"What is more responsible for the rise in the number of homeless people?"
"Government policies?"
"Economic conditions?"
"Poor mental healthcare?"
"Individual failures?"
Hmmm,...that is a very good quaerite.
Thank you Nebulous.
i hereby attempt to present a series of informal (*variably opinionated) arguments which will initially seek to show that all four presented "
responsibility" potentials are actually symptoms of that which is Truly (*willfully derelict) with regard of such neglected responsibilities and for the manifestation & thusly proliferation of "
homeless people".
•"
Homeless people", are simply individuals like any other, are they not?—and thus inherently responsible for an individual's-self(*whether dutifully assuming so, or naively surrendering one's sovereignty unto perceived external "
authority", and/or just being bloody lazy by disregarding duties of self-hood, or combination thereof)—and yet irrespective of such, the reality for all individuals is obviously also that external factors-whether positive or negative influences—(although often indirectly)—are a fundamentally inescapable aspect incumbent upon one's very existence as an individuated being amongst a multiplicity of other distinctly individuated beings.
•"
Poor mental healthcare", i currently think is what i'd generally equate with the overall preeminent world-wide institutional establishment[/s] exerting (assumed) "
authority" over all matters pertaining to "
mental"–"
health"–"
care".
[Of course therefore the burden of responsibility (& accountability) is thusly incumbent upon such "
authority"]
An inescapable problem with this form of an "
authority" arises due to it's foundational actuality being premised upon (veiled) falsehoods buried within the
corporate control hierarchical system of which(via various methods) intentionally enable deceptively virtue signaled practices that are primarily self-serving and greatly distort perceptivity for the actual real-world reality being that of significantly detrimental consequences for individuals "
mental" wellbeing—while simultaneously enabling calculated disregard of any accountabilities for which, again, are incumbent thereupon—and instead (falsely) project derelict accountabilities upon various other convenient entities, occurrences, situations, circumstances,...and most abhorrent of all—is the fact this often dumps the accountability dereliction wholly upon(&/or utilize such for manipulation of) those for whom the "
authority" pretends to exist for the service thereof—ie; individuals afflicted by "
mental" challenges.
•"
Economic conditions",...
...imo, obviously can lead to societal detriment including proliferation of "
homeless people",... however i think we ought not presume to equate "
economic conditions" as a thing in and of it-self, but rather as an artificial composite construct with an existence solely dependant upon the consistent input by human collectives.
Furthermore, as the accepted definitions for the term - '
conditions' variably imply, thusly "
economic conditions" at any given moment would therefore be an artificial construct existing in whatever current state directly correlated to the state of human collective input—however(& irrespective of, say; natural disasters, etc)-as is the case regarding "
mental healthcare", so to is this composite "
economic" construct premised upon assumed (collective)
corporate "
managerial" "
authorities".....
.....
.....
.....
...which brings us to "
Government policies".
What is "
government"?
Is it a thing existing in an of it-self?
Isn't the concept of "
government" not unlike the concept of "
economy"?
Ever noticed, generally, most people refer to "
government" as if to be an ever-present—unchanging entity?
Almost as if implying to believe a fundamental consistency of a "
thing" regardless of the reality being that various ideologically inconsistent "
political" entities alternate assumption of managerial administration responsibilities of the "
thing".
Are we not led to believe that the various nation's "
Government's" are "
sovereign"-"
authorities" incumbent with responsibilities for maintenance of a nation's "
economic conditions", "
mental healthcare" state and the overall societal state-including efficaciousness regarding developmental provisions ("
education") for each of a national bodies individual members?
But does this correlate with the reality we bare witness?
Or should we simply tolerate the glaring incongruities consistently demonstrated by every consecutive "
political" entity we supposedly "
elect" into the role of "
governmental" responsibilities?
In summary; i have, above(& lazily so) not sought to present arguments for which of the four options were potentially more [ir]responsible for the perceived "...rise in
homeless people"—but rather to allude to the actual (& more often seemingly entirely disregarded) causality.
The major challenge here, is that we've all been exposed to-and thereby imposed upon-during early developmental stages by fundamentally corrupted "
entities"(*masquerading as "
educational"-"
institutions") which—unfortunately—were usurped at inception and thereafter designed specifically to function as a means of "
programming" the multitudes of individuals so to develop core ignorances of particular aspects of reality—especially pertaining to the causality of which i allude and will hereby state;
*The ambiguous concept we generally refer to as "
Corporations"
Did you know that a "
Governments" (*so to, each of our "
official"-"
identifications"-aka; "
legal fictions") are actually "
corporations"—and most definitely not at all-infact entirely the opposite to what we're led to believe.
A certain ambiguous publicly concealed empire "
own" all the predominant international "
corporations"-which "
own" lesser "
corporations"–(*eg; "
governments")—and this may come as a surprise for most, the fact is that "
governments" "
own"(*via "
trusts") each and every individual "
citizen" via the "
Birth"('
berth')-"
Registration" '
Contract'.
[What is a "
birth"-"
certificate"?]-[
In simple(*common English) terms it is merely a '
receipt' of a transaction we are deliberately -often aggressively - kept wholly ignorant of, and this is infact one of many '
legally' "
granted" permissions defined in the terms of these secret "
Contracts" .]
We are "
legally" defined with a variety of terms, such as; "
chattel", "
persons" and etc.
Don't take my word,...
...Google them.
Cheers
