I think that the first part of any social contract is: don't do things to people against their consent. But, an ye harm none, do as ye wilt.
The greatest responsibility we each have is to see to those people we create without their consent.
That's really what it comes down to. We created these people, dragged them into existence, they never asked for that, and now we, what, just try to forget about them like the leftovers in the fridge just because we don't want to go through the trouble of owning our actions?
They didn't sign a contract "I acknowledge that I get to exist, only if I 'contribute'," they got created as someone who always was going to be the person they are. All of society is culpable for that. Thankfully, such people who refuse to contribute are few and far between.
I would as soon give them a pool of enough (substance) to drown themselves in it if they want to, and every opportunity to do something different with their lives, to help people find something that brings them joy in their continued existence... But some people will choose to drown themselves, and to me that's OK.
To me, the social contract starts at... Not strong-arming people into "social contracts" that lock them into a lifetime of work in a system they never asked to be forced into, generally at the bottom of a hierarchy they never got a choice of their starting point in, or filling all the world with the paradigm of "white picket fence society" and never creating or tolerating or enabling a space for a different structure of "social contract" in the first place.
And beyond that, it goes to the "prestige" of a society to put on display that their society produces few such people, and supports them well when they do. It says "look at how prosperous we are, how educated we are, how functional our social contract is that everyone wants to fulfill its terms happily and free of existential fear."
I want to live and contribute to a society like that! When faced with the society I have, though, I just find myself instead wanting to change the social contract as much as I can!
Frankly my biggest complaint is that in the expectation that I fulfill some social contract, it gets lost in the fine print that someone born to a higher station than me gets to own everything I create, and that I'll never really be the owner of anything I make or do*.
Why should anyone be expected to do anything for a society where they are merely the functionary to someone else's wealth? Where is the point of such a social order?
Still, we need to build those ladders out and up, and make spaces for those who will not climb them, and it starts with recognizing that
the current social contract kinda sucks.
The problem with public housing has never been about the concentration of residents; it has always been about poor execution. Issues like chronic underfunding, safety concerns, social stigma, limited availability, gentrification, and inadequate support services are the real challenges. The facility I envision is designed specifically to address these shortcomings and provide a sustainable, supportive environment for residents.
Another issue can, unfortunately, be things like parasite mitigation issues. Certain environments would be very difficult if, say, bedbugs came to town, and it's a problem more likely attached to the stuff of a rough sleeper.
Something would need to happen that mitigates the spread of things like bedbugs in the community, too.
Bedbugs are an important case to consider because we already know they can cause cognitive and generalized mental health issues. People with bedbug bites can end up losing time, for instance, and have brain fog, exacerbating the issues already faced within the community. For all we know, this may represent a fairly big portion of the reason why people end up
chronically homeless, especially when they live in a camp.
Strategies to mitigate the spread of pathogenic elements in the communities we create need to be considered at the fore rather than as a secondary concern.
Most of the subsidized housing around here is in actually quite nice areas outside the city limits in the more affluent suburbs. If you see an apartment complex or building with the little house symbol
View attachment 47140
Kinda like this, it's a subsidized complex. The phrase on the bottom is never included and the equal sign isn't included sometimes, just the house symbol.
And from what I've heard from relatives the management of these places are quite strict about making residents follow the rules. Getting busted for lawbreaking elsewhere can also threaten your subsidized housing access.
You might be surprised about the subsidized housing in your area.
I'm familiar with this. I lived in an apartment complex with subsidized housing before my divorce from my first spouse. That's actually where I came to understand the special threat bugs pose to a medium density living situation.
My birth mother is in fact in subsidized housing, as well.
I'm more talking about the sorts of places that my birth mother was living BEFORE she got on the anti-schitz* meds, though bugs are still a problem even in normal medium density housing.
*Somehow, probably not actually true for me in particular... But until the last few years, this was my existence and I'm not going to forget my experience of it just because I lucked out and ended up in a position to share an inheritance.
