Since all the money to pay for the houses is there, and all the houses are there, and all the people needing houses are there--everyone could be provided for, but you would still force them to be homeless. It doesn't seem fair, and certainly not kind in any way.
(This is only theoretical! We're never-minding the obvious problems of personal preferences, trading up and the seeming inevitable and unavoidable exploitation of one another that people seem rather inclined to.)
What if, in exchange to live in the house that's already been paid for, they have to sign a contract promising to volunteer wherever the city needs them for fifteen hours a week for five to seven years?
Since we're all paying taxes, we've all already bought these houses, they're essential ours to do with as we like--including redistribute them however we see fit. Our generation apparently thinks its appropriate to bill our children for it; I think our children should all be secure in that they will grow up with shelter (at least)... Whether we agree or not--this is what a representative democracy is--we all made that decision. Now we can decide what to do with all those empty-houses and homeless people, or we can claim no responsibility for any of it.
I understand that you and Melanie have worked long and hard, sacrificing much to live responsibly while everyone around you is prettymuch freewheeling over your carefully-groomed flower-bed. It's not cool. I think that discipline has paid off in other ways for you (at least, it should); and it will serve you while it doesn't serve others. What I'm saying is that I don't think any kind of 'redistribution' would nullify your work and efforts (which might appear to be a risk on initial consideration).
What many others have done is rankly irresponsible. But, in America, living irresponsibly is not actually a punishable offense; even if it were, I think you'd have to be very careful to punish the guilty parties, only...
Hmm... I'm not sure where two people on an island discovering two houses and no one else inhabiting the houses, would compare to the government buying up houses and handing them out to the homeless. I never said anything about "forcing" people to be homeless.
I think homeless people are homeless for many reasons too diverse to stereotype. Maybe they don't have the resources to obtain a home, or they choose not to live in a more affordable part of the country, or they have issues with being able to hold down a job, or they have jobs but cannot afford a place to stay, or they could stay with a roommate but no one wants to be their roommate, etc. But I don't think the government "forces" people into homelessness and I wouldn't force someone into it. If someone takes a spare house of mine (I wish I had a house, let a lone a spare house), and I kick them out, I'm just returning them from the intrusion state they were in, back into the homeless state they were in.
Personally I think the government shouldn't be in the business of rescuing businesses. But if we as a nation have to go into debt, it shouldn't be to hand money to banks. Even something as ridiculous and unfair as giving away homes to the homeless (while everyone else rents and pays mortgages or puts up with crappy living environments) sounds less ridiculous and unfair than giving money to banks.
Considering a typical mortgage payment of $1,200 per month for 360 months costs far, far, more than 15 hours per week for 5 to 7 years... a lot of people would just skip out on their mortgage, file bankruptcy, and go for a government home instead. But beyond that, I do think some legally binding 30-years-long arrangement, especially one that is fair (no people paying doctors for disability waivers, etc. nor "easy" labor) might work. But I doubt it.
I can't say I agree.
Since all the money to pay for the houses is there, and all the houses are there, and all the people needing houses are there--everyone could be provided for, but you would still force them to be homeless. It doesn't seem fair, and certainly not kind in any way.
(This is only theoretical! We're never-minding the obvious problems of personal preferences, trading up and the seeming inevitable and unavoidable exploitation of one another that people seem rather inclined to.)
What if, in exchange to live in the house that's already been paid for, they have to sign a contract promising to volunteer wherever the city needs them for fifteen hours a week for five to seven years?
Since we're all paying taxes, we've all already bought these houses, they're essential ours to do with as we like--including redistribute them however we see fit. Our generation apparently thinks its appropriate to bill our children for it; I think our children should all be secure in that they will grow up with shelter (at least)... Whether we agree or not--this is what a representative democracy is--we all made that decision. Now we can decide what to do with all those empty-houses and homeless people, or we can claim no responsibility for any of it.
I understand that you and Melanie have worked long and hard, sacrificing much to live responsibly while everyone around you is prettymuch freewheeling over your carefully-groomed flower-bed. It's not cool. I think that discipline has paid off in other ways for you (at least, it should); and it will serve you while it doesn't serve others. What I'm saying is that I don't think any kind of 'redistribution' would nullify your work and efforts (which might appear to be a risk on initial consideration).
What many others have done is rankly irresponsible. But, in America, living irresponsibly is not actually a punishable offense; even if it were, I think you'd have to be very careful to punish the guilty parties, only...
Reply
I think homeless people are homeless for many reasons too diverse to stereotype. Maybe they don't have the resources to obtain a home, or they choose not to live in a more affordable part of the country, or they have issues with being able to hold down a job, or they have jobs but cannot afford a place to stay, or they could stay with a roommate but no one wants to be their roommate, etc. But I don't think the government "forces" people into homelessness and I wouldn't force someone into it. If someone takes a spare house of mine (I wish I had a house, let a lone a spare house), and I kick them out, I'm just returning them from the intrusion state they were in, back into the homeless state they were in.
Personally I think the government shouldn't be in the business of rescuing businesses. But if we as a nation have to go into debt, it shouldn't be to hand money to banks. Even something as ridiculous and unfair as giving away homes to the homeless (while everyone else rents and pays mortgages or puts up with crappy living environments) sounds less ridiculous and unfair than giving money to banks.
Considering a typical mortgage payment of $1,200 per month for 360 months costs far, far, more than 15 hours per week for 5 to 7 years... a lot of people would just skip out on their mortgage, file bankruptcy, and go for a government home instead. But beyond that, I do think some legally binding 30-years-long arrangement, especially one that is fair (no people paying doctors for disability waivers, etc. nor "easy" labor) might work. But I doubt it.
Reply
Leave a comment