[flagged]
Also, how long ago was "before governments"?
Where we can actually take the government out of the equation and actually help people: Zoning. In places without governments like Haiti you can raise a family in a relatively simple structure. It's not ideal but it's how humans have been not-homeless for the entirety of our existence. Currently in the US, this is basically only legal in extremely rural areas where there are no jobs, schools, stores, etc.
I can find lots near a major metro area on the east coast for 10-20k, less than I pay rent in year; but I'd have to spend half a million on some shitty twig built monstrosity that meets minimum sq footage, parking, and other arbitrary regulations that only exist to drive housing prices up, in order to live there. I can't just buy a $10k shed from Home Depot, add insulation and all the other niceties we enjoy and live there. (even the most staunch anti-government, anti-regulation types would agree this should not be legal: they want big government to use violence to prevent anyone from building cheaper housing, because cheap housing hurts their net worth, on paper.)
have you actually tried living in Haiti? Bonus points for being born and living past 4 years old. Even more points for living on median wage.
Eliminating homeless isn't that expensive. The UK did it during covid, it cost like 700million. Thats not like a partial thing. _everyone_ had a room to stay in and 3 meals a day. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
It could be made significantly cheaper if government had social housing to spare (you know like actually build them again)
Haiti is a horrifying place to live, for most people. The UN says that 85% of the capital is controlled by gangs, and they are spreading out into the rest of the country.
I cannot understand how people can idealize anarchy. It is as if they read some cool novel and believe that a world without functioning government is going to be something comfortable and safe.
It isn't very forward thinking, but most people are mostly concerned with their immediate problems, not indirect problems that would take decades to culminate afterwards. US governmental problems are now, the problems of potential anarchy are a long ways down the road.
Having anything will automatically paint a target on anyone's back.
The third world is not a model to emulate. Haiti is a failed state.
>Where we can actually take the government out of the equation and actually help people: Zoning
Fixing the fucked up zoning & other regs that force housing prices to only ever move in one direction is not the same as advocating for elimination of government or suggesting Haiti is something to aspire to. Insert any country where people live on a fraction of US minimum wage, and you'll find folks don't typically live in 4br/5ba houses w/ 2 car garages in perfectly manicured subdivisions that look like some copy and pasted the same house 800 times. The way they live would be illegal in most populated area in the US today, although it was perfectly acceptable for older generations.
As long as a house is primarily considered an investment, and not a just a structure to keep us safe from the elements and a place to raise a family, housing will only ever become more expensive and less available.
> As long as a house is primarily considered an investment, and not a just a structure to keep us safe from the elements and a place to raise a family, housing will only ever become more expensive and less available.
There is a sort of conspiracy to repress affordable housing, but it isn’t done primarily with property values in mind the way you’re alluding to. Most people dwell in houses; the equity is irrelevant to them until they actually sell it. High real estate prices are not an investment but a membership; they exclude undesirable residents. Most of those undesirable residents belong in psychiatric facilities, but until those facilities are reinstituted, this is the system we’re left with.
There are other factors at play (e.g. fire safety setbacks, American market expectactions favoring larger houses, etc.), but those are all far more pedestrian.
Basically everywhere on earth where an option exists, people prefer to live in autocentric suburbs or Manhattan-style megalopolises; both are expensive to construct and maintain. Slums are just an attempt to cut these costs at the expense of fire safety, sanitation, and structural integrity.
For homeless people there is no requirement by the US government to house them. There are some grants to provide shelter, but no statutory tool that says "you must fix this"
So right there, the "government" has got out of the way. One could observe that if it was the government's fault, then the US should have a lower homelessness problem.
If we look at the international standings, the USA has a higher rate of "unsheltered" per 100k than say france or the UK.
So if its not the government, perhaps is that US citizens are just stingy fuckers who don't want to help?
Turns out with a jacket and fentanyl, and tents, you can survive just about anything!