# Conquering Homelessness



## FreeSpirit777 (May 19, 2015)

I know someone who is currently homeless and struggles to pay for food everyday, doesn't have a job etc..

Yet I also know people who are homeless by choice; they hitchhike all over, couch surf at peoples houses, etc and don't spend any money.

They meet generous people who provide them with food, etc.. Couldn't somebody who is homeless just do couchsurfing and find hospitable people who will give them shelter??


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Homelessness can be completely eliminated if we could provide welfare housing. Which is why I support Socialism, everybody can instantly find a job if they have trouble getting one and have access to welfare housing if they can't afford a home. Give everybody the ability to quickly apply for welfare apartments or units if they are homeless to start off with. Shelter, adequate food and a job should be a human right.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Homelessness can be completely eliminated if we could provide welfare housing. Which is why I support Socialism, everybody can instantly find a job if they have trouble getting one and have access to welfare housing if they can't afford a home. Give everybody the ability to quickly apply for welfare apartments or units if they are homeless to start off with. Shelter, adequate food and a job should be a human right.


I love satire!


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Carpentet810 said:


> I love satire!


Not satire if it's true. Australia apparently has some public housing services that the homeless or impoverished can apply for but you have to wait. Housing/Shelter, Food and Income are required to survive and for physical wellbeing. So they should be considered human rights. If we have a quick universal welfare housing service for the poor it will fix the issue permanently along with requirement to work(labor duty) for other welfare benefits like healthcare. Socialism offers universal welfare housing to get all homeless people off the streets or for those who can't afford to buy a home. Homelessness can be caused by your life's situation. Universal welfare housing will also enable youth who want independence to move out socially secure if they want independence, at where I live it's a problem and we can't choose to live the life we want because buying your own home is so ridiculously expensive. Nobody has to fear being "disowned" also by parents/guardians under socialism as its a requirement/right for all to have access to adequate shelter and income to survive. It could even be possible that disowning is illegal unless they have access to housing and income for survival. No more unemployment or age based wage either. Also not all capitalist means have to be eliminated right away, only the executive system abolished to be replaced by union rule.


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Not satire if it's true. Australia apparently has some public housing services that the homeless or impoverished can apply for but you have to wait. Housing/Shelter, Food and Income are required to survive and for physical wellbeing. So they should be considered human rights. If we have a quick universal welfare housing service for the poor it will fix the issue permanently along with requirement to work(labor duty) for other welfare benefits like healthcare. Socialism offers universal welfare housing to get all homeless people off the streets or for those who can't afford to buy a home. Homelessness can be caused by your life's situation. Universal welfare housing will also enable youth who want independence to move out socially secure if they want independence, at where I live it's a problem and we can't choose to live the life we want because buying your own home is so ridiculously expensive. Nobody has to fear being "disowned" also by parents/guardians under socialism as its a requirement/right for all to have access to adequate shelter and income to survive. No more unemployment or age based wage either. Also not all capitalist means have to be eliminated right away, only the executive system abolished to be replaced by union rule.


:laughin::laughin:


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Homelessness can be completely eliminated if we could provide welfare housing. Which is why I support Socialism, everybody can instantly find a job if they have trouble getting one and have access to welfare housing if they can't afford a home. Give everybody the ability to quickly apply for welfare apartments or units if they are homeless to start off with. Shelter, adequate food and a job should be a human right.


Homelessness can be eliminate through a well-paying job. That's why I support capitalism.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

PowerShell said:


> Homelessness can be eliminate through a well-paying job. That's why I support capitalism.


I agree. Otherwise systems are abused.

It's why I'm libertarian. I think government should not do any welfare/healthcare/social security. Government should do 1 thing in this regard.... point the finger at us and say, "it's your job!"

If people didn't have the illusion that government takes care of people and knew that government could not efficiently do this, then they might realize it's their job.

When you have a private charity helping people, if some guy comes along to abuse it, the private charity can recognize this problem and kick the guy out on his butt.

Some people really should be on the street. It has nothing to do with being poor, but rather they want to leech even though they could work. Private charity solves this... it's then just a matter of getting people involved and supporting it, which is what government could help do.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Razare said:


> I agree. Otherwise systems are abused.
> 
> It's why I'm libertarian. I think government should not do any welfare/healthcare/social security. Government should do 1 thing in this regard.... point the finger at us and say, "it's your job!"
> 
> ...


I lean very libertarian but I do support things like universal healthcare because health care in itself is an irrational market and other countries can provide better outcomes at a fraction of the price per capita than we can with their systems. I also support strong infrastructure spending and a certain amount of regulation to keep people honest.

Overall though, claiming everyone has "rights" to everything from food, healthcare, housing, you name it is a recipe for disaster, especially with the entitlement attitude that people have grown accustomed to.


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

Actually Utah, not a socialist or even Liberal state, built a bunch of houses for the homeless and it seemed to make a positive impact. 

This state may be the first to end homelessness for good - Business Insider

We can have elements of capitalism and not be jerks to the homeless...

As for OP's original question, if free-spirited (pun?) people live off the grid by choice, I don't see anything wrong with that as long as they following laws. 

I imagine that the homeless people that aren't couch-surfers are those with mental illness (or drug problems) and have fallen through the cracks of society. 

There are roughly 50,000 homeless veterans in America at the moment, which is pretty shitty.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

FreeSpirit777 said:


> Couldn't somebody who is homeless just do couchsurfing and find hospitable people who will give them shelter??


Even psychiatrists prefer not to sleep with their patients under the same roof.



> On a given night in January 2010:
> 
> 
> 26.2% of all sheltered persons who were homeless had a severe mental illness
> ...


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> Homelessness can be eliminate through a well-paying job. That's why I support capitalism.


That only works on paper and it requires total submission to and dependence on an executive who has total power to congrol you at work. In socialism bosses do not exist, instead there is union leadership in which you elect your leaders who cannot have power to control you. It's also not a democracy if CEOs can lobby politics against the majority. Just look at Greece, the Great Depressions of the 1930s and the exploitation in third world sweatshops. Also getting a "good job" is even not enough to buy your own house here. Too expensive even for people who have top jobs like teachers. This is why we need another Great Depression to happen, so people can see the flaws in the current system.

Also it is a right for people to have food and healthcare if they will DIE without it. Also there is this thing called labor duty which sometimes even applies to kids within some cases in which if you can but do not work the state will withdraw giving you healthcare and food.

The "decent income" claim does NOT work: smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/joe-hockey-pilloried-for-get-a-good-job-remarks-20150609-ghjz2u.html


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Razare said:


> I agree. Otherwise systems are abused.
> 
> It's why I'm libertarian. I think government should not do any welfare/healthcare/social security. Government should do 1 thing in this regard.... point the finger at us and say, "it's your job!"
> 
> ...


Actually it cannot be abused. There is this thing called Labor Duty in which if you can work but don't the state will refuse to support you. Anybody can find jobs in one second and there is no "boss" to depend on. Instead of bosses there are elected trade union leaders who have restricted power. Works even better under a direct democracy. In some cases labor duty even applies to kids.

Also at where I live even those with a decent income cannot afford to buy a home. Only rent.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Carpentet810 said:


> :laughin::laughin:


Ignored the entire post?


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Ignored the entire post?


Don't worry you are not being ignored. Just laughed at. I was literally rolling around on the ground too... That help?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

We would spend less money if we just gave people houses yep


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Carpentet810 said:


> Don't worry you are not being ignored. Just laughed at. I was literally rolling around on the ground too... That help?


Probably because it's something you do not understand. You are not a first home buyer so you wouldn't know that it's needed. Also it is a right because people will DIE without adequate food, income or a home. Who wouldn't want a system where you can even get away with spitting on your "boss" without worrying about having no income or home? There is also something called labor duty in which the state will refuse to support you and it sometimes even applies to kids if you can work but refuse to.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Dawn of the Light said:


> There is this thing called Labor Duty in which if you can work but don't the state will refuse to support you.


This is new to me. I just chuckle thinking about trying to do it in the states, though. Certainly this part would find its way out of the legislation before it were finalized... or get revised out at some later date.

I don't believe in government's ability to deliver on anything like this because I live in the US. People tell me about this happening in distant lands and it always sounds like a fairy tale to me from where I sit. For example... I believe in government's ability to lie to me. I believe in their ability to promise me 1 thing and give me something else entirely. I believe they are capable of protecting their own interests above my own. I believe in their ability to collect taxes. I believe government is able to yield to corrupt interests both capitalist and otherwise.

As for the fairy tales we hear about in the states of other lands where government is the answer, showing me news articles isn't enough because those are easily embellished. Then also, even economic measures aren't enough, because I couldn't be sure that were the real cause without analyzing everything... import/export, domestic production & consumption, tax laws, governance, cultural factors, ect.

It might very well be American disposition which prevents the perfection of socialism from being realized.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

All of the 'not my problem' attitude here is interesting.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We would spend less money if we just gave people houses yep


What can be done is that we build apartments which hold dozens-hundreds of simple rooms for the homeless to apply in order to stay in. They would have to work in order to get free food, healthcare benefits through something called "labor duty". If they can but don't work they are not given support. It's something they just start off with and work their way up as they work harder as well. Maybe they will even move out and buy a house they like if they worked hard enough.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Razare said:


> This is new to me. I just chuckle thinking about trying to do it in the states, though. Certainly this part would find its way out of the legislation before it were finalized... or get revised out at some later date.
> 
> I don't believe in government's ability to deliver on anything like this because I live in the US. People tell me about this happening in distant lands and it always sounds like a fairy tale to me from where I sit. For example... I believe in government's ability to lie to me. I believe in their ability to promise me 1 thing and give me something else entirely. I believe they are capable of protecting their own interests above my own. I believe in their ability to collect taxes. I believe government is able to yield to corrupt interests both capitalist and otherwise.
> 
> ...


Socialism needs direct democracy to work. A state that is run by a direct democracy(the majority) is incapable of keeping secrets or deceiving.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Agni of the Wands said:


> All of the 'not my problem' attitude here is interesting.


It is reality. This was the case for people during the Great Depression. Many really wanted a job and housing but couldn't get one. It's also the case here, even the first home buyers with decent paying jobs can't buy a home, prices are ridiculously high: Joe Hockey pilloried for 'get a good job' remarks

People with "good jobs" were also pissed off by the remark because even if you have a "decent income" it's near impossible as a first home buyer. This is why I believe we need another Great Depression so people will see reality like those who lived through it.


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Socialism needs direct democracy to work. A state that is run by a direct democracy(the majority) is incapable of keeping secrets or deceiving.


Could be. I like the idea of a more direct government, now that we got the internet.

It could get into mob rule, but I think I'd rather be oppressed by a mob than someone like Stalin.


----------



## Monty (Jul 12, 2011)

Ahhh this thread is giving me a headache >.<


----------



## Carpentet810 (Nov 17, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> Probably because it's something you do not understand. You are not a first home buyer so you wouldn't know that it's needed. Also it is a right because people will DIE without adequate food, income or a home. Who wouldn't want a system where you can even get away with spitting on your "boss" without worrying about having no income or home? There is also something called labor duty in which the state will refuse to support you and it sometimes even applies to kids if you can work but refuse to.


People are going to DIE anyhow. Adequate food, income and a home is NOT a cloak of protection. If you want such things its called get off ones ass and get them..


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Carpentet810 said:


> People are going to DIE anyhow. Adequate food, income and a home is NOT a cloak of protection. If you want such things its called get off ones ass and get them..


That is only on paper, look at recessions and read up about the Great Depressions of the 1930s. And the current financial crisis of Australia which has gotten worse than that of the U.S with Tony Abbott's efforts. We have tried that at where I live and it has failed, everybody knows it too. The very statement is already an insult to people with decent paying jobs too: Joe Hockey pilloried for 'get a good job' remarks


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> That only works on paper and it requires total submission to and dependence on an executive who has total power to congrol you at work. In socialism bosses do not exist, instead there is union leadership in which you elect your leaders who cannot have power to control you. It's also not a democracy if CEOs can lobby politics against the majority. Just look at Greece, the Great Depressions of the 1930s and the exploitation in third world sweatshops. Also getting a "good job" is even not enough to buy your own house here. Too expensive even for people who have top jobs like teachers. This is why we need another Great Depression to happen, so people can see the flaws in the current system.


If bosses do not exist and everyone gets an equal distribution, where is the incentive to work unless you require total submission in the form of government coercion. If all basic needs are a right, then they technically cannot be denied if people work or don't work. Look at how many freeloaders there are now with the welfare we have. You really think this system would work?



> Also it is a right for people to have food and healthcare if they will DIE without it. Also there is this thing called labor duty which sometimes even applies to kids within some cases in which if you can but do not work the state will withdraw giving you healthcare and food.


And putting in inefficient systems run by the government that cannot provide to the needs of the people will also cause this. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but it provides a heck of a lot more than socialism can.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Razare said:


> Could be. I like the idea of a more direct government, now that we got the internet.
> 
> It could get into mob rule, but I think I'd rather be oppressed by a mob than someone like Stalin.


In the days of the outrage machine where people get "outraged" and demand "justice" this could be very scary. Look at Cecil the lion. People outraging over it and now not a single word about it.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> If bosses do not exist and everyone gets an equal distribution, where is the incentive to work unless you require total submission in the form of government coercion. If all basic needs are a right, then they technically cannot be denied if people work or don't work. Look at how many freeloaders there are now with the welfare we have. You really think this system would work?
> 
> 
> 
> And putting in inefficient systems run by the government that cannot provide to the needs of the people will also cause this. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect, but it provides a heck of a lot more than socialism can.


A government run by the majority(Direct Democracy)* Also equal distribution does not mean literal, people are paid on how hard they work but except there is nobody to control them or depend on. Equal pay means nobody is divided on gender or age, abolition of age based wages and etc. They would just have to pay a higher tax rate. All it means is shared power(Elected Council Rule) instead of a centralized one at work(Bosses) where you can be easily exploited by a power hungry individual looking to increase profits.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> In the days of the outrage machine where people get "outraged" and demand "justice" this could be very scary. Look at Cecil the lion. People outraging over it and now not a single word about it.


Actually look at France's culture of spitting on the authorities today. Bosses and government alike, protests/riots and strikes are very common. We need to build up an anti-authority and protest-happy culture like the one they have in France today. The more oppressive the authorities are the more violent their overthrow will be if they refuse to serve the masses, maybe even death in the process of overthrow if repressive enough. We need a Direct Democracy for Socialism.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> A government run by the majority(Direct Democracy)* Also equal distribution does not mean literal, people are paid on how hard they work but except there is nobody to control them or depend on. They would just have to pay a higher tax rate.


Aren't people paid by how hard they work in a system where they choose where they want to work or what career they want to choose already? Sure sounds like what we have including the higher tax rate for higher earners.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> Aren't people paid by how hard they work in a system where they choose where they want to work or what career they want to choose already? Sure sounds like what we have including the higher tax rate for higher earners.


The difference is that there will be no CEOs to influence politics and the executive leading structure will be abolished for a council one led by unions which serves the interests of the majority in each workplace. Workers do not need bosses to rule them. It will also focus more on collective needs and the culture at where I live is said to be the most collective or conformist out of all western/anglo nations. Also age based wages still exist and there is the gender pay gap issue from misogynist bosses to fix.

Other difference is that anybody can find a job and be provided with shelter if they can't afford it where they can work their way up for a better one.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Dawn of the Light said:


> The difference is that there will be no CEOs to influence politics and the executive leading structure will be abolished for a council one led by unions which serves the interests of the majority in each workplace. It will also focus more on collective needs and the culture at where I live is said to be the most collective or conformist out of all western/anglo nations.


They already do that, it's called a board of directors. The CEO is just the person who carries out what the board of directors wants.



Dawn of the Light said:


> Actually look at France's culture of spitting on the authorities today. Bosses and government alike, protests/riots and strikes are very common. We need to build up an anti-authority and protest-happy culture like the one they have in France today. The more oppressive the authorities are the more violent their overthrow will be if they refuse to serve the masses, maybe even death in the process of overthrow if repressive enough. We need a Direct Democracy for Socialism.


And when was the last time you heard of France really innovating anything or have people flocking there to start businesses like say Silicon Valley in the United States?


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

PowerShell said:


> They already do that, it's called a board of directors. The CEO is just the person who carries out what the board of directors wants.
> 
> 
> 
> And when was the last time you heard of France really innovating anything or have people flocking there to start businesses like say Silicon Valley in the United States?


Not the case with private owned corporations. Also the "board of directors" do not serve the interests of the collective but focus on the profit instead. They are not democratically elected. The CEOs use the money they have to also lobby and control politics against the will of the majority.

Capitalism requires people to be submissive to their bosses, workers can rule themselves and do not need to be controlled by bosses. Its also undemocratic in this way. Also as for France its because its more difficult to get people in France to submit to the interests of big business, notice people are highly reluctant to give up one or two rights/freedoms at work or politically? The authorities end up having to submit to the masses instead of other way around too sometimes. If only we became like that, there is never such a thing as "too much democracy". Heck let the masses lynch or kill authority figures that are repressive if they so desire, its their fault if they end up dying or being injured for going against the interests of the people.

The French Revolution was the basis of foundation for the Socialist system. We need a society where any "authority" figures serve the collective and not themselves.

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-...pended-after-french-protests-firm-2015-6?IR=T

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthew...cs-arrested-in-france-after-luddite-protests/

Small businesses could stay because they would have to conform to the workers rights and have good conditions to serve their workers in order to attract employees and compete with state industry.


----------

