Does anyone ever hear this one? It doesn't make sense to me. Why do we need the option to be homeless? Do you want to be Diogenes or what?
I mean shit if someone really wants to be homeless let them. But no one can truly make that decision freely unless the option of not being homeless is as easy a choice to make
Exactly this. Once you've accounted for untreated mental issues, if someone wants to live on the streets they should be allowed to do so, provided it is a choice freely made.
Really, there's no reason (save capitalism) we couldn't construct our public spaces to accommodate people living comfortably in them.
But I don't imagine those people will ever number even 1% of the populace, frankly. It's kind of a silly gotcha.
I don't know if I'm down for the idea of freely choosing to live on the streets, since that presents an immediate hazard to a person's life.
Currently, certainly. As I said, I feel it's entirely possible to build our public spaces so as to accommodate the vanishingly few people who would choose to live such a life even once the other difficulties inherent to acquiring housing under capitalism were eliminated.
Ask them what percentage of homeless they think are choosing to be homeless. If it’s not in the single digits, there’s the misconception you need to address first
That and that people often think of homeless people as dirty vagrants or people with mental health problems because that's who they notice, nevermind thousands of people living out of their cars but otherwise still participating in society normally.
When I was a kid we moved around a lot because my mom quit her job constantly. I was in my late twenties before I put together that extended stays with extended family in between apartments were homelessness.
I’ve had people tell me I wasn’t homeless (or at least “not REAL homeless”) when I was couch surfing, because for the vast majority of the time there was a roof over my head. Wasn’t my roof. Couldn’t afford a roof of my own. Not sure what that would be if not homeless.
Another one I see is that they're lazy and don't want to work.
Some of them literally have jobs. I also don't think being lazy is worthy of homelessness either.
I've heard this line of reasoning a few times. The person I'm thinking of is saying it's wrong to force someone choosing homelessness into a home.
Definitely varies based on what you’re defining as “homelessness”, too. If someone enjoys couch surfing or living out of an RV, more power to them. Most people who do that, though, have some sort of home address or PO Box to receive mail. There should be considerations made for that and I don’t really see a universal housing project “forcing” them to suddenly own a house.
Buiuuut I have a feeling that more often than not people are talking about people who have had addiction issues or have “had their chance” at getting housing and “messed it up”. It’s a much deeper misunderstanding of how homelessness and addiction play into each other and exactly how unrepresentative the most visible unhoused people are of the entire group
They should still be provided a home when they want one.
Its a nonsensical argument since 99.9% of people chooses to not be homeless but are unable to be homed. We can look at other socialist nations like the USSR where homelessness as a structural issue was abolished (although there were claims of homelessness by western media. the structures that they built did not lead to homelessness unlike capitalism where the reserve army of labor is necessary for its function)
It works too, I literally only joined the military because I was homeless.
When they say, "choose to be homeless" they're actually thinking of anti-homeless propaganda that homeless people now choose to have no home. Right wing sociopaths want to believe this because it resolves the contradiction that their perfect system creates homelessness and their propagandists provide people who can't/won't live in barracks-style night-only shelters as "choosing" to be homeless.
Fight their faces.
"get into this locker, you fucking nerd"
:picard-direct-action:
Here's how it will work in real life:
"Hi. I'm from the housing office. I reckon you're homeless. Is that right?"
"That's true"
"Would you like to live in a house suitable for your family size, eventual disabilities and in your preferred neighborhood? The rent is at a level you can afford with your current income. If you need extra care and support for medical or social issues that can be arranged as well."
"No thanks, I'm good"
"Okay, have a nice day. Get in touch if you change your mind."
That, or like Catherine_Steward pointed out in another comment just say "Cool, your address is (address) here's a key. You don't have to sleep there if you don't want to but it's there"
Even if they did choose to be homeless, they should be able to change their mind on that too lol
Someone who has a house they can return to can also choose to live as a vagabond. It doesn't have to be one or the other lol
I imagine you let them be homeless, right? I've heard good things about van living. For example the main character of Free Solo. What are you gonna do? Put them in house arrest? Are you arguing with a pedant who says, "Well, since it's not teeeeechnically universal, then we should have means testing for affordable housing!"? You should tell them to shut the fuck up if that's the case.
It would be very hard to stop someone from being homeless if they really wanted to anyway
I think that the reason there are people today who are "choosing to be homeless" is because of the difficulties associated with having a home and the strings attached to any kind of shelter, housing system, etc.
I'm sure you're going to always have a few people who would prefer a completely nomadic lifestyle, but you definitely going to change a lot of minds if you make it easier for people on the margins to comfortably inhabitat a home.
I've never heard that argument before, that's absurd. Providing someone with housing is not the same as forcing them to live in it. If housing was universal, the vanishingly small number of people who'd prefer to be homeless could still choose to live that way, while the vast majority of people who prefer to have a home would now have one. Seems like a pretty bad faith argument
