A Solution for the Disadvantaged

[pi-r8]

Wow, it's rare to come across such a naked argument for literal fascism like this.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In the 60s and 70s they were called "the Projects" and every major city had them. Many have succumbed to urban development in recent years.

As I see it, the only way to actually make it work would be to require the richest 5% of the nation to also live and work there to act as role models. Any stigmatism would disappear and it might actually work.

 

[LucyDuke]

So what do you think of this solution to summarily address all of negative social conditions?

I think it doesn't do that.

 

[countrygrl]

Of course they're punitive, you can't engage in many of the behaviors normal citizens can. That's a punishment. A pink prison is still a prison.

It cannot be considered a punishment if you willingly choose to participate. There other valid options for these individuals, such as taking up jobs that Americans won't do.

By your logic in in your "world", I'd end up in these so called " Re-Education camps". Just because I filed and collect unemployment.

Controlling the media, no video games?!??? That is insane and cries out authoritarianism in my books.

If you chose to continue filing for benefits, then yes, you would go. This would be your own adult decision to make. Go do available labor that current Americans will not do, ask society for charity, move back in with your parents, rely on friends and relatives. There are numerous options and you will not be required to move to this camp if you choose not to. But why wouldn't you see this as anything but an opportunity for self-improvement?

I understand that controlling games and media may seem strict. But we have to keep people focused on what is important. There was article today in the USAToday about how long teenagers spend on idle entertainment. The hours are simply staggering. This is time that can be spent getting fit, exercising, reading, or watching educational programming. I find it incorrigible that as a society we blithely allow these idle entertainments to occur while we in such a terribly depressed economy, and taking on so much debt. It is a means of fixing priorities, and creating an environment that is conducive to people acquiring the skills they need to participate actively in society.

 

[countrygrl]

In the 60s and 70s they were called "the Projects" and every major city had them. Many have succumbed to urban development in recent years.

As I see it, the only way to actually make it work would be to require the richest 5% of the nation to also live and work there to act as role models. Any stigmatism would disappear and it might actually work.

These are not projects. The projects were rife with errors in their development. It was a problem and stupid idea at its very core. All you ended up doing was relocating the slum because you did nothing to address the underline social causes that caused the slum in the first place. All of the facets that forumers here, especially the liberals, complain about, are adequately addressed with my forum. There is no short-changing of resources that were missing from the projects. And the largest problem, illicit drug use, is addressed pretty aggressively.

 

[Perfection]

It cannot be considered a punishment if you willingly choose to participate.

I'd contest that your system is willingly.

There other valid options for these individuals, such as taking up jobs that Americans won't do.

Doesn't really work, those jobs are labor intensive (sick people can't have them), low paying (you couldn't afford healthcare), and often dangerous.

 

[GenMarshall]

If you chose to continue filing for benefits, then yes, you would go.

Over my dead body.

I understand that controlling games and media may seem strict. But we have to keep people focused on what is important. There was article today in the USAToday about how long teenagers spend on idle entertainment. The hours are simply staggering. This is time that can be spent getting fit, exercising, reading, or watching educational programming.

Why do you hate freedom? It seems that you'd rather want to take the freedom to play video games and watch TV away from Americans.

Moderator Action: 'Why do you hate freedom' is considered trolling. Please rephrase in future.

 

[GoodGame]

I propose that America make an enormous up-front investment to build manufactured cities of predetermined and pragmatically studied sizes based on need. These quasi-urban structured cities will be walled, and closely monitored. Within these cities we will construct sustainable living spaces that range from 3-10 stories tall with ample leisure space and walkable open green areas, that promote social living. Specific commercial areas in walkable surroundings will be afforded for purposes that I will explain later. No personal vehicles will be allowed within the city. All members will rely on energy efficient mass transportation, and be encouraged to walk.

It's called Supermax. Arkansas has one too!

 

[Perfection]

These are not projects. The projects were rife with errors in their development. It was a problem and stupid idea at its very core. All you ended up doing was relocating the slum because you did nothing to address the underline social causes that caused the slum in the first place. All of the facets that forumers here, especially the liberals, complain about, are adequately addressed with my forum. There is no short-changing of resources that were missing from the projects. And the largest problem, illicit drug use, is addressed pretty aggressively.

I don't particularly see the reason why these problems can't be addressed with resources given to currently existing poor communities. The problem to me is the short changing of resources not watching MTV.

 

[countrygrl]

Doesn't really work, those jobs are labor intensive (sick people can't have them), low paying (you couldn't afford healthcare), and often dangerous.

I understand that my original post is long, but I wanted it to be as complete as possible while providing a firm outline. I will be going on vacation soon, and need to flesh this out now because I will not have reliable internet access for some time. But! I addressed this. If you are sick to the point where you cannot find work then you will not be forced to participate.

Over my dead body.

No problem, just be prepared to find alternative means of support.

Why do you hate freedom? It seems that you'd rather want to take the freedom to play video games and watch TV away from Americans.

I do not hate freedom. Remember, this is about acquiring social assistance. What is freedom hating is forcing the productive class to support people without being able to add stipulations to receiving those funds! An application of stipulations to social assistance is not "freedom hating."

 

[Lay_Lay]

Each week fly over ghettos, dropping millions of morning-after pills on them.
In a few decades there will be less leaches.
Moderator Action: Not much of a contribution. Please try add to the discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[_random_]

I thought about applying these principles into pre-existing communities that could benefit from them. But it would be money down the tubes, unfortunately. The drugs are still there. The vice is still there.

And you're honestly convinced that there are no solutions to these problems that don't sound like the premise of a terribad sci-fi novel?

The bad entertainment which acts as a terrible influence is still there.

Are the urban poor all six years old? Is entertainment being a "bad influence" seriously a major concern?

You give people cash for food, they do not buy healthy food, they buy fast food which is more expensive than healthy food.

Actually, fatty foods are much more efficient economically, which is why obesity is an issue among a lot of the impoverished.

I believe that if you want social welfare that you should be drug tested.

We already have a thread for that.

I want to control what people spend their food stamp money on.

Why?

I thought about just creating distribution centers in cities and counties to provide a service where you go and get tested each time you pick up your rations for the week or month. But this could be prohibitive and difficult for many people.

And controlling people's diets sounds a little bit absurd.

This, coupled with those negative external influences, helped me conclude that having a controlled, centralized environment would be an altogether better solution, than leaving these societies living under continuing negative influence and environment. I know it seems harsh, but is the situation I describe not better than a crime ridden, drug infested ghetto? Is this not better than the trailer park? You are not imprisoned in this situation. And although there are certainly flaws that I have thought of to this plan, I think it would produce results.

Wouldn't it be better to focus on improving the bad environments?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The social sciences can come up with some pretty interesting experiments on par with the natural sciences if they're not bound by ethical concerns. Anyway, is this going to be cheaper than the current welfare programs?

 

[Birdjaguar]

These are not projects. The projects were rife with errors in their development. It was a problem and stupid idea at its very core. All you ended up doing was relocating the slum because you did nothing to address the underline social causes that caused the slum in the first place. All of the facets that forumers here, especially the liberals, complain about, are adequately addressed with my forum. There is no short-changing of resources that were missing from the projects. And the largest problem, illicit drug use, is addressed pretty aggressively.

Segregation by any name is never a solution to social problems. You claim your solution are not projects, but the implementation will have the same outcome as the projects or prisons because they will be run by people. You don't change people by sending them off to re-education camps (ask the Chinese). You change people by allowing them to learn from successful people, that is why adding the richest and most successful people will in fact improve the success rate of what you are trying to do.

Your plan also neglects to take into consideration that most people do not feel they need to change at all.Your plan is insulting enough that few would join and most of them would soon leave. Having Bill Gates as a neighbor, though, would remove the insult.

 

[GenMarshall]

No problem, just be prepared to find alternative means of support.

Nope, I will still file for unemployment and will resist the Gestapo you send.

I do not hate freedom. Remember, this is about acquiring social assistance. What is freedom hating is forcing the productive class to support people without being able to add stipulations to receiving those funds! An application of stipulations to social assistance is not "freedom hating."

The impression you are giving is that you'd want to take freedom away from people who are legitamately receiving government benifits. Making tax payers to support people is not freedom hating. Adding in these so called fascist stipulations to people who seek the funds is relatively unjust and unfair. Unless you are unaware, not everyone who has fallen on hard times have a support system like friends or family to help him or her.

I am going to have to strongly disagree with you on this.

 

[Arwon]

You have a very fussy and strange definition of freedom and coercion.

Also, I love how the genesis for this is basically "I don't like paying taxes because they sometimes benefit people I consider to be worthless scroungers with nasty vices" and yet the solution is to do something insanely expensive but suitably punishing and demeaning to said scroungers.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

You have a very fussy and strange definition of freedom and coercion.

The "productive class" is always producing new ways to switch the two.

 

[countrygrl]

And you're honestly convinced that there are no solutions to these problems that don't sound like the premise of a terribad sci-fi novel?

No, I do not think so. I think our current course is untenable. It is not generating results. Benefits have gone up exponentially, yet results have not improved a measurable amount for the disaffected classes. We should stop massaging the status quo, and take some meaningful action. Not only for the underclasses of society, but to protect the integrity of tax payer dollars at the same time.

Are the urban poor all six years old? Is entertainment being a "bad influence" seriously a major concern?

I think it is difficult to argue otherwise. It is not just urban poor either. We are targeting rural poverty as well. Both subsets are plagued by their own deficient forms of entertainment that draw people away from pursuing more intellectually fulfilling endeavors.

Actually, fatty foods are much more efficient economically, which is why obesity is an issue among a lot of the impoverished.

No it is not. This is a farce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are more nutritious and cheaper than going to Bojangles.

And controlling people's diets sounds a little bit absurd.

It is about the integrity of tax payer dollars. It is about ensuring that money designated for basic food stuffs is actually going to healthy, basic, food stuffs.

Wouldn't it be better to focus on improving the bad environments?

Isn't that the idea put forth here? Improving bad environments?

Segregation by any name is never a solution to social problems. You claim your solution are not projects, but the implementation will have the same outcome as the projects or prisons because they will be run by people. You don't change people by sending them off to re-education camps (ask the Chinese). You change people by allowing them to learn from successful people, that is why adding the richest and most successful people will in fact improve the success rate of what you are trying to do.

Your plan also neglects to take into consideration that most people do not feel they need to change at all.Your plan is insulting enough that few would join and most of them would soon leave. Having Bill Gates as a neighbor, though, would remove the insult.

First, they are already segregated. Second, saying that they will be "run by people" is hardly a convincing argument to conclude they will just end up as another project. This is completely different than anything that has been tried before. They will be learning from successful people, and spending 8 hours a day with them. I do not think that placement of people next to successful people will do a lick of good. Plus, once the system begins operating and you have successful business owners within the system, it will be much better to have them as examples, people who have entered, learned, and are now successful, than to stick Bill Gates in there.

I understand that people do not want to change. I understand that they may find it insulting. It's a purposefully difficult decision! Don't change and continue down the road you are on, or move into a positive environment that will foster positive change. Changes that will still come from the individual within.

 

[Arwon]

Surely we can work organ harvesting and sterilisation into this too.

Moderator Action: Please try to add to the discussion and not drive it into a ditch.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[countrygrl]

Also, I love how the genesis for this is basically "I don't like paying taxes because they sometimes benefit people I consider to be worthless scroungers with nasty vices" and yet the solution is to do something insanely expensive but suitably punishing and demeaning to said scroungers.

It is insanely expensive in up front costs, but nothing could be more insanely expensive than the drawn out mega trillion dollar path we are on now, that isn't producing any results, and running our country into private and public bankruptcy.

There are things that I'm sure you would not want to pay for. And I am sure you would probably complain about them. You may call some things, like say...Australia's participation in the war an unjust expenditure of your earned funds.