Seattle Socialists Strangle Golden Goose

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Why don't you find some data?

Praxeology.

Data is valued far less than a good theory in Mises-world. Data is for technocrats in the deep state.

Didn't you get the memo?

[JohnDonne]

If it was my job to make your argument for you, I'm sure I could find at least something. You've got the moral hazard theory, just gotta find some data to prove your point. Why don't you find some data?

You've already conceded that providing a more homeless services attracts the homeless from places that do not. I don't need to prove what you already agree with, even if you don't realize you agree.

I know I agree with that because I've said it multiple times already.

On a related note, if there was only a few hospitals in the country, they would likely be overburdened with sick people.

Question: Does this mean hospitals are bad?

[Okeefenokee]

The correct analogy to hospitals and the sick would be something that reduces homelessness.

Hospitals aren't an accurate comparison to welfare programs that INCREASE homelessness, drug abuse, and unemployment.

Something like, places of employment tend to attract people who work to avoid being homeless. Unless it's Amazon.

[JohnDonne]

The correct analogy to hospitals and the sick would be something that reduces homelessness.

Hospitals aren't an accurate comparison to welfare programs that INCREASE homelessness, drug abuse, and unemployment.

Something like, places of employment tend to attract people who work to avoid being homeless. Unless it's Amazon.

See, that's the trouble your friend Trek had I'm afraid, he couldn't actually demonstrate that homeless services increase homelessness, rather than attract homeless from other areas, much as a hospital attracts sick people from different areas. A subtle distinction I'm afraid, but one that makes all the difference when determining how to craft a solution. But since we've already demonstrated that increasing rent prices causes homelessness, then the solution lies in what the head tax was intended for in the first place: Affordable housing!

[DBTrek]

So since we know dumping a billion into "homelessness" has had the unintended effect of proliferating the number of homelessness in Seattle - to the point of making us #3 in the nation for homeless - guess what a really terrible "fix" for homelessness is.

I'll give you a free hint - look back at what you did last time to make the problem worse.

Conversely, who would turn down this deal right now: Seattle, I can save you a billion dollars and give you fewer homeless.
That's exactly what doing "nothing" would have achieved. Fewer homeless. An extra billion dollars.

Yet progressives, who exacerbated the homeless problem while simultaneously alienating our major employers and wasting a billion dollars, consider themselves the saviors of society. The people who failed financially, the people who failed the reduce homelessness, never fail to climb up atop their virtue-steeds to trumpet their benevolence from the mountaintops.

Can there be a more miserable bunch of clowns than the prideful inept?
I doubt it.

[DBTrek]

The correct analogy to hospitals and the sick would be something that reduces homelessness.

Hospitals aren't an accurate comparison to welfare programs that INCREASE homelessness, drug abuse, and unemployment.

Something like, places of employment tend to attract people who work to avoid being homeless. Unless it's Amazon.

See, that's the trouble your friend Trek had I'm afraid, he couldn't actually demonstrate that homeless services increase homelessness, rather than attract homeless from other areas, much as a hospital attracts sick people from different areas. A subtle distinction I'm afraid, but one that makes all the difference when determining how to craft a solution. But since we've already demonstrated that increasing rent prices causes homelessness, then the solution lies in what the head tax was intended for in the first place: Affordable housing!

Actually, you couldn't grasp that subsidizing the homeless lifestyle attracted more homeless. Ergo what you subsidize, you get more of. You had some real cognitive problems realizing your own position played directly into my points until I spelled it out for you Green Eggs and Ham style.

[jediuser598]

@ Fife:

Subsidizing healthcare doesn't create more sick people, but it might create more patients.

Claiming that subsidizing homeless services creates more total homeless is about as sensible as saying healthcare subsidies creates sick people.

Or subsidizing defense attorneys.

That actually, literally, creates less "criminals."

Sorry all, just got back from work, going to catch up.

[jediuser598]

The correct analogy to hospitals and the sick would be something that reduces homelessness.

Hospitals aren't an accurate comparison to welfare programs that INCREASE homelessness, drug abuse, and unemployment.

Something like, places of employment tend to attract people who work to avoid being homeless. Unless it's Amazon.

See, that's the trouble your friend Trek had I'm afraid, he couldn't actually demonstrate that homeless services increase homelessness, rather than attract homeless from other areas, much as a hospital attracts sick people from different areas. A subtle distinction I'm afraid, but one that makes all the difference when determining how to craft a solution. But since we've already demonstrated that increasing rent prices causes homelessness, then the solution lies in what the head tax was intended for in the first place: Affordable housing!

DSL once introduced me to Wittgenstein. (I'd known of him tangentially through Nietzsche)

He made an argument that made a lot of sense, it was much like "Most arguments are about miscommunications. Most people are never really on the same page, they're not arguing about the same thing."

I think the first step in any debate should be to get on the same page, to agree on the same facts.

Now, throughout this thread,
Most of the conservatives are against needle exchanges. <- Fact.
Most of the conservatives think that people who go to the emergency room should be treated. <- Fact.
Most of the conservatives think that a junky who contracts HIV should be allowed to go to the emergency room, but should be denied regular treatment if they can't pay for it. <- Fact

Anyone showing up in the emergency room is guaranteed care, as any illegal immigrant could tell you. The fact that you believe the rest of the community should be on the hook for additional care beyond that, like every time some junkie injects themselves by shooting up with a dirty needle, simply highlights your feelings of entitlement to spend other people’s money on your pet causes.

So instead of doing the logical thing, and you know trying to prevent the spread of HIV so that some of the pressure on our hospitals are not getting hit by that extra 6% of new HIV patients, which conservatives demand be seen (and they should be), instead their care should just be you know, done by emergency rooms, because needle exchanges are dumb.

That's conservative logic. And I get them to spell it out for me so they don't screech, "Strawman!"

And I have them clearly on record saying this. Their treatment plan for new HIV patients, is emergency rooms.

I'm on the same page as conservatives, I understand what they're saying. There is no miscommunication, but it's often leading them to their own conclusions that proves to be the bitch.

[TheReal_ND]

So instead of doing the logical thing, and you know trying to prevent the spread of HIV so that some of the pressure on our hospitals are not getting hit by that extra 6% of new HIV patients, which conservatives demand be seen (and they should be), instead their care should just be you know, done by emergency rooms, because needle exchanges are dumb.

ER is prohibitively expensive if you are not in an actual emergency. Some people will use the ER for what they think is an emergency while others will use it if they need care and have no intention of paying. All of these costs are passed on to the people I like to call "tax payers," ie the people that actually pay for insurance premiums that go up every quarter.

As for needle exchanges those are "dumb." What on earth makes you think that people injecting street drugs into their veins give two fucks about what happens to their dull rigs?

[jediuser598]

The fact that you believe the rest of the community should be on the hook for additional care beyond that, like every time some junkie injects themselves by shooting up with a dirty needle, simply highlights your feelings of entitlement to spend other people’s money on your pet causes.

The whole point of a representative government, is to determine not only how to spend *your* taxes, but your neighbor's taxes as well. We decide, as a community, how to spend our taxes. I'm entitled to a vote, as a citizen. I entitled to advocate for my interests, and go out and vote.

It hurts to give you a civics lesson when you should know this.