this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
179 points (97.4% liked)
Socialism
6381 readers
70 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i think a lot of the homeless have mental conditions that would be there in either economic system. the questions will be: will the system provide for them, if they reject having an identity, talking to a persom or filling out a form? will the system provide shelter against their will? is it okay to force them? but if there's unconditional healthcare, some cases may be healed or less severe, so at least those will be able to move in.
what do you mean by that?
i mean, it's a good start to have affordable or even free housing, even if some ppl dislike the looks. but don't expect this to solve homlessness. it will help a few homeless ppl, but many others won't move in due to mental health issues and a few even refuse free treatment.
how do you think that can be solved?
I think in the case of, for example, someone who chooses homelessness due to schizophrenia, it should be legal for them to live wherever they're not causing some kind of legitimate harm. (ie, not blocking an exit or damming up a river, etc.) They should be offered survival supplies and invited to care facilities. I don't think it's acceptable to involuntarily commit such a person regardless of good intentions, as it violates their sovereignty as an individual.
But at what point is it considered right to impose treatment when someone creates horrible living conditions on themselves because they have a disease? Schizophrenia is treatable. Part of the disease is not wanting/trusting help. Once medicated, most schizophrenia patients, even those who were treated involuntarily, are grateful.
IMO the line is whether they pose a direct danger to themselves or others. (Ideally the healthcare system would be such that most accept voluntary treatment before reaching a severe stage.) If they're so far just hanging out in the woods and not hurting anyone, the treatment plan should be observation and attempts to reason them into voluntary treatment.
Involuntary treatment can have the unfortunate effect of feeding into a person's distrust, causing a loop of future involuntary treatment. If you can convince a patient to come in on their own you increase the likelihood that they'll continue their medication on their own.
I get that. But if forcing them to take medication leads to them having a huge quality of life improvement, including them realizing that they need the medication and are grateful for it?
I get what you mean, but unless someone is in actual danger or threatening others then what gives any of us the right to forcibly control what they do? I know people who suffer from undiagnosed issues due to their refusal to get therapy or try medication, but isn't it their right to refuse treatment? If immediate danger isn't the line then where do you propose we draw it?
I think a lot of people living in such architecture have mental conditions.
Also, some people earn enough now to make room for homeless ones and live somewhere else but they have mental conditions now.