I am a part time NYC resident who has spent a lot of time over the past 35 years meeting and over time have approached and gotten to know several of the homeless residents both in the area where my office is located and in my residential neighborhood, both for humanitarian reasons but and also to form my own conclusions regarding the “pr…
I am a part time NYC resident who has spent a lot of time over the past 35 years meeting and over time have approached and gotten to know several of the homeless residents both in the area where my office is located and in my residential neighborhood, both for humanitarian reasons but and also to form my own conclusions regarding the “problem” and potential “ solutions” which ameliorate it. I have gotten to know individuals whose homelessness had all the different causes of which everyone is aware and pontificates about - addiction ( alcohol and/or narcotics) , personal illness, loss of employment , abuse ( physical and/or mental), family dysfunction, being thrown out by parents ,runaways and mental illness. I have attended NA and AA meetings with some of them ,and some have managed to get and stay clean and even find shelter and get meaningfully employed. I have on occasion even gotten them to their medical appointments and methadone clinics ( definitely a topic for another day). I have done this because I believe that my philanthropic effects should be personal involving my time and talent) as well as institutional support provided by my donations. But the toughest cases by far in my estimation are those with severe illness ( often terminal) but who still value their liberty and who often deeply distrust both social services and the medical establishment ( often for understandable reasons) and those with severe mental illness. THIS CONCLUSION IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, treating severe mental illness involves the system devoting a huge amount of time and money to the effort and that can only be done in the huge majority of cares by forcefully incarcerating those individuals for extended periods of time ( perhaps all their natural lives) . I have visited institutionalized individuals ( first as a college student over 60 years ago taught by a psychiatrist practicing at such an institution) and later in various circumstances involving advanced dementia , and understand how difficult it is to avert that this may be the least bad solution.
But I ask (rhetorically)- is liberty that will almost inevitably cause you to harm not only oneself but in all probability others really liberty and who does it benefit except the- do.gooders and feel-gooders who can walk away from the inevitable results.
My thanks to everyone who has liked this comment. It was so long that I doubted that many people would read it. It reinforces that the time I take to post comments is worthwhile. Hope to have my own Substack online soon. Will introduce myself in the initial post. Thanks again.
I am a part time NYC resident who has spent a lot of time over the past 35 years meeting and over time have approached and gotten to know several of the homeless residents both in the area where my office is located and in my residential neighborhood, both for humanitarian reasons but and also to form my own conclusions regarding the “problem” and potential “ solutions” which ameliorate it. I have gotten to know individuals whose homelessness had all the different causes of which everyone is aware and pontificates about - addiction ( alcohol and/or narcotics) , personal illness, loss of employment , abuse ( physical and/or mental), family dysfunction, being thrown out by parents ,runaways and mental illness. I have attended NA and AA meetings with some of them ,and some have managed to get and stay clean and even find shelter and get meaningfully employed. I have on occasion even gotten them to their medical appointments and methadone clinics ( definitely a topic for another day). I have done this because I believe that my philanthropic effects should be personal involving my time and talent) as well as institutional support provided by my donations. But the toughest cases by far in my estimation are those with severe illness ( often terminal) but who still value their liberty and who often deeply distrust both social services and the medical establishment ( often for understandable reasons) and those with severe mental illness. THIS CONCLUSION IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, treating severe mental illness involves the system devoting a huge amount of time and money to the effort and that can only be done in the huge majority of cares by forcefully incarcerating those individuals for extended periods of time ( perhaps all their natural lives) . I have visited institutionalized individuals ( first as a college student over 60 years ago taught by a psychiatrist practicing at such an institution) and later in various circumstances involving advanced dementia , and understand how difficult it is to avert that this may be the least bad solution.
But I ask (rhetorically)- is liberty that will almost inevitably cause you to harm not only oneself but in all probability others really liberty and who does it benefit except the- do.gooders and feel-gooders who can walk away from the inevitable results.
My thanks to everyone who has liked this comment. It was so long that I doubted that many people would read it. It reinforces that the time I take to post comments is worthwhile. Hope to have my own Substack online soon. Will introduce myself in the initial post. Thanks again.