pull down to refresh

Yep, I agree. Also I don't think waiting for that to happen is an option. I don't live in a city. But we are involved in efforts to help those that want help. I think that many people's views on homeless are way off.
There are people that just wanna be bums and use drugs. There are also many people who are completely captive to drug addiction and want to be free of it. Very few can do this on their own. I have lost family to drug addiction. I also know people that lived on the streets, were addicted to drugs and have been able to rebuild their lives through the help of God, people, and organizations. The government is making it worse not better. Your tax dollars aren't gonna fix this.
I will caveat my strong stance on the state by saying that if I was made king the first thing I would cut would not be financial assistance to the homeless. I know enough people that it has helped. But on the whole it isn't good. Its not a solution.
this territory is moderated
We're mostly talking about solutions that increase the marginal benefit of not being homeless.
Someone brought up all the "freebies" as part of the explanation. Do you see room for making homelessness more unpleasant (in some dimension) as part of a solution set? I'm certainly not proposing anything inhumane, but even just allowing private property owners to remove them might help in some cities.
reply
I am 100% in favor of removing government "freebies". I do not support handing out cash to people on the street. It enables drug abuse. I think organizations and individuals are better at deciding what is help and what is enabling self-destructive behavior. Private property rights help. There have been people that have tried to provide housing but were stopped by cities because the state doesn't respect property rights. Many of the functional problems caused by homelessness could be improved if there weren't any "public" property.
I think what these people are doing is amazing. https://mlf.org/
reply