No, I am not okay with compulsion... you're asking me at which point has the government given enough gifts to justify authoritarianism. And I'm telling you, I don't accept your authoritarianism, and there may be a path forward that doesn't require it.
Holy shit, for the third time in a row, no, I am not okay with authoritarianism. I said that with sufficient housing, it should not be necessary. No. No compulsion.
there's that juvenile sentiment again. And there "shouldn't" be any burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, or murder, either. Nevertheless, they've always existed and always will. And compulsion will always be a part of the civilized state.
and yet you won't name any of your ideal cities, nor comment on the Harlem House, that New Deal-era paradigm. Or note that people living in there are paying rents, albeit subsidized. But you want to give homeless people that, except for free.
"Inchoate yearnings" pretty well describes it for you.
Or, humility. Nothing is certain in civic planning. But I suspect you'd jump on me if I claimed it was a foolproof plan, wouldn't you? But it's observed all over the world: in places where housing is affordable and available, there isn't a homelessness crisis. Most homeless people don't wanna be. Remove them, and the community goes away, and with it, all but a very few diehards that exist in practically every city.
Really? Name some of your ideal cities. We'll check and see what their policies are for sleeping on the streets.
So if they do force people to move on, despite this "affordable and available" housing, that pretty well destroys your argument, doesn't it? Because all compulsion is bad, as you said.
