Seattle pretty much destroyed.. Is this the future of America?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Gryphon66

Okay, and what do you propose to do with those who refuse to become a productive part of society?

I mean, this is really where the rubber meets the road on the issue, right?

I just cut right to the core of the issue first (which is, admittedly, my nature), I just wanted to dispense with the rhetoric right up front. Forget the method, it was about the underlying point (i.e. they have to be removed from society, if they refuse to be a productive part of the same). Doesn't really matter whether it's Bangladesh, the stockade or Mars.

As I said first in my post above, the essential matter is indeed individual responsibility to oneself and to society. I would argue that your perception of yourself as a "straight talker" is in error as that requires that you know who are the ones that would ultimately refuse to become a prodcutive member of society.

The stopgap between society and malfunctioning individuals used to be private charitable organizations. Were I put in the improbable situation of actually trying to solve Seattles specific problems, I would honestly have to develop an actual plan, not just spout ideas off the top of my head but the government would have as little direct intervention in it as possiible.

What a surprise, another liberal # hole.

a reply to: nOraKat

I just realized I didn't answer the question you asked in the title of your OP.

Yes, this is the future of America if personal accountability/responsibility is not an absolute requirement.

Until people are held accountable for their actions the problem will only get worse.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

A good start would be cutting off their money. A large number of folks that are homeless, drug addicted, non productive members of society do receive some form of government handout. We should stop paying people to be non productive. We promote all kinds of negative behavior simply because we keep partially funding it. Before the welfare state and cradle to grave government took over, we didn’t see a lot of these problems. People were too busy trying to survive. We’ve always had opiates, alcohol, violence, etc. But it was not allowed to flourish. It was not sponsored by your tax dollars.

I’ve never lived in a big city so I am not sure how many folks give money to those begging on the streets there. But here, it’s not enough to stay fed, high, and dry. Most here get a check and EBT. I personally know people who are in their 40’s that have never had to hold down a full time job. They know how to work the system. They were born and raised in government housing and when they moved out of their parent’s houses, they moved into more government housing. They were born on Medicaid and are still on it when they have their own children. There is no reason that they see to work like a “sucker” when they don’t have to. There is no shame.

Granted we also had mental institutions back then so leaving that out would be disingenuous on my part. However, I do not believe that closing those would leave us with the number of problematic people we see today. A contributor for sure though.

We need to quit throwing money at people. It doesn’t fix anything. It only exacerbates it. Some people you just can’t reach.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I like your style. I’ll back you if you run for mayor of any Democratically controlled city of your choice. Hell I’ll back you for Congress.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, I get that about your beliefs.

You're an authoritarian.

It is not the foundation of the Constitution.

The foundation of the Constitution is the RESTRICTION of government power, our system is designed to diffuse the power of all levels of government for good reason.

But it IS the foundation of a successful family who by design must be somewhat authoritarian. We didn't tolerate any misbehaving, lying, any shenanigans of the sort and punishment was swift and fair. No beating, but no coddling either. Our kids have grown up to be responsible, dependable and honest adults. That's where it starts, G, with the family. If there is no family then society has to make sure that person is living by the rules. When that doesn't happen you get what we see in most large cities - poverty, crime & generational welfare, a lack of leadership at the top almost exclusively Democrat. The point is we must be part authoritarian as a society or it won't work. I was not a responsible child/teen/young adult, neither is my brother to this day. We had a coddling mother and a dictator father. That doesn't work. It's up to each of us to do what we inherently understand to be good, even if it takes some pain to move us in that direction.

The problem isn't the rules established by the People via legislatures, it's that the rules haven't been enforced or have been over-enforced. That directly comes from the leadership. We don't need Democrat or Republican leaders, we need leaders that are politically impartial when it comes to societal behavior. Do illegal drugs? Get punished AND help if needed. Rob someone? Sit in jail for a while THEN do something to repay the people or business. Harm someone? Don't get me started on an eye-for-an-eye yet, it's too early in the day. Without rules and someone to enforce them you get what we see in the dystopian books and movies - chaos.

a reply to: nOraKat

Seattle is what happens when ideology replaces common sense.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You use the word compassionate wrong.

Giving people what they want isn’t always compassionate, that’s the issues.

It’s at best pandering, in the middle it’s placating and at worst patronizing.

Which one are you?

Lol they can keep their filthy # empire , who cares?

Its what yall wanted its who yalk vote in lol


Looks so wonderful to live like that lol

This is what happens when you cater to trash lowest common denominator.

Now take a huge bite from the # sandwich you made we all wish to watch you swallow.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a lot of words without saying anything.

So then, you advocate a 'social credit scoring' system to weed out the unproductive members of society?

How about an alternative idea? How about, if you get caught drugged out, living in a tent on the street, you get sent to a labor camp where you prove you can work. But unlike North Korea, you don't get kept there long if you prove yourself. The faster you prove yourself the faster you get out. But the threat of going back is always there. There's lots of roads which need fixing, lots of trash needs picked up, lots of homeless camps need cleaned out. Is it "fun"? Nope, not one bit...but it was never intended to be fun. Once again, only a few people have to go before the word gets out...shape up, or ship out. But please read on...

There are some people who have legitimate reasons for being homeless. Maybe they are physically or mentally handicapped. We as a society owe it to those people to care for them. These people truly have been abandoned by modern society. I harbor no ill will to these people, and gladly pay to help them in any way possible.

However, there is a much larger problem, there are a whole lot of other people who don't fall into the physically or mentally handicapped category and who abuse the services available to the people who are because they're lazy and just don't feel like being responsible. For these people I harbor nothing but contempt.

a reply to: Lysergic

Yeah, but they only wanted a little. Not a lot. Someone should’ve told them that it’s never a little. Oh wait...

it goes to show what type of government enables people to be addicts and criminals... any normal smart addict or homeless or criminal would think to set up shop in SOUTHERN CALI...or maybe NEVADA or SOMEWHERE SUNNY and WARM?!?!

Not a rainy ass moss covered jungle like the Northwest. goes to show you.

Unless they like being near socialist vancouver.

They told us 14 days just to flatten the curve..



9months and counting.....


a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

a reply to: Lysergic

Right?

Don’t forget the extra “preplanned” 100 days coming up. And the other 100 that’s likely to follow that.

We’re working hard to concave the curve don’t ya know.

a reply to: HalWesten

All government is authoritarian.

That's a given.

I know of no better system in the world or in history to sustain a modern large nation other than our living Constitution.

i hear you and don't disagree, again in essence. Families are important but are still only one level on the continuum in my opinion, and are, sadly, quite often as disfunctional as your family seems to have reared children that became functional, productive adult members of society.

Can every family unit be uniformly designed? Is there only one right configuration as so many suggest? I don't think so.

As I said, dense urban populations present far different challenges for effective governance than suburban or rural (these are arbitrary distinctions of course). In the US, we are only given one of two "choices" for bestowing political power, and Democrat is only one of those choices.

More dense populations REQUIRE greater interference from government. As obnoxious as I find that to be, it seems to be factual. When a poplulation is dispersed, tribal forces (or community forces if you like that word better) seem to come into play which allows for a more libertarian approach to governance (i.e. as little as possible.)

When a population is densely concentrated, it may be that poverty and crime are simply side-effects that have to be accepted and minimized as much as possible. Arguing that the same standards of governance (i.e. population control) that work in the countryside will work in the cities is just ... not borne out by our experience or our history.

Could the cities be run better? Absolutely. Can they be run like we run the rural communities? Not even in the ballpark.

Grew up near Seattle, went downtown all the time in high school, was super nice for a bigger city.

Came back from college started getting a little seedy.

When I moved out of downtown seattle a few years ago afterliving there for 3 years I was fine never seeing it again.

Drugs are never the problem, in any person's life. Drugs are always a symptom. People use drugs to escape whatever situation, or memory with which they cannot deal. That's not saying drugs aren't a part of the problem. The thing with drugs is that you cannot change unless you change the people with whom you associate, the places where you go and the things that you do. You also cannot fix the homeless problem until people actually care about their situation, and most drug addled people do not care.

America is a large and very compassionate place, every state has hundreds of treatment facilities. It would be a much better investment for their future and ours to offer them a one way ticket to another state with stay at an inpatient treatment facility.

But you also have to get the state local and federal government to work together, to encourage people to take control of their own lifes and do something to help themselves. You can't pay people a monthly check to live in a cardboard box.

As a recovering addict myself, I know, no one can help you unless you want it yourself. And everyones rock bottom are different. This would not fix Seattle, but it's a good start.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, I get that we don't care for each other's ideas ... I thought the same thing about your posts: a lot of nothing, by and large.

I have said nothing about a "social credit scoring" system. In fact, I said clearly that what you and I are doing is bouncing ideas off each other. If I knew right now an exact series of steps to infallibly solve Seattle's problems or any one elses for that matter, I'd write them an email.

I dont' need to pretend that I have the only answer. That still means I can disagree wholeheartedly with the details of what you are proposing.

I'm against the idea of concentration/labor/re-education camps. I understand it SEEMS like a reasonable solution to the issues we're discussing, but history has not proven it to be, i.e. the cure is worse than the disease.

You did make me realize, however, that though our philosophies seem eternally at odds, the ulimate question is the same in both: what do you do when someone refuses to cooperate in society for their own good and the good of others/

The ultimate answer is they need to be removed. I don't know how to square that with my firmly-held beliefs about limited government.

I guess we keep working on it.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
Grew up near Seattle, went downtown all the time in high school, was super nice for a bigger city.

Came back from college started getting a little seedy.

When I moved out of downtown seattle a few years ago afterliving there for 3 years I was fine never seeing it again.

What changed in your opinion? Did the population increase that much over the term you're talking about?

These are issues that arise from too many humans living in too small a space.

a reply to: Nickn3

Well, thank you, but two things. First, I would never get elected. I don't have a forked tongue and can't speak out of both sides of my mouth. I don't candy coat things. The way I solve problems is by tackling the hardest part of the problem first, not by taking the low hanging fruit. Success or failure is defined by solving the crux of the problem, not by window dressing. I have little tolerance for doublespeak. And, I absolutely LOATHE bureaucracy. I'm very direct.

Secondly, and this is a real issue in our country right now; the current crop politicians occupying our government at every level stand for everything I am not. As a result, I wouldn't like being a politician if I couldn't be myself. Sadly, this same thing holds true for many of the people who really SHOULD be running this country; they don't want to. This is not because they don't have the fortitude to do it, it's because it is beneath them to put up with all the bureaucratic BS and image maintenance. And, this is what politics has become. This is what identity politics is. It's not about action, it's about image. Image wins every time, regardless of party. It's not WHAT you are, it's WHO you are.

The bottom line is...they people who really SHOULD run for office are the very same ones who WON'T run for office.

And that is just how thoroughly F'd up the political system really is in this country right now. And I don't know how you undo that.