4 ms·

Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there! But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessn

Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there! But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness. > Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? >Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland. >Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? >And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be). >I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable! Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  > They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality? > Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right? > everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless I don't think that's literally true and I think that's an important distinction. Someone would probably allow homeless people to camp on their property, were they allowed to do so. But, just like the opposition to mobile home (RV) parks – tho considerably more intense! – there are vanishingly few places where living so 'rudely' is legal or even de-facto allowed. Even cities, like Portland, that do allow tent cities typically don't allow them to remain in the same place for decades.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    >Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality? Obviously, I'm not sure the relevance though. They may not be 'owned' by a municipality but they exist in one. Why should expensive areas be able to just export the homeless to cheap areas? If anything expensive areas like Portland have the tax base to take care of them better than rural Nebraska. >Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right? Well you and I just fundamentally disagree but to engage here: By this token why push the burden of the homeless onto us Midwesterners? This makes it seem like you're putting on us either (1) the positive right to take care of them which you won't provide or (2) the ugliness of letting them die in the streets which you're unwilling to tolerate. So once again, they exist in Portland, if you don't think they have a right to life, then they can die in Portland, we want no part of it.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

>Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? >Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland. >Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free? Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? >And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places. I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be). >I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable! Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.

aeorgnoieang 9y ago
> They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland? Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality? > Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free? Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right? > everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless I don't think that's literally true and I think that's an important distinction. Someone would probably allow homeless people to camp on their property, were they allowed to do so. But, just like the opposition to mobile home (RV) parks – tho considerably more intense! – there are vanishingly few places where living so 'rudely' is legal or even de-facto allowed. Even cities, like Portland, that do allow tent cities typically don't allow them to remain in the same place for decades.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality? Obviously, I'm not sure the relevance though. They may not be 'owned' by a municipality but they exist in one. Why should expensive areas be able to just export the homeless to cheap areas? If anything expensive areas like Portland have the tax base to take care of them better than rural Nebraska. >Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right? Well you and I just fundamentally disagree but to engage here: By this token why push the burden of the homeless onto us Midwesterners? This makes it seem like you're putting on us either (1) the positive right to take care of them which you won't provide or (2) the ugliness of letting them die in the streets which you're unwilling to tolerate. So once again, they exist in Portland, if you don't think they have a right to life, then they can die in Portland, we want no part of it.