My revealed preference is that, due to the economic surplus produced by economic liberty, we have the luxury of being able to allocate resources to individuals

My revealed preference is that, due to the economic surplus produced by economic liberty, we have the luxury of being able to allocate resources to individuals in need. A luxury, mind you, in no way guaranteed by the conditions of nature. Now, given that we have the resources in order to allocate some resources to individuals in need, I think it's a perfectly serviceable objective to provide housing for those unable to house themselves. I don't, however, think it's a perfectly serviceable objective to provide housing for those unable to house themselves by saying that they have a right to remain on an extremely space-constrained peninsula which has led to one of the most competitive and expensive real estate markets on the entire planet. So to reiterate my revealed preference: no I don't think the homeless should be housed in tents in SF, and neither do I think that they have a right to be housed anywhere in SF. I think that we have the luxury of surplus resources to provide housing for those in need, but I think that this housing should be built in an area that is not space constrained, and is as economically viable as possible.