Quote:
Originally Posted by rofina
The central ask of Shellenberger, and folks like myself is; the relationship needs to be reciprocal. There are boundaries to both empathy and generosity. I think progressive models need to take these constrains more seriously as pivotal points in determination of approach, on an individual to individual basis.
|
I agree with Shellenberger that there are plenty of "progressives" who advocate for a hands-off approach that propagates victimhood. This does not encourage people to get help or improve their station in life, because victims suffer from external forces and not because of personal decisions. That is not helpful.
What I disagree with is in the headline: "Progressives ruin cities".
What many progressives advocate for, such as funds re-distributed from corrections to mental health services, a housing-first approach, and decriminalization plus a safe supply has not been implemented. Instead, Vancouver has proceeded with decriminalization and the safe supply, has not invested enough in mental health services, and crowded shelters are still the main housing option. This comes back to the ability of governments to actually implement radical changes. Too often we have a piece-meal approach that does not give alternatives a fair shake.
The headline paints all progressives with a broad brush. That would be like putting all conservatives in the anti-vax, pro-life, gun rights bucket, even though "conservative" covers a broad range of people with wide variations in religion, gender, vocation, etc.
The social contract is a great arrangement if people have the ability to fulfill their part, but when conservatives (which I assume are the opposite of progressives?) propose solutions to homelessness and mental health and addition, it often includes increased punishments for crimes that are a call for help. Incarceration has been proven to make most "criminals" far worse offenders. So you either incarcerate people forever, or you must try a different model for rehabilitation.
Threaded Mode