
When the Government Tells Poor People How to Live - tokenadult
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/paternalism/420210/?single_page=true
======
kayfox
So, the solution to people who are struggling with instability as a result of
and causing them to be poor and have issues surviving is to threaten them with
more instability?

We have seen time and again the solution to homelessness is stability without
many strings attached. From my own personal experiences with homelessness the
reason why some people who are homeless choose to remain homeless is because
their situation, however instable it appears to be from the outside, is
essentially stable to them. And programs which are intended to help them move
up from homelessness often impose onerous "if you dont do x we will kick you
out", where x can be any number of things productive or silly, and that is in
inherently more instable situation than just worrying about showing up for
food at the mission at such and such a time or showing up to get a spot in the
shelter at another time every day.

We should take a system engineering approach to this situation and fix it in a
way grounded in science rather than the whims of politics.

------
Torgo
1\. The government can only "tell you how to live" in this case if you take
the money. You're free to work it out yourself if you don't, but you know,
strings attached. 2\. Don't want strings attached? Unconditional Basic Income
now.

------
late2part
It strikes me that in the 'old' days; charity was a voluntary function.
Organizations (mostly religious) would offer help, provided you comply with
their requests, e.g. attend church, don't drink, etc.

Now, a lot of the charity is called welfare or a better politically correct
name, and alot of those same strings are attached. But it's not voluntary on
the giving side, it's taxation.

I don't know what the right answer is here.

I wonder if the high rate of taxes causes people to give less, and
assume/trust that the government will take care of the issue.

