6 ms·

If you live in SF (like me) and want to do something to help, consider donating time or money to a local charity focused on homelessness. My personal recommend

by habosa 10y ago

If you live in SF (like me) and want to do something to help, consider donating time or money to a local charity focused on homelessness. My personal recommendation is Larkin Street Youth Services [0]. There are ~2000 homeless youth (age < 25) in San Francisco on any given night. These young people were often the victims of terrible family situations and have no support network. Larkin Street helps to provide shelter, counseling, education, and anything else they may need to get off the streets for good. More than 70% of the people who "graduate" from Larkin Street leave street life forever. I know on Hacker News we like to talk about the political causes and solutions to a problem like this. But tomorrow's laws won't change the fact that there are homeless people sleeping on the street every night who need help. Charitable organizations are there to help meet these immediate needs. [0] - http://larkinstreetyouth.org/ http://larkinstreetyouth.org/

alanaut 10y ago
"A society that aims for equality before freedom, will end up with neither equality nor freedom." Laws are not meant to lift people from poverty. PEOPLE must lift themselves so far as to lift each other out of poverty. One of the basic functions of government is to protect people from other people (both land and rights). Now, "rights" is where things tend to become grey. Who should determine what those rights are? The government? People? A majority? San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when government plays a role it is not fit to oversee. Now, Larkin Street is an excellent case study on how the private sector fills in that space governments leaves open when they play around with policy. The aim here is to continue to build these networks around support.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JustUhThought 10y ago
In my experience donating time or money does not change the systemic causes of the issues. You will forever be donating. For real,sustainable change a different society must be built, whatever that might look like.
- maneesh 10y ago
  "if I can't fix everything, let's just do nothing at all!"
  - JustUhThought 10y ago
    Not exactly. How about, there are a million other options than straight up donation. Not at all a false choice.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Such as? I bet LSYS is much more knowledgeable and skilled than I am at providing services to the homeless.
- alanaut 10y ago
  Interesting point of view. Built by whom?
- mtrpcic 10y ago
  The OP you replied to said this, and we're all aware. To solve the problem for good, systemic change is needed, but that doesn't mean we should let children freeze on the streets today while we wait for change tomorrow. You can do both.
  - kethinov 10y ago
    > You can do both. OP isn't doing both though, and I think that's what JustUhThought is speaking to. OP just said (paraphrasing): "I know people like to talk politics on this subject, but I'm not going to do that, I'm just going to promote private charity." It is reasonable to argue that we can do both, but just as we expect those talking primarily about political solutions to also highlight how private charity can help in the mean time, we should also expect those talking primarily about private charity to also highlight what political solutions we should also be exploring. Also I think it's important to remember that some people believe government has no place in solving this problem, so they will promote private charity as an alternative to political solutions. Likewise there are those who believe that private charity has no place in solving this problem, and the need for private charity represents a failure of public policy, so they will promote political solutions as a replacement for private charity. So in some senses, we can't do both. The most extreme positions in this debate are mutually exclusive.
ftrflyr 10y ago
"A society that aims for equality before freedom, will end up with neither equality nor freedom." Laws are not meant to lift people from poverty. PEOPLE must lift themselves so far as to lift each other out of poverty. One of the basic functions of government is to protect people from other people (both land and rights). Now, "rights" is where things tend to become grey. Who should determine what those rights are? The government? People? A majority? San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when government plays a role it is not fit to oversee. Now, Larkin Street is an excellent case study on how the private sector fills in that space governments leaves open when they play around with policy. The aim here is to continue to build these networks around support.
- yongjik 10y ago
  Wait, did you just quote alanaut's dead comment verbatim?
  - ftrflyr 10y ago
    That is my other account. It was dead and now it isn't. I thought I was hell-banned. 10min ago, I couldn't see any alanaut posts logged in and logged out. I would like to post and have meaningful conversations with the community and as it stands, I am unable to do so with alanaut.
- kethinov 10y ago
  > Laws are not meant to lift people from poverty. PEOPLE must lift themselves so far as to lift each other out of poverty. There are numerous examples of people who have done everything society has expected of them but are still unable to find a job. The "all poor people are personally irresponsible" argument is basically a stereotype. Even if it does hold true for >50% of those experiencing poverty, it's pretty cold to tell the minority that actually is sympathetic, "Sorry, you did everything right, but your poverty is still your responsibility and you deserve no assistance from the community which set you up to fail." > One of the basic functions of government is to protect people from other people Protecting people from other people sounds like a great way to describe a government-guaranteed lifestyle floor, such as a universal basic income, or some other combination of safety net programs that are aimed at unconditionally ending poverty with no means testing. It would protect you from being coerced by others into the labor market against your will due to the implicit threat of death by the effects of homelessness and/or food insecurity. That protects poor people from other (richer) people pretty effectively. > Who should determine what those rights are? The government? People? A majority? I think this is pretty well settled. Public policy is what it is because policymakers we elected set it up that way. So, yeah, basically majority rules. > San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when government plays a role it is not fit to oversee. I would argue that San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when a majority of the electorate is insensitive to poverty and is uninterested in electing representatives who are serious about ending it by passing legislation like UBI or other more comprehensive, non-means tested safety net programs. As a nation, we simply don't prioritize solving this problem with government. We could. We choose not to. Majority rules.

by habosa 10y ago

alanaut 10y ago

"A society that aims for equality before freedom, will end up with neither equality nor freedom." Laws are not meant to lift people from poverty. PEOPLE must lift themselves so far as to lift each other out of poverty. One of the basic functions of government is to protect people from other people (both land and rights). Now, "rights" is where things tend to become grey. Who should determine what those rights are? The government? People? A majority? San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when government plays a role it is not fit to oversee. Now, Larkin Street is an excellent case study on how the private sector fills in that space governments leaves open when they play around with policy. The aim here is to continue to build these networks around support.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

JustUhThought 10y ago

In my experience donating time or money does not change the systemic causes of the issues. You will forever be donating. For real,sustainable change a different society must be built, whatever that might look like.

maneesh 10y ago
"if I can't fix everything, let's just do nothing at all!"
- JustUhThought 10y ago
  Not exactly. How about, there are a million other options than straight up donation. Not at all a false choice.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Such as? I bet LSYS is much more knowledgeable and skilled than I am at providing services to the homeless.
alanaut 10y ago
Interesting point of view. Built by whom?
mtrpcic 10y ago
The OP you replied to said this, and we're all aware. To solve the problem for good, systemic change is needed, but that doesn't mean we should let children freeze on the streets today while we wait for change tomorrow. You can do both.
- kethinov 10y ago
  > You can do both. OP isn't doing both though, and I think that's what JustUhThought is speaking to. OP just said (paraphrasing): "I know people like to talk politics on this subject, but I'm not going to do that, I'm just going to promote private charity." It is reasonable to argue that we can do both, but just as we expect those talking primarily about political solutions to also highlight how private charity can help in the mean time, we should also expect those talking primarily about private charity to also highlight what political solutions we should also be exploring. Also I think it's important to remember that some people believe government has no place in solving this problem, so they will promote private charity as an alternative to political solutions. Likewise there are those who believe that private charity has no place in solving this problem, and the need for private charity represents a failure of public policy, so they will promote political solutions as a replacement for private charity. So in some senses, we can't do both. The most extreme positions in this debate are mutually exclusive.

ftrflyr 10y ago

yongjik 10y ago
Wait, did you just quote alanaut's dead comment verbatim?
- ftrflyr 10y ago
  That is my other account. It was dead and now it isn't. I thought I was hell-banned. 10min ago, I couldn't see any alanaut posts logged in and logged out. I would like to post and have meaningful conversations with the community and as it stands, I am unable to do so with alanaut.
kethinov 10y ago
> Laws are not meant to lift people from poverty. PEOPLE must lift themselves so far as to lift each other out of poverty. There are numerous examples of people who have done everything society has expected of them but are still unable to find a job. The "all poor people are personally irresponsible" argument is basically a stereotype. Even if it does hold true for >50% of those experiencing poverty, it's pretty cold to tell the minority that actually is sympathetic, "Sorry, you did everything right, but your poverty is still your responsibility and you deserve no assistance from the community which set you up to fail." > One of the basic functions of government is to protect people from other people Protecting people from other people sounds like a great way to describe a government-guaranteed lifestyle floor, such as a universal basic income, or some other combination of safety net programs that are aimed at unconditionally ending poverty with no means testing. It would protect you from being coerced by others into the labor market against your will due to the implicit threat of death by the effects of homelessness and/or food insecurity. That protects poor people from other (richer) people pretty effectively. > Who should determine what those rights are? The government? People? A majority? I think this is pretty well settled. Public policy is what it is because policymakers we elected set it up that way. So, yeah, basically majority rules. > San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when government plays a role it is not fit to oversee. I would argue that San Francisco is an excellent study in what can happen when a majority of the electorate is insensitive to poverty and is uninterested in electing representatives who are serious about ending it by passing legislation like UBI or other more comprehensive, non-means tested safety net programs. As a nation, we simply don't prioritize solving this problem with government. We could. We choose not to. Majority rules.