5 ms·

The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize

The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize homelessness and drug addiction with cash payments.

mschuster91 3y ago
> The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize homelessness and drug addiction with cash payments. It at least keeps people alive. The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock.
- realjhol 3y ago
  > It at least keeps people alive. It may well keep people alive - in a way, but it's no solution if it creates a mass of people who are destroying themselves and the city community. It's still death - just in slow motion. > The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock. Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are required.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are required. And which ones, bar building housing, should that be? Locking them up for the crime of not being able to afford a home (or being judged too unworthy of credit by three ultra-large black box corporations) is inhumane and costs the government way more than just giving them outright cash. Locking them up in mental wards has the same issues and there's a reason involuntary commitment fell out of favour - it's ripe for abuse. And driving them off via whatever measures just shifts the problem elsewhere.
    - realjhol 3y ago
      > Locking them up for the crime of not being able to afford a home But we should lock them up for the crime of doing crime: dealing drugs, drunk and disorderly, assault, robbery, theft etc. > and costs the government way more than just giving them outright cash. The cut-price solution is clearly no solution at all. > Locking them up in mental wards has the same issues and there's a reason involuntary commitment fell out of favour - it's ripe for abuse. These people meed help, and a drug-free environment is a place they can receive that help. > And driving them off via whatever measures just shifts the problem elsewhere. There are other places where some of these people (the ones without crippling mental health issues) stand a far better chance of building a stable life for themselves
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Seriously mentally ill and addicted should be involuntarily committed. I know that's a big decision and will lead to abuse but the alternative of just having them roam the streets is worse. The "temporarily homeless" as I like to call them, those who want to be productive but have fallen on hard times, deserve access to affordable housing. The government can build huge amounts of tiny apartments to give these people, it worked in Chicago until they recently gave up and converted those units.
  - ModernMech 3y ago
    > It's still death - just in slow motion. Also known as life.

mschuster91 3y ago

> The left's idea or "doing something about it" is making the problem worse not better. It would be better to do nothing than actively facilitate and incentivize homelessness and drug addiction with cash payments. It at least keeps people alive. The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock.

realjhol 3y ago
> It at least keeps people alive. It may well keep people alive - in a way, but it's no solution if it creates a mass of people who are destroying themselves and the city community. It's still death - just in slow motion. > The problem is that the causes of homelessness are not addressed at all - there is nowhere near enough affordable housing stock. Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are required.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Yes, and that's not going to change, so alternative solutions are required. And which ones, bar building housing, should that be? Locking them up for the crime of not being able to afford a home (or being judged too unworthy of credit by three ultra-large black box corporations) is inhumane and costs the government way more than just giving them outright cash. Locking them up in mental wards has the same issues and there's a reason involuntary commitment fell out of favour - it's ripe for abuse. And driving them off via whatever measures just shifts the problem elsewhere.
  - realjhol 3y ago
    > Locking them up for the crime of not being able to afford a home But we should lock them up for the crime of doing crime: dealing drugs, drunk and disorderly, assault, robbery, theft etc. > and costs the government way more than just giving them outright cash. The cut-price solution is clearly no solution at all. > Locking them up in mental wards has the same issues and there's a reason involuntary commitment fell out of favour - it's ripe for abuse. These people meed help, and a drug-free environment is a place they can receive that help. > And driving them off via whatever measures just shifts the problem elsewhere. There are other places where some of these people (the ones without crippling mental health issues) stand a far better chance of building a stable life for themselves
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Seriously mentally ill and addicted should be involuntarily committed. I know that's a big decision and will lead to abuse but the alternative of just having them roam the streets is worse. The "temporarily homeless" as I like to call them, those who want to be productive but have fallen on hard times, deserve access to affordable housing. The government can build huge amounts of tiny apartments to give these people, it worked in Chicago until they recently gave up and converted those units.
- ModernMech 3y ago
  > It's still death - just in slow motion. Also known as life.