>Leo very probably wouldn't have gotten close to $10,000 had there been no coverage of his story.
In the article, Patrick claims he didn't want media attention. Who knows how well the app would have performed without it. Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention. Maybe that would have worked out better. Generally, media attention makes sensitive things of this nature worse, not better.
>As for society, we get to have this conversation
What conversation exactly? Are the people who are watching the Today show talking about mental healthcare? It seems like this is the cheap "make easy money now, even a homeless person can do it" narrative, except with an undercurrent of "hard work fixes all!" Apparently, it doesn't.
>That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story.
I don't think so. I think the story is so focused on the money, but not the well-being or core issues Leo faces, most of which look like mental illness to me.
>then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care?
Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account. The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable. The guy clearly has problems. The question that's obvious and should be asked for by a compassionate society is why can't Leo get the care he needs? The money, fame, attention, etc are all secondary. Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
> Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention.
That's a stretch. He probably wouldn't have broken a thousand.
> What conversation exactly?
The conversation you and I are having, right now. Multiply that by all the people who have followed this story.
> most of which look like mental illness to me.
You want to make Leo the poster boy for mental illness?
> Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account.
They DID ask that question. That you didn't like the answer they got doesn't mean they were being neglectful.
> Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.
Money he never would have had in the first place without the free advertising from all the media coverage. There's no irony here. There's not as much cynicism and neglect and opportunism here as you are so eager to point out.
You can take the entire story at face value here. A smart hacker thought he could do some good by teaching a homeless man he saw every day a useful, high-demand skill. The homeless man was receptive but as it turned out, money isn't the solution.
You're making the argument that it's health care that he needs. Maybe you're right. Maybe you should go over there and offer Leo health care. It would be a damn sight better than what you're doing now, accusing well-meaning people who are taking action of neglect and opportunism because they're not jumping to the same conclusions you are. They're not warping the narrative, you are.
> The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable
Not obvious. Until you get his SSN or otherwise do a background check, you have no idea what's in his past, or how that $10K compares to his legal obligations. There is an unaddressed moral question for society in whether a person in a difficult situation has an implicit right to both a non-zero personal net worth and anonymity.
Yes. Slavery, indentures, and other conditions of involuntary servitude have been outlawed by constitutional amendment for a long time, now.
In the particular instance where a parent is obligated to labor for the benefit of a child (possibly even one that is a true genetic descendant) for a term of 18 years, however, the government has seen fit to ignore the legal niceties in order to reduce its own welfare burden for supporting single parents.
In other words, the state ignores its own rule because following it would be expensive, the victims are too poor to fight it, and no one likes deadbeat parents enough to fight it for them. Expedience!
Child support is a political beehive, vigorously defended by partisans on either side of the issue. Approach it with any intent, or even none at all, and you could get swarmed and stung just for being nearby. So I say, with a megaphone from a long way away, that whether it is right or wrong, child support laws do appear to be inconsistent with foundation law.
I consider it unlikely that is why Leo does not want his own bank account. It may be a contributing factor, but I think it far more likely that he does not believe banks to be any more trustworthy than the street thugs that steal anything even remotely of value from him and his cohort. Banking may have been a significant contributing factor in his exit from home-having society. In some ways, the bank simply allows different people to take your money.
As long as it is not attached to him directly, perhaps he feels like it is harder for anyone to steal the idea of him having $10000? If he takes possession, it will get spent or stolen, and then it would be gone, along with the idea of having it. But who could really know for sure from an article that features precious little commentary from its main subject? It may be worth more to him as a floor on his self-worth ("Well, I'm worth at least $10000.") than as cash in hand.
Yet, should child support obligations make it impossible for somebody to participate in society (and earn money)?
There is an optimum point here, but people seem unable to arguee for anything that is not extreme. And that seems to be a problem with our communication in general, not restricted to this one issue.
Exactly. I think there should be some level (above $10K) at which people can still operate under the radar, but around $30-50K the question becomes considerably less clear.
People who lack capacity to make choices often only lack capacity for a narrow part of their life. Thus, they may not be able to make choices about housing bt fine about everything else.
This is written into English law in the Mental Capacity Act. There was a parliamentary report ("The Cornwall Report") which covered some abuse and some people who had their liberty unreasonably restricted. Importantly people are allowed to make unwise choices if they have the capacity to make that choice and you should not stop them even if you have their best interests at heart.
This is tricky to sort out when working with people with limited capacity and there's some discussion about people not checking that someone actually does have capacity to make choices.
In the article, Patrick claims he didn't want media attention. Who knows how well the app would have performed without it. Lets say it made $7,000 instead of $10,000 but Patrick gained the privacy and dignity to work out issues with Leo without the endless media attention. Maybe that would have worked out better. Generally, media attention makes sensitive things of this nature worse, not better.
>As for society, we get to have this conversation
What conversation exactly? Are the people who are watching the Today show talking about mental healthcare? It seems like this is the cheap "make easy money now, even a homeless person can do it" narrative, except with an undercurrent of "hard work fixes all!" Apparently, it doesn't.
>That's an admirable position, but that's a completely different story.
I don't think so. I think the story is so focused on the money, but not the well-being or core issues Leo faces, most of which look like mental illness to me.
>then segued arbitrarily into editorializing over health care?
Heaven forbid we ask why Leo can't handle the idea of a bank account. The idea that its rational and sane to lose $10k is laughable. The guy clearly has problems. The question that's obvious and should be asked for by a compassionate society is why can't Leo get the care he needs? The money, fame, attention, etc are all secondary. Ironically, the money isn't helping him get what he needs because he's literally too dysfunctional to turn it into to healthcare.