Should people have a right to sleep on city streets?

yes, the street; that's what meant.

 

Where, in my post, did you see the word "easy"?

You'll pardon my French ... but where in **** did you get the idea that a clean productive life should be easy? Are you 6 years old?

 

No idea why you think these people should have it easy, but the best and most compassionate 'help' we can give them is the denial of anything which enables them to continue as they are. Take away all long term welfare, housing, permission to sleep on the streets, etc. Starvation is a great motivator.

 

The problem is that corpses on the city street are unsightly.

 

That was exactly my point. If you expect to be helped by your family in a time of need, you yourself must be a functional and helpful member of the family. These are all choices.

Obviously, if you're functional and decent, but your family is a toxic disaster (highly unlikely that every member of a family will be equally terrible, but for the sake of the theory we'll play along with that), then it's your mission in life to make and retain solid and reliable friendships .. by making a lifelong effort to be a reliable and solid friend yourself. Choices.

And another use of the word "EASY"! None of the above is EASY. No one is claiming it is. On the contrary, it requires lifelong sacrifice and good behaviour.

 

Whatever .. the point made is that because you can't live in a given place in the manner you prefer (for free, in any way you like), does NOT mean you are forced to live elsewhere. It means you expect things to happen by magic, because you're special. Everyone else can do it the hard way, while you get to do it the easy way.

 

The solution must come from THEM, not from me .. nor you. All we need do is make the laws of the land - it's up to them to decide how they'll live within that context - just as it is for all of us.

And if homeless people are refusing shelter accommodation due to the drink/drugs rules (and they are), then they have made a choice. It's none of yours or my business.

 

You have made it your business when you create laws which regulate where they can reside

 

Neither can indulgence. In fact, indulgence is the cause.

 

Empathy doesn't look like you think it looks. The greatest kindess can be a 'cruelty'.

 

So your ok with living in a country that has people starving in the streets? You'd love India.

 

No we don't. Why in hell should we gift free housing to the most wilfully anti-social and addicted bums, while clean living and hard working people struggle? That's outrageous.

 

Those laws apply to EVERYONE. How did you think it was otherwise?

 

In India they have no choice. They are not impoverished and living on streets due to poor choices - ie, drugs and alcohol. They are at the mercy of a brutal cast system and a massive population.

TERRIBLE example.

 

Wrong. There are laws that target homeless with the intent of driving them elsewhere. Average citizens with jobs and homes don't panhandle.

Panhandlers upset with Valley restrictions

SPOKANE VALLEY - Next week a new ordinance that outlaws panhandling at busy intersections goes into effect in Spokane Valley and panhandlers are not happy about the new restrictions that will curb their activities. "

"If they cant turn a profit in Spokane Valley many panhandlers wont just stop soliciting for money. They may simply choose to go to another town and continue panhandling.

Convenience store manager Don Larkin welcomes the new ordinance. His Chevron Store located at Sullivan and Broadway is overrun with panhandlers and the litter and behavioral problems that come with them.

I think it's going to be safer here in the store, safer for my cashiers, safer for the public in general and a lot less problems in my rest rooms and on my property,? Larkin said."

https://www.kxly.com/news/panhandlers-upset-with-valley-restrictions/176355169

 

What are you talking about? Seriously .. this makes zero sense. Laws apply to ALL citizens.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that laws against murder unfairly target murderers. Insanity.

 

Well I guess you answered my question. You do indeed think the average working stiff panhandles. Really though I think your just trolling at this point and I can't take you serious on this subject anymore even though we agree on most issues. Have a nice day.

 

No, it was the JOKE legal institution, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

And what about the dudes?

 

I'm sure that Austin isn't crazy enough to allow someon to sleep on the road blocking traffic, but they won't be moving people on who are on the sidewalk, which is where most homeless people are I think.

 

What happens to them then?

 

Well I think it makes sense. The 9th is generally a joke full of activist judges with no regard for a genuine interpretation of the law.

But That doesnt mean they can never get anything right.

Criminalizing homelessness when the shelters won't let anyone in represents a Catch-22 where folks down on their luck can't avoid breaking the law.

And before the innevitable 'they're lazy parasites, not down on their luck' retort, I mostly agree. But having been homeless myself I can tell you a minority of them really are just stuck in a rut and need time to get out of it. Theres always going to be good people who fall through societies cracks. The less of them that land in jail, the better it is for individual liberty, even if it means bad people fall through the cracks as well.

Its better for 10 guilty to roam free than 1 innocent be unjustly imprisonned.

 

Something similar but less sophisticated .. as no children are involved. A cubicle in which to sleep and 2 meals a day.

 

Does that mean that it is also unconstitutional to make crapping on the street illegal if the public toilets are full?

 

Crapping in the street is both unlawful disposal of biologically hazardous material and indecent exposure. People can get registered as a sex offender for taking an outdoor piss to close to a school, certainly taking a dump in the street should remain at least as illegal as that.

If they go somewhere relatively secluded and dig a hole, then I'd say let em be.

Although some portajohns strategically placed in high 'traffic' areas would be a lot cheaper than more cops, more steamcleaners, more jails.