You're viewing a single thread.
Your solution is literally just "give money"? That only works in some instances, where a person is struggling because of bad luck or whatever, but has a desire to improve their situation. But if they are a substance abuser or are mentally ill, money isn't going to help like housing would, since they either don't know what to do with it, or they prioritize drugs over shelter.
And most cases of substance abuse come from people living in a society with no community and no safety nets. Even if you give everyone a thousand bucks a month but society is stil hell, it solves very little.
Yeah it's not like there is one problem and one solution. Some turn to drugs to escape their situation or because they have bad coping mechanisms, while others get into drugs and their life falls apart because of it.
9 times out of 10, people are poor simply because they are poor, not because of some moral failing on their part. But instead we tell ourselves comforting lies that they must have done something wrong. We tell ourselves this because as long as we don't do those wrong things, we don't end up poor or homeless.
In truth, all that is necessary to be homeless is for the cost of housing to rise above the market value of your skill set. That is all. Or a severe illness is all that's really required.
I don't think it's so much a moral failing, but one of privilege in the form of being raised in a stable family, having positive role models and being taught basic life skills. If your parents weren't around to teach you these things or if you were preoccupied with survival as a kid, then you are not equipped to thrive in life. Through no fault of your own. Had you been taught some of these things, then you could be self sufficient. Of course illness, changing job markets, rental costs, inflation, and so on can impact a person's situation as well, but these can be semi reasonably planned for as well, if you know how.
Theres a difference between homelessness and poverty.
Yes, and they require different solutions. UBI is an attempt to solve poverty, but won't do much for homelessness.
I'd say with those people you just need to give the money to a care giver instead of directly to the person... But it's still just giving money without making them jump through all kinds of dehumanizing hoops
Yeah that or provide housing and help for their addiction or mental issues. Money doesn't help them at all. People need shelter and food more than they need money. Money is just a means to store value and make transactions, and in their case, those transactions are food and shelter, so why not provide those first? It doesn't help to give the societal currency if you aren't equipped to exist in that society anyway.
I mean... Money can be traded for shelter and food.
Yeah but the point is if you don't know how to spend it responsibly, then what good is it? If you spend it on drugs or alcohol because that's more important to you than shelter, which is the case for serious addicts, then it doesn't help you. Instead it only enables your addiction and keeps you on the street.
Yeah... Then they'd need someone helping them with their money I guess. If I had a magic wand I'd make all substances legal but manufacture and sales strictly controlled by the government... When someone gets to the point where the addiction is so bad they'd choose substance over housing or food, offer them free housing and all the drugs they want for free, but the housing is a special community just for that, with like therapists and nurses galore. When they're ready to stop using move them to the recovery community... Still free housing but also start reintroducing them to alternative activities besides drugs... All of this would require a shit ton of money though... And right now that money is almost all going to the pharma companies for their alternative drugs that never actually get people off drugs
In general the concept sounds ok, but I think the reality would make it a death camp since many of those drugs are so addictive that you simply won't break free on your own, without being forced to quit.
If they want to be forced that should be an option too... But so should the option of continuing to use until it kills you... but even then we should do our best to keep them as healthy and comfortable as possible because in the long run it costs society less that way and it's easier to get out of when they decide to
I don't think you are doing drug addicts any favors by letting them continue to use. Their life is better without that addiction and a healthy society would help them as much as possible and feasible. I'm all for personal freedom, but I don't view addiction as being free.
Addiction isn't freedom... But the only way to beat it is for that person to choose to fight it themselves... Until they make that choice we're just wasting time, energy, and money trying to force them to
Yeah they have to want to or it won't work.
The entire body of research on "housing first" disproves this classist bullshit. You are literally doing the exact thing OP is talking about. People HAVE done the research and found that giving people housing is the most effective way to help people. It is the most effective way to help people with drug addictions.
Most people do drugs because there is something objectively terrible about their lives. If you had to sleep on the sidewalk, wouldn't you want to get high all day? If you say no, you're delusional.
I'm confused. It sounds like you are disagreeing with me, but basically reworded exactly what I said.