3 ms·
It’s even worse than that. In the US, at least, city governments are spending their money destroying the tents and tarpaulins that homeless people have set up f
by lazyasciiart 3y ago
It’s even worse than that. In the US, at least, city governments are spending their money destroying the tents and tarpaulins that homeless people have set up for themselves on public land, and on fighting in court for the right to do so (see Martin v Boise and Johnson v Grants Pass). Then when someone uses their own land to allow tents or structures, the cities spend time passing unenforceable laws to ban it (see First Lutheran v St Paul). And they won’t even take money offered to them to do anything better! (See Burien city in WA currently: not only are they threatening fines on a church that shelters homeless people, they’re refusing to do anything with $1million offered by the county to help people in a local homeless camp. I am directly aware of a nonprofit group in Seattle that has over 100 preconstructed tiny houses and will install them anywhere for free, but is running out of storage space because no city in King County will allow them to do so, even on private land).
- pierat 3y agoAgain, capitalist countries NEED the homeless people as a ultimate threat to everyone, that if you aren't rich or make someone else rich, you will end up living on the streets, homeless, destitute, hungry, and die. Removing that ultimate threat is NOT in the interests of the government, which greatly utilizes that threat. How else do you force people to work in an open-air gulag 3.8m mi^2, where 1% live comfortably, and 99% dont? And it's a double-fuckyou with US citizenship renunciation fees at $2350. Like, having a US citizenship is a 3 grand hole in my pocket. And I didn't even fucking choose it. Still, no choice.