Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

One Third Of Canadians Favor CULLING The Homeless

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One Third Of Canadians Favor CULLING The Homeless

    I guess that is one way to solve the problem of homelessness...

    One third of Canadians fine with prescribing assisted suicide for homelessness

    Roughly the same number told a poll they were fine with approving MAID for someone whose only affliction was poverty

    If a Canadian’s only affliction was “poverty,” 27 per cent said they would be fine with legalizing that person’s access to MAID. Another 28 per cent pegged “homelessness” as an appropriate bar to qualify for MAID.

    https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...icide-homeless
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    I can understand some people thinking that anyone and everyone should have the ability to make the decision to end their own life if they want to. That's a conceivable freedom-focused view. Obviously those people in any survey they are given that asks "should we extend assisted suicide to some new group X" are going to say "yes".

    As far as homelessness goes:

    JUST HAVE THE GOVERNMENT GIVE THEM RENT FREE HOUSES.

    Seriously. It's not complicated. It fixes the problem.

    Most people who are homeless would love to have a house and are not homeless voluntarily. And their physical and mental health would improve hugely if they were housed. And the rest of the people in society would prefer they were housed so they didn't have to have difficult encounters with the homeless in the streets. And generally government budgets would prefer they were housed because the amount of money that homeless people use in emergency hospital visits and police resources is phenomenal. It works out cheaper just to house them.

    For more than 85 years in my country the government has provided partially or fully subsidized rental houses for those that needed them. It works great. I don't feel I can overstate how generally successful this program has been over its history. The last elected right-wing leader of the country grew up in such a house, before having a successful business career and subsequently becoming Prime Minister. Having a roof over every head ensures for every kid and family that they will have the opportunity to succeed in life.

    Due to the foolish right-wing party in my country deciding it would be ideologically wonderful to sell off all these government assets and privatize them, there did become a temporary shortage of houses for the homeless and we started getting actual homeless people on the streets. That party seemed to realize their mistake and realized that the voters didn't consider the existence of homeless people on the streets acceptable in a first world country, so made deals with motel owners across the country to book out the motels permanently and give the homeless people a motel each to stay in until they could get the government's quantity of houses to provide for the homeless back up to scratch. While I doubt motels are as good psychologically for these people as a permanent home would be, it's sure better for them and for society than having them on the street!

    So instead of the Canadian approach above of "maybe they could commit suicide", or the approach I've seen suggested on Fox News of "maybe we could force them all out of town into the desert and they could have their homeless-tent-city in the middle of nowhere away from us so we don't have to deal with them"... I suggest instead try housing them. It really does work. Seriously. It's not like its conceptually complicated. There just has to be the will to spend the money necessary to do it. And studies I've seen out of the US seem to keep finding that the cost of providing homes for the homeless would be less than the costs spent in medical and police services that dealing with the homeless causes.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I can understand some people thinking that anyone and everyone should have the ability to make the decision to end their own life if they want to. That's a conceivable freedom-focused view. Obviously those people in any survey they are given that asks "should we extend assisted suicide to some new group X" are going to say "yes".

      As far as homelessness goes:

      JUST HAVE THE GOVERNMENT GIVE THEM RENT FREE HOUSES.

      Seriously. It's not complicated. It fixes the problem.

      Most people who are homeless would love to have a house and are not homeless voluntarily. And their physical and mental health would improve hugely if they were housed. And the rest of the people in society would prefer they were housed so they didn't have to have difficult encounters with the homeless in the streets. And generally government budgets would prefer they were housed because the amount of money that homeless people use in emergency hospital visits and police resources is phenomenal. It works out cheaper just to house them.

      For more than 85 years in my country the government has provided partially or fully subsidized rental houses for those that needed them. It works great. I don't feel I can overstate how generally successful this program has been over its history. The last elected right-wing leader of the country grew up in such a house, before having a successful business career and subsequently becoming Prime Minister. Having a roof over every head ensures for every kid and family that they will have the opportunity to succeed in life.

      Due to the foolish right-wing party in my country deciding it would be ideologically wonderful to sell off all these government assets and privatize them, there did become a temporary shortage of houses for the homeless and we started getting actual homeless people on the streets. That party seemed to realize their mistake and realized that the voters didn't consider the existence of homeless people on the streets acceptable in a first world country, so made deals with motel owners across the country to book out the motels permanently and give the homeless people a motel each to stay in until they could get the government's quantity of houses to provide for the homeless back up to scratch. While I doubt motels are as good psychologically for these people as a permanent home would be, it's sure better for them and for society than having them on the street!

      So instead of the Canadian approach above of "maybe they could commit suicide", or the approach I've seen suggested on Fox News of "maybe we could force them all out of town into the desert and they could have their homeless-tent-city in the middle of nowhere away from us so we don't have to deal with them"... I suggest instead try housing them. It really does work. Seriously. It's not like its conceptually complicated. There just has to be the will to spend the money necessary to do it. And studies I've seen out of the US seem to keep finding that the cost of providing homes for the homeless would be less than the costs spent in medical and police services that dealing with the homeless causes.
      You know, California has the worst homeless problem in the country. They are one-party rule at the state level, one-party rule at the major city level.

      Why do you think this is a problem of the right? It's the liberals who keep consistently failing them.

      Comment


      • #4
        "Assisted" suicide is fraught with problems, no matter what the immediate reasoning. If someone is prepared to "assist" in a suicide, they'd better be prepared for legal trouble. There can always be a hidden ulterior motive to be investigated.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post

          JUST HAVE THE GOVERNMENT GIVE THEM RENT FREE HOUSES.
          One possibility to explore is tiny houses, or 3D printed houses.




          Comment


          • #6

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
              You know, California has the worst homeless problem in the country. They are one-party rule at the state level, one-party rule at the major city level.
              Unfortunately the leftness of California is usually overstated. 5 of the last 10 governors of California have been Republican.

              And unfortunately the Dems in the US are just not anywhere close to as left wing as I would like them to be. They are generally to the right of the major right-wing party in my country.

              In my country the government-provides-houses-for-those-who-need-them policy was introduced 86 years ago by a Prime Minister who called himself a Socialist and had previously run in the Socialist party. He also introduced government-funded healthcare for everyone. He was probably the most popular Prime Minister in the country's history. We've never had a Socialist Prime Minister since, but the policies he introduced have been retained, and I think its fair to say have been universally regarded as completely successful and desirable.

              Most politicians in the US Democratic party seem to strongly object to Socialism and the label Socialist, and seem to be against government-funded healthcare for everyone. I'm not sure why you would expect that they would or should implement a Socialist policy for dealing with homelessness? They're a capitalist party in general so are going to want 'market based solutions'.

              In general I think a major problem with US politics as a whole is that neither party is remotely close to left-wing enough. If the Dems were an order of magnitude more left wing than they currently are, then it would help.

              Why do you think this is a problem of the right?
              The right in the US usually has the nastiest anti-homeless rhetoric and is usually in favor of doing the least to help the homeless.

              It's the liberals who keep consistently failing them.
              I don't think that statement is remotely justified. I've seen no evidence that conservative areas have done any better to deal with the problem of homelessness than 'liberal' (by US terms) ones. California currently has a lot of homelessness because house prices there are very high and homelessness is almost directly a function of local housing affordability, plus its got a climate that makes long-term homelessness more viable than other areas. That's not a function of anything the liberals (such as they are) there, have or haven't done.
              Last edited by Starlight; 05-19-2023, 10:05 AM.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                One possibility to explore is tiny houses, or 3D printed houses.
                I am hopeful that technologies like this can drastically reduce housing costs in future and make homelessness near non-existent even in capitalist societies that refuse to do government spending to house the homeless.

                But, that said, it's not as if solving homelessness isn't already doable. It's just a lack of political will to spend the money to do it, or perhaps political ideology that doing it would be 'bad' and not capitalist enough. In either case, new technology isn't going to change that. Those 3D printed houses will still have costs, and there will still need to be political will or political ideology to actually enact the spending and the housing of the homeless, the new technology doesn't change that need.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Unfortunately the leftness of California is usually overstated. 5 of the last 10 governors of California have been Republican.

                  And unfortunately the Dems in the US are just not anywhere close to as left wing as I would like them to be. They are generally to the right of the major right-wing party in my country.

                  In my country the government-provides-houses-for-those-who-need-them policy was introduced 86 years ago by a Prime Minister who called himself a Socialist and had previously run in the Socialist party. He also introduced government-funded healthcare for everyone. He was probably the most popular Prime Minister in the country's history. We've never had a Socialist Prime Minister since, but the policies he introduced have been retained.

                  Most politicians in the US Democratic party seem to strongly object to Socialism and the label Socialist, and seem to be against government-funded healthcare for everyone. I'm not sure why you would expect that they would or should implement a Socialist policy for dealing with homelessness? They're a capitalist party in general so are going to want 'market based solutions'.

                  In general I think a major problem with US politics as a whole is that neither party is remotely close to left-wing enough. If the Dems were an order of magnitude more left wing than they currently are, then it would help.

                  The right usually has the nastiest anti-homeless rhetoric and is usually in favor of doing the least to help the homeless.

                  I don't think that statement is remotely justified. I've seen no evidence that conservative areas have done any better to deal with the problem of homelessness than 'liberal' (by US terms) ones. California currently has a lot of homelessness because house prices there are very high and homelessness is almost directly a function of local housing affordability, plus its got a climate that makes long-term homelessness more viable than other areas.
                  Your right, since 92, there's been 18 years of Democrats in 1 party control, no years of republican 1 party control. The senate has been in Democrat control since 1974, and the assebmly has had 1 year of republican control since 92.

                  That's definitely not one party control.......because the governor occasionally changes to a republican. Obviously this absolves the democrats of any responsibility.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I guess that is one way to solve the problem of homelessness...
                    Are you going to pretend there is something wrong with me if I say that is evil?
                    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

                      Are you going to pretend there is something wrong with me if I say that is evil?
                      nope...
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        I can understand some people thinking that anyone and everyone should have the ability to make the decision to end their own life if they want to. That's a conceivable freedom-focused view. Obviously those people in any survey they are given that asks "should we extend assisted suicide to some new group X" are going to say "yes".

                        As far as homelessness goes:

                        JUST HAVE THE GOVERNMENT GIVE THEM RENT FREE HOUSES.

                        Seriously. It's not complicated. It fixes the problem.

                        Most people who are homeless would love to have a house and are not homeless voluntarily. And their physical and mental health would improve hugely if they were housed. And the rest of the people in society would prefer they were housed so they didn't have to have difficult encounters with the homeless in the streets. And generally government budgets would prefer they were housed because the amount of money that homeless people use in emergency hospital visits and police resources is phenomenal. It works out cheaper just to house them.

                        For more than 85 years in my country the government has provided partially or fully subsidized rental houses for those that needed them. It works great. I don't feel I can overstate how generally successful this program has been over its history. The last elected right-wing leader of the country grew up in such a house, before having a successful business career and subsequently becoming Prime Minister. Having a roof over every head ensures for every kid and family that they will have the opportunity to succeed in life.

                        Due to the foolish right-wing party in my country deciding it would be ideologically wonderful to sell off all these government assets and privatize them, there did become a temporary shortage of houses for the homeless and we started getting actual homeless people on the streets. That party seemed to realize their mistake and realized that the voters didn't consider the existence of homeless people on the streets acceptable in a first world country, so made deals with motel owners across the country to book out the motels permanently and give the homeless people a motel each to stay in until they could get the government's quantity of houses to provide for the homeless back up to scratch. While I doubt motels are as good psychologically for these people as a permanent home would be, it's sure better for them and for society than having them on the street!

                        So instead of the Canadian approach above of "maybe they could commit suicide", or the approach I've seen suggested on Fox News of "maybe we could force them all out of town into the desert and they could have their homeless-tent-city in the middle of nowhere away from us so we don't have to deal with them"... I suggest instead try housing them. It really does work. Seriously. It's not like its conceptually complicated. There just has to be the will to spend the money necessary to do it. And studies I've seen out of the US seem to keep finding that the cost of providing homes for the homeless would be less than the costs spent in medical and police services that dealing with the homeless causes.
                        Who pays for the free houses for the homeless folk in your wonderful country?


                        Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          For the record, I do not believe in euthanasia for anyone. But nothing coming out of Ottawa surprises me anymore.


                          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                            Who pays for the free houses for the homeless folk in your wonderful country?
                            The government. And not having homelessness is absolutely worth it. It's absolutely great for society as a whole. 11/10 can definitely recommend.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              The government. And not having homelessness is absolutely worth it. It's absolutely great for society as a whole. 11/10 can definitely recommend.
                              Do you have income tax in NZ?


                              Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              94 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              282 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              109 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              195 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              356 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X