At least here in Los Angeles, there’s state-level regulation and budgetary constraints that limit what the mayor can do. And the city council is in the pocket of landlords.
In the middle ages we could blame a single king. Now it’s a lot more complicated, between politicians and the people who bribe them.
Nah you couldn’t even blame just the king back then. Lords and ladies were still a thing. Just like dukes and duchess. Hell a corrupt sheriff could be all it took for your life to be made harder.
Right? That’s the main villain in the Robin Hood story.
A lot of popular entertainment shows the king as having absolute power, where the reality a lot of times was that he was constantly strategizing against his vassals to keep them from rising up against him. Those vassals wielded immense power themselves, since all of the levies at the King’s disposal came from his vassal’s dutchies, which they had direct control over.
Because news agencies and social engineering campaigns have created the common opinion that homeless people aren’t people, or if they are, they’re homeless because of their own poor choices. Plus, lots of people spend most of their time trying not to be homeless themselves, and then of course there’s a large part of the population that just doesn’t give a fuck, as long as it’s not them.
The issue is that tax payers are already paying for it. It cost money for cops to go out and arrest people, then process them. The homeless person ain’t going to show up to court later, and the tax payer usually eats the cost of all that plus any anti homeless benches or windows.
I think if that the cost gets directed toward housing and food, so they have a stable place to grow from, it would be a better option in the long run.
Step 1) defund police to provide free house and food to socially unfit people
Step 2) socially unfit people trash the place because that’s what junkies do.
Step 3) omg what is the police doing
Step 4) it’s defunded.
Step 5) who could have seen it coming?
Step 1) make up a situation to be mad at.
Step 2) get mad at it.
Step 3) ???
Step 4) allow police to hunt homeless people for sport.
Now, to be serious, step 2 in your example is a lie fed to you by the police state in order to manufacture fear of homeless people and justify its own existence. Therefore the rest of your post is bullshit as well. And when your neighbor has a mental health crisis, you should call social services and doctors, not the police. The fact that your first instinct is to punish and incarcerate mentally unwell people instead of helping them to get better says a lot about your current mindset actually.
Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.
I know this is a classical bad faith argument and doesn’t warrant a response, but hilariously, i’ve genuinely done that before. I got to know one of those street punk types and he slept on my couch multiple times.
For what little i know of this internet stranger, i’d rather him stay at my place than you
It’s ok, I own my own home and am a functional human being, I don’t rely on hand outs from strangers to make up for an inability to behave like a person.
You’ve taken the comic way too literally. Homelessness is a policy choice, and politicians are responsible for failing to allocate funds towards prevention, housing, etc. That applies to politicians at every level of government, with varying levels of responsibility/ability.
Reality is more complicated than you’re viewing it.
junkies and other socially unfit people
You don’t seem to understand what leads a person to do drugs either.
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health. Because when politicians let housing get fucked, when they let people starve, when they let them be ill, you get problems that get expensive in the form of prison time, police budgets, and crime rates. This is an area where doing the morally right thing is the most cost effective thing. Dehumanizing people as “junkies” and “socially unfit” just makes everything worse, for yourself included.
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
If anything, it’s the people who say we should give them a home and food that are the ones who do the dehumanizing, treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
This problem can’t be solved by personal behavior.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
You are demeaning people as “junkies and socially unfit”. That’s dehumanization.
treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
They aren’t pets, nor are they being treated as such. Your jump to calling them pets further shows how you see them as less than human.
What if the road to becoming “functional” requires, at least in a plurality of cases, help from those that can afford it?
That “free shit” might be what helps them turn their life around. Do you think they have a better chance to improve their station in life if they don’t have access to support from the public?
I wholly reject that it’s somehow dehumanizing to give folks food and shelter during the worst moments in their lives.
The best they , do you know how worthwhile to save someone from mental illness ? I mean cashdollarbills, even if you don’t care about humans. Just the increase in property values from not having to look at their beat down mugs.
Why aren’t people bullying mayors over this shit ?
How can a mayor call themselves a leader with homeless people in their town ?
Leader of heartless puke-faces.
At least here in Los Angeles, there’s state-level regulation and budgetary constraints that limit what the mayor can do. And the city council is in the pocket of landlords.
In the middle ages we could blame a single king. Now it’s a lot more complicated, between politicians and the people who bribe them.
Nah you couldn’t even blame just the king back then. Lords and ladies were still a thing. Just like dukes and duchess. Hell a corrupt sheriff could be all it took for your life to be made harder.
Right? That’s the main villain in the Robin Hood story.
A lot of popular entertainment shows the king as having absolute power, where the reality a lot of times was that he was constantly strategizing against his vassals to keep them from rising up against him. Those vassals wielded immense power themselves, since all of the levies at the King’s disposal came from his vassal’s dutchies, which they had direct control over.
Everyone’s always able to point at everyone else.
Because news agencies and social engineering campaigns have created the common opinion that homeless people aren’t people, or if they are, they’re homeless because of their own poor choices. Plus, lots of people spend most of their time trying not to be homeless themselves, and then of course there’s a large part of the population that just doesn’t give a fuck, as long as it’s not them.
How is a mayor responsible for junkies and mentally unstable people unfit for society?
What do you want them to do?
Feed and house them, can you not read?
How many homeless people do you let crash on your couch and eat out of your fridge?
Or is it only ok if someone else pays for it?
The issue is that tax payers are already paying for it. It cost money for cops to go out and arrest people, then process them. The homeless person ain’t going to show up to court later, and the tax payer usually eats the cost of all that plus any anti homeless benches or windows.
I think if that the cost gets directed toward housing and food, so they have a stable place to grow from, it would be a better option in the long run.
You’ll pay cops regardless.
Not if they get defunded
Step 1) defund police to provide free house and food to socially unfit people
Step 2) socially unfit people trash the place because that’s what junkies do.
Step 3) omg what is the police doing
Step 4) it’s defunded.
Step 5) who could have seen it coming?
And your solution is, let me guess:
Step 1) make up a situation to be mad at.
Step 2) get mad at it.
Step 3) ???
Step 4) allow police to hunt homeless people for sport.
Now, to be serious, step 2 in your example is a lie fed to you by the police state in order to manufacture fear of homeless people and justify its own existence. Therefore the rest of your post is bullshit as well. And when your neighbor has a mental health crisis, you should call social services and doctors, not the police. The fact that your first instinct is to punish and incarcerate mentally unwell people instead of helping them to get better says a lot about your current mindset actually.
i doubt you’d need as many
You will, because you’ll need to evict the junkies out of the place they’re trashing.
Currently, my taxes go into destroying homeless encampments and arresting them, so we could probably use that money for housing and feeding them instead.
Be the change you want to see happen
I know this is a classical bad faith argument and doesn’t warrant a response, but hilariously, i’ve genuinely done that before. I got to know one of those street punk types and he slept on my couch multiple times.
For what little i know of this internet stranger, i’d rather him stay at my place than you
It’s ok, I own my own home and am a functional human being, I don’t rely on hand outs from strangers to make up for an inability to behave like a person.
Way to dehumanize the homeless, buddy
Oh no they’re definitely human, like biologically.
I mean, this can be said of numerous serial killers too.
We’re already paying for it. It’s cheaper (financially and otherwise) to fix the problem instead.
Do you think a town’s mayor has the ability to turn junkies and other socially unfit people into actual functional human beings?
You’ve taken the comic way too literally. Homelessness is a policy choice, and politicians are responsible for failing to allocate funds towards prevention, housing, etc. That applies to politicians at every level of government, with varying levels of responsibility/ability.
Reality is more complicated than you’re viewing it.
You don’t seem to understand what leads a person to do drugs either.
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/what-does-rat-park-teach-us-about-addiction
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80897-8
The financially wise decision is to house people, keep them fed, and in good health. Because when politicians let housing get fucked, when they let people starve, when they let them be ill, you get problems that get expensive in the form of prison time, police budgets, and crime rates. This is an area where doing the morally right thing is the most cost effective thing. Dehumanizing people as “junkies” and “socially unfit” just makes everything worse, for yourself included.
George Carlin said the homeless exist to remind the poor & middle-class what could happen to them if they step out of line.
Feel free to invest into housing and then practice what you preach.
Also, I’m not dehumanizing junkies and socially unfit people. They’re definitely human. Being human however does not entitle you to free shift from people who are actually functional.
If anything, it’s the people who say we should give them a home and food that are the ones who do the dehumanizing, treating them like pets that shouldn’t be left outside in the cold.
This problem can’t be solved by personal behavior.
You are demeaning people as “junkies and socially unfit”. That’s dehumanization.
They aren’t pets, nor are they being treated as such. Your jump to calling them pets further shows how you see them as less than human.
What if the road to becoming “functional” requires, at least in a plurality of cases, help from those that can afford it?
That “free shit” might be what helps them turn their life around. Do you think they have a better chance to improve their station in life if they don’t have access to support from the public?
I wholly reject that it’s somehow dehumanizing to give folks food and shelter during the worst moments in their lives.
Yes, unless you’re in some ****hole country ? Hmmm what’s the polite word, rustic ?
The best they , do you know how worthwhile to save someone from mental illness ? I mean cashdollarbills, even if you don’t care about humans. Just the increase in property values from not having to look at their beat down mugs.