4 ms·

No, let's get one thing straight here. These situations occur when we encourage the movement of homeless or mentally ill populations between states because they

No, let's get one thing straight here. These situations occur when we encourage the movement of homeless or mentally ill populations between states because they don't want to bother fixing the core problem. As for the people in the Nevada case they were offered a choice by the hospital: They could be discharged early if they took a bus ticket to another state, and could leave even earlier if they had family/friends there. These were people given a choice, something that you mention as being incredibly important. Their autonomy was increased, was it not? They were not forced into taking the ticket. Of course they were coerced, naturally. That's why I think your argument about choice ends up being complete bunk, because often there isn't a real 'choice' for many of these homeless people. For people who may have trouble making a well-informed choice due to poverty or mental illness or any other reason, to act like they have a full choice in the matter is ignorance.

darawk 8y ago
> No, let's get one thing straight here. These situations occur when we encourage the movement of homeless or mentally ill populations between states because they don't want to bother fixing the core problem. I think they, and I, would argue that a big part of the problem is that people become stuck in places that don't have opportunity or support networks for them. Helping them go to those places is an important step in fixing the problem in an organic way. > As for the people in the Nevada case they were offered a choice by the hospital: They could be discharged early if they took a bus ticket to another state, and could leave even earlier if they had family/friends there. These were people given a choice, something that you mention as being incredibly important. Their autonomy was increased, was it not? They were not forced into taking the ticket. I don't know the details of that case, but if they were said "hey you can leave early if you take this bus ticket", I see no problem with that. > Of course they were coerced, naturally. Erm, what? Where, exactly is the coercion? Here's the situation: I am walking down the street and come across a homeless man. I say "Hey man, if you need a bus ticket somewhere, i'd be happy to buy it for you". Where exactly does the coercion happen? Is buying someone a bus ticket that they ask for coercive when the state does it? Does that make food stamps coercion?

darawk 8y ago

> No, let's get one thing straight here. These situations occur when we encourage the movement of homeless or mentally ill populations between states because they don't want to bother fixing the core problem. I think they, and I, would argue that a big part of the problem is that people become stuck in places that don't have opportunity or support networks for them. Helping them go to those places is an important step in fixing the problem in an organic way. > As for the people in the Nevada case they were offered a choice by the hospital: They could be discharged early if they took a bus ticket to another state, and could leave even earlier if they had family/friends there. These were people given a choice, something that you mention as being incredibly important. Their autonomy was increased, was it not? They were not forced into taking the ticket. I don't know the details of that case, but if they were said "hey you can leave early if you take this bus ticket", I see no problem with that. > Of course they were coerced, naturally. Erm, what? Where, exactly is the coercion? Here's the situation: I am walking down the street and come across a homeless man. I say "Hey man, if you need a bus ticket somewhere, i'd be happy to buy it for you". Where exactly does the coercion happen? Is buying someone a bus ticket that they ask for coercive when the state does it? Does that make food stamps coercion?