Ain't Too Proud To Beg

Last week, some high school kids approached me about a project they were working on and wondered if I would answer some questions. I agreed and their first question was a huge, fascinating, and vague one: How do you feel about homelessness? I went on to answer a bunch of their questions and although I feel like I got my point across, it got me to thinking that I really should organize my thoughts on this matter. First off, let's get clear on what does it mean to be homeless. I'm not talking about a buddy who's crashing for a week on your couch until his basement suite is available for him to move into, I'm talking about so called "rough sleepers". Now to be fair, I know little to nothing of the homeless plight; I mean, this side of seeing Curtis in front of Bar None begging for change. I really have never worked with them or know anything about their life other than what I see and read , although I'm not sure I need to. It seems to me that there might be a conception of homeless people (even in their own mind or so they would have me believe) that they are down on their luck people that lost their job and had no other alternative than the street. From what I can tell, this isn't the case. From what I can see there are 3 types of rough sleepers: mentally ill, drug addicts, and 20 something kids who want to stick it to the man. Many people (friends of mine included) have taken one of three approaches to the homeless and people begging for change: help them by giving them something (food, change, cigarrettes, etc.), not doing anything, or getting in their face about getting a job. I'm not sure that any of these three approaches are particularily effective although I understand the thinking behind each. I'd like to start my thoughts here by changing the vocabulary a bit. "Homelessness" not only suggests that these individuals are without a home, it also presupposes that they want to have a home. How would you account for the paranoid schizophrenic guy in White Rock then that refuses shelter on the basis of that he thinks the government is trying to capture him and that he believes man should be with nature. Shouldn't this individual be free to pursue his values? He isn't harming anyone or anything. Calling him "homeless" would be missing the point/problem. A capitalist society is truly an amazing thing. I would encourage everyone to read anything by Joseph Heath if you disagree with that statement. Imagine a group of people move into a house together. Now most of you know how difficult it can be to manage household chores in a roommate situation. Even when you assign jobs to everyone, there is no guarantee that the other roomates will hold up their end or to the level of expectation that you'd like. The problem is incentive. If your livelihood depended on your ability and quality of doing your chores, things would turn around quite quickly. Also, if you could all divide up the chores to the those that you performed the best at and you found the most satisfying it would be even better. Also, if someone else said that they'd do your job even better than you, it would ensure quality. This is the greatest organizing principles of any society. This is why we enjoy the quality of life that we do. Now what do you do if one of the roommates becomes disadvantaged and can't perform their job. Well, this begs the question, what is his/her disadvantage? Philosopher Martha Nussbaum compiled a list of what she considers to be categories of human functioning which if one doesn't have access to, constitutes a disadvantage. Here is that list: 1. Life - being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one's life is so reduced as to be not worth living. 2. Bodily health - being able to have good health; to be adequately nourished and sheltered. 3. Bodily integrity - being able to move from place to place freely having one's bodily boundaries treated as sovereign. 4. Sense, imagination, and thought - being able to express yourself and being able to have experiences. 5. Emotions - being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves. Not having emotional development slighted by fear, anxiety, abuse, or neglect. 6. Practical reason - being able to form a conception of the good and top engage in critical reflection about the planning of one's own life. 7. Affiliation - being able to associate, work, and engage in various forms of interaction with others. 8. Other species - being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature. 9. Play - being able to laugh, play, and enjoy recreational activities 10. Control over one's environment - being able to participate in political choices. Being able to hold property and employment. 11. Showing gratitude or doing good for others 12. Being able to live in a law abiding fashion 13. Understanding the law The last three were added from Jonathan Wolff and Avner De-Shalit's wonderful book "Disadvantage". All of these disadvantages are based on two premises. Firstly, that these disadvantages are imposed involuntarily. For instance, if someone were to decide that they wanted to only watch Matlock reruns for all of their waking hours, they might make the argument that they are disadvantaged because they don't have any money, but of course that would be ridiculous. Secondly, these disadvantages are based on capability. A barista at Starbucks may think, I'd like to make the kind of money a doctor makes and cry disadvantage because they make a barista's salary, whereas if I were a woman in Saudi Arabia I actually couldn't become a doctor even if I wanted to. So the question of the "homeless" is what is their disadvantage and is it involuntary? Do yourself a favor, go to the front of the Vogue theater one night and ask yourself if those kids out front of it are disadvantaged or do they just want to smoke pot all day? Then have a look a Curtis, who's frozen his feet a few times, has a serious crack habit, and is severely mentally ill. Maybe a better word would be "unemployable". That brings the problem right into focus. These aren't people that could sustain a job. I don't think there is such thing as a functioning meth addict. So what do we do? If we give money to the "homeless" this may help some who are legit, but it also creates a free ride for those who want to not contribute to society's household chores. What about the ones who are legit, but don't want government help? Can or should the government force mentally ill to "stay on their meds"? There is a value to society to help "unemployables". Less crime, less mentally ill, less poverty, and most importantly perhaps, more human compassion. I would like to see my tax dollars spent for the creation and upkeep of a modest facility that offers mental health and drug abuse assessment, medication, and treatment for rough sleepers....well I suppose for everyone. I wouldn't force anyone into my facility but I give them incentive to go to it. Dropping off blankets, offering housing, and food is all compassionate, but it's not providing an incentive to get back into life. There are real solutions now for the drug addicted and mentally ill and we should try to steer people towards that solution. It should sting a bit to be out in the streets and it should feel like the only solution should be to get help. I encourage everyone to read two books, the first of which led me to the second. Crazy: A Father's Search Through America's Mental Health Madness by Pete Earley and American Psychosis: How the Federal Government Destroyed the Mental Illness Treatment System by E. Fuller Torrey. Torrey as once part of the NIMH has a bird's eye view of the situation and persuasively argues for a return to the state hospital model. Although, his detractors rightly bring up many civil liberty issues and they are right to do so, the solution might soon warrant such drastic measures as "homeless" populations continue to grow but perhaps there's an incentive or nudge based solution that might be the way forward.