You must log in or register to comment.
It is forbidden to abuse the system that was invented to abuse you.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
It is widely used by systems theorists, and is generally invoked to counter the notion that the purpose of a system can be read from the intentions of those who design, operate or promote it. When a system’s side effects or unintended consequences reveal that its behaviour is poorly understood, then the POSIWID perspective can balance political understandings of system behaviour with a more straightforwardly descriptive view.
Reminds me of that one nerd’s online signature: “A program will never do what you want, only what was implemented”
Basic income for poor people: lazy people want a handout
Government backed interest account for rich people: perfectly reasonable.
when a rich person does it: “they’re smart and also who wouldn’t take advantage of it if you were in their position?” … when a poor person does it: “they’re lazy and just want things for free”
Its “different”
Worse: when rich people do it it’s considered a feature, not a bug of the system.
Rich people don’t abuse the system, they use it as intended (the system has been meticulously engineered to ferry wealth from the neediest mouths to the greediest ones)
Should be required reading:
“Perfectly Legal:
The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich–and Cheat Everybody Else”https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/291700/perfectly-legal-by-david-cay-johnston/
“Free Lunch:
How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)”https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/300246/free-lunch-by-david-cay-johnston/
“The Fine Print:
How Big Companies Use “Plain English” to Rob You Blind”https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/305192/the-fine-print-by-david-cay-johnston/
We as a collective just hate the poor.
OP is right in that it’s hypocritical, but people don’t care and never will. (Unless you’re Finnish, where homelessness has been solved.)
Homelessness can’t ever be truly solved without forcibly institutionalizing a portion of the population.
But solving it for economic hardship is totally doable.
Homelessness can’t ever be truly solved
Absolutely it can, and has been.
That some people choose a nomadic lifestyle doesn’t change that.
The second half of my sentence that you left out is the important part. Severely mentally ill people aren’t “choosing to live a nomadic lifestyle”.
If you stack all the abuses from poor people it probably won’t even be a small fraction of abuses by a couple billionaires.
