💚 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ☕ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 1:48 Homelessness: a Collective Problem 5:03 A Class Problem 6:55 Conclusion
🫵😐NO NO NO. Socialist belief is wrong. The reasons too many ppl are homeless is obviously because of socialism. See, socialist dogma is purely intellectual and no wisdom, no common sense. No insight into how human beings are incentivized by looking within themselves too. Everything is from a book. No street smarts. Everyone has an ego including socialists. It will manifest as suffering for them as individuals but the more they reshape society, the more we all suffer. Socialist most often act arrogantly and don’t seem to understand the value of humility. Also, they appear to act as though coercion, propaganda and even murder is justified as long as their nebulous purpose in life is validated so they never have to humble themselves. A mistaken kindness is no kindness at all because they had the chance to look within but no, they obviously already know everything✌️🙄
🤔Hmm, Just because you are thoughtful, doesn’t mean you should tell anyone you’re thoughts. You already believe that you are separate from me but that is merely a made up assumption. Individualism? That is meaningless when you really understand that there is no separation between us at all. You know there isn’t, you feel it in your heart because it’s the truth. What there is is our made up beliefs and our subconscious habits. That’s why we want borders. Because we can’t help feeling separate but we know in our heart that we are together. Nevertheless, socialism is merely a tool for bad actors to take advantage of one’s beliefs, subconscious bad habits & one’s sense of purpose. DO NOT BUY INTO SOCIALISM, THAT IS A MARXIST IDEOLOGY TO SLOWLY COOK THE FROG UNTIL THEY TURN THE PLACE RED AS AOC SAID AND SHE DIDNT MEAN SHE WANTED TO TURN THE PLACE REPUBLICAN. ✌️😐
Can you cover the essay "Meditations on Moloch"? In the essay, the author provides example of problems, where if everyone acts in their objective self interest, it results in worse outcomes for all parties. For example, if country A has a military, country B has to have a military too, or risks getting conquered. If one increases the military budget, the other has to follow. But the same is not true of reducing the budget (the others might be lying etc). So what that does is lead to an equilibrium, where both countries spend a large amount of money for their military each year, but because both are equally strong, can never actually attack and use it. Obviously, the money would be better spend if it was invested in industry, healthcare, infrastructure, ...
My aunt in Dublin became homeless recently. None of us ever thought it'd happen to her or anyone we knew but it did. She has 4 kids, 2 dogs, and is a widow. She's now on a waiting list with 100,000 people all because her landlord wanted to raise the rent. However, she is not counted as homeless because she moved in temporarily with my mam, even though not everyone has a bed and the kids were out of school for a while and are bouncing between places. This is how homelessness works in Ireland. It's not just "crazy people and addicts" who, by the way, are just as deserving of our compassion.
It shows the importance of family. That's who you can depend on in the end. There's also homelessness in the rich welfare state of Norway, and it's not always the kind of people you'd expect. Many are saved by their family, not the welfare state, which is disintegrating while more and more people are struggeling to make ends meet. This is what oil-rich Norway has become.
A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the moon) Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey's on the moon) I can't pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey's on the moon) Ten years from now I'll be payin' still. (while Whitey's on the moon) The man jus' upped my rent las' night. ('cause Whitey's on the moon) No hot water, no toilets, no lights. (but Whitey's on the moon) I wonder why he's uppi' me? ('cause Whitey's on the moon?) I was already payin' 'im fifty a week. (with Whitey on the moon) Taxes takin' my whole damn check, Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck, The price of food is goin' up, An' as if all that shit wasn't enough A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the moon) Her face an' arm began to swell. (but Whitey's on the moon) Was all that money I made las' year (for Whitey on the moon?) How come there ain't no money here? (Hm! Whitey's on the moon) Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill (of Whitey on the moon) I think I'll sen' these doctor bills, Airmail special (to Whitey on the moon)
We often call some societies individualist, such as America, and others collectivist, such as Japan. But if such a distinction exists, then I'm yet to see a nation that actually prioritizes solving issues at the systemic level above placing all responsibility onto the individual: Japan suffers from all of the same problems of climate change, wealth disparity, class conflict, racism, sexism, aging population, immigration, discrimination towards queer people, and so on that make up political discourse. The exact constitution and history of this debates is very different, but the same Ultranationalist Neoliberal Capitalist mentality persists shoulder to shoulder with Neo-Confucianism, which similarly imposes upon the individual, subjegating the disadvantaged masses to the powerful few. Different rhetoric, different coping mechanism and scapegoats for their respective failures, but not meaningful difference in the outcome. The American is told that the state of the world is up to him, and so if the world is less than he'd like it to be, that's on him and he should suck it up. The Japanese is told that the state of the world is not up to him whatsoever, so if he run into adversity, he should suck it up like every other subordinate organ within the whole. In either case, it is not one's meagre role to complain in spite of ever mounting grievances and corruption. My point is that what we call individualism and collectivsm are the same object veiwed from different angles, and so favoring one over the other won't lead to change in of itself. Attempting to do so will be attempting to solve the problem still using the mental tools applied when said problems were created. Even if they were truely opposites and not two halves of the same system, a western view of collectivism and individualism would not be eastern view of collectivism and individualism. Each culture is unfit to pass judgement on the other because both neccessarily have an incomplete and limited understanding -- and in any case neither can boast to have founded a utopia. Societies in each category do not even undrstand _themselves_ for the same reason. What a collectivist society calls compassionate and selfless, the individualist society sees as egotistical and callous and vice versa. The problems of individualist society we are all too familair with. "I got mine -- screw you!" Who could possibly question the virtue of submitting the part to the whole? And yet in practice this so-called virtue is applied to deny responsibility: when it is convenient for the, group identity, for the state, to be responsible for what the part does, it laps up the credit. When it is inconvenient for the state to be held responsible for it's own actions, blame is dumped onto the part (or onto another social group.) Similarly, the individual of a collectivist society does not have to take responsibility for his own action because he is but a mere part; the ineffectual puppet of the group identity who simply couldn't hurt a fly. And so across the whole system, from the lowest strata to the highest, blame disappears. Praise abounds. The group is praised outwardly for the merits of the individual. The individual inwardly priases himself for being part of the collective enough though he had nothing to do with this cirumstance at all. 私日本人でよかった I'm not trying to critsize the collectivist mode of social organization. I'm simply pointign out that the idea that collectivism is some kind of solution to the problem of the ego and social issues is stuff and nonsense. This is just as much ego in collectivist societies ans individualist ones. It's merely displaced realtive to where we would otherwise expect to find it. You may counter that individualist societies displace responsiblity, but that's all part of my point: the collectivist/individualist dichotomy is unproductive.(Nor is the ego necesarily best regarded as a problem in of itself.) Another way of putting it is that members of collectivist societes work to the benefit of the whole _against each other:_ They compete at it. So you see they're really out for themselves. You can see this in how departments of the Japanese government squabble over which of them gets to deal with a rescent problem, leading to protracted deadlocks and inaction. When a form of selfishness is deemed socially acceptible, it grows inconspicuous. The greatest farce of this kind was probably how the Japanese army competed against the Japanese navy. The one thing that is truly responsible for all that happens, good and bad, is the Self, or the Tao. And the Tao is incapable of giving a damn about praise and blame whatsoever. So what's going to get homeless people off the streets and into housing if not a shift from individualism to collectivsm or a jihad against the ego? In order for society to eliminate a problem, that problem must take up the appropriate position in it's sustaining metaphor, with the caveat that this can only happen at the expense of problems that our current sustaining metaphor holds in check. This may still be worthwhile because our myths, our metaphors, aren't necessarily adapted to our circumstances. They are only adapted _enough_ for their own survival. Sustaining myths are psychological entities with their own will to self preservation: artificial intelligences that exist not in computor networks by in human brains. They cannot be counted on for their moral capacity. It can be all of a peice with the state, but also has the capacity to supercede it. Whatever sustaining myth we formulate to save our necks, as we appear to be in the process of doing, won't be individualist or collectivist in any sense we understand as of this moment but new complex of signs and symbols not yet knownable. That's what I think.
This really resonated with me. It was very interesting to read your analysis of individualist/collectivist societies, and what you said about myths was spot on. In this age of liminality, some old explanations no longer suffice. I agree, a new perspective is needed. "I'm not trying to critsize the collectivist mode of social organization. I'm simply pointign out that the idea that collectivism is some kind of solution to the problem of the ego and social issues is stuff and nonsense." "the collectivist/individualist dichotomy is unproductive." I think you're right. It takes much more than just abandoning individualism, collectivism is not a silver bullet. Banishing the ego will only backfire. I think it's more fruitful to search out the root causes of our troubles and confront them head-on. Not once, but as an ongoing process. There is no quick fix for the problems of humanity. Simone Weil cuts deep, as she so often does, when she talks about force. How it turns those subjected to it into things. How it even turns those who possess it into things, into unthinking automatons, intoxicated by force. I think that's at the root of a lot of our misery. She has identified a root cause, but I don't think we're confronting it. "Nor is the ego necesarily best regarded as a problem in of itself." Ego may not be a problem in itself, but I do think too much of it - _egoism_ - is. It fosters greed, hubris and arrogance, sacrificing virtues like moderation, humility and respect for others. One can't eliminate or supress it (by force), but I do think one could (and should) prevent it from becoming excessive. I think our challenge lies in no longer stimulating our destructive qualities, as many societies do, but rather cultivating our _constructive_ qualities. As a society. In culture. Essentially, I think we need a new culture. With new myths. New stories that we tell ourselves in order to understand ourselves and the world. So I fully share the sentiment of your last paragraph!
I live in Los Angeles. Yes rents have risen rapidly all over California. There are many reasons, none of which are mentioned in this video. In the first place immigration ran unchecked for decades. In the second, California became the tech capital of the world, bringing hundreds of thousands of high-paid workers into the state. The former took over all the cheaper housing, the latter forced rents and property values higher and higher. In this sense the Democrat party is the culprit because it catered to both groups. California is now a one-party state, real democracy is just a memory here.
...and for what? A little bit of money. ...don't you know that? Homelessness in a place of want is a death sentence unless you live off the land. Land that is most likely owned by others.
One element of data ignored in the "homelessness is a housing problem" crowd is the geographic origin of the homeless population. Second, the wishes of the homeless population. Third, every area that suffers high homelessness rates do not (civically) operate in a market-oriented way. The conjecture is simply stated: an analogy would be what Coleman Hughes has just gone through with TED. The reason his talk on colour-blindness in policy setting was called "verifiably false" is that the meta-analysis used to "debunk" the claim showed that his position didn't aid in the very sort of policies he claimed were unjust. In this instance, the opening "given that" here, that homelessness is a housing issue, is the sticking point. If that is not the case, do the subsequent points hold? I fear not. Further, characterising the "individualist" position regarding the homeless population as "mad and addicted" seems a bit off. It would suggest, for instance, that their levels of charitable donations would be lower. It simply isn't. It would also suggest that they pay less in taxes. They don't. I'd suggest that it is more likely that those with a collectivist outlook are more likely to try and "solve" the issue rather than provide immediate, direct support for the conditions of any given individual. (This is a huge generalisation - I have known many Leftists who give their time to directly helping needy people. They're lower in number and proportion than the right-leaning Christians I know, however). The overall position of "collectivist" vs "individualist" is too narrow for society-wide issues, in my opinion. More acute focus on issues, that is to say a renewed focus on "stemming the bleed" rather than "prevention is better than cure" approach, allows for the disintegrating fringes of any given nation state to remain stable enough that the overall system of governance/economy/sense of meaning can be reinvigorated. There's no way of solving an issue when you have to focus on who may be coming through your front door. With all that counter-pointing aside, I must say that it is heartening to see this sort of work be done despite any disagreements I may have with the thrust and philosophical rigour. The more focus there is on renewal, the more likely it will occur. Highly commendable, excellent work by a clearly good person. Great channel.
I owned a small business in the Inland Empire of CA, working with groups from a behavioral health home, and my wife was a supervisor of adult protective services in Riverside County overseeing homeless task forces. We are close to the problem. The primary roadblock isn't individualist vs collectivist ideals, it's a failure to speak clearly about the groups we are talking about. Last time I looked, "Homeless " in CA was clocked at 150k people. That number included couch surfers, those in shelters and those living in trailers. Those actively in the street were 50k. So not being able to afford housing is a problem (why we left) and the dysfunction/addiction/mental health issues that lead to people wandering the street yelling at the sky is a problem. They are not the same problem. And the puritanical "zero tolerance" approach taken by the sources you cited makes it impossible to triage. When the average person says "we need to do something about homelessness", they are talking about people asleep in the streets at 1pm, the people who can't advocate for themselves, who you can't force treatment on. The housing market is a different problem and needs to be treated as such, less we solve nothing.
There's also some problems with statistical bias here. You put Colorado, my home state, on the list for having more mental health problems. This may simply be due to Colorado's tendency to invest a lot in mental health care. A higher proportion of people are diagnosed with mental health problems, which only appears like there are more problems. Also, if treatment is effective, you would expect lower rates of homelessness.
Yes, @danielpalmer643, exactly what I was thinking when that statistic was presented. I paused the video and spoke out loud: How can any government agency determine if individuals (who comprise the masses) are mentally ill unless they are diagnosed as such? Thus, the more diagnosed, the more accounted for in the statistics. Other than this sticking point, I nonetheless appreciated the video. It sheds light where it is needed. There are so (too) many moving parts to the homelessness crisis -- it's difficult to arrive at correct conclusions/solutions.
@@garyhambleton2374 I have wondered for awhile about why there is poverty in developed countries at all. I still wonder at it. I think that this video was good and highlighted a few of the more important explanations. I think there are two causes of poverty. The first is the greed of those who benefit by creating a permanent underclass. They charge more monopoly rents, but also criminalize people for failure to earn enough. I also think that shiftlessness and the desire to be free from the burden of work exists. Saying either of those things may make me sound like an extremist, but hey. These two forces (greed and laziness) produce poverty in my opinion.
@@unknowninfinium4353An altruistic society would last longer than an egoistic one, That said both the individual and collective are equally important. You gotta find a balance.
@@isaacm4159 Soviet Union was altruistic. Mao's China was. US focused little bit on individual and look how that went. Which by the way is always a comparison of any example right or wrong. Choose your society well. Keep the balance towards individuals.
@@unknowninfinium4353 The issue is they tried to make altruism materialistic. A system that equates human value to pure material is doomed to fail. Keeping a balance towards the individual isn't a balance that's just choosing the individual and disregarding the whole entirely.
I don't think the statement about what prevents homelessness in those particular states is accurate. It may be for some of them, but you have to factor in the fact that homeless people are not permanently stuck in a particular city. Some of those places are environmentally inhospitable for a significant portion of the year, so homeless people move away from them. Some places are much more anti-homeless, so homeless people move away from those places, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just foists it on other places. California has such a high concentration right now for three main reasons, good weather, bad policy, and other places having harsher policy. They aren't home grown. This is a separate issue from the general increase in homelessness, which I suspect is more evenly happening across the country.
I just have to mention that everyone who actually works closely with homeless persons has never believed “The Myth of Homelessness”. The myth that addiction and mental health are the main drivers of the population. It’s a myth we use, I believe, to help justify the suffering of others. In some sense they are blameworthy. In my own experience working with this population for seven years, we have a population with a very large variety of factors, probably just as many as in any other. We deeply fear and abhor these others and soothe our guilt by labeling them. Not too surprising or unusual. Pretty much par for the course in the US and probably other places as well to a greater or lesser degree.
I'm curious about your experience; the work you did, what populations and where. Living in homeless epicenter and working with those groups, that was not my experience at all
Sadly in Capitalism housing even gets affordable. But is easily thrown aside because if a feel good feeling of government aid. Look how everything around us has turned out to be. Sadly.
@unknowninfinium4353 why is there no little aid because of racism? Which is sad, too. Where it's primarily white, and they don't want low-income housing because it would bring in other racial groups.
@@armandaneshjooI think they are thinking of the current government structure in our capitalist society. Since we're born within society and we're indoctrinated throughout our entire lives, it's hard to fathom a government system that operates differently from our own, or it's just hard to see any other way of living realistically. I like socialist ideology, but it has its weak points. The union of opposites is something that we need to strive for, especially in our politics.
To afford a home in the first place, you have to submit yourself to The Machine, working as a slave for long hours to pay down the mortgage, or pay the landlord if you can't afford to own. You likely also need a car to get to work, which can be very expensive over a lifetime. You end up having little free time left, but some amount of money, so you buy a lot of cheap food and products of low quality, becoming a chronic consumer addicted to what The Machine provides. All this is presented as an ideal, but there are some people who for one reason or another just can't live like a slave, who reject The Machine and fall out of it. The Machine doesn't care. I think homelesness is also a symptom of a deeper issue in society, that of the nuclear family (as opposed to multi-generational living). The idea that once you're of legal age, you're on your own. In a sick society like this one… there will be mental issues.
We need to ensure we all have a bed to make rather then assume such. For many of us individual growth will only become a possibility when the collective inequalities are addressed and there truly is a bed for us each to call our own and thus make… Yes one does need to care for themselves as an individual but we also need to be aware none of us exists in a vacuum and that perhaps better communities will make stronger individuals
Individualists and collectivists all refuse to open THEIR homes to the homeless. I believe that is the most prescient issue you fail to address. Why is this so. In your view the homeless are just like everyone else except that they are without homes. You dismiss drug abuse and mental illness as causes and focus solely of lack of affordability. Yet major cities policies of giving tents, monetary assistance, vice enabling like free needles, cigarettes and other things that increase the ability to stay homeless when many homeless refuse shelter beds because they have to clean up their act to be admitted. Also unaddressed in the billions already being funded in these major cities to alleviate the problem when over 75 % of this monies goes to the administration of these non profits rather than to the victims. These “non profits” are the collectivists you speak of yet you mention nothing about the homeless industry and it’s well wishing grifters.
I feel like the main thrust of this video still lands on individualism good > collectivism bad. If you're actually an individualist then there wouldn't be those regulations in the first place. The State, the collective, is the problem. The man who has clawed his way up to buy the property shouldn't be able to protest the construction of new housing on someone elses property. It is a risk he took when buying the house. This video didn't really rebuke the invisible hand as much as assert its supremacy in solving this problem, with collectivism in the form of the state being the main cause of the problem in the end
Imagine learning your mom aunt and grandma don't consider you family, and just an extension of your father to abuse. I'm homeless and even my mom's extended family sees me the same way. My close siblings also the same. . Now imagine hearing your best friend defend my mom's bf saying there must be a reason he treats u like shit but ignoring the words come out your mouth, while having a room to rent but never offering help because they don't like the fact you have long hair and don't want to cut it. Ignoring the fact you're indigenous and your hair is a part of your culture and pride. . Yea, I'm the problem. Ignoring the sacrifices I made to not drive and ride the bus so I can buy land. Ignoring my attempt to start a business while he himself was trying to be an "entrepreneur" cause his gf told him so. . Yea I made some mistakes but my trust was abused and exploited so I'd end up sleeping under some trees while my cousins and their friends fuck with my shit and other people try to run me over cause I skateboard vs driving a car. . Sometimes it's your family that makes you homeless because you trusted they'd help u only to abuse u and slowly realize your friends are too stupid to see the passive aggressive abuse you're suffering. But they rather tell you what to do vs listening to the help you really need
I actually went homeless on purpose to restart my life. After doing it, I recommend more people do it if you feel stuck. I overcame many of my limiting beliefs and fears while being homeless. Now I love all the things I have, while looking forward to things that will come to me in the future.
I'm curious as to what that looked like for you. I became homeless 'on purpose' too, but it wasn't 100% intentional as it was partly driven by circumstance. I was living overseas in a short-term rental, the pandemic hit, borders closed and my work visa expired. I had quite a lot of cash savings but they were going to quickly get eaten up by rent over the course of a few months, and I couldn't get a job (at least, not legally), and I didn't want to move back to my home country in the middle of the plague. In the end, I made the decision to become a wandering hobo and try to stretch my money as far as it would go by not paying any rent. I moved between cities, staying in cheap hostels for a few nights, eating ramen, oatmeal and fresh fruit. I slept on an inflatable mattress in my friend's garage. I spent a month working on a farm in exchange for room and board. Spent another month lodging in an old lady's spare room in exchange for gardening and housekeeping jobs. I eventually got my work visa reinstated and took temporary, live-in jobs in some of the most remote and beautiful places. It was a life-changing experience for me and made me realise that I'm not made of glass, that I won't shatter if I fall. Sometimes it sucked, sometimes it was truly awesome. I will say this though: homelessness is much, much, MUCH easier if you have some money in the bank. If you don't know where you're going to sleep tonight, you always have the cash to book into a hostel. If you want a hot meal, you can eat at a cheap restaurant. You can buy a ticket to your next destination and do some live-in work for another month. I feel terribly for the people who become destitute and homeless through circumstances that have fallen out of control.
@@Luke-tt3dt I used to be homeless, homelessness is a mindset to me now. I was homeless physically for 155 days. However I wasn't homeless in mindset when I set out to do what I did. Being homeless made me realize how I was actually at home in my own skin. I had zero money ( not true my friend gave me 40 dollars and a plane ticket to Austin ) I didn't know anyone. I didn't know anything about getting a job or the help offered. I slept on the streets, under bridges, wherever I could sleep I did. Then I learned the wait times for housing and food stamps were stupid. So I decided to get a job and save. I actually want to go homeless again in New cities to show people anyone can do it. It's also good for you. It made you realize how resilient you really are. Now I live in a studio but I want to move into a place just for me. I'm going to trade school and working at an olive garden. I have plans on making more videos on what I did and why. You should too if you want
The virgin "They're just going to be given a house after I worked so hard for mine!? REEEEE!" Fan Versus The gigachad "They're getting housed! Thank go they won't have to go through what I had to!" Enjoyer
Great Video! Keep it up. Congrats on 150k! Personally I am a fan of 'responsive communitarianism' which says "people face two major sources of normativity: that of the common good and that of autonomy and rights, neither of which in principle should take precedence over the other." Essentially there should be a balance between individualism and communitarianism, with Western society currently leaning excessively in favour of individualism. Regarding the concentration of homeless in rich cities, all im worried about is that this might in part be because homeless people tend to move to the bigger cities because they have better facilities for homeless people and are also more profitable for begging or small-jobs. I've personally seen some interviews with homeless people who mention this as a motivation for moving to big cities. Still, loved the video! Right up my alley.
The problem comes when you dive into the responsibilities and intricacies of communitarianism. No matter the thinker you follow, they find it much easier to identify individual rights and freedoms than to identify communitarian obligations and principles. In writing my university thesis on the subject, I initially thought this inability to define communitarianism was simply a failure of the imagination; that there must be a “responsive” or “balanced” communitarianism. But when I tried to identify any “first principles” of the movement, I always ended up feeling that they infringed unacceptably on individual rights. And I began to realize that every liberal thinker on this subject has probably run into the same problem. Want to mandate prioritization of family relationships? You get Confucianism. Want to prioritize role within the society? You get the caste system or feudalism. Want to prioritize nationalism? You get Nazism. Want to mandate prioritization of God? You get the Crusades. Or ISIS. As a result, it seemed to me that every communitarian thinker ends up falling back on vague indictments of liberalism rather than outlining any positive principles of mandated responsibilities for humankind. Perhaps there is some hope here in religion, but not in anything institutionalized for sure. Indeed a tricky philosophical puzzle for our modern meta crisis. Thanks James for a lovely video and commenter for prompting some interesting philosophical questions.
Not sure how you are hanging these issues on individualism. This is one long running strawman fallacy. Every city in the US has overwhelming central planning running the cities. Regulations on building are what shrinks the available housing as the city planners keep a tight lock on sprawl. This is were the shortages have their roots. Your analysis lacks any kind of economic analysis from a non keynsian economists and as always when central planning fails blame the individual. If we could just all think the same way everything will finally work out. Epic fail sir but I still love ya.
@unknowninfinium4353 I don't understand. Are we having a misunderstanding, or did you make a spelling mistake. I said we need both to create a well-rounded person and community. Ubuntu tribe person or NEET hikikomori
@@iforget6940 I mentioned collectivism. The kind Socialism always promises. The kind communism always fails. The kind that always manages to explain itself differently every decade.
The Tale of Two Americas . USA , South America, And the Schizophrenic state of a divided population in massive imbalance . To have a home close to public housing isnt a problem with my family . Real Estate exclusiveness 😮😮😮 Discrimination on the price tag of property too close to public housing Covert itinerary.
I think the video starts with a wrong assumption "we *all* want to make this world a better place". I think a crucial difference between individualist and collectivist world views or "philosophies" is that individualist ideas tend to cultivate strength while collectivist ideas do the opposite, they cultivate weakness. In a collectivist view the "system" is often used as an excuse to avoid responsibility for the decisions one has made in life. I, on the other hand, do take full responsibility for all my successes and all my failures. Was I dealt a bad hand in life? No, I wasn't. Was I dealt a perfect hand? Thankfully not! I did struggle many times, with things out of my control, like everyone does. But I embrace my struggles. Difficulty, suffering, is what makes us who we are. Overcoming difficulty is a profound character building experience. Like Nietzsche would put it and I'm paraphrasing here: "one must learn to love life with all of it's beauty and all of it's tragedy". I wouldn't change anything in my past, I treasure everything that happened the good and the bad, these experiences are what made me who I'm. Amor fati is, perhaps, the most valuable idea one can learn. If there is anything I would do "to make the world a better place" is to get more people like me exposed to this idea.
*'Structure' and _circumstance_ are 'messengers' - the _angeloi and principalities_ that cast down the idolatry of Judah - cornered between major powers - according to _a divine economy of salvation_ .
I couldn't resist this opportunity. Philosopher/drug addict/poet/schizotistic(coinage credited to Jreg. Def:Schizophrenia+autism) voluntarily homeless. Age 32 male. The perception of reality from this angle regarding the outside is extremely circumstantial for quality of all moments. Looking at the entirety of conscious existence, I will say this: If you have any ability to not be born at all that is the most wise and logical conclusion that my time here always ends up regardless of variety of knowledge. Words cannot be used successfully when wisdom is sought. I wonder who would have loved me if the chance to meet was an opportunity. And here's my favorite quote, Legion from Mass Effect 2-3 "The process is as important as the results" Stay safe and please stop having kids. ❤
Sadly, you’ve only scratched the surface of the regulation problem. Environmental impact studies, among many many more regulations are just as big of a factor.
Seems strange to refer to NIMBYism as caused by regulation when it seems to be a very narrow aspect of regulation being discussed, if not rather one of regulatory capture or loophole exploitation
What about potential solutions? I started hearing "rent control" being thrown around, but it has a terrible track record. Is there a way to counter nimbyism? Ideas?
This is, beyond any doubt, the most thoughtful understanding of homelessness I have ever heard. It is neither a screed against American capitalism nor self-righteous moralizing (most are one or the other). Well done, James. Can't wait to see more along these lines.
Normally it involves an analysis of the economy because housing is a commodity so it makes sense. That's why this video is idiotic. The primary causes of homelessness are economic causes. This dude needs to stay far away from larger social issues and politics because he's abysmal at it.
@@TheAnthraxBiology If the economy were such that everyone had a house free of charge, taxes, and all responsibility there would be no homeless people. That's true for sure and given that truth we must conclude homelessness is purely an economic issue and the video and its author are idiotic. It is the same idiocy that deprives me of my mansion in Hawaii and marriage to Cindy Crawford.
You are too quick to dismiss the mental illness/substance abuse causes. I personally know a mentally ill woman who actually had her own apartment and deliberately walked away from it and lives on the street. I worked with an alcoholic who lost his job because of his drinking, and then the next job and the next and then his car and then his apartment. He ended up on a relatives couch and I think that this fact explains some of the discrepancies between big cities and smaller communities (I have lived in both kinds of place). Smaller more rural areas have more intact families than bigger urban areas. There is a better chance you have family that can take you in and support you until you can get back on your feet or even if you can't. In my small town I know of several people who, for various reasons cannot work so their families take care of them. That said I will grant that your argument about housing costs also has merit.
I agree, it's a huge problem This is from the Wall Street Journal today " Anchorage Scrambles to Get Growing Homeless Population Indoors Before Winter "Homelessness is up 60% in Alaska’s largest city, which is offering free one-way tickets to the Lower 48 states"
Collective work is never as important as making your own bed. The only way to positively affect the world is to become a saint. If you are messed up yourself you can’t even properly perceive problems correctly or detach your own corrupt desires from the intent to solve said problems. “Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved“ - Saint Seraphim of Surov. There’s actually direct correlation between how much someone tries to change the world to how messed up they are inside themselves. The more messed up someone is the more they focus on trying to change other people
I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest thing I have read all day. You yourself can never change the world on your own. No matter how saintly you may be, you cannot make any meaningful change unless you work collectively. And you cannot expect to have everyone be a saint before they try to change things either, or else we would be waiting around forever and nothing would ever change. Working collectively to make a better world would make it much easier for more people to become saints. No movements to change the world for the better was ever made up only of good, self actualized people. You set the standard far too high, and will never accomplish anything.
@@nowhereman6019 You didn't understand what I wrote. The Idea is not that you wait to become a saint and then go march on Washington lol. The Idea is that you prioritize your own change far before trying to change others. Your ability to do good only goes as far as the goodness that is in you. So being a messed up person and trying to fix the world is only going to mess up the world more. If you are an extremally sinful person, all of your attempts to help will be covered in mud, because you can't even perceive good clearly enough to do it. The holier you become, the more your presence in the world will leave a trail of Gold and drops of honey. Never start with others. The airplane always says to put on your own mask and then help other people put on there's. This is a principle we see echo'd everywhere in life. "Acquire the holy spirit and thousands around you will be saved" - St Seraphim of Sarov
There is a more brutal aspect to this macro perspective of the homeless crisis. So many people. We create food for the masses by depleting and poisoning the soil. Treating the creatures we eat with unconcerned brutality from birth to death for the sake of profits. We build more houses by cutting down more trees, killing more of the creatures we share Earth with, creatures that make the world livable. We are running out of fresh water and wild places. And now we are facing the breaking point of civilization as we destroy the climate and gear up for another world war. Yet we dare not speak of making fewer babies, our economies are based on unending growth and the need for more workers to toil and consume. That doesnt even bring up the destructive aspects of capitalism that ensure everything good will be turned to evil in order to profit from it. Or the ways those in power pit diverse groups of people against each other for self serving reasons as though we are not all humans with the same basic fundamental interests. Or the way our very nature, our evolved physiology keeps us from doing what we know intuitively are the right things because we are driven by our baser instincts and desires.....
In less abstract terms, I think the cart is being put before the horse. This video is structured as if to ask, "How can we afford housing for the homeless?" when what I think is necessary to uproot the problem is to build and manage the houseing _first,_ and only then ask how it will be paid for. That is to say, everyone should receive a house by default _as is their right as human beings._ If human rights mean anything it's that problems like homelessness should not exist. Anything less is a pretence. If questiosn of human rights are to be addressed deceisivly, they must be made the priority rather than giving the leaf over to capital: the resources should be assigned to universal welfare first and the surplus rendered unto the Caeser that is the ruling class. Not the other way around with the rich getting the money first and the majority left in abject destitution. This is a tall order, but do we resolve to change anything or not? I recall somone saying something about omlettes and eggs. . .
Anyone who takes a cold-hearted attitude should realize that Life's caprice can make homelessness a reality for nearly anyone. All it takes is a major layoff in a tight job market, or a messy divorce, or a health issue, or a legal tangle, or a crooked financial advisor, or other twist of fate, to suddenly turn the world upside-down.
I've heard, that Singapore has a different housing-system, because the state gives the right to buy a house and so it's controls the pricing. A big social-housing system.
A Stanford professor recently came out to say, based on the weight of the evidence he's come across, it looks as though we really don't have free will. You should do a video on this.
Let me guess he's a scientist? How can we prove determinism if we can't prove our ideas of cause and effect aren't just imagined? Philosophical debates will never end. They're purely perception based.
It’s interesting, I’ve noticed my own personal philosophical trajectory has moved from an interest in individualism to a more collectivist interest, and how that mirrors the trajectory of the works of Camus and Sartre whose work started off individualist and became more focused on society as a whole. It makes me wonder why only their individualist work is talked about e.g. you always hear about The Myth of Sisyphus but never The Rebel.
I think we need to start not with philosophy but biology. Humans are somewhat unique in thier biology, being highly social (weakly eusocial) but genetically individual. Our native environment is amongst other individuals who our primary competition and only security. This is the central tension in all of our political arguements; the individual must protect against the depredation of the group, and the group must guard against leeches and psychopaths who threaten its stability. Dunbar has shown how the size of our groups is limited by, and a driver of, our large brains. Culture, being the behavioral response of biology to local conditions, emerged in part to extend our sociality beyond the bounds of our cognitive abilities. This is a delicately balanced arrangement. Central narratives make possible the aggregation of supergroups at ever greater scales, able to outcompete essentially every obstacle. I begin to suspect that this scaling is a bell curve; with advantages peaking at some point before the disutilities of scale demand totalitarian narratives, which then crush the individual. We hear frequently this false paradox of "individualism" vs "collectivism" which pits liberty against the growth of the state. This assumes that the expansion of a "welfare state" is the natural embodyment of social will, but nothing could be further from true. To quote Murray Rothbard: A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." The collapse that we are experiencing is in part a controlled demolition by neoMarxians who, at least since Gramsci, have been relentlessly acquiring the means of production; not of tanks and guns, but of humans via cultural capital. Marx's injunction to "relentless criticism of all that exists" has been followed on an industrial scale, in our art, in our stories, in our schools. Along with withering criticism of genuine sins of industry has come a general dissolution of the social narratives that inculcate necessary virtues. Indeed, the very idea of virtues has been attacked and corroded, and chaos is the result. As Pageau notes, when state owned art galleries are spilling over with art that can only criticize the central narratives that built the state, the flood is immanent. What is needed then is not a lurch toward fraught concepts like individualism or collectvism, but the rebirth or revival of virtues, which include both a cultivated respect for individuals and a cultivated willingness to serve others. But do we begin with the rubble or our sins? I say to stop the bleeding first. We must first forcefully eject the marxian intellectuals, who drape a thin veneer of compassion over monstrous envy, whose enunciated strategy for over a century has been do dissolve our narratives and sever all relationships in favor of utopian nondifferentiation, which in no way matches our biology. EO Wilson's quip so perfectly punctures collectivist notions. "Great idea, wrong species".
Ah, here we have the Austrian School economist, who, rather than engaging with 'marxian intellectuals' or those whom they disagree with, seeks instead to 'forcefully eject them' from the equation. Who, on the one hand, blame 'Marxists', 'neo-Marxists' and other vague buzzwords pertaining to a supposed unified and monolithic group (Cultural Marxism being a favourite) for the apparent 'collapse we are experiencing' whilst simultaneously seeking to uphold the current status quo and system that are in one form or another currently in place. Furthermore, a 'cultivated willingness' seems to be an oxymoron as by 'cultivating' and influencing someone to specifically 'serve' others, not only is this inherently 'anti-individualist' and a quashing of the individual itself and their 'liberties, virtues and rights' (something which a 'libertarian' with a view such as the one you have just espoused, should never want to do) but also requires an element of 'cultivation' which must be imparted by some external force. I am not sure how a 'libertarian' would enact such a 'cultivation' whilst simultaneously upholding the primacy of 'biological individualism' and all that comes with it (especially without enacting this 'cultivation' through 'the state', which you so dearly deem unnatural and superfluous to all requirements). Finally, your comment also makes 0 mention or any real contribution to the actual issue and topic of the video you are commenting under; instead, in my opinion you have moved the goalposts and begun a strange monologue about supposed 'biology' and an apparent need to 'cultivate a willingness to serve others'.
Housing shortage is a lie. Between the USA and Canada (not sure Euro or other continent stats) there is about 3 empty homes per single homeless adult. The issue is hyper inflation and foreign investment for us and leaders that refuse to cap rent… and the result is “not in my yarding” leads to tent cities erected in everyone’s backyard…
@@richierich8245 I don't think many reasonable people would disagree that JBP has had an great influence in western individualism regarding individual responsibility, free speech and free thinking. Perhaps you have a personal vendetta for the man? Then that is another topic. i don't think you should blindly follow anyone without also be able to criticize them, that goes for JBP too. But you gotta give the devil its due, or else you will always be a victim of it.
I generally agree with your point. But what about the fact that a person may influence how likely they are to find themselves in a homelessness situation by being inflexible to either switching to a job with lower pay/prestige when faced with a layoff, and/or moving to another area with lower homing costs? Surely there’s still a fair amount of individual responsibility that can help even in these situations…
I would still argue that this 'individual responsibility' is nevertheless highly predicated on structural issues and circumstances that are/were out of a person's control. For instance, to get a job in the UK and other countries in Europe, it is usually required to have some form of proof of address. If one were to lose their job due to an issue outside of their control (economic issue, etc.), significant barriers still exist in order to 'switch job with lower pay etc'. Furthermore, a person in the position of facing homelessness also tends to be ultimately of a lower economic class (this is a whole other argument, but still important to state); they may be willing to move to a lower-cost housing area, etc., but simply don't have the savings, capital, family support etc to put down a deposit or be able to physically move. Yes, there is and to some extent always will be some form of individual responsibility. However, I would argue it is the structural and external non-individual factors and facets that have ultimate responsibility and influence in a situation such as the one you are describing.
Those regulations are meant to give democracy to the people. Giving them power over their neighbourhood. But as you say people never want anything built where they live. It’s the same where I live and it is no matter what is being build. People always oppose anything new. I’m not sure a purely unregulated housing market would fix the issue though. Homes might be build but at a very low quality or not built in other to keep prices high. A few big players can buy up the land and make sure no one else builds anything cheap.
Will watch the video. But a question begs, how did the homelessness began? Could it be the bad descisions made by collectivists? The rent controls (Obvious in some cases, example Chicago, San Francisco) Or other economic descisons by collectivists that caused this mess. Then would we then push aside individualism as a by product of a collectivist descision? So individual is only criticised when its a product of a collectivist action and not before? As a solution there are tries made by individuals as well but here again collectivists punish which actions. (Not allow to feed the poor in some states). If individualism can be questioned at a micro level then can we also address the elephant in the room thats the collectivism on a macro level? Edit: I couldnt find my comment and edit to make changes, another collectivists action that is take on a macro level not questioned?
Wow. An absolutely idiotic take! False compassion wrapped in a nonsense. "Homeless people are homeless because they don't have home as it is expensive to live in cities" If you have no clue as to what you are talking about at least read/listen someone like Michael Shellenberger who does.
Compassion is the enemy of America. Fairness is the enemy of America. Any form of basic human decency is the enemy of America. Helping people when they're in trouble is the enemy of America. Ensuring everyone gets decent healthcare is the enemy of America. Ensuring everyone gets a decent education is the enemy of America. Asking for a living wage so people can pay the rent so they won't be homeless is the enemy of America. Not viewing poverty as a moral failure is the enemy of America. God bless America.
That was pointless. Instead of explaining what that guy Shellenberger has to say, either by mentioning him or not, you're blabbing about the video being idiotic.
Have you been on welfare? It's just enough money to not die and has term limits so you can be thrown off it at any time meaning you will be on the streets begging. Welfare in America is a privilege and is as cold as charity always is. It debases people and destroys their human dignity. But for people like you seem to be that is just what they deserve. A society in which only a select few are permitted to live a decent life free from fear of poverty and how to pay this week's rent or how to feed your kids is no society as far as I'm concerned. Mankind is far more bestial and heartless than any of the so-called beasts of the animal world.
As an individual I agree that housing needs to be sourced for the massive amount of homeless we have. I am not for giving housing to people without any proof that they will work, and be off drugs, and maintain their house appropriately.
💚 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
☕ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
0:00 Introduction
1:48 Homelessness: a Collective Problem
5:03 A Class Problem
6:55 Conclusion
🫵😐NO NO NO. Socialist belief is wrong. The reasons too many ppl are homeless is obviously because of socialism. See, socialist dogma is purely intellectual and no wisdom, no common sense. No insight into how human beings are incentivized by looking within themselves too. Everything is from a book. No street smarts. Everyone has an ego including socialists. It will manifest as suffering for them as individuals but the more they reshape society, the more we all suffer. Socialist most often act arrogantly and don’t seem to understand the value of humility. Also, they appear to act as though coercion, propaganda and even murder is justified as long as their nebulous purpose in life is validated so they never have to humble themselves. A mistaken kindness is no kindness at all because they had the chance to look within but no, they obviously already know everything✌️🙄
🤔Hmm, Just because you are thoughtful, doesn’t mean you should tell anyone you’re thoughts. You already believe that you are separate from me but that is merely a made up assumption. Individualism? That is meaningless when you really understand that there is no separation between us at all. You know there isn’t, you feel it in your heart because it’s the truth. What there is is our made up beliefs and our subconscious habits. That’s why we want borders. Because we can’t help feeling separate but we know in our heart that we are together. Nevertheless, socialism is merely a tool for bad actors to take advantage of one’s beliefs, subconscious bad habits & one’s sense of purpose. DO NOT BUY INTO SOCIALISM, THAT IS A MARXIST IDEOLOGY TO SLOWLY COOK THE FROG UNTIL THEY TURN THE PLACE RED AS AOC SAID AND SHE DIDNT MEAN SHE WANTED TO TURN THE PLACE REPUBLICAN. ✌️😐
Can you cover the essay "Meditations on Moloch"?
In the essay, the author provides example of problems, where if everyone acts in their objective self interest, it results in worse outcomes for all parties.
For example, if country A has a military, country B has to have a military too, or risks getting conquered. If one increases the military budget, the other has to follow. But the same is not true of reducing the budget (the others might be lying etc). So what that does is lead to an equilibrium, where both countries spend a large amount of money for their military each year, but because both are equally strong, can never actually attack and use it. Obviously, the money would be better spend if it was invested in industry, healthcare, infrastructure, ...
My aunt in Dublin became homeless recently. None of us ever thought it'd happen to her or anyone we knew but it did. She has 4 kids, 2 dogs, and is a widow. She's now on a waiting list with 100,000 people all because her landlord wanted to raise the rent. However, she is not counted as homeless because she moved in temporarily with my mam, even though not everyone has a bed and the kids were out of school for a while and are bouncing between places. This is how homelessness works in Ireland. It's not just "crazy people and addicts" who, by the way, are just as deserving of our compassion.
It shows the importance of family. That's who you can depend on in the end.
There's also homelessness in the rich welfare state of Norway, and it's not always the kind of people you'd expect. Many are saved by their family, not the welfare state, which is disintegrating while more and more people are struggeling to make ends meet. This is what oil-rich Norway has become.
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
('cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he's uppi' me?
('cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I was already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that shit wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an' arm began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)
Happy to see one of my favoriye channels expanding its horizons
We often call some societies individualist, such as America, and others collectivist, such as Japan. But if such a distinction exists, then I'm yet to see a nation that actually prioritizes solving issues at the systemic level above placing all responsibility onto the individual: Japan suffers from all of the same problems of climate change, wealth disparity, class conflict, racism, sexism, aging population, immigration, discrimination towards queer people, and so on that make up political discourse.
The exact constitution and history of this debates is very different, but the same Ultranationalist Neoliberal Capitalist mentality persists shoulder to shoulder with Neo-Confucianism, which similarly imposes upon the individual, subjegating the disadvantaged masses to the powerful few.
Different rhetoric, different coping mechanism and scapegoats for their respective failures, but not meaningful difference in the outcome.
The American is told that the state of the world is up to him, and so if the world is less than he'd like it to be, that's on him and he should suck it up.
The Japanese is told that the state of the world is not up to him whatsoever, so if he run into adversity, he should suck it up like every other subordinate organ within the whole.
In either case, it is not one's meagre role to complain in spite of ever mounting grievances and corruption.
My point is that what we call individualism and collectivsm are the same object veiwed from different angles, and so favoring one over the other won't lead to change in of itself. Attempting to do so will be attempting to solve the problem still using the mental tools applied when said problems were created. Even if they were truely opposites and not two halves of the same system, a western view of collectivism and individualism would not be eastern view of collectivism and individualism. Each culture is unfit to pass judgement on the other because both neccessarily have an incomplete and limited understanding -- and in any case neither can boast to have founded a utopia. Societies in each category do not even undrstand _themselves_ for the same reason.
What a collectivist society calls compassionate and selfless, the individualist society sees as egotistical and callous and vice versa.
The problems of individualist society we are all too familair with. "I got mine -- screw you!"
Who could possibly question the virtue of submitting the part to the whole? And yet in practice this so-called virtue is applied to deny responsibility: when it is convenient for the, group identity, for the state, to be responsible for what the part does, it laps up the credit. When it is inconvenient for the state to be held responsible for it's own actions, blame is dumped onto the part (or onto another social group.) Similarly, the individual of a collectivist society does not have to take responsibility for his own action because he is but a mere part; the ineffectual puppet of the group identity who simply couldn't hurt a fly.
And so across the whole system, from the lowest strata to the highest, blame disappears. Praise abounds. The group is praised outwardly for the merits of the individual. The individual inwardly priases himself for being part of the collective enough though he had nothing to do with this cirumstance at all.
私日本人でよかった
I'm not trying to critsize the collectivist mode of social organization. I'm simply pointign out that the idea that collectivism is some kind of solution to the problem of the ego and social issues is stuff and nonsense. This is just as much ego in collectivist societies ans individualist ones. It's merely displaced realtive to where we would otherwise expect to find it.
You may counter that individualist societies displace responsiblity, but that's all part of my point: the collectivist/individualist dichotomy is unproductive.(Nor is the ego necesarily best regarded as a problem in of itself.)
Another way of putting it is that members of collectivist societes work to the benefit of the whole _against each other:_ They compete at it. So you see they're really out for themselves. You can see this in how departments of the Japanese government squabble over which of them gets to deal with a rescent problem, leading to protracted deadlocks and inaction. When a form of selfishness is deemed socially acceptible, it grows inconspicuous. The greatest farce of this kind was probably how the Japanese army competed against the Japanese navy.
The one thing that is truly responsible for all that happens, good and bad, is the Self, or the Tao. And the Tao is incapable of giving a damn about praise and blame whatsoever.
So what's going to get homeless people off the streets and into housing if not a shift from individualism to collectivsm or a jihad against the ego?
In order for society to eliminate a problem, that problem must take up the appropriate position in it's sustaining metaphor, with the caveat that this can only happen at the expense of problems that our current sustaining metaphor holds in check.
This may still be worthwhile because our myths, our metaphors, aren't necessarily adapted to our circumstances. They are only adapted _enough_ for their own survival. Sustaining myths are psychological entities with their own will to self preservation: artificial intelligences that exist not in computor networks by in human brains. They cannot be counted on for their moral capacity.
It can be all of a peice with the state, but also has the capacity to supercede it.
Whatever sustaining myth we formulate to save our necks, as we appear to be in the process of doing, won't be individualist or collectivist in any sense we understand as of this moment but new complex of signs and symbols not yet knownable. That's what I think.
What you wrote is enlightening. I encourage you to continue to think about society.
This really resonated with me. It was very interesting to read your analysis of individualist/collectivist societies, and what you said about myths was spot on. In this age of liminality, some old explanations no longer suffice. I agree, a new perspective is needed.
"I'm not trying to critsize the collectivist mode of social organization. I'm simply pointign out that the idea that collectivism is some kind of solution to the problem of the ego and social issues is stuff and nonsense."
"the collectivist/individualist dichotomy is unproductive."
I think you're right. It takes much more than just abandoning individualism, collectivism is not a silver bullet. Banishing the ego will only backfire. I think it's more fruitful to search out the root causes of our troubles and confront them head-on. Not once, but as an ongoing process. There is no quick fix for the problems of humanity.
Simone Weil cuts deep, as she so often does, when she talks about force. How it turns those subjected to it into things. How it even turns those who possess it into things, into unthinking automatons, intoxicated by force. I think that's at the root of a lot of our misery. She has identified a root cause, but I don't think we're confronting it.
"Nor is the ego necesarily best regarded as a problem in of itself."
Ego may not be a problem in itself, but I do think too much of it - _egoism_ - is. It fosters greed, hubris and arrogance, sacrificing virtues like moderation, humility and respect for others. One can't eliminate or supress it (by force), but I do think one could (and should) prevent it from becoming excessive.
I think our challenge lies in no longer stimulating our destructive qualities, as many societies do, but rather cultivating our _constructive_ qualities. As a society. In culture. Essentially, I think we need a new culture. With new myths. New stories that we tell ourselves in order to understand ourselves and the world. So I fully share the sentiment of your last paragraph!
I live in Los Angeles. Yes rents have risen rapidly all over California. There are many reasons, none of which are mentioned in this video. In the first place immigration ran unchecked for decades. In the second, California became the tech capital of the world, bringing hundreds of thousands of high-paid workers into the state. The former took over all the cheaper housing, the latter forced rents and property values higher and higher. In this sense the Democrat party is the culprit because it catered to both groups. California is now a one-party state, real democracy is just a memory here.
There's no individualism in my life
...and for what? A little bit of money. ...don't you know that?
Homelessness in a place of want is a death sentence unless you live off the land. Land that is most likely owned by others.
Homelessness is highest in the richest cities due to that being where most of the dope is along with an abundance of food
One element of data ignored in the "homelessness is a housing problem" crowd is the geographic origin of the homeless population. Second, the wishes of the homeless population. Third, every area that suffers high homelessness rates do not (civically) operate in a market-oriented way. The conjecture is simply stated: an analogy would be what Coleman Hughes has just gone through with TED. The reason his talk on colour-blindness in policy setting was called "verifiably false" is that the meta-analysis used to "debunk" the claim showed that his position didn't aid in the very sort of policies he claimed were unjust.
In this instance, the opening "given that" here, that homelessness is a housing issue, is the sticking point. If that is not the case, do the subsequent points hold? I fear not.
Further, characterising the "individualist" position regarding the homeless population as "mad and addicted" seems a bit off. It would suggest, for instance, that their levels of charitable donations would be lower. It simply isn't. It would also suggest that they pay less in taxes. They don't. I'd suggest that it is more likely that those with a collectivist outlook are more likely to try and "solve" the issue rather than provide immediate, direct support for the conditions of any given individual. (This is a huge generalisation - I have known many Leftists who give their time to directly helping needy people. They're lower in number and proportion than the right-leaning Christians I know, however).
The overall position of "collectivist" vs "individualist" is too narrow for society-wide issues, in my opinion. More acute focus on issues, that is to say a renewed focus on "stemming the bleed" rather than "prevention is better than cure" approach, allows for the disintegrating fringes of any given nation state to remain stable enough that the overall system of governance/economy/sense of meaning can be reinvigorated. There's no way of solving an issue when you have to focus on who may be coming through your front door.
With all that counter-pointing aside, I must say that it is heartening to see this sort of work be done despite any disagreements I may have with the thrust and philosophical rigour. The more focus there is on renewal, the more likely it will occur. Highly commendable, excellent work by a clearly good person. Great channel.
Damn straight.
I owned a small business in the Inland Empire of CA, working with groups from a behavioral health home, and my wife was a supervisor of adult protective services in Riverside County overseeing homeless task forces. We are close to the problem. The primary roadblock isn't individualist vs collectivist ideals, it's a failure to speak clearly about the groups we are talking about. Last time I looked, "Homeless " in CA was clocked at 150k people. That number included couch surfers, those in shelters and those living in trailers. Those actively in the street were 50k. So not being able to afford housing is a problem (why we left) and the dysfunction/addiction/mental health issues that lead to people wandering the street yelling at the sky is a problem. They are not the same problem. And the puritanical "zero tolerance" approach taken by the sources you cited makes it impossible to triage. When the average person says "we need to do something about homelessness", they are talking about people asleep in the streets at 1pm, the people who can't advocate for themselves, who you can't force treatment on. The housing market is a different problem and needs to be treated as such, less we solve nothing.
There's also some problems with statistical bias here. You put Colorado, my home state, on the list for having more mental health problems. This may simply be due to Colorado's tendency to invest a lot in mental health care. A higher proportion of people are diagnosed with mental health problems, which only appears like there are more problems. Also, if treatment is effective, you would expect lower rates of homelessness.
Yes, @danielpalmer643, exactly what I was thinking when that statistic was presented. I paused the video and spoke out loud: How can any government agency determine if individuals (who comprise the masses) are mentally ill unless they are diagnosed as such? Thus, the more diagnosed, the more accounted for in the statistics. Other than this sticking point, I nonetheless appreciated the video. It sheds light where it is needed. There are so (too) many moving parts to the homelessness crisis -- it's difficult to arrive at correct conclusions/solutions.
@@garyhambleton2374 I have wondered for awhile about why there is poverty in developed countries at all. I still wonder at it. I think that this video was good and highlighted a few of the more important explanations. I think there are two causes of poverty. The first is the greed of those who benefit by creating a permanent underclass. They charge more monopoly rents, but also criminalize people for failure to earn enough. I also think that shiftlessness and the desire to be free from the burden of work exists. Saying either of those things may make me sound like an extremist, but hey. These two forces (greed and laziness) produce poverty in my opinion.
Marcuse said when every narcissist acts rationally in their self-interest, the outcome is irrational
And every dictator and collectivists acts on everyone's behalf it's worse than irrationality.
@@unknowninfinium4353 Thankfully, for those of us who are consistent, collectivism and dictatorship are quite opposed to one another ;)
@@unknowninfinium4353An altruistic society would last longer than an egoistic one, That said both the individual and collective are equally important. You gotta find a balance.
@@isaacm4159 Soviet Union was altruistic.
Mao's China was.
US focused little bit on individual and look how that went. Which by the way is always a comparison of any example right or wrong.
Choose your society well.
Keep the balance towards individuals.
@@unknowninfinium4353 The issue is they tried to make altruism materialistic. A system that equates human value to pure material is doomed to fail. Keeping a balance towards the individual isn't a balance that's just choosing the individual and disregarding the whole entirely.
I don't think the statement about what prevents homelessness in those particular states is accurate. It may be for some of them, but you have to factor in the fact that homeless people are not permanently stuck in a particular city. Some of those places are environmentally inhospitable for a significant portion of the year, so homeless people move away from them. Some places are much more anti-homeless, so homeless people move away from those places, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just foists it on other places. California has such a high concentration right now for three main reasons, good weather, bad policy, and other places having harsher policy. They aren't home grown. This is a separate issue from the general increase in homelessness, which I suspect is more evenly happening across the country.
Finally, someone with a bit of materialist analysis in this comment section.
I just have to mention that everyone who actually works closely with homeless persons has never believed “The Myth of Homelessness”. The myth that addiction and mental health are the main drivers of the population. It’s a myth we use, I believe, to help justify the suffering of others. In some sense they are blameworthy. In my own experience working with this population for seven years, we have a population with a very large variety of factors, probably just as many as in any other. We deeply fear and abhor these others and soothe our guilt by labeling them. Not too surprising or unusual. Pretty much par for the course in the US and probably other places as well to a greater or lesser degree.
I'm curious about your experience; the work you did, what populations and where. Living in homeless epicenter and working with those groups, that was not my experience at all
Sadly, Capitalism and greed rule the world, and human rights don't. The government owns the land, as we endlessly pay property taxes. Nice job James.
Sadly in Capitalism housing even gets affordable.
But is easily thrown aside because if a feel good feeling of government aid.
Look how everything around us has turned out to be.
Sadly.
@unknowninfinium4353 why is there no little aid because of racism? Which is sad, too. Where it's primarily white, and they don't want low-income housing because it would bring in other racial groups.
@armandaneshjoo, The government, The government owns all the because of Property taxes. You own the building.
@@renaissancefairyowldemon7686 This guy gets it.
@@armandaneshjooI think they are thinking of the current government structure in our capitalist society. Since we're born within society and we're indoctrinated throughout our entire lives, it's hard to fathom a government system that operates differently from our own, or it's just hard to see any other way of living realistically. I like socialist ideology, but it has its weak points. The union of opposites is something that we need to strive for, especially in our politics.
To afford a home in the first place, you have to submit yourself to The Machine, working as a slave for long hours to pay down the mortgage, or pay the landlord if you can't afford to own. You likely also need a car to get to work, which can be very expensive over a lifetime. You end up having little free time left, but some amount of money, so you buy a lot of cheap food and products of low quality, becoming a chronic consumer addicted to what The Machine provides. All this is presented as an ideal, but there are some people who for one reason or another just can't live like a slave, who reject The Machine and fall out of it. The Machine doesn't care.
I think homelesness is also a symptom of a deeper issue in society, that of the nuclear family (as opposed to multi-generational living). The idea that once you're of legal age, you're on your own. In a sick society like this one… there will be mental issues.
We need to ensure we all have a bed to make rather then assume such. For many of us individual growth will only become a possibility when the collective inequalities are addressed and there truly is a bed for us each to call our own and thus make…
Yes one does need to care for themselves as an individual but we also need to be aware none of us exists in a vacuum and that perhaps better communities will make stronger individuals
You're making the mistake of assuming everyone "wants to make the world a better place."
This is compassionate and well presented, and true.
Individualists and collectivists all refuse to open THEIR homes to the homeless.
I believe that is the most prescient issue you fail to address.
Why is this so.
In your view the homeless are just like everyone else except that they are without homes.
You dismiss drug abuse and mental illness as causes and focus solely of lack of affordability.
Yet major cities policies of giving tents, monetary assistance, vice enabling like free needles, cigarettes and other things that increase the ability to stay homeless when many homeless refuse shelter beds because they have to clean up their act to be admitted.
Also unaddressed in the billions already being funded in these major cities to alleviate the problem when over 75 % of this monies goes to the administration of these non profits rather than to the victims.
These “non profits” are the collectivists you speak of yet you mention nothing about the homeless industry and it’s well wishing grifters.
What does Matthew 25 36
I feel like the main thrust of this video still lands on individualism good > collectivism bad. If you're actually an individualist then there wouldn't be those regulations in the first place. The State, the collective, is the problem. The man who has clawed his way up to buy the property shouldn't be able to protest the construction of new housing on someone elses property. It is a risk he took when buying the house. This video didn't really rebuke the invisible hand as much as assert its supremacy in solving this problem, with collectivism in the form of the state being the main cause of the problem in the end
I was devastated as a child when I learned that some people don't have homes.
Me too.
Imagine learning your mom aunt and grandma don't consider you family, and just an extension of your father to abuse. I'm homeless and even my mom's extended family sees me the same way. My close siblings also the same.
.
Now imagine hearing your best friend defend my mom's bf saying there must be a reason he treats u like shit but ignoring the words come out your mouth, while having a room to rent but never offering help because they don't like the fact you have long hair and don't want to cut it. Ignoring the fact you're indigenous and your hair is a part of your culture and pride.
.
Yea, I'm the problem. Ignoring the sacrifices I made to not drive and ride the bus so I can buy land. Ignoring my attempt to start a business while he himself was trying to be an "entrepreneur" cause his gf told him so.
.
Yea I made some mistakes but my trust was abused and exploited so I'd end up sleeping under some trees while my cousins and their friends fuck with my shit and other people try to run me over cause I skateboard vs driving a car.
.
Sometimes it's your family that makes you homeless because you trusted they'd help u only to abuse u and slowly realize your friends are too stupid to see the passive aggressive abuse you're suffering.
But
they rather tell you what to do
vs listening to the help you really need
I actually went homeless on purpose to restart my life. After doing it, I recommend more people do it if you feel stuck. I overcame many of my limiting beliefs and fears while being homeless. Now I love all the things I have, while looking forward to things that will come to me in the future.
I'm curious as to what that looked like for you.
I became homeless 'on purpose' too, but it wasn't 100% intentional as it was partly driven by circumstance. I was living overseas in a short-term rental, the pandemic hit, borders closed and my work visa expired. I had quite a lot of cash savings but they were going to quickly get eaten up by rent over the course of a few months, and I couldn't get a job (at least, not legally), and I didn't want to move back to my home country in the middle of the plague.
In the end, I made the decision to become a wandering hobo and try to stretch my money as far as it would go by not paying any rent. I moved between cities, staying in cheap hostels for a few nights, eating ramen, oatmeal and fresh fruit. I slept on an inflatable mattress in my friend's garage. I spent a month working on a farm in exchange for room and board. Spent another month lodging in an old lady's spare room in exchange for gardening and housekeeping jobs. I eventually got my work visa reinstated and took temporary, live-in jobs in some of the most remote and beautiful places.
It was a life-changing experience for me and made me realise that I'm not made of glass, that I won't shatter if I fall. Sometimes it sucked, sometimes it was truly awesome.
I will say this though: homelessness is much, much, MUCH easier if you have some money in the bank. If you don't know where you're going to sleep tonight, you always have the cash to book into a hostel. If you want a hot meal, you can eat at a cheap restaurant. You can buy a ticket to your next destination and do some live-in work for another month. I feel terribly for the people who become destitute and homeless through circumstances that have fallen out of control.
@@Luke-tt3dt I used to be homeless, homelessness is a mindset to me now. I was homeless physically for 155 days. However I wasn't homeless in mindset when I set out to do what I did. Being homeless made me realize how I was actually at home in my own skin. I had zero money ( not true my friend gave me 40 dollars and a plane ticket to Austin ) I didn't know anyone. I didn't know anything about getting a job or the help offered. I slept on the streets, under bridges, wherever I could sleep I did. Then I learned the wait times for housing and food stamps were stupid. So I decided to get a job and save. I actually want to go homeless again in New cities to show people anyone can do it. It's also good for you. It made you realize how resilient you really are. Now I live in a studio but I want to move into a place just for me. I'm going to trade school and working at an olive garden. I have plans on making more videos on what I did and why. You should too if you want
The virgin "They're just going to be given a house after I worked so hard for mine!? REEEEE!" Fan
Versus
The gigachad "They're getting housed! Thank go they won't have to go through what I had to!" Enjoyer
Great Video! Keep it up. Congrats on 150k!
Personally I am a fan of 'responsive communitarianism' which says "people face two major sources of normativity: that of the common good and that of autonomy and rights, neither of which in principle should take precedence over the other."
Essentially there should be a balance between individualism and communitarianism, with Western society currently leaning excessively in favour of individualism.
Regarding the concentration of homeless in rich cities, all im worried about is that this might in part be because homeless people tend to move to the bigger cities because they have better facilities for homeless people and are also more profitable for begging or small-jobs. I've personally seen some interviews with homeless people who mention this as a motivation for moving to big cities.
Still, loved the video! Right up my alley.
The problem comes when you dive into the responsibilities and intricacies of communitarianism. No matter the thinker you follow, they find it much easier to identify individual rights and freedoms than to identify communitarian obligations and principles.
In writing my university thesis on the subject, I initially thought this inability to define communitarianism was simply a failure of the imagination; that there must be a “responsive” or “balanced” communitarianism. But when I tried to identify any “first principles” of the movement, I always ended up feeling that they infringed unacceptably on individual rights. And I began to realize that every liberal thinker on this subject has probably run into the same problem. Want to mandate prioritization of family relationships? You get Confucianism. Want to prioritize role within the society? You get the caste system or feudalism. Want to prioritize nationalism? You get Nazism. Want to mandate prioritization of God? You get the Crusades. Or ISIS.
As a result, it seemed to me that every communitarian thinker ends up falling back on vague indictments of liberalism rather than outlining any positive principles of mandated responsibilities for humankind. Perhaps there is some hope here in religion, but not in anything institutionalized for sure. Indeed a tricky philosophical puzzle for our modern meta crisis.
Thanks James for a lovely video and commenter for prompting some interesting philosophical questions.
You do such good work, brother.
Consistently so.
And always great images.
Good to have the variables that the addiction epidemic and the psychotic delusion of 'free-will' have been tyrannically imposed.
Not sure how you are hanging these issues on individualism. This is one long running strawman fallacy. Every city in the US has overwhelming central planning running the cities. Regulations on building are what shrinks the available housing as the city planners keep a tight lock on sprawl. This is were the shortages have their roots. Your analysis lacks any kind of economic analysis from a non keynsian economists and as always when central planning fails blame the individual. If we could just all think the same way everything will finally work out. Epic fail sir but I still love ya.
Agreed individualism is not enough we need both individualism and collectivism
Agreed we dont need collectivism. No matter how small.
Collectivism is the wrong term; it's a thick concept loaded down by a century of horrors.
@unknowninfinium4353 I don't understand. Are we having a misunderstanding, or did you make a spelling mistake. I said we need both to create a well-rounded person and community.
Ubuntu tribe person or NEET hikikomori
@@iforget6940 I mentioned collectivism.
The kind Socialism always promises.
The kind communism always fails.
The kind that always manages to explain itself differently every decade.
@@GrimrDirge This guy gets it.
The Tale of Two Americas .
USA , South America,
And the Schizophrenic state of a divided population in massive imbalance .
To have a home close to public housing isnt a problem with my family .
Real Estate exclusiveness 😮😮😮
Discrimination on the price tag of property too close to public housing
Covert itinerary.
I think the video starts with a wrong assumption "we *all* want to make this world a better place". I think a crucial difference between individualist and collectivist world views or "philosophies" is that individualist ideas tend to cultivate strength while collectivist ideas do the opposite, they cultivate weakness. In a collectivist view the "system" is often used as an excuse to avoid responsibility for the decisions one has made in life. I, on the other hand, do take full responsibility for all my successes and all my failures. Was I dealt a bad hand in life? No, I wasn't. Was I dealt a perfect hand? Thankfully not! I did struggle many times, with things out of my control, like everyone does. But I embrace my struggles. Difficulty, suffering, is what makes us who we are. Overcoming difficulty is a profound character building experience. Like Nietzsche would put it and I'm paraphrasing here: "one must learn to love life with all of it's beauty and all of it's tragedy". I wouldn't change anything in my past, I treasure everything that happened the good and the bad, these experiences are what made me who I'm. Amor fati is, perhaps, the most valuable idea one can learn. If there is anything I would do "to make the world a better place" is to get more people like me exposed to this idea.
*'Structure' and _circumstance_ are 'messengers' - the _angeloi and principalities_ that cast down the idolatry of Judah - cornered between major powers - according to _a divine economy of salvation_ .
So interesting
I couldn't resist this opportunity. Philosopher/drug addict/poet/schizotistic(coinage credited to Jreg. Def:Schizophrenia+autism) voluntarily homeless. Age 32 male. The perception of reality from this angle regarding the outside is extremely circumstantial for quality of all moments. Looking at the entirety of conscious existence, I will say this: If you have any ability to not be born at all that is the most wise and logical conclusion that my time here always ends up regardless of variety of knowledge. Words cannot be used successfully when wisdom is sought. I wonder who would have loved me if the chance to meet was an opportunity.
And here's my favorite quote, Legion from Mass Effect 2-3 "The process is as important as the results"
Stay safe and please stop having kids. ❤
Sadly, you’ve only scratched the surface of the regulation problem. Environmental impact studies, among many many more regulations are just as big of a factor.
A very important video - a wonderful synopsis
My man 💪
This is really good stuff. Congrats
So, now memes are present even at Living Philosophy
Seems strange to refer to NIMBYism as caused by regulation when it seems to be a very narrow aspect of regulation being discussed, if not rather one of regulatory capture or loophole exploitation
What about potential solutions? I started hearing "rent control" being thrown around, but it has a terrible track record. Is there a way to counter nimbyism? Ideas?
*"Revolution is the only solution."*
Candide is my favorite book.
This is, beyond any doubt, the most thoughtful understanding of homelessness I have ever heard. It is neither a screed against American capitalism nor self-righteous moralizing (most are one or the other). Well done, James. Can't wait to see more along these lines.
Thanks for the kind words as ever Sean!
Normally it involves an analysis of the economy because housing is a commodity so it makes sense. That's why this video is idiotic. The primary causes of homelessness are economic causes. This dude needs to stay far away from larger social issues and politics because he's abysmal at it.
@@TheAnthraxBiology If the economy were such that everyone had a house free of charge, taxes, and all responsibility there would be no homeless people. That's true for sure and given that truth we must conclude homelessness is purely an economic issue and the video and its author are idiotic. It is the same idiocy that deprives me of my mansion in Hawaii and marriage to Cindy Crawford.
I simply don't matter
Great synthesis !
indeed
.
You are too quick to dismiss the mental illness/substance abuse causes. I personally know a mentally ill woman who actually had her own apartment and deliberately walked away from it and lives on the street. I worked with an alcoholic who lost his job because of his drinking, and then the next job and the next and then his car and then his apartment. He ended up on a relatives couch and I think that this fact explains some of the discrepancies between big cities and smaller communities (I have lived in both kinds of place). Smaller more rural areas have more intact families than bigger urban areas. There is a better chance you have family that can take you in and support you until you can get back on your feet or even if you can't. In my small town I know of several people who, for various reasons cannot work so their families take care of them. That said I will grant that your argument about housing costs also has merit.
I agree, it's a huge problem This is from the Wall Street Journal today
" Anchorage Scrambles to Get Growing Homeless Population Indoors Before Winter
"Homelessness is up 60% in Alaska’s largest city, which is offering free one-way tickets to the Lower 48 states"
Collective work is never as important as making your own bed. The only way to positively affect the world is to become a saint. If you are messed up yourself you can’t even properly perceive problems correctly or detach your own corrupt desires from the intent to solve said problems. “Acquire the Holy Spirit and thousands around you will be saved“ - Saint Seraphim of Surov. There’s actually direct correlation between how much someone tries to change the world to how messed up they are inside themselves. The more messed up someone is the more they focus on trying to change other people
Very true
I'm sorry, but this is the dumbest thing I have read all day. You yourself can never change the world on your own. No matter how saintly you may be, you cannot make any meaningful change unless you work collectively. And you cannot expect to have everyone be a saint before they try to change things either, or else we would be waiting around forever and nothing would ever change. Working collectively to make a better world would make it much easier for more people to become saints.
No movements to change the world for the better was ever made up only of good, self actualized people. You set the standard far too high, and will never accomplish anything.
@@nowhereman6019 You didn't understand what I wrote. The Idea is not that you wait to become a saint and then go march on Washington lol. The Idea is that you prioritize your own change far before trying to change others. Your ability to do good only goes as far as the goodness that is in you. So being a messed up person and trying to fix the world is only going to mess up the world more. If you are an extremally sinful person, all of your attempts to help will be covered in mud, because you can't even perceive good clearly enough to do it. The holier you become, the more your presence in the world will leave a trail of Gold and drops of honey. Never start with others. The airplane always says to put on your own mask and then help other people put on there's. This is a principle we see echo'd everywhere in life. "Acquire the holy spirit and thousands around you will be saved" - St Seraphim of Sarov
There is a more brutal aspect to this macro perspective of the homeless crisis. So many people. We create food for the masses by depleting and poisoning the soil. Treating the creatures we eat with unconcerned brutality from birth to death for the sake of profits. We build more houses by cutting down more trees, killing more of the creatures we share Earth with, creatures that make the world livable. We are running out of fresh water and wild places. And now we are facing the breaking point of civilization as we destroy the climate and gear up for another world war. Yet we dare not speak of making fewer babies, our economies are based on unending growth and the need for more workers to toil and consume. That doesnt even bring up the destructive aspects of capitalism that ensure everything good will be turned to evil in order to profit from it. Or the ways those in power pit diverse groups of people against each other for self serving reasons as though we are not all humans with the same basic fundamental interests. Or the way our very nature, our evolved physiology keeps us from doing what we know intuitively are the right things because we are driven by our baser instincts and desires.....
In less abstract terms, I think the cart is being put before the horse.
This video is structured as if to ask, "How can we afford housing for the homeless?" when what I think is necessary to uproot the problem is to build and manage the houseing _first,_ and only then ask how it will be paid for.
That is to say, everyone should receive a house by default _as is their right as human beings._ If human rights mean anything it's that problems like homelessness should not exist. Anything less is a pretence.
If questiosn of human rights are to be addressed deceisivly, they must be made the priority rather than giving the leaf over to capital: the resources should be assigned to universal welfare first and the surplus rendered unto the Caeser that is the ruling class. Not the other way around with the rich getting the money first and the majority left in abject destitution.
This is a tall order, but do we resolve to change anything or not?
I recall somone saying something about omlettes and eggs. . .
Anyone who takes a cold-hearted attitude should realize that Life's caprice can make homelessness a reality for nearly anyone. All it takes is a major layoff in a tight job market, or a messy divorce, or a health issue, or a legal tangle, or a crooked financial advisor, or other twist of fate, to suddenly turn the world upside-down.
Anybody know the name of the painting at 1:24?
It's Edvard Munch's Evening on Karl Johan Street
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you!
Thomas Sowell has great books on this topic. Definitely someone people should read to understand why the housing market is getting so out of hand
Super excited for future videos this video lays the groundwork for. Can't wait!
Really great insight. Hopefully politicians are listening..
Great job, sir! Thank you for this piece of genius.
You are my favorite philosopher, thanks for your work ❤
Great insights, and the art choices were perfect!
I oppose mass literacy
I've heard, that Singapore has a different housing-system, because the state gives the right to buy a house and so it's controls the pricing. A big social-housing system.
The American capitalist, individual responsibility system guarantees homelessness.
Ur human
A Stanford professor recently came out to say, based on the weight of the evidence he's come across, it looks as though we really don't have free will.
You should do a video on this.
Wasn't his evidence super shaky and already being dismissed?
I’ll see the heat death of the universe before I see the debate on free will settled on.
Wrong
Let me guess he's a scientist?
How can we prove determinism if we can't prove our ideas of cause and effect aren't just imagined? Philosophical debates will never end. They're purely perception based.
@@alwaysgreatusa223Philosophy is very real life, it is the very essence of reality to contradict itself.
Pity is the lowest emotion
No, that would be arrogant hate.
It’s interesting, I’ve noticed my own personal philosophical trajectory has moved from an interest in individualism to a more collectivist interest, and how that mirrors the trajectory of the works of Camus and Sartre whose work started off individualist and became more focused on society as a whole. It makes me wonder why only their individualist work is talked about e.g. you always hear about The Myth of Sisyphus but never The Rebel.
Enough for whom? Who said that I owe anything to these people?
Simone Weil said that you have an obligation to those people
I think we need to start not with philosophy but biology. Humans are somewhat unique in thier biology, being highly social (weakly eusocial) but genetically individual. Our native environment is amongst other individuals who our primary competition and only security. This is the central tension in all of our political arguements; the individual must protect against the depredation of the group, and the group must guard against leeches and psychopaths who threaten its stability. Dunbar has shown how the size of our groups is limited by, and a driver of, our large brains. Culture, being the behavioral response of biology to local conditions, emerged in part to extend our sociality beyond the bounds of our cognitive abilities. This is a delicately balanced arrangement. Central narratives make possible the aggregation of supergroups at ever greater scales, able to outcompete essentially every obstacle. I begin to suspect that this scaling is a bell curve; with advantages peaking at some point before the disutilities of scale demand totalitarian narratives, which then crush the individual.
We hear frequently this false paradox of "individualism" vs "collectivism" which pits liberty against the growth of the state. This assumes that the expansion of a "welfare state" is the natural embodyment of social will, but nothing could be further from true. To quote Murray Rothbard:
A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State."
The collapse that we are experiencing is in part a controlled demolition by neoMarxians who, at least since Gramsci, have been relentlessly acquiring the means of production; not of tanks and guns, but of humans via cultural capital. Marx's injunction to "relentless criticism of all that exists" has been followed on an industrial scale, in our art, in our stories, in our schools. Along with withering criticism of genuine sins of industry has come a general dissolution of the social narratives that inculcate necessary virtues. Indeed, the very idea of virtues has been attacked and corroded, and chaos is the result. As Pageau notes, when state owned art galleries are spilling over with art that can only criticize the central narratives that built the state, the flood is immanent.
What is needed then is not a lurch toward fraught concepts like individualism or collectvism, but the rebirth or revival of virtues, which include both a cultivated respect for individuals and a cultivated willingness to serve others. But do we begin with the rubble or our sins? I say to stop the bleeding first. We must first forcefully eject the marxian intellectuals, who drape a thin veneer of compassion over monstrous envy, whose enunciated strategy for over a century has been do dissolve our narratives and sever all relationships in favor of utopian nondifferentiation, which in no way matches our biology. EO Wilson's quip so perfectly punctures collectivist notions. "Great idea, wrong species".
Ah, here we have the Austrian School economist, who, rather than engaging with 'marxian intellectuals' or those whom they disagree with, seeks instead to 'forcefully eject them' from the equation. Who, on the one hand, blame 'Marxists', 'neo-Marxists' and other vague buzzwords pertaining to a supposed unified and monolithic group (Cultural Marxism being a favourite) for the apparent 'collapse we are experiencing' whilst simultaneously seeking to uphold the current status quo and system that are in one form or another currently in place. Furthermore, a 'cultivated willingness' seems to be an oxymoron as by 'cultivating' and influencing someone to specifically 'serve' others, not only is this inherently 'anti-individualist' and a quashing of the individual itself and their 'liberties, virtues and rights' (something which a 'libertarian' with a view such as the one you have just espoused, should never want to do) but also requires an element of 'cultivation' which must be imparted by some external force. I am not sure how a 'libertarian' would enact such a 'cultivation' whilst simultaneously upholding the primacy of 'biological individualism' and all that comes with it (especially without enacting this 'cultivation' through 'the state', which you so dearly deem unnatural and superfluous to all requirements). Finally, your comment also makes 0 mention or any real contribution to the actual issue and topic of the video you are commenting under; instead, in my opinion you have moved the goalposts and begun a strange monologue about supposed 'biology' and an apparent need to 'cultivate a willingness to serve others'.
Housing shortage is a lie. Between the USA and Canada (not sure Euro or other continent stats) there is about 3 empty homes per single homeless adult. The issue is hyper inflation and foreign investment for us and leaders that refuse to cap rent… and the result is “not in my yarding” leads to tent cities erected in everyone’s backyard…
Count ur blessings
Lumping conservatives like Jordan Pererston with individualism together is perhaps one of the greatest insults to individualism that can ever be made.
Speak for yourself!
@@97alexk what, you think people like Jordan Peterson are good representations of individualism like they know what they are talking about? Oh boy lol
@@richierich8245 I don't think many reasonable people would disagree that JBP has had an great influence in western individualism regarding individual responsibility, free speech and free thinking. Perhaps you have a personal vendetta for the man? Then that is another topic. i don't think you should blindly follow anyone without also be able to criticize them, that goes for JBP too. But you gotta give the devil its due, or else you will always be a victim of it.
I generally agree with your point. But what about the fact that a person may influence how likely they are to find themselves in a homelessness situation by being inflexible to either switching to a job with lower pay/prestige when faced with a layoff, and/or moving to another area with lower homing costs? Surely there’s still a fair amount of individual responsibility that can help even in these situations…
I would still argue that this 'individual responsibility' is nevertheless highly predicated on structural issues and circumstances that are/were out of a person's control. For instance, to get a job in the UK and other countries in Europe, it is usually required to have some form of proof of address. If one were to lose their job due to an issue outside of their control (economic issue, etc.), significant barriers still exist in order to 'switch job with lower pay etc'. Furthermore, a person in the position of facing homelessness also tends to be ultimately of a lower economic class (this is a whole other argument, but still important to state); they may be willing to move to a lower-cost housing area, etc., but simply don't have the savings, capital, family support etc to put down a deposit or be able to physically move. Yes, there is and to some extent always will be some form of individual responsibility. However, I would argue it is the structural and external non-individual factors and facets that have ultimate responsibility and influence in a situation such as the one you are describing.
Seems like you're saying the homeless choose to be homeless. Jesus man, if they could avoid it, they would!
Those regulations are meant to give democracy to the people. Giving them power over their neighbourhood. But as you say people never want anything built where they live. It’s the same where I live and it is no matter what is being build. People always oppose anything new. I’m not sure a purely unregulated housing market would fix the issue though. Homes might be build but at a very low quality or not built in other to keep prices high. A few big players can buy up the land and make sure no one else builds anything cheap.
Will watch the video.
But a question begs, how did the homelessness began?
Could it be the bad descisions made by collectivists?
The rent controls (Obvious in some cases, example Chicago, San Francisco)
Or other economic descisons by collectivists that caused this mess.
Then would we then push aside individualism as a by product of a collectivist descision?
So individual is only criticised when its a product of a collectivist action and not before?
As a solution there are tries made by individuals as well but here again collectivists punish which actions. (Not allow to feed the poor in some states).
If individualism can be questioned at a micro level then can we also address the elephant in the room thats the collectivism on a macro level?
Edit: I couldnt find my comment and edit to make changes, another collectivists action that is take on a macro level not questioned?
Wow. An absolutely idiotic take! False compassion wrapped in a nonsense. "Homeless people are homeless because they don't have home as it is expensive to live in cities" If you have no clue as to what you are talking about at least read/listen someone like Michael Shellenberger who does.
Compassion is the enemy of America. Fairness is the enemy of America. Any form of basic human decency is the enemy of America. Helping people when they're in trouble is the enemy of America. Ensuring everyone gets decent healthcare is the enemy of America. Ensuring everyone gets a decent education is the enemy of America. Asking for a living wage so people can pay the rent so they won't be homeless is the enemy of America. Not viewing poverty as a moral failure is the enemy of America. God bless America.
Michael Shellenberger is a human monster. I have serious doubts he's a human at all.
That was pointless. Instead of explaining what that guy Shellenberger has to say, either by mentioning him or not, you're blabbing about the video being idiotic.
Definitely a Democrats problem, due to the many disincentives for individuals to better themselves via the welfare state.
Have you been on welfare? It's just enough money to not die and has term limits so you can be thrown off it at any time meaning you will be on the streets begging. Welfare in America is a privilege and is as cold as charity always is. It debases people and destroys their human dignity. But for people like you seem to be that is just what they deserve. A society in which only a select few are permitted to live a decent life free from fear of poverty and how to pay this week's rent or how to feed your kids is no society as far as I'm concerned. Mankind is far more bestial and heartless than any of the so-called beasts of the animal world.
As an individual I agree that housing needs to be sourced for the massive amount of homeless we have.
I am not for giving housing to people without any proof that they will work, and be off drugs, and maintain their house appropriately.