TheVat

It may help to look at the major trends that capitalism has wrought, which is the move towards automation and the decline in employment among males (who were in large proportion doing many tasks that automation is replacing). Something like 3% of males age 24-54 (the statistical "prime" working period) were unemployed in 1960. It's now 11% or maybe a bit more (I saw those stats a while back). (Women are doing better, with higher rates of college completion and employment) Social science research, from what I've gleaned, has found a lot of these men have given up on work (even people out of work for six months are regarded with suspicion by potential hirers) and log an inordinate amount of screen time - web surfing, video games, porn. My guess is that this segment will develop many psychological problems (and already have, as rising opiate addiction in that cohort indicates), to which society will slowly and painfully respond as premature death rates soar. One response might be of the Charles Reich variety, where a slacker culture develops that is focused on self-realization through creativity, lifelong learning, and spiritual practice. Those who don't work will turn to the arts, or to spiritual communalism, perhaps with some volunteerism in the mix. There will be many tries at easing that basic human hunger for purposeful activity and personal growth - "getting off the couch" will a sort of heroic journey for many currently pinned there in their electronic (or chemical) addictions. For others, there may be a long overdue shift in male thinking about "women's jobs," like nursing, home care, preschool, and primary school teaching, and a healthy shift towards more men in those fields. In any outcome, there will be more people unemployed in the traditional sense, and a possible "greening" as there become creative and spiritual niches for that segment of society. I wonder if anti-capitalist belief systems, like Buddhism, might become more appealing to those who, either through choice or circumstance, will not be on the consumerist treadmill.

Kind of scary that vinyl chloride, when it combusts, releases phosgene as one breakdown product. A gas that was used in trench warfare.

I've seen the Tiny House movement also intersect with the homeless problem, in some locations in the US. Had a friend who was involved with this in its proto phase back in the 80s (he got to meet Jimmy Carter), with the construction of 200 SF cottages (very simple, with plumbing amenities shared in a central bathhouse and commons) - the homeless helped build them and then got to live in them. There were hurdles with building codes (they were simple plywood cabins) and the permitting had to call them potting sheds or similar so they wouldn't run afoul of the UBC (uniform building code). More sophisticated versions of the tiny house cluster are emerging now in a few places, and seem to have the positive effect of "house proud" for the dwellers, with them taking care of their cabins, sprucing them up, planting flowers and gardens, etc. Self-sufficiency, regardless of your country's traditions, seems to be a healing thing for most people. In any case, this movement is a reminder that we don't really need to have 1200-plus SF in order to have a home, and the economics (and carbon footprint) of the tiny houses is quite favorable. Not as favorable as tiny efficiency apartments perhaps, but they do offer people who prefer more autonomy a chance to have their own four walls and look after them. Tha autonomy and freedom is, of course, limited in that most of these communities require newcomers to get clean and not use drugs. Here's an article focusing mainly on a community in Madison, WI - the article acknowledging some of the trade-offs - as when the land is distant from amenities. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/06/1077791467/tiny-homes-big-dreams-how-some-activists-are-reimagining-shelter-for-the-homeles#:~:text=With housing costs rising%2C tiny,Missouri%2C Oregon%2C and beyond. Those familiar with Wisconsin winters will understand the urgent need to get people housed, one way or another.

Been trying to get an answer to this for several pages. If the answer is enforcing nuisance laws (squatting, loitering, excretion) that are not presently enforced, then it does de facto become criminalizing homelessness. If the answer is drug law violations, then you have variation between states and cities, and any proposed rehabilitation facility would have to focus on chemical dependency, and the question of how long an addict would willingly stay if detox is involved. As for violent crime, I can't see how enforcement can really mean diversion from prosecution. Voluntary camps seem not a good fit for people who are a danger to others. The more I try to see the Sunbreak type idea, the less coherent it gets.

I remain unclear on the legal process (sounds sorta like the pretrial diversion often used for at-risk teens), but am willing to explore the possibilities that preserve due process. The court would have to issue a warrant and the homeless person would, on apprehension, have someone (social worker, e.g.) who insures they are understanding the Sunbreak facility is an alternative to prosecution they can choose, that they are only committed to a trial period there (72 hours, say), and that they may then leave with no police record of any kind or threat of further prosecution (unless they re-offend). Also, Sunbreak should be for nonviolent offenders. Violent offenders require a different approach and level of security, and realistically would have to face prosecution if it's a serious offense.

I'm replying to several posts here, concerning taxation. We elect representatives in a democracy on the basis of what they do with tax revenue we pay in. It's generally understood in the social contract that some public benefits are general - i.e. while they don't directly benefit us personally, they help maintain a better social environment - more educated and healthier citizens, safer streets, cleaner food and water, better transit, innovation, jobs with better working conditions, etc. I find it amusing when people suggest in one breath that money towards homeless aid doesn't benefit them, and then in the next breath tell me how awful and dangerous homeless encampments are and how they fear to walk downtown. Now that @Alex_Krycek has somewhat modified his OP plan towards the most benign interpretation of the Sunbreaker system (how this works legally remains of interest, but I'm open to it), it's worth remembering that such systems cost money, so the public will have to see that the general benefit I described above is real and leads to permanent affordable housing and stable life situations. I'm glad others have pointed out how the especially dire housing shortage in USA (something like over 3 million units nationally) is at the core of the problem. And many are what we call "fitness club homeless," out here. They live in vehicles with a camper space or at least a cargo space which fits a bed, pay 25-50$ a month for the cheapest gym membership that gives you a locker, showers, and warm changing room. They tend to use public toilets, or use a bucket inside their camper (like Frances McDormand in "Nomadland") which is discreetly emptied down a storm drain. Such homeless (often employed) are less visible than the encampment homeless, but quite numerous.

Interesting speculation. There was a letter he wrote late in life that seemed to clarify his view of religion, which letter was auctioned in London in 2008 after being in a private collection for over fifty years. (from The Guardian) Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. In the letter, he states: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.” Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel’s second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God’s favoured people. “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people...."

And you're smarter than to think I'll just accept that a pretrial diversion (which is what Sunbreak would require) is purely voluntary. No court would accept a jail alternative that someone could just walk away from, without consequence. Mr Walton can spit shine that idea all he wants, but adding formal arrests to the picture then turns the gears of the legal system, which tends to see a diversion from prosecution as a binding agreement. It's seen as risky and expensive to just let someone go and maybe have to later reprocess them and incarcerate them. I have no problem with prosecuting and incarceration of the violent segment you also mentioned. Isn't that already what law enforcement does? Do you have citations for this spectre of muggers and killers prancing around freely while police ignore them? I know your Morley smoking boss doesn't think much about the rule of law, but I know you do, and your idea needs a way to make sure that it's actual lawbreakers who are inside the fence after going through due process.

Tha article appears to contradict itself. First, it says: "It is designed to welcome all homeless persons, each of whom may come and go as they please." So, starting out on a nice 14th Amendment respecting note. Sounds truly empowering and helpful. It then goes on to describe a free shuttle that takes Sunbreakers downtown or wherever. Sweet. Then later there is the implication that Sunbreak will be mandatory if one opts for it as a diversion program instead of jail. All the defecators and loiterers and sleepers outdoors will be rounded up, formally arrested, and then presumably have to stay at Sunbreak if they choose the get out of jail card. Stay. As in: can't leave. So which is it? A voluntary program and you can check out of the Hotel California anytime you like? Or a detention unit with better light and services that will send you back to jail if you decide to leave? If the latter, then the solution proposed, with undoubtedly some features that are better than a county jail, is still a prison camp, and we are still criminalizing the condition of having no home (i.e. no roof, no toilets, no place to sleep but a public venue, etc.). I think these folks need to clarify which program they are envisioning here.

This proposal for Sunbreak Ranch is a voluntary program. In the article, it is stated that residents can come and go as they please. In posting this, I feel you may be conceding the point so many here have made regarding the problems with involuntary camps.

I was making a joke, too. Riffing off yours. Sorry if that was not clear. I have far more support for the fast food detox camps than I do for the homeless camps idea. DISCLAIMER: ALSO A JOKE.

I find it interesting that even great spiritual figures who were formally associated with theism, like the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, seem to avoid the bearded rainmaker. Merton (a truly spiritual person I've long admired) said something like: God is not a being, but rather the process of being. And becoming. There are passages in Merton's books that sound rather Buddhist to me. I have no problem with seeing God in this way, as a sort of foundational essence of conscious being rather than some personal entity, and see no reason it would interfere with doing science. And yes, Einstein seemed Spinozist in his views. There will always be an ontological puzzle at the heart of the universe, something our minds cannot access through science, which in no way diminishes or demeans science. Many scientists I know have this mystical feeling, ranging from deism to panpsychism.

Really, you're unsure about this? By all means, let's consider the relative merits of Nazis and...mothers. 😏

This is just bizarre.... Minus 15 F. last night here. Up to about five above now (early afternoon local time) which is the warmest it's been in three days.

Just wanted to shout "plus one" from a rooftop. Nice to hear from someone with actual work experience that relates to the topic. The Fourth amendment, as well as Article I, and the Fourteenth, is going to make that part tricky.

This appears to contradict your OP proposal. If you believe your comment is true, then forcibly herding addicts into camps would not work at all. Homeless people form encampments for multiple reasons. Those actually committing felonies should be arrested - that's not in dispute. The question is what to do for those who are just sick and need treatment, and this is where cities do not generally have "plenty of resources" or off-street residential options. Perhaps more hard data is needed here before you make further assertions.

Do you have evidence that rising crime rates are due to specific law enforcement practices? There are other factors driving crime, which makes analysis complex and challenging. There are Constitutional protections that mean citizens cannot be "removed" as you describe. You cannot detain and incarcerate people without due process of law, i.e. arrest them without a warrant and without their consent. Merely being homeless is not a crime. Nor is mental illness and addiction, unless it leads to specific chargeable offenses. And "rural, government supervised camp" sounds disturbingly like a concentration camp. Welcome, backward Uighurs! It's not ethical that a wealthy society cannot provide public toilets, housing for the poor, and sufficient mental health services and social workers and medical care, with this neglect leading to the result that people in dire circumstances have no choice but to "take over" public parks, grassy verges, sidewalks, riversides, etc. It's not ethical that fat comfortable people in 2000+ sq ft houses with five tv screens and climate control and home security systems, sit around whining about the horrifying prospect of paying an extra percent in taxes to help people huddled out in the cold and shitting in some bushes and wondering when someone might sneak up and clonk them on the head and steal what little they have.

Sorry, I missed the link you surely posted about Ukraine invading a sovereign nation and killing civilians en masse and committing mass war crimes and issuing threats to multiple NATO countries. I mean, I assume that's the story I missed that would make sense out of your equivalency between Russia and Ukraine.

Oh there's nothing halfway about the Iowa way to treat you.... (from The Music Man) I propose a new variant of Godwin's Law which says that all web discussions will eventually turn to partisan divisiveness in the US. Or manifest it. Anyway, to the degree that Putin's apparatchiks have helped generate that partisan division he is running an effective CW.

One, I will cherish this mental image for some time. Two, I have heard from a reliable source that the Mothership has told them to "just hold it." Absolutely. There is solid evidence of aerial phenomena that are unidentified.

Love it or hate it, one thing you can say about globalization of the economy is that it makes a world war really unattractive for just about any country. Global supply chains were a tiny sliver of what they are now, back in WW1&2. One way to avoid war has been to make it too economically punishing for the parties involved. Putin is an aberration, an exception to this, and now that we are entering a second year of the conflict, the slower deeper effects of sanctions will begin to manifest. Russia will have to back down and the global appeal of authoritarian governance might take a downturn. It's already gotten a nice kick in the pants with Bolsonaro's ouster and Trump's ongoing alienation of the GOP power brokers.

It's a speculative thread, so I don't see why we can't still post sightings (as Moon was planning to do yesterday) and there could be debate as to their quality of data, what are reasonable testable hypotheses, etc. And I would like to see more academic institutions send (as happened in Texas with the university sending a team of science grad students and prof to look at the Marfa lights) investigation teams to study the anomalous and possibly extraordinary.

Well, who would dispute that the present is far from complete acceptance and complete equality before the law? Really, this present line of discussion seems to be turning on the degree to which personal reactions of distaste affect social progress for groups who are discriminated against. Like @zapatos I can agree that it would be better for all to jetisson such distastes while also questioning if that should be the primary focus in a world where people try to take positive action. Pulling on the levers of law and politics and grassroots solidarity would seem more fruitful (absolutely NPI) than rooting out all the bad turnips in our heads. That direction, in my reading of history, seems to run the risk of thought policing. (which seems to drive the real bigots even further into entrenchment and extremity)

Sociopath and psychopath are both used to refer to what's clinically known as ASPD, or antisocial personality disorder. What's disturbing is that the horrible things that happen in war are mostly done by ordinary people who are not in the 1-2% of the population estimated to have ASPD. Plain old human nature, conditioned in a certain way, can wreak atrocities.

I look at voting from the perspective of collective action. Which works when people believe in it. My individual vote doesn't probably make a difference but the votes of everyone like me do. So it's something one could view as an expression of confidence in yourself as part of a larger whole that is a democracy. It has a psychological value, overcoming stasis and apathy and cynicism, which ripples causally through the rest of your life. And who knows it might encourage someone else you know to vote. So there's a sort of chain reaction possibilty there, maybe. I'd encourage all you butterflies to flap the wings a bit.