That is all fine, but I don't agree with the philosophy of selfishness. Not only do I not agree with it, but I will also never concede that one person's rights are greater than another person's rights because of their circumstances. This isn't something new to me. I have always tried to see things from as many points of view as I can imagine so that I don't make the same mistake most people make, which is believing their perspective is the only point of view that matters.
Such is the case with someone who has been a dear friend for decades. He has been ill and part of his healing regimen is to go to a gym, but the gym he goes to is in an area where homeless people congregate. Understandably, he is worried about his safety and whether they will mess with his transportation while he is working out. I felt his pain and worry, but I was surprised that we disagreed on a premise to resolve the problem.
To me, the premise of eliminating homeless people from society is that we eliminate homelessness and not eliminate people. Apparently, though, he meant eliminating homeless people was the solution he wanted. Now, I don't want to be a killjoy for those who want to kill people who inconvenience them, but it will never be legal to do so. Even if a law were passed to make it legal, the law would be unconstitutional.
My thoughts are that we should build communities of tiny homes and allow people to move in without the conditions of three-month terms and the requirement to find work. I think the reason so many homeless people reject the offers for temporary housing is because they do not believe they can meet the terms to which they must commit. It seems that they see static existence as superior to taking one step forward and two steps back when they will be homeless again without what they currently have. Certainly, there will be many who cannot live that way without causing problems, but we can weed them out and try something different with them.
Thence began the projection.
The first projection was that I think I am so smart. I am smart enough to know that it will never be legal to kill people because they are homeless. It is him who thinks he is smart if he thinks it ever will be.
The second projection was to demand that I personally house homeless people if I don't want to eliminate the people. However, he won't accept the same challenge in return. His plan is already as legal as it ever will be. If he believes in it, then he should execute his plan rather than to push for the government to hire people to do his will upon other people. What it boils down to is that we both want the government to execute our plans. The difference is that my plan isn't unconstitutional.
The third projection was that he has taken in people in the past. That means to him that he has done his part and I haven't done my part. I raised two children who weren't mine in addition to raising both of my children. I have allowed several friends to stay with me during their hard times. We both have histories, and mine includes helping people avoid homelessness, too.
The fourth projection was that I was only saying what I was saying to make him feel bad about himself. I was content with leaving the discussion at agreeing to disagree, dropping the topic altogether, and going to the garage to smoke some pot. If he requires my agreement to the premise in order to feel good about himself, then he is the one with the self-esteem issue. I don't want him to feel bad about himself, but I am not going to agree that it is okay to kill people who inconvenience him in order to stroke his ego.
It wasn't difficult to notice the pattern that I have seen before from other people with whom I have lost relationships. He called me "liberal," which means that he sees himself as conservative or else "liberal" would not be an insult. If he had called me "conservative," I would have known that he had a liberal bias.
He could not accept that we agreed that homeless people are a problem, but he is not concerned about society's problem. He is concerned about maintaining his lifestyle without interference from things like how time changes things. Society's problem is not his problem according to him.
He has no problem telling me that he doesn't care about the world for my grandchildren because he doesn't have any of his own and doesn't think he ever will have any. He has a huge problem with me telling him that is really selfish, and that I do concern myself with the world we are leaving for my grandchildren.
I wish my longtime friend did not have to deal with homeless people. I wish he weren't in physical pain. I wish he were healthy. I understand that he is angry about his situation. However, none of those things alter the premise that the only reasonable discussion about eliminating homeless people has to be about eliminating homelessness and not eliminating people.
He made my acceptance of his philosophy of selfishness as a condition to be popular with him. With that factor in the equation, it means that I lost a friend over a premise.
* * * * *
Other articles in which I address homelessness:
No comments:
Post a Comment