Great Commentary on the Homeless Situation in SF

Michael

In answer to your question, my point #3 about tolerance for certain
behaviors in private spaces was a response to the following statement by
Starchild: "Libertarians should NOT be seeking to
criminalize people for simply using carts or for sitting or lying on the
sidewalk."

First of all, if we insert the word "public" ahead of sidewalk, I would
emphatically agree with this statement.

But, to me, the "publicness" is the core of the problem. Homeowners,
merchants and shopping mall owners do not normally tolerate filthy,
disheveled people sprawled on the floor of their premises. Merchants and
shopping mall owners would expect to lose business if they allowed this
behavior. The takeaway is that people acting in a private capacity enforce
standards of behavior. Unfortunately, the private sphere is limited by state
ownership of the sidewalks that we all must use. Thus, we must come in
contact with people that we might otherwise avoid.

Now what about the homeless people themselves? If all the sidewalks were
privatized, where would they go? Without the state enabling their
anti-social behaviors, I believe they would be more likely to use the
treatment and supportive housing that both government and private charities
are offering them. Also, rather than concentrate in a high cost area like
San Francisco, perhaps they would disperse into areas with more affordable
housing.

Most people will react to these comments by rejecting them as
uncompassionate. Yet, those of us who live downtown see the results of
unthinking, instinctive compassion every day: hundreds of people lying on
the streets indulging in self destructive behaviors. Where is the compassion
in that outcome?

Marc

Marc,

  Asserting that the "publicness" is the core of the problem sounds to me like another way of saying that whatever's going on is okay as long as you don't have to look at it. How is that not what you are saying?

  "Without the state enabling their anti-social behaviors, I believe they would be more likely to use the treatment and supportive housing that both government and private charities are offering them" -- in other words, if homeless people were further criminalized by government, then they would use more services paid for with money stolen from taxpayers? How would that be in any way better from a libertarian standpoint?

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))