Homelessness

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: May 18, 2024

Why are people homeless? I am sure there is a lot of data on this point. Without going in to that data, analytically, there are four possible types of people who are homeless: 1) those that elect a homeless lifestyle; 2) those that are homeless due to mental illness; 3) those that are homeless due to drug or alcohol addiction; and 4) those who are involuntarily homeless due to financial or other causes.

It may or may not be important to consider the reasons for homelessness when considering possible resolutions. The reasons for homelessness may be important from a moral perspective. For example, one may feel compassion for the involuntarily homeless and not for the voluntarily homeless.

One solution for all homelessness, regardless of cause, is simply to apprehend the homeless and shelter them. This could be done. It is simply a matter of logistics and public cost. These problems are far from insurmountable.

The bigger problem is based on the right to freedom. Does one have the freedom to live homeless, in encampments or otherwise, on streets, sidewalks, in parks and in other public, or indeed, private places?

Believe it or not, I am a libertarian. That is, I value liberty. But, like John Stuart Mill, I readily acknowledge that liberty is subject to one critical limitation: my liberty cannot impinge upon the liberty of others. Or, put another way, my liberty ends where harm to others starts.

A world of total liberty is, according to many philosophers of the Englightenment, 'the state of nature' where life is 'nasty, brutish and short'. Liberty, without moral and legal rules, is anarchy. In a civilized society, we give up some liberty by agreeing to be bound by moral and legal rules. This is the social contract of Rousseau where he says compelling individuals to comply with these laws is ‘forcing them to be free’.

In other words, no one's liberty is absolute. The liberty of all is dependent on the following of rules.

Generally, there are laws against vagrancy, illegal camping, defecation in public areas, trespass, destruction of public property, pan-handling, public drug consumption, possesion of stolen property, littering, assault, harassment and the like. Should all of these laws be suspended in the case of homeless people in order to preserve their liberty to be homeless?

Assuming that public shelter is available, why would anyone choose to be homeless? Let's first deal with those homeless persons that have the mental capacity to make a choice. They choose living on the street over living in some form of shelter. Why? Because most shelters have rules including rules against drug and alcohol use. They may also have night curfews and the like. They have rules. There are no such rules on the streets. Does society have to accept the choice of homelessness? Not if there is harm to others. The breaking of laws that are applicable to all is a harm in itself. Lawbreaking is generally harmful to society. But we need not stop there. Other harm is caused - hence the reason for the laws. Encampments obstruct public use of roads, paths and parks. This obstruction is harmful to the general public that has a right to use these public areas. Human excrement on streets and sidewalks is a public health risk and it is disgusting. Public use of drugs is harmful. Odors from the combustion of drugs may be toxic to those nearby. Disposed needles and drug paraphanalia are a hazard. Why should we put up with this harm and disregard for laws? The answer given is always some variation of respect for the liberty (and dignity) of the homeless person.

When someone is imprisoned for committing a criminal offence, we do not bemoan the loss of their liberty. The criminal has committed the offence. By doing so, the criminal has renounced his/her right to liberty. The person who is voluntarily homeless, with the option of being housed is in the same position.

Someone who is mentally ill needs help, not liberty. Mental health legislation accross the country acknowledges that someone may be held against there will where they present as a threat to themselves or others. This is an acknowledgement that liberty has its limits. If these people are harming others by living homeless, shelter in exchange for a loss of some liberty is a fair and appropriate exchange. If their mental illness and related homelessness can be managed so that the potential for harm to others is eliminated, liberty should be restored.

The same logic applies to addicts of drugs and alchohol. When they become a risk to others, their liberty is rightly reduced. Their right of liberty is not absolute. The right ends where harm to others begins. As a caring society, we owe addicts a duty of assistance. But this duty does not require maximizing their freedoms at the expense of harm to others. If their addiction makes them homeless, we should offer shelter. However, shelter can come with conditions designed to ensure the safety of others being sheltered and society at large. When their addiction, and resulting homelessness, is managed so that the potential for harm to others is eliminated, full liberty should be restored.

Morally, we may feel more compassion for the involutarily homeless from whatever cause. However, these people should accept accommodation subject to reasonable terms. They are not entitled to absolute freedom and to free room and board. This is not how life works. One would think that being offered room and board, in lieu of 'living rough', would be welcomed, even if some rules are imposed.

The voluntarily homeless perhaps are less deserving of compassion. Provided they cause no harm to others, and live within the bounds of the law, bon chance! If they cause harm, they may get room and board, but the price to be paid will be a commensurate loss of freedom.