Very interesting documentary done by Vice a couple years ago on homelessness where they film a homeless shelter in Louisianna:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUfNbNBFwRI

TLDR: Any discussion about homelessness must take into account mental illness and drug addiction and the role it plays in facilitating it. We have homeless shelters here, but the fact is those homeless shelters have rules and standards that often don't mesh with the local homeless population. If I could remember correctly rates of mental issues or trauma or sexual trauma or something along those lines was around 85-90% in the homeless shelter. I think the "solution" if there is one could be forcibly institutionalizing some of these people, but of course this brings up significant human rights issues.

I see that you have written a serious and very appropriate site, while I have just been writing one which is probably frivolous and fantasy. But perhaps that is because, deep down, I am wondering about the whole question of the future, homeless, poverty and the whole world into which we are being thrown into and it is hard not to cave into a state of despair thinking about it all.

I am not in America but in London, which was thrown into tier 3, with no foreseeable way out of the deep mess. Businesses have collapsed and more will collapse. Many are turning to food banks and the whole idea of Christmas seems a complete joke.

Personally, I am not working and just managing to use savings without recourse to benefits for the moment, at least. I realise that the benefits system probably does not exist in America. However, even in England, there is a whole emphasis on protecting the NHS but apart from that, I think that the whole welfare state and benefits system will probably collapse at some point.

So, it is a complete mess, with all the prospects of long term mass unemployment, poverty and homelessness. It is almost unbearable to think of the future, unless some wonderful, creative solutions emerge somehow but I am now stepping into fantasy once again, but that is not without an awareness of the black hole in front of us.

What is the entitlement of the poor to relief for rent and food and other basics? — tim wood

Seems to me that the problem is not putting money in the hands of the individual, for it just gets cycled back into the system with spending, so relief makes sense, but we have to make sure that when the money does finally trickle up to the higher tiers of the economy, probably via bank, it is invested constructively. I'm not sure capitalism as it has thus far existed even possesses any machinery or ideology to make sure investment serves the long-term public welfare, and when you're talking about national governments you're just referring to what in the modern era is essentially a big bank, so the same dilemma applies.

I think the "solution" if there is one could be forcibly institutionalizing some of these people — BitconnectCarlos

Citizens should not be "institutionalized" in an attempt to corral them with a stereotype if that's what you mean, institutions should be designed to empower them to overcome their addiction, mental illness or whatever it might be, giving them legitimized social standing so they can maximize involvement in the community. Supporting those who are vulnerable but with good enough motives is not a detriment to social welfare, but should be accompanied by opportunity.

Citizens should not be "institutionalized" in an attempt to corral them with a stereotype if that's what you mean, institutions should be designed to empower them to overcome their addiction, mental illness or whatever it might be, giving them legitimized social standing so they can maximize involvement in the community. Supporting those who are vulnerable but with good enough motives is not a detriment to social welfare, but should be accompanied by opportunity. — Enrique

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating for forcibly institutionalizing homeless people with mental problems. I do however think that for better or for worse the de-institutionalization that America went through in the 1960s likely contributed to the problem we have now.

In any case I just believe any serious discussion about homeless in America needs to involve mental health.

In any case I just believe any serious discussion about homeless in America needs to involve mental health. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree that mental health is an issue, but homelessness is more a function of authorities being irrational than ordinary citizens. I doubt enough people really comprehend mental health, the system is commonly used as a smokescreen for exploitation via irrational labeling, that's the problem, not the sufferers. Its the manipulation of ignorance by many but not all of those in charge, their professional hustling, that even makes mental health a serious dilemma.

Within our current system it is very difficult to obtain appropriate treatment for mental health issues and there is extremely little room for an individual to improve their station. Frequently this is because the individual has been led to believe, through the interventions of "support" workers, that they are not repairable. Additionally the system does not condone anyone that attempts to help themselves unless they are doing so within the specific confines of the system. One may obtain government financial supports (welfare) due to ones financial needs being higher than ones earning potential (yep, really). However, should that individual elect to go to school or training to increase their employability and thereby command a more functional wage, they will be denied government support (Again, yep really). However, if, after meeting with a social worker, and developing a social worker approved learning plan (this process can take months) the recipient may be allowed to better themselves. However, their aspirations must be endorsed by the social worker, so if the worker disagrees with the person's decision of what to pursue, the worker can then refuse to allow them to set upon that path. This limits people to only improving in areas that others feel they are capable of, not based on individual choice. I have known people who have navigated this process for 18 months before being approved for a 3 month program.
I also firmly support the idea that we should be helping those who are willing to help themselves. Some will not be interested in helping themselves, electing to have the state support and do everything for them. I cannot support that, it seems to be unnatural to support such a life choice.

Could you go a little more into detail in terms of what you mean by authorities being irrational? Which authorities? Who are these exploiters and how do they exploit?

Could you go a little more into detail in terms of what you mean by authorities being irrational? Which authorities? Who are these exploiters and how do they exploit? — BitconnectCarlos

A lot of people in mental health treatment have an unusual cognitive profile that doesn't in principle preclude them from getting educated, working or forming normal relationships, but encounter a huge amount of stigma nonetheless that causes anger problems and paranoia, typically exacerbated by a traumatic background.

The mental health field is great when it gives these patients a legitimate social niche with the supports necessary to overcome their personal challenges, which frequently do not fit neatly into any particular category, so that providing the requisite help is an inexact science that requires much allowance for lapses in judgement on everyone's part and reworking the situation multiple times until a sufficing approach is found. Because of destructive stigma, dealing with mental health issues requires a team of not only well-trained but truly committed individuals, and this system is necessary since the inclination to stigmatize is so prevalent in modern society that everyone is going to be either a mental health mess or bully unless. Its the front line against the rampant prejudices in our culture that tend to be extremely psychological.

The field is terrible when it uses diagnostic categories to manipulate or "institutionalize" the stigmatized in order to turn a profit or tamper with personal prerogative in marginalized demographics, trying to get as many people as possible hooked on treatment or negligent of the true circumstances.

Mental health is a strange mixture of both dynamics, extremely difficult but indispensable to manage.

Seems to me that the problem is not putting money in the hands of the individual, for it just gets cycled back into the system with spending, so relief makes sense, but we have to make sure that when the money does finally trickle up to the higher tiers of the economy, probably via bank, it is invested constructively. I'm not sure capitalism as it has thus far existed even possesses any machinery or ideology to make sure investment serves the long-term public welfare, and when you're talking about national governments you're just referring to what in the modern era is essentially a big bank, so the same dilemma applies. — Enrique

I think you're on the right track. Banks may be presumed to act in their own self-interest. History attests that on many occasions they've done a poor job of it. But capitalism, (as I understand it, and maybe I don't) is cannibalistic: it eats its own and itself. So, government, of "enlightened all-of-us-interest." The alternative is the jacquerie, nights of torches and pitchforks and fires, storming the Bastille, and the outflow of evil that will come with that, except that on 21st century terms, the French Revolution would look like a picnic.

It seems to me that the problems must be solved - and one way or another will be. In my view the only way is through redistribution of money through taxes and programs. The government must be able to take in what it needs to fund what is needed. Massive wealth will be much reduced for the sake of all the good it can do. Of course, government shall have to be up to the task....

Any discussion about homelessness must take into account mental illness and drug addiction and the role it plays in facilitating it. — BitconnectCarlos

This to my understanding of current and impending problems a tangential consideration and peripheral problem. Not the less of a problem, just not the big one that's arriving as we write.

This to my understanding of current and impending problems a tangential consideration and peripheral problem. Not the less of a problem, just not the big one that's arriving as we write. — tim wood

Yeah Tim, you're right. Obviously mental illness and trauma have essentially no relation to the homeless problem faced in America today.

If only we could become a socialist nation we'd no longer have schizophrenia, PTSD, trauma, bipolarism, or widespread physical/sexual abuse among the homeless population. These are really only just problems under capitalism, because capitalism is so terrible and it drives people to commit these kind of abuses. It's just the system, obviously.

COVID didn't invent these problem, Tim. My comments are directed towards the issue of homelessness in America as a whole, even outside of COVID.

Yeah Tim, you're right. Obviously mental illness and trauma have essentially no relation to the homeless problem faced in America today — BitconnectCarlos

You miss the point. No one denies the reality of the things you mention, but these chronic homeless are soon to be joined, perhaps overwhelmed, by people not chronically homeless.

The internet tells me that in the city of Lowell, Massachusetts, with a population of about 100,000, are 397, just under 400, homeless people (I happen to believe the number is much higher). Lowell is the original American mill-town and has realized every kind of economic failure in its 190 year history. Drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty spend their days on downtown Lowell streets. What do you suppose happens when that 400 swells to a few thousand? Drug rehab or mental health counseling for all of them? That won't do it because those things are not then going to be the problem. Still a problem, just not the problem.

Ok, I feel like we're talking about 2 different things. I was more talking about homelessness in general, you're talking about COVID and homelessness. Personally with COVID, I'm fine giving aid and allowing more government intervention even in the form of stimulus checks to people. We're in a pandemic. We're in an extraordinary circumstance; this isn't capitalism's fault.

Deprive a man or woman through your exploitation of the ability to reasonably provide for their own tomorrows and you have taken on that burden yourself. — tim wood

But I doubt you'll concede that if the homelessness doesn't result from exploitation, then society has no burden to cure it. Surely you could have all sorts of homeless people in a perfectly respectful, non-exploitive system, but the suffering by the homeless would not be reduced simply because it was a just consequence of their poor decisions.

My point here is that I suspect you find homelessness unacceptable period, regardless of whether the economy is capitalistic, which means your real argument is that no society should force the poor to go without shelter, regardless of whether their homelessness is caused by their own freely made poor decisions.

Maybe there is such a duty of providing societal charity, but I fail to see how that duty arises only under certain economic systems, which means the objection isn't properly directed at capitalism, but at those who refuse to fulfill their moral obligations.

When you speak of people being made homeless by their own freely made poor decisions,' I think that you are ignoring the fact that we probably all make poor decisions. We are all juggling with consequences of decision impacting on the future and I think that what some people on this thread are ignoring is that Covid_19 has led to a whole lot of people being potentially homeless, independent of whether they could be viewed as having made poor decisions, so it is becoming less easy to say that homeless people can be blamed for their own predicament.

My point here is that I suspect you find homelessness unacceptable period, regardless of whether the economy is capitalistic, which means your real argument is that no society should force the poor to go without shelter, regardless of whether their homelessness is caused by their own freely made poor decisions. — Hanover

Something to keep in mind that is that being homeless is not the same thing as being without shelter. Some homeless people live with friends/family and others live in shelters. I'd actually be interested to know what % of the homeless actually live out on the street. I don't know the numbers, but I would be inclined to say that the ones truly without shelter are only a small fraction of the homeless.

But I doubt you'll concede that if the homelessness doesn't result from exploitation, then society has no burden to cure it....
Maybe there is such a duty of providing societal charity, but I fail to see how that duty arises only under certain economic systems, which means the objection isn't properly directed at capitalism, but at those who refuse to fulfill their moral obligations. — Hanover

I accept the criticism. Hmm. I think history instructs that societies define their own "moral obligations." Scare quotes because some seem pretty immoral. I'd say that objections are properly directed against those and that which cause them, the need being for particularity for particulars and generality for generalities.

Underlying in all cases, it seems to me, is that societies - communities, whatever - consider each its own self-interest. Social programs, then, do not arise entirely out of some touchy-feely sensitivity to the discomfort or suffering of others not ourselves. The main engine is that in providing services for some, the community is made better for all. I think of the French Revolution as the poster-child for what happens when that insight is lost. Had five Louises been a little more sensitive, there might still be a king of France and the history of the world since 1792 not what it is.

I think this is called enlightened self-interest. Not so much the result of moral obligation, although certainly understandable in such terms, but instead of a calculation. And in America there is a calculation to be made. The disproportion of wealth in America is much, much, much greater than nearly all people understand. And it is causing problems that will be solved one way or another. Wealth and government are not the same thing, though they often share a bed. Both, however, to survive, must recognize their own differences and yield to a greater common good, for even the good of themselves.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates appear to grasp this. They both advocate for higher taxes on the rich and have each committed, as have a few others, immense sums to the public good. On the other hand the Walton siblings are worth between $500B - $1T, yet I know of no effort on their part to do anything of any proportion to what they could and arguably should do. (The Waltons are currently listed at about $300B, but four years ago they were severally listed at $100B+ each.)

This concentration of wealth in part is causing the disintegration of the middle class. I'm of the opinion that no country nor its citizens can survive without a viable and robust middle class. The poor, then, are a canary-in-a-coal-mine. And the more poor there are, the more explosive that atmosphere.

the de-institutionalization that America went through in the 1960s — BitconnectCarlos

As long as we're elaborating, you should expand on this some. What do you mean by deinstitutionalization?

I can only speak for California, but I know that Ronald Reagan (when our governor, pre-presidency) closed down all the state mental institutions there used to be in this state, and pretty much everyone who would have otherwise been living there just became homeless instead.


On the topic of homelessness and mental health, let's not forget that there are a lot of vicious circles involved here. Material conditions can cause a deterioration of mental health and vice versa. Leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the streets only makes them more mentally ill. (Like putting criminals in with other criminals in prisons tends to just make them more criminal). Part of any serious mental health program has to be providing the patients with the material stability that they need to work on their mental health problems.

The pandemic has only laid bare what happens when the State intervenes in our affairs, forcing us into unemployment and to close our businesses, limiting our movement, removing our right to assemble, to practice our beliefs, to speak, and to live our lives how we wish. With the arbitrary stroke of a pen, state bureaucrats have declared entire industries “non-essential” by fiat. There are police checkpoints, curfews, bans, while the useful turn in their neighbors should they breach arbitrary state decree. The worst part is, we are all entitled to nothing, whereas the State is forever entitled to some percentage or other of whatever morsels we scramble to earn.

The welfare of our fellow citizens, and our instinct to charity, was relegated to the State long ago. Why should the worker provide for the beggar, the poor, the homeless in his community, when the State has already seized the means of charity? Has the wealthy stopped you or I from providing alms, food, clothing, housing, to members of our community? Or is it because we have little left to give? No capitalist stands between me and my initiative. No capitalist has the power to force you or I to abandon our enterprise, and to use our surplus in the service of others. The ultra-rich will pay more in taxes in one year than you or I will pay in our lifetimes, and they can go to sleep with a good conscience because they have been taught paying more taxes will help the impoverished. And you want the wealthy to pay more taxes, which beget more good consciences, and more failed welfarist policies.

What do you mean by deinstitutionalization? — Enrique

If I may, @BitconnectCarlos, I can offer an explanation. Prior to the 1960s, and the availability of antipsychotic drugs like Thorazine, people with major mental illnesses (like manic-depression) were housed in residential custodial facilities--the big 'state hospitals'. The patients' health didn't improve much, therapy was either ineffective (psychoanalysis) or unavailable. Crude treatments like electroshock were standbys.

Along came the antipsychotics, and--finally--doctors had drugs that enabled people with many severe disorders to get along outside of the hospital. So... the old wards were emptied out. In time, the old buildings were torn down, and most of the state hospitals were closed permanently.

Once departed from the hospital, the patients were no longer anyone's concern. Many of the former patients were able to get their lives together, generally with the help of social services and family, and live pretty much normal lives. Compliant patients took their meds on time, kept doctors' appointments, and did a good job looking after themselves. Noncompliant patients started falling apart and ended up in a downward spirals that could end in immiseration, homelessness, or early death.

Without custodial institutions, social services, emergency rooms, and short-term psych wards supplied care. For these to be effective, adequate funding is required. Cut back funding, or over-burden the agencies, and once again patients with complex care needs end up in the worst possible situations.

Break-out psychosis is pretty traumatic for everyone concerned, especially the patient. Even now it can be difficult to quell psychosis, and some people do require padded cells, heavy medication, and locked wards until the chaos in their brains can be brought under control. When mentally ill patients are discharged without support, they will either be back in the hospital, be homeless, or be dead.

What is the entitlement of the poor to relief for rent and food and other basics? — tim wood

There is clearly way more than enough money in the United States to provide a fully adequate social service program. Unfortunately, most of the money--for all purposes--is in the hands of an indifferent oligarchy.

Still, even in an ideal situation, some people will become addicted to illicit drugs and their lives will deteriorate severely. Some people will develop paranoid disorders and elude care. Some people will end up without shelter for various reasons.

While acknowledging civil liberties, I see nothing civil about allowing people to literally live on the streets. Encampments of homeless people are an invitation to abuse by predatory groups like drug dealers, traffickers, other homeless people, and the like. No one's life is improved by homelessness.

I am leaning towards people being forced to accept care--but not a minimal raw kind of care akin to jailing them. Given adequate funding, decent housing and excellent social services can be welcoming, attractive, and effective. Yes, some people will not accept care willingly under any circumstances. I'm OK with involuntary hospitalization for people who are too mentally ill to care for themselves.

I agree that medication is a crucial aspect of most mental health treatment and patients should follow the directions given by their doctors, that is indisputable. But I think the medical profession and society in general need to do a better job of combating stigma so patients aren't overmedicated. Most of the medications that come out have significant side effects, and while the severity has reduced considerably, having to acquiesce to the wrong medication regimen can be as debilitating as no medication.

The doctor and patient have to experiment with various options over the course of months if not years in the context of effective social supports to find a working strategy. This is the ideal, but what usually happens is that if the patient admits a continuing problem, the doctor increases the riskiness of the treatment, perhaps trying an older medication with more side effects, hence the tendency for patients to stop taking the prescribed dose or attempting to go without, then in and out of the hospital. Because of stigma in the society at large, many treatments will be effective only until a patient's life circumstances change, perhaps a new job, a move or a lost social contact, at which time it can sometimes be back to the drawing board.

These mental health patients, a hefty proportion of the population when you take into account depression and mood, typically aren't so extremely ill that institutionalization is the only conceivable tactic, but a toxic culture pushes them into the medical sphere, swamping clinics and diminishing capacity to adequately deal with anyone's issues in the requisitely personalized way.

I think we've leaned too heavily on medication in mental health while neglecting community consciousness-raising, and that's the crux of the problem, not brain chemistry. The link with drug abuse is a derivative consequence of this fundamental problem.

Nos4, you're silly, absurd, offensive, and liar. Go play somewhere else.

From what I have read, there are two reasons why patients stop taking prescribed drugs (psychotropic and medical): The drugs don't work, so why continue taking them. The other reason is that they do work, the patient feels better, so stops taking them. It isn't just the deranged that do this. Lots of people stop taking prescriptions as soon as they feel better. For antibiotics, this can have lethal consequences (drug-resistant bacteria). But the same goes for other diseases. No gout for 3 months -- oh, I don't need to take this stuff anymore. Bang, gout is back.

Many people fail to fill prescriptions. They go to the doctor, get diagnosed, feel better now that they know what is the matter with them, and decide that they don't need the medication,

Maybe they don't. There is drug-over-prescription. At 74 I find myself on 6 medications -- 5 maintenance drugs for specific somatic problems which would once have been treated with surgery or not at all. I also take a maintenance anti-depressant. Except for the statin (about which I am unconvinced) I benefit from these meds. Some people, though, take more meds than they can keep track of, don't receive regular follow up, and have problems with drug reactions and interactions.

I agree with what you said in general. But when it comes to mental health, many people take medications because it would be like having a bullseye painted on their forehead without them, and I find that to be a serious problem. At that point outcomes all hinge on the competence of doctors, intimate social supports and the luck to avoid exploitation. I wish we could replace luck with communities that are close-knit enough to make exploitation a nonissue.

I understand the stigma of mental illness; the situation is certainly better now than it was say 50, 60, 70, and more years back. Indeed, I think for some problems it has evaporated. "Depression", for instance, seems to have become a euphamism for loneliness, alienation, acute and chronic boredom, hurt, humiliation, anger, and so on. It seems harder for people to say "I'm lonely" than to say I'm depressed" (mentally ill). It's progress (sort of) for mental illness, but a disaster for the suffering which is caused by (what we can call) a deteriorating society.

What is the entitlement of the poor to relief for rent and food and other basics? — tim wood

A better question, given the nature of the 2008 and 2020 bailouts, is what is the entitlement of the rich to a claim on the public trough? As the Occupy marchers chanted, "Banks got bailed out and we got sold out." Truer words were never spoken. In 2020, for every crumb tossed to the working class, the billionaires got the whole cake. The numbers bear that out. 2008 and 2020 were both massive upward transfers of wealth. Local stores are shut down while Walmart and Amazon are prospering like never before. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why are we talking about those "greedy poor" whose livelihoods were just destroyed by the shutdowns? You might have seen the recent news story about the woman who put up a tent conforming to all safe outside dining practices who had her restaurant shut down anyway. While directly next door, a film crew was allowed to put up an identical tent. Makes one suspect that the lockdowns are less about public safety and more about crushing the working class and rewarding the politically connected.

What passes for capitalism today is a far cry from the invisible hand of Adam Smith. It's one hand greasing the palms of politicians and the other hand strangling the little people. No wonder the kids are into socialism.

What passes for capitalism today is a far cry from the invisible hand of Adam Smith. — fishfry

It's worth noting, to emphasize this point, that Adam Smith never advocated for anything called "capitalism".

What is the entitlement of the poor to relief for rent and food and other basics?
— tim wood

A better question, given the nature of the 2008 and 2020 bailouts, is what is the entitlement of the rich to a claim on the public trough?...
What passes for capitalism today is a far cry from the invisible hand of Adam Smith. It's one hand greasing the palms of politicians and the other hand strangling the little people. No wonder the kids are into socialism. — fishfry

Amen, amen. My own view is that the (truly obscenely) rich are to be treated as fire hydrants at a fire. The short-sighted may object, but any sense at all immediately discerns the basic sense of the thing, which is simply that a fire not put out over there will come and will burn over here. For those burning, of course, necessity knows no law.

And to be sure, the resource represented by that wealth, better used for the common-wealth, puts the danger of fire at the level of little or no risk. It seems to be the lesson of every instance of greed that greed destroys itself. Our 20th and 21st century greed seems bent on destroying everything else before itself. Being myself neither truly and obscenely rich nor greedy, I have no scruples against defending myself (whether or not I'm any good at it a different topic), nor against others defending themselves - for they defend me.

But before we go Jaques or Madame Defarge or The Vengeance, there is equally a need for balance. The man without the means for a coffee may well think that the man who can afford tires for his car has too much, but as of this date at least, that would be a too-extreme view. The management of balance, and of where and when and how to balance and to change balance as needed, would seem to be a proper function of government, and only of government. Which is to say in this nation of, by, and for the people, of us. A matter, then, of education. But shall we learn the hard way as usual? Or for once do better.

As Tim’s threadbare metaphors illustrate, the solution for statists is to plunder wealth from others in the vain hope that what they’ve stolen reaches those who they pretend to care about, and is not, say, funding another war, bailout, or Raytheon contract. That’s why no amount progressive posturing can help distinguish his activities from those of any other advocate of criminal activity. The solution to helping the poor, apparently, is to make thievery respectable in popular opinion, and to advocate the theft and transfer of fellow citizen’s resources and power to an endless bureaucracy, who will then do with it what it wishes.

Given that the statist knows not where his tax money ends up, whether it helps the poor or is used against the poor, one should suspect rather than respect these pious outbursts. Not only does it offer the statist comfort, it absolves him from never engaging in actual solutions himself, like feeding, clothing, and housing those in need.