The world would be more fair if the homeless ruled rather than rich politicians

Who knows about discrimination more than the homeless who get bullied and beat up?

Who knows more about injustice than the homeless who are treated as a lesser human being just for being poor?

Who is more kind than those who humble themselves before all others asking for their help?


The homeless has the right perspective to make sure that things stay with equality and justice. They actually experience the worst suffering, embarrassment, and humiliation by society.

But it seems people would rather want charismatic, attractive, rich politicians who speak with clear word pronunciation and expensive suits and has never been poor and seen what it's like on the 'other side' rather than just the 'rich/middle class' side.

Not every rich person is the same though, take for example Patterson and Georgia Inman, the poorest richest kids in the world. They went through some ordeal, even in their world things are not what they seem.

The homeless have a huge axe to grind, then the new homeless would also have a huge axe to grind, round and round it goes, where it ends nobody knows.

a reply to: skyblueworld

I understand this. That's why I said:

"But it seems people would rather want charismatic, attractive, rich politicians who speak with clear word pronunciation and expensive suits and has never been poor and seen what it's like on the 'other side' rather than just the 'rich/middle class' side. "

originally posted by: pikestaff
The homeless have a huge axe to grind, then the new homeless would also have a huge axe to grind, round and round it goes, where it ends nobody knows.

I'm not sure what your point is. What do you mean by 'huge axe to grind"? And why do you feel like it is something that can never be solved ('round and round it goes', 'where it ends nobody knows')?

a reply to: arpgme

I've met and known some lovely homeless people. I've also met many more who have a strong beer for breakfast and struggle with mental illness - often the reason why they're on the streets in the first place. Politicians struggle with moral integrity...

Who should lead us? Honest drunkards or sober liars? Tough call.

The biggest problem is that power is the fastest way to becoming an asshole known to mankind.

a reply to: arpgme

That's a very broad generalization, and it's not completely fair, on either side. Not all rich people are arrogant snobs. Not all homeless people are there through misfortune. Yes, I know a lot are, but I also know, personally, one that is there ONLY because he's too lazy to work and support himself. No, not kidding. Wish I was. I have to remind myself that they aren't all like him.

I see your point, and do believe that if we elected more non-rich people, we'd probably be better off, but painting entire groups with the same broad strokes isn't fair.

The person who most intensely DOESN'T want to lead should lead. Might lead us to new borders.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: arpgme

That's a very broad generalization, and it's not completely fair, on either side. Not all rich people are arrogant snobs. Not all homeless people are there through misfortune.

I didn't say that "ALL" homeless people and "ALL" rich people are the same way.

I SPECIFICALLY pointed out the ones I'm talking about:

But it seems people would rather want charismatic, attractive, rich politicians who speak with clear word pronunciation and expensive suits and has never been poor and seen what it's like on the 'other side' rather than just the 'rich/middle class' side.

But it seems people would rather want charismatic, attractive, rich politicians who speak with clear word pronunciation and expensive suits and has never been poor and seen what it's like on the 'other side' rather than just the 'rich/middle class' side.

Rubbish

I'd rather have an honest guy in a T-Shirt and jeans.

Homeless in the huge majority of cases is a failure to manage ones life. So the question is do I want the homeless to manage mine ?

Absolutely not !!!

Cody

I am donning my flame proof suit as I write this, and as soon as I hit reply I am going into hiding....

As Cody says, homeless is a failure to manage one's life.

Who has failed better at social interactions that could prevent them being homeless?

Who has failed better at relationships that could prevent them being homeless?

Who has failed better at financial management that could prevent them being homeless?

Who has failed better at making a meaningful contribution to society?

Who has failed better at resisting the temptation to give up?

I absolutely agree with you, Arpgme that leaders should not be exclusively those who "have never been poor and seen what it's like on the 'other side' rather than just the 'rich/middle class' side. " but I am not sure that the homeless are who I want in charge.

Does it soften my argument at all if I add that I do not judge the homeless by their failures, but I pity them and realise that having to deal with injustice and discrimination makes getting out of their situation that much more difficult once they find themselves in it?

I'm off to hide now.

a reply to: Mura44

It's not just about the money. It's about the fact that they are the most likely people to have gone through the most struggles in life and therefore they are more likely to be fair and compassionate to others after all of the humiliation, discrimination, and starvation.

'relationships', 'social interactions' those are all social roles. If they failed at playing 'social roles' to their advantage then they are probably not good liars, either, which would also be a good thing. Many people mistake social 'codes' for 'kindness' and 'compassion'. There is a difference between following a social 'rule' that you are taught to follow and not following it but still being a kind and loving person and this distinction is also another point for homeless people.

Edit to add : I came out of hiding to add that maybe we should consider for our leaders the ex-homeless who have managed to turn their dire circumstances. That shows strength of character, perseverance, strength, understanding and determination to improve, AND they would still have the experiences of understanding poverty, discrimination and injustice that you believe could be beneficial in a true and moderate leader.

Now I might consider those people worthy leaders....

a reply to: arpgme

Many fof the people that run countries or hold up political / corporate positions have psychopathic tendencies. These are the last people you want running the country. Equally many people that are homeless are dealing with drug or mental issues.

Somewhere between these two extremes there will be a balance...

originally posted by: Mura44
Edit to add : I came out of hiding to add that maybe we should consider for our leaders the ex-homeless who have managed to turn their dire circumstances.

That's a great idea. If they became homeless and then they weren't homeless that shows that they experienced both sides. They can connect these two words to help bridge the gap between the middle and high class with the poor.

Personally, I believe that the government should be based on Compassion rather than Money because that is how The Kingdom of Heaven is ruled. Imagine that, a government ruled based on Compassion. The more Compassionate, the more power they will gain and the less compassionate will be at a lower level and we can tell based on how much they suffered and how much they helped others in life and then vote for them. Compassion is the key to freedom. If people do not care if suffering exist and help then there will be no freedom from suffering.

Anyway, cool suggestion Mura44

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: arpgme

Many fof the people that run countries or hold up political / corporate positions have psychopathic tendencies. These are the last people you want running the country. Equally many people that are homeless are dealing with drug or mental issues.

Somewhere between these two extremes there will be a balance...

The key is finding those who are Compassionate and sane.

I actually enrolled myself in the election for governor in 2008 in Washington state. I was homeless at the time and the incumbents goons (I assume) made sure I didn't remember doing it so I wouldn't follow through with the check and petition. a reply to: arpgme

All great points here....

but I ask, wouldnt the homeless then become the rich politicians and then we'd be in the same boat having the same argument all over again?

originally posted by: 4evernewb
I actually enrolled myself in the election for governor in 2008 in Washington state. I was homeless at the time and the incumbents goons (I assume) made sure I didn't remember doing it so I wouldn't follow through with the check and petition. a reply to: arpgme

Interesting

originally posted by: youdidntseeme
All great points here....

but I ask, wouldnt the homeless then become the rich politicians and then we'd be in the same boat having the same argument all over again?

Most politicians were never homeless and endured humiliation and starvation. Maybe if the homeless were in charge they will not turn out the same way because they actually had these experiences rather than philosophizing about it.

Most homeless are either alchoholics , ex convicts, mentally ill or drug addicts. So no it wouldn't be a better place if they ruled over others. Most wouldn't even be able to speak sense to others. And probably don't have that much real life experience. Real life experience isn't life on the streets. It would be a complete horror. Hence why they are stuck in the cycle and no one will give them a chance. They need to sort their own issues first and get a place to live.

Some do just this!

originally posted by: [post=18084788]arpgme

Interesting


Most politicians were never homeless and endured humiliation and starvation. Maybe if the homeless were in charge they will not turn out the same way because they actually had these experiences rather than philosophizing about it.

Precisely. One would hope someone coming from such a humble background would be more apt to lead the masses. That was part of President Obama's appeal, after all!

originally posted by: FreedomEntered
Most homeless are either alchoholics , ex convicts, mentally ill or drug addicts. So no it wouldn't be a better place if they ruled over others. Most wouldn't even be able to speak sense to others. And probably don't have that much real life experience. Real life experience isn't life on the streets. It would be a complete horror. Hence why they are stuck in the cycle and no one will give them a chance. They need to sort their own issues first and get a place to live.

Some do just this!

Such a narrow minded view. Especially after the last decade, we've seen how easy it truly is to end up homeless and with nothing through no fault of your own. Typecasting every homeless person as an addict, ex-con, or mentally ill is only fueling the notion that they don't deserve even the basic of human rights and perpetuating the myth that they don't deserve our help.

Compassion is the key to freedom. If people do not care if suffering exist and help then there will be no freedom from suffering.

...

The key is finding those who are Compassionate and sane.

Yes, now I agree with you wholeheartedly. Lol, I am glad we can agree to disagree and still agree on the important issues.