[Grovenet] mean people suck

[Walt Wentz]

> Simply being unable to imagine it yourself does not, in fact, make  
> it in any
> way unlikely.  It only makes it unlikely for you.

I refer to basic logic. If a person chooses the path of greatest  
resistance, inconvenience, pain, public disdain, etc. when other  
alternatives are available (admitted, they  are not always  
available), then he is probably mentally disturbed, or intellectually  
compromised.

>
> It doesn't require any clinical amount of mental disturbance to be  
> unhappy
> with the constraints of society.  Add to that the desire to "be  
> your own
> man/woman" and a dash of "not much to lose" (ie, not much in the  
> way of
> family) and you have a wonderful recipe for a career homeless.

Everyone resents the constraints of society!  But I doubt the image  
of the carefree vagabond, the happy life of the open road, etc.  
really applies much these days, aside from some homeless teenagers.  
I've talked with several such, and even they seemed to have serious  
mental/emotional issues. Some older examples seem to be saddled with  
alsoholism, meth addiction (these are the metal thieves),  
schizophrenia, low IQ or brain damage.
Increasingly, though, the homeless will be economic casualties, as in  
the Great Depression, when families fragmented as the young dropped  
out and took to the road searching for work. An instructive example  
could be France in the 17th-18th centuries, when starved vagabonds  
could be found behind every tree, and banditry was rife despite  
draconian laws.

>
> I wasn't, in any way, talking about war veterans.  However, that,  
> in and of
> itself, isn't sufficient excuse.  There are plenty that succeed  
> despite a
> harrowing battle with depression, panic/anxiety issues, and other
> mental/emotional dysfunction.  The difference is they *want* to get  
> past
> that and are willing to give it their 100%.

Sounds akin to Lamarkism-- the theory that giraffes got long necks  
because they "wanted" to eat leaves. Granted, laziness, criminal  
associates, bad socializing or low IQ will keep some people from  
seizing the opportunities in a changing economy. But if the economy  
is changing in the direction of limiting opportunity for everybody,  
"personal fault" becomes much less of a factor.

>
> Can?  Yes.  Should? Maybe not.  However, I don't want my tax  
> dollars paying
> for his treatment and having my children's education, my community's
> policing, and other vital public dollar funded services being  
> impacted for
> this individuals mental health care.

As has been pointed out with drug addict recidivism, treatment is  
much cheaper and more effective than punishment. All of us (unless we  
are thoroughgoing survivalists and no-taxers) have to pay taxes for  
police protection, incarceration, etc. Those costs will keep climbing  
as long as the ranks of the homeless and the hopeless keep growing.  
Cheaper to eliminate the roots of the problem with rehabilitation,  
than to repeatedly clean up the eternal mess caused by one segment of  
the population.
>
>> [...] If (through peer pressure or stupid teen bravado), he
>> has become addicted, shall we toss him out with the garbage?
>
> Shall?  No.  Want to, maybe?  Sure.  No program in the world can  
> save him
> from himself if he doesn't want to be saved.  Trying *anything*  
> before he's
> reached bottom and become willing to give up the addiction and move  
> on is a
> waste of time and money.  Without consequences, he will have  
> learned nothing
> and will relapse again and again and again.

The success rate of Portland's "drug court" (now in danger of budget  
cuts) indicates that rehabilitation does work. Granted, it might work  
better when an addict is so demolished by years of drug abuse that  
his mind is crackers and his future limited, but it makes more sense  
(and costs much less in damage to the public weal) if he is salvaged  
when he still has some brain cells left and some years to live.
>
> If, however, he chooses to continue using drugs, then he needs to face
> whatever consequences come his way by that loss of health, loss of
> family/friends, loss of property, incarceration, homelessness,  
> being hungry,
> etc. ... whatever it takes to get him to the point of deciding  
> enough is
> enough.  We do him no favors by short-circuiting that process.  A  
> safety net
> makes using easy.

A safety net, in the form of endless handouts, certainly doesn't  
deter from drug use. However, "consequences" that include  
rehabilitation would reduce the expenses of future antisocial  
behavior, by eliminating the habit in a higher percentage of the  
addicts being apprehended.

> Certainly not.  It's fairly clear from my original response that  
> this was
> *not* the sort of individual I was referring to.  However, what I  
> *do* think
> is that if this family man chooses to sit for months and months  
> collecting
> unemployment and isn't bothering to get back out there to look for  
> another
> job (even one that doesn't pay anywhere near what he was earning  
> before)
> then he's doing himself and his family no service.  Mourn the loss  
> of the
> job, shrug it off, polish the resume, and get back out there.  Even  
> in an
> economic climate like this there *are* jobs if you just stick to it  
> and
> aren't too picky.

Yes and yes. With every lowering of the standard of family living,  
however, family housing and necessities become more insecure and  
(especially in large families) the odds of family disintegration and  
homelessness become higher. Ultimately, the only way to offset this  
trend is to increase the supply of "living wage" jobs. Lots of luck  
with that, so long as the giant corporations hold sway over our  
national economy!

>
> I haven't voiced my opinions on abortion and am unsure why that  
> subject has
> been brought in to this debate.

Only to make a point: Are human lives valuable in and of themselves,  
and if not, why not? Certainly one can argue that a decrepit  
stumblebum has much less social potential than a fetus, but  WHO is  
to make that judgement? Seems to me this is a matter for individual  
consciences.
>
>> As this current recession continues, i think we shall see
>> more and more people-- even educated, mentally healthy and
>> conscientious people-- in desperate straits.
>
> I agree.  I only hope that the programs that are designed to help  
> *these*
> sorts aren't being chewed through and used up by individuals who  
> either are
> in that aspect of the system willingly, in the system because of  
> mental
> illness or addiction, or otherwise abusing the system and thereby  
> making it
> just that much harder for those that really do need the help and  
> the ones
> for whom the help would be truly temporary.

Agreed. But those who are used to working, I think, will have family  
responsibilities that will bring them to the head of the line for  
assistance, and impel them to keep trying every option (including  
that normal family man in Florida who turned to bank robbery). The  
"outsiders" will less often meet the criteria for family assistance,  
but will also continue to afflict the rest of society with their own  
needs, until they are rehabilitated or die (note that their  
incarceration will only add to our shared tax burdens).
For my part, I think reducing the pressure on working people, by any  
means possible, is one way of coping with the problem. If people are  
faced with ever-decreasing real income and ever-increasing costs, one  
option is to produce some of their essentials for themselves.

So, support the Community Garden!!! (shameless plug)