[mullen]

This is why we can't have nice things in this country. It's always comes down to some rhetorical discussion about edge cases and possibilities of how a tiny fraction of people might be negatively impacted, so let's not do it.

Let's frame it this way, "Is it humane to allow people be a slave to their mental illness and living on the streets?" The answer is clearly, "no". Allowing the mentally ill to live on the streets betters no ones life and causes many issues for everyone. If people with a mental health issue can not or will not take care of themselves, then someone else has to do it (IE: The Government).

It is humane for everyone if the mentally ill are forced to get treatment or confined if they refuse it.

[vkou]

> It is humane for everyone if the mentally ill are forced to get treatment or confined if they refuse it.

Are there any other situations when we can forcibly act to protect you from yourself, or is mental illness the only situation where this is permitted? Should society be allowed to forcibly restrict you from engaging in other forms of self-damaging behaviour? Smoking, drinking, gambling, being stoned all day erry day, riding an ATV without a helmet..? Not getting vaccinated against a deadly, contagious respiratory disease, because you think the vaccine[1] is a 5g chip created by Bill Gates as part of a secret mass eugenics program? Not allowing a doctor to operate on you or your child, because you believe that a blood transfusion is a sin?

There's a wide, wide spectrum of a gray zone here, and that's why drawing a hard line through it is not the clear-cut easy moral answer that you think it is. It's precisely why society tends to draw soft lines through it, leans towards encouraging and discouraging over compelling, and why it won't intervene in response to most forms of self-harm.

[1] That's a pretty big one. If we're going to forcibly medicate people for their own good, universal vaccination seems to be a much more obvious place to start. Debilitating side effects of vaccines are negligible compared to those of brain pills, and the overall ROI, both personally, and to the people around you is fantastic.

[guerrilla]

> It is humane for everyone if the mentally ill are forced to get treatment or confined if they refuse it.

Definitely not, unless they're actively harming you because self-defense is always justified. Short of that it's none of your business.

[mixmastamyk]

You may have misunderstood what humane means in this context. It is definitely society's business that our fellows don't live eating out of garbage cans while swearing obscenities at no one in particular on the sidewalk. Encampments also breed rats, disease, drugs, and prostitution.

It was never acceptable to allow this and we no longer have the excuses of the old days—that we don't have the resources to help them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/typhus-tu...

[guerrilla]

> You may have misunderstood what humane means in this context. It is definitely society's business that our fellows don't live eating out of garbage cans while swearing obscenities at no one in particular on the sidewalk. Encampments also breed rats, disease, drugs, and prostitution.

You can offer as much help as you want, but you can't force it on anyone. I think we should give them all free housing, food and whatever else they may need, but we can't use violence and imprisonment on them in any other case than self-defense. That would be a violation of bodily autonomy and extremely illiberal.

[mixmastamyk]

Oh definitely we can, and society often does and should limit the autonomy of individuals for the greater good, e.g.: Driving is a "privilege" not a right. You may be placed in a conservatorship or similar if not capable of taking care of yourself. Your right to throw punches ends at other people's noses. Folks with dementia often have mobility limits placed on them.

Either these folks are deemed competent or they are not.

Also, you've used the word violence here to give the appearance that this is the same as assault, but it not. It is humane care for those who need it.

[guerrilla]

> does and should limit the autonomy of individuals for the greater good

No, it's to prevent the person from doing harm to others, not "for the greater good" or else you've entered into fascist territory. It has nothing to do with competence either but harm reduction. That's why someone can't drive without a license because they would be at a high risk of hurting others (you can drive on your own property.) It's self-defense.

> Also, you've used the word violence here

I used the word violence because it's literally violence. It has nothing to do with connotation, the definition of a state is the monopoly on violence over a particular territory; so wielding the state to force people to do things is nothing less than using violence or the threat of violence. This isn't remotely controversial.

[pindab0ter]

> the definition of a state is the monopoly on violence over a particular territory

As a non-US reader, I have never encountered this definition where I live. I understand what is meant, but it seems very much like a fear inducing frame; state = violence.

Maybe this is because where I live we have a different relationship with our government and law enforcement than the U.S., but to me it’s not at all “not remotely controversial”, at least in the way it’s phrased.

[progman32]

Your example of driving privilege is inapt. My hypothetical privilege to drive is not rejected based on my ability to take care of myself. It is rejected on my ability to take care of others around me.

[souplesse]

I think that's exactly the point the parent comment was making: that, as with driving, an individual who is unable to take the wellbeing of others around them into account can/should have their privilege of individual autonomy restricted.

Obviously there's a difference between defecating on the sidewalk and recklessly injuring someone with a car, so the question becomes how we define harm.

[smabie]

What's wrong with drugs and prostitution?

[mbg721]

That's the heart of the problem; society can't decide what behavior, if any, is deviant, and so we err on the hands-off side. Except that we then have unused outrage, so we lash out when somebody runs an errand and leaves their dog in a locked car.

[mixmastamyk]

Move a young relative into one of these encampments and we’ll compare notes.

[goatlover]

It’s everyone’s business when it turns into homeless camps in well trafficked public places other people would like to use. Which is why cities like NY and LA have decided that some chronically homeless do need to be involuntarily committed.

[guerrilla]

You could just house them instead of wielding violence against them. As others in this thread have pointed out, they are there because there's nowhere else to go and certainly nowhere legal to go.

[notwokeno]

You have to take any idea to its logical conclusion before it's implemented because that's what's going to happen sooner or later.