5 ms·

> I haven't encouraged locking anybody up, or fining anybody. Well, you encouraged "consequences," which usually means one of those two things. > But we encou

> I haven't encouraged locking anybody up, or fining anybody. Well, you encouraged "consequences," which usually means one of those two things. > But we encourage this behavior every time we allow it to happen with no consequences... There need to be consequences, but how do you discourage someone who has nothing? They're almost inherently unpunishable. So, there need to be consequences, but you don't agree with locking people up or fining them? What consequences were you referring to then?

RickS 10y ago
I have no idea, and that's what makes it difficult. It's the purpose of the sentence you quoted. Consequences are almost always about losing something, and you have to have something to lose it, so you can't punish those who have nothing. This creates a bizzaro nightmare scenario where the destitute can commit petty crimes with impunity. I won't pretend to have a solution to this. So far, I'm not sure anybody does. But that doesn't mean I can't be mad as hell about it. I'm sick of people saying that how people act in the streets here is somehow short of reprehensible.
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  One potential solution I've been pondering: Send like 4000 homeless people to a small abandoned town (like old dead mining towns and such), with gear and supplies, such that they can help each other create themselves a society, simultaneously they might revive the abandoned town. If they then choose to leave, they leave. If they choose to stay they stay. Not everyone needs to be assimilated, and us building services to help them "be successful", is the literal meaning of assimilation. Kinda like a commune or an Amish village, potentially even burning man, allow them to build themselves the society such that they are successfully able to live in. P.S. I don't have particularly good ideas about how you keep them safe, or even if you should. It should be their society and maybe that means, allow them to make their own laws. P.P.S. I know I'm crazy.
  - strait 10y ago
    Not impossible, but as a proposed government-sponsored program in this day and age, impossible.
  - thisrod 10y ago
    You should read The Fatal Shore.
  - nradov 10y ago
    There have been programs similar to that in the past. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm
- dang 10y ago
  > But that doesn't mean I can't be mad as hell about it. You can, but please don't do it here. Tirades are destructive to thoughtful, reflective conversation, which is what the site is for. If you're hot under the collar, please wait until you cool down before posting. That goes for all of us. We have to stop being reflexive before we can become reflective.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    I found it quite informative actually. Sure, it was written as a rant, but since I never lived in a city that was really affected by homelessness, it was at most a visual nuisance in my life. What the RickS wrote gave me some real information that you hardly ever find spelled out in articles.
    - dang 10y ago
      Sure, the comment was mixed. Both things can be true.

RickS 10y ago

I have no idea, and that's what makes it difficult. It's the purpose of the sentence you quoted. Consequences are almost always about losing something, and you have to have something to lose it, so you can't punish those who have nothing. This creates a bizzaro nightmare scenario where the destitute can commit petty crimes with impunity. I won't pretend to have a solution to this. So far, I'm not sure anybody does. But that doesn't mean I can't be mad as hell about it. I'm sick of people saying that how people act in the streets here is somehow short of reprehensible.

yazaddaruvala 10y ago
One potential solution I've been pondering: Send like 4000 homeless people to a small abandoned town (like old dead mining towns and such), with gear and supplies, such that they can help each other create themselves a society, simultaneously they might revive the abandoned town. If they then choose to leave, they leave. If they choose to stay they stay. Not everyone needs to be assimilated, and us building services to help them "be successful", is the literal meaning of assimilation. Kinda like a commune or an Amish village, potentially even burning man, allow them to build themselves the society such that they are successfully able to live in. P.S. I don't have particularly good ideas about how you keep them safe, or even if you should. It should be their society and maybe that means, allow them to make their own laws. P.P.S. I know I'm crazy.
- strait 10y ago
  Not impossible, but as a proposed government-sponsored program in this day and age, impossible.
- thisrod 10y ago
  You should read The Fatal Shore.
- nradov 10y ago
  There have been programs similar to that in the past. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multnomah_County_Poor_Farm
dang 10y ago
> But that doesn't mean I can't be mad as hell about it. You can, but please don't do it here. Tirades are destructive to thoughtful, reflective conversation, which is what the site is for. If you're hot under the collar, please wait until you cool down before posting. That goes for all of us. We have to stop being reflexive before we can become reflective.
- viraptor 10y ago
  I found it quite informative actually. Sure, it was written as a rant, but since I never lived in a city that was really affected by homelessness, it was at most a visual nuisance in my life. What the RickS wrote gave me some real information that you hardly ever find spelled out in articles.
  - dang 10y ago
    Sure, the comment was mixed. Both things can be true.