There is the notion that most homeless people are just poor people, otherwise rational but only in need of a little support and sympathy and they'll bounce back - usually a view informed by cherry-picked examples of people who did bounce-back, and therefore don't represent the majority of the chronically homeless population - this is the "it could be you" angle.

The other notion is that of a lifestyle-choice, treating the homeless as if they are their own indigenous demographic, choosing to live a life outside the western method, and harmed only by western cultures insistence that everyone needs to fall in line. This argument usually skips over the dependence on western societies for basic needs, and whether anyone should get to just "opt out" of society in general, while still benefitting from societal supports.

Both are true to a limited extent, but absolutely false if used as a broad defence of the homeless, or the basis of policy.

There has to be a link between the autonomy a person is allowed, and the responsibility they bear for wielding that autonomy - this applies everywhere else too, from trust within communities, to authority within institutions.

The homeless are often treated differently, but sometimes they are treated more leniently the the norm as well. If they where treated the same as everyone else, they'd still find it difficult to get a job, or loan; but they'd also end up in jail a lot more too.

>> If you're a millionaire, it's just luck and people around you; if you're homeless, it's the opposite.

I don't know what "the hivemind" says, but being homeless is, indeed, "just luck"; in particular, misfortune- the kind that can befall anyone. If I understand correctly, in the US for instance, having a serious accident or falling seriously ill can lead to bankruptcy and homelessness, through no obvious fault of one's own (except perhaps people should not partake into dangerous activities like sports for recreation).

You're mixing two different things in your argumentation: what can theoretically happen, and what typically happens. Majority of people have to completely alienate their friends and family with their asocial behaviour to become homeless.

I've only been technically homeless and only slept on the street once in my entire life, but I have some time volunteering, talking and interacting with them, and in my personal experience, overwhelming majority of them are not just normal people who felt on hard times. I'm completely sure that if they took rational decisions and controlled their impulses, majority of them would not be where they are.

However, and this is a very important point: division between mental illness and bad decisions is very murky, so I'm not making any moral judgements here. But if a person suffers from a mental illness which leads him to make irrational decision, it is a tragedy, and this person is not at fault, but society doesn't become responsible for this awful situation either. It is moral and commendable to help these people — that's why I do it, for example. But there's a pretty huge gap between doing something out of kindness and having an obligation to.

That doesn't apply to the chronically homeless. The majority of homeless people at any given time are 'down on their luck' and relatively quickly get out of homelessness. You also have to factor in the role drug use and mental illness play into homelessness. Many of the chronically homeless fit into one of those two categories, and a subset of those people do not want or will not accept help.

Coincidentally, I just posted a piece two days ago that spent substantial time on the front page about people who grow up in upper class circumstances and wind up on the street at some point:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25310779