CDZ Should the government do more for the homeless?

[Cassandro]

I hope threads get notice over here in CDZ. I was going back and forth on the effectiveness of certain political parties and decided I needed to come up with a solid question to ask of both parties, of all parties, of all Americans: Should the government do more for the homeless?

The problem with your question is "more." If one does not know what is currently being done (or how effective that is), there is no rational basis for determining whether more of it should be done.

A better question would be: What should be done for the homeless?

 

[Compost]

should homelessness exist as an involuntary state of being for U.S. citizens

I didn't answer that question because it is loaded and you know it.

The involuntarily homeless are the ones being helped. You and I seem to agree we ought to help them but differ on the methods. If the involuntarily homeless are impoverished that requires different help than the involuntarily homeless who are say, mentally ill. That is only part of the reason homelessness is NOT a one time fix. Unless you are micro managing these people indefinitely, some will be homeless again. Your fix at next to no incremental cost doesn't make any sense.

You point out that my method hasn't stopped homelessness for good. You ignore that government hasn't stopped it either.

 

[320 Years of History]

should homelessness exist as an involuntary state of being for U.S. citizens

I didn't answer that question because it is loaded and you know it.

The involuntarily homeless are the ones being helped. You and I seem to agree we ought to help them but differ on the methods. If the involuntarily homeless are impoverished that requires different help than the involuntarily homeless who are say, mentally ill. That is only part of the reason homelessness is NOT a one time fix. Unless you are micro managing these people indefinitely, some will be homeless again. Your fix at next to no incremental cost doesn't make any sense.

You point out that my method hasn't stopped homelessness for good. You ignore that government hasn't stopped it either.

There's nothing loaded about the question. There are only four clear ways to answer it:

• Yes it should exist and there's nothing I'm willing to do to prevent it.
• Yes it should exist and I'm willing and committed to at most minimizing it to the point I see fit.
• No, it should not exist and I'm not willing and committed to make sure that comes to pass.
• No, it should not exist and I'm willing and committed to make that comes to pass.

It's a question of principle and integrity. There's no "half stepping" with principles. I presented the question as a "yes or no" one because whereas one can with integrity compromise on the means one employs to achieve an end, achieving the end itself, having a principle that one lives by, is not something one which one can compromise. One either accepts the principle, or one does not, and, upon accepting or rejecting it, one either stands behind one's position on it or one does not.

It may be unpopular to admit, for example, that one thinks it's okay that homelessness exists and that one has no desire to do anything about it, but doing so is at least a fair representation of one's principles. I may not like that one takes that stance, but I don't have much to say about it provided I believe one has carefully considered the matter and arrived at that as one's guiding principle on the matter.

Red:
Those folks need to be made wards of the state if there's nobody else who'll look after them. I don't even care if they want to. They are mentally ill and by definition not in their right mind for making decisions on their own or others' behalf.

Yes, those folks will need long term and recurring care/provision. I don't know what share of the homeless population is mentally ill, but one group thinks it's about 25% of the homeless population. None of the "mentally ill and homeless" are the folks to whom the idea I presented above should apply. There's no point to giving one "a ton" of money to someone if after doing so they will remain incapable of sustaining themselves and joining the ranks self-sufficient, contributing citizens/taxpayers. That said, housing 75% of the homeless population is a fantastic start to dealing with the problem. I certainly will not refrain from solving that share of the problem merely because I have yet to identify a solution for the mentally ill 25% of that segment of society.

To whatever extent homeless people are also mentally ill, that merely means it'd cost less than the sums I noted above to overcome homelessness. Does the preceding begin to make me sound something akin to a social Darwinist? I suspect it does, and quite frankly, I'm not opposed to some aspects of social Darwinism. I believe we should help the "weak" among us become strong so they too can survive, but I don't believe that the "weak" should be sustained indefinitely. I'm okay with allowing that bloodline go extinct right there if there are no others in it to keep it going. The only exception would be for the mentally ill, but then I wouldn't let them procreate either.

It's probably worth noting that my idea of who's voluntarily homeless means anyone who is given/has a place to live and chooses not to live there. Whether they are mentally ill or not doesn't factor into it because, for me, homeless mentally ill folks are homeless because they don't have the sense to stay in a dwelling. That's a totally different matter from having all one's faculties in order and choosing to be homeless.

 

[Stephanie]

why do you people frame your questions that way? it's not the GOVERNMENT who is doing anything for anyone. they don't have their own monies. that come off the backs of the working people in this country

 

[320 Years of History]

why do you people frame your questions that way? it's not the GOVERNMENT who is doing anything for anyone. they don't have their own monies. that come off the backs of the working people in this country

Well, actually, yes, it is. You see that's the very point of having a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. And, yes, the governments of our jurisdictions do have their own money. It becomes their own the instant it lands in their coffers. Since we agree to abide by the principle of representative democracy, we entrust to our elected leaders, and by extension the administrators and judges they appoint, to use the money we provide to them (be it taxes or fees) in what they consider to be our, the nation's, best interest(s).

You or I may disagree with how they choose to use the money. Our 1st Amendment rights allow us to be very vocal and strident in expressing our disagreement. But that's it. The money and the decisions nonetheless remain in the hands of and made at the discretion, within the limits of U.S. laws, of the people whom we elect. We don't have to like their decisions, but unless we are keen to effect a revolt, we must abide by their right and authority to make those decisions.