megahertz

I see I was looking at the conversation from a wider perspective and likely misunderstood the context added by the image. I don’t disagree with your comment “abolishing ‘x’ ends ‘x’”. However, abolishing any given inequity, one at a time, in one area at a time is not the progress I was speaking of when I asked how to change social structure. Before we can abolish anything, we need people who believe it should be abolished, and we need enough of them to institute change. My question was directed more toward the earlier steps: identifying necessary change and then creating/maintaining a movement which can enact that change.

If we keep finding ourselves in another iteration of the problem, did it really work? There has to be a more permanent solution.

While I feel like I might understand some of the impulse to restrict resources as a way to ensure all members contribute to society, we can see that this isn’t actually the outcome of such restrictions; this tells me that the motivation isn’t about improving society but rather improving the standing of a select few. It is all about power and control. How do we change the social structure at this point?

The concept of suitable housing as a right is too uncommon. I wish the US government would put more focus on tangible needs like housing, access to healthy food, and healthcare.