Your local government is considering a proposal to set aside a chunk of government land to send its homeless people to. All homeless people *must* go there, but they can do anything they want - freely build whatever shelters they want, no tax burden, no police, etc. You:
Conversation
Replying to
Reminds me of this:
Quote Tweet
Some Googling and back of the envelope math... an alternative proposal for SF's budget and plan to address perpetual homelessness and drug addiction in the city (outside of the city). Is this crazy?
3
3
I wouldn't make it mandatory but it could be offered as an alternative to prison or exile from the city.
1
4
Show replies
Replying to
The first question anyone asks before answering this is - "Do I live next door?"
3
Replying to
When you are given something as a gift, you don't take care of it as you would of something you earned with your effort, the government should not give you anything, but give you every opportunity to earn it.
1
Replying to
The second the word "must" arrives I find myself unable to support it. I find that I only want states involved in any "must/must not" if what I'm doing directly, purposefully, causally hurts or threatens to hurt someone either physically or financially.
7
Replying to
“Must” is too strong - what happens to a homeless person who refuses to go? Is it going to be safe for an 18 year old girl who just got kicked out of home?
A softer version might work, where you enforce drug and public defecation laws strictly outside that area.
1
Replying to
obviously i would prefer if governments got their shit together and stopped making housing so expensive, but absent that this seems like the best option
in fact i think it’s what governments do already—there are definitely places where police harass homeless less than others
1
Replying to
"Must" generally has underlying authoritarian implications and ramifications that are commensurate to the same.
Hard pass for me.
1