Sounds pretty illiberal to me. Lately (due to the whole pandemic/vaccine controversies), I've begun to wonder what drugs the state can force individuals to take or not take, and increasingly it seems that individual freedom is the rule in the US at least.

Who cares about someone slapping arbitrary labels of "liberal" or "illiberal" on things? Ultimately we need to find something that actually works, and treats people with compassion. It seems like the big focus is on the second half of that, completely ignoring the first.

I wonder what label will be applied to rounding up people and forcing them to labor? Particularly the minorities?

We’ve tried the “round up undesirables and put them in work camps.” Work didn’t make them free and it didn’t get a standing ovation overall.

"Arbeit macht frei" has a storied history to say the least.

The label you are looking for is “duly convicted party,” per the 13th Amendment:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If you can criminalize their existence, then I suppose it's off to the gulag with them.

Prison is a concept that has existed since the dawn of society. Maybe you disagree with criminalizing homelessness, that's certainly understandable and perhaps a bit illiberal, but it's certainly not unprecedented. And anyway, what I'm calling for is mandatory community service for the homeless, and then imprisonment/commitment/send them to kansas when they refuse to do it, not just criminalizing homelessness.

But if your question is if I believe in absolute freedoms, I absolutely do not. You are not free to harass people on the street. Not free to monopolize public parks. Certainly not free to be violent.

Seems like a bit of a burn on Kansas; some people live there voluntarily.

I wonder who it is you imagine will administer this involuntary servitude program? Does it particularly matter if the work is done to some standard or other? Do you imagine the state of California is competent to manage this system?

The state already runs community service programs. They can be expanded to handle the people living in the housing we built.

I'm not sure how giving someone a home and money for essentials is involuntary servitude. If these people don't want to do the service they can get a different job. I just realize that a lot of the homeless have what it takes to be successful, they just need structure and a little help.

I suppose I missed your option 3 which basically seems to be our current status quo. But government run make-work programs just seem like a non-starter in the modern US.

Homeless in the Midwest freeze to death in winter. Sending them to Kansas is sending them to the electric chair.

To live in the cheap apartments we built

Our constitution requires due process before you can force anyone to do anything. You also can't ban people from public land, because it is public. Imagine if the government created a massive park and only allowed rich people to use it. That's technically the same thing, except you are the rich people (relatively).

It's tricky.

Asylum? Send them to labor camps I mean private prison and also prescribe more opioids and shut down all drug addiction clinics.

Don't do this.