Yes, it's a very correct observation that a well functioning society should also provide universal healthcare (including mental health), a social safety net that limits homelessness to the fullest extent possible, decriminalization and free safe treatment for hard drug addicts, and urban planning that encourages lively neighbourhoods around schools where there are always responsible adults close by.

The fact that you think this is a strong counter-argument is a bit telling.

War is different from the other things here, because it's not something a nationstate can unilaterally solve. But I don't think anyone disagrees that well-developed societies should strive to implement mechanisms that avoid war.

But hunger, universal healthcare, reduction of homelessness to a minimum and adequate social safety nets are all universally agreed-on goals for developed societies. And if you look outside the US you will find 50+ countries that are actually achieving these things. You may take the Wikipedia list of countries with universal healthcare as a starting point.

We could "solve hunger" in USA with just the money we're wasting prolonging the suffering in Ukraine. Not spending lots of money to fill troubled areas with deadly weapons (see also Haiti, Ethiopia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, etc.) might not solve war but would certainly reduce it.

We don't do rational and good things, because 95% of Americans have no effect on what our nation actually does. Our system is a simulation of democratic rule, where we make a great show of occasionally choosing between Coke and Pepsi. Meanwhile all laws are written by lobbyists. They also appoint all bureaucrats, which explains why we performed more poorly against covid than every other nation, except Peru, Brazil, and a few eastern European nations... while spending twice as much on health care as every other nation. Gosh I wonder where Pfizer is spending their windfall profits?

You'll know that things are about to change when the billionaires begin dying violently. So, not soon.

In a perfect world yes. Unfortunately we can't pick up our schools and move them if it turns out to be a poor location.

That's a very defeatist attitude. It's not about relocating schools. Public policy needs to change to reduce urban sprawl, stop producing homeless and criminals, and improve public transportation and livability to the point where walking to school is normal.

I don’t consider it defeatist at all. Yeah we can do all those things, but we’re not going to do it tomorrow or do it right every time.

I'm not saying you should move the schools away from the homeless people, or vice versa. I'm saying you should dramatically reduce the number of homeless people by providing them with a social safety net, and for those addicted to drugs to provide them with free treatment so they no longer have to resort to crime.

It's actually cheaper for society to treat the disease of drug addiction in a humane way, than to fight the crime that results when drug addiction is criminalized.

You can build new ones. Why always all this fatalism from US people when improvements are discussed? Richest country on Earth, nothing can be done about problems.

That’s quite the reduction of my statement.

If there are pedestrians and cyclists around - which is indeed the case when children come to school or go back home - then nobody gets mugged, even if there are some junkies or homeless people also in the same neighborhood. First, because junkies and homeless people are not automatically violent (and the Netherlands has a lot less violent crime than the US); second, because there are too many witnesses; and third, because unless they're cycling, they're not on the bicycle path anyway.

This almost never happens in the Netherlands. Also the routes to and from schools are so safe because they all take that route. Worst thing that can happen is hitting someone else with your bike.