Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by hotpotamus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

hotpotamus

And if they don't want to do this menial labor?

View on HN

Options include:

1. send them to extremely cheap housing in bumfuck

2. jail

3. let them be homeless if thats what they want

Imo most of the people who think this way are addicts or mentally ill and should be involuntarily committed, so my preferred option is

4. Rebuild the asylums and commit people(with heavy oversight) who are completely incapable of caring for themselves. Although this option is similar to 2

Sounds pretty illiberal to me. Lately (due to the whole pandemic/vaccine controversies), I've begun to wonder what drugs the state can force individuals to take or not take, and increasingly it seems that individual freedom is the rule in the US at least.

Prison is a concept that has existed since the dawn of society. Maybe you disagree with criminalizing homelessness, that's certainly understandable and perhaps a bit illiberal, but it's certainly not unprecedented. And anyway, what I'm calling for is mandatory community service for the homeless, and then imprisonment/commitment/send them to kansas when they refuse to do it, not just criminalizing homelessness.

But if your question is if I believe in absolute freedoms, I absolutely do not. You are not free to harass people on the street. Not free to monopolize public parks. Certainly not free to be violent.

Seems like a bit of a burn on Kansas; some people live there voluntarily.

I wonder who it is you imagine will administer this involuntary servitude program? Does it particularly matter if the work is done to some standard or other? Do you imagine the state of California is competent to manage this system?

The state already runs community service programs. They can be expanded to handle the people living in the housing we built.

I'm not sure how giving someone a home and money for essentials is involuntary servitude. If these people don't want to do the service they can get a different job. I just realize that a lot of the homeless have what it takes to be successful, they just need structure and a little help.

I suppose I missed your option 3 which basically seems to be our current status quo. But government run make-work programs just seem like a non-starter in the modern US.

Homeless in the Midwest freeze to death in winter. Sending them to Kansas is sending them to the electric chair.

To live in the cheap apartments we built

Our constitution requires due process before you can force anyone to do anything. You also can't ban people from public land, because it is public. Imagine if the government created a massive park and only allowed rich people to use it. That's technically the same thing, except you are the rich people (relatively).

It's tricky.

Who cares about someone slapping arbitrary labels of "liberal" or "illiberal" on things? Ultimately we need to find something that actually works, and treats people with compassion. It seems like the big focus is on the second half of that, completely ignoring the first.

I wonder what label will be applied to rounding up people and forcing them to labor? Particularly the minorities?

We’ve tried the “round up undesirables and put them in work camps.” Work didn’t make them free and it didn’t get a standing ovation overall.

"Arbeit macht frei" has a storied history to say the least.

The label you are looking for is “duly convicted party,” per the 13th Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If you can criminalize their existence, then I suppose it's off to the gulag with them.

Asylum? Send them to labor camps I mean private prison and also prescribe more opioids and shut down all drug addiction clinics.

Don't do this.

why should any society cater to able-bodied people who physically live in it while refusing to contribute anything toward it?

100 years ago this question would've sounded ridiculous, yet here we are today.

Read a bit about Diogenes if you think this is a recent question. But I do wonder, what do you think members of society should be required to contribute to that society?

refraining from relieving oneself in the middle of a street or sidewalk would be a great first step.

To the sibling: Where else do you go when no one will let you use the bathroom?

shitting literally anywhere but the dead center of the street or sidewalk shows a non-zero amount of caring about how one conducts oneself as part of a society. when one stoops to the level of shitting in the middle of where everyone walks (I visited SF in 2016, and from what I understand, it has not gotten any better since), one implicitly displays a complete and utter disregard for his fellow man. shitting in any bush or patch of grass is a step up from that. even pooping in a bag (I was going to say "free grocery bag" but I suppose they don't have those in SF anymore, do they?) and leaving it in a gutter is better than depositing your feces right in the middle of a public thoroughfare!

if I woke up tomorrow on the streets of SF, homeless, without a penny to my name, and in dire immediate need of taking a dump, I would do it literally anywhere that could even be slightly considered "out of the way of other people," and it would never even cross my mind to even consider dropping a fat steamy deuce right where everyone can step in it.

when you take a shit in the middle of a crosswalk or sidewalk, you're implicitly displaying your total rejection of even the most baseline expected behavior of the society you physically reside within. this is completely obvious to anyone who has never immersed themselves in one of these decaying societies to the point where they become numb to it.

People like this don't see people poorer than them as humans with agency, they're just cattle or insects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com