Public Housing and Shouldn’t be removed aren’t mutually exclusive. The whole question talks about homeless people as if they are refuse to be dealt with. At least reactionaries recognize libs are full of shit.
“Shouldn’t be removed” in this context means leaving them on the street to suffer and fester. They very much should be removed, for their health, and for the health and progress of society. So public housing efforts, health initiatives, financial support and so on, are very much exclusive with “shouldn’t be removed”.
Yes you can’t instantly all teleport them with the snap of some fingers, but that’s the end goal.
Why should forcible removal for the benefit of the person not be considered alright?
I completely understand when the forcible removal means their extermination, throwing them in prison, shipping them off to some middle of nowhere town to go be homeless there, and so on; but in the case of a person who might have severe and untreated mental illness, trauma, disabilities, physical wounds, and drug addiction, would the best option not be taking the person off of the street and into an apartment or home from where they can begin to recover from the devastating nature of homelessness? If the person is to begin to receive medical attention, financial aid, mental health treatment, and rehabilitation, would the most critical step not be removing the person from a situation in which they are actively suffering extreme mental and physical duress?
This does not mean showing up with a SWAT team, handcuffing them, throwing them in the back of a van, and then kidnapping them to a random apartment across the country. The process can only be done with extreme empathy, and from professionals who will be able to aid in every step of the process. But ultimately, preventing them living a life of vagrancy seems to be a completely normal thing to do.
The way to stop homelessness is to fix it before it starts. Which is by far the thing that needs to be in focus. If you stop creating homeless people you will eventually not have to deal with communities of them and instead deal with single people in crisis who can be dealt with in a humane manner by the community. If you have ever experienced having all your rights taken away from you, as I have, you know the extreme injustice and colonial mindset that all of these programs have at their core. We are just civilizing savages vagrants for their benefit after-all isn’t it good?
No matter how many draws you put in place you will have people who will not voluntarily comply with any measure put in place due to their inability to or deep distrust rightfully learned from their lived experiences. These people still deserve agency it is the only thing they have. The homeless are victims of social eugenics who are somehow still able to adapt to their extremely unfortunate circumstances. They are all owed a great debt by society and we should treat them that way by voluntarily letting them reintegrate. Yes, absolutely provide whatever services are needed, but never by force.
Public Housing and Shouldn’t be removed aren’t mutually exclusive. The whole question talks about homeless people as if they are refuse to be dealt with. At least reactionaries recognize libs are full of shit.
“Shouldn’t be removed” in this context means leaving them on the street to suffer and fester. They very much should be removed, for their health, and for the health and progress of society. So public housing efforts, health initiatives, financial support and so on, are very much exclusive with “shouldn’t be removed”.
Yes you can’t instantly all teleport them with the snap of some fingers, but that’s the end goal.
I’m just making it clear that forcible removal of any kind is not something to advocate for. Public housing doesn’t exclude forcible removal.
Why should forcible removal for the benefit of the person not be considered alright?
I completely understand when the forcible removal means their extermination, throwing them in prison, shipping them off to some middle of nowhere town to go be homeless there, and so on; but in the case of a person who might have severe and untreated mental illness, trauma, disabilities, physical wounds, and drug addiction, would the best option not be taking the person off of the street and into an apartment or home from where they can begin to recover from the devastating nature of homelessness? If the person is to begin to receive medical attention, financial aid, mental health treatment, and rehabilitation, would the most critical step not be removing the person from a situation in which they are actively suffering extreme mental and physical duress?
This does not mean showing up with a SWAT team, handcuffing them, throwing them in the back of a van, and then kidnapping them to a random apartment across the country. The process can only be done with extreme empathy, and from professionals who will be able to aid in every step of the process. But ultimately, preventing them living a life of vagrancy seems to be a completely normal thing to do.
The way to stop homelessness is to fix it before it starts. Which is by far the thing that needs to be in focus. If you stop creating homeless people you will eventually not have to deal with communities of them and instead deal with single people in crisis who can be dealt with in a humane manner by the community. If you have ever experienced having all your rights taken away from you, as I have, you know the extreme injustice and colonial mindset that all of these programs have at their core. We are just civilizing
savagesvagrants for their benefit after-all isn’t it good?No matter how many draws you put in place you will have people who will not voluntarily comply with any measure put in place due to their inability to or deep distrust rightfully learned from their lived experiences. These people still deserve agency it is the only thing they have. The homeless are victims of social eugenics who are somehow still able to adapt to their extremely unfortunate circumstances. They are all owed a great debt by society and we should treat them that way by voluntarily letting them reintegrate. Yes, absolutely provide whatever services are needed, but never by force.