So what do you think of this solution to summarily address all of negative social conditions?
Perfection said: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.
CivGeneral said: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.
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.
I'd contest that your system is willingly.It cannot be considered a punishment if you willingly choose to participate.
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.There other valid options for these individuals, such as taking up jobs that Americans won't do.
Over my dead body.If you chose to continue filing for benefits, then yes, you would go.
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 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.
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.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 said: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.
CivGeneral said:Over my dead body.
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.
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?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.
Are the urban poor all six years old? Is entertainment being a "bad influence" seriously a major concern?The bad entertainment which acts as a terrible influence is still there.
Actually, fatty foods are much more efficient economically, which is why obesity is an issue among a lot of the impoverished.You give people cash for food, they do not buy healthy food, they buy fast food which is more expensive than healthy food.
We already have a thread for that.I believe that if you want social welfare that you should be drug tested.
Why?I want to control what people spend their food stamp money on.
And controlling people's diets sounds a little bit absurd.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.
Wouldn't it be better to focus on improving the bad environments?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.
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.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.
Nope, I will still file for unemployment and will resist the Gestapo you send.No problem, just be prepared to find alternative means of support.
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 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."
You have a very fussy and strange definition of freedom and coercion.
_random_ said: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?
Are the urban poor all six years old? Is entertainment being a "bad influence" seriously a major concern?
_random_ said:Actually, fatty foods are much more efficient economically, which is why obesity is an issue among a lot of the impoverished.
And controlling people's diets sounds a little bit absurd.
Wouldn't it be better to focus on improving the 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.
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.