Should people who don't contribute to society be allowed to take from it? (legal, drug)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's assume they are able-bodied, & able-minded, people who simply choose not to participate.
They are working age, but choose not to work, perhaps for many years, or decades.
They are family-aged, but choose to not be part of a family.
They have very little, or no means whatsoever, to provide for themselves.
Should people like this be allowed to take from our society?
Should people like this be allowed to co-exist alongside contributors to our society?
Should people like this be allowed to use the public spaces created by our society?
These questions arose in my mind as I read a thread in the political forum asking "who do Californians blame for all the homeless people" there.
I realize that many (or even most) homeless people are mentally ill, and/or have drug/alcohol addictions.
I'd like to set those homeless people aside in this thread. They are, or may be, unable to contribute to society.
I'm asking about the rest..the able-bodied, and able-minded homeless people. When trying to solve the homeless problem, this group are the most saveable. Many do not care to be saved, I get that. Should they be allowed to co-exist amongst productive citizens, & take from us? Use/abuse our public spaces?
It makes sense to see how the majority of us feels (I know it won't be unanimous) on this topic first, before moving on to the tougher issue of dealing w/ those with mental illness and addiction issues.
I'm also not interested in discussing where to move them to, if the majority say "no". Thats another topic.
I also don't want to get into any areas of legality. I'm asking philosophically.
I think the Marxist concept "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need" idealistically is a sound and fair principle.
It is in defining "abilities" and "needs" and factoring in self-serving human tendencies that we see it break down. To me that's the crux of the problem.
I honestly don't know of any able-bodied, able-minded, homeless people who actually enjoy living on the subsistence level provided by our social welfare net. People lose their jobs and/or become homeless for a variety of reasons -- not all of which are their fault alone. Sometimes their own families decide to disown them for various reasons which can seem petty and cruel to the rest of us, such as discovering that a family member is LGBT. (I could never understand a parent who disowns a child for such a reason.)
I think that more of us need to participate in food drives or other forms of charity, so that we might get a better grasp on exactly who these people are that are often viewed as being deliberately non-participatory in society.
Yes.
You think contributrs should pick who should be allowed to take from society (whatever that means) and who should be cast out? That's impossible. I can't assign one person the status of "mentally ill" and assign someone else the status of "lazy". No one could.
Let's assume they are able-bodied, & able-minded, people who simply choose not to participate.
They are working age, but choose not to work, perhaps for many years, or decades.
They are family-aged, but choose to not be part of a family.
They have very little, or no means whatsoever, to provide for themselves.
Should people like this be allowed to take from our society?
Should people like this be allowed to co-exist alongside contributors to our society?
Should people like this be allowed to use the public spaces created by our society?
These questions arose in my mind as I read a thread in the political forum asking "who do Californians blame for all the homeless people" there.
I realize that many (or even most) homeless people are mentally ill, and/or have drug/alcohol addictions.
I'd like to set those homeless people aside in this thread. They are, or may be, unable to contribute to society.
I'm asking about the rest..the able-bodied, and able-minded homeless people. When trying to solve the homeless problem, this group are the most saveable. Many do not care to be saved, I get that. Should they be allowed to co-exist amongst productive citizens, & take from us? Use/abuse our public spaces?
It makes sense to see how the majority of us feels (I know it won't be unanimous) on this topic first, before moving on to the tougher issue of dealing w/ those with mental illness and addiction issues.
I'm also not interested in discussing where to move them to, if the majority say "no". Thats another topic.
I also don't want to get into any areas of legality. I'm asking philosophically.
I’ve bolded these two statements because they are very different. Choosing to start a family is a personal choice. I fail to see it’s relevance in the discussion. There are a ton of abled people who have little interest in families, for whatever reason. They are still productive members of society.
I honestly don't know of any able-bodied, able-minded, homeless people who actually enjoy living on the subsistence level provided by our social welfare net. People lose their jobs and/or become homeless for a variety of reasons -- not all of which are their fault alone. Sometimes their own families decide to disown them for various reasons which can seem petty and cruel to the rest of us, such as discovering that a family member is LGBT. (I could never understand a parent who disowns a child for such a reason.)
I think that more of us need to participate in food drives or other forms of charity, so that we might get a better grasp on exactly who these people are that are often viewed as being deliberately non-participatory in society.
In a current politics thread, where there's a topic about homelessness in California, a poster described his father who is perfectly healthy, yet chooses to be homeless. So, I started an internet search to find out what percent are healthy....
In a current politics thread, where there's a topic about homelessness in California, a poster described his father who is perfectly healthy, yet chooses to be homeless. So, I started an internet search to find out what percent are healthy....
Every study/article infers different percentages, but NONE say 100% are sick, have mental illness, or addictions.
Thus, some % are healthy, & just choose to be homeless.
Should they be allowed to exist amongst us, & take from society? To use, and abuse, our public places? To commit petty crimes over and over again?
If we can't answer this question, we can't make any progress, because these are the easiest homeless to help.
In response to the statements in bold above: I doubt that any study can honestly come to a conclusion that confirms 100% of any premise.
Yes, some people do choose to be homeless, or "live off the land" or "live off the grid." That doesn't necessarily mean that they do so in order to "take from society." The ones who choose to live off the grid, in particular, are the ones who basically eschew the comforts, conveniences and municipal services that society generally supplies.
Additionally, why would you assume that all such people are criminals?
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 09-18-2021 at 06:02 AM..
In a current politics thread, where there's a topic about homelessness in California, a poster described his father who is perfectly healthy, yet chooses to be homeless. So, I started an internet search to find out what percent are healthy....
Every study/article infers different percentages, but NONE say 100% are sick, have mental illness, or addictions.
Thus, some % are healthy, & just choose to be homeless.
Should they be allowed to exist amongst us, & take from society? To use, and abuse, our public places? To commit petty crimes over and over again?
If we can't answer this question, we can't make any progress, because these are the easiest homeless to help.
Define “healthy”.
A lot of mental conditions are not considered a disease.
Yet, it could make very difficult for some people to properly “function” in the society as expected: getting an education, having a permanent job, having a family of their own, owning a car, a property, paying taxes, etc.
I bet it is actually very very few, who decides out of spirit of adventure or frugality to try out the homeless lifestyle.
The majority of truly healthy ones are thrown into it by the lack of skills, education, support, an indifference and low IQ to figure out how to get help..
Truly healthy would not willingly make it their lifetime choice. They would try to get out of it if they still could
Help is available for those who want out.
In subsistence societies, historically this question wasn't even a question. It was if you don't work, you don't eat. Every member had to contribute. We are now wealthy enough as a society that we can ignore this basic concept. The problem today is we are no longer helping the poor, but enabling it.
One of the interesting side bars I've seen from volunteering with youth. There are so many kids out there who seriously need help. But their parents aren't worth dog doo. You want to help those kids. You try to help those kids, but you just get a couple hours, while their parents have them all day when they aren't in school. These parents simply DO NOT CARE. About anything. Except maybe their next six pack or pack of cigarettes. It's easy to observe in the fund raising opportunities. We provide plenty of opportunities for families to raise funds to pay for the program, send their kids to camp, etc. Yet the only ones who show up to work these opportunities are the ones who don't need it; who could easily pay their own way but believe their kids should learn the value of earning it. The ones who need it never show up to help. They just expect someone else to donate to them. And the gullible in our society give it to them. So neither they, nor their kid learn the value of earning what you get.
We're not talking those with legit mental issues. These folks are intelligent, but just don't care. Society can't solve their problems because they don't see a reason to solve them themselves or even consider it as a problem. If we could go to each one of these people and give them a million dollar check, most of them will be back at the welfare door within two years.
I had a friend who decided to give the social safety net a whirl for two years to see how easy it was. He is not American and lives in the EU, so the safety net where he is is much larger. He ended up writing a book about it. It was not easy or fun. He had a place to live, but he had certain routines for grocery shopping to make his money stretch.
I think it is harder when people have kids. A lot of jobs do not pay enough to prove childcare. We hear stories from time to time about kids dying or getting seriously injured in unlicensed home daycares. These days staffing is also poor, so you have fewer places available for the smaller babies who may need one adult for 4 or 5 babies. It is certainly easy to see why it is expensive at that age, since it’s not sustainable to charge someone $200 a week per kids. FWIW, under typical circumstances, SNAP requires able boded adults without children to work or volunteer in some capacity to get food stamps unless they are disabled, but that does not apply to adults with children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
