[flensortow]

If someone is not a threat to themselves or others, but has strange beliefs and behaviors, should we really take their freedom away just because we don’t think they are taking care of themselves adequately or we don’t like the sight/sound of them?

As someone with bipolar disorder (very stable since diagnosis and medication) I’m always a bit dismayed when people call for locking ill people up “for their own good.” (Not that you’re necessarily saying that - it’s just something I do see people advocating for sometimes).

I’m in SF and previously lived Tenderloin-adjacent so I’m quite familiar with the unfortunate cycle of mental illness and drug/alcohol abuse from self-medicating. It’s not a pretty sight and I do think we should do everything we can to help these most vulnerable people in society. I’m just not sure taking their liberty is necessarily the best course of action.

[harimau777]

I think that society probably has the right to enforce basic social norms so I think it is reasonable to for society to intervene if someone is being threatening or violating basic norms (e.g. by defecating in the middle of the sidewalk). Both of which are common in the Tenderloin.

The problem that I see is: what options are available other than violating their freedom by forcing them to undergo treatment or locking them up? You can't, for example, fine someone who doesn't have anything. Besides, I think its unlikely that punishment would accomplish anything

So I guess I'm not sure I see a good solution to the problem.

[scardine]

This. I'm fortunate enough to be considered only "eccentric" as most people are willing to forgive my weirdness in exchange for other useful personality traits. Not everybody is that lucky.