Hacker News Reader

Comment by slily | Hacker News Reader

> If you want to get people off the street, you need to provide a similar level of freedom in the housing you provide as what it replaces.

Having a home at all significantly restricts freedom. Let alone all the maintenance it requires. If it's an apartment is it too restrictive to their freedom? Should they be exempt from lease terms (no pets/no smoking/no drugs etc.)? Should they have a free housekeeper on top?

At which point is it acceptable to expect some level of responsibility from an adult receiving so much in entitlements? I'd argue that an excess of no-strings-attached programs makes homelessness more attractive than hard work to people who are on the edge.

View on HN

The problem with American treatments of homeless, drug addiction, even public health is the idea that EVERYONE has some level of personal responsibility – that there is a minimum threshold to "earn" something that you have to do and if you don't, you deserve your fate. And this transforms into public resentment because "if they aren't willing to do the bare minimum, why should my tax dollars support them?"

We need to get away from thinking about these problems as a way to force people to "earn" the relief, and instead think about the resolutions as a way of making everyone else's life better. I don't like that there is homelessness. I don't like seeing drug addicts poop in the street. I want folks in that situation to be taken care of for MY sake – to make my city better, to relieve me of the moral burden of thinking about people suffering, etc.

Because here's the thing: Some people are NEVER going to be able to maintain responsibility. Some people are NEVER going to be upstanding adults. NO MATTER WHAT we put them through, the worst prisons, the worst homelessness, the most outrageous policing, they're just never going to change. There is no remedy that solves this problem with a burden on the unhoused individual. It's society deciding to solve the problem REGARDLESS of whether the individual has "earned" the resolution.

The problem you run into is that your solution is unwanted by the person you offer it to. You need the dysfunctional person to stop stealing your shit, pooing on the sidewalk and assaulting but they want to continue their current lifestyle. You would have to offer very large carrot to get them to stop and even then it doesn’t always work

If your solution is unwanted to the point that it doesn't actually work, it's not a solution.

This problem has been solved by most European countries. Why do you think it's unsolvable here?

>think about the resolutions as a way of making everyone else's life better.

I think most people are willing to chip in to solve the problem. Not just for the transactional benefit of making their own life better, but also just for moralistic purposes of not wanting to see others suffer. I think what you're referring to is more of a political one, where people see their tax dollars consistently being spent without any discernable improvement in the problem. And it's natural for people to balk at the idea that the way out of the mess is to continually throw more money at it.

The second issue seems much more difficult. Again, I think most people want a society that takes care of the infirm, or those just genuinely unable to take care of themselves. But when that population gets relatively high, we need to take stock of why that's occurring. Is it because society has just changed so much that it's incompatible with so many people's constitution and ability? If so, that implies we need to restructure a lot of societal aspects or take a second look at whether all those changes were really for the better, given the blowback. As an example, was the revamping of mental health services in the 1980s under the guise of increasing personal liberty really a net benefit?

It’s the problem with righteous stances. They don’t actually consider the consequences of their demands. As if it hadn’t been considered by many before and they are the first people to see the light.

Not only will the homes become dilapidated they’ll become a drug den immediately. The interiors will be unkept and stripped of useful components to flip for drugs.

And having people stay homeless is better how?

You provide 2 options - they can accept treatment (drug addiction rehab, mental health, etc) and she’s the thing that makes them a dysfunctional person or they can go the jail.

When the homeless in Finland are given a home, it is state housing. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me can tell you whether there are units that permit pets, but I suspect homeless in Finland are much less likely to keep a pet than in the USA.

With regard to smoking, this has become rare in Finnish housing both public and private. People know they shouldn't even smoke on their balconies any more but find somewhere outside the building. Tobacco has gradually been taxed higher and higher to the point where much of the population feels it is unaffordable, and the state already has its sights on a complete tobacco ban in the coming years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com