> 2.) A general laissez-faire attitude toward the homeless. [...] There's widespread opposition to criminalizing homelessness and say arresting or tazing homeless people.
I want to point out that it is a departure from laissez-faire to criminalise, arrest, and taze the homeless, but another conceivable departure from laissez-faire is to house them.
> Many people react with horror to the idea of policing homelessness. Yet, when given a choice to live between two identical cities, one permissive towards homelessness and the other not, I bet the vast majority would choose the latter.
Have you tried getting a homeless person's opinion on the subject?
Given the choice between a society where slaves don't serve you, and a society where they do, most slaveowners would probably choose the latter, too.
> The problem is that a high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing
That is not a problem, that is a consequence. And its something you'd have hard time fixing. And if so why not start with homeless that want the housing first?
People who what and are helped back into society are going to be net benefit financially, even people who hate others and love money cant argue. Helping those people back up is investment that always pays off.
So why is this an issue?
Also:
> high percentage of the homeless don’t want the housing
> Many prefer to live in the homeless encampments
A snarky Citation Needed. Where did you get that?
It not like those people were born homeless and this is their 'lifestyle' majority tripped and felt. Nobody helped them and they are stuck there.
Given enough time and they will become disillusioned and resentful of outsiders. Worse get used to living rough.
That said, there will be always a % of people who cannot be helped. And that's ok, we can't save everyone.
Yes, you can. It really is that simple. The homeless problem isn't persistent because it's technically hard. It's persistent because a segment of society is addicted to moral posturing in a way that blocks necessary and obvious solutions.
There is no legal or moral problem. Build adequate shelters in inexpensive locations and arrest everyone who camps on the street and refuses to go to one of these shelters. (This approach is also compatible with the recent SCOTUS stance on the subject.) Everyone needs a place to sleep, but there is no reason for society to support squatting on random public land as a lifestyle choice.
>Homelessness does not beget homelessness. It is most important to note that
But is this really a fact? I agree with your later reasoning that homelessness is a symptom of deeper problems, but I'd argue that our societies should have one more failsafe in place: housing for the homeless.
I've never been sleeping rough, but I'd think it would be pretty traumatic. This would kick some into seeking help, but would make others fail even more.
> Fighting homelessness is easy: make it strictly illegal
Note: I have been homeless. I prefer a little more practical solution, which is unpopular with many people...as almost any solution will be.
If a person is arrested for breaking a statute (municipalities usually have ordinances against camping in areas), without a residence in the county, move them to a staging area for identification and program entry (assign a sponsor). If they repeat offend without having participated in a program via the sponsor (or have violated out), move them to a minimal camp in an unincorporated part of the state. Filtering those who want to contribute versus those who are opting out, benefits those who try versus those who are not going to recover. I feel for the homeless people with master's degrees from various disciplines (see Youtube), but urban areas breed urban problems like illicit drug distribution, disease, sexual violations, open fires, burglary, etc. We know this historically. Why we continue to allow people to concentrate where they have the most opportunity to predate on the public and each other while simultaneously being enabled in self-destructive behavior is beyond me.
> Americans will do anything to avoid providing people with housing.
Including resorting to $60K per year tents. [1]
But we could steelman the argument for proposals like this one: you could see homelessness as a problem of loneliness, addiction, mental health issues and unstable families. This might be more realistic compared to seeing it as merely a housing issue.
> Also, separately, I find this argument to be a bit of a straw man, since the treating homeless people decently and having strong individual rights aren't fundamentally opposed. In America some things are done well collectively, in the interest of everyone, like providing roads.
I believe he was making the argument that, due to principles of individual liberty, the government cannot compel someone who wants to be homeless not to be.
> You can make homelessness illegal, but then you're just housing the homeless in prisons.
Not if you resort to corporal punishment which doesn't impose a cost on the taxpayer and can still act as a deterrent on the most destitute. (N.B. not an endorsement)
> These laws let the police do something about this before it results in harm.
Yeah, as if repression is the answer to homelessness. Homeless people drink or consume other drugs to relieve the various stress associated with being on the street (as evidenced by drinking and drug use amounts immediately going down in housing-first projects), or to self-medicate physical health problems (alcohol is an effective pain number) that the life style brings with it or the mental health conditions that caused their homelessness in the first place.
Actually helping people with housing and healthcare would be a way more efficient usage of public funds than wasting it on police that is using it for power trips against the powerless.
There are typically quite some homeless programs running, but many get rejected for not abiding by the rules they (understandably) must have, i.e. don't be violent or do drugs. It's not enough to give these people a home, you must also address the reason they are homeless.
> Arguing some homeless dude has to be supported to sleep and live in a neighborhood park
"Some homeless dude" would in my case be my own sister if my country were as anti-social as some other countries.
If "we make structures to keep homeless out of sight of the 'normal populace'" applies to your country, then your country is already in the moral wrong for not supporting your homeless by providing them with dignified housing.
There is no excuse you can make for compounding on that that won't make it even more morally wrong.
In a society with some measure of respect for individual choices (freedom) we have apparently decided that we cannot physically force homeless people (a very large portion are heavily addicted to drugs and/or have massive mental health issues) to seek help.
As things stand, either we have to violate the homeless peoples' rights to free choices, or cities must accept having a plethora of mentally ill people around their families.
This creates a situation where neither outcome is socially acceptable and is what inspires attempted solutions like building voluntary housing for the homeless on an island. I actually have to admire the ingenuity of the proposed solution, allowing homeless people to VOLUNTARILY (that's key) go on an island with no assistance is obviously a recipe for disaster for them, but in and of itself is a solution that actually cuts through this particular impossible conundrum.
PS: I'm not necessarily advocating for one kind of society or another in this post, merely giving my attempt at explaining what inspires these kinds of solutions.
> How does a libertarian deal with the chronically homeless?
Obviously you house them, feed them, offer them treatment, etc. with the least amount of friction possible. If they refuse and aren't literally hurting anyone, then nothing.
I want to point out that it is a departure from laissez-faire to criminalise, arrest, and taze the homeless, but another conceivable departure from laissez-faire is to house them.
EDIT to clarify.
reply