Without participation, what’s the point? Are you looking to set up a welfare state where we simply house broken people without helping them, or one that empowers people to pick themselves off and live a meaningful life?
The point is that people don’t have to die of exposure in the streets because they lack one of the most basic human rights. I don’t see why you are having trouble grasping that. Housing isn’t the reward for participating in society. It’s a basic need that all humans have regardless of how “broken” they are.
If someone is a heroin addict with severe mental health issues, I’d rather they shoot up or freak out in their home than out on the street. All humans deserve the dignity of shelter.
I don’t deny that homelessness is a symptom of a myriad of socioeconomic problems. But despite its many causes, it has a very simple solution: Put people in homes. Then they aren’t homeless anymore. Obviously the other problems need to be addressed as well, but that’s a different conversation. And those other problems are not addressable while someone is worrying about where they will sleep every day.
Housing isn’t the reward for participating in society. It’s a basic need that all humans have…
Do you support free housing for EVERYONE? If not, then you are creating unfair living standards for EVERYONE.
You could also argue that food, clean water, healthcare, and transportation are basic needs that all humans have, yet these aren’t handed out freely without some effort from the individual.
We don’t have to agree with how things are, but these facts apply to everyone.
I’d argue that a universal basic income can have more of an impact than handing out housing with no strings attached. That is, of the goal is to lift people out of poverty and ensure that they don’t end up homeless for economic reasons.
If someone is a heroin addict with severe mental health issues, I’d rather they shoot up or freak out in their home than out on the street. All humans deserve the dignity of shelter.
I’d rather they get help, but beyond that, give them the tools to live a fulfilling life free of addiction and mental suffering.
There is no dignity of giving somewhere a place to harm themselves rather than helping them. It takes away their dignity and undermines their potential to better their circumstance.
Helping someone to help themselves can be incredibly empowering.
it has a very simple solution: Put people in homes. Then they aren’t homeless anymore.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I already posted evidence that giving people free housing doesn’t always improve their situation. In many cases, it makes their lives worse.
It’s like the quote “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime”.
You can’t support people forever with free housing. And without their participation, they will always be homeless but living under the government’s roof.
This is a complex issue with no silver bullet solution.
The point is that people don’t have to die of exposure in the streets because they lack one of the most basic human rights. I don’t see why you are having trouble grasping that. Housing isn’t the reward for participating in society. It’s a basic need that all humans have regardless of how “broken” they are.
If someone is a heroin addict with severe mental health issues, I’d rather they shoot up or freak out in their home than out on the street. All humans deserve the dignity of shelter.
I don’t deny that homelessness is a symptom of a myriad of socioeconomic problems. But despite its many causes, it has a very simple solution: Put people in homes. Then they aren’t homeless anymore. Obviously the other problems need to be addressed as well, but that’s a different conversation. And those other problems are not addressable while someone is worrying about where they will sleep every day.
Do you support free housing for EVERYONE? If not, then you are creating unfair living standards for EVERYONE.
You could also argue that food, clean water, healthcare, and transportation are basic needs that all humans have, yet these aren’t handed out freely without some effort from the individual.
We don’t have to agree with how things are, but these facts apply to everyone.
I’d argue that a universal basic income can have more of an impact than handing out housing with no strings attached. That is, of the goal is to lift people out of poverty and ensure that they don’t end up homeless for economic reasons.
I’d rather they get help, but beyond that, give them the tools to live a fulfilling life free of addiction and mental suffering.
There is no dignity of giving somewhere a place to harm themselves rather than helping them. It takes away their dignity and undermines their potential to better their circumstance.
Helping someone to help themselves can be incredibly empowering.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I already posted evidence that giving people free housing doesn’t always improve their situation. In many cases, it makes their lives worse.
It’s like the quote “Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime”.
You can’t support people forever with free housing. And without their participation, they will always be homeless but living under the government’s roof.
This is a complex issue with no silver bullet solution.