It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: KyoZero
But let me throw some devil's advocate at you if I may. Despite my past ((and believe me if you search my post history you'll see...)) I am starting to see a balance is needed as opposed to a pure Socialist attitude. Capitalism, when regulated, can be a fine enterprise. People compete, better products and advancements are made, and jobs are created to avoid issues like massive unemployment. I would throw in a healthy dash of social policies such as temporary unemployment or full term disability for someone unable to work, but my point is capitalism isn't terrible if watched. Now while I agree by definition that Capitalism itself doe snot live and breathe, we the people make, support and define Capitalism thus I contend that while the idea is not tangible in and of itself, the structure and outcroppings are concrete and real because we make them. So the issue I have is, while I may be irritated by these 4 or 5 guys, in many cases, our definition and self-created Capitalism has increased homelessness. The structure dictates as you say it does. Profit is the end game and thus if outsourcing to India is more profitable, then outsourcing is chosen. But then at some point in time, we decided that it was perfectly ok to keep making what I think to be poor decisions by either caving to massive conglomerates like Walgreens and offering severe tax breaks while allowing crappy pay and crappy benefits. Or they decide they don't like our offer and send droves of jobs across the sea. How else do we explain it then? We as a society have determined such large scale actions are ok and thus we as a society have largely decided that the results, one of which can be homelessness, are likewise ok...so long as it isn't in my back yard.
I do agree there are some people who would choose substandard living if it meant not working, but I am not so sure that said percentage of people are a vast majority but I am no a sociologist or have researched this personally. So then I suppose now that we have really gotten deep into this conversation that started as a question of mine, then let me ask this
Instead of saying at what point can I, Kyo, morally be ok with not caring and change it to, at what point should I, Kyo, start doing more about it?
Yes I have to protect my psychiatric wards and leave those precious few beds open for someone who has legitimately broke and needs desperate and immediate help, but do we then owe society to help resolve or prevent the problem of homelessness?
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Tangerine
Individual rights. Not mob rule. At no point does one persons rights matter more than another. Whether they are drunk, crazy, or strung out.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Spiramirabilis
I read some studies that indicate that mental illness is far more common than we know. But people with greater intelligence are able to work around the illness.
I have talked to people who were not delusional, but were still active schizoprenics (or some other psychopathy). They will tell you they hear voices, but that they either ignore them or self medicate them away.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
Or if it is all those things, that those things come with not having something that most of us have
originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
I have a sister that is spot on to your close relative. Stopped working in the late 80s and never got another job again even today. Ran my mom out of money after my dad died and after my mom passed away (largely due to my sister) she lived off what was left. Even today no job and I do not know where she is and I do not care in the least...