Is there a "right" to be homeless and live on the sidewalk?

[EvilCat Breath]

So it's an antiquated dysfunctional document, twisting itself into pretzels towe ignore slavery except to assert the rights of moral and religious chattel owners?

I agree.

Democrats want to scrap it. Yes we know.

 

[cnm]

not sure what youre talking about,,

I know.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

[snipped] Obviously one wouldn't be permitted to camp in front of a businesses door ...

You would think not but here in Seattle and many of the surrounding communities they do that as well.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, they do not have a right to camp, sleep, shit, fuck, do drugs and prostitution on the public sidewalks, public parks or private owned lots not owned by the camping homeless.

Yet it's being allowed:
Allowing homeless camping almost everywhere in Seattle is a bad idea

 

[rampart]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

municipal sanitation and public health make urbanization (and a population of billions) possible, there is no more "right" to live on the street than there is a "right to work" for typhoid patients or any other supposed "right" to resist public healih measures.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

you are a perfect example of that,,

That makes no sense. How is the question of the OP be a life. It can be right or wrong but not a lie.

 

[TheParser]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

No, they should not have that "right."

When the Olympics come to Los Angeles in 2028, you can be sure that the liberals who run this city and state will make sure that there are NO unhoused people on the sidewalks.

I read somewhere that Florida is thinking about establishing camping grounds outside the cities in order to provide clean facilities for the unhoused. That would be a wonderful development.

 

[pknopp]

as I said,, regardless of what got them there I bet they dont want to be there and their choices had all run out,,

most are self inflicted,, but there are the ones at the end of their road,,

think about the old man with no kids or relatives and not able to work at a level that allows for a decent home of any size..

The other night I went and saw Steve Poltz perform.





Now he didn't live on a sidewalk but he was "homeless" for years. Stayed wherever he could just wandering. One day he met Jewell working in a bar. She was also technically homeless. She was living in her van. It's a misnomer that the homeless don't work. Many do. While roaming around, playing, staying wherever they could he wrote "You Were Meant for Me".

He still states he can't stay in one place for long but he can afford nice hotels now.

There are some people who prefer a life outside of the structured one most people live.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right, Shirley?

I knew a killer who murdered because he liked to see the light in their eyes go out.

Unalienable right? Ah no.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

All public places/spaces belong to the people/public. Government's are just purely there to maintain and clean them.

 

[eagle1462010]

All public places/spaces belong to the people/public. Government's are just purely there to maintain and clean them.

And as a taxpayer I have a right to say we dont want to have homeless shitting on our side walks.

 

[Captain Caveman]

And as a taxpayer I have a right to say we dont want to have homeless shitting on our side walks.

The thread is not about shitting on pavements. There's laws against that.

As soon as anyone buys one item that includes sales tax, they're a tax payer. Do you feel you have to pay tax to be a citizen?

 

[progressive hunter]

The thread is not about shitting on pavements. There's laws against that.

As soon as anyone buys one item that includes sales tax, they're a tax payer. Do you feel you have to pay tax to be a citizen?

no you dont have to pay taxs to be a citizen,, there are laws that define that,,
and rights dont have anything to do about being a citizen either,,

 

[eagle1462010]

The thread is not about shitting on pavements. There's laws against that.

As soon as anyone buys one item that includes sales tax, they're a tax payer. Do you feel you have to pay tax to be a citizen?

Facts say differently in many places where homeless gather.

 

[Mac-7]

Camping in front of stores would hurt business and id say no there. But after that idk.

Its a problem that is getting worse due to inflation.

Camping on the sidewalk in front of your house is ok?

Most people would not think so

 

[eagle1462010]

Camping on the sidewalk in front of your house is ok?

Most people would not think so

Never said that. Not allowed here. In Dem areas its happening

 

[Mac-7]

Never said that. Not allowed here. In Dem areas its happening

Did I misunderstand when you wrote this?

Because it reads as if street bums have a right to camp in your neighborhood

“Camping in front of stores would hurt business and id say no there. But after that idk.”

 

[eagle1462010]

Did I misunderstand when you wrote this?

Because it reads as if street bums have a right to camp in your neighborhood

“Camping in front of stores would hurt business and id say no there. But after that idk.”

In no way that says id want that. It would destroy business.

 

[Mac-7]

In no way that says id want that. It would destroy business.

I agree

In a residential neighborhood the the presence of street bums would destroy the resale value of homes

In fact vagrants should not be tolerated anywhere

 

[leftwinger]

I'm not talking about whether it's good or bad for people to live like that, or what can be done about it. Well, not as the main point, anyway.

Is there a right to use public tax-funded sidewalks as a campground, no matter how dirty, unsightly, and dangerous the "camping equipment" may be? I'm talking about a person pushing a grocery cart full of dirty and often wet belongings, or carrying a trashbag full of stuff and stopping to rest whenevery they get tired, meanwhile often asking passers-by for money, or otherwise engaging them.

Would any sane and non-addicted person choose to live like that? If there is no way for a peson to exercise a choice, can they really be said to have a "right to choose?"

A humane society's solution for these obviously mentally ill, and/or addicted people is to take them off the sidewalks and bring them to where they can get help. If they refuse the help, I can see a libertarian case for not forcing them. But why bring them back to dangerous city streets that they will both make more dangerous and be endangered on? Take them to the woods near a water source and drop them off.

SassyIrishLass may disagree but to have tens of thousands living on the streets creates a Public Health Emergency. No bathrooms, no showers etc. So they go in the woods or many times in the streets or peoples yards nearby. Once in Nancy Piglousy driveway, once in the aisle at Safeway in SF.

But you can't have this going on for 4 decades. They have to be removed. Many of them probably forcibly? Yes it may mean to a Desert Tent city surrounded by armed guards but with porta potties, showers whatever it takes. Save the good, Jail the bad if (when) they act up in the camps. Somehow release them back to jobs and decent living quarters? how? I don't know. Some of them are good....down on their luck. Were working but ended up laid off or living in cars whatever. I've seen it first-hand too often.

They don't even let your dogs take a dump in public without cleaning it up. Then there is the mountains of trash they pile up......they don't have a "Thurs pickup" like Orange county suburb homes. That costs money.

I understand how DEMS and communists would abuse this "forced" roundup into tent cities. But I don't know what else to do at this time?