I don't know, but I'm sure a lot of them would say yes, if asked. Personally, "chemicals" is the best explanation I have for the fact that I get up every mornin

I don't know, but I'm sure a lot of them would say yes, if asked. Personally, "chemicals" is the best explanation I have for the fact that I get up every morning to face the day rather than just lying there until I die, so I can definitely understand how somebody could get trapped in homelessness to the point that it becomes their normal. It's not a matter of choice, or preference. IMO, such concepts applied broadly at the level of who we are and our places in the world aren't as useful as people often seem to think. Anyway, I think the usual framing from people with the viewpoint I mentioned is that most of the homeless don't have a choice, and that efforts to "ban homelessness" are a further victimization of the vulnerable and powerless. And in some cases, they're right—harsh crackdowns without offering actual solutions will make their bad situations worse. But on the other hand, I think efforts to improve the situation are often branded as insensitive, dehumanizing, and so on, with the implication being that we should just leave them alone to live their lives. Personally I disagree with both—having the homeless around is bad, and being homeless is bad. As a society it's our duty to solve both problems, because we're all in this together.