Likewise if we're going with amorphisms : then any society's values are reflected on the macro level by it's governmental policies, either federal, state and local.
To some degree, yes. With each there are varying degrees of filters those values necessarily end up passing through.
How many filters do those values have to pass through at the federal level? At the State level? Local? What about the interpersonal level? It's not intuitive to think that the more averaging out over a larger and larger scales doesn't have a significant (and most probable detrimental) impact on just how representative the sausage is that comes out the other side of the process ends up being.
You can forge a community between members that interact and assist because of their desire to do so. It's less evident how programs and even institutional charities do that.
Bragging rights goes to Western European countries that with their "cultural" background and governmental policies which gives them a much lower homelessness rate (e.g. the United States has about 3.5 million, Western Europe counts 6,500).
Bragging rights and rankings are only for those who see this as some kind of competition. Several of those countries, however, are about on average the scale of a number of our own States. Yet I am continually told that the State institutions are too small or somehow otherwise deficient in the ability to do likewise (still lacking in all of those, however, is any concrete reasons why that is necessarily so). I'm told the only way to go is to centralize.
I'm not arguing against the safety net. I'm saying it's not going to solve problems which have their roots elsewhere, in the culture. Putting the emphasis on programs as solutions is missing the point of what any program should aim to do.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
"Clearly, the penguins have finally gone too far. First they take our hearts, now they’re tanking the global economy one smug waddle at a time. Expect fish sanctions by Friday."
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/14 01:41 (UTC)To some degree, yes. With each there are varying degrees of filters those values necessarily end up passing through.
How many filters do those values have to pass through at the federal level? At the State level? Local? What about the interpersonal level? It's not intuitive to think that the more averaging out over a larger and larger scales doesn't have a significant (and most probable detrimental) impact on just how representative the sausage is that comes out the other side of the process ends up being.
You can forge a community between members that interact and assist because of their desire to do so. It's less evident how programs and even institutional charities do that.
Bragging rights goes to Western European countries that with their "cultural" background and governmental policies which gives them a much lower homelessness rate (e.g. the United States has about 3.5 million, Western Europe counts 6,500).
Bragging rights and rankings are only for those who see this as some kind of competition. Several of those countries, however, are about on average the scale of a number of our own States. Yet I am continually told that the State institutions are too small or somehow otherwise deficient in the ability to do likewise (still lacking in all of those, however, is any concrete reasons why that is necessarily so). I'm told the only way to go is to centralize.
I'm not arguing against the safety net. I'm saying it's not going to solve problems which have their roots elsewhere, in the culture. Putting the emphasis on programs as solutions is missing the point of what any program should aim to do.