Somehow I think that Thailand/Bangkok doesn't worry all that much about the "rights" side of that balance.
At what point do you declare someone with mental illness "sick and unfit"? This is not an easy question. Family members, who would know a person best, can't always answer that question well.
There is no social safety net to speak of, but the extended family model provides a functionally equivalent version. Again, this was explicitly stated in the article itself.
Your insinuation that there is forced institutionalisation because the Thais don't respect "human rights" is, quite frankly, racist.
Why do you magically assume that the same is not true in the US? Why do you magically assume that the homeless actually have living relatives or families? And what happens if the person refuses to move or is too far gone? What then? Who makes that call?
The fact that you are quite so glib about making such an assessment, quantifying it as a "solution" (Have you ever taken care of somebody with severe Alzheimers? That's a 24/7 job.), and imposing it upon both the individual and their family shows a distinct lack of understanding.
> Your insinuation that there is forced institutionalisation because the Thais don't respect "human rights" is, quite frankly, racist.
You will have to do better than an ad hominem attack to excuse the human rights situation in Thailand, thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Thailand
And, an insinuation about institutionalization is probably the most charitable characterization given that many of the homeless also have substance abuse problems.
Allow me to be particularly uncharitable: I suspect that many of the urban homeless simply "disappear" if the Thai police don't find them useful for shaking somebody down.
A sensible person would define throwing a productive person into prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade (i.e. refusing to comply with income tax law) as a human rights violation before they would define compulsory treatment as one. You and your fellow social democrats have absolutely no problem imposing authoritarian measures to force people to forfeit their private property to pay for the programs you want.
I do not. But I also don't claim to have a "solution", either.
Are they perfect? No, but as I often see here in relation to new technologies with far less at stake and far less of a proven track record, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
I really think the local people (I don't mean you here) have a kind of blindness to the problem in San Fran, perhaps because after a while you start forgetting how abnormal it is. There is so much wealth in the city but clearly not enough people commited to acting.