|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
@bardtown
I was in Germany once and me and the girl I was with approached a young couple coming home late at night who then proceeded to let us stay in their basement. Its really got nothing to do with east vs west europe. Its probably just that you are not likely to find yourself in a situation like that unless you are in a place other than your home country, so you don't ask people in your home country.
What I think you are trying to say is that an overbearing government might make it more difficult for (small) charity organizations to provide charity by adding too many regulations. Like, nobody will complain if some old lady gives you a blanket for the night. But if it is a government-approved organization and someone lodges a complaint about the blankets, a new regulation will be added to require a certain thickness of blankets. Then, if you do not abide by the rules, you might be arrested for handing out the proverbial blankets.
|
I once stranded in a bar in germany, they let me sleep thru on the couch, offered me a coffee in the morning, called me a taxi and gave me directions.
I had similar, not as extensive  , experiences with austrians and irish...
I also had some tcech street musician crash on my couch because we had a few beers and he planned to sleep outside.
People in general are nice if your nice. Sure, you need a little luck but this whole "everyone is an egoistical prick" is just not true. I'm actually rather amazed by how much many people are willing to help a total stranger.
edit: sorry for the typos, was on phone.
|
On April 12 2017 18:59 bardtown wrote:
The reality is simple. For the state to house a homeless individual it would cost thousands of pounds. There are all manner of regulations that they have to adhere to. For an individual it costs the price of a few teabags and some breakfast cereal. The state will never have enough housing on standby for an increase in homelessness, because that would amount to thousands spent on empty rooms. The community is always the ultimate safety net, and community is weak in the west. Half of us don't even know our neighbours.
I don't see what's so wrong with "thousands spent on empty rooms." It's a really good idea for the state to make housing companies have to plan for the future instead of scum-scraping from extreme short-term boom-bust cycles on real estate prices.
|
No, I'm not saying that an overbearing government stops us from doing that, although your link is interesting. I'm saying that we are less inclined to do it because we don't see it as our responsibility. Rather than doing something to help, we complain that our governments aren't doing enough. Note: you can actually complain about your government not doing enough and also help. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. The government provides a safety net, but the community provides a much more fundamental one. This is simply a fact. It is the community who buy food for homeless people who sit outside shops, etc. The state is simply not effective enough to identify every homeless person and immediately provide them with everything they need. I am not making a left/right point. I am mourning the death of community in the west. Stronger community would help to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place, because they would have somewhere else to turn. This is not just about homelessness, either. We leave the sick and elderly to their own devices with their 10 minute care worker visits and whine at the state for not giving them more time. That's our job. We think we can have everything with no sacrifice or responsibility. It's a pretty shameful and entitled attitude.
As for my Norway anecdote - I was clean and clearly a stuck traveller, but the other people in the rooms were not in my situation. It was basically a place for Polish people who had nowhere else to go, provided by a Polish church. In a word, community. I've been out all night in various cities and never been offered a place to sleep before. An English person would not be any more likely to offer me a place to stay than a Norwegian person. There is no communal bond. You have your family, and if they leave you then you have nobody.
On April 12 2017 21:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 18:59 bardtown wrote:
The reality is simple. For the state to house a homeless individual it would cost thousands of pounds. There are all manner of regulations that they have to adhere to. For an individual it costs the price of a few teabags and some breakfast cereal. The state will never have enough housing on standby for an increase in homelessness, because that would amount to thousands spent on empty rooms. The community is always the ultimate safety net, and community is weak in the west. Half of us don't even know our neighbours. I don't see what's so wrong with "thousands spent on empty rooms." It's a really good idea for the state to make housing companies have to plan for the future instead of scum-scraping from extreme short-term boom-bust cycles on real estate prices.
We have enough foreign investors inflating our housing market without the government hoarding property too.
|
On April 12 2017 21:35 bardtown wrote:
Rather than doing something to help, we complain that our governments aren't doing enough. Note: you can actually complain about your government not doing enough and also help. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. The government provides a safety net, but the community provides a much more fundamental one. This is simply a fact. It is the community who buy food for homeless people who sit outside shops, etc. The state is simply not effective enough to identify every homeless person and immediately provide them with everything they need. I am not making a left/right point. I am mourning the death of community in the west. Stronger community would help to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place, because they would have somewhere else to turn. This is not just about homelessness, either. We leave the sick and elderly to their own devices with their 10 minute care worker visits and whine at the state for not giving them more time. That's our job. We think we can have everything with no sacrifice or responsibility. It's a pretty shameful and entitled attitude.
I absolutely agree that any individual who has the time, money, and skills to help out the homeless and elderly should do so.
That being said, "let individuals and charities handle it" is really a ghastly argument against the welfare state. Just a glance at the USA versus Scandinavia will show how obvious that is. America, despite being the richest country in the world per-capita, simply cannot aggregate enough resources to address our increasingly urgent problems of geriatric care, poverty, homelessness, etc. The only thing we're leading in is wealth inequality.
On April 12 2017 21:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 18:59 bardtown wrote:
I don't see what's so wrong with "thousands spent on empty rooms." It's a really good idea for the state to make housing companies have to plan for the future instead of scum-scraping from extreme short-term boom-bust cycles on real estate prices. We have enough foreign investors inflating our housing market without the government hoarding property too.
That's an easily solved problem with government intervention. The problem is that it contradicts the holy dogmas of Thatcherism, which means the Tories won't do it.
|
On April 12 2017 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 21:35 bardtown wrote:
Rather than doing something to help, we complain that our governments aren't doing enough. Note: you can actually complain about your government not doing enough and also help. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. The government provides a safety net, but the community provides a much more fundamental one. This is simply a fact. It is the community who buy food for homeless people who sit outside shops, etc. The state is simply not effective enough to identify every homeless person and immediately provide them with everything they need. I am not making a left/right point. I am mourning the death of community in the west. Stronger community would help to prevent people becoming homeless in the first place, because they would have somewhere else to turn. This is not just about homelessness, either. We leave the sick and elderly to their own devices with their 10 minute care worker visits and whine at the state for not giving them more time. That's our job. We think we can have everything with no sacrifice or responsibility. It's a pretty shameful and entitled attitude. I absolutely agree that any individual who has the time, money, and skills to help out the homeless and elderly should do so. That being said, "let individuals and charities handle it" is really a ghastly argument against the welfare state. Just a glance at the USA versus Scandinavia will show how obvious that is. America, despite being the richest country in the world per-capita, simply cannot aggregate enough resources to address our increasingly urgent problems of geriatric care, poverty, homelessness, etc. The only thing we're leading in is wealth inequality. Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 21:31 LightSpectra wrote:On April 12 2017 18:59 bardtown wrote:
I don't see what's so wrong with "thousands spent on empty rooms." It's a really good idea for the state to make housing companies have to plan for the future instead of scum-scraping from extreme short-term boom-bust cycles on real estate prices. We have enough foreign investors inflating our housing market without the government hoarding property too. That's an easily solved problem with government intervention. The problem is that it contradicts the holy dogmas of Thatcherism, which means the Tories won't do it.
Again, I'm not arguing against the welfare state. I'm arguing that the state is no substitute for the human network that we actually need to thrive. There has to be both. You may have noticed that my example was from Scandinavia. I also helped at soup kitchens there. There are homeless people in Norway, and I consider this to be the best place to live in the world. Clinical interventions of the state are not sufficient to solve human problems, even in Norway where the state is so wealthy.
|
Nobody is saying that Scandinavia = paradise-on-earth, but the Nordic model is the best one available to us that is historically verified to work.
Go out, meet your neighbors, get people involved in the community -- none of that is bad advice, and I agree that Western civilization would be better off if we did that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people don't have the time, skills, or resources to effectively address poverty and geriatric care.
|
On April 12 2017 22:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Nobody is saying that Scandinavia = paradise-on-earth, but the Nordic model is the best one available to us that is historically verified to work.
Go out, meet your neighbors, get people involved in the community -- none of that is bad advice, and I agree that Western civilization would be better off if we did that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people don't have the time, skills, or resources to effectively address poverty and geriatric care.
Let's be clear here. The 'Nordic model' is the best model proven to work in Nordic countries. One of the key factors in America's success is the ability for individuals and corporations to amass extreme wealth. That is why all the important tech start ups happen in the US - because you can throw money at projects like no other country can imagine. Europe cannot compete on this front. Also, the US does not perform significantly worse than European countries with regards to homelessness, although I don't think any country in the world has reliable statistics on this issue.
Something I'd like to see in the UK is churches being repurposed to community centres of some sort when they're not in use. It would be nice to have a place where generations can mix and would help to fund heritage buildings.
|
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK.
|
On April 12 2017 22:25 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 22:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Nobody is saying that Scandinavia = paradise-on-earth, but the Nordic model is the best one available to us that is historically verified to work.
Go out, meet your neighbors, get people involved in the community -- none of that is bad advice, and I agree that Western civilization would be better off if we did that. But that doesn't change the fact that most people don't have the time, skills, or resources to effectively address poverty and geriatric care. Let's be clear here. The 'Nordic model' is the best model proven to work in Nordic countries. One of the key factors in America's success is the ability for individuals and corporations to amass extreme wealth. That is why all the important tech start ups happen in the US - because you can throw money at projects like no other country can imagine. Europe cannot compete on this front. Also, the US does not perform significantly worse than European countries with regards to homelessness, although I don't think any country in the world has reliable statistics on this issue. Something I'd like to see in the UK is churches being repurposed to community centres of some sort when they're not in use. It would be nice to have a place where generations can mix and would help to fund heritage buildings.
I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. California is the bastion of tech startups because it had a disproportionate amount of electronics/computer experts living there from the 1950s onward, rather like artists in Florence which kicked off the Italian Renaissance.
There is no particular reason to think the Nordic model should only work in Scandinavia. Some neoliberals toss around the idea that there's something magical about the society and culture in Scandinavia, but that's poppycock.
|
On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK.
Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot.
|
On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot.
Everything you are saying is kind of right but kind of wrong too (imo). Throwing money at things doesn't make them work better, but taking all of the money away from things inevitably makes them far worse.
Homeless provisions were 'ok' before councils had all of their budget slashed. The problem is worsening and everyone predicted it.
I'm not going to join in the personal arguments because they aren't really welcome here.
My main point is that if the tories are serious about helping to solve social problems, which they claim to be, they should at least be focused on not making everything worse, which is what they are currently doing. It isn't all down to money, the problem is they are taking away all the money without coming up with decent plans to improve efficiency and get the job done with fewer resources.
Its lazy government, time and time again, everything the current batch of tories do is completely half arsed except removing money from services. I would always be against that, but it wouldn't be so bad if there was a plan to be able to cope without the money.
As for the Church, that makes sense, but I think the impact of that is either long term (ie just a less caring society) or fairly minimal in terms of the direct effect a stronger church would have.
I think the attitude that everyone should be out for themselves and fuck everyone else is the biggest problem. Its the reason the homeless were the first to suffer under the cuts, they won't vote and not too many people are offended at their plight.
|
On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot.
Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away.
|
On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away.
Have you been living under a rock? 
Also, the Bible is full of contradictions.
|
United States44190 Posts
On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away.
Yes. Within the United States the Bible tells you that if you have something then it is because God judged you worthy and therefore you deserve to have it and if you were to give it away then you'd be going contrary to God's plan. Likewise if someone has nothing then they must have done something to offend God and you wouldn't want to attract God's wrath by helping them.
It's basically the mainstream religious belief for most Americans. It's what you get when you have a bunch of people who want to be rich but also want to feel good about themselves.
|
On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away.
Socialism is a Marxist ideology.
The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone.
The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years.
They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago.
|
Social Darwinism isn't really that compelling. Plus 100 years ago we didn't understand things like mental illness or child birth all that well. I wouldn't be looking back with longing for the era when people got burned by the stove earlier. You folks were still rocking debtor's prisons back then.
|
On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago.
What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned.
|
On April 13 2017 06:40 Plansix wrote:
Social Darwinism isn't really that compelling. Plus 100 years ago we didn't understand things like mental illness or child birth all that well. I wouldn't be looking back with longing for the era when people got burned by the stove earlier. You folks were still rocking debtor's prisons back then.
Christian community is not social Darwinism. Charity is the opposite of Darwinism, at least in the clumsy sense that people use the term. Sparta was an example of what people refer to as social Darwinism. Also, it's a bit of a stretch to blame everything bad at a given point in time on the notion of personal responsibility. A lot of other things have changed since then.
|
United States44190 Posts
On April 13 2017 08:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2017 06:22 Madkipz wrote:On April 13 2017 05:19 Shield wrote:On April 13 2017 00:08 bardtown wrote:On April 12 2017 22:32 Shield wrote:
Could increase of homelessness be explained with seemingly less Christians nowadays? I don't go to church, but I know people there are eager to help like in bardtown's story. I'm not saying non-Christians don't help, I'm just saying church is more organised than random people in the streets. On the other hand, charity as an organisation might be more popular in the UK. Charity is huge in the UK, but I don't think throwing money at things is enough. A weaker church probably results in less social support. I have clergy in my family and most of what they do is visiting the bereaved and people in hospital. Also a lot of organising community events. I think people underestimated the role of the church and it has not been adequately replaced. Might as well point out that I'm not religious while on the topic before some moron accuses me of being a right wing religious fundamentalist as well as a retarded bigot. Offtopic, but is there even a right wing religious fundamentalist? I thought genuine Christians were leaning towards left wing or socialism. Even the bible itself tells you that if you have a pair of something, then you should give one away. Socialism is a Marxist ideology. The religious christian default leans heavily on Classical liberalism in which chase it is mostly a matter of the individual taking responsibility within the community, and a reliance on the free market solving the human condition rather than a nanny state taking care of everyone. The belief is that Socialized benefits like free abortion and socialized hiring practices, socialized education and socialized charity removes and takes away the responsibility of the individual in favor of a collective irresponsibility that tears away the moral fiber that acted as a glue upon civilization for thousands of years. They are not wrong. A bunch of our taxes is spent so that others can afford to make the sort of mistakes that would have been stern reminders of the harsh realities of life a mere 50-100 years ago. What he said. It's focused on the individual helping, donating his own time and money, and the church community helping those in need. Outsourcing those duties to the state, reaching into the pocket of your neighbor to help out, isn't really mentioned.
Acts of the Apostles was completely wasted on you wasn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
