4 ms·

You can get all high and mighty about who deserves what, or you can actually solve the problem and give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.) Would

You can get all high and mighty about who deserves what, or you can actually solve the problem and give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.) Would you rather be right, or live in a city without homelessness?

Consultant32452 3y ago
> give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.) This is a false choice. >Would you rather be right, or live in a city without homelessness? I can be right and also live in a city without homelessness. I'll just ship them to wherever you live, because you're so nice that you are volunteering to take care of the problem.
- coffeecloud 3y ago
  What option is there besides give people housing, let them lived unhoused, or jail them for not acquiring housing?
  - Consultant32452 3y ago
    You will never eliminate severe mental illness. You can, however, create systems that understand human incentives. If you can't even imagine options that don't involve systemic centralized planning, we are so far from moving towards peaceful solutions that my only incentive is to ship the antisocial people to your neighborhood.
    - coffeecloud 3y ago
      I asked a pretty straightforward question and you responded with a very vague tangent. What other options are there besides giving people homes or allowing them to live on the street?
      - Consultant32452 3y ago
        Privatize all property. Eliminate zoning, licensing, labor laws including minimum wage, price controls, and building codes. Eliminate inflationary monetary policy. Dismantle the military industrial complex which creates the veteran->streets pipeline. Eliminate laws which reduce/limit liability of drug manufacturers. These policies eliminate the cliff off which people fall, resulting in living/defecating on the streets. There will still be some tiny fraction that are too ill/handicapped to work, but once their numbers are so small it becomes easier to help them on a case by case basis. Defining a top-down, centrally planned strategy from afar is the opposite of how to help anyone.
        Spivak 3y ago
        > There will still be some tiny fraction that are too ill/handicapped to work One more time, for these people what are your options except giving them free housing, jailing them, or letting them live unhoused? Reducing the problem is nice but you still have to a policy at the bottom when all else still fails.
        Consultant32452 3y ago
        I'm telling you explicitly that the idea that you need a policy is the whole problem with how you are thinking about this. "We" will do literally nothing. I might do something. You might do something. But no centrally planned collective action whatsoever. At the scale we're talking about here, the problem described in the subject of this thread is already solved.
gpm 3y ago
> or throw them in jail. Which is really just a particularly expensive and unpleasant home when you put it in this context.

Consultant32452 3y ago

> give people housing for free (or throw them in jail.) This is a false choice. >Would you rather be right, or live in a city without homelessness? I can be right and also live in a city without homelessness. I'll just ship them to wherever you live, because you're so nice that you are volunteering to take care of the problem.

coffeecloud 3y ago
What option is there besides give people housing, let them lived unhoused, or jail them for not acquiring housing?
- Consultant32452 3y ago
  You will never eliminate severe mental illness. You can, however, create systems that understand human incentives. If you can't even imagine options that don't involve systemic centralized planning, we are so far from moving towards peaceful solutions that my only incentive is to ship the antisocial people to your neighborhood.
  - coffeecloud 3y ago
    I asked a pretty straightforward question and you responded with a very vague tangent. What other options are there besides giving people homes or allowing them to live on the street?
    - Consultant32452 3y ago
      Privatize all property. Eliminate zoning, licensing, labor laws including minimum wage, price controls, and building codes. Eliminate inflationary monetary policy. Dismantle the military industrial complex which creates the veteran->streets pipeline. Eliminate laws which reduce/limit liability of drug manufacturers. These policies eliminate the cliff off which people fall, resulting in living/defecating on the streets. There will still be some tiny fraction that are too ill/handicapped to work, but once their numbers are so small it becomes easier to help them on a case by case basis. Defining a top-down, centrally planned strategy from afar is the opposite of how to help anyone.
      - Spivak 3y ago
        > There will still be some tiny fraction that are too ill/handicapped to work One more time, for these people what are your options except giving them free housing, jailing them, or letting them live unhoused? Reducing the problem is nice but you still have to a policy at the bottom when all else still fails.
        Consultant32452 3y ago
        I'm telling you explicitly that the idea that you need a policy is the whole problem with how you are thinking about this. "We" will do literally nothing. I might do something. You might do something. But no centrally planned collective action whatsoever. At the scale we're talking about here, the problem described in the subject of this thread is already solved.

gpm 3y ago

> or throw them in jail. Which is really just a particularly expensive and unpleasant home when you put it in this context.