Should people have a right to sleep on city streets?

The problem is .. when you tolerate everything (because you think it a kindness), you get everything. Misguided compassion is the most destructive vanity we've ever indulged.

Other cultures understand that true kindness often appears 'cruel'.

 

1) Why is that our question to answer? They're adults, they can do whatever they like within the bounds of the law.

2) It's 'affluent societies' which create the problem, but not in the way you think. It's not a function of neglect, it's a function of indulgence.

 

How would you legislate such a thing? Im not critiquing the general idea, but rather the objectivity of its implimentation.

Are you suggesting something along the lines of 'no 'camping' within a certain distance of residential property'?

How do we objectively differentiate between public property where the homless are allowed to camp and public property where they are not allowed to camp?

 

Plenty already do. But not in Chinatown

 

I don't understand the context between kindness/cruelty and constitutional policy. Can you rephrase or clarify your point?

Is banishment something we as a society can lawfully do within the confines of our constitution? (I honestly don't know. If so, I would support it as an option, but most of the homeless are citizens, and that has an objective meaning that would be dangerous to undermine).

 

I would outlaw it within a certain number of kilometres - beyond walking distance .. so at least 20kms - of a town or city, PLUS an exclusion zone around individual dwellings for homes in rural and remote areas. No National Parks, National forests/Crown Lands, or coasts and waterways either. They can figure out what's left (road and rail corridors, 'waste' land etc) and live there. If they don't like those limitations, they can always get clean and join the human race. It would be THEIR choice.

 

I would outlaw it within a certain number of kilometres - beyond walking distance .. so at least 20kms - of a town or city, PLUS an exclusion zone around individual dwellings for homes in rural and remote areas. No National Parks, National forests/Crown Lands, or coasts and waterways either. They can figure out what's left (road and rail corridors, 'waste' land etc) and live there. If they don't like those limitations, they can always get clean and join the human race. It would be THEIR choice.

 

I don't know about your Constitution, sorry.

I'm just pointing out that tolerating the dissolution that causes homelessness, then tolerating the homelessness itself, is a cruelty. It's FAR kinder to compel these people to behave themselves via 'starvation'. Don't give them a single bit of help. Stop enabling them to do what they do. As someone else said .. starvation is a very good motivator.

 

You can only help them by stopping the enabling. Anything else is cruel.

 

For the clean living and decent person momentarily down on their luck? Of course. But NEVER give a crutch to an opportunistic drug addict.

 

Exactly. They are FIRST, their family's responsibility.

 

A joke, perhaps?

They can make the screamingly obvious choice, just for starters. You know .... GET CLEAN AND GET A JOB.

 

Fact of the matter is that unless they are a hazard to society or themselves, not much can be done for them since they have rights just like you and I do. Once they cross that line, then the tables turn on them.

 

Most of the 'homeless' are not homeless but substance abusers. Same folks that are sleeping in the entrances of businesses scaring away customers.

The city has a responsibility to maintain order so these type of things cannot be tolerated.

 

That's not the purpose of turning backs. Sometimes it's what's needed to actually save lives.

That's adult thinking. The hard decisions and the difficult application of those decisions - done out of love. It's not the easy posturing and lazy hope of 'hugs and puppydogs make everything alright'.

 

Hard to force people to do that but you can force them into restricted camping areas and out of town

 

You would not be forcing them. You would be giving them the choice. Clean up and start pulling your weight, or starve in the desert.

 

Letting people starve in the desert? We are above that I think

 

We would not be 'letting them starve' - it would be nothing to do with us. THEY have the choice to starve in the desert, or clean up.

Why do you think their choices have anything to do with us? Do you think homeless people 'let' you live the way you do?

 

Most of these people have drug,alcohol and mental issues. Guess we could just round them up and send them to the ovens as undesirable but this is America not Nazi Germany.

 

No one has the right to misuse public space, cause intentional or unintentional public hazards/epidemics, litter or destroy public space etc. That is exactly what is happening all over these cities. Fecal and urine, rodents and insects spreading diseases, litter, unsanitary and fire conditions are prevalent in these "homeless camps" and yes, public spaces have rules and guidelines just as every city, state and federal park, library, court house, military instillation, Capitol building etc that must be followed by law. I've seen so many public parks that state "No Overnight Camping."

 

I'll ask again .. what does it have to do with us? Interferring with them is exactly what a Nazi would do. Aren't we more about civil liberties?

 

In America we don't throw screwed up people to the dogs

 

are they being denied the right to use restrooms?

 

why a desert, why not by a body of water where they can fish, bath, and have water to drink, pitch a tent, ect...

better yet, get them treatment and help them make it in society