Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca • Hacker News Board

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#111

Post by evancox100 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #102

evancox100 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the…

If you institute that rule, every tabloid in the US will immediately feed pictures of people being separated from their dogs. You will have a lynch mob on your hands in five minutes flat and anyone who supports you will have the same. It's a complete non-starter politically.

That may be the case, again it is my original point that many liberals (which I consider myself one for the record) want to believe that all of our problems can be solved without any coercion or cruelty. But beloved pets are taken away from their owners all the time in the US, every single day, for a variety of reasons. The idea that it is "beyond the pale" to remove an animal from a family who cannot properly care for it is exactly the problem I'm pointing out.

We are in the current mess wrt housing because many of the solutions are political non-starters, but I am not trying to advocate the most politically acceptable solutions on HN, but instead encourage people to examine whether or not their genuine, well meaning intentions may be counterproductive in some cases.

And also, I am not trying to assert that but for euthanizing homeless people's dogs, all of CA's homeless issues would be solved. Clearly that's not the case.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#112

Post by mikestew » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

jpcfl wrote: post #82

mikestew wrote: post #13

How about instead repealing the misconceived law that is fueling the problem? Just another example of how off-the-rails the WSJ opinion page is: repealing what law? You mean the eight amendment to the United States Constitution? Thing is, the opinion piece isn't wrong. But to just ramble on for a whole page, and then the offered solution is to repeal a law that is never mentioned in the opinion piece (unless the auth…

The law mentioned four sentences prior to that sentence (Prop. 47).

Thanks. I even skimmed the article a 2nd time to give WSJ the benefit of the doubt, but somehow missed that.

(I would also argue the lede is a bit buried down in the penultimate paragraph, but it's still my misreading.)

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#113

Post by evancox100 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

tech_ken wrote: post #109

evancox100 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These sound more like complaints with shelters than anything I said. If getting someone into a shelter bed is not overall a net positive for them and society, why are we even doing it in the first place? You're pointing out a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with what I talked about. I'm sure there are lots of ways shelters could be run better and improved. It's an imperfect, partial solution to a huge pro…

I absolutely agree it's a problem with shelter beds, but this is exactly what you're talking about. Coercive force is useless at best unless there's something effective that you're pushing people into. Pretending like the problem is that we're not "cracking down" hard enough, or that progressives are simply averse to sufficiently coercive measures bc they're soft-hearted or whatever, only obscures the solution space…

I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion.

But in the context of the discussion, if we take for granted that doing X for homeless people is good, whatever X may be (e.g. moving them into a shelter, attending an AA meeting, seeing a doctor, whatever), my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#114

Post by tech_ken » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

evancox100 wrote: post #113

tech_ken wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely agree it's a problem with shelter beds, but this is exactly what you're talking about. Coercive force is useless at best unless there's something effective that you're pushing people into. Pretending like the problem is that we're not "cracking down" hard enough, or that progressives are simply averse to sufficiently coercive measures bc they're soft-hearted or whatever, only obscures the solution space…

I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion. But in the context of the discussion, if we take for granted that doing X for homeless people is good, whatever X may be (e.g. moving them into a shelter, attending an AA meeting, seeing a doctor, whatever), my poi…

> my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X

Fine and acceptable, even to most progressives I think, but also in my opinion entirely tangential until we have resolved what X is first. Moreover, I am of the belief that for effectively chosen values of X the required amount of coercive force will be substantially lower than what most people seem to think is actually necessary.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#115

Post by kevingadd » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:08 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #90

kevingadd wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that solve the problem though? I certainly would be happy if my tax bill went down, but that money is being spent and a lot of it is spent on important things. Are you okay with just ignoring every problem that doesn't personally affect you? Or only this one in particular? I'm not seeing the dots connected here. You need to make at least a somewhat clear argument for how your proposed policy is sound instead…

The first step is to stop incentivizing this kind of behavior. The world runs on incentives and this is no different. Able bodied drug addicts should be arrested and put into jail. It’s in their best interests. For the rest we have shelters and free food and free skills development and free mental health. Incentive improving one’s condition.

Jail does not help addicts. You can talk to the people who run jails. I have.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#116

Post by evancox100 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

archagon wrote: post #88

evancox100 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may just need to force them to give up their dog and move to the shelter (or else face arrest). There are overriding concerns greater than letting people keep their pets. I recognize the…

How utterly cruel. Imagine a homeless life where not only do you not have any friends or relatives to lean on, but everyone who passes you by on the street either ignores you or outright loathes you. A dog that loves you unconditionally would quite literally be a life-saver.

Imagine not letting someone build cheap housing that could keep someone sheltered with a roof over their head because of your own idiosyncratic opinions on housing style.

I think letting people build the housing that people need would be 1000x the life saver compared to letting them have a dog once they're already out on the street. This is like the "let them eat cake" of homelessness policy.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#117

Post by evancox100 » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:16 PM UTC

tech_ken wrote: post #114

evancox100 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion. But in the context of the discussion, if we take for granted that doing X for homeless people is good, whatever X may be (e.g. moving them into a shelter, attending an AA meeting, seeing a doctor, whatever), my poi…

> my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X Fine and acceptable, even to most progressives I think, but also in my opinion entirely tangential until we have resolved what X is first. Moreover, I am of the belief that for effectively chosen values of X the required amount of coercive force will be substantially lower than what mo…

I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't think this is the opinion of most people, but it seems to be where many policy makers and "thought leaders" (:eye-roll:) are at.

AND, the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people. Just read what Mayor Breed said, it sounds like they cannot enforce any type of nuisance, public safety, or sanitation laws against homeless people.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#118

Post by agorabinary » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

Medical intervention.

You cannot expect the severely mentally ill to "voluntarily" seek medical help - this is the current prerequisite for medical intervention in SF. If a child runs into the street, you don't ask for consent before moving them out of the way of oncoming traffic. The severely ill in this city have less mental capacity than a child and yet we expect them to consent like any other adult. If you truly understand these illnesses you will recognize the futility of throwing money, housing, etc. at this problem.

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#119

Post by cbeach » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

tech_ken wrote: post #106

_blz2 wrote: post #101

another thread where 'more housing', 'we must do more', 'politicians aren't doing enough' is the proposed solution. Lol. The simplest explanation is the love for drugs, and the lax laws against crime, and the removal of ability of people to defend themselves (ban on open carry). Whether HN likes it or not, it is progressive politics (voted in by the residents) which led to this. Which makes it really an SF problem an…

But Texas also has a large homeless population, despite being tough on crime and drug use, so your proposed solutions are clearly deficient. Conservatives love to pretend that every social problem can be resolved by throwing everyone in jail, but this has been shown over and over again to not only make the problem worse, but also cost more money in the long term. IDK what open carry would do, unless you're proposing…

California has more than FIVE TIMES the rate of homelessness of Texas.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/727847/homelessness-rate...

Re: Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca

#120

Post by tech_ken » Mon, Aug 07, 2023, 5:29 PM UTC

evancox100 wrote: post #117

tech_ken wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> my point is that you may need to apply moderate, reasonable and proportionate levels of force and/or coercion in order to achieve X Fine and acceptable, even to most progressives I think, but also in my opinion entirely tangential until we have resolved what X is first. Moreover, I am of the belief that for effectively chosen values of X the required amount of coercive force will be substantially lower than what mo…

I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't think this is the opinion of most people, but it seems to be where many policy makers and "thought leaders" (:eye-roll:) are at. AND, the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be appl…

>application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost

I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining feature of government, I think it's desirable to have its minimization as the highest priority. Moreover, I think in the US our baseline for appropriate levels of coercive force is far too high.

> the current law in place is that ZERO coercion/force can be applied to homeless people

As I was stressing earlier, if we don't have a reasonable outcome at the other end of the coercive force applying it anyway is unethical and ineffective. I don't believe that they are legally prevented from enforcing eg. noise ordinances (could be wrong here). They are merely prevented from throwing out someone's tent and kicking them to the next block.