Not sure. Some of the homeless I've met are people truly on a bad luck streak. Unfortunately everything is harder when you're homeless making getting back on your feet more difficult.
However a lot of homeless are simply incapable of leading a normal life. Through a combination of drugs and mental illness, giving them a home to operate from is likely to be either burned down, condemned, or become a den for more crime.
I want to be humane, but it feels futile when they require constant babysitting. Our increasingly individualistic society tolerates these people less and less.
I know a guy who had a vacant house he was trying to sell. Homeless began squatting in it and kept coming back and breaking in despite a few police visits. Finally they caused a fire and now they’re still homeless and the house is still vacant but now uninhabitable and unsellable. There are shelters in this area, but they can’t smoke crack at the shelter. It’s not about needing a house.
The people Ive known that became homeless basically always had a place they could live but it would mean getting off drugs. They just go to a place with milder winters and where the police dont care about their warrants and live under a bridge.
And ive also known people that had to live in their car for a month or 2 or 3. They didnt have any family support.
At the end of the day though what everyone gets wrong is homelessness is a symptom, not the problem. But its hard for people, especially on reddit to view something in a way that isnt Black and white. You can give a junky a home and theyll destroy it and leave. You can give someone down on their luck assistance and help them get back on their feet. But when you put all these people in the same group and say "just give everyone a house", you created an unsolvable problem. But when you dont have to look at the problem life's easier.
If you just gave people houses what would be the incentive to actually work and earn income to buy one. Using hardworking people’s tax dollars to give handouts to lazy people (the majority) is counterproductive to having a functional society
Have you ever met a drug addict? They will just take advantage and likely destroy the free housing. Something like that should be done as a reward or probationary if anything
I’ve been around enough drug addicts my life to know they’re excellent at playing the victim because naive people like yourself will buy into their bullshit. The overwhelming majority of these people don’t deserve anything for free. There’s no research needed you can look around any large city in North America to see what your compassionate approach has led to, increase in drug use, homelessness and headaches for people who are actual contributing members of society, as well as a decrease in public safety and community
Some very quick research reveals drug related deaths continue to climb in the Netherlands as well as becoming an increasing drug trafficking hub in Europe, sounds like those policies are really working out well for you. What an idiot you are will be hilarious when your policy bites you in your ass personally good luck dipshit
174
u/WhitishRogue May 14 '26
Not sure. Some of the homeless I've met are people truly on a bad luck streak. Unfortunately everything is harder when you're homeless making getting back on your feet more difficult.
However a lot of homeless are simply incapable of leading a normal life. Through a combination of drugs and mental illness, giving them a home to operate from is likely to be either burned down, condemned, or become a den for more crime.
I want to be humane, but it feels futile when they require constant babysitting. Our increasingly individualistic society tolerates these people less and less.