The existence of homelessness in rich cities causes a condition of unease, if not of guilt, in the well- or adequately-housed–that, after all, are vastly more varied than the displaced. Surely here, if anywhere, is a problem that the authorities, local and national, ought to be able to solve, or at least reduce to tiny proportions?
However, the matter is complicated and while it goes under a single name, it has multiple causes that are different in various places. Homelessness is a disorder instead of a disease.
As an instance, in London I’ve noticed there are no persons of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin one of the homeless, because there must be if low household income and the cost of home were the excuse for homelessness. There are few blacks amongst them either, certainly no Africans, and also the few blacks that one sees are frankly psychotic or on medication –or, of course, both. Moreover, with no means do all of the snowy homeless come in the lowest social class.
Back in Paris, compared to the displaced, outside of the conventional clochards, appear mostly to be immigrants in the Balkans or the Middle East, that put up encampments beneath flyovers as well as bidonvilles adjoining the maze of canals into, from and surrounding the city. The favelas of Rio are charming by comparison.
California is the Mecca or even Inferno of American homelessness, based on how you look on it. In a matter of hardly any years, San Francisco, for instance, was transformed in one of the very agreeable cities from the United States into one that is notorious for its filth and degradation. The question is why, and everything should be done about it?
The four authors of this book, that write separate chapters, have been analyzing homelessness from California for years, and have written chapters out of the economical, legal, cultural and political points of view. All write clearly, and the sincerity of their fear shines through. They do not get rid of sight of the fact that each homeless person is a human being and not merely a statistic. They are person with no sentimental.
How can it be that such polices and conclusions that year after year virtually self-evidently benefit no one and negatively impact many, lead to no successful opposition in a supposedly democratic system? Why are thousands and thousands of very wealthy people content to live in a city, entire regions of which they now avoid? Why do they tolerate the fact that places after frequented by tourists today host the displaced, that defecate in entrances and doors, render half-eaten food in the gutters, then sow the ground using hypodermic needles, also block the passage of pedestrians using their encampments? And why do they do so while at precisely the same time continuing to cover sky-high taxes–a significant proportion of that go to sustaining the entire appalling status quo?
The ultimate replies, I guess (if one dismisses the very significant institutional and bureaucratic vested interests that were produced in the continuation of the problem), has to be found in ideology, whose effect on the brain, at least of the taught, has been for several years more powerful compared to the fear of any concrete truth. Ideology is a lens that may distort Sodom and Gomorrah into a sunny city on a mountain. Here is the sole explanation for how people can observe human excrement lying in the road not as disgusting and also a health hazard, but as a manifestation of human freedom.
What are we to say of a judge that states that panhandling cannot be banned since it is a type of expression of opinion protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution? In that instance, all human action whatsoever is this expression entitled to protection: really a punch in the mouth along with even a stiletto from the ribs is normally the reflection of a rather strong, and true, opinion.
Advocacy groups bring actions on behalf of displaced litigants–that they must find, solicit, and also pick –against city councils that try to inflict any kind of control, however feeble, on the displaced. Judges go along with the notion that citing persons who defecate in the road represents cruel and unusual punishment since, after all, defecation is a essential human function and the displaced have nowhere else to do it. You may also punish people for irresponsibly carbon dioxide. Consequently, in effect, the legislation has put up two types of persons, those certified and people unlicensed to ease themselves in the road.
Dr. Winegarden provides an economistic excuse of Californian homelessness. He points out that home in California is significantly more costly than in the rest of America (apart from Hawaii). In addition, electricity, gas and groceries are considerably more expensive there than in many American states. This usually means that a remarkably large proportion of Californians–about 18 per cent, by his own calculation–are monthly wage packet away from financial disaster. Those without social support may be outside on the road at any time, unable to meet their mortgage or rent payments.
I do not find this a very persuasive explanation. It would suggest that the displaced population of California is split into 2, the mad or drugged on the 1 hand, and (more numerous) that the”commendable” displaced on the other people who are just the victims of awful luck and the high price of living.
If this were the situation, the solution to the issue of homelessness would be easy, at least conceptually or in concept: cheaper housing. Unfortunately, because of California’s approach to law, cheap home in California is very costly, as much as $700,000 per device. To house the displaced at the rate would cost about $105,000,000,000. Even without draconian law, the price would be immense, and supposes no fresh homeless would appear to maintain their free home.
For now, California has selected anarchy, but tyranny could one day result. No one wants a society in which people behave well since there is a policeman behind each tree if they don’t, or alternatively a society in which there are no standards of acceptable behaviour at all.But there is worse than the mere expenditure of it: namely, that for those displaced who were allocated new home, the outcomes are worse than if you stay on the streets, as quantified by medication consumption, mortality rates, etc.. That is because California requires a resolutely non-judgmental attitude into the social pathologies of those displaced: this is to saythe thing of assistance rendered to them ought to be to decrease the injuries consequent on their pathology, not the decrease in the pathology itself. Therefore, if home is made available for them, it needs to be unconditional, necessitating no change, or even attempt at change, on their part. As Mr. Rufo, whose job admirably joins the testimony of vibrant personal encounter with statistical generalization, tells usthe result of self-congratulatory, self-designated broad-mindedness on the portion of policy-makers is a tragedy.
The authors recognise it is important that we ought to divide the pathology by the man or woman that has it: the sin in the sinner, to put in in an conservative way. They do not advocate simply sweeping up the homeless in the streets and imprisoning them forcing them into chain-gangs. However, it is equally important to recognise passively accepting and even defending these behavior as publicly injecting heroin into the veins of the throat, angry paranoid assault, also using the streets as a vast bathroom is neither wise nor ample and condemns many ordinary citizens to suffer daily horrors, while doing harm to the people who act in this way. Although the authors do not emphasise the aesthetic effects are lamentable: and if beauty is an important, albeit not yet all-important, end of existence, leaving the displaced to fester because they perform in California perceptibly reduces both the pleasure and meaning of existence.
Another mistake that resulted in the current degrading situation was that the precipitate close of the hospital, without a lot of thought having been due to what had been to replace them. True, conditions in those hospitals were often laborious, but no one would conclude from the fact that a number of our schools teach nothing that we don’t need schools. The notion that the psychotic should be free to live as they picked was very well, but if they were excused anti-social behavior on the grounds that they had been ill and could not help it, even a Walpurgisnacht was bound consequently, all the more so once psychosis-inducing drugs became as easily available as aspirin.
Balancing personal liberty and the need for the approval of several common standards of behavior hasn’t been easy, and one of the things that this novel illustrates is that there must be a few of the things Lord Justice Moulton called”obedience to the unenforceable” if a society will function as both free and orderly. The kingdom is large that lies between what the law enforces and utterly free choice in things that are of no moral or social significance. In his address at 1924, titled Law and Manners, Lord Moulton stated:
The obedience [to the unenforceable] is that the obedience of a guy to that which he cannot be made to obey. He’s the enforcer of the law on himself.
If this kingdom disappears, we are left with two choices: anarchy or tyranny, either having a reduction of liberty. For now, California has selected anarchy, but tyranny could one day result. No one wants a society in which people behave well since there is a policeman behind each tree if they don’t, or alternatively a society in which there are no standards of acceptable behaviour whatsoever. While this book reveals, California, at least in respect to homelessness, has selected the latter.