There was heavier discrimination towards the homeless in the past, with vagrancy laws for instance. The situation has gotten much worse as society has become more tolerant of homelessness/drug-use while providing far more services to those in that lifestyle.
Housing costs are indeed a problem however. The largest cities in Canada, as in the US, have seen rental rates increase as a share of average income. One study looking at the US blames this on rising restrictions on land-use since the 1960s, which has prevented housing supply from expanding to the meet the growth in housing demand:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201117212350/https://eml.berke...
What kind of guarantee is provided?
I'm not about to downvote you for saying "crime against humanity" without reading whether or not you're advocating for one.
* not exactly amenable to liberal democracy
* the pro-leniency movement
* has gone too far,
* all across liberal cities
* it's become a free-for-all
* absolutely devastating all parties involved
* the ordinary citizens who become victims
* rampant property crime
* the vulnerable who are predated upon by drug dealers
* who themselves commit vast amounts of crime
* feed their habits
* the taxpayer
* hard-earned resources
* thrown
* a money pit
* worse than neutral effects
This reads as a list of right-wing scare phrases used in any political campaign to motivate conservative voting. This doesn't read as apolitical to people who actually live in the places these phrases are applied to and it seems to be characterizing the people in these places, "liberal cities", as either fools or sub-human villains. Also, if you are one of the people demonized you don't recognize yourself in the description.
I'm a big fan of liberal democracy, so this was an argument against involuntary commitment and forced labor, not an argument against liberal democracy.
The 'liberal democracy' reference is not using 'liberal' in the same context as the 'liberal cities' I referred to later.
>>the vulnerable who are predated upon by drug dealers
I wouldn't characterize that as a talking point associated with the right at all. The left is known for displacing blame for the misbehavior of drug addicts onto external forces, and this particular point does the same. Though it does sound critical of drug dealers, which is a right-ish argument.
Anyway, it's impossible to not sound political, when the problem is political. And it's impossible to not be critical of the left, when it is mostly the left that is to blame. Left-wing run cities are much worse off than right-wing ones with respect to homelessness, violent crime, drug-abuse, etc, by any metric you look at, and they got that way, from a starting state of much greater social order and more functional civic life, under decades of left-wing policies that gradually became more extreme.
QED
Unless of course you look at the generally much more left wing Western-Europe. But that doesn't fit your narrative.
That removes a huge number of potential confounding factors that could explain differences in outcome, letting the effects of differences in policy be better revealed.
It's the same kind of thing as right-wingers acting hostile to any negativity towards police/military, even if criticism is valid. Criticise lenient policies in cities with vagrancy problems, and it's touching a nerve.
Entire extended family was begging police To arrest him. They absolutely would not do anything. I personally spent thousands on efforts to assist him.
Some people are just scum.
Oh and he always had some sweet girlfriend that he abused like crazy. Each one would take a couple of years to wake up that he was just using them.
Sadly yes. There are usually thousands of reason, why they became scum in the first place and it is important to ask those questions and find ways of improvement - but those are not helpful for the present situation at hand, when others have to deal with actual fear.
His sister was raised by a strict dad.
She has her own problems from it, but can function in society.
Yeah well, that sounds like the reason. Pretty much Eric Cartman stereotype (from south park).
It's important to consider the criteria used when we select individuals for internment.
One should also well consider the quantity of dog-whistles one embeds in a neutral-appearing comment. Using 'liberal' as an epithet, using the term 'ordinary citizens' to distinguish from those who need to be deprived of rights, bringing the idea of those who pay taxes as being especially worthy of government protection... these are all talk radio jingo.
A governing institution that interns individuals based on being different, or not morially aligned, of not thinking the correct thoughts has been tried often in the past and indeed there are many regimes around the world who still do so today. If society feels the need to institutionalize people for their thoughts it should at least formalize the crime in law and open the process to justice instead of relying on the fiat of those who hold the reigns of power.
> governing institution that interns individuals based on being different, or not morially aligned, of not thinking the correct thoughts
You are talking about what? apartheid? communist regimes?
Homeless people aren't being treated differently for "not thinking the correct thoughts", or "not being morally aligned". They are treated differently from ordinary people, but if any ordinary person did the same they would be treated that way too. Being treated differently based on behaviour is not necessarily wrong.
Homeless people who hear voices or are delusional are treated differently precisely because they are not thinking the correct thoughts.
Homeless people who indulge in self-mediation with alcohol or other drugs are treated differently precisely because those behaviours are not considered morally aligned.
> They are treated differently from ordinary people, but if any ordinary person did the same they would be treated that way too.
Plenty of people with homes are addicts. Plenty of people with homes suffer from depression or other conditions. I don't read a lot about how they should be rounded up by the authorities and reformed or institutionalized.
> Being treated differently based on behaviour is not necessarily wrong.
In the 1930s Soviet Union under Josef Stalin, political opposition was considered a mental illness just like schizophrenia and hysteria. You were considered crazy of you did not support the regime. Thousands of these crazies were rounded up, often in the middle of the night, and institutionalized in an attempt to cure them. The fresh air and honest labour of camps in Siberia were considered just the thing to help.
Sure, it's not necessarily wrong to treat someone differently based on behaviour. We consider it reasonable to isolate an individual who demonstrably poses a danger to others. The line is poorly drawn when it comes to differentiating between danger and inconvenience. Is seeing someone in a park smelling like urine and talking to someone you can't see enough of a threat to be isolated and force-fed mind-altering drugs? Does making unproven accusations demonstrate enough possibility of danger that we should "lock her up"?
Where does the line get drawn, and who has the privilege of drawing it?
Twisting the terms to fit the homeless means it applies to historical examples less - the persecution of certain demographics for their beliefs was not based on drug-induced anti-social behaviour.
> Plenty of people with homes are addicts
what kind of addict? What are they addicted to that they manage to keep a home?
If they are to hold on to that resource they maybe their situation isn't comparable?
> Plenty of people with homes suffer from depression or other conditions
What "other conditions"? depression isn't at all comparable to antisocial behaviour, but in fact if your depression leads to mania, self-harm, or self-neglect you may well be institutionalised.
> political opposition was considered a mental illness
And this was a determination made by doctors or medical professionals comparable to todays medical professionals?
How many of the politically opposed refused to take care of themselves as a result of their opposition? Is self-neglect difficult to distinguish from political motivation?
> differentiating between danger and inconvenience
The "inconvenience" of political opposition isn't at all the same thing.
laws and regulations exist guaranteeing political freedom, vagrancy shouldn't be crime itself, but anti-social behaviour shouldn't be excused on the basis of vagrancy.
> Is seeing someone in a park smelling like urine and talking to someone you can't see enough of a threat to be isolated and force-fed mind-altering drugs?
No, but where was that suggested? And by "force-fed mind-altering drugs" do you mean in all cases, or after a medical professional evaluates the person and promotes that as the best course of action (in which case its no longer based on the initial scenario you describe).
> Does making unproven accusations demonstrate enough possibility of danger that we should "lock her up"?
What are you responding to? What "unproven accusations"? I feel like you are making broad counterpoints to points never made.