Why?
Absolutely, out of the few things I do know, of this I am most certain. There is a genetic element of barbarity in humanity, namely of the type that refuses to be culled to expected institutions of society.
“Criminals”, you can relate, can you not?
It may be, no, as a matter of the consequences of economic principles, there need be a percentage of the absolutely and resignedly impoverished. Why? Because social psychological programs reflect a very definte structure of economic reality. Were it not for those who possess so very little, the next class structural level of the lower classes with some property, etc, would remain ill defined, and the one above that, the lower middleclass, followed by the middle, then the upper middle, then the lower, and upper crusts would also sustain damage.
This structure is both an internal and and of external causation, where the internally and externally causation are projected as discreet and separate, whereas the opposite is true. The system is not designed to function in this way, initially, but prove to be most effective, to create a system of feedback , so as to de-differentiate society’s motives and aims in reference to finding fault, and/or, solution.
The prime mover of course, is the same as finding why, there is a recurrent pattern of similarity of the rate of profit on capital with the percentage of unemployment. This level rangigin a best and most useful statis is around 3% to 7%. There is a function to homelessness, apart from merely statistical analysis, there is the psychological resistance toward the feelings of lower classes toward the totally reduced segments of society, vis. those of the homeless. What are these feelings? It is like the saety valve of the lower classes, thtat is bases on a common perception that yes, let’s not be too hard on society, since there are people even worse off, so lets be greatful of what we have, since it could get a lot, lot worse.
So between the economic and social designators, there is the political expediencey of setting bars, toward issues of social welfare, (appearent and real), to create opportunities for both politicians and charities, whose motivations and aims are not any more clear and defined. This state of affairs create so called public debates, where ultimately, there is no real understanding, except to raise debates on a lot of misguided and ambiguious pulpits.
In times as such as these, where DasCapital is purported as dead in the water, yet crying out for a vanished dialectic, acttion is taken only, when those who forge policy begin to see that certain levels become obvious, when 'something has to be done' In these times when classes seem to be unpleasently put into a challenged position, where everyone above starts to worry about their own jobs, certan plastic and cosmetic policies appear to get moving.
A good example is, the recurrance of power on Capital Hill-where the crisis of the Great Recession appearently over, the Republicans come in and try to take back some of the relaxed legislations such as Obamacare. Obamacare, and even Obama’s presidency hinged on the appearance of gains made, in fact, the power structure, the stasis, will retroact, into reversed policy, as before, so that optimum conventional policy can be resumed.
Sounds very scientific. Which gene is it? Can you show me some kind of study that includes lab results where this was discovered?
I could probably find the genetic coding if I were a geneticist, had a lab, researchers, and resources to prove this scientifically. It’ll get proved someday without me.
The problem is that successful experiments and research are politically incorrect, and probably wouldn’t make it mainstream without public backlash anyway.
Liberal secular humanists would censor the shit out of these types of studies, let alone results. There actually is research on these topics.
So to answer your question, no, I do not have the data. But I do have the method to test and produce the data, yes.
Back in the early days of genetics, a Viennese geneticist, who was a Lamarckian comitted suicide, because allgedly, Darwin destroyed his methodology.
The arguement pro and con, remains on the level of the hypothetical. The problem is Darwin won out so brilliantly, that no long range studies were attempted.
I see.
The only alternative there is to this mess is knowledge, which I have said numerous times.
With more knowledge and difference comes more and new ideas.
And if she was given a home due to some general order #blah…blah…blah, this would prevent her from being able to keep doing what she prefers?
The first type is the easiest to help, next the third, and then the second.
None of them are helpless except by an inept society.
That sounds good but it doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t solve any problem.
Here is a challenge : Identify a problem and propose a solution that can be applied ‘overnight’.
What if society as a whole gains when all these people are given housing? If even the people who choose to live on the street end up costing society more, they are in effect displacing what they perceive as a burden onto society. Does society have a right to intervene? Certainly we quarantine people by force when there’s a risk that they will spread a deadly disease.
And, as to the second, probably most are treatable, and more will be as time goes on. Between pharmacological and cognitive interventions, there’s a lot that could be done for them, society would probably benefit for it.
For now you’re presenting what you acknowledge to be an untested hypothesis. And research does show some genetic influence on personality, but studies suggest that other factors outweigh genetic influences for most personality traits. See e.g. this study (PDF): “Broad genetic influence on the five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness was estimated at 41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively.” These estimates were higher than the estimates found by other similar studies (discussed in that paper), and the study of course has all the problems that twin studies have in separating environmental from genetic influences.
Why should the third type be helped if they do not wish to be helped?
The second type are usually addicts or severe mentally ill … they sabotage the efforts to help them.
What’s the difference between 'giving them housing ’ and ‘locking them up’?
Presumably you are not proposing jailing them for their own good, therefore they will be free to go as they please. Those who do not want to participate in society will simply take the money and leave. Those who can’t function will either be driven out by neighbors or they also take the money and leave.
So drug them into submission. That’s been tried and it presents a lot of ethical problems. Most people would say that a harmless antisocial homeless person is preferable to a lobotomized drone.
No, housing costs money, and I don’t want to be taxed for other people’s irresponsibility.
Taxes are theft by the state. In that case, the criminals attempting to escape society are more just.
People object to the way others “help” (understandably). Learn to help in the right way and no one will refuse.
All the more challenge for learning the right way to help.
The presumption that the help to be given is merely X or Y, is a clear sign that those giving don’t know how to give, don’t know how to love and are trying to simply pass off the complexity involved for sake of their own convenience. And most people who have the ability to help, spread it too thin, trying to help too many all at once.
When one learns the right way to help, they naturally form very small groups being helped, not entire nations with universal, over-generalized, presumptuous declarations for the needy (and associated taxes). When you see that kind of law being written, you can already know that it is either disguising treachery (very most often), or merely stemming from extreme naivety.
There is a science and mathematics to providing love. The USA has more than sufficient intelligence to calculate it out. They don’t have to depend upon old European or Middle Eastern concepts. And it would pay off far more than applying that exact same intelligence to manipulating foreign nations as they are doing now.
If taxes are theft by the state…then what is it when a company posts profits while the workers are unable to pay for necessities? Is that theft from the worker?
Workers agree for a wage. Very largely most tax payers don’t agree to the taxing.
And yes, that does make it theft.
But they do want the services that government provides.
It is easy to confuse and confound the average, even bright, person into doing things they don’t want to do but feel trapped into doing. That is what con games and a very large part of the new-age USA laws are all about - obfuscation, intimidation, and extortion.
Attorneys, especially dealing with poverty situations such as HUD, will tell you right up front that the laws are so ambiguous and conflated that neither the attorneys nor the judge can tell you with certainty what is legal. This allows for judges to comply with their secret alliance and ensure his position granted from above. In each case, they can pretty much do anything they want based upon anything they like or dislike.
Admit it, the typical US taxpayer wants a bunch of services but does not wish to pay for them. That’s why the government keeps going deeper into the hole.
Armies, police, courts, roads, schools … they all cost money.