obsolete.

OK.

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

But it isn't recognized enough.

>> 6) We live in a resource constrained world.
>
> Once true, now mostly a myth.

Oh, well, we got through the first five...

>> 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.

What if Anthony Weiner were honest? :-)

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

Without the work projects the Egyptian nation would have collapsed.

>> 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.

So now, you're promoting property rights... You are fun. :-)

>> 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.

Except for Mother Theresa, she can burn in hell. Except, dog damn it,
there is no hell. Crap!!

-Kelly