Well, once the problem identified, the local government would be in the right position to enact policies and implement programs to educate and help those in need. But that would be called "socialism" thus a big no-no.
Again, real problem is socialism [thinking] - that system will resolve all problems. But any systems are unperfect - "never say never" do not apply here.
We have society/tax/government sponsored homeless shelters, food points, social workers etc etc. But it is obviously not enough because every "system" is generalization -> some or most cases are resolved but some cases are lost.
More, having "help system" sometimes PROHIBITS real help, example: article above ! It is epidemy and they prohibit more then sensible help ! Possible fire problem ? Or just someone didn't like this ? Other example: some baker was giving free food to poor peoples and government tax institution send him to court because someone (poor people) gained somerealynothing and no tax was paid... - beyound stupidity or evil .
Even more: when there is official help system some people take it as excuse for not doing personal help, eg: "GO TO FOOD POINT YOU $%%*(&^". Socialism mentality is like this. Plus corruption acceptance, IMO always.
Help systems are part of our better civilisation. But preventing personal help is effective destroying that civilisation.
My proposition: every city clerk take one mini-wooden-shelter with homeless person on his house front grass
lawn. And providing some food for your poor neighber is pretty obvious, right ?
Yep. And i am not saying its a bad or good thing to do it that way. Just that it is one solution to a problem. Another could be, that people in need are part of their communities, people know you, and there is a charity, where people pay in and they organize themselves, to pay out benefits for the less lucky. Many things were tried out in the past, so other ideas may come up in the future. But it doesnt always need a centralized government, a big guy, far, far away.
In a country with actual social services, there should be a feedback channel to identify such cases and help them directly (not necessarily funding but sometimes too).
Of course this won't work in some countries because both socialism is frowned upon and individualism is glorified. You fall because you're a failure not because you were dealt a bad hand by life.
If you want to provide government aid to poor communities then by all means do it. But let's not pretend that welfare even approximates a solution to the problem. There is likely no solution.
Well... aside from letting go of past injustices and instead focusing on some better future. Which isn't really a solution at all since it relies on the permanent good will of all future generations.
I think that more specifically they'd say that this should be adressed by volountary charity. Which is nice in theory but ignores how inefficient that tends to be.
Yes but that's a poor people problem, so who cares?
I don't think it's possible for these things to be solved at any level lower than the federal, you can apply some band-aids but ultimately you need a stronger social safety net, which the US seems culturally averse to.
Gimping the rich to subsidize the poor is dysgenic and not in-line with the realities of nature. Given that Nowrway is still relatively homogenous when it comes to demographics I would expect strong socialist programs to do decently. In a place like USA where an unfortunate number of residents simply see such programs as a handout rather than having an associated social obligation, this would not work.
Would you voluntarily give more taxes to your governments? Or would you rather donate that money to a charity of your choosing / research?
> the answer to the variety of problems that plague Chicago's South Side, New Orleans, or any number of troubled communities?
No one (government, private sector, etc.) has the answer to those problems. Those are really really hard problems that require the cooperation of non-profits, local governments, religious institutions, families, etc. I don't think they're expecting to be a silver bullet.
Exactly. Ultimately these problems must be addressed on a greater societal level: by policy designed specifically to target them.
Individual donation will only ever be a band aid. The funds required to alleviate hunger, poverty, etc., will come from redistributing the wealth of the super rich.
The problem with that solution, which I agree is better, is that helping poor people not be poor is unpopular with the people who have the means to provide that help.
So what do we do about this? Should we have a society where people are working full-time and living paycheck-to-paycheck? Is that a fair and equitable thing?
After we fix our government corruption in this country, we should look towards more socialism - I'd rather live in a society that houses homeless children, cares for its disabled, helps its sick, and empowers its poor, then one that doesn't - and I think most people share my view.
I agree but then the only solutions are to either have a massive shift over to government services to help people, or let people die in the street if they don't have the resources and get sick. The two major political parties in the United States seem like they would rather destroy the system than accept one of those two positions, Republicans against growth in government and Democrats against letting people go without help
>What you're suggesting is simply a new form of government. It might be great; it could perhaps work. But it's certainly not something to suggest offhand. Our current form(s) of government is a result of centuries (and millennia) of gradual, and sometimes revolutionary, progress. I wouldn't just throw it out the window.
Where on earth did you get "new form of government" and "revolution" from? I am merely suggesting that social services be reformed heavily. This is certainly something that could be evaluated on a small scale (state level perhaps). I do realize that while the concept is simple, the implementation would be far more complex.
Everyone here keeps coming up with all these wild reasons of why this is a bad idea. Funny thing is, almost all their reasons (such as corruption, fraud, ETC.) already exist in the system today. I am not saying that there would not be any regulations, oversight, ETC. I am also not saying that there wold never be abuses. All I am saying is that the government is certainly not the best at getting this type of job done and tax money going to the poor and people not even seeing it happen is dehumanizing us.
The argument is loaded. Of course not everyone will be covered. Of course there will be people that fall between the cracks of family, community and charity.
Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes.
And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.
You're right. That said, ideally the government could work to reduce those exceptional needs, like having more kindergartens or providing transport for medical care.
I don't want to mock this idea, but I do think the question of how people should coordinate their efforts to directly help each other, and how to use their resources is an important one. How should the people attempt to ensure that their efforts to help each other are comprehensive, efficient, fair, etc? How should we attempt to make sure our help is targeted at the needs that are most important? For people raised in a society where government plays a large role, it's hard to imagine a solution which we wouldn't perceive as government.
reply