[shkkmo]

> if your daughters couldn't leave their house for fear of the man under the bridge raping them, then you might change your answer. It absolutely changed my answer.

Quite possibly as I don't pretend to be a saint who always puts society ahead of myself. (Edit: this is the heart of the tragedy of the commons, everyone is making rational choices we can be sympathetic with but the end result is that things end up getting worse for everyone over the long term.)

However, I would do it with a heavy heart since I know that while I am protecting my (hypothetical) daughters, I am doing so at the cost of putting someone else's daughters at risk instead while also making the overall situation worse.

[jvanderbot]

I respect your (hypothetical) altruism.

This isn't tragedy of the commons, because the whole of humanity does not end up worse with these actions. I'm not convinced that clearing an encampment makes the average wellbeing across humanity go down. These arguments turn a blind eye to the harms to surrounding people and the homeless involved.

[shkkmo]

> This isn't tragedy of the commons, because the whole of humanity does not end up worse with these actions.

Nothing about "tragedy of the commons" implies that the "commons" must be of global scope. The name derives from the classic example of unregulated grazing on common land in the UK.

> These arguments turn a blind eye to the harms to surrounding people and the homeless involved.

Not at all, the whole point is to reduce those harms. When you clear an encampment, the homeless person doesn't just disappear. You don't fix the problem, you just move it elsewhere and make it worse and harder to fix.