Homelessness - The Libertarian Position?

[r3volution 3.0]

Assuming the homeless aren't permitted to shack up on public property (a terrible policy for both the homeless and for everyone else), and assuming there aren't enough charitably-minded private property owners to take them all in, there's literally no place where they can legally exist. Ejecting them from a place where they're trespassing only guarantees that they'll end up trespassing in some other place. So what's to be done? I don't have a definite opinion, but I think some form of institutionalization may be justifiable, as this may be both more humane for the homeless and less costly for the rest of society.

[Swordsmyth]

Assuming the homeless aren't permitted to shack up on public property (a terrible policy for both the homeless and for everyone else), and assuming there aren't enough charitably-minded private property owners to take them all in, there's literally no place where they can legally exist. Ejecting them from a place where they're trespassing only guarantees that they'll end up trespassing in some other place. So what's to be done? I don't have a definite opinion, but I think some form of institutionalization may be justifiable, as this may be both more humane for the homeless and less costly for the rest of society.

Why not just set aside an area of public property where they are allowed that is out of the way of everyone else?

[r3volution 3.0]

Why not just set aside an area of public property where they are allowed that is out of the way of everyone else?

That's essentially what institutionalization means, except that they would be required to live on that plot.

[Swordsmyth]

That's essentially what institutionalization means, except that they would be required to live on that plot.

Why require/force them to live there?
They could be ejected and possibly jailed for trespassing and they should be allowed to leave if they get a job and a life or if someone wants to take them in.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why require/force them to live there?

If it's voluntary, many will choose not to live there, which means they'll still be out and about trespassing, which defeats the whole purpose.

They could be ejected and possibly jailed for trespassing and

If you don't object to forcing them to live in jail, I don't know why you'd object to forcing them to live on the plot.

they should be allowed to leave if they get a job and a life or if someone wants to take them in.

Certainly, I didn't mean it would be a life sentence.

The reality, however, is that many if not most homeless people are mentally ill and/or incurably addicted to drugs, and will never get better.

[Swordsmyth]

If it's voluntary, many will choose not to live there, which means they'll still be out and about trespassing, which defeats the whole purpose.



If you don't object to forcing them to live in jail, I don't know why you'd object to forcing them to live on the plot.



Certainly, I didn't mean it would be a life sentence.

The reality, however, is that many if not most homeless people are mentally ill and/or incurably addicted to drugs, and will never get better.

What would you do, require someone to promise to house them before they were allowed to leave?
What criteria would you use to decide who to put there?

[r3volution 3.0]

What would you do, require someone to promise to house them before they were allowed to leave?

When I said institutionalization, I had in mind something like the old "poor house," for those capable of working anyway.

They'd work to earn their keep and, we hope, save enough to go back out into the world.

What criteria would you use to decide who to put there?

Anyone who's homeless

When you call the police about the homeless guy on your lawn, they'd send him to the institution.

...contra dropping him off on the street somewhere else, as they do presently.

[phill4paul]

When I said institutionalization, I had in mind something like the old "poor house," for those capable of working anyway.

They'd work to earn their keep and, we hope, save enough to go back out into the world.



Anyone who's homeless

When you call the police about the homeless guy on your lawn, they'd send him to the institution.

...contra dropping him off on the street somewhere else, as they do presently.

If there's a homeless guy on my lawn I'm not going to call the police. I'm fully capable of getting him to move along.

[r3volution 3.0]

If there's a homeless guy on my lawn I'm not going to call the police. I'm fully capable of getting him to move along.

But to where? Your neighbor's property, where he'll also be trespassing?

[phill4paul]

But to where? Your neighbor's property, where he'll also be trespassing?

There are charities. It's the trespassers choice if they wants to just keep walking.

[Brian4Liberty]

Assuming the homeless aren't permitted to shack up on public property (a terrible policy for both the homeless and for everyone else), ...

Therein lies the true problem. It is all an academic, rainbows and unicorns discussion as long as the bums, addicts, and mentally ill can utilize “public property”. The problem is the result of the (lack of) administration and policing of public property. In California, they don’t even move them along anymore. Bleeding heart communism has seen to that.

[r3volution 3.0]

There are charities.

There are, but they may not be able to take in all the homeless people.

The question is what to do with that remainder.

It's the trespassers choice if wants to just keep walking.

Wherever he walks, he's going to be trespassing: hence the problem.

Therein lies the true problem. It is all an academic, rainbows and unicorns discussion as long as the bums, addicts, and mentally ill can utilize “public property”. The problem is the result of the (lack of) administration and policing of public property. In California, they don’t even move them along anymore. Bleeding heart communism has seen to that.

Assuming they can't use public property, and charities can't absorb them all, what do you propose?

It seems to me that the only logical possibilities are:

1. Whackamole, from one trespass to another (not good for them or anyone else)

2. Some kind of institutionalization (what I'm proposing)

3. Extermination (I assume I don't need to explain why this would be unjust)

[phill4paul]

There are, but they may not be able to take in all the homeless people.

The question is what to do with that remainder.

Give them $20 and a one way ticket to El Salvador.

[r3volution 3.0]

Give them $20 and a one way ticket to El Salvador.

...where they'll also be trespassing.

[phill4paul]

...where they'll also be trespassing.

There problem. Not mine.

How much does your "institution" cost me? If I don't want to pay up how are you going to collect?

[r3volution 3.0]

How much does your "institution" cost me?

The status quo of homeless whackamole has a certain cost (e.g. feces and needles on front lawns).

The alternative of putting those homeless people in institutions would also have a certain cost (obviously I don't have a dollar figure).

If the latter cost would be less than the former cost, then it's worth doing: if not, not.

I don't know whether it would actually be economical or not; that's something that would have to be studied.

If I don't want to pay up how are you going to collect?

By force, obviously, as all taxes are collected.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
Assuming they can't use public property, and charities can't absorb them all, what do you propose?

It seems to me that the only logical possibilities are:

1. Whackamole, from one trespass to another (not good for them or anyone else)

2. Some kind of institutionalization (what I'm proposing)

3. Extermination (I assume I don't need to explain why this would be unjust)

There used to be institutions, both charity and public. It worked enough to prevent the problem we have now.

If the bleeding hearts would put their money where their mouths are, the charity institutions would work. Instead, they just lobby for public money for everything.

There is the secondary problem of forced institutionalism. You might say that the end of that resulted in the problems we have now. The mentally ill and addicts who live on the street do not want to be under the watch or care of anyone else. Period.

[r3volution 3.0]

There used to be institutions, both charity and public. It worked enough to prevent the problem we have now.

If the bleeding hearts would put their money where their mouths are, the charity institutions would work. Instead, they just lobby for public money for everything.

There is the secondary problem of forced institutionalism. You might say that the end of that resulted in the problems we have now. The mentally ill and addicts who live on the street do not want to be under the watch or care of anyone else. Period.

The near-elimination of mental institutions did contribute to the current problem, and reestablishing them is part of the solution (for those homeless who cannot possibly work in a "poor house"). As for the homeless not wanting to be institutionalized, beggars can't be choosers. They don't have a right to trespass, and if the most efficient solution to that trespassing problem is institutionalization, then that's perfectly just. Their preferences need not be considered (especially for the mentally ill who are incompetent to make decisions anyway).

[phill4paul]

The status quo of homeless whackamole has a certain cost (e.g. feces and needles on front lawns).

The alternative of putting those homeless people in institutions would also have a certain cost (obviously I don't have a dollar figure).

If the latter cost would be less than the former cost, then it's worth doing: if not, not.

I don't know whether it would actually be economical or not; that's something that would have to be studied.



By force, obviously, as all taxes are collected.

Then i'm going to have to decline. I might voluntarily contribute for a bit of heroine and a one way ticket.

[r3volution 3.0]

Then i'm going to have to decline. I might voluntarily contribute for a bit of heroine and a one way ticket.

Is this because:

(1) you're an anarcho-capitalist and therefore deny that the state has a role to play in protecting property rights

or (2) because you don't see how institutionalizing the homeless could better protect property rights?

[phill4paul]

Is this because:

(1) you're an anarcho-capitalist and therefore deny that the state has a role to play in protecting property rights

or (2) because you don't see how institutionalizing the homeless could better protect property rights?

I can protect my own property rights. I've already mentioned that.

[r3volution 3.0]

I can protect my own property rights. I've already mentioned that.

Do you not care about anyone else's?

[phill4paul]

Do you not care about anyone else's?

How are you trying to spin this? If I say "no" then you can say I'm an anarcho-capitalist. If I say "yes" then you'll espouse that the state needs to have hand in it.

Not buying your bull$#@!. $#@! off.

No homeless trespassers on my property or in my neighborhood. No worries.

Perhaps get the $#@! out of the cities if you are so worried about the problem. Because, that's where the homeless live. On the fringes or in the midst. Because the metropolitan atmosphere is what they need to survive. They'd just $#@!ing starve to death out in my parts.

[Swordsmyth]

How are you trying to spin this? If I say "no" then you can say I'm an anarcho-capitalist. If I say "yes" then you'll espouse that the state needs to have hand in it.

Not buying your bull$#@!. $#@! off.

No homeless trespassers on my property or in my neighborhood. No worries.

Perhaps get the $#@! out of the cities if you are so worried about the problem. Because, that's where the homeless live. On the fringes or in the midst. Because the metropolitan atmosphere is what they need to survive. They'd just $#@!ing starve to death out in my parts.

I already suggested setting aside an area for them to voluntarily stay to avoid being rousted or arrested that would cost little to nothing but that's not good enough for him.

[r3volution 3.0]

$#@! off.

[phill4paul]

< insert witty meme >

Ohh, your meme witticism cuts deep.

Wait. On second thought....meh.

Have fun solving the homeless "crises." It doesn't affect me.

[r3volution 3.0]

I already suggested setting aside an area for them to voluntarily stay to avoid being rousted or arrested that would cost little to nothing but that's not good enough for him.

Why exactly do you oppose spending tax money to prevent the homeless from trespassing?

You're not an ancap; you have no problem spending tax money to prevent other crimes.

...or even to prevent non-crimes, like border crossings, but that's another topic.

[Swordsmyth]

Why exactly do you oppose spending tax money to prevent the homeless from trespassing?

You're not an ancap; you have no problem spending tax money to prevent other crimes.

...or even to prevent non-crimes, like border crossings, but that's another topic.

I support the police rousting them from public property or if called by a property owner incapable of dealing with the problem or arresting them if they continue to return but there is no need to pay for guards to keep them in the designated camping area which most of them will gladly stay in.

I also support sending sufficiently insane and dangerous persons to madhouses.

And I want to emphasize that the designated area needs to be well out of the way of upstanding citizens.

[r3volution 3.0]

I support the police rousting them from public property or if called by a property owner incapable of dealing with the problem or arresting them if they continue to return but there is no need to pay for guards to keep them in the designated camping area which most of them will gladly stay in.

I also support sending sufficiently insane and dangerous persons to madhouses.

And I want to emphasize that the designated area needs to be well out of the way of upstanding citizens.

And doing what with them?

[Swordsmyth]

And doing what with them?

If they just need rousting they are allowed to go where they wish so long as it isn't public property (other than the designated area) and if they are arrested because they keep trespassing then they go through the legal system for trespassing.
They could be dumped at the designated area when rousted or after being released from being arrested but paying for guards to keep them there isn't a good idea from a liberty standpoint or a money standpoint.