8 ms·

Some time ago I read You Can't Win[1], a 1926 memoir by a hobo-by-choice named Jack Black. He describes his life as a hobo in various cities (including SF!), an

by acabal 2y ago

Some time ago I read You Can't Win[1], a 1926 memoir by a hobo-by-choice named Jack Black. He describes his life as a hobo in various cities (including SF!), and the picture he paints of the turn-of-the-century will be eerily familiar to anyone living in a major US city today: huge numbers of homeless hopelessly addicted to wine and opium (called "hop") that was cheap and easily accessible in streets and flophouses; tent cities lining the outskirts of town; entire communities of people living in that fashion and outright refusing to re-enter society. The big difference between now and the turn of the 20th century is that back then, the law had little to no tolerance for public vagrancy. Jack Black describes dodging sheriffs, being locked up for the crimes of vagrancy and burglary, spending long stretches of time in prison and emerging completely unreformed, immediately returning to his life of encampment and crime. Even though ultimately his behavior didn't change, the law made him spend significant lengths of time removed from society. I don't know what the lesson is here, if there is one. While a century ago their approach also didn't solve the problem, it did result in more livable cities for everyone else in the meantime. Perhaps one takeaway here is that it the problem isn't truly "solvable" given how we have structured our markets-based society. [1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/jack-black/you-cant-win https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/jack-black/you-cant-win

JohnMakin 2y ago
Per your own post you claim two things - that a very similar (and possibly worse) problem existed with ruthless enforcement, yet the problem was still bad. Why is then your conclusion/question that we need more of that, or I guess to more accurately paraphrase what you said, less compassion than we have now? Those things don’t really seem to logically follow.
- ozzzy1 2y ago
  Yea, I'm not seeing this compassionate approach we have been doing for the past decades apparently.
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    We spend an enormous amount of money. Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems. Voters very much want a compassionate and effective solution. They just aren’t being offered one.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Is there a location you are talking about? > Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems. It sounds like the generic arguments of certain political parties, using terms like 'do-gooders' and calling them 'ineffectual', etc. Is there evidence behind it, in your locale? The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
      - bradleyjg 2y ago
        The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded. How do you explain Vancouver or Stockholm’s homeless populations? Those famously underfunded Swedish and Canadian welfare states? Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything.
        piva00 2y ago
        To be honest, homelessness in Stockholm is really, really low. The very few homeless I see here are in a couple of spots in the city (mainly by Östermalmstorgs t-bana) are there by choice and go into shelters most nights. I don't ever see homeless people in tents or anything similar.
        bradleyjg 2y ago
        I was there a little under a decade and saw plenty of vagrants. Not comparable to sf or anything but they were there. If you’ve cleared it all up since then, kudos. But I don’t think it’s because public services were underfunded back then.
- aksss 2y ago
  I think his conclusion was that enforcement at least makes the city more livable for the people who do choose to be a part of society, air-gapping the problems endemic to vagrancy (assault, abuse, drugs, crime), while having at least a margin deterrence effect.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > for the people who do choose to be a part of society That's a pretty crazy qualification: Either be go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That is the opposite of freedom and universal rights.
    - devilbunny 2y ago
      > go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. It's the opposite. Others liking you or not is irrelevant. > There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them. You absolutely do get to 'impose' them. You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. That's what freedom is about.
        devilbunny 2y ago
        Interesting philosophy, but you do you. > You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. You know there's a reason that there's never been a successful hyperlibertarian society, right? Some people are assholes.
        2y ago
- flustercan 2y ago
  > yet the problem was still bad. My reading of the comment is that homelessness was not solved but ruthless enforcement made the issues related to homelessness less bad for everyone else who wasn't homeless. System 1 (permissiveness): Bad for a small percentage of people and sorta bad for everyone else. System 2 (strict enforcement): Really bad for a small percentage of people, neutral bad for everyone else. System 3 (theoretical): Everything works pretty well for everyone. Obviously system 3 is the best option, but it doesn't exist currently in any society anywhere on earth (maybe Japan?) System 2 seems to be the next best option to use while we keep trying to find a workable system 3.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    People have the exact same rights and freedom as you, whether or not they have housing or do things you like. That's what freedom is - doing things you don't like. People love advertising their embrace of dictatorship and oppression, as if it's clever or smart. It's really a failure of responsibility and duty.
    - flustercan 2y ago
      All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced. If a majority decides those laws are bad, they should be taken off the books. Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws. Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community. There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced. That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
"homeless" is a very broad term, and I think we need to segment it out because not everyone needs the same response. The single parent who is trying to make life work, who loses her job for some reason, and becomes homeless? Compassion. The drug addicted thief who has no interest in being a part of society, who basically wants to live that way? I don't think compassion is the right answer. If you show compassion to that type, you will just be taken advantage of.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  We should have compassion for everyone, albeit it's pretty difficult for genuinely horrible people. However, compassion doesn't mean giving them everything they want without conditions. That's enablement, and isn't compassionate at all.
  - plagiarist 2y ago
    I agree. Maybe it would be neat if we could criminalize the theft part instead of the homelessness and drug addiction?
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      I am completely on board with that idea. It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. It should be a crime to do criminal things.
    - piva00 2y ago
      > The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
      - plagiarist 2y ago
        Homelessness is illegal for everyone and wage theft is a civil court case for everyone. A truly just and equitable system with prosperity for all.
schaefer 2y ago
What a great book recommendation. Thank you.
- throw16180339 2y ago
  You might also like Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell.
morkalork 2y ago
One thing you mention, floop houses, aka single room occupancy (SRO) units don't really exist anymore though. They were shut down over higher building code standards (because fires) and public health concerns. Although those issues were often overstated and it was supposedly "morality" concerns that played a bigger part. Now since covid, rent has increased dramatically and there's been a corresponding increase in working, non-addict, homeless where I live and that type of housing could help.
Dudical 2y ago
Everyone is different, and homelessness is complicated. Ideally you just build the housing - that should be enough for many. But, there are plenty others who can’t function due to illness — and/or have made certain choices not to participate in society. I believe that the greater majority fall into the homeless not by choice but I’ve befriended several homeless by choice people. They take advantage of all the services and often have no incentive or intention to participate in society in any meaningful way. They tend to dislike authority and value personal freedom above all else. They are often friendly and very intelligent but they love to piss people off too. It’s easier to spot these people in times of housing abundance so we should solve the shortage first IMO.
- tharmas 2y ago
  Agreed. The only solution to the housing problem is building public housing. Yes, theres all kinds of problems with that but a nice side effect is it reduces housing costs for all income groups. But of course for those who bought a house for financial investment purposes (retirement plan, rent seeking, flipping) solving the housing problem is not a benefit.

by acabal 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago

Per your own post you claim two things - that a very similar (and possibly worse) problem existed with ruthless enforcement, yet the problem was still bad. Why is then your conclusion/question that we need more of that, or I guess to more accurately paraphrase what you said, less compassion than we have now? Those things don’t really seem to logically follow.

ozzzy1 2y ago
Yea, I'm not seeing this compassionate approach we have been doing for the past decades apparently.
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  We spend an enormous amount of money. Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems. Voters very much want a compassionate and effective solution. They just aren’t being offered one.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Is there a location you are talking about? > Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems. It sounds like the generic arguments of certain political parties, using terms like 'do-gooders' and calling them 'ineffectual', etc. Is there evidence behind it, in your locale? The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
    - bradleyjg 2y ago
      The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded. How do you explain Vancouver or Stockholm’s homeless populations? Those famously underfunded Swedish and Canadian welfare states? Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything.
      - piva00 2y ago
        To be honest, homelessness in Stockholm is really, really low. The very few homeless I see here are in a couple of spots in the city (mainly by Östermalmstorgs t-bana) are there by choice and go into shelters most nights. I don't ever see homeless people in tents or anything similar.
        bradleyjg 2y ago
        I was there a little under a decade and saw plenty of vagrants. Not comparable to sf or anything but they were there. If you’ve cleared it all up since then, kudos. But I don’t think it’s because public services were underfunded back then.
aksss 2y ago
I think his conclusion was that enforcement at least makes the city more livable for the people who do choose to be a part of society, air-gapping the problems endemic to vagrancy (assault, abuse, drugs, crime), while having at least a margin deterrence effect.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > for the people who do choose to be a part of society That's a pretty crazy qualification: Either be go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That is the opposite of freedom and universal rights.
  - devilbunny 2y ago
    > go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. It's the opposite. Others liking you or not is irrelevant. > There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them. You absolutely do get to 'impose' them. You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. That's what freedom is about.
      - devilbunny 2y ago
        Interesting philosophy, but you do you. > You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. You know there's a reason that there's never been a successful hyperlibertarian society, right? Some people are assholes.
        2y ago
flustercan 2y ago
> yet the problem was still bad. My reading of the comment is that homelessness was not solved but ruthless enforcement made the issues related to homelessness less bad for everyone else who wasn't homeless. System 1 (permissiveness): Bad for a small percentage of people and sorta bad for everyone else. System 2 (strict enforcement): Really bad for a small percentage of people, neutral bad for everyone else. System 3 (theoretical): Everything works pretty well for everyone. Obviously system 3 is the best option, but it doesn't exist currently in any society anywhere on earth (maybe Japan?) System 2 seems to be the next best option to use while we keep trying to find a workable system 3.
- mmooss 2y ago
  People have the exact same rights and freedom as you, whether or not they have housing or do things you like. That's what freedom is - doing things you don't like. People love advertising their embrace of dictatorship and oppression, as if it's clever or smart. It's really a failure of responsibility and duty.
  - flustercan 2y ago
    All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced. If a majority decides those laws are bad, they should be taken off the books. Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws. Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community. There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > All I want is for the laws on the books to be enforced. That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

"homeless" is a very broad term, and I think we need to segment it out because not everyone needs the same response. The single parent who is trying to make life work, who loses her job for some reason, and becomes homeless? Compassion. The drug addicted thief who has no interest in being a part of society, who basically wants to live that way? I don't think compassion is the right answer. If you show compassion to that type, you will just be taken advantage of.

kstrauser 2y ago
We should have compassion for everyone, albeit it's pretty difficult for genuinely horrible people. However, compassion doesn't mean giving them everything they want without conditions. That's enablement, and isn't compassionate at all.
- plagiarist 2y ago
  I agree. Maybe it would be neat if we could criminalize the theft part instead of the homelessness and drug addiction?
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    I am completely on board with that idea. It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. It should be a crime to do criminal things.
  - piva00 2y ago
    > The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
    - plagiarist 2y ago
      Homelessness is illegal for everyone and wage theft is a civil court case for everyone. A truly just and equitable system with prosperity for all.

schaefer 2y ago

What a great book recommendation. Thank you.

throw16180339 2y ago
You might also like Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell.

morkalork 2y ago

One thing you mention, floop houses, aka single room occupancy (SRO) units don't really exist anymore though. They were shut down over higher building code standards (because fires) and public health concerns. Although those issues were often overstated and it was supposedly "morality" concerns that played a bigger part. Now since covid, rent has increased dramatically and there's been a corresponding increase in working, non-addict, homeless where I live and that type of housing could help.

Dudical 2y ago

Everyone is different, and homelessness is complicated. Ideally you just build the housing - that should be enough for many. But, there are plenty others who can’t function due to illness — and/or have made certain choices not to participate in society. I believe that the greater majority fall into the homeless not by choice but I’ve befriended several homeless by choice people. They take advantage of all the services and often have no incentive or intention to participate in society in any meaningful way. They tend to dislike authority and value personal freedom above all else. They are often friendly and very intelligent but they love to piss people off too. It’s easier to spot these people in times of housing abundance so we should solve the shortage first IMO.

tharmas 2y ago
Agreed. The only solution to the housing problem is building public housing. Yes, theres all kinds of problems with that but a nice side effect is it reduces housing costs for all income groups. But of course for those who bought a house for financial investment purposes (retirement plan, rent seeking, flipping) solving the housing problem is not a benefit.