Equal before God. Just not in this life.

[2ndRateMind]

One thing bothers me about America.

Don't get me wrong. On the whole, I believe the US be a force for good in the world, mostly, present administration excepted.

One of the things I like about it is the equality it proclaims for it's people, and works to promote in the rest of the world. The thing that bothers me is that America is far from an equal country. Apparently, in this country of a million millionaires, and more than a few billionaires, somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 people are homeless. (It seems the powers that be can't even be bothered to arrive at a definitive figure). That's not equal. It's not even acceptable.

Of course, the stock answer is that America believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

But you tell me how the bedraggled under-educated unwashed homeless can hope to compete in the job-market with the smart, sharp white anglo-saxon protestant with a university degree and a rich, well connected daddy.

In other words, equality of opportunity is a myth without some degree of equality of outcome.

Comments welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

But you tell me how the bedraggled under-educated unwashed homeless can hope to compete in the job-market with the smart, sharp white anglo-saxon protestant with a university degree and a rich, well connected daddy.

In other words, equality of opportunity is a myth without some degree of equality of outcome.

You are conflating many factors in a way that implies that none of them can be overcome. Being bedraggled does not bar one from many public and private services in these United States. In the age of the internet, education is available at any public library. Unwashed and bedraggled are similar, so that is just puffery. Homelessness is more a matter of mental illness and personal choice, than it is an insurmountable obsticle. Listing these together is an appeal to the extreme. White Anglo-Saxon, really? This is a bit of a racial and cultural stereotype. A good many white Anglo-Saxons are

The opposite is also an appeal to the extreme, by listing things that are presumed to be gaurantees of success. If by smart you mean educated, that has been addressed above. If you mean innovative, what good does it do to reward those who are not innovative? Those who are not innovative can join the innovative and ride the wave. Sharp is also a vague term, if it is seen as innovative, that is already addressed. If it refers to being appealing, natural appeal is fading and takes a lot of work to maintain. Therefore, using natural appeal as an excuse for failure is little more than envy. White Anglo-Saxon, really? This is a bit of a racial and cultural stereotype. A good many white Anglo-Saxons are in the negative groups that are listed in the first paragraph. Also, if one wants to look at the most successful ethnicity and culture, as a group, it is the Asian ethnicities and cultures. Being a protestant is not inherent. If one sees an advantage in being a protestant, that one can become one, if for nothing else but the economic advantage. A university degree can be bought. However, it is generally just a rite of passage and does not garauntee success. In fact, some of the richest people in the world, are drop-outs. The same is true regarding a "rich well connected daddy". Most such family advantages last only a generation or two, if that much. If one does not prudently employ those riches, they can be quickly lost to those who are more skilled at doing so.

In short, equality is the myth. There will never be equality. Even if one were to take all of the assets and divid them equally among all, in short order, the highly skilled and motivated will rise and the lesser skilled and motivated will fall. The great thing about modern societies in general and the societies in this country in specific is that there is a wide range of areas where one can succeed, depending on which talents one happens to possess.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Uh huh. But I'm not talking total financial equality. Just sufficient to allow everyone at least an approximation to equality of opportunity. I really do not see why housing the homeless should be controversial on a Christian message board.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

I really do not see why housing the homeless should be controversial on a Christian message board.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't either. Perhaps a Christian who thinks it is controversial will explain why compassion is so horrible. I wonder if they also hate empathy as it may lead to that terrible trait of caring.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 2 by bluethread]

Uh huh. But I'm not talking total financial equality. Just sufficient to allow everyone at least an approximation to equality of opportunity. I really do not see why housing the homeless should be controversial on a Christian message board.

Best wishes, 2RM.

It is not controversial. Expecting it to be an obligation of government is, in my view, counter productive. Nearly every, if not every, government attempt to provide housing has been a dismal failure. As I stated, homelessness is more a matter of mental illness and personal choice, than it is an insurmountable obstacle. Mental illness needs to be addressed as a medical issue, not a housing issue. Much of the homelessness problem is due to civil liberties issues, where the mentally ill are permitted to choose homelessness over treatment. The rest are due to poor choices either before, during, or after they became homeless. Short term homelessness is understandable. I have even experienced it myself. However, in these United States, long term homelessness among the healthy is a matter of a lack of ambition.

[bluethread]

I don't either. Perhaps a Christian who thinks it is controversial will explain why compassion is so horrible. I wonder if they also hate empathy as it may lead to that terrible trait of caring.

I am all for compassion. What I am not for is theft. We should all, as individuals do what we can to help those who find themselves homeless. However, using the force of government to get others to do so, or taking assets from others to give to the homeless is not only not moral, but counterproductive.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

I am all for compassion. What I am not for is theft. We should all, as individuals do what we can to help those who find themselves homeless. However, using the force of government to get others to do so, or taking assets from others to give to the homeless is not only not moral, but counterproductive.

Hmmm. You demonstrate precisely the attitude that bothers me about the US. Clearly private philanthropy does not solve the problem of homelessness, or it would already have done so. But you also rule out government intervention, which is the other option. So the homeless stay homeless, in this richest country on earth, and a (supposedly) Christian nation, at that.

Or do you have another solution in mind?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 5 by bluethread]

I am all for compassion. What I am not for is theft. We should all, as individuals do what we can to help those who find themselves homeless. However, using the force of government to get others to do so, or taking assets from others to give to the homeless is not only not moral, but counterproductive.

Hmmm. You demonstrate precisely the attitude that bothers me about the US. Clearly private philanthropy does not solve the problem of homelessness, or it would already have done so. But you also rule out government intervention, which is the other option. So the homeless stay homeless, in this richest country on earth, and a (supposedly) Christian nation, at that.

Or do you have another solution in mind?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't rule out private philanthropy, which is implied when you use the term "also". I also don't rule out all government intervention. When it endangers the community, there are step the government can take. What I object to is transfer payments. A great portion of homelessness is due to mental illness. Due to the court created "right to privacy", forced institutionalization short of criminal activity is not permitted, and even criminal institutionalization is limit. Do you think that we should change that?

For those who are not mentally ill, institutions can be made available to those who are willing to take part in their upkeep. However, simply allowing people to live in housing without any responsibility is counterproductive. Also, the larger the institution the less effective it is.

In short, the best solution for homelessness is for homeless individuals to become part of a community and communities to be willing and able to include a certain number of marginal individuals. That said, in a consumer society, where both the homeless and the socially stable see their own personal peace and convenience as a right, that is not going to happen.

[2ndRateMind]

I don't rule out private philanthropy, which is implied when you use the term "also".

That was not what I meant. But in the attenuated form of communication that is a public message board, I do not blame you for the misunderstanding.

What I meant was: private philanthropy has thus far proven incapable of meeting the vital needs of the world's poor. If, given this fact, you also rule out government intervention then clearly those vital needs will not be met.

More later, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

Hmmm. Some people are homeless, doubtless, because they choose to be. Not much can be done about that.

Some people are homeless because, as you say, they have mental illnesses. I was one of those. Stuff can be done about that, such as treating their illness, and providing social housing. In the past, I have benefited from both.

Some people are homeless because substance, alcohol or gambling abuse sucks all their money out of them. Stuff can be done about that, and there exist effective treatment programs.

Some people are homeless just because they are poor. Stuff can be done about that, such as ensuring everyone gets sufficient money to live an austere but reasonably dignified way of life, such as you might want for your father, brother, son, or for yourself as a basic minimum standard befitting the richest nation on earth.

The issue is, how much should we contribute voluntarily, and how much should be provided by government intervention?

One advantage of government intervention is that every citizen, whether contributing voluntarily and/or compulsorily, or whether benefiting from 'the system', is treated objectively and impartially.

One disadvantage of private philanthropy is that it is neither objective nor impartial, just capricious and unreliable.

Best wishes, 2RM.