I think the author of this piece agrees with you. Aside from whether or not it ultimately helps homeless people in a statistical sense, it seems ridiculous to me that the government should get involved in my decision to give someone spare change, or a bite to eat. Homelessness is a problem, but my interaction with a homeless person must transcend statistics because I am human and so are they.I believe the real reason cities want homeless services to move indoors is to hide the problem so they will face less pressure to fund solutions.
I think so too. I just felt like ranting. I'm not sure I agree. Hypothetically, what if it were possible to statistically end 99% of homelessness, by passing laws forbidding individual help (presumably along with laws for institutional help)? Of course, it's the classic question of Deontology vs Teleology, and people have been arguing about it for hundreds of years.I think the author of this piece agrees with you.
Homelessness is a problem, but my interaction with a homeless person must transcend statistics because I am human and so are they.
IMO the easy answer is that we don't need to worry too much about such scenarios because they don't exist, and in those cases where efficiency of mass behavior is determined to be good, the cost of enforcement needs to be weighed against it. Enforcing teeth brushing might have measurable benefit, but enforcing teeth brushing will also have measurable downsides, if only the re-conceptualization of the purpose of government.Hypothetically, what if it were possible to statistically end 99% of homelessness, by passing laws forbidding individual help (presumably along with laws for institutional help)?