Extending this logic, I would also like to posit that jumping off a cliff is flight.

Money is like a loaded gun. It doesn't have to be fired. Just walking into a room waving one around will change the nature of most interactions.

You may as well say that taking any water out of the ocean is immoral because if all water was removed, the fish would die.

People have different values. Long ago we forgot that if it's not shown on mtv as something to aspire towards it's not the best pursuit of our time.

All the best chasing that lambo you'll never afford whilst looking over your shoulder at others smart enough not to get into that game.

In 99.99% of the cases, they weren't homeless by choice, or ideology.

But yes--most of them thought they were there by choice.

It must be some ego defense mechanism?

For some reason a disproportionate amount were former Programmers? I knew Jim Fox. He was a cocreator of Wordstar, but got zero credit. I watched him slip from employment to wearing a Penguin outfit playing a ukleee begging for change. We used to talk tech, and he would notice someone walking towards us. He would jump out, and do his dance. He was always positive. He once got a job. He went to Goodwill to buy a suit. (He thought he needed a suit for a startup.) He was fired a few days in. That whole cultural fit. He always used to tell me, I just hope I don't die of pneumonia in an alley. Well he didn't get his wish. He died homeless.

There is a saying amoung homeless, and it's this, "Homeless for a year, homeless for life."

Meaning the mind is gone after living like they do. I have watched our local police departments make there guys life more miserable for 30 years.

I'm glad you weren't an entrenched homeless person.

The homeless we have need help. Most are not their by choice if you get them to let their guard down.

I do have some hope in CA. The government might actually do something besides jaw boning about what needs to be done.

Besides long term shelter, I hear talk of safe places to park, and sleep, without getting a ticket, or worse?

Homeless in Dunphy Park, got tickets for not obeying a rule. The ticket was $500. The issuing officer told the IJ, fee is high because we know they won't ever pay it.

I just threw up my hands.

How is issuing a ticket that can eventually turn into a warrant helping out anyone?

I done. I'm starting to get angry. Homelessness has always been a sore spot for myself.

I'm just objecting to the glorification of homelessness as an ethos, and the diminution of people who work as a consequence. I'm not saying the ethos is responsible for all or even most homelessness. It can, and does, draw some intelligent people into making really bad decisions, though.

I'd also add that I've known many people living rough who were happy to have work, and worked hard when they could. And I don't include them in any of what I'm saying about the ethics of surviving on other people's charity, because they indeed did not wish to.

Our society needs more people willing to take on that challenge instead of allowing their own insecurities to drive them into contempt.

While GP comment may be painting groups with an overly broad brush, I'm not sure I see any fault with the criticism of the specific type of person they describe, which does exist, even if it may not be all of that group (or even a sizable minority).

Any policy that is followed, such as "help and show empathy for those less fortunate" should be actually examined and understood, not just blindly applied. People that wish to participate in society but have fallen on hard times deserve our sympathy and help. People that have health problems that cause their situation deserve our sympathy and help. People that decide to opt out of most of our society and so remove themselves from most of the society deserve our respect, or at least our ambivalence. People that say they want to opt out of society but really just don't want to give anything to society (whether that's time, effort, restraint, whatever) but want to get some benefit of society deserve our scorn.

Far too many people get stuck following the actions of an ideology rather than the precepts. Not everyone that appears homeless is "less fortunate" in their own eyes, and giving to them is not necessarily helping in a way that the precept of helping those less fortunate espouses, but instead a way to trick yourself into thinking you are doing something good without having to put thought into whether you actually are.

In general, we could all do with a lot more introspection as to what our actions are actually doing and whether they serve the purpose we think they are. As a side benefit, a lot of bullshit from both sides of the political spectrum wouldn't survive the light of day some critical thought brings.

Critical rational thought can take you all sorts of violent and negative places if you don't make an effort to pair it with empathy and a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of those you are tempted to despise.

Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.

I'm not sure why you think that, or even what the "sides" are in this case. I thought your response seemed a bit canned, so used it as a jumping point to talk about how I think a bit more critical thinking is good in some of these cases.

And critical it the operative word, not necessarily rational (as many seem to interpret it at least, to me rationalism without accounting for how it affects the human condition is somewhat worthless). The only reason critical thought would take you to violent and negative places is if you're doing it wrong. Lack of critical thinking leads to violence and negative places far more often from what I've seen.

> Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.

This isn't about dehumanization. It's about not blandly lumping people together without forethought. That works for not assuming all homeless are drug addicts and criminals as well as it does for not assuming they're all completely upstanding citizens that for the quick right type of help could be your neighbor. They are an amalgamation of many people in many circumstances, and we should remember that and consider that.

Generally, anytime you find yourself looking down with scorn on something, that is a great indication that there probably is something you don't understand and an attitude of contempt certainly won't help you figure out what that is.

I thought my aside about "rationalism" did that. For some people "rational" is loaded, and since you brought it up, I wanted to address it somehow. Whether true or not, some people equate rational with rationalism, and rationalism with not accounting for feelings and how people are in reality.

> Generally, anytime you find yourself looking down with scorn on something, that is a great indication that there probably is something you don't understand and an attitude of contempt certainly won't help you figure out what that is.

I agree in the general sense. But the only way that can be true in every sense is if nobody ever deserves scorn, and I think we can agree there are plenty of people that do deserve it because of their actions, from the extreme such as rapists and murderers to the mundane such as narcissists that they deserve whatever good fortune they can find or take, regardless of impact on others.

If you agree there are people worth scorning, the question in not whether "generally" this is a time or not, but given the specific subgroup in question has been described as those that decide they don't want to contribute to society and state that as the reason to live mostly outside it, but then want to receive the benefits of society, deserve that scorn. That is, to be clear, and as has been stated previously a few times, not all homeless people, but specifically those mentioned by the original commenter.

If you want to make a case that those people are misunderstood and perhaps their reasoning is X, Y or Z, feel free to do so, and I'll consider it. If you just want to defend them because they're part of a larger group you think deserves help, or because you feel compelled to defend them on principle, I ask you what purpose that serves? Critically thinking about the subject and coming to a better understanding is laudable, and defending something to cause some critical thought is as well, but I think we're beyond the point you could say no critical thought is being given to this, so unless you have actual points to add about this subject, I'm not sure what merit is left in calling out negative assessments as inherently bad or based only on not understanding.

Another way of looking at this is that if I had said serial rapists deserve our scorn, would you say that I'm just not understanding the situation or the people in question? If not, then that's an example of when scorn is sometimes acceptable, and we're left with whether the subject in question is actually deserving of it. In this case, you aren't providing any evidence one way or the other, just making broad assertions about thinking.

I'd venture yes.

>I have every right

>I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many

>Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves.

Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you.

Once again, people have different values. Maybe that leads them to your hypothetical ditch, maybe it gives them motivation to be like yourself. Or maybe they find happyness some other way.

Maybe they are! And if they are, eventually I hope they stop listening to the romantic rubbish about what "freedom" consists of and what capitalist society owes them, as spewed by the leaders of camps and troupes who are mainly interested in keeping a parasitic lifestyle surrounded by runaway girls and boys who'll do what they say. Those visionary camp leaders are the real narcissists. This one gives his game away when he talks about how he should be the one to manage the shit show when money is abolished. It's all wankerish nihilism dressed up as Marxist dialectics, with the dialectic controlled by someone with slightly more reading than their followers.

FWIW, I upvoted this comment. I agree it's fine for people to have different values. Eventually, me-on-a-beach will hopefully find values that lead toward self-actualization and personal growth, and away from sloth and the bitterness and wasted time of jealousy towards people who have more. In the interim I don't blame them, I just think their philosophy is childish and poorly conceived. If that makes me a narcissist, so be it.

This was exactly what was going through my head while reading their post. That, or that they are making up a BS backstory to gain some sort of credibility, but there is no point in that sort of speculating.

That’s for sure. The values of the poster you’re replying to are better than the values of a professional parasite.

It’s simply a question of leverage, even something as seemingly pleasant as Disney World causes significant direct and indirect ecological harm in ways a homeless person doesn’t. And frankly you can find plenty of far worse examples than Disney World.

Pointing out a moral standpoint is more harmful than what’s being criticized is hardly whataboutism. It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior rather than the posters personal preference. Which therefore directly counters their morality argument.

If you can't take part in your children's lives as a result of your choice not to take part in the economy, then you're sort of failing at both moral standards aren't you?

That’s a question without an objective answer. For example some people are better off in the foster system. It’s an oversimplification to assume some kind of standard life for other life choices.

> It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior

sure, but this is a straw-man. The proposition isn't that participating in the economy is automatically of greater value, it's that not participating (other than to leech off it) produces non.

> directly counters their morality argument

It's possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

The GP listed doing anything productive as a moral stance, Disneyland is therefore part of that anything.

> net harm of Disneyland

Promoting millions to take longer trips and regularly visit the middle of Florida directly causes travel related pollution. Simply developing that land is harmful to the local ecosystems. Producing all the merchandising is similarly an issue.

> It’s possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

If you oppose Disneyland for environmental reasons you’re hard pressed to then support the most of the rest of the economy. I would welcome an argument that draws a line there without excluding say suburbs.

If Disneyland is harmful, it isn't productive

> rest of the economy

which this guy is also dependent on

Any activity that burns fossil fuels directly produces measurable harm. Feel free to think about what that means for all current economic activity.

The whole idea that CO2 is harmful, came from modern scientific knowledge - also part and product of the economy/society. The same economy could come up with solutions e.g. carbon taxes or other tech advances.

You are taking a complex issue, CO2, the economy and its planetary effects, and turning it into a simplified concept of "harm". Humans have consumed some amount of CO2 forever, it's only an issue now because there are significantly more humans (who also create more CO2, but that's beside the point of the first).

In order to survive in growing numbers, humanity will need to manage its CO2. Incidentally this isn't the first time something like this has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

Nothing about this the hobo lifestyle suggests it will produce a solution to this problem beyond the fact that it's unlikely to support communities of a certain size for other reasons.