Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Alias]

There are many reasons for people to become homeless. Once they have, it's almost impossible for them to re-house themselves: without an address, you can't get a job, or even make yourself presentable to apply for one. You can't get a bank account or even a place to pick up a welfare cheque or library card. Without a job, you can't get housing. Once you've fallen through one of the many "cracks", you can't get back into society without society's help.

There are some band-aid measures carried on by charities: soup kitchens, temporary shelters, handing blankets and coats, etc. One of the better ideas is the Safe Haven for women; there are regional drop-in centers where people can bathe, change their clothes, do laundry, borrow books, visit and get warm. There are mobile units delivering food and even mobile showers.
But none of this helps to solve the problem - and the problem is growing. It will keep growing, too, with automation and off-shoring of jobs and the insane inflation rate of real estate; which means more evictions as even working people are priced out of their accommodations. The number of businesses that will cease operations due to the pandemic will just add to the unemployment rate in a segment of the population that is already living payday-to-payday and sinking deeper into debt.

When there were only a few vagrants, and that mainly adult males, it was relatively easy to criminalize, and to keep out of sight, out of mind. Now that the homeless are mothers with children, as well as old people, teenagers, veterans, dispossessed farmers, emotionally troubled and sick people - more and more and more of all kinds of people who simply fell on the wrong side of an economic boom-bust cycle - governments will be forced to make some attempt at a genuine solution.

[-TheLastAmerican]

What is your solution?

[chewybrian]

What is your solution?

I don't know if you are directing this at me, since I started the thread. But, I think I would start by de-criminalizing homelessness. All the crimes that seem to go hand in hand with homelessness should still be considered crimes, but the mere fact of not owning a home should not add to the penalty or make one a de facto criminal by penalizing existence or unavoidable body functions.

If you don't want homeless people to go to the bathroom in public, then make public bathrooms reasonably accessible for them. If you don't want them sleeping or camping out in public parks, then provide places where they can sleep.

In the first post, I made a link to a book by George Orwell, in which he documents the old British system of 'caring' for the homeless in a first-hand account. It's worth reading. That system was unnecessarily harsh and degrading, but did provide the basics: a shower, a place to sleep and a hot meal. I would add educational opportunities and medical and mental health care and counseling.

The most productive solution I have seen was when they simply gave homeless people a small but substantial amount of money, like $6,000 or so. A good percentage of the people were able to get employed and find a place to live before the money ran out, and it turned out to be cost effective when comparing it to the usual costs associated with the homeless.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/americas ... g%20faster.

Researchers gave 50 recently homeless people a lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars (nearly $5,700). They followed the cash recipients' life over 12-18 months and compared their outcomes to that of a control group who didn't receive the payment.

"One of the things that was most striking is that most people who received the cash knew immediately what they wanted to do with that money, and that just flies in the face of stereotypes," Williams told CNN.

For example, she explained some cash recipients knew they wanted to use the money to move into housing, or invest in transportation -- getting a bike, or taking their cars to the repair shop to be able to keep their jobs. Others wanted to purchase computers. A number of them wanted to start their own small businesses.

"People very much know what they need, but we often don't equip them with the intervention or the services that really empowers them with choice and dignity to move forward on their own terms," Williams said.

According to the research, reducing the number of nights spent in shelters by the 50 study participants who received cash saved approximately 8,100 Canadian dollars per person per year, or about 405,000 Canadian dollars over one year for all 50 participants.

[LuckyR]

What is your solution?

I don't know if you are directing this at me, since I started the thread. But, I think I would start by de-criminalizing homelessness. All the crimes that seem to go hand in hand with homelessness should still be considered crimes, but the mere fact of not owning a home should not add to the penalty or make one a de facto criminal by penalizing existence or unavoidable body functions.

If you don't want homeless people to go to the bathroom in public, then make public bathrooms reasonably accessible for them. If you don't want them sleeping or camping out in public parks, then provide places where they can sleep.

In the first post, I made a link to a book by George Orwell, in which he documents the old British system of 'caring' for the homeless in a first-hand account. It's worth reading. That system was unnecessarily harsh and degrading, but did provide the basics: a shower, a place to sleep and a hot meal. I would add educational opportunities and medical and mental health care and counseling.

The most productive solution I have seen was when they simply gave homeless people a small but substantial amount of money, like $6,000 or so. A good percentage of the people were able to get employed and find a place to live before the money ran out, and it turned out to be cost effective when comparing it to the usual costs associated with the homeless.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/09/americas ... g%20faster.

Researchers gave 50 recently homeless people a lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars (nearly $5,700). They followed the cash recipients' life over 12-18 months and compared their outcomes to that of a control group who didn't receive the payment.

"One of the things that was most striking is that most people who received the cash knew immediately what they wanted to do with that money, and that just flies in the face of stereotypes," Williams told CNN.

For example, she explained some cash recipients knew they wanted to use the money to move into housing, or invest in transportation -- getting a bike, or taking their cars to the repair shop to be able to keep their jobs. Others wanted to purchase computers. A number of them wanted to start their own small businesses.

"People very much know what they need, but we often don't equip them with the intervention or the services that really empowers them with choice and dignity to move forward on their own terms," Williams said.

According to the research, reducing the number of nights spent in shelters by the 50 study participants who received cash saved approximately 8,100 Canadian dollars per person per year, or about 405,000 Canadian dollars over one year for all 50 participants.

Giving the already homeless money will likely do what the researchers found. Starting a program to give all "homeless" free money will just create more "homeless" to cash checks.

Similar to the program to pay a dollar for each rat tail, in an attempt to encourage trapping rats to lower the rat problem just led to folks breeding extra rats for the bounty.

[mystery]

homeless should for sure not be a crime.

if landowners group together and make a "law" that tells that homeless should not be in the area they "own", in that case, the homeless person being in that location would be a crime as per the law of the landowners who have organized and elected officials that in turn hire police. In this case the homeless can try to join that group by meeting the requirements "not being homeless" or they can move on to another place that does not have such a law. This situation falls directly in the hypocrisy arena. Don't let the homeless in my yard, but do let them in someone else's yard.

In North America alone, thousands or millions of acres are not actively managed or monitored. many places a person can go and not be hassled. problem is that most of those places do not have anything already built by others that a person would like to have and use. going to a community resource and demanding that those community members must give is not ok. If those community members choose to provide something that is nice if not our only choice should be to either tell the homeless to move on or to offer them a place in our OWN home or land.

The good land or the good location is the one that OTHERS have already worked to create a better life. For an outsider to come and demand the usage of it is stealing.

If all are equal (i never believe that) then all should be able to not have the problem of being homeless.

Is being homeless a choice, if no then it is useful to find the cause and solve problems that cause it. If it is a choice, we should make it a not fun choice so that others will avoid it.

When I take in homeless, I insist they work. It usually ends well for everyone and I usually get more back than I give and they usually become not homeless and only needed some leadership. I do avoid any mental issue types because I don't have the skills and would fail.

[-TheLastAmerican]

If the advocates for the homelessness were to take a few homeless folks into their homes and provide food, shelter and health care to said homeless, then 90% of the homeless problem would be solved.

[mystery]

If the advocates for the homelessness were to take a few homeless folks into their homes and provide food, shelter and health care to said homeless, then 90% of the homeless problem would be solved.

amen to that. it's not about forcing others to help it is about doing it ourselves.

[Pattern-chaser]

If the advocates for the homelessness were to take a few homeless folks into their homes and provide food, shelter and health care to said homeless, then 90% of the homeless problem would be solved.

So the homeless must depend on those prosperous enough to support themselves, and have enough left over to support the homeless too? And, of those prosperous people, how many would be willing to give up what they have and give it to others (who need it)? I don't think this solution is a practical one.

[chewybrian]

If the advocates for the homelessness were to take a few homeless folks into their homes and provide food, shelter and health care to said homeless, then 90% of the homeless problem would be solved.

So the homeless must depend on those prosperous enough to support themselves, and have enough left over to support the homeless too? And, of those prosperous people, how many would be willing to give up what they have and give it to others (who need it)? I don't think this solution is a practical one.

I think there are problems with projection and conceit about the way most folks see the issue. They are apt to project their own experience onto others, as if the homeless person had all the same abilities and opportunities they had to get a job and a home. They are apt to be conceited in the fact that they don't see homelessness as a problem that could be theirs one day, as if the misfortune or physical or mental health problems of the homeless man could never be their problems.

But, clearly, physical and mental health problems can happen to anyone, and random misfortune could be waiting for any of us as well. When we view the situation in this light, we can see that we should protect and help each other in these situations. We should want to help because we may soon be the one needing help.

But, as there are so many people too conceited to see that homelessness is not (necessarily) a character flaw, it seems we must tax and spend if we want to make serious progress. Few people are willing to take the risk and make the sacrifice to help some random stranger, and further they may not be educated and qualified enough to give the right help in the right way to have the best chance at solving the problem. They may even make things worse with the best of intentions. I would not go so far as to say we should stop people from trying to help on their own, but I don't think it is a realistic way to attack the problem and make serious progress against it.

[Ecurb]

Eugene, Oregon (my home) has become a haven for homeless people. I'm not sure why, but one reason is doubtless the liberal laws and regulations that make it easy for the homeless to live here. Some formerly buccolic parks are now covered with tents, (stolen?) shopping carts filled with junk, and loitering people. Although many residents complain, it seems that my city has tried herding the homeless together in order to better manage pollution, trash removal, and policing. The tent cities are provided with public toilets (non-flush) and sanitation stations, and have not really become hot-beds of violent crime, despite some predictions to the contrary.

Of course it is true that by concentrating the homeless in these tent cities, we have made the problem more visible. But so what? Perhaps problems should be visible. I sympathize with and support my homeless neighbors, but it is definitely a problem that the wide diversity of laws in the U.S. may lead to greater burdens for those states and cities that are most supportive of the homeless; the homeless will emigrate to them.

By the way (to those who suggest supporters of the homeless should let them live in their homes) I've had a couple of homeless people live in my house, one of them for at least a year. I'll admit that this was a friend of mine who had fallen on hard times, rather than a random homeless stranger. Noentheless, I agree that family and friends should help people, and supportive social networks would go a long way toward reducing homelessness.

[mystery]

If the advocates for the homelessness were to take a few homeless folks into their homes and provide food, shelter and health care to said homeless, then 90% of the homeless problem would be solved.

So the homeless must depend on those prosperous enough to support themselves, and have enough left over to support the homeless too? And, of those prosperous people, how many would be willing to give up what they have and give it to others (who need it)? I don't think this solution is a practical one.

I think there are problems with projection and conceit about the way most folks see the issue. They are apt to project their own experience onto others, as if the homeless person had all the same abilities and opportunities they had to get a job and a home. They are apt to be conceited in the fact that they don't see homelessness as a problem that could be theirs one day, as if the misfortune or physical or mental health problems of the homeless man could never be their problems.

But, clearly, physical and mental health problems can happen to anyone, and random misfortune could be waiting for any of us as well. When we view the situation in this light, we can see that we should protect and help each other in these situations. We should want to help because we may soon be the one needing help.

But, as there are so many people too conceited to see that homelessness is not (necessarily) a character flaw, it seems we must tax and spend if we want to make serious progress. Few people are willing to take the risk and make the sacrifice to help some random stranger, and further they may not be educated and qualified enough to give the right help in the right way to have the best chance at solving the problem. They may even make things worse with the best of intentions. I would not go so far as to say we should stop people from trying to help on their own, but I don't think it is a realistic way to attack the problem and make serious progress against it.

tax and spend is what is done currently in the USA. it doesn't work. many ppl that are in need, need to be sponsored into the community. tax and spend further creates a situation of separation, with separation being a big part of the problem to start with.

so many reasons to do nothing, one of the most used is to suggest it should be someone else to do it. homeless is usually together with poverty, with the cause many. when it is possible the best solution is if the person can get stronger and rejoin the fight.

I agree that it doesn't work for common folks to try to help with mental health issues. it can be dangerous and cause even worse issues.

There is a sort of karma about this, trouble does come to us when we do not expect it. Those that we helped often are the first and maybe the only ones that come to our aid. So it is not really completely unselfish to help others, as it is sort of like buying insurance.

[Gertie]

So, could you practically live without owning or renting property? Is there anything wrong or criminal in not owning property? Should people have a basic right to live in public spaces, providing they respect those spaces?

It should be a basic human right to have a home. And if someone needs help to live in their home, that should be available too.

For those who for whatever reason can't or don't, of course they shouldn't be criminalised. Setting aside spaces with basic facilities will at least help somewhat

[-TheLastAmerican]

I am confused about this thread.

Is it the thesis of this thread that if a person with mental health problems decides to camp out on your front lawn and starts using your hedges as their toilet, you and all your neighbors should just suck it up and start preparing meals and doing their laundry for them? If so, does being homeless automatically make a person insane (i.e. has mental health problems)? Where does society draw the line as to who is genuinely insane and who isn't? Who gets to be in charge of making that decision? How do we know the person(s) making the decisions about who is insane, are not themselves, insane? Does holding a degree in metal health automatically preclude a person from being insane themselves?

Suppose society imposes this magical thinking on the non-insane and creates a nirvana for the insane to camp out in, but, a few insane people decide they would rather live in your front yard?

Then what?

Lastly, does not wanting to work and maintain a minimum living standard that does not offend and/or impose on one's neighbors make a person insane?

Is everyone that is homeless, by default, helpless, just by the fact that they are homeless?

[chewybrian]

I am confused about this thread.

Is it the thesis of this thread that if a person with mental health problems decides to camp out on your front lawn and starts using your hedges as their toilet, you and all your neighbors should just suck it up and start preparing meals and doing their laundry for them? If so, does being homeless automatically make a person insane (i.e. has mental health problems)? Where does society draw the line as to who is genuinely insane and who isn't? Who gets to be in charge of making that decision? How do we know the person(s) making the decisions about who is insane, are not themselves, insane? Does holding a degree in metal health automatically preclude a person from being insane themselves?

Suppose society imposes this magical thinking on the non-insane and creates a nirvana for the insane to camp out in, but, a few insane people decide they would rather live in your front yard?

Then what?

Lastly, does not wanting to work and maintain a minimum living standard that does not offend and/or impose on one's neighbors make a person insane?

Is everyone that is homeless, by default, helpless, just by the fact that they are homeless?

I thought the point was clearly stated up front:

I realize that there are all sorts of criminal activities correlated with homelessness that are not a direct result of oppressive laws, or the mere fact of not having a home. But, that is not the issue. I am only asking if the simple act of living without a home is a crime or should be.

I'm not expecting people to put up with any behavior from the homeless that they would not accept from the non-homeless. I am pointing out that someone without a home often has little choice but to break the law, as the laws are written around the assumption that we all have somewhere to go, and therefore have no business going to the bathroom or sleeping in public, for example.

Who is insane? I don't know where to draw the line, even though I might think I know it when I see it. The courts get to decide, when it becomes necessary to make the determination, and they will seek the counsel of qualified mental health experts in doing so. Fortunately for most of us, perhaps, we tend to make a default judgement of "sane" when a person's actions are benign.

If you create a place for the homeless to sleep, shower, use the bathroom and such, and they still decide to do these things in nearby public spaces, then you have a basis for calling that activity criminal. In that case, they are not left with no other option, at least.

I doubt that most homeless people are insane or helpless, but there is a different story and different circumstances for each of them. If they choose to maintain a substandard way of living, I'm not sure what part of that choice if any should be considered a crime. It would depend on the specifics and the impact of their choice on others. They have a right to live their life they way they want, but don't have a right to impose unnecessary hardship on others through their choices. However, if we leave them no other option, as in the case of providing no place to sleep, then we should not declare sleeping in public to be a crime.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am confused about this thread.

Is it the thesis of this thread that if a person with mental health problems decides to camp out on your front lawn and starts using your hedges as their toilet, you and all your neighbors should just suck it up and start preparing meals and doing their laundry for them? If so, does being homeless automatically make a person insane (i.e. has mental health problems)? Where does society draw the line as to who is genuinely insane and who isn't? Who gets to be in charge of making that decision? How do we know the person(s) making the decisions about who is insane, are not themselves, insane? Does holding a degree in metal health automatically preclude a person from being insane themselves?

Suppose society imposes this magical thinking on the non-insane and creates a nirvana for the insane to camp out in, but, a few insane people decide they would rather live in your front yard?

Then what?

Lastly, does not wanting to work and maintain a minimum living standard that does not offend and/or impose on one's neighbors make a person insane?

Is everyone that is homeless, by default, helpless, just by the fact that they are homeless?

This is a matter of perspective. You seem to consider the homeless to be a lesser species, and helping them out to be an imposition on ordinary, decent, people. Homelessness is closer to all of us than we think. The world we have built is based on profit, not care, so those who become homeless (and other unfortunates) pay the price. It could be you or me, one day. Perhaps that, if nothing else, makes it worth considering others in a more caring way?

P.S. I have "mental health problems", as many do, but I am not "insane", as you describe it. [Almost] no-one is. Your reasoning just looks like a precursor to rejection; an excuse. We have a choice. We can care for ourselves and each other, or we can just care for ourselves, and f**k everyone else. In political terms, this is a simple choice between socialism and libertarianism/fascism/capitalism. In social terms, it's a choice between caring and selfishness. What do we choose?