You are right when you say that "a failure to address the problem is more a failure of will than of solutions...just ask California governor Galvin Newsom, who managed to clean-up San Francisco in advance of the APEC Summit". Virtue signaling is indeed the coward's approach, and its attempts to make its practitioners feel better about themselves cause more damage than the issue itself.
I think the statistics you present showing higher percentages of homeless who experience poor mental health and/or substance abuse, and your extrapolation that they result from the trials of homelessness itself, are only partially true. There is also a large segment of that population which became homeless as a direct result of those conditions in the first place, which is another reason for stronger intervention, less acceptance of such self- and societally-destructive behaviors, and better mental health initiatives.
Many might take umbrage with your comparison to a minimum security prison ("Now you want these folks in PRISON?!), but it is obvious you mean with regards to functionality and not (initially) lack of freedoms. It is an attempt to think outside the box to find solutions which are currently lacking, and is certainly deserving of study at the very least. Activists, come up with something better before you throw stones.
I do think many - myself included, sometimes - disconnect from one of your suggestions on principle, despite recognizing its practicality. "Convincing taxpayers that footing the bill for the necessary housing is less costly in the long run than letting the homelessness situation continue to fester" might, when the math is calculated, actually balance out or even cost society less overall. But like so many entitlement programs, the concern remains that many will abuse the nature of those programs, and that such abuse will become more pervasive as the growing desire for a "free ride" continues to enhance the number of recipients of such social benefits. Eventually, the numbers of those who receive surpass those who pay, and everything collapses in upon itself.
We need to be more proactive, and ignore the bleeding hearts who are all talk and no actual solution. THAT is real compassion for the afflicted, and also better for society at large.
Oh, yeah, activists. I used to have a positive association with activism, and considered myself intermittently an activist (eg: when volunteering for some political change, like ending support for the Contras in Nicaragua).
But then "activist" became chic, and the majority of some young generations self-identify as activists and therefore morally superior. That is, it become a status enhancer. And their causes also have become more dogmatic on average.
Today, when somebody calls themselves an "activist", that signals to me that they are most likely deeply into confirmation bias and an untrustworthy source for contextualized information. That is, activist => can see only one side of the issue. Not always, but for the most part.
I appreciate that you are trying to square the circle - to reconcile humane values with pragmatic rational thought in this complex question.
I think there is a substantial portion of the homeless population that is not clinically mentally ill, but does have trouble following rules. One could interpret that as an oppositional disorder by expanding the definition, but there are societal pitfalls in that direction. Imagine classifying the trucker protesters as mentally ill and worthy of institutionalization because they didn't follow orders. There's a fuzzy line between dissent and disorder, which can be moved based on political utility.
We need to beware of unintended consequences, and be aware of the full set of tradeoffs being made.
You are right when you say that "a failure to address the problem is more a failure of will than of solutions...just ask California governor Galvin Newsom, who managed to clean-up San Francisco in advance of the APEC Summit". Virtue signaling is indeed the coward's approach, and its attempts to make its practitioners feel better about themselves cause more damage than the issue itself.
I think the statistics you present showing higher percentages of homeless who experience poor mental health and/or substance abuse, and your extrapolation that they result from the trials of homelessness itself, are only partially true. There is also a large segment of that population which became homeless as a direct result of those conditions in the first place, which is another reason for stronger intervention, less acceptance of such self- and societally-destructive behaviors, and better mental health initiatives.
Many might take umbrage with your comparison to a minimum security prison ("Now you want these folks in PRISON?!), but it is obvious you mean with regards to functionality and not (initially) lack of freedoms. It is an attempt to think outside the box to find solutions which are currently lacking, and is certainly deserving of study at the very least. Activists, come up with something better before you throw stones.
I do think many - myself included, sometimes - disconnect from one of your suggestions on principle, despite recognizing its practicality. "Convincing taxpayers that footing the bill for the necessary housing is less costly in the long run than letting the homelessness situation continue to fester" might, when the math is calculated, actually balance out or even cost society less overall. But like so many entitlement programs, the concern remains that many will abuse the nature of those programs, and that such abuse will become more pervasive as the growing desire for a "free ride" continues to enhance the number of recipients of such social benefits. Eventually, the numbers of those who receive surpass those who pay, and everything collapses in upon itself.
We need to be more proactive, and ignore the bleeding hearts who are all talk and no actual solution. THAT is real compassion for the afflicted, and also better for society at large.
Oh, yeah, activists. I used to have a positive association with activism, and considered myself intermittently an activist (eg: when volunteering for some political change, like ending support for the Contras in Nicaragua).
But then "activist" became chic, and the majority of some young generations self-identify as activists and therefore morally superior. That is, it become a status enhancer. And their causes also have become more dogmatic on average.
Today, when somebody calls themselves an "activist", that signals to me that they are most likely deeply into confirmation bias and an untrustworthy source for contextualized information. That is, activist => can see only one side of the issue. Not always, but for the most part.
I appreciate that you are trying to square the circle - to reconcile humane values with pragmatic rational thought in this complex question.
I think there is a substantial portion of the homeless population that is not clinically mentally ill, but does have trouble following rules. One could interpret that as an oppositional disorder by expanding the definition, but there are societal pitfalls in that direction. Imagine classifying the trucker protesters as mentally ill and worthy of institutionalization because they didn't follow orders. There's a fuzzy line between dissent and disorder, which can be moved based on political utility.
We need to beware of unintended consequences, and be aware of the full set of tradeoffs being made.
> The more difficult task will be sorting people into the appropriate categories.
Doesn't help that sorting of that kind would be considered "discrimination" these days.