I bet the party has sufficient power to restrict access to birth control. Seems crazy to consider, but if things got serious enough, I feel like they are capable of doing it.

Yeah they have to want to or it won’t work.

I don’t think you are doing drug addicts any favors by letting them continue to use. Their life is better without that addiction and a healthy society would help them as much as possible and feasible. I’m all for personal freedom, but I don’t view addiction as being free.

In general the concept sounds ok, but I think the reality would make it a death camp since many of those drugs are so addictive that you simply won’t break free on your own, without being forced to quit.

Yeah it’s not like there is one problem and one solution. Some turn to drugs to escape their situation or because they have bad coping mechanisms, while others get into drugs and their life falls apart because of it.

Yeah but the point is if you don’t know how to spend it responsibly, then what good is it? If you spend it on drugs or alcohol because that’s more important to you than shelter, which is the case for serious addicts, then it doesn’t help you. Instead it only enables your addiction and keeps you on the street.

I don’t think it’s so much a moral failing, but one of privilege in the form of being raised in a stable family, having positive role models and being taught basic life skills. If your parents weren’t around to teach you these things or if you were preoccupied with survival as a kid, then you are not equipped to thrive in life. Through no fault of your own. Had you been taught some of these things, then you could be self sufficient. Of course illness, changing job markets, rental costs, inflation, and so on can impact a person’s situation as well, but these can be semi reasonably planned for as well, if you know how.

I’m confused. It sounds like you are disagreeing with me, but basically reworded exactly what I said.

Yes, sometimes, you moron. Did you have anything of value to add to the conversation or is that the extent of your contribution?

Yes, and they require different solutions. UBI is an attempt to solve poverty, but won’t do much for homelessness.

Yeah that or provide housing and help for their addiction or mental issues. Money doesn’t help them at all. People need shelter and food more than they need money. Money is just a means to store value and make transactions, and in their case, those transactions are food and shelter, so why not provide those first? It doesn’t help to give the societal currency if you aren’t equipped to exist in that society anyway.

Your solution is literally just “give money”? That only works in some instances, where a person is struggling because of bad luck or whatever, but has a desire to improve their situation. But if they are a substance abuser or are mentally ill, money isn’t going to help like housing would, since they either don’t know what to do with it, or they prioritize drugs over shelter.

They tried that with me once, but I showed them and got a different job.

Government can throw you in jail.

Thing is, it’s sometimes very inconvenient when you are just trying to get something done, but the reality is, what are you rushing for? At that point in your life, it’s ok to take the time to raise a productive, capable, well-rounded and happy person. In fact it’s probably more important than pretty much anything else you have going on. Most of the things we rush to get back to are fleeting and temporary obligations or entertainment that don’t have any meaning or value in the bigger picture.

Let kids try things, like painting their room or cooking. It’s messy and frustrating, but very rewarding for everyone when they start to get it.

Yes, or lemmy.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Yeah this is kind of interesting, and I actually wondered if the republican party will eventually evolve into the old Democrat-farmer-labor party.