Blogs by cribbooky

I must admit that the blog title smells a bit liberalish, but I'm not selling that here. My blogs usually try to focus on the two root causes of our nation's troubles, but today I will yap a bit about some symptoms and band aids. I could not find a way to make this one funny. Sorry.

Have you ever given serious thought about the unconditional charity provided by the US government? Why are there so few restrictions on it? Think about this. Government dependents get (fully or assisted) shelter, food, education, medical care, legal assistance, and other perks with almost no strings attached. They are given choices about where and how they live even though they do not work (sometimes never) nor have the money to pay for it.

In nature, if a person does not do what is necessary to survive, they would soon dehydrate, starve, get eaten, freeze to death or succumb to some other form of demise delivered by Mother Nature. We can all agree that our harsh world naturally imposes conditions for survival. If you provide a young animal with a domesticated lifestyle and then turn it into the wild, it usually doesn't survive because it hasn't developed the skills needed for independent living. That is the situation of many US citizens today. Do I think that our needy citizens should be forced to survive without aid? Absolutely not! Should this aid be provided with virtually no sacrifice? Absolutely not!

There are MILLIONS of government dependents and caring for them all takes its toll. The lifestyle has become so popular that this dependent population is swelling, and the masses are sneaking over our borders to enjoy the free rides. Unfortunately, the government dependent communities that form are basically slums that are rife with bums, drug addicts, dealers, pimps, prostitutes, alcoholics, vandals, thieves, gangs and other dangers.

These slums develop this way because there are large communities of people with nothing better to do who live as free as birds, while being given their survival necessities with minimal conditions. The kids are mostly undisciplined, and they attend schools that are largely ineffective because of all of the distractions and the absence of proper role models, values and motivation. Why does someone need education and values when their society does not require, reward or encourage them? Their society rewards street skills.

Like everywhere else, the definition of success in a slum is largely perceived as having money and property. Luxuries, attractions and comforts require it. However, the opportunities to acquire money and property in slums are quite limited from the lack of jobs and businesses (who wants to risk running a business in a dangerous slum?). Therefore, to be successful or address boredom, slum dwellers are mostly limited to crime as a means to improve their status. The culture actually admires effective criminals with street cred and holds them in high regard. People with jobs are considered uncool because they give into the man. Boring jobs are not necessary to survival in slums so working is a fairly unattractive option. Why work when you can survive indefinitely just hanging out and being cool? In that regard, it is an attractive lifestyle. Government programs handle their needs, while crime provides their wants.

Why does a strong and wealthy nation like the USA tolerate slums? Slums are dangerous places, and they do not belong here. Some slum areas are so bad that the police will not travel there in small numbers. Violence and property crimes are much higher in slums than the rest of the country, but the slums are tolerated and largely unregulated because they serve the purpose of providing a population of purchased voters. This reality is the reason that the government would rather provide 70,000 pamphlets that explain how to use heroin safely than stop the heroin addictions.

If conditions were attached on excess government provided perks, the number of people willing to receive them would become minimal. This would effectively reduce or eliminate the voting population that elects leaders whom can do whatever they wish as long as they keep the government perks flowing without conditions. That practice transfers power to the government at the expense of creating slums such that it is not really a government of the people today. It is legalized vote purchasing. It is the reason that our elected officials can and have ignored the will of the taxpayers with ever increasing freedom and boldness. Has anyone noticed this?

The government is very selective about when it permits or restricts liberties. If one wishes to travel, they must meet rigid security restrictions that often involve major invasions of privacy. If you want to fly, they get to fondle the underwear in your luggage. Remove your shoes and belt, please. They can justify these intrusive demands for the sake of public safety. Many government jobs and projects require one to pass a drug test and/or an invasive background check. Dress codes, conduct constraints and metal detectors are conditions for entering government buildings. There are many examples of compromises that must be made in order to enjoy benefits from the government. It is natural that benefits include conditions in our civilized world as in nature, but we have perverted that balance.

In regard for fairness, norms and common sense, the US government must impose conditions on government provided benefits. People would not be forced to accept those benefits. However, if they want them, they should be required to meet some conditions. This is not unreasonable and it prevents the beneficiaries from taking advantage of its true providers, the taxpayers.

People that want free housing should be required to live in martial law communities. Don't let the sound of "martial law communities" cause you to panic. It happens to be the same community environment in which most of the members of our military live voluntarily. Bases tend to be clean, orderly and have much lower crime rates than slums. The main difference between civilian martial law communities and bases would be the absence/presence of military weapons (of course), equipment (like radars), and specialized buildings (hangers, bunkers, etc). These communities would serve multiple purposes beyond providing shelter and saving these citizens from the perils of the natural world. A structured environment would prevent the vandalism, street violence and other realities of slums that threaten safety and health. Murders, assaults, prostitution, muggings, burglaries, robberies, thefts and vandalism are concentrated in slum areas. These could be virtually eliminated in government communities under martial law.

The government claims that safety is a reason to justify many of its impositions, restrictions and laws. Slums create and impose numerous, serious threats to public safety and health. The statistics are there. Extreme measures are required for extreme problems. Is the safety of air travelers more important than the safety of citizens who live in slums and their surrounding communities? The air travelers are safe after the flight to go home, but the slums threaten safety twenty four hours every day, year after year for the ones who call it home.

These communities would not be as fun to inhabit as slums because there would be curfews and no tolerance for wild parties, gangs, substance abuse, or crimes. Regular dorm inspections would be performed (for maintenance and to detect damage), and drug and alcohol tests would be required of the tenants. The communities would serve the purpose of providing a safe environment that motivates personal development by offering opportunities that prepare individuals to seek independence, but there would be no free rides.

Community service would be required to maintain the upkeep and order of the community and possibly even benefit the surrounding communities. For tenants with paying jobs, they would be required to pay rent and adhere the restrictions and requirements of the community until they were ready to leave and live independently "in the wild". Government communities could provide safe, stable environments where children are safe, and education and occupational training could actually be effective. A company is much more likely to hire and benefit from a person with education and training from a stable community than someone lacking discipline with only street survival skills. This gives those people a chance. Some people may choose to stay in the communities indefinitely, but they must obey its rules and conditions while living there.

Free housing would not be available to people that choose not to live in the government communities. Housing assistance and food stamps would not be provided unless the person receiving it had a job, provided community service in proportion to the assistance amount and agreed to substance abuse screening. Welfare checks become unnecessary with the existence of government communities since all of the basic needs would be available there for someone that cannot survive on their own.

As slum dwellers move to the communities, the slums will shrink such that fighting crime is a winnable battle again. Crime prevention is better than criminal investigation. The slum areas will transition to become safe, healthy developing communities. The former slum properties can be sold off to the developers of healthy communities, ridding the government (taxpayers) of this burden.

People living in the community will be motivated by its limited comforts to become the independent citizens that our forefathers intended. On their journey to independence, they will have their basic needs with safety and stability in their lives. Government programs that taxpayers support are meant to assist people that could perish without help, not to provide a support system for doing whatever the hell they please.

Why is it okay that a child that requires foster care is required to live where the government decides, but an adult that requires foster care can choose where and how they live? Neither is expected to survive on their own, but only a child has conditions imposed on them. I am guessing that if kids could vote, they would be allowed to live the dangerous life in the slums as well.

Some leaders in government will stand on their chairs to denounce this approach as stealing the liberties of the slum citizens because those leaders want to retain their purchased voters. For many, their political careers and power completely depend on it. If safety is not truly important then please stop fondling my underwear at the airport, abolish the speed limits, quit forcing us to wear seat belts, and get rid of all of those regulator departments that protect us from ourselves. It is a double standard that the deadly dangers in our slums are being ignored to achieve the real agenda, with its justification for an ever increasing number of police, while the mainstream citizens are burdened with the costs and hazards of the game. The slums are growing in number and size. What will happen when the taxpayers can no longer feed and shelter them?

Be nice.