Is The Law Capable/Incapable of Reducing Social Exclusion?

Nowadays, more and more people feel socially excluded in a sense of social justice and equality. The fundamental problem starts with the wages between many business sectors. After that it goes further and reaches psychological issues. Inevitably, we must ask, is the law capable/incapable of reducing social exclusion?

It is very difficult to answer to this question forthright. As a comparison, we can invoke the legislation in United Kingdom. It seems that this European country who surely sympathizes to common law tradition tried to diversify its legislation big time. But the result was not probably so good as expected. The key problem risen between different clashes of the politics, England’s Parliament itself and the whole British society. Therefore, in 2017 Esther Dermott and Gill Main in their book ‘Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK’ wrote:

‘18m people are unable to afford adequate housing; 14m can’t afford essential household goods; and nearly half the population have some form of financial insecurity’.

From the first glance, it looks totally absurd how such economically developed country like United Kingdom could have such negative statistics back in 2017. But the answer hides in a very simple philosophical concept called moral obligation to work.

The abovementioned concept creates two main problems:

1. To keep the working power up as much as possible.
2. The moral law is to be too lazy to try.

The second problem to be lazy in a democratic society is an actual nightmare of the 21st century. By this definition, we mean lazy homeless people who act on purpose. That means they breach the interests of other people in the society by creating unnecessary burdens. The worst thing is that governments of well-established economic countries influence such harmful acts of lazy people by giving them free benefits. So, we have a start point where millions of people deliberately tolerate aggressive laziness. In the second stage, we need to deal with serious financial insecurity as a result.

As we can clearly see from this perspective, the governments should enact laws which enable mandatory labour in cases of homelessness. It would be a legal measure to fight with those members of the society who support an aggressive method of laziness. The latter would mean that the government and the entire society are responsible for the employment of homeless people. These people could heal from their problems and could integrate to the society at full extent. It would be an exception to general labour freedom rules or the rule that forced labour is prohibited. Instead, the society would focus on the rule that forced laziness and homelessness are not allowed and tolerated. However, remembering good old United States, we have to deal with the problem to be too lazy.

You will find several videos here which show how dangerous and harmful social exclusion can be in different decades (1989, 2020 and 2021):

Seeing these views, we could raise questions like, is it normal? Should it supposed to be like this? Should we tolerate the aggressive laziness? Are we happy with what we see? Is this normal behaviour? Are these people respecting other people? Is it even safe to live like this?

We could raise many questions. But this problem of social exclusion would not go away by itself. Someone must take an unpleasant action in a society to integrate and educate people.

Many would argue that mandatory labour would open abuse with labour laws and open more gateways to human trafficking. But looking from the perspective of deliberate aggressive laziness, it would not be the case. Today, we have many cases of human trafficking as slavery jobs, and the laws still prohibit mandatory labour. But the problem of social distance remains. We must understand that we speak about narrow society group who needs immediate assistance and help. Alongside there is no doubt we must fight with human trafficking problems. Therefore, the perception of mandatory labour could be perceived inadequately in this context.

The roots of the capability of reducing social exclusion lie in a simple form of aggressive laziness. That’s why we cannot break ourselves free from social exclusion. The laws serving for social inclusion often get the opposite result because they are wrongly created and applied in practice. More or less, the laws become distorted. That’s why it accelerates such immense problems as financial insecurity. Suddenly we are in the situation where it seems every individual tries to work so hard to maintain financial stability, but the effect is opposite. A lot of individuals of the society give up and even become homeless. It is like a closed circle. We know good and well that it should not supposed to be like this.

Summarizing everything up, it is worth noting that today the law is incapable of reducing social exclusion. The only way to reduce social distancing and inequality is to stop worshipping delusional and toxic laws of diversity and inclusion. The laws of diversity and inclusion should not be applied and perceived blindly. The reality must not be distorted and forgotten if we want to keep our evolution healthy and prosperous.