I’m on Team suzzer here. If you’ve never been to Backpackistan you should experience it first-hand so you can understand. It is a thoroughly revolting experience that reflects incredebily poorly on young travelers from the western world.
No, you’re arguing for laws that are and will be used to beat and jail homeless people. AFTER there is housing for them you can talk about whether they are compassionate or not. You have no way to even estimate what kind of problem there is in a world where homeless people all have the option of being housed. Not in the United States anyway.
Even then I’d be against vagrancy laws. If the issue is someone refuses help because they are not competent to make decisions that’s a different issue, but it doesn’t mean that simply being broke and not having a home should be illegal and allow the state to make decisions for you.
I had a roommate in college who was a welfare living surf bum for a while in AUS. Now he’s a doctor in AUS. I’m a neoliberal who believes in regulation and incentives. I also think hyping edge cases often leads to solutions that are worse than the original problem. For every policy there are emotional examples of failure and free riders. The question is how much misery we are willing to impose on the invisible non-free-riders to squelch free-riders.
I’m reading a Pulitzer Prize winning book at the moment, Barbarian Days, where the author bummed around Europe and Hawaii for a while with no money. He didn’t seem to beg, but lived off odd jobs and the kindness of others. Oh, and food stamps while he was surfing in Hawaii and working at a bookstore. Sometimes a bit of looseness in society is an overall good.
Yes. There’s a very distasteful attitude that leads to people being willing to make an entire system much much worse in order to try to prevent some people from taking advantage. People will lose orders of magnitude more money trying to save some. Also, it’s not all in good faith obviously.
I think the problem is that it is in good faith, but people react emotionally to specific situations and not aggregate effects. Like kill unions, because some people are lazy. Kill regulations because they can sometimes be inefficient. Leave the EU because some people mooch. Stop amnesty because someone may be getting away with something. Really, in one form or another, I think this is the fundamental issue in law and public policy.