3 ms·

Your arguments are based on various false dichotomies and false analogies. I have given a reason why incarcerating adults who have not committed a crime agains

Your arguments are based on various false dichotomies and false analogies. I have given a reason why incarcerating adults who have not committed a crime against their will is obviously immoral, namely because freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights. Of course, there can be reasons that might outweigh this right, for example when someone has committed a serious crime and there was a fair trial. Another reason would be the medical assessment that the person would likely severely harm himself or others. For the latter, the hurdles are extremely high. You can ask your lawmakers why they think they should be high. They will probably tell you that's because freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights. "Caring" for someone is traditionally not considered a sufficient reason. And that includes parents, who are definitely not allowed to lock away their children indefinitely (as a reply to the other poster, who seems to be even more confused than you). > you're arguing they shouldn't be held to the same responsibilities as other citizens because they can't help their situation. I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever.

macspoofing 8y ago
>I have given a reason why incarcerating adults... You haven't actually answered the one objection I have, namely, why do you think it moral to let distressed individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves live in filth and squalor. Apparently, this is a human right - which is insane. But let's leave it at that. I'll simply state that I disagree with your position. Moreso than that, I find that position highly immoral. >I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever. I didn't say you argued it, I asked what your position is on that. It is actually illegal to pitch a tent on a sidewalk and live there. It is illegal to setup a 'tent city' for purpose of long-term habitation. There are plethora of laws preventing that kind of behaviour. And I get it, you don't admit to the moral imperative of institutionalizing those individuals to provide care, but then are you OK with enforcing laws on the books against those individuals - because that isn't done either if you go to cities like San Fran and LA and enforcing those laws would lead to heavy fines or incarceration, if you treat those individuals as rational actors expected to live up to the responsibilities of living in a society.
- JohnStrangeII 8y ago
  Plenty of individuals who can make decisions for themselves live in filth and squalor, too. As long as they don't cause serious harm or violate other basic moral standards like the freedom of others, right to property, etc., people's life choices are not and should not be controlled by the state. > Apparently, this is a human right - which is insane. It is one of the most fundamental human rights and not insane at all. Some scholars would even argue that autonomy is a defining characteristics of being a moral agent. Every human has a right to make mistakes, too. Generally, freedom can only be restricted when serious harm would be caused otherwise. There used to be a consensus about this in every capitalist democratic society, and I still think there is one. That's why your reply is kind of surprising to me. > are you OK with enforcing laws on the books against those individuals The laws are the same for everyone, whether they are homeless or not does not play any role. otherwise the law is unconstitutional. At least that's how it works where I live. To answer your question: Of course, I'm not fine with any kind of laws that would be specifically bad for homeless. Imposing fines on people who cannot pay them is pointless and there is something wrong with a law that does it. Replacing fines by incarceration when a person could not possibly pay the fine is equally stupid, and btw in many countries this is not how it's done. Where I live you can declare personal bankrupcy in a similar way as companies can do it. You will still have to pay off your debts once you have a job, though. If your laws would put homeless in more misery than putting them into mental institutions against their will, then there is something wrong with those laws. Besides, people don't set up tent cities because they prefer to live in tents. This is simply false and where I live such tent cities don't exist. Ghettos and tent cities hint at deeper problems in your country, problems that will likely not be solvable by reforming laws alone.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
    I hope for the sake of the homeless, people like you are not involved in defining any future policy. On the other hand, you can take solace in the fact that your perspective is the one that governs homeless policy today ... and you can see the end result.
    - 8y ago

macspoofing 8y ago

>I have given a reason why incarcerating adults... You haven't actually answered the one objection I have, namely, why do you think it moral to let distressed individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves live in filth and squalor. Apparently, this is a human right - which is insane. But let's leave it at that. I'll simply state that I disagree with your position. Moreso than that, I find that position highly immoral. >I have never argued for such an absurd claim at all, in any form whatsoever. I didn't say you argued it, I asked what your position is on that. It is actually illegal to pitch a tent on a sidewalk and live there. It is illegal to setup a 'tent city' for purpose of long-term habitation. There are plethora of laws preventing that kind of behaviour. And I get it, you don't admit to the moral imperative of institutionalizing those individuals to provide care, but then are you OK with enforcing laws on the books against those individuals - because that isn't done either if you go to cities like San Fran and LA and enforcing those laws would lead to heavy fines or incarceration, if you treat those individuals as rational actors expected to live up to the responsibilities of living in a society.

JohnStrangeII 8y ago
Plenty of individuals who can make decisions for themselves live in filth and squalor, too. As long as they don't cause serious harm or violate other basic moral standards like the freedom of others, right to property, etc., people's life choices are not and should not be controlled by the state. > Apparently, this is a human right - which is insane. It is one of the most fundamental human rights and not insane at all. Some scholars would even argue that autonomy is a defining characteristics of being a moral agent. Every human has a right to make mistakes, too. Generally, freedom can only be restricted when serious harm would be caused otherwise. There used to be a consensus about this in every capitalist democratic society, and I still think there is one. That's why your reply is kind of surprising to me. > are you OK with enforcing laws on the books against those individuals The laws are the same for everyone, whether they are homeless or not does not play any role. otherwise the law is unconstitutional. At least that's how it works where I live. To answer your question: Of course, I'm not fine with any kind of laws that would be specifically bad for homeless. Imposing fines on people who cannot pay them is pointless and there is something wrong with a law that does it. Replacing fines by incarceration when a person could not possibly pay the fine is equally stupid, and btw in many countries this is not how it's done. Where I live you can declare personal bankrupcy in a similar way as companies can do it. You will still have to pay off your debts once you have a job, though. If your laws would put homeless in more misery than putting them into mental institutions against their will, then there is something wrong with those laws. Besides, people don't set up tent cities because they prefer to live in tents. This is simply false and where I live such tent cities don't exist. Ghettos and tent cities hint at deeper problems in your country, problems that will likely not be solvable by reforming laws alone.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  I hope for the sake of the homeless, people like you are not involved in defining any future policy. On the other hand, you can take solace in the fact that your perspective is the one that governs homeless policy today ... and you can see the end result.
  - 8y ago