What should be done with the chronic underclass?

[Agrippa]

How does one define "underclass"?

The current socio-economic system is sick to the ground, our cultural development and mentality a problem, so before we dont have a healthy society in which the chances for personal development being changed to the better, I'm very careful if its about people which dont have a good education or bad financial status.

I prefer to call the people which are a real problem "antisocial" in the German sense of "asozial". This are people which are not just poor, but usually have many other personal defects, are unable to raise their children in a decent way, even with significant help from the state and its social organisations etc. So essentially people unfit to qualify for the minimum standards of a given society, oftentimes not just a burden, but also a threat to the more valuable group members.

As for those, I can't vote for one of the thread starters options, as it depends on the individual case. There is no general rule which is true for all of them. F.a. in some cases the parents and children have the same biological defects or acquired social defects, in others just the parents have, the children not or vice versa. In some cases its a combination of many factors, of which some are reversible to a certain degree in good social-psychological programs, others aren't.

I know how the situation is in the social sector in general and urban areas in particular, there are many such problem cases which just reproduce "burden & threat" so to say, but again, its hard to generalise and its not about the socio-economic status alone, because there are very poor, but also very healthy families, often with many children, too.

Usually you can measure their quality by the children making the minimal graduations at least, because the good parents care for their children with normal abilities and at least their minimal education, try to support them etc. But of course in a "bad neighbourhood", the good ones - by their basic qualities, genetic and from the way they being raised - might be negatively influenced by the bad, which has to be considered.

So basically, it all depends on the individual case. The question of the thread starter is somewhat to generalised and the options too. The best solution is usually a flexible one, which adapts to the real situation as qualified persons assess it.

[Ariets]

obviously give them lots of money and benefits, and I mean LOTS. lol

[Birka]

As for the unhealthy capitalistic system, I fully agree with you there. It needs to be gone.

Without capitalism, do you think there would be an internet? It would be owned by the state you live in, and would be unrecognizable to what it is now.
Without the advertising (which is capitalism) that funds most of the internet , it would be a state run institution.

I guess some socialists would like that.

[Loki]

Without capitalism, do you think there would be an internet? It would be owned by the state you live in, and would be unrecognizable to what it is now.
Without the advertising (which is capitalism) that funds most of the internet , it would be a state run institution.

I guess some socialists would like that.

That is debatable. If Communists could put the first man in space, then I assume intellectual and technological advances are not limited to capitalism.

[Birka]

That is debatable. If Communists could put the first man in space, then I assume intellectual and technological advances are not limited to capitalism.

Was that man a free man? Could he have left the USSR when he came back, like any other free person could have? Don't confuse technological advances with liberty and freedom of expression, which is available on the internet today. Those would be lost with state run internet.

[Eldritch]

I am going to start a shitstorm if I say that the internet is in essence an anarchic phenomenon?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Birka
Was that man a free man?

Probably less free than under supposed “free market” capitalism but freedom is always a relative term anyway. In the West most of us are slaves to business interests i.e. capitalism, it has less profile than the more overt heavy hand of the state but it’s presence is arguably as great. In the UK we’re going for the best of both worlds Tony Blair’s so called “third way”.

Of course bottom line is, whether it’s rule by the state or by the market, it’s rule by the wealthy and powerful few over the many. State, market, market-state, state-market…..quite interchangeable really when you get right down to it…

I quite like the idea of distributionism….

[Bard]

I've voted mandatory sterilization, please don't think that I'm a sicko but supporting them with money or benefits or even doing nothing will just allow them to reproduce and spread more.

[Cato]

"Nothing" for me, but with the condition that they lose access to the gravy train. Then nature and society will do the rest of the work.

Or, just throw them all into labor camps.

[Smaland]

The US has a capitalist economy, in the sense that the economy is at the service of the Fortune 500. But we haven't had a free-market economy for decades, since at least the Great Depression.