4 ms·

Article says that if they refuse, they are put into conservatorships. I suspect that's going to be the most common outcome of this system. Many homeless alread

Article says that if they refuse, they are put into conservatorships. I suspect that's going to be the most common outcome of this system. Many homeless already have problems with banks, the criminal justice, healthcare system and other institutions. This is just going to add an extra institutional problem keeping them trapped in homelessness.

gamblor956 5y ago
There are two types of homeless: (a) there are the temporarily homeless, who have lost their homes due to unaffordability (lost job, unforseen expenses, etc), may be fleeing domestic abuse (#1 reason for women with children), or some other temporary condition that prevents them from acquiring or maintaining housing; and (b) there are the permanently homeless, who have lost their jobs due to mental disease and/or drug use. (Note that the use of mind-altering substances causes physiological changes to the brain, so drug use frequently leads to mental disease.) Most of the (b) group chooses (to the extent they are able to exercise choice) to remain unhoused, because shelters and housing forbid narcotics, alcohol, and other contraband. Right now, we operate under the ridiculous presumption that members of the (b) group are capable of acting rationally and in their own best interests. This is objectively false, but since this is the presumption we are forced to pretend is true, we can't force them to into treatment, however bad they may need it, unless they are at risk of inflicting imminent physical harm to themselves or others (but in this context, physical harm doesn't mean any harm typically arising from drug use...) The proposal lets us force the members of the (b) group into treatment/rehab, however much they may refuse. And this is important, because people who are mentally ill will refuse treatment, until they get treated, at which point they recognize why they need to be treated, and will generally choose* to remain under treatment and to accept housing.
- nybble41 5y ago
  There is at least one more category, (c) those who are temporarily or permanently homeless by choice. It's not common, but some do prefer the nomadic life and have no desire for a permanent address. We should take care not to assume that everyone in the "permanently homeless" category is there because of some sort of mental illness or drug addiction, forcing them into unwanted and unnecessary "treatment" until they agree to conform. Not wanting to be housed is not, in itself, a mental illness. IMHO the only thing that could potentially justify forcing someone to accept treatment (or confinement—their choice) would be if they are manifestly a danger to others. In other words, the current situation without this proposal, except no use of force is justified against those considered a danger only to themselves and not others.
  - steveylang 5y ago
    You're right there is a group C, but those choosing a nomadic life are probably not the ones in tents right at a major city intersection. I am a 'live and let live' person and generally not bothered by the sight of homeless people (besides sympathy for their plight), but it has all started to get out of hand in California.

gamblor956 5y ago

There are two types of homeless: (a) there are the temporarily homeless, who have lost their homes due to unaffordability (lost job, unforseen expenses, etc), may be fleeing domestic abuse (#1 reason for women with children), or some other temporary condition that prevents them from acquiring or maintaining housing; and (b) there are the permanently homeless, who have lost their jobs due to mental disease and/or drug use. (Note that the use of mind-altering substances causes physiological changes to the brain, so drug use frequently leads to mental disease.) Most of the (b) group chooses (to the extent they are able to exercise choice) to remain unhoused, because shelters and housing forbid narcotics, alcohol, and other contraband. Right now, we operate under the ridiculous presumption that members of the (b) group are capable of acting rationally and in their own best interests. This is objectively false, but since this is the presumption we are forced to pretend is true, we can't force them to into treatment, however bad they may need it, unless they are at risk of inflicting imminent physical harm to themselves or others (but in this context, physical harm doesn't mean any harm typically arising from drug use...) The proposal lets us force the members of the (b) group into treatment/rehab, however much they may refuse. And this is important, because people who are mentally ill will refuse treatment, until they get treated, at which point they recognize why they need to be treated, and will generally choose* to remain under treatment and to accept housing.

nybble41 5y ago
There is at least one more category, (c) those who are temporarily or permanently homeless by choice. It's not common, but some do prefer the nomadic life and have no desire for a permanent address. We should take care not to assume that everyone in the "permanently homeless" category is there because of some sort of mental illness or drug addiction, forcing them into unwanted and unnecessary "treatment" until they agree to conform. Not wanting to be housed is not, in itself, a mental illness. IMHO the only thing that could potentially justify forcing someone to accept treatment (or confinement—their choice) would be if they are manifestly a danger to others. In other words, the current situation without this proposal, except no use of force is justified against those considered a danger only to themselves and not others.
- steveylang 5y ago
  You're right there is a group C, but those choosing a nomadic life are probably not the ones in tents right at a major city intersection. I am a 'live and let live' person and generally not bothered by the sight of homeless people (besides sympathy for their plight), but it has all started to get out of hand in California.