Plan for how to meet everyone's basic needs.

brianlux

In another Moving Train thread I mentioned a plan a friend of mine has proposed that would provide for the basic needs of everyone (well, at least everyone in a wealthy country like the U.S. or Canada). Her idea goes like this:

With government funds, dormitory-like housing in each community is refurbished or built to provide clean, safe housing, modest amounts of basic nutritious food, modest clothing if needed and adequate medical care if needed to anyone who wants to live there. Job search and training opportunities are provided for those who wish to move on, acquire discretionary income, etc. If someone has a job but can't afford to buy their own home, they have the opportunity to live in the dormitory and save their money. If somebody is disabled or mentally impaired, they do not go homeless. And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

Now if you are assuming that the person who came up with this is one of my Marxist-commie-pinko friends who only listens to Rage Against the Machine, I must tell you, this woman is relatively conservative, politically moderate/leaning-toward-republican and mostly listens to modern country radio.

No doubt the idea has it's flaws, but something like it could be done. No one- at least in America- needs to starve, no one needs to be homeless and no one need go without at least good, basic medical care.

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

See that's what pisses me off. You should at least be trying to get some kind of work. At least work to get your basic needs...

Jeanwah

Welfare for all is a concept that Americans are known to dislike.

And yeah, there's something wrong with that.

brianlux

peacefrompaul wrote:

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

See that's what pisses me off. You should at least be trying to get some kind of work. At least work to get your basic needs...

I should??

As Clint Conley of Mission of Burma once said after a grueling show, "How much more d'we have to work to get paid?" :wtf:

CH156378

i don't see how the idea is much different than the america we have today. help is out their if you know where to look.
as far as your friend being a "moderate" republican type" i can live with those people. example jon huntsman, ron paul.
it's the new age "batshit crazy" republican types that are scary. example rick perry, michelle bachman ect.

brianlux

CH156378 wrote:

.
as far as your friend being a "moderate" republican type" i can live with those people. example jon huntsman, ron paul.
it's the new age "batshit crazy" republican types that are scary. example rick perry, michelle bachman ect.

I hear ya!

chadwick

and we'll grow gardens or everything

CH156378

chadwick wrote:

and we'll grow gardens or everything

minus the c,h,a and w.

Cosmo

brianlux wrote:

In another Moving Train thread I mentioned a plan a friend of mine has proposed that would provide for the basic needs of everyone (well, at least everyone in a wealthy country like the U.S. or Canada). Her idea goes like this:

With government funds, dormitory-like housing in each community is refurbished or built to provide clean, safe housing, modest amounts of basic nutritious food, modest clothing if needed and adequate medical care if needed to anyone who wants to live there. Job search and training opportunities are provided for those who wish to move on, acquire discretionary income, etc. If someone has a job but can't afford to buy their own home, they have the opportunity to live in the dormitory and save their money. If somebody is disabled or mentally impaired, they do not go homeless. And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

Now if you are assuming that the person who came up with this is one of my Marxist-commie-pinko friends who only listens to Rage Against the Machine, I must tell you, this woman is relatively conservative, politically moderate/leaning-toward-republican and mostly listens to modern country radio.

No doubt the idea has it's flaws, but something like it could be done. No one- at least in America- needs to starve, no one needs to be homeless and no one need go without at least good, basic medical care.

...
How about we add this:
Convert some portions of closed military bases for those veterans who are currently homeless. Many of them understand the military and how it works and pull duty as caretakers of the grounds. It does not have to be permanent or mandatory living arrangements, just a place other than the sidewalks of our cities.
Pay for it out of the defense budget... less nukes and more housing.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?

Cosmo

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?

...
Is this based upon the world view of all Americans as being lazy asses?

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

See that's what pisses me off. You should at least be trying to get some kind of work. At least work to get your basic needs...

I should??

As Clint Conley of Mission of Burma once said after a grueling show, "How much more d'we have to work to get paid?" :wtf:

Yes you fucking should. If you are able to work then you should work.

brianlux

peacefrompaul wrote:

Yes you fucking should. If you are able to work then you should work.

Well peacefrompaul, this last week not counting (I took a bad fall and have been home bound with injuries), I am able to fucking work and I do fucking work so I'm not sure what the problem is here. :wtf:

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Yes you fucking should. If you are able to work then you should work.

Well peacefrompaul, this last week not counting (I took a bad fall and have been home bound with injuries), I am able to fucking work and I do fucking work so I'm not sure what the problem is here. :wtf:

Wasn't talking about you personally if that's what you thought. I was referring to this proposed bill. lazy people not working. Jesus man.

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?

Hypothetically speaking, that is an excellent rhetorical question. I asked my friend the same question and she replied, "Would you live that way if you had a choice? Wouldn't you prefer to live more independently and have more privacy?" I think she had a good point. Most people would rather work and have their own place.

JOEJOEJOE

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?

Hypothetically speaking, that is an excellent rhetorical question. I asked my friend the same question and she replied, "Would you live that way if you had a choice? Wouldn't you prefer to live more independently and have more privacy?" I think she had a good point. Most people would rather work and have their own place.

Doesn't her plan remind you of government housing projects, food stamps, county hospitals/free clinics & night school?

All of these have been implemented, but not all have worked.

brianlux

peacefrompaul wrote:

brianlux wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Wasn't talking about you personally if that's what you thought. I was referring to this proposed bill. lazy people not working. Jesus man.

Hey, I'm just throwing the idea out there. Yeah, I was pretty sure you meant "people in general", not "you" as in me.

Look, I just don't respond very seriously to posts that attack people, even lazy people. I think overly ambitious people can be as problematic as lazy people.* But I don't come here to disparage others. I come here to share ideas and see if we can come up with positive ideas.

(*For a really beautifully written, excellent argument for living lighter and less ambitiously check out Masanobu Fukuoka's recently re-printed book The One-Straw Revolution.)

brianlux

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't her plan remind you of government housing projects, food stamps, county hospitals/free clinics & night school?

All of these have been implemented, but not all have worked.

Yes, but an idea that isn't well planned or carried out well doesn't necessarily make the idea a bad one. But yes, so far most efforts along these lines are riddled with short comings. And we still have a huge number of homeless and we still have a very large number of Vietnam vets who are homeless-- and both are some of America's greatest shames.

ajedigecko

how about this.

find a park....set up a tent.... everyone has a skill to contribute.....and we keep the place clean.

this should work.

EdsonNascimento

brianlux wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

And, yes, if someone is lazy and doesn't want to work, they can live out their life with all basic needs provided but nothing more.

What if everyone decides to do this? How does everyone's basic needs get met?

Hypothetically speaking, that is an excellent rhetorical question. I asked my friend the same question and she replied, "Would you live that way if you had a choice? Wouldn't you prefer to live more independently and have more privacy?" I think she had a good point. Most people would rather work and have their own place.

You didn't really answer the question, but I will make it easier for you. What if half of the population decided to do this and/or had no choice and another quarter gave up because the marginal gain from working wasn't enough to make it "worth it" to try?

I'm thinking that scenario isn't quite as hypothetical.

JOEJOEJOE

In theory, the government would have to reduce the quality of the basic needs they provide so that fewer people would want to take advantage of this "plan". A portion of society will always need to be supported by the rest of us, but those who are simply "unmotivated" to work hopefully get motivated as the freebies are less attractive.