The Issue of Homelessness

[Yitzi]

Different people are homeless for different reasons, and those call for different solutions.  I'd say that anybody who can't find a job should be provided with the necessary income and job-hunting help until they can find a job (and similarly if the only jobs they can find are ones that don't work for them for legitimate reasons).  If the problem is mental illness or drug use, then support should be made conditional on them (or an appropriate guardian where relevant) signing whatever is necessary to be allowed to treat them without them being able to back out afterward.

[Dio]

Different people are homeless for different reasons, and those call for different solutions.  I'd say that anybody who can't find a job should be provided with the necessary income and job-hunting help until they can find a job (and similarly if the only jobs they can find are ones that don't work for them for legitimate reasons).  If the problem is mental illness or drug use, then support should be made conditional on them (or an appropriate guardian where relevant) signing whatever is necessary to be allowed to treat them without them being able to back out afterward.

The proposal appears fairly reasonable to this particular individual. After admitting that rights should come with responsiblities, it becomes necessary to provides rebuttals for a few common counter-arguments. One such counterargument might include the claim that such a proposal would violate the rights and liberties of an individual. This same argument might further claim that such a system opens the door to potential abuse of this power to instiutionalize an individual against their will. Furthermore, they may argue that such a system might place an undue burden on public finances since job counseling services are rarely free and  private organizations often face a shortfall of excess revenue. This individual maytherefore argue that this proposal both infringes on the freedom of an individual to make decisions about his or her health treatments, and opens a public system to potentially abusive practices.

[DrazharLn]

@Dio

undue burden on public finances since job counseling services are rarely free

States should not let the jobless starve or live miserable lives, so the state is committed to financially supporting the jobless anyway. Every jobless person later convinced to take on work is one that no longer requires as much support from the state. Additionally, many, though not all, jobs have economic benefits for society, so getting the unemployed into work benefits society at least twice even from a purely financial point of view.

such a system opens the door to potential abuse of this power to instiutionalize an individual against their will

This does happen and is a serious concern for me. What right does the state, or by extension society, have to dictate what lifestyles or mental conditions are acceptable or not? Certainly some right where the freedom of the individual seriously affects the freedom of others (e.g. violent crime), but we should be careful not to restrict without good reason.

In the city where I live most of the time, a lady used to travel on public transport and spout nonsense loudly to other commuters. She also slept rough. Recently, she was "sectioned", which means that a court decided to imprison her in a mental institution against her will. For at least her recent life, she had been living on the street for the freedom and because she was fearful that the government would abduct her and inject her with drugs.

It seems questionable to me that the appropriate intervention to help this fearful lady was to abduct her and force treatments on her.

[Buster's Uncle]

That's it exactly.  The lady on the bus?   I'm sure she was annoying to have on your ride, but where's the real harm?  It's exactly the wrong thing to do to her for the state to decide to do what she feared most to her.

The bar ought to be set pretty high for The Man to force treatment on people who just. don't. want. it.

[Yitzi]

Different people are homeless for different reasons, and those call for different solutions.  I'd say that anybody who can't find a job should be provided with the necessary income and job-hunting help until they can find a job (and similarly if the only jobs they can find are ones that don't work for them for legitimate reasons).  If the problem is mental illness or drug use, then support should be made conditional on them (or an appropriate guardian where relevant) signing whatever is necessary to be allowed to treat them without them being able to back out afterward.

The proposal appears fairly reasonable to this particular individual. After admitting that rights should come with responsiblities, it becomes necessary to provides rebuttals for a few common counter-arguments. One such counterargument might include the claim that such a proposal would violate the rights and liberties of an individual.

No, it doesn't; nobody has a right to be supported by society instead of engaging in reasonable measures such as attempting to end addictions and mental illnesses.

This same argument might further claim that such a system opens the door to potential abuse of this power to instiutionalize an individual against their will.

Abuses become a lot less possible when you can avoid institutionalization simply by being self-supporting financially.

Furthermore, they may argue that such a system might place an undue burden on public finances since job counseling services are rarely free and  private organizations often face a shortfall of excess revenue.

Less of a burden than any other solution besides "let people who are poor through no fault of their own just starve to death".

This individual maytherefore argue that this proposal both infringes on the freedom of an individual to make decisions about his or her health treatments

Of course it does; any freedom whose use greatly harms society (as refusing to be treated for mental health issues/drug abuse and therefore needing welfare does) and does not derive from any intrinsic rights or moral demands (as is the case here) is one that should be infringed.

[Buster's Uncle]

So you think your right not to be annoyed by bums being around overrides their right to not have the State mess with their heads?

I'm not defending criminal behavior or anything that's an immediate danger to others or themselves - but the bar should be high, and they have a right to make bad choices and be miserable.

[Yitzi]

So you think your right not to be annoyed by bums being around overrides their right to not have the State mess with their heads?

If said messing is nothing more than curing real problems, arguably.  If you also replace "annoyed by bums being around" with "having to help support them", then definitely.

I'm not defending criminal behavior or anything that's an immediate danger to others or themselves - but the bar should be high, and they have a right to make bad choices and be miserable.

But not to cause hardship for others.

The only reason they have a right to make bad choices is because it doesn't harm others; once that is no longer true, they no longer have such a right.

[Buster's Uncle]

Nothing I do is going to cause no harm.  Nothing.

Where does the needs of the group stop impinging on my personal freedoms?

The Man may not mess with my mind for any reason, sans my uncoerced consent - screw everyone if they think otherwise for a second.

[Yitzi]

Nothing I do is going to cause no harm.  Nothing.

As long as the harm is negligible compared to the benefit, most of the right to make bad choices would stay...but here, it's not negligible.

Where does the needs of the group stop impinging on my personal freedoms?

Usually, when those needs do not already involve their rights.

The Man may not mess with my mind for any reason, sans my uncoerced consent - screw everyone if they think otherwise for a second.

I disagree; I think it only holds if one of two very common situations holds: Either your refusal to give such consent is a reasonable decision, or it does not require violating the rights of others.  But if you unreasonably refuse to give such consent, you have no right to expect that the rights of others will be violated or lessened to accommodate you, even if said rights and lessening are of the sort (e.g. property rights being lessened via taxation) that should happen for a good reason.

[Buster's Uncle]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you a Marvel of Our Age:  an innerwebs nerd w/o visible Libertarian tendencies...

[Dio]

So you think your right not to be annoyed by bums being around overrides their right to not have the State mess with their heads?

If said messing is nothing more than curing real problems, arguably.  If you also replace "annoyed by bums being around" with "having to help support them", then definitely.

I'm not defending criminal behavior or anything that's an immediate danger to others or themselves - but the bar should be high, and they have a right to make bad choices and be miserable.

But not to cause hardship for others.

The only reason they have a right to make bad choices is because it doesn't harm others; once that is no longer true, they no longer have such a right.

I must agree with Yitzi that the national average cost of leaving an individual homeless is approximately forty-five thousand U.S. dollars per year per person in public services while providing housing and medical services for said individuals averages approxmately forty-three thousand dollars per year person.

[Buster's Uncle]

If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.

[Dio]

If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.

The above humanism is a foreign concept to me. I simply desire to have what is best both for these individuals and for the cost towards society. The best option appears to presently lean towards housing since it reduces emergency medical care and law enforcement costs for society while improving the opportunties of said individuals.

[Yitzi]

If your interest in this is based in wanting to do those poor people a favor, I cannot too strongly suggest that you think very hard about their own wishes in the matter, no matter how wrong they may be to feel that way in your eyes.

1. I do not believe that people always know what's best for them, although to override their wishes requires an extreme advantage in knowledge or understanding.

2. That's why they get a choice: They can be treated, or they can fend for themselves.  However, their own wishes are not enough to justify a public burden.

[Buster's Uncle]

I mean none of this as personally as it may sound, and I shout for emphasis/from passion, not actual anger.


You. will. RESPECT. my wishes about my life and my person, no matter how wrong I happen to be, or we WILL tangle.  I'm speaking rhetorically, (if also truly) but the biggest difference between me and the people we're talking about is that I have a hermit cave to hide from the Group Mind in.

I've had pieces of this conversation with Dr. Buster's Daddy, both in argument and agreement.  Coercion of ANY kind MUST always be the very last resort with the crazy ones who are not an immediate danger to themselves or others, or YOU ARE GUILTY OF ADVOCATING WHAT THEY"RE ON THE STREET TO AVOID.  -Much overlap with the drunks and druggies, substance abuse being a sort of induced insanity as well as crazy being no barrier to developing a habit -to the contrary, many, if not most, addicts are trying to self-medicate something- but also partly a separate issue.

It's complicated, is all.  More complicated than you seem to see.  They need your respect as fellow human beings, not just your compassion.