Stop being generous

It's more about being unable to function in society, which is not, in itself, a moral failing, therefore these people should still be helped.

Regardless, in Europe and in the US it's already possible to help them, so why should we not do it? Only because it goes against the principles of capitalism and protestand work ethics? It may be true, but it still does not go against the principles of basic human decency and empathy.

maybe you should just leave them alone and let them live their life the way they want, only some bourgeois protestant would think they need to be "saved", if a dude wants to camp out under a bridge and drink booze all day i don't see how i can judge him, i certainly wouldn't want some leftist do gooder trying to save me from shitposting all day, it's called freedom, and that's why we're american, and you have a queen

>Implying
If you can't contribute to society you ought to be left out for the wolves

>only some bourgeois protestant would think they need to be "saved"

Which is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that, regardless of their lack of capacity for societal contribution, we should still grant them certain basic goods needed for basic survival: enough food to not starve, a safe place in which they can sleep and therapy (given the omnipresent link between mental illness and homelessness).
This is not saving them, it's just giving them enough to, at least, survive.

No country is wiling to take this stance openly, therefore it is worth it to attack this hypocrisy by either forcing them to act on their manifested beliefs, or to discard them to achieve policical honesty (which is the basis for democracy).
My point still stands.

again you display a total lack of knowledge about the homeless, most are on disability/veterans benefits/etc and also get food stamps and medicaid but would rather blow their check on drugs and booze than give it to some landlord, it's a lifestyle choice, also, what makes you think homeless people want "therapy"? what if someone said nerds of Veeky Forums who wack it to cartoons all day should be provided with free therapy? fucking kill yourself you shitty bourgeois lefitst

>what if someone said nerds of Veeky Forums who wack it to cartoons all day should be provided with free therapy?
nice self-description.

maybe we should provide therapy to leftist babies who refuse to grow up

>but would rather blow their check on drugs and booze than give it to some landlord
I haven't talked about giving them money.

>it's a lifestyle choice
Which is why in my proposal there is no imposition on said homeless people. I'm not calling for the government to force them to study, work and live a respectable life. What I'm concerned about is their safety: if it's too cold outside, in a working society, everyone should be able to find a safe shelter to pass the night.
If you're seriously dehydrated, or almost starving, there should be a place in which said people can easily eat something nutricious. If they change their mind (something that I've explicitly said) they should be allowed to learn at the very least a trade.

>what makes you think homeless people want "therapy"?
The point here is that if a broke, homeless human being wants to do therapy, he won't have the chance, even if this lack of therapy is the exact reason for which he is living in a street, and even if he's very self-aware of it. I haven't implied that homeless people should be forced to do therapy, what I've implied is that they should always have the opportunity of doing it, regardless of their economic situation (and this would be an incredible net positive for society, given the aforementioned links between mental illness and homelessness).

I'm not calling for a victorian treatment and salvation of the poor, stop conflating my posts with the made up stereotype that inhabits your mind, and, maybe, try to read critically the posts you're responding to.

Also fuck off for the name calling.

i'm not that guy or leftist you just sound like a low test male who acts tough online but in reality you're almost definitely a complete loser.

>If you're seriously dehydrated, or almost starving,

they get fucking foodstamps you idiot, they probably have bigger budgets for food than you do u

>if a homeless guy wants therapy

then he will use medicaid of veterans benefits to get it

wow, you're such a swell guy, offering to provide homeless people with stuff they already get! clearly your deep concern and experience with the homeless has lead you to special insights into this issue

and you sound like a lame white guy who lives in the burbs who "isn't a loser" because of privilege, gtfo out of my face faggot

This entirely depends on the state we're dealing with, you fucking idiot. These problems are not solved nationally, only regionally.

that's the best part of bourgeois white guys, they're all about helping the poor, until a poor person disagrees with their bullshit, then poor people are "complete losers" fuck off everyone knows liberals are phoney as shit

ssi, foodstamps and medicaid are all federal programs you fucking mong, again you just have no fucking clue about anything, the only poor person you ever met was your fucking maid but she didn't qualify for benefits because she was undocumented, kys

Stick to fiction

what? did being poor make you a retarded person as well?

faggot thread. everyone's attempt at being denigrating here is shameful.

I sure love these right-wing trolls. Ignore ad hominem attacks, sage and move on.

based Mises made this bitch cry in a dinner

>(which is the basis for democracy)

>drug addiction
What a fucking meme. Depression is quickly becoming the next "addiction". People are responsible for their actions, saying something like 'oh they can't help but do this thing that feels really good over and over again instead of face reality' is such horseshit. It's not a disease, it's a person failing. And why does alcoholism get its own category? It's a drug like any other and warrants no more acceptability whatever its established history.

What if that's what I want to do?

Arguably, people only act in their own interest. The basic most understanding of capitalism says that an exchange only occurs when it is agreeable for both parties, there's no facet of life where this isn't true. It's impossible not to be a capitalist, all markets are free, in the same way men are. The USSR was a capitalist society. What they wanted was to be communists. One doesn't preclude the other.

Why should I help someone who is unwilling to do what I do? Work and pay taxes? Why are they special when this is a CHOICE they are making? I say put them all on buses and drive them straight into a volcano.

If you work just to survive, you are no better than a slave.

He lives to work rather than working to live.

Arguably, people only act in their own interest. No shit Stirner proved that hundreds of years ago.

>i don't understand what she means by moral egoism

Ayn Rand hated charity. In Atlas Shrugged she expected you to hate Hank's brother because he only cares about helping others and not himself and root for Hank for him not caring about the underprivileged.

>“You don’t really care about helping the underprivileged, do you?” Philip asked – and Rearden heard, unable to believe it, that the tone of his voice was reproachful.
>“No, Phil, I don’t care about it at all. I only wanted you to be happy.”
>“But that money is not for me. I am not collecting it for any personal motive. I have no selfish interest in the matter whatever.”
>…Rearden turned away. He felt a sudden loathing: not because the words were hypocrisy, but because they were true; Philip meant them.

All this disgusting rhetoric from a woman who died on social security. Oh, the irony, the blatant hypocrisy. I bet she rationalized it all to herself too. The major theme pervading all her works is, 'I'm so fucking special, can't you idiots see how special I am?'.

But being generous is harming other people. You're hurting those you want to help, lad.

social security isn't welfare, as an american citizen you pay into it throughout your working life, not collecting it would have been charity, not the other way around

And yet countless Americans collect it without having worked, or worked extensively. It's a guarantee, a subsidy of life by a collective. There's a word for that, it's fucking welfare.

Rand was all about individualism, but she died on a safety net by everyone for everyone. I mean come the fuck on, she worked? What did she do, construction? She was a hypocrite who profiteered and preyed on people's irrational greed under the pretense of specialness -- and she failed at it, ultimately couldn't support herself at all.

Rand was on SSI and Medicare when she got cancer.

>SSA also administers the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is needs-based, for the aged, blind, or disabled.
>SSI recipients are paid out of the general revenue of the United States of America.

And Medicare is sponsored by a general payroll tax and applied on a similar needs basis, regardless of if you've paid into it. Don't pretend like she was just getting back what she put in, the whole point of these programs is they go to those who need them at the expense of those who don't.

>I mean come the fuck on, she worked?
>wrote a half dozen novels that are perennial american pop classics
>board full of wannabe writers doesn't consider that work

glad we cleared that up

>ad hominem

so what? karl marx was a bum who lived off the profits from engel's factory, but you still swear everything he wrote is gospel

>wrote a half dozen novels that are perennial american pop classics

nothing you ever write will be as successful as the fountainhead or atlas shrugged, deal with it, nerd

The reason Social Security has a reputation for being welfare is because it is. Its also why it;s unsustainable, the amount that you put in during your lifetime is less than the amount you eventually take out because, which is why the youth today don't want to pay into it at all they effectively need to subsidize the baby boomers who destroyed their futures via a program they know won't survive long enough for them to benefit from.

well i hope you realize that is a rightwing position, i don't expect social security to be around either, but if you're anti-rand but then calling for the abolition of ss then ur just a mong

Harry Potter is the most successful book ever I believe, right next to the Bible. Commercial success is a meaningless metric for literature unless you're a cucked capitalist bitch whose brain has been erased by the TV and actually believes that's what true accomplishment looks like and they are destined to be a millionaire.

Profit != quality or artistic worth. Often the correlation is quite reverse in fact...

there are different kinds of social security, there's the stuff you get when you retire which is based on how much money you earned over your lifetime, not everyone gets the same ss payout, maybe learn how american social programs work ok m80, then there is ssi and ssd which are programs for meth smokers who have no education or skills, those are most definitely "white welfare", no argument

it's not about how many people read your book but who reads it

I wouldn't want Rand's demographic even if I could have it

and let's not pretend either that her success is the result of some kind of talent, she was just in the right place at the right time to be propped up as a cold war propaganda piece by capitalist fetishists

dude, ayn rand speaks to the america soul, as a social eurotrash you'll never understand, when sharia sweeps europe and all your "great literature is banned" don't try to get over our wall, immigration is only for hard working latin americans, not lazy eurotrash

Harry Potter is a masterpiece and nothing you write will ever be as successful, deal with it nerd.

you could say the same thing about marx, if the bolshevik coup against the russian workers had failed and the working class had been allowed to form it's own social democratic government marx would be nothing but a minor ricardian forgot by all except kids forced to do a survey for economic thought for their business degree

>reading to a, literally, funtional retard
youtube.com/watch?v=gcBT5yQD6_g

wow so an author didn't do the same kind of media training as a sleazy politician, give me a break

hey what does this lady have to say about zizek lol what a crock of shit

lol at that channel? she says she liked le penn but wouldn't vote for her because social programs go against american values? is this lady retarded? why do people watch these idiotic youtube channels lol

Rand didn't cause any revolution, not even a political shift. She was just another remora on the capitalist husk. Marx changed history, Rand parroted her most profitable contemporaries, no new ideas, just saying what they want to hear. Frankly to compare the two is a non sequitur, a joke no-one laughs at.

marx didn't cause a revolution either, if you look at the conditions in russia they did not meet what marx considered necessary for a socialist revolution, the russian revolution happened because the tsar was incompetent and russia was getting a beating in ww1...the fact that lenin used marxist branded language in his seizure of power does not make marx influential

One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

liked as person, she just doesnt agreed with everything

Rand is GOAT.
Fight me autists.

well then you should read more about the russian revolution

>self-centered pieces of shit.
But that's one of the foundations of the right wig spectrum.

staggering stupid

The government took the money from her. There's nothing wrong with her taking it back.

There's a lot of good arguments against Rand, but this is not one of them. She had no choice in paying for social security.

so you think the russian revolution was "marxist"? if anyone is "staggeringly stupid" around here it's you

desu plebes that can't into objectivism

Can anyone recommend other fun propaganda novels? Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are two of my favorite stories.

reee

Don't be retarded m8. People don't revolt just cause they get handed a pamphlet.

Does it really matter if it's "a person failing" or an illness? Honestly, I don't care, I don't like homeless and beggars to hang around in the streets, therefore it's better to provide them with some form of assistance to help them get their life back together.

I'm doing it for my own personal gain.

See
It's ridiculous to suggest Rand was just using money that was hers.
>le no state was every actually marxist mongoloid fucking moron face

It egoistically pleases me to be generous, so fuck off.

>Ayn Rand was a Liberal, not a right winger
Americans really need to take a crash course as to what liberalism actually is.

this deserves a (you) and a LOL

They feel more like opposites actually. Rand is spooked as all fuck.

Egoists are just slaves to their own desire and so they cannot develop actual determination and ambition necessary for true self dominance

Not as popular as she may appear on the outside. Some middle-class white teens read her and then grow out of it, and aside from Rand, Ryan, and a couple of others, most politicians could give a fuck about her.

This is very true, you can hand them the paperwork for food assistance and medical care, offer to help then go through it with them, and even mail it in for them. You can offer phone services and to drive them to the centers for whatever interviews are needed for even more assistance.

Yet, a month later they have sold their food card and lost their medical card, and just tossed away any paperwork.

...

this is true but americans can't get into this notion of individual freedom, for them is all bout more goverment for the right or more goverment for the left
>youtube.com/watch?v=d4wuNNPkv8k
also liberal =/= leftie, that's only in america

>freedom against morality
not right
read "The morality of freedom"
and learn some shit user

>morality of freedom

Wow, sounds like a real bestseller in District One.

great argument pal

>le i'm going to revolt because I received a pamphlet I can't for I'm a Russian serf
Ignorant Americans and their lack of self-awareness

nice comeback kid