5 ms·

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

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.
        mmooss 2y ago
        Your evidence is some anecodtal experience from a decade ago? How do you know the causes of what you remember seeing?
        piva00 2y ago
        What kind of vagrants? There used to be tons of roma people panhandling but they aren't homeless, and since the pandemic they're much less numerous (I'd guess I see less than a 1/5 of what I used to). I really don't think you saw "plenty" of homeless on the streets here, not now and not a decade ago. Panhandlers, beggars, etc. do exist but they aren't homeless. I do not trust your anecdotal experience, not saying the issue doesn't exist but it's not even close to a problem and orders of magnitude less than anything I've experienced traveling in the USA, around the Bay Area, Texas (Austin/Dallas), New York, Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and a few other places had a very acute and visible issue with homelessness that's incomparable with Stockholm. So yes, public services being properly funded help a lot.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > 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 What value does that have? You must have something valuable to contribute.
    - rndmize 2y ago
      https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-... This says CA averages spending 42k per year per homeless person, going off the 2022-2021 state budget. https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-francisco-supervisor-rafael-mandelman/12760671/ https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci... This says SF is looking to spend 70k per homeless person per year in the next few years (in addition to state spending?). I've seen other pieces that mention SF spending anywhere from 250 mil to over a billion per year on homelessness. I have multiple friends that make less than 70k per year, in CA, and somehow make do. Lack of money doesn't seem to be the issue here.
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.

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.
        mmooss 2y ago
        Your evidence is some anecodtal experience from a decade ago? How do you know the causes of what you remember seeing?
        piva00 2y ago
        What kind of vagrants? There used to be tons of roma people panhandling but they aren't homeless, and since the pandemic they're much less numerous (I'd guess I see less than a 1/5 of what I used to). I really don't think you saw "plenty" of homeless on the streets here, not now and not a decade ago. Panhandlers, beggars, etc. do exist but they aren't homeless. I do not trust your anecdotal experience, not saying the issue doesn't exist but it's not even close to a problem and orders of magnitude less than anything I've experienced traveling in the USA, around the Bay Area, Texas (Austin/Dallas), New York, Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and a few other places had a very acute and visible issue with homelessness that's incomparable with Stockholm. So yes, public services being properly funded help a lot.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > 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 What value does that have? You must have something valuable to contribute.
  - rndmize 2y ago
    https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-off-homelessness-spending/ https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/07/something-clearly-... This says CA averages spending 42k per year per homeless person, going off the 2022-2021 state budget. https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-francisco-supervisor-rafael-mandelman/12760671/ https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci... This says SF is looking to spend 70k per homeless person per year in the next few years (in addition to state spending?). I've seen other pieces that mention SF spending anywhere from 250 mil to over a billion per year on homelessness. I have multiple friends that make less than 70k per year, in CA, and somehow make do. Lack of money doesn't seem to be the issue here.

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.