[Julian658]

Option 1; Basic housing, heat and water. Free healthcare (incl. mental health) and education. Yes, these things cost money but would be a fantastic start of having a civilized society.

That would be Cuba

Option 2; Gated communities and militarized police forces. Privatized prisons with huge incarceration rates and overall class segregation.

Western nations.

Yeah, I know what option I would prefer. Giving poor countries a chance to develop would be another avenue. Perhaps start with massive debt relief/cancellation by the IMF/World Bank?

I would take the West.

[Tainari88]

The right to wear sleeveless shirts.

Don't you get cheeky on me Ingliz.

I want to know if you think housing should be subsidized by the state for stable communities? Do you think that kind of socialism works?

If you don't agree I will have to look for an old tune like this one?

[Rancid]

Conservatives always warn of the moral hazard that giving out free healthcare or free education brings. However, they seem totally cool with the moral hazards that are created when we bail out banks.

Then again, looks like conservatives are all of sudden anti-corporation, or at least, anti-big tech.

[Julian658]

If providing unconditional housing creates “a monstrous number of "prima-donna" type citizens” then Finland would have these types of people.

This is not the case.

So, providing unconditional housing does not create “a monstrous number of "prima-donna" type citizens”.

Simple.

POD

That may work in Finland, but not in Baltimore or Chicago. Public housing is a disaster in America.

[wat0n]

It seems the "Housing First" approach is also used in the US, and it turns out it may also be cheaper for the government than spending on policing and healthcare for the homeless:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

Interesting, I actually had no idea about that. But I wonder what the long term effects are, and if the approach is useful for allowing people to sustain themselves once the individual causes for their homelessness (drug addiction, family breakdown, whatever) are addressed. I also wonder how does it work in cities which limit construction through their zoning laws, and if the end result is that people who are not quite homeless yet have serious issues affording housing end up moving out.

[Tainari88]

Option 1; Basic housing, heat and water. Free healthcare (incl. mental health) and education. Yes, these things cost money but would be a fantastic start of having a civilized society.

Option 2; Gated communities and militarized police forces. Privatized prisons with huge incarceration rates and overall class segregation.

Yeah, I know what option I would prefer. Giving poor countries a chance to develop would be another avenue. Perhaps start with massive debt relief/cancellation by the IMF/World Bank?

Because you wrote this I think.....I love you...you mad monk you!



You are good man, not like the ones who with their lack of love for equality and worrying about putting pressure on people on the edge of exploding they tend to bring others down.

My answer to them @MadMonk is:

[Julian658]

Conservatives always warn of the moral hazard that giving out free healthcare or free education brings. However, they seem totally cool with the moral hazards that are created when we bail out banks.

Then again, looks like conservatives are all of sudden anti-corporation, or at least, anti-big tech.

Giving people free stuff and asking nothing in return is poor form. This is not a conservative or liberal point. High schools are free in Baltimore and the students do not take advantage of it. Having free college would encourage people to party like animals for four years since they are not losing any money. IN any event i would favor free university for the gifted and not the mediocre students.

Giving cash to corporation is something the right and left has done forever as they are in the pocket of donors.

[late]

Read the Bill of Rights. They do not depend on coercion of other citizens.

But Rule of Law does, which leaves you orbiting a different planet in a galaxy far, far away, space cadet.

[late]

That may work in Finland, but not in Baltimore or Chicago. Public housing is a disaster in America.

Got some bad news for you, everybody makes mistakes. If you're American, you make twice as many.

[Pants-of-dog]

POD

That may work in Finland, but not in Baltimore or Chicago. Public housing is a disaster in America.

According to @wat0n, you are incorrect.

[late]

Giving people free stuff and asking nothing in return is poor form.

More bad news, it's the way the Modern world works...

You should find a country that doesn't have a Modern government or economy.

Like Somalia...

Immediately.

[late]

According to @wat0n, you are incorrect.

There have been small programs that have worked quite well. Some are even cheaper.

But they don't let people die in the street, so you know who doesn't like them.

[late]

Finland is tiny and with little diversity. This makes it a little but easier. Small nations where there is a lot of kinship tend to do better. They do not have the problem of tribalism.

Did I forget the racism?

My bad, I'll remember to mention it next time.

[ingliz]

I want to know if you think housing should be subsidized by the state?

Of course, it should.

But I believe it would be better if local government disburses central funding for housing provision, local government being more able to recognize local needs.

Don't you get cheeky on me, Ingliz.

I was responding to @B0ycey.

"Anything else is an artificial right. Bare arms, vote assembly, blah, blah, blah"

[Unthinking Majority]

Because that is what has been shown to work in real life.

You might feel like people should “earn” it, but your feelings are not a good basis for making policy.

It's not about "earning" anything. It's about providing incentive for people without severe permanent disabilities to become self-sufficient instead of remaining as government dependents for the rest of their lives.

These homes aren't unconditional. In the article it says the only condition is that they must stay in communication with support workers. Which is a good condition, I assume they help them get addiction or employment/school help if they want it. I'd like to know how involved that communication needs to be (Do they need to have 1-on-1 discussions in person? Just respond to the occasional email or say hi in the hallway?).

It's good that they have improved homelessness. Obviously you're going to help homelessness greatly if you literally just give people free permanent housing with no strings. The problems that remain are dependency and enabling, and taxpayer cost. I'm glad they have one condition.

When you say "because this works in real life" it depends on what outcome you're looking for. If you want to treat adults like children and give them free permanent apartments with no strings so the fewest possible people are homeless, then you can easily have that outcome. If you want people to become self-sufficient adults capable of the most basic adult responsibilities and independence while keeping taxpayer/budget costs low then this may not work.

[late]

If you want people to become self-sufficient adults capable of the most basic adult responsibilities and independence while keeping taxpayer/budget costs low then this may not work.

Works better than what we have now, and we wouldn't have a couple million homeless kids... You're taking a static view, those kids will grow up, and the ones that have the stability of housing and schooling have a better chance of turning out normal.

[late]

But I believe it would be better if local government disburses central funding for housing provision, local government being more able to recognize local needs.

The ones that give a rats ass would.

You'd be surprised how many would not.

[Unthinking Majority]

Because you wrote this I think.....I love you...you mad monk you!

You are good man, not like the ones who with their lack of love for equality and worrying about putting pressure on people on the edge of exploding they tend to bring others down.

Giving people free everything and then asking them to get some help for their problems (my position) is helping them, it's not putting pressure on them lol. There are many people who genuinely just need a break and a hand, and there's also people who legit would just prefer to freeload and continue self-destruction and have no interest in getting their shit together. You don't seem to understand that last point.

The question for the latter is are you interested in simply feeling sorry for them and giving them charity,, or are you interested in actually helping them?

I have met many very kind women throughout my life who were married to useless addicts who treated them like crap, but they stayed because they felt sorry for them (and sometimes afraid of them unfortunately). These are enablers. You seem like an enabler, but also a very nice person (aside from calling me a heartless sociopath lol). I think you're simply a bit too nice.

[ingliz]

Giving people free everything

'Subsidized' by implication shows it is not free.

subsidize

verb

to give money to a person or an organization to pay part of the cost of something that they do

[Pants-of-dog]

It's not about "earning" anything. It's about providing incentive for people without severe permanent disabilities to become self-sufficient instead of remaining as government dependents for the rest of their lives.

Putting obstacles in front of people when they are trying to get a home does not further incentivize them. They already have substance abuse problems and/or other issues creating obstacles. The incentive is already here. Making it unconditional simply removes obstacles.

These homes aren't unconditional. In the article it says the only condition is that they must stay in communication with support workers. Which is a good condition, I assume they help them get addiction or employment/school help if they want it. I'd like to know how involved that communication needs to be (Do they need to have 1-on-1 discussions in person? Just respond to the occasional email or say hi in the hallway?).

This seems like a semantic difference.

In terms of all the conditions that all of you folks feel there should be (because of your moral views, and not because of evidence, apparently), it is unconditional.

It's good that they have improved homelessness. Obviously you're going to help homelessness greatly if you literally just give people free permanent housing with no strings. The problems that remain are dependency and enabling, and taxpayer cost. I'm glad they have one condition.

What exactly are these problems of “ dependency and enabling, and taxpayer cost”? Please be specific.

When you say "because this works in real life" it depends on what outcome you're looking for. If you want to treat adults like children and give them free permanent apartments with no strings so the fewest possible people are homeless, then you can easily have that outcome. If you want people to become self-sufficient adults capable of the most basic adult responsibilities and independence while keeping taxpayer/budget costs low then this may not work.

I am not interested in forcing people to conform to someone else’s moral ideas about being “self-sufficient adults capable of the most basic adult responsibilities and independence”. I think people deserve basic rights such as housing regardless of how many gold stars they get on someone’s morality checklist.

Death row prisoners get free housing. So do politicians. The few of us who also end up homeless are no worse than these groups.

As for costs, the link provided by wat0n shows that these programs safe money in the long run.