Finland - No Homeless

[DBTrek]

You’ve made your strawman and then knocked them down, but i’m Not sure who you impressed with it HM. You had no point.

I don't typically have conversations to impress people.

You are impressively clever, though. Congratulations.

When you do have a point that addresses the fact that there exists multiple ways of determining the disabled/incompetent homeless from the voluntary/addicted/capable homeless, I’m game to hear what you have to say.

So far it’s been a “How can we determine capability” smokescreen - because there exists numerous methods and we could select whichever we want. Though arguing particular methods serves only to distract from the conversation and push us down a rabbit hole over which method is best.

Followed by “So you’re saying” - shit I didn’t say.
/shrug

I say again, the capable/voluntary homeless deserve not a dime if they’re unwilling to give back to the community or improve their situation. I invite the resident leftists to once again explain what a “Hitler” that makes me.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The only real point is that competency is a scale, and I don't know if there is such a bright and dividing line between competent and incompetent that we can code into a bureaucratic apparatus.

[DBTrek]

The only real point is that competency is a scale, and I don't know if there is such a bright and dividing line between competent and incompetent that we can code into a bureaucratic apparatus.

We code “incompetent” as certified by a doctor, psychiatrist, or judge. People likely to have contact with those who honestly can’t care or provide for themselves. That’s one way. The criteria used to make a determination can be argued af infinitum, so I see no point in hair splitting. Suffice to say, that’s where the community could make the decision that a default capable person is incapable, and send them on to whatever services they need.

Those not determined incapable should have limited assistance while they actively try to improve their condition.

Those unwilling to improve their condition should be given a “good luck, you radical, independent, free spirit” and sent on their merry way.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That is very sensible, and I agree with all of it.

However, it doesn't look all that different from our current approach.

[DBTrek]

That is very sensible, and I agree with all of it.

However, it doesn't look all that different from our current approach.

How does our current approach remotely attempt to separate the voluntary homeless from the mentally ill and incompetent?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

That is very sensible, and I agree with all of it.

However, it doesn't look all that different from our current approach.

How does our current approach remotely attempt to separate the voluntary homeless from the mentally ill and incompetent?

We try to provide temporary and limited assistance to people who are down on their luck, but not hopelessly deranged or otherwise totally incapable of providing for themselves.

At least, that is the goal. I am sure we fail at it regularly.

[DBTrek]

If “we” fail regularly, and in a tremendously expensive manner - that might be cause for implementing revisions, right?

Revisions like nothing for those who are capable but not trying.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It is possible that people try harder when they aren't hopeless, and can actually see a path to improving their lives.

[Fife]

It is possible that people try harder when they aren't hopeless, and can actually see a path to improving their lives.

I blame Eisenhower.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

How dare you.