> Time and time again, allowing the homeless to disperse geographically and survive in a "free for all" state creates enormous problems.
...
>The homeless are less likely to congregate in safe areas where organizations dedicated to help them are located.
or in other words, it is harder to ghetto-ize the homeless, to take them off the sight of good citizens. A good citizen just need to know that somebody is taking care of these people, and so s/he don't need to think about that problem, better should forget about it and just mind his/her own business and pay taxes.
To summarize your post as i see it - the homeless people make wrong choice between wonderful services available to them and all the horrors you described, and we need to apply force (i.e. law) to make them make the right choice and to fend off the "good-intentioned" enablers of the wrong choice.
Somehow i don't think that homeless need even more force applied to them than they are already subjected too.
I really don't mean anything personal here, but this kind of comment illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. I highly recommend volunteering for a couple weekends with a local homeless initiative (not trying to get on my holier-than-thou horse here, I'm as big of a selfish jerk as the rest of us). And not to sound like a student who just came back from a 3rd world missions trip, but it will completely change your perspective on life. Believe me, I'm the last to give up my precious free time but it's almost fun, and incredibly educational.
In practice it's extraordinarily hard to centralize the homeless. Like, proving P=NP hard. Consider the nature of the homeless, how they've been treated their whole lives, the way society talks and acts around them, etc. etc. They are not very willing to just hang around. To "ghetto-ize" the homeless would require mass sweeps by police to essentially arrest and forcibly move the homeless population. Yes, we always are in danger of marginalizing the people we're trying to help but that's going to be an easier job for a militarized government force, not a woefully underfunded and understaffed soup kitchen.
However, to the extent that cities seek to solve the problem by making certain behaviors illegal, I am skeptical about how dedicated they are to helping the homeless.
I'd rather force the cities to find new solutions help the homeless rather than allow them to push the homeless towards areas with lower property values (or to other cities).
Way to close the conversation, buddy. You're essentially attacking someone, and not their argument, by precluding their points simply due to the fact that they have no relevant experience. Probably a lesser-known form of Ad Hominem.
An argument should be able to stand by itself. Remember, when discussing something, you're discussing the points, logic and facts. Not someone's experience. Now fine, they can present their experience/observations as points/facts, and if they're true, then they become part of the argument they're making.
> simply due to the fact that they have no relevant experience
The nerve!
Seriously though, I think there are two kinds of arguments - logical arguments from validated facts with statistical control, and opinion arguments from some amorphous expertise.
The former can always stand by itself. Ideally, that would be all we ever need, and we get by in hard sciences quite well with just that.
However in softer areas of human knowledge we don't have the luxury of repeatable experiments, so we have to rely on "expert" opinions. I propose we restrict this to the opinions of people with first-hand experience, because if we don't we're running risk of baseless arguments that will never converge. When two people argue from personal experience, there is always an opportunity for them to compare the direct experience of each other and resolve their differences. When people argue from someone else's experience that opportunity is gone, and all that is left is two people sticking to their believes no matter what.
You will note there aren't any facts mentioned in the GGP post (by trhway), only opinions. I think it's ok to do that, but only if it came from direct exposure to the subject matter.
...
>The homeless are less likely to congregate in safe areas where organizations dedicated to help them are located.
or in other words, it is harder to ghetto-ize the homeless, to take them off the sight of good citizens. A good citizen just need to know that somebody is taking care of these people, and so s/he don't need to think about that problem, better should forget about it and just mind his/her own business and pay taxes.
To summarize your post as i see it - the homeless people make wrong choice between wonderful services available to them and all the horrors you described, and we need to apply force (i.e. law) to make them make the right choice and to fend off the "good-intentioned" enablers of the wrong choice.
Somehow i don't think that homeless need even more force applied to them than they are already subjected too.