Doing a bit of research for my final paper this term, and I'm proposing a free market solution to homelessness in America. For starters, this is the information I've typically found thus far: this study in Maine is claiming that the solution to homelessness is permanent subsidized housing. The study claims that people save more on average in comparison to funding services for these homeless people.
So I'm thinking creatively about this, and naturally, my first rebuttal is that in a free society would not be coerced to pay for any services whatsoever, therefore any permanent housing subsidy would be more than other forms of taxation (in that there wouldn't be any other forms of taxation).
But when I'm coming to the part of providing free market solutions for homeless families, children that were abandoned and the people who are genuinely and significantly mentally ill, I'm having a tough time. It's easy to say that nobody should be forced to pay taxes, but thinking creatively, what do we do with these people?
Also, does anyone know of any really good (perhaps national level in the U.S.) homeless subsidy statistics and charity? I'd like to see how much people pay for homelessness on average on a national level and, ideally, compare the cost to a free market solution.
An argument I've heard is that if 51% of the ocuntry is willing to vote for supporting the homeless, that means we have plenty of people right there, the voters, who will surely give freely of their money to a charity that helps the homeless.
And it will cost only one tenth as much as govt subsidies, because every govt organization keeps 90% of its budget for itself, with only 10% going to the poor, th eopposite of the stats with private charities.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Of course giving people free homes helps homelessness in MAINE BECAUSE IT IS COLD THERE!!!!!! Will the same resolution help in Miami Fl or Houston TX, I doubt it. Of course the government at the highest level is the organization that is best fit to determine these obvious differences and then change the programs to fit these differences?
I can not believe that anybody would want any of the welfare state in their place of residence. From what I can tell, the welfare state helps little at best but at worst forms a breeding ground for the likes of the latest two terr-idiots whose entire family was on the dole.
First off you have to define what you mean by "solution"? Are you trying to treat the symptom or the cause?
1. Is your inquiry on where to house the homeless cost effectively? No matter what you decide is the answer, if you reward that behaviour -you do realize then that if you provide something, anything, be it a mansion or a tent....... you will get MORE homeless people? It is iirrelevant if it costs the taxpayer less or more to begin with, it will become an all encompasing boondoggle
2. Or is your question what is the solution to reducing the numbers of homeless?
I say scratch inheritence taxes, scratch income taxes, scratch zoning laws, scratch minumum wage laws, scratch drug laws, scratch licensing laws, scratch all government charities.... and there probably won't be any homeless, but if there are a miniscule few, they could easily be handled by existing private charities.
(I hope you are not thinking of the "solution " to the homeless problem in terms of Hitler's final solution)
The other problems you mention- abandoned children would be solved with an open market for buying and selling children
Mentally ill- 90% of what you call mentally ill are capable people with idiosyncracies that we find uncomfortabe , then they are drugged into mindless zombies or "chemical imprisonment" now requiring expensive housing.The small percentage of truly dangerous and truly incompetent can be handled by existing free market facilities, both for profit and non profit, as soon as the government closes down their tax funded monopolies
"What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?", asks Jon Stewart
What does it mean to be homeless nowadays?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Houseless, condominiumless, apartmentless, trailerless, and carless. However, it does not mean without a place of residence.
An amusing term.
poverty in america: Having 1 Yacht instead of 5
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Voluntary subscriptions to private charity organizations.
Doing a bit of research for my final paper this term, and I'm proposing a free market solution to homelessness in America. For starters, this is the information I've typically found thus far: this study in Maine is claiming that the solution to homelessness is permanent subsidized housing. The study claims that people save more on average in comparison to funding services for these homeless people. So I'm thinking creatively about this, and naturally, my first rebuttal is that in a free society would not be coerced to pay for any services whatsoever, therefore any permanent housing subsidy would be more than other forms of taxation (in that there wouldn't be any other forms of taxation). But when I'm coming to the part of providing free market solutions for homeless families, children that were abandoned and the people who are genuinely and significantly mentally ill, I'm having a tough time. It's easy to say that nobody should be forced to pay taxes, but thinking creatively, what do we do with these people? Also, does anyone know of any really good (perhaps national level in the U.S.) homeless subsidy statistics and charity? I'd like to see how much people pay for homelessness on average on a national level and, ideally, compare the cost to a free market solution.
Go to wikipedia and find some articles about the history of homelessness and then analyze it with AE.
From what I've learned I think that during the Elizabethan Era anyone who was homeless (due to the Anglican destruction of the Catholic monasteries which housed them) was restricted from street vending, or from drfiting from town to town (and we still have vagarancy laws today). In modern times, (I've heard from a homeless person) the city makes sure that homeless shelters are out of the way of the down-town areas (where things are generally safe) and placed all the way out in the "boonies" where homeless people suffer high rates of victimization by murderers or thiefs. One should also realize that homeless people are quite often against getting help even from family members and so, if they don't want help then there is no obligation to help them.
So if there were no more laws restricting how homeless people can live, then perhaps they could live better with more opportunities available to them. Another aspect to analyze the problem through would be, to acknowledge that everyone is homeless at first so what is it about homeless people that makes them so uniquely unable to live like normal people? Sometimes it is drugs and how drug laws might affect employment (and indeed the types of drugs and their quality) others times it is a bad economy probably due to some gov. intervention etc.
Except that the 51% want the other 49% to pay for all of it.
Except that the 51% want the other 49% to pay for all of it
It would be extremely amusing if after the next major election, only those people who voted would be forced to pay for whatever they voted for.
It would be funny and also nullify the point of an election.