No argument here. I'd add that this is true for all public unions.
The Cesspool that is California Continues to Grow
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
No argument here. I'd add that this is true for all public unions.
I have listed ideas below regarding the homeless problem that include philosophical reasoning, funding ideas, and policy changes.
Idea one - Homelessness is not a problem that our society has a duty to address.
The philosophy behind this idea might be that survival of the fittest is the most efficient system.
Although this method does not require funding, there appears to be a cost associated with homelessness. Businesses likely suffer reduce sales where the homeless gather. Tourism can suffer. I remember being in Las Vegas, NV and observing a Japenesse couple looking astonished when they saw a "man down" on the streets and people were walking by like nothing unusual was taking place. This couple's tainted impression of their visit to the U.S. will surely be told to others when they get back home and my have the effect of discouraging visits by friends and family.
Idea two - Homelessness is a problem that society may be responsible for and has an obligation to help solve this problem.
The philosophy behind this may be that people feel a moral responsibility to their fellow man and by extension, our community, through our government should devote resources to address the homeless problem.
Most homelessness is caused by addiction of some sort. Whether it is alcohol and other substance abuse or gambling addiction, homelessness awaits those with the most severe addictions. In addition, severe depression, whether caused by addiction or addiction causes it or on its own is another significant source of homelessness.
An effective solution must address the psychological realities of someone who is near or at rock bottom. Many people will not seek or will accept help to change their situation. A depressed mind does not always do what is in it's best interest. Thus a solution that accounts for this "reality" implies that intervention on behalf of the homeless person may go into the realm of impinging on the civil rights of the homeless person. This is obviously dangerous territory but appears to be a necessary step in formulating an effective solution.
Specifically, I want to explore the idea that when someone is homeless, they are arrested and taken to a facility where they stay long enough for their addictions to subside. During their stay at this facility, they would receive regular counseling and attempts may be made to involve friends and family.
Funding for this project would be provided by the homeless themselves, as many of these people receive public assistance, and through taxes on industries that directly or indirectly have a role in addiction, such as casinos or alcohol related products, or who gains a benefit by the reduction of the homeless, such as hotels, car rentals, airline, and amusement parks.
The above idea is very intrusive on people's rights and could end up a bureaucratic and fiscal nightmare with disappointing results.
Idea Three - Address the most dangerous cause of homelessness directly and explore ways to promote positive culture change over time.
The philosophy behind this idea is to gather professionals from multiple disciplines and create a practical solution.
Since a lot of homelessness is caused by illegal drug use, go after the drug dealers and manufacturers. Although this is not a new idea, what is new is the idea that you be willing to temporarily impinge on the rights reasonably suspected drug dealers and manufacturers.
We have the infrastructure in place to do this kind of enforcement effectively. Those who have their rights impinged on and are not involved in illegal drug activities, may be eligible for modest, fixed compensation. Where drug manufacturing takes places in other countries, we can conduct raids there, either with or without the host country's permission, if they don't take of it themselves.
Positive culture change involves the media. Should the media focus on positive content that emphasizes community and family over selfishness, our society will improve over time. People will be more likely to help one another and there will be less depression.
Most of the funding for this solution is probably already available. After all, how much are we spending on drug related crime and homelessness right now and the military? We may just need to repurpose some of our resources.
There are no easy decisions with our homelessness problem. Some of the ideas listed contain risks that only society can decide if some of these solutions are worth it in that light.
Overall, I propose the third solution is the most viable of the ones listed and should be considered seriously.
Idea one - Homelessness is not a problem that our society has a duty to address.
The philosophy behind this idea might be that survival of the fittest is the most efficient system.
Although this method does not require funding, there appears to be a cost associated with homelessness. Businesses likely suffer reduce sales where the homeless gather. Tourism can suffer. I remember being in Las Vegas, NV and observing a Japenesse couple looking astonished when they saw a "man down" on the streets and people were walking by like nothing unusual was taking place. This couple's tainted impression of their visit to the U.S. will surely be told to others when they get back home and my have the effect of discouraging visits by friends and family.
Idea two - Homelessness is a problem that society may be responsible for and has an obligation to help solve this problem.
The philosophy behind this may be that people feel a moral responsibility to their fellow man and by extension, our community, through our government should devote resources to address the homeless problem.
Most homelessness is caused by addiction of some sort. Whether it is alcohol and other substance abuse or gambling addiction, homelessness awaits those with the most severe addictions. In addition, severe depression, whether caused by addiction or addiction causes it or on its own is another significant source of homelessness.
An effective solution must address the psychological realities of someone who is near or at rock bottom. Many people will not seek or will accept help to change their situation. A depressed mind does not always do what is in it's best interest. Thus a solution that accounts for this "reality" implies that intervention on behalf of the homeless person may go into the realm of impinging on the civil rights of the homeless person. This is obviously dangerous territory but appears to be a necessary step in formulating an effective solution.
Specifically, I want to explore the idea that when someone is homeless, they are arrested and taken to a facility where they stay long enough for their addictions to subside. During their stay at this facility, they would receive regular counseling and attempts may be made to involve friends and family.
Funding for this project would be provided by the homeless themselves, as many of these people receive public assistance, and through taxes on industries that directly or indirectly have a role in addiction, such as casinos or alcohol related products, or who gains a benefit by the reduction of the homeless, such as hotels, car rentals, airline, and amusement parks.
The above idea is very intrusive on people's rights and could end up a bureaucratic and fiscal nightmare with disappointing results.
Idea Three - Address the most dangerous cause of homelessness directly and explore ways to promote positive culture change over time.
The philosophy behind this idea is to gather professionals from multiple disciplines and create a practical solution.
Since a lot of homelessness is caused by illegal drug use, go after the drug dealers and manufacturers. Although this is not a new idea, what is new is the idea that you be willing to temporarily impinge on the rights reasonably suspected drug dealers and manufacturers.
We have the infrastructure in place to do this kind of enforcement effectively. Those who have their rights impinged on and are not involved in illegal drug activities, may be eligible for modest, fixed compensation. Where drug manufacturing takes places in other countries, we can conduct raids there, either with or without the host country's permission, if they don't take of it themselves.
Positive culture change involves the media. Should the media focus on positive content that emphasizes community and family over selfishness, our society will improve over time. People will be more likely to help one another and there will be less depression.
Most of the funding for this solution is probably already available. After all, how much are we spending on drug related crime and homelessness right now and the military? We may just need to repurpose some of our resources.
There are no easy decisions with our homelessness problem. Some of the ideas listed contain risks that only society can decide if some of these solutions are worth it in that light.
Overall, I propose the third solution is the most viable of the ones listed and should be considered seriously.
Just Fucking AWESOME!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/0...dence-says-hes-open-door-policy-kind-guy.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/0...dence-says-hes-open-door-policy-kind-guy.html
That's hilarious! I'll bet the gov also has a lot of armed security (though who knows where the hell they were) in that "robust security service" the article mentions - even though he is against guns.
Asking San Francisco to solve homelessness and drug addiction is asking too much for just one city.
You don't have to directly solve those issues to clean up the situation in San Fran. Think of other liberal cities (New York for example), are they as messed up as San Fran with bums taking over everything and needles everywhere? No.
In that video that was posted on this thread the BART Representative blamed "nationwide rising levels of homeless and drug use" for their screwed up conditions in their city. That is just passing on blame and failing to take responsibility. My question for the BART representative would be why is it not like this in every city then? Why just San Francisco?
The homeless nationwide know that you can get away with much more in San Francisco so they flock there for their lax enforcement. If San Fran police got tough then they could clean things up (not allowing hardcore drug use in public, busting up new homeless camps in pedestrian areas).
You don't need to come up with solutions to address problems that have existed since the beginning of time. You just need the police to enforce basic quality of life laws and use common sense. San Fran wont ever do that because they want to maintain the ultimate liberal and "tolerant" image, either that or they are just too busy making money to be troubled with this stuff. When the public transit got too screwed up companies like Google and Apple just started offering private buses for their employees. Easier to just segregate and get a private bus than to confront the issues in the real public transport.