The case is considered the most significant to come before the high court in decades on homelessness, which is reaching record levels in the United States.
Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the “adults”, have to solve capitalism’s contradictions and crises, with capitalism’s inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I’ve heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I’d say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it’s lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.
The contemporary version of bourgeois emancipating reason, egalitarian liberalism, made fashionable by an insistent media popularization, provides nothing new because it remains prisoner of the liberty, equality, and property triplet. Challenged by the conflict between liberty and equality, which the unequal division of property necessarily implies, so-called egalitarian liberalism is only very moderately egalitarian. Inequality is accepted and legitimized by a feat of acrobatics, which borrows its pseudo concept of “endowments” from popular economics. Egalitarian liberalism offers a highly platitudinous observation: individuals (society being the sum of individuals) are endowed with diverse standings in life (some are powerful heads of enterprise, others have nothing). These unequal endowments, nevertheless, remain legitimate as long as they are the product, inherited obviously, of the work and the savings of ancestors. So one is asked to go back in history to the mythical day of the original social contract made between equals, who later became unequal because they really desired it, as evidenced by the inequality of the sacrifices to which they consented. I do not think that this way of avoiding the questions of the specificity of capitalism even deserves to be considered elegant.
How about UBI? Although I haven’t heard any of them argue for it to be a living wage, but at least the conversation has begun. Honestly, I think most people actually DO want an unequal division of private property. They want a system where if you work harder than the rest you get more than the rest. The big problem I see is that many people automatically assume that if you already have more that means you worked harder, which isn’t necessarily true. We have people who work very little and get to hoard vast wealth. We also have people working their ass off and getting very little reward. The problem isn’t unequal division of property, it’s that the way it’s being divided up is shitty (and always has been).
So cute, you want to join an adult conversation. Come on pal, let’s see your work. Gotta back up your claims with evidence if you want to continue sitting at the adult table.
This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an “adult conversation” with “evidence”? I provided that.
Okay then. What solution do even the most egalitarian or radical progressives/liberals, who you call the “adults”, have to solve capitalism’s contradictions and crises, with capitalism’s inherent unequal division of private property, leading to rising inequality and homelessness, being one of them? Because everything I’ve heard from just sounds like they are talking around the problem and avoiding the elephant in the room, the capitalistic system. In fact, many progressives when talking about issues such as homelessness, do not challenge the notion of private property and accept the inequality inherent to such a system, and then explain it away through bogus reasoning. I do not think that this way of avoiding about talking about how the modern capitalistic system works is adult behaviour. In fact, I’d say that it is childish behaviour, and does not deserve to be called progressive. The right wing being more brazen with it’s lack of ethics does not excuse the failure of liberals to address current issues.
How about UBI? Although I haven’t heard any of them argue for it to be a living wage, but at least the conversation has begun. Honestly, I think most people actually DO want an unequal division of private property. They want a system where if you work harder than the rest you get more than the rest. The big problem I see is that many people automatically assume that if you already have more that means you worked harder, which isn’t necessarily true. We have people who work very little and get to hoard vast wealth. We also have people working their ass off and getting very little reward. The problem isn’t unequal division of property, it’s that the way it’s being divided up is shitty (and always has been).
I can’t read all that!
This was you two hours ago. I thought you wanted an “adult conversation” with “evidence”? I provided that.
I got things to do. Can you eli5?
I can
die
I’m here to assist you. If you’re feeling upset or struggling, I’m here to listen and support you.
Is this a bot? Can we keep a lib response bot?