My reading of the comment is that homelessness was not solved but ruthless enforcement made the issues related to homelessness less bad for everyone else who wasn't homeless.
System 1 (permissiveness): Bad for a small percentage of people and sorta bad for everyone else.
System 2 (strict enforcement): Really bad for a small percentage of people, neutral bad for everyone else.
System 3 (theoretical): Everything works pretty well for everyone.
Obviously system 3 is the best option, but it doesn't exist currently in any society anywhere on earth (maybe Japan?) System 2 seems to be the next best option to use while we keep trying to find a workable system 3.
People love advertising their embrace of dictatorship and oppression, as if it's clever or smart. It's really a failure of responsibility and duty.
Its currently against the law to litter, shoplift, vandalize, defecate in public, be visibly intoxicated in public, and store private property in public spaces. I think we should enforce those laws.
Should some of those laws be rewritten or abandoned? Maybe! But simply ignoring active laws is the definition of lawlessness and I don't want to live in a lawless community.
There is quite a lot of space in between "I think having laws is good, actually" and "embrace of dictatorship and oppression" but I guess this wouldn't be an internet board discussion without hyperbolic statements.
One time I was walking with a friend, and a homeless guy asked me for some change and I gave it to him (most of the time I wouldn't because I wasn't exactly rich myself, but at just that time I felt like it), then I turned to cross the street before I had gotten 3 feet from giving the guy the spare change two cops swooped out from seemingly nowhere, accosted me and my friend, and started asking "what did he ask you? did you give him money", this was also quite aggressive the tone of voice of these cops.
Now I'm not the quickest guy on the uptake in these kinds of situations but luckily I was firing on all cylinders that day and so I said "no I didn't give me any money, he asked me what time it was leave me alone" loud enough that the homeless guy who was being detained by a third cop could hear me.
So after a bit more harassment they let us and the homeless guy go.
So first off a lot of laws are quite clearly unconstitutional, and it is an abrogation of freedom of speech that a homeless guy isn't allowed to ask me for money, no matter how uncomfortable it might make me.
My interpretation of rights is that any law which would actually itself be against the laws of the land does not need to be followed at all, but I have noticed that some people who hold your views believe that there are processes whereby illegitimate laws get nullified and until those processes are followed the law should be followed. Do you hold to this view?
Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those? I have encountered the viewpoint, generally in Americans, that the laws that are illegitimate should be followed until overturned and the duty of overturning those unjust laws fall only on the people who care about and are affected by those laws - is this also your viewpoint or do you think it falls on every citizen to oppose the unjust laws to their utmost?
Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
Yeah sorta, my point was more about enforcement than compliance. I don't necessarily think unjust laws should be followed but it certainly should not be up to each individual police officer to decide which laws gets enforced on which people.
If a law is unjust enough and enough people choose to disobey it and the legal system is forced to get involved constantly then I believe we would see a lot more change in the law than with our current system of writing laws then letting cops selectively enforce them.
>Furthermore I would ask are there any laws that you would consider illegitimate? If so what are you doing personally to overturn those?
Yes, just about any restriction on abortion. What am I doing? Not much other than voting, occasionally donating money, and choosing to never live in a state that writes those laws. Would what I do change if there were, say, a national abortion ban? Probably, but I certainly won't count on the police joining in on whatever form of protest I see fit.
I don't think the laws around shoplifting, public intoxication, vandalism, etc. are bad and I am doing nothing to overturn them.
> Given the necessity to uphold the law that you believe in (meaning you believe in the necessity above other things) was I under an obligation to tell the police that the homeless guy asked me for money, and that I gave it to him?
No, but the cops who saw you do it were obliged to follow whatever procedure was written into the law. Does SLC still have this law? Having been involved in the enforcement of this law, were you more aware that the law existed and you wanted it changed?
The laws are written democratically, then enforced dictatorially by the whim of a few individuals with a gun. I think this is bad.
That's an old rationalization of oppression. The reality is that we don't want all the laws enforced on themselves or their friends, and the laws are never enforced in toto on anyone, except the politically vulnerable.
Thus the correct response is not to talk about killing, which is something both the rich and poor have an interest in doing as well as sharing capability, and are often caught doing, but rather:
The law in its majestic equality forbids rich and poor alike from insider trading, or dumping hazardous materials into downstream waters from their factories.
This, rhetorically speaking, would seem to counter the original quote nicely, in showing that the law of course prevents Rich and poor alike in doing things that they have interests in doing, but no poor person is insider trading or dumping hazardous materials from their factories, because the definition of poor includes that they cannot be doing these things.
The thing of course is that the poor may have an interest in insider trading but lack the capacity, whereas everybody has the capacity to sleep under bridges but only the poor really seem to have an interest in it, and really they only have that interest because they are poor.
Which leads me to the following conclusion:
The interests of the poor are forbidden. The capacities of the rich are regulated.
Not one of the "new laws" bieng enforced or ignored is therfor valid.
Questions of legitamcy and precident are ridiculous.
Enforcing the first page of the constitution, fixes everything.
The other possibility, is decaring a total government shutdown, martial law, and a mandatory partisipation is drafting a new constitution, with a maximum of 10 pages.
Constitution, then enforcement procedure, but no more "laws", and laws, and laws, and laws, thinking of pi here, infinitly non repeating but with a sense of horror, rather than wonder
System 1/2 are both extremely awful, but in different ways.
System 3 would be highly affordable and available housing, coupled with out-of-sight permissiveness but strict enforcement once certain indicative lines are crossed.
That's a pretty crazy qualification: Either be go along with and be accepted by the majority or you are subject to sanctions. That is the opposite of freedom and universal rights.
That's pretty much criminal law in a nutshell. There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
It's the opposite. Others liking you or not is irrelevant.
> There are expectations if you want others to tolerate your oddities, one of which is you don't get to impose on them.
You absolutely do get to 'impose' them. You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm. That's what freedom is about.
> You can't cause harm to others, but their subjective distaste or apprehension or whatever is not harm.
You know there's a reason that there's never been a successful hyperlibertarian society, right? Some people are assholes.
The Declaration of Independence centers on the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Core to the Constitution is the Bill of Rights. Liberty and justice for all; Marines fight for freedom; land of the free, Statue of Liberty, etc.
If freedom is only doing things other people like, it's meaningless. Causing harm is one thing. People may not like you - maybe I don't like you. Can I pass a law to jail you?
Nothing inherent about tent cities harms neighbors. They could be badly located but so can lots of things. They suck as housing, but the residents wouldn't be there if they had better options.
> It’s a bit meme-ish
Whatever this means, who cares? We're talking about shelter and human rights, not memes.
> sidewalk poop is actually a quality of life issue
Yes, that could be an actual health risk, but I think people are searching for a justification. I'm dubious it's really a big problem, or one that requires taking away anyone's freedom. How about providing a bathroom?
If it's ok to take away people's freedom, why don't you give up yours? We could force you to walk down a different sidewalk.
> pretty reliable correlation
I have yet to see that correlation. To my eye, there is a correlation between some things and a lack of housing. For example, access to bathrooms.
But the obsession with poop is becoming childish; poop - gross! In all my time in cities, I don't know that I've ever seen it. I don't know that it's a common problem, but just a dramatic example that advocates like to pull out.
> That's less about intentional cruelty and more about saving the ship.
First, people here are openly embracing cruelty. Second, 'unintentional cruely' would be a highly immature, irresponsible concept.
I think 'saving the ship' is greatly exaggerating the risks in order to justify the abuse. It's a very serious thing to take away someone's inherent, inalienable freedom.
Voters very much want a compassionate and effective solution. They just aren’t being offered one.
> Unfortunately most of it goes to well meaning, but ineffectual do-gooders rather than actually solving any problems.
It sounds like the generic arguments of certain political parties, using terms like 'do-gooders' and calling them 'ineffectual', etc. Is there evidence behind it, in your locale?
The main issue I've seen is that public services are underfunded.
This says CA averages spending 42k per year per homeless person, going off the 2022-2021 state budget.
https://abc7news.com/sf-homeless-plan-housing-all-san-franci...
This says SF is looking to spend 70k per homeless person per year in the next few years (in addition to state spending?). I've seen other pieces that mention SF spending anywhere from 250 mil to over a billion per year on homelessness. I have multiple friends that make less than 70k per year, in CA, and somehow make do. Lack of money doesn't seem to be the issue here.
How do you explain Vancouver or Stockholm’s homeless populations? Those famously underfunded Swedish and Canadian welfare states?
Some people just can’t wait to spend other people’s money and aren’t too picky about whether or not it’ll accomplish anything.
I don't ever see homeless people in tents or anything similar.
If you’ve cleared it all up since then, kudos. But I don’t think it’s because public services were underfunded back then.
I really don't think you saw "plenty" of homeless on the streets here, not now and not a decade ago. Panhandlers, beggars, etc. do exist but they aren't homeless.
I do not trust your anecdotal experience, not saying the issue doesn't exist but it's not even close to a problem and orders of magnitude less than anything I've experienced traveling in the USA, around the Bay Area, Texas (Austin/Dallas), New York, Portland, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, and a few other places had a very acute and visible issue with homelessness that's incomparable with Stockholm.
So yes, public services being properly funded help a lot.
What value does that have? You must have something valuable to contribute.