Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A rant on bus stops

walkingtheworld.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 190 posts

Re: A rant on bus stops

#161

Post by Pigalowda »

hotpotamus wrote: post #154
Pigalowda wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I’d rather the US revisit O’Connor v. Donaldson. Because these people are completely incapable of living safely. There’s constant overdoses, constant deadly auto v peds, and constant severe transmittable disease. If the US allowed it again then these people should be sequestered in psychiatric units which can be comfortable and have amenities after the psychotic and bipolar have been stabilized. Rehabilita…

I wish everyone would get vaccinated against transmittable diseases to include covid and influenza, but if I started saying the government should mandate it, I'd be called an authoritarian. Forcing psychotropic drugs into people seems like quite a step beyond that. Also, apparently these homeless people have much better insurance than I do if it's feasible for them to live in psychiatric hospitals with any kind of am…

These populations have HIV/AIDS, Hep C, and TB mostly.

Forcing psychotropic drugs on uncontrolled psychotic patients is already done. They are a danger to themselves and the people around them. Once stabilized they are discharged and they get scooped up again after the antipsychotics wear off. They really stand no chance without constant intervention.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#162

Post by Retric »

mindslight wrote: post #143
Retric wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling things anti-capitalist is useful propaganda independent of it actually being anti-capitalist. > private capital exists in societies that we wouldn’t describe as capitalist Capitalism at its core is an outgrowth of respect for private property which creates incentives for further investment. A Neolithic hunter is going to invest time into better tools if he’s not worried about those tools being taken from them…

> Capitalism at its core is an outgrowth of respect for private property which creates incentives for further investment. A Neolithic hunter is going to invest time into better tools if he’s not worried about those tools being taken from them. As such, an inner city ghetto isn’t capitalist if people expect their stuff to be stolen regularly. Is this not one of the main justifications for imaginary property, putting t…

First, I agree regularly capture is highly incentivized in capitalistic systems but I am going to argue regularly capture is in fact anti capitalist.

Anyway there’s a common argument for IP as being capitalist, but there’s also many arguments that limitations on IP are also capitalist. Many musicians only want to outlaw the most blatant forms of copyright infringement as they feel imitation drives things forward. There’s a huge spectrum of arguments around the idea that various forms of IP is in fact government granted monopolies on culture which limit competition. Obviously companies with valuable IP want to extract as much money as they can from it, but that’s just profit maximization.

To be clear I am not arguing for any specific set of rules for what is or isn’t capitalist. There’s advantages to more freewheeling systems where constant minor improvements can quickly play out in the market (Chinese copycat electronics) and there’s advantages to systems which promote larger scale investments (cars).

IMO, it’s the results being consistently applied that’s most important. Both vary stringent environmental regulations and nonexistent regulations are capitalist. What you can’t have is insiders able to bribe enforcement so only one company can make a competitive product because then the market isn’t rewarding investment. Which is exactly what you describe in the telecom industry.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#163

Post by wilg »

tmnvix wrote: post #152
wilg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think this, but it's not a meaningful counterargument, nor do I think there are simple regulatory changes that would help much. https://journal.firsttuesday.us/californias-distinctly-low-v...

Thanks for sharing this link. It's rare to see people acknowledge the difference between the actual vacancy rate and the vacancy rate as measured by the proportion of properties in the rental market that are currently unoccupied. 9% as stated in the article is a lot in my opinion. That roughly one in every ten houses is not currently a primary residence points to a big problem (as I suggested in my earlier comment).…

Here's a better link about vacancies, actually: https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-...

I just don't think the numbers hold that second homes and short-term renting account for the problem. Remember, California needs to build four million new homes just to deal with existing demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage

IIRC also Vancouver (which is I think even more expensive than SF) tried to tax vacant homes and stuff and I don't think it made a dent. https://vancouversun.com/business/real-estate/three-years-in...

I'm not sure why people are so resistant to the obvious solution, but it seems to me no matter how you look at it, you just end up coming back to the most effective thing to do is going to be to get more housing built.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#164

Post by wilg »

cwalv wrote: post #153
wilg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, obviously, intellectually lazy. The article discusses mental health and drugs and why they cannot be the main issue. Anecdotes don't really change that, hence why people use data instead of their emotions to solve problems.

Intellectually lazy, maybe, but funny and easy to relate to. Of course, a cheapo home won't help that guy . But without the 'data', we also don't know how much of the overall homeless population is like that. And regardless, that guy will still be there with more housing, so it'd be hard to call the problem solved.

A cheapo home probably would help that guy a lot. This is called a housing-first approach. It's easier to get off drugs when you're not, you know, homeless. But yes, other approaches are needed for serious drug problems. But we know that drug problems aren't the biggest factor in homelessness.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#165

Post by wilg »

Pigalowda wrote: post #150
wilg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, obviously, intellectually lazy. The article discusses mental health and drugs and why they cannot be the main issue. Anecdotes don't really change that, hence why people use data instead of their emotions to solve problems.

Yea, I’d rather be “intellectually lazy” and grounded in reality. These people aren’t using “data” to solve problems. What a joke. Here’s what’s going to happen - voting citizens will eventually get tired of the drugs, property crime, and homeless and they’ll elect a mayor who is “tough on crime”. There will be a crack down and the public spaces will improve however eventually regress back. Then the cycle repeats. An…

Why are you outright denying that the data exists? And you're calling it being "grounded in reality"? Seriously? That's lunacy. The data I provided demonstrates you are wrong about your theory of homelessness. I can't do anything else for you.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#166

Post by Pigalowda »

Avshalom wrote: post #159
Pigalowda wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep that’s it. Everything is a prison. Zzzz

Not everything is prison, but involuntary holds in psychiatric facilities are, and they're more expensive than just paying somebodies rent.

Pay their rent? How about we just gather a bunch of money into a pile and burn it - at least that gets your bad idea over with quickly and we can move onto a different intervention. Maybe one with long term outcomes that might be a little better than seeing what happens when you pay a drug addicts rent. I mean jfc

Re: A rant on bus stops

#167

Post by hotpotamus »

Pigalowda wrote: post #161
hotpotamus wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish everyone would get vaccinated against transmittable diseases to include covid and influenza, but if I started saying the government should mandate it, I'd be called an authoritarian. Forcing psychotropic drugs into people seems like quite a step beyond that. Also, apparently these homeless people have much better insurance than I do if it's feasible for them to live in psychiatric hospitals with any kind of am…

These populations have HIV/AIDS, Hep C, and TB mostly. Forcing psychotropic drugs on uncontrolled psychotic patients is already done. They are a danger to themselves and the people around them. Once stabilized they are discharged and they get scooped up again after the antipsychotics wear off. They really stand no chance without constant intervention.

Yep, that sounds pretty illiberal. Again, I'm all for it, but it seems pretty tough to justify it in the modern US where personal liberty is considered quite sacrosanct. I imagine we're sooner to allow them access to guns than provide long-term healthcare for able-bodied adults.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#168

Post by Pigalowda »

wilg wrote: post #165
Pigalowda wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, I’d rather be “intellectually lazy” and grounded in reality. These people aren’t using “data” to solve problems. What a joke. Here’s what’s going to happen - voting citizens will eventually get tired of the drugs, property crime, and homeless and they’ll elect a mayor who is “tough on crime”. There will be a crack down and the public spaces will improve however eventually regress back. Then the cycle repeats. An…

Why are you outright denying that the data exists? And you're calling it being "grounded in reality"? Seriously? That's lunacy. The data I provided demonstrates you are wrong about your theory of homelessness. I can't do anything else for you.

The data sucks and so did that blog. As if West Virginia and Mississippi are good comparisons! They don’t have as many homeless because their urban centers are minuscule, can’t support large homeless populations with limited social services, and with populations/laws less tolerant of vagrancy.

And yea, I’m grounded in reality - you are not. I don’t care about your silly data which captures multiple cohorts of homeless populations and tries to foist them into and analyze them as 1 population. Before you try doing “anything else” for me why don’t you try going outside and seeing for yourself. Or better yet, go work in the county Emergency room in a big city! Why don’t you try that? Maybe talk to a social worker there or case manager? That might be scary for you. Better put on your big boy pants if you have any.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#169

Post by mindslight »

Retric wrote: post #162
mindslight wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism at its core is an outgrowth of respect for private property which creates incentives for further investment. A Neolithic hunter is going to invest time into better tools if he’s not worried about those tools being taken from them. As such, an inner city ghetto isn’t capitalist if people expect their stuff to be stolen regularly. Is this not one of the main justifications for imaginary property, putting t…

First, I agree regularly capture is highly incentivized in capitalistic systems but I am going to argue regularly capture is in fact anti capitalist. Anyway there’s a common argument for IP as being capitalist, but there’s also many arguments that limitations on IP are also capitalist. Many musicians only want to outlaw the most blatant forms of copyright infringement as they feel imitation drives things forward. The…

I am trying to tease out what the term "capitalism" objectively means, because otherwise it's all too easily to do motte-and-bailey - where supporters of an -ism claim things that seem good while disowning things that seem not good. Perhaps it's ridiculous to think this is even possible in a world where a term can mean something different to each person. But if discourse is ever going to get past one camp asserting that "capitalism" is a great achievement of humankind and its detractors are fools that want to bring us closer to killing fields (plus the appropriate vice-versa for the other camp), then it is necessary to tease out the nuance of what "capitalism" actually means, rather than letting it take convenient credit for associated but distinct concepts.

> but there’s also many arguments that limitations on IP are also capitalist.

I've read plenty of them, and internalized them. After my infatuation with embracing the term "capitalism" faded, those arguments didn't really seem to be based on capital. Rather they bundled other often-associated concepts based on an assertion that they must obviously go hand in hand, while still carrying the "capitalism" banner most prominently. Your bit seems of the exact same vein - I agree musicians aren't generally IP maximalists, but most musicians aren't generally capitalists either, so that doesn't say much. Meanwhile the parts of the music industry that we would describe as the most capitalist are indeed IP maximalists, seeking to modify the law to maximize the scope of their capital.

Also I don't agree with your general assertion that any laws can be a foundation of a capitalist society as they're enforced consistently. A trivial refutation is a society that abolishes private property - no matter how consistent it is or what else it does, it could never be considered capitalist.

Re: A rant on bus stops

#170

Post by wilg »

Pigalowda wrote: post #168
wilg wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you outright denying that the data exists? And you're calling it being "grounded in reality"? Seriously? That's lunacy. The data I provided demonstrates you are wrong about your theory of homelessness. I can't do anything else for you.

The data sucks and so did that blog. As if West Virginia and Mississippi are good comparisons! They don’t have as many homeless because their urban centers are minuscule, can’t support large homeless populations with limited social services, and with populations/laws less tolerant of vagrancy. And yea, I’m grounded in reality - you are not. I don’t care about your silly data which captures multiple cohorts of homeles…

I'm no longer interested in engaging with you on this (or any) topic.
Post reply on HN