Alchoolics given free apartments

the purpose of a free market society is that people win or lose by their own actions

I make my money, I pay my taxes. I even volunteer to help raise money for charities through the United Way.

There is far to much need out there to be wasting money on people who don't even WANT to help themselves. A person that's a homeless alcoholic with no job, that doesn't want to sober up and doesn't want to work, isn't entitled to free health care and housing courtesy of my tax dollar!

I would say your view is far more radical then mine sir

Silver, my idea is radical only in the sense that it will work, unlike other entitlement programs out there now.

I hate deadbeats as much as any other hard working tax payer. But, I also do not want to have to see them every where I go in my day to day dealings. I would rather have them sequestered in a desolate location than on the streets of my town panhandling.

I wouldn't mind paying a half cent "drunk tax" to fund their encampment. With all the yuppie Chardonnay sold in California, the program would be self sufficient in no time.

they already have a place for panhandlers, it's called jail

and we pay taxes to support it :thumbup:

In SoCal, panhandling is not illegal, rather unfortunately.

It's not illegal in Nova Scotia and they are everywhere, mostly healthy young males that rather beg by day and get stoned at night. They can get a job and support themselves like the rest of us.

An Alcholic will not seek treatment until he's ready, placing one in a controled environment won't work because all they want to do is drink. They have to be ready for sobriety, it can't be forced onto them.

My suggestion has two great benefits -

1. They are out of my sight, sequestered on a retired military base somewhere.

2. They are getting some form of attention to their disorder, albeit against their will.

Since some of our tax money goes to some do-gooder project for them anyway, I say send them away. Everyone's better off.

Unless you kill these people, they are going to cost society money. The goal is to make their impact as small as possibly. Giving them cheap housing is what many studies have shown is the least expensive way to do it. If they're wandering the streets, it costs a great deal to the community, for law enforcement, for hospital care, and it damages the reputation of the area, causing a decrease in commercial viability. In this respect, your tax dollars are being spent more efficiently and wisely. How can you possibly regard this as a bad investment? The cost of incarcerating them is much greater than providing them cheap, low-quality housing.

Your sentiments of "why do I pay rent when they get it free" are misplaced. If you really want it, you're free to go be homeless in Seattle for a few weeks and get signed up for the program. I'm going to guess it's not worth the effort, and you'd rather keep your job and pay your rent. Welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

The American value has never been that hard work pays off. The American value has always been "let your money work for you." Hard work gets you nowhere. If you don't believe me, take a look at how hard the richest people in the country work, versus the poorest. I think you'll see the "hard workers" aren't the successful ones. The ones sitting back by the pool all day are the ones who don't work, and, surprise surprise, their lifestyle of luxury is one that your "hard work" pays for.

arterion - so you agree with me...

What you're suggesting, socalgolfguy, is a concentration camp. I'm not sure that's (a) the most cost effective solution, (b) humane, or (c) that it will promote even a small percentage of the homeless to start supporting themselves. By your suggestion, they would be secluded from society, and thus from jobs -- they would never be able to clean up and go to work. It would literally be a prison, after all.

If you have a few minutes, there's a very interesting short story called Manna that exposits on this very topic. It's about a system of camps where the homeless and jobless are taken to to live to minimum standards.
Manna, Chapter 1, by Marshall Brain

My questions is this: What is the homeless people whom you would take to your "commune" decided they didn't want to go -- that they'd rather live on the streets?

I never said "concentration camp"... more of a ..... "work farm" ... using old army barracks. Not bad at all, three squares, warm housing, no booze and honest work with an end goal in mind.

Sounds like something they used to do in the south... they called it a plantation, and instead of homeless, they used black men and women.

What did I tell ya socal?

You called it, my brother.