Comment by Mithaldu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mithaldu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You're failing to see the point:

It is anti-social to force everyone to fully take on the responsibility of all their actions, singularly and personally, forever and with no limits.

You hurt only yourself by creating traps that not everyone can escape from, and then having to live with people who have to fight for a living by any means they can.

As for solutions having been tried: Germany does a damn good job of dealing with unemployed and worse off as actual humans and has no homeless epidemic.

As for your first point: Supposition and assumption. My sister is the very first example of a person who has done a LOT in her life wrong and is "paying" for her mistakes by having to live on government aid. I pay fairly high taxes, pretty much half of all i earn, but i do it happily knowing that so does everyone else, resulting in my sister and my nephew living in dignity, with my nephew having access to high quality primary and secondary education and a chance to be something better; without any single person having to sacrifice most of their life to enable this.

The point about Germany is absolutely true, and merits closer examination.

The three main cities in my life are Berlin, Budapest and San Francisco. Budapest and San Francisco have very serious homeless problems; Berlin does not.

It's easy to point at Budapest and say: it's much poorer than Berlin, in a much poorer country, with government not much interested in the poor, etc.

But San Francisco is waaay richer than Berlin, and of the three has (in my experience) the worst homeless problem.

(I realize you probably couldn't "solve" homelessness in SF without simultaneously "solving" it throughout the US, but that's kind of the point: this is not some force of nature we are doomed to live with in an advanced economy.)

I don't think speaking of 'treating people as actual humans' is productive. It's a rhetorical device to paint people who disagree with your policy proposals as evil. It will get people who already agree with you to give you a pat on the back but it won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree. I say that as someone who probably mostly agrees with your position on this issue

Maybe you think your policy proposals flow directly from 'treating people as actual humans', but they don't. There are lot of (obviously true, from your perspective) assumptions there that will not be shared by people who disagree with you.

Here's the problem though. They aren't being treated as such. They get the same treatment as pigeons.

http://imgur.com/Jp16eNN

And yes, i'm not gonna sweet-talk anyone into "seeing the light". But i'm not looking for headpats either. I'm just tired of this shit where people pretend this is an unsolvable problem.

Anyhow, you have a good head. Please use it better than i do.

Okay, they're getting the same treatment as pigeons. By that logic you could also say they're getting the same treatment as all other humans, since the spikes do not distinguish between homeless and non-homeless people in performing their task.

It's also worth differentiating public and private uses of these methods (for instance, city-funded public spaces vs. private areas where sleeping should obviously not be allowed, like in the photo you linked). I can't blame an establishment for treating the symptom rather than solving the larger problem.

>You're failing to see the point:

I think you're not seeing how you're not comparing apples-to-apples in your argument. Look how you criticize the "companies" for being anti-social in a previous comment:

>By actions such as putting up these spikes, these companies are only being anti-social themselves.

Ok... but later you commend Germany which is a country and not a company for managing homelessness better:

>Germany does a damn good job of dealing with unemployed...

In other words, it wasn't Mercedes-Benz or Siemens or a German restaurant that handled homelessness by avoiding spikes, it was a government that fixed it. The "company" that put up the spike cannot address homelessness the way a government can. If society/government has set up a situation where the homeless do not have paid apartments like Germany, it's quite rational for a "company" to work within the bounds of what society has given them and install spikes to "move" the homeless problem somewhere else. The company made a "local optimum" decision.

Companies != Governments, and therefore they use different tools to address homelessness. Governments can pay billions for housing. Companies, on the other hand, have the budget to pay for spikes. In other words, in the USA, it's not the companies being anti-social... it's the government being anti-social.

> it's the government being anti-social

Well, i'm not disagreeing with that.

> it's not the companies being anti-social... it's the government being anti-social.

It's both.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com