Why have not you done that before for existing homeless people or other people in need? This just smells like ugly marketing scheme.
I mean, it is good if someone in need is helped, but why now and why that wording and scope to only refugees?
I mean, it is good if someone in need is helped, but why now and why that wording and scope to only refugees?
(btw, somehow you forgot Bush with Iraq and Afghanistan)
You do realize that this started when US under Bush invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11.
From private organizations and individuals. Thus if the problem is to large for Private Organizations and Individuals to handle collectively, then it is to hard for government as well
Housing for Homeless is also a job the government continually fails at and is infact today primary provided for by private organizations using money donated by private organizations and individuals (at least in the US)
While that's a trivial tautology, in that the government is the mechanism by which a society acts collectively, it's utterly false in the way that you meant it. Government can coordinate resource deployment more effectively than a hodgepodge of private organizations.
> Housing for Homeless is also a job the government continually fails at and is infact today primary provided for by private organizations using money donated by private organizations and individuals
Fails at how? The (few) governments that are genuinely pursuing housing the homeless seem to be doing a fine job at it. The ones that are trying to get away with lip service to the idea are, well, getting away with it.
While it is possible for the government do accomplish this in theory, it fails more often than not. Taking in huge amounts of resources including money and wasting them with inefficient bureaucracy and corruption as you have proven with the rest of your comment
I was taking issue with the assertions that government is the sole, best or even most competent venue to address a social problem like homelessness. I was taking issue the the assertion that government somehow has more resources than the Collective Individuals and Businesses it derives its resources from
I do not believe that should be the function of government, nor that is was "appointed" to do any such thing.
The role of government is protect the negative rights of individuals, government "is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." -- Frédéric Bastiat
"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property. Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice."
"You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder. With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice."
The Law - by Frédéric Bastiat
It is sad you ethics and morality have a experation date, and the quote did not replace my personal opinion as I agree 100% with the quote, that is why I quoted it.
One does not have to reinvent the wheel every time an idea needs to be rebutted, People use quotes as a shortcut to highlight their personal opinions many times in more articulate ways then they could themselves or simply to save time which is what I have done here.
i am not going to write out a 5000 word essay on the problems with government in a HN comment that about 3 people will read
>"Disaster relief is temporary and help is provided to people who suffer from external circumstances"
Refugee resettlement is a significant undertaking that often involves a year or more of living in transition. This isn't "disaster relief" in the sense that there was a flood or an earthquake and until the town can be rebuilt people are displaced. The refugees are people from Somalia, Iraq Eritrea and Afghanistan as well. They are fleeing war and oppression there as well. And sadly the situation isn't going to change in any of these places. To call it temporary is inaccurate. These disasters have endured now for the last 15 years.
>"Housing for homeless is a daily job for the government and it is different"
Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem.
It's dumb because it judges private business on how it spends its resources on charity. It's also dumb because it suggests that some people are better then others and deserve the help more.
>Homelessness is just as much of a humanitarian crisis.
Homelessness is not an acute crisis, which happens and develops as quickly as execution of order of insane U.S. president. It's a problem that can and should be successfully addressed by the government by variety of means, because homelessness is fully under the control of the government (which can offer rehabilitation, medical treatment, shelters and assistance with finding jobs to homeless and social aid to people who may become homeless otherwise), while the causes forcing people to run from their homes in other countries are not.
Here is offered not the permanent settlement of refugees (for 10-15 years): there's probably no host in the world willing to give their property to a family of strangers for that long. It's a relief: the measure signed by Trump is sudden, it has limited period of action and could possibly be repealed, but now many people are stuck in limbo and have to change their plans and make a lot of decisions about their life in next few months. Easing it for them by giving a place to stay is one of the ways to help, so why not?
>Except that much like the refugee crisis the help from governments isn't fixing the problem. Statistics show that governments can be pretty effective in solving these problems and U.S. government is quite good in that sense, as I can see.
Homelessness is not acute? I think you not be using that word correctly. For people living paycheck to paycheck they are often one check away from being homeless. It can happen overnight!
Wow, homelessness is not a crisis? Can I ask where you live? Maybe you should take a stroll through the Tenderloin in San Francisco, or Skid Row in Downtown Los Angeles, or underneath the I-5 in Seattle. Then proclaim its not crisis. It's a huge crisis and I find it bizarre that you are trivializing it.
And yes, they do die, they die all the time. They die from heart diseases and diabetes and AIDs and drug overdoes. They die because they have no medical attention.
Just because there isn't a dictator involved or 24 hours cable news coverage does not mean it is any less of a crisis or there is any less suffering.
Why not both?
they have done that before, e.g. during hurricane Mathew. "Airbnb is brokering free housing" probably would be a more accurate phrasing, since it is obviously the hosts providing the housing. Airbnb just provides their platform for free.
This case is temporary, and hopefully short term - homeless people need a permanent, long term solution. Furthermore, for people like legal US residents who are temporarily locked away from their home, shelter generally solves their problems as they need just shelter; while for homeless people it wouldn't solve their root cause of homelessness which generally comes out to either unemployability, addictions or mental illness.
This case also involves much, much less people that the homeless population. In essence, they're choosing to help a smaller problem where they could make a difference instead of a much larger issue that's intractable by those means.