The lack of a roof over your head isn't the cause of homelessness, it is the symptom. Addressing it in a more permanent manner would probably require you to compromise on a lot more of your libertarianism than just offering more social assistance.
For example, a huge percentage of the homeless are mentally ill. If we institutionalized them, which is a nice euphemism for "confined them against their will", they would no longer be homeless. Are you willing to do that?
Another major portion prefer camps to shelters or traditional housing arrangements because they just fundamentally do not want to accede to societal norms like "You should work for a living and pay rent", and necessary prerequisites like "In order to maintain that job, you will probably find it necessary to come in to work almost every day, and be sober for the duration".
Empirically, a significant portion of the homeless population will trade comfort for autonomy. Living in a shelter means a loss of autonomy, and some people prefer a largely-unsupervised tent or, in a pinch, the streets. NYC used to have significant excess shelter space and tried to force it on a homeless encampment by Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. The church and homeless advocates sued to protect the homeless' right to live outside of shelters.
So, again -- are you OK with agents of the state having to physically restrain people to get them into shelters? Because that is what will be required to alleviate this symptom.
You are talking about the structural homeless crowd which will exist regardless of the circumstance. They exist here in Denmark, where they could have a nicer home than I currently have if they could be bothered to go ask for it at the social center.
However, at the point where the homeless population becomes camps, it has grown beyond the mentally ill or critically inept.
I do not believe living inside a piece of cloth raised on the bare earth without sanitation (or anything else really) is a choice sane people would make, just to avoid work.
Some homeless people are mentally ill but this isn't a reason to not have a social safety net. There used to be a term 'noblesse oblige' where the more fortunate are duty bound to look after those less fortunate, to my mind this is where a social security net is required.
Some people will for one reason or another, whether by bad luck or plain old stupidity will end up at some point in there life out on the streets. If these people have kids then the kids end up on the streets and no longer receive an education, so they'll end up as criminals or on drugs or something like that. If this cycle is allowed to continue you end up with large areas of slums in cities. If instead when bad things happen there is a security net that allows you to wipe yourself down, get up and move on then the cycle is avoided, or at least it's depth is less. It can become a social welfare problem, but at least you don't have children dying in tents from exposure, and there's always the chance that when things pick up, they'll be able to get a job or at least the children do.
Why would it be a cage? Isn't the idea of a free society is that it is a society? A group of responsible adults could agree that events could occur which result in people having to live on the streets for no reason of their own. I agree with some forethought these events could be planned for, but this is the sense of noblesse oblige. It recognises that not all people in the community are able to plan with the same level of forethought, and that the resources they have to work with will forbid this level of planning. And so a wealthy society can afford to look after all people if they so desire. If they wish to opt of the safety net then that is fine, I don't see how it's a cage.
> I agree with some forethought these events could be planned for
Really? One of the things that Hayek is well known for, the 'socialist calculation problem', states that too much central control is bad because it's simply impossible to 'calculate' an economy - it's best left as a dynamic system with millions of independent actors. However, doesn't that also apply to individuals? You can do your best to make plans, only to run into things beyond your knowledge or control.
I agree that it's not possible to calculate an economy. I was talking on a personal level, a rational person in a situation where at any time they may lose their job and be thrown on the streets will save and put aside enough money to survive for a reasonable amount of time. However if you're already living hand to mouth, you lose your job, the bank forecloses on your house and you're out on the street, well it seems in the US it's tent city here I come. Many of the people are victims of an economic event out of everyones control. A social security safety net would prevent tent cities from happening. Which is the greatest cost to a society - having citizens living in tents without any sanitation or health care, which will increase crime and health care needs - or provide all citizens with a safety net of a subsistence wage?
I agree - which is my point, that it's more or less correct to point out that a government, with everything available to it, is unable to 'calculate' an economy, but by the same token, individuals can try their best and miss the mark too. There ought to be something there for them to help pull them up and get them going again.
You are ignoring Pat's point, which is that many of the homeless choose to be homeless. So you must answer the question: should we force homeless people into shelters?
I never said anything about forcing people into shelters. My point was by providing a basic level of social security the tent city could be avoided. In Australia there are still some homeless living under bridges and so on, this can't be prevented, but we have no tent cities (except for the occasional political protests).
There are some shelters run by charity groups for the remaining homeless, who provide food and shelter for the night if so required. Most of these people have mental disorders / drug problems / or homeless kids who've left home, and there are mechanisms that help these as best as possible, but it's not 100% successful. Most of them choose to find a shelter for the night.
This situation is different from the one that creates the tent cities. From the interviews these are people who lost their jobs because of the economic collapse. Shouldn't a 21st century society provide some sort of safety net for these people so they can maintain some diginity?
These days we have advanced medication which can cure I'd say 95% of all mental illnesses. So these people would only be in hospital a few weeks to get onto the right medication.
Then get them into temporary housing - not a shelter where they have to beg/pray to eat, but just a normal house.
They should ideally be on social security while ill, but work if they are able.
While I'm not a psychiatric professional, I do associate with several people in that field, and I'm calling shenanigans on your numbers. I'd say:
"These days we have advanced medications, which can help with some of the symptoms of perhaps 25% of mental illnesses. Effectiveness will dramatically vary by person, and only works if the person continues to take the medication as directed (something that is very often outside the ability of a mentally ill person on their own). Also, many of these medications can cause health issues, addiction, toxicity, interactions with other medications and drugs, and need to be monitored on a frequent basis by a medical professional in order to fine tune the dosage, and look out for early warning signs of serious side effects."
For example, a huge percentage of the homeless are mentally ill. If we institutionalized them, which is a nice euphemism for "confined them against their will", they would no longer be homeless. Are you willing to do that?
Another major portion prefer camps to shelters or traditional housing arrangements because they just fundamentally do not want to accede to societal norms like "You should work for a living and pay rent", and necessary prerequisites like "In order to maintain that job, you will probably find it necessary to come in to work almost every day, and be sober for the duration".
Empirically, a significant portion of the homeless population will trade comfort for autonomy. Living in a shelter means a loss of autonomy, and some people prefer a largely-unsupervised tent or, in a pinch, the streets. NYC used to have significant excess shelter space and tried to force it on a homeless encampment by Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. The church and homeless advocates sued to protect the homeless' right to live outside of shelters.
So, again -- are you OK with agents of the state having to physically restrain people to get them into shelters? Because that is what will be required to alleviate this symptom.