Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Speaker to Animals]

[JohnDonne]

So ultimate success would be everyone becoming homeless and getting homes from the government?

Not even a little bit.

Here’s another bad faith straw man, for example:

“If Seattle decreasing their homeless populations is ultimate success would nuking Seattle be a good thing?”

Not even a little bit? You said your metric for success has always been the number of homeless off the street and into homes. I simply took that to it's furthest possibility. What does not even a little bit mean?

If you continue to give homeless homes paid for by the government, and yet the homeless population continues to increase, how is that success? Success should be reducing the overall population by addressing the problems that make them homeless in the first place. You're bailing water from the boat as it's sinking, but never patching the hole. The hole keeps getting bigger, but "success!" you bailed another 100 gallons today. Meanwhile 200 entered the boat.

Except I've already argued that the affordable housing tax does patch the hole created by rising rent increases (I linked to a study showing this effect earlier in the thread) on two fronts, by providing cheaper housing, and by slowing growth.

In the spirit of charity in which you've chosen to interpret my argument, I'm going to interpret yours:

Success should be reducing the overall population by addressing the problems that make them homeless in the first place.

So you want to "reduce the population" of the homeless by "addressing the problems that make them homeless in the first place"?

Well, being poor is a problem which makes them homeless.

We could reduce the population of the homeless by killing the poor. Therefore ultimate success would be a holocaust of the poor. Is that what you meant?

[Speaker to Animals]

For otherwise healthy people who just cannot afford housing.. move them out of the city into homesteads.

For the drug addicts and schizophrenics.. put them in institutions and take care of them instead of dumping them on the streets and blaming everybody else like evil liberals.

I mean.. shit. If you are going to raise taxes to throw money at them, just give them moving stipends to migrate to more affordable towns.

[Fife]

Homesteading implies actual work, though. Problematic.

[Speaker to Animals]

Homesteading implies actual work, though. Problematic.

Honestly, I don't think it would be a problem. Terms would be essentially a perfect bankruptcy, including student loans, but you have to stay on the land and make it productive for at least 8-10 years. Also no more welfare or assistance. The property grant is in lieu of that.

Most people in welfare are trapped. Trust me, there, bro. The government makes it very difficult to climb out.

A homestead act could neutralize the bureaucracy like nothing else.

[Fife]

Homesteading implies actual work, though. Problematic.

Honestly, I don't think it would be a problem. Terms would be essentially a perfect bankruptcy, including student loans, but you have to stay on the land and make it productive for at least 8-10 years. Also no more welfare or assistance. The property grant is in lieu of that.

Most people in welfare are trapped. Trust me, there, bro. The government makes it very difficult to climb out.

A homestead act could neutralize the bureaucracy like nothing else.

I trust you, bro. And homesteading is a great plan for divesting the state from title to real estate; and increasing human utility and happiness. A GREAT plan. We would have to incentivize work and production above sloth and abuse first, though. Do we have the nuts to make that happen?

[Speaker to Animals]

Homesteading implies actual work, though. Problematic.

Honestly, I don't think it would be a problem. Terms would be essentially a perfect bankruptcy, including student loans, but you have to stay on the land and make it productive for at least 8-10 years. Also no more welfare or assistance. The property grant is in lieu of that.

Most people in welfare are trapped. Trust me, there, bro. The government makes it very difficult to climb out.

A homestead act could neutralize the bureaucracy like nothing else.

I trust you, bro. And homesteading is a great plan for divesting the state from title to real estate; and increasing human utility and happiness. A GREAT plan. We would have to incentivize work and production above sloth and abuse first, though. Do we have the nuts to make that happen?

I think so.

If they don't work, then we give the land to somebody who does.

Think about the fact that a lot of the farming and ranching families out west were started in the exact same way. We think of those families as being pretty stable, independent, and self-sufficient these days (for the most part, and not counting the ridiculousness of squatters on BLM or the agricultural subsidies). We have to do that again.

I am sure there would be people who fail. We just need a mechanism in place to get them off the land so that somebody else can use it. I just don't think we would see a lot of that. People would know it entails plenty of hard work upfront. They would sign up for it in anticipation for it. I don't think you will see the average urban welfare mom signing up for a homestead, dude, I really don't. Those types are married to the government. They don't want a way out. I am talking about all the people who actually want out of this nightmare.

The bigger problem, really, is dealing with the actually large number of females that are now completely dependent on the government. The single mothers in particular. They are not going to want to sign up for a homestead act that means they have to work (hard physical work too) when they are used to getting everything they want from the government, the family courts, and from men throwing cash at them. That's a tougher problem.

[Okeefenokee]

Georgia was supposed to have started in a similar fashion as a debtor colony.

From what I remember from state history, it didn't work out that way.

[PartyOf5]

The horror, the horror of Seattle living!

Look everyone, everything's fine in Seattle. No problems at all. See, we have a farmer's market.

Does that picture also prove there are no homeless in Seattle?

[PartyOf5]

So you want to "reduce the population" of the homeless by "addressing the problems that make them homeless in the first place"?

Well, being poor is a problem which makes them homeless.

We could reduce the population of the homeless by killing the poor. Therefore ultimate success would be a holocaust of the poor. Is that what you meant?

That was such a pathetic attempt.