31 ms·

These sound more like complaints with shelters than anything I said. If getting someone into a shelter bed is not overall a net positive for them and society, w

These sound more like complaints with shelters than anything I said. If getting someone into a shelter bed is not overall a net positive for them and society, why are we even doing it in the first place? You're pointing out a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with what I talked about. I'm sure there are lots of ways shelters could be run better and improved. It's an imperfect, partial solution to a huge problem.

tech_ken 3y ago
I absolutely agree it's a problem with shelter beds, but this is exactly what you're talking about. Coercive force is useless at best unless there's something effective that you're pushing people into. Pretending like the problem is that we're not "cracking down" hard enough, or that progressives are simply averse to sufficiently coercive measures bc they're soft-hearted or whatever, only obscures the solution space until we've resolved the other issues first. Coercion without effective direction is nothing more than torture.
- evancox100 3y ago
  I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion. But in the context of the discussion, if we take for granted that doing X for homeless people is good, whatever X may be (e.g. moving them into a shelter, attending an AA meeting, seeing a doctor, whatever), my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    Why do you think it's a good for them to be moved into a shelter if they see the shelter option as bad enough to prefer not staying there. Maybe rethink why so many see the shelters as the worse option before you start trying to justify authoritarian approaches.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    > my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X Fine and acceptable, even to most progressives I think, but also in my opinion entirely tangential until we have resolved what X is first. Moreover, I am of the belief that for effectively chosen values of X the required amount of coercive force will be substantially lower than what most people seem to think is actually necessary.
    - evancox100 3y ago
      I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't think this is the opinion of most people, but it seems to be where many policy makers and "thought leaders" (:eye-roll:) are at. AND, the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people. Just read what Mayor Breed said, it sounds like they cannot enforce any type of nuisance, public safety, or sanitation laws against homeless people.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        > I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. Most who rail against progressive elites make the opposite claim.
        evancox100 3y ago
        That may be the case, but just as an example, elite progressive opinion seems to have shifted to a nonsensical "pro-gun control, anti-arresting people for gun crimes".
      - tech_ken 3y ago
        >application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high. > the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people As I was stressing earlier, if we don't have a reasonable outcome at the other end of the coercive force applying it anyway is unethical and ineffective. I don't believe that they are legally prevented from enforcing eg. noise ordinances (could be wrong here). They are merely prevented from throwing out someone's tent and kicking them to the next block.

tech_ken 3y ago

I absolutely agree it's a problem with shelter beds, but this is exactly what you're talking about. Coercive force is useless at best unless there's something effective that you're pushing people into. Pretending like the problem is that we're not "cracking down" hard enough, or that progressives are simply averse to sufficiently coercive measures bc they're soft-hearted or whatever, only obscures the solution space until we've resolved the other issues first. Coercion without effective direction is nothing more than torture.

evancox100 3y ago
I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion. But in the context of the discussion, if we take for granted that doing X for homeless people is good, whatever X may be (e.g. moving them into a shelter, attending an AA meeting, seeing a doctor, whatever), my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X.
- vidarh 3y ago
  Why do you think it's a good for them to be moved into a shelter if they see the shelter option as bad enough to prefer not staying there. Maybe rethink why so many see the shelters as the worse option before you start trying to justify authoritarian approaches.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  > my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X Fine and acceptable, even to most progressives I think, but also in my opinion entirely tangential until we have resolved what X is first. Moreover, I am of the belief that for effectively chosen values of X the required amount of coercive force will be substantially lower than what most people seem to think is actually necessary.
  - evancox100 3y ago
    I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't think this is the opinion of most people, but it seems to be where many policy makers and "thought leaders" (:eye-roll:) are at. AND, the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people. Just read what Mayor Breed said, it sounds like they cannot enforce any type of nuisance, public safety, or sanitation laws against homeless people.
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      > I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. Most who rail against progressive elites make the opposite claim.
      - evancox100 3y ago
        That may be the case, but just as an example, elite progressive opinion seems to have shifted to a nonsensical "pro-gun control, anti-arresting people for gun crimes".
    - tech_ken 3y ago
      >application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high. > the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people As I was stressing earlier, if we don't have a reasonable outcome at the other end of the coercive force applying it anyway is unethical and ineffective. I don't believe that they are legally prevented from enforcing eg. noise ordinances (could be wrong here). They are merely prevented from throwing out someone's tent and kicking them to the next block.