There is no excuse for a modern civilization to not ensure that everyone has basic human needs met. Sure, we can argue some details like, "Is Netflix really a basic human need?"... joking aside, we as humans should endeavor to ensure that all people have their Maslow pyramid filled in.
It is not clear at all to me that it would be objectively good or bad, but some people appear to have picked the other side because they think we'd lose a lot of our nice things.
I’ve always felt that’s a very reductive view of humanity. Boiling us down to simple automatons that only seek to eat and reproduce, nothing more. I would hope the vibrancy of human civilisation would be enough to show that isn’t true.
Unfortunately people that seem to have little faith in humanity, alway believe that they, and their peers, are special and that the rest of humanity is a lost cause. That always makes me a little sad.
For example, some people might learn to play one or more instruments; others might become gardeners; others painters, tinkerers, makers, hackers (as in builders), cooks, and so on. I don't believe most people would just sit on their asses and do nothing. Some people really enjoy business and trade, and they would probably just work on creating some kind of business that they enjoyed (like procuring and selling high quality lamps!... and eventually designing their own).
We know that people tend to work harder at something they care about. So if we all got to work on things we cared about instead of what was available or what paid (or paid best), it's fathomable that society might have a higher and higher quality output.
It's impossible to know since we can't really test it, but I like to imagine that scenario.
The solution is not to pour more money into ensuring their needs are met but to examine why they are not able to sustain themselves. Maybe they have no skills because they dropped out of high school. Maybe they are in and out of prison and can't find a job so they keep turning back to illegal activities to make money. Maybe they are truly have a physical disability and cannot help themselves.
But there are a LOT of people that would benefit from being paid to work and learn some new skills (even if it's janitorial work at government facilities or indexing/archiving work at museums, etc.) vs. a check in the mail. Of course, a check in the mail is much easier to implement than evaluating an individual's circumstances and helping build them up in a way that will make them more self-reliant in the future.
It’s perfectly fair we say that we should provide everyone with their basic needs as a safety net that prevents people from starving. Then building on top of that to give people the support they need to better themselves and reduce the need to rely on outside support.
Sure some people will abuse the system. But condemning the majority just to punish the minority feels a little petty.
Forget it
My problem isn't that I am against people getting free food and shelter I am opposed to being forced into charity at the point of gun by the state, and my liberties being eroded by moral busiebodies that fail to understand the very things that led us have a society that even has the capability of eliminating hunger are the very things they are trying to destroy.
Every advancement, every push for "just a little bit more welfare", or "think of the children" has behind it the unspoken assumption that the government can do a better job with my means to help people than I could. This same government with a 13% approval rating and that is universally despised in most everything they try and do.
Every inch of additional power that the government gets is an advancement that is set in stone and can only be rewound with great effort.
So please don't paint me as an amoral monster, I do care, but I also recognize that sometimes emotionally driven responses that are executed without much thought and planning, like California banning plastic bags, can cause a lot more harm than good, especially in the long run.
Because there are many in and out of government that don't want the government to do its job, so that they can point at ineffective government and say "look, a private company [like mine wink wink nudge nudge] could do so much better than that."
Have you noticed that it is only American government (outside of dictatorships) that is highly despised by most of its citizens? Where is this anger from European, Canadian, Asian, South American citizens towards their governments? Could it be that those countries have a functional government that, despite failing in some areas, overall exceeds in providing basic necessities (i.e. healthcare) to its populace?
The idea that government will always fail is itself an unspoken assumption you are making. It doesn't have to be that way. We could have an efficient government if we wanted - the first step is to believe it's possible, like it has been possible in 100+ other countries.
As for your response that only the American government is highly despised by it is citizens I have to disagree with that, in fact the one universal feature I've found across all internet commentators, admittedly not a scientific survey, is that they all complain about their government, UK, Brazilians, Indians, in fact it often seems that the Chinese and the Russians are the people who love their government the most.
Beyond the internet you can also check out the riots and protests France had last year, generally not an example of people pleased with their government.
Ultimately however my argument against such was focused on a matter of principle and philosophy; however I am a pragmatic person and recognize I live in a real world and that compromise and discussion need to be had, I am cautioning against the simplistic thinking that "hey lets start doing x, y, or z to solve problem A, anyone who disagrees is a monster that hates people."
That kind of thinking leads to divisiveness, the Reds vs the Greens, shuts down discussion and leads to scorched earth tribalism.
Which that was what I was originally responding to, is the idea that because I have reservations around the idea of "just give everyone a house, food and healthcare" I am a miserly scrooge mcduck that hates poor people.
And if we do believe you are an amoral monster, which I do not, what does that say about what we believe about people worse than you?
If you are near our best, which you probably are, how else can we hope to help people than by leveraging government? It should be quite clear to everyone that personal donations do not even come close to covering need.
I was illustrating the idea that just because something sounds like a simple and easy idea there is often a lot of nuance and complexity and that is involved that isn't being considered.
In general I'd say the more simplistic an issue appears to be, the more obvious the solution and the more villainous the other side seems, the less of a grasp an individual actually has on really understanding an issue.
So, is there a solution in there that doesn't leverage government, or are we going to continue to complain about the baldly positive sides of government because "government bad, situation too complex"?
I very much agree, we don't have a complex understanding of the issue here, so maybe we should stop attacking it.
Do you really think everybody hates NASA? The National Park system, or your local/state parks)? Libraries and Museums? Weather and tide forecasts (which depend heavily on NOAA)? The NSF and NIH are world-renowned for the scope and quality of research they support. Food, drugs, cars, highways, and airplanes are all relatively safe.
Most of the government stuff is effective enough that people don't even think about it. The big tragedy of the current administration is that it's injected political chaos that characterizes some hot-button issues into the rest.