What is the Libertarian view on Homelessness?

Question

Any current policy proposals/ solutions........or viewpoints from Libertarians?

Answer 1

(1) Individual people's problems, aside from protecting their liberty, are not the province of government.

and

(2) In proportion to the population there is a lot less home-grown homelessness than there was when tax rates, unemployment and CPI were much higher.

Answer 2

Homelessness isn't a matter for government to address. It makes no difference why a particular person is homeless, their situation does not justify taking money from other individuals involuntarily to fix it. If it did, why not cut out the middleman and simply make a law that allows homeless people to take food from anyone, and their homelessness is a defense against a charge of theft or even trespass.

Even if it weren't wrong for the government to be involved in that kind of charity, it doesn't work anyway. Some people don't trust the government enough to show up to get the handouts, so it won't help them. Some people have underlying problems that made them homeless, giving them money for nothing isn't going to fix the problem.

The only way to address the homeless problem is at the individual level, with the help of volunteers. You can't force this kind of thing to work, and it can't be fixed in the abstract, which is all government is capable of dealing with. Think: Do you seriously think a roomful of Senators knows more about dealing with the problems of a homeless person than someone who lives on the block where they are? It's not a problem for theory, it's a problem for people who look them in the eye, and figure out what's really wrong.

I'm not saying there's no homeless problem. I'm just saying there's no government solution.

Answer 3

The libertarian view is that charity would be private and voluntary and no one would be taxed for government wars on poverty/homelessness, and that the free market would provide opportunities for those who want to dig themselves out of the gutter. There would be no minimum wage, giving the lowest qualified people a chance to enter the workforce (so if you were a construction business owner you could for example hire a high school dropout who comes into the interview unshaved and dirty for $3/hr, this would save you money and offset the risk of hiring such a person, and the homeless person would be given the opportunity to earn money, work his way up and have a steady employment history. After proving himself a reliable worker, he could look for higher paid work elsewhere and clean/dress himself up for the next interview with the money he's been earning. Or you may offer him a raise to stay where he is if he truly was a competent worker.)
With minimum wage it is extremely unlikely a disheveled looking homeless person would even make it past the interviewers door. As a business owner, would YOU hire the disheveled homeless at a minimum wage of say $8/hr? Or would you prefer the option to save yourself some money, give the guy a chance and start him at $3/hr and see how things go?

Answer 4

The Libertarian Party view, as well as that of various right-wing neolibertarian factions, is that homelessness is either the fault of the homeless or of government interference. The libertarian view prior to Rothbard, Rand and von Mises was that anyone had a right of access to land that is unused, state-issued titles notwithstanding. This earlier view is well documented in the 1921 classic, "Liberty and the Great Libertarians," edited by Charles Sprading. Many traditional libertarians and some modern ones advocate replacing productivity taxes with a tax on the value of land. This would drive down the speculative premium on land prices and would free people from taxes on the fruits of their labor. New Hampshire, chosen as the "Free State" many libertarians want to move to, gets 2/3 of its total revenue from real estate taxes, and consequently has more affordable housing as well as lower taxes over all.

Answer 5

Government subsidies and regulations have failed to affect homelessness at best, and in many cases have CAUSED homelessness. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Government involvement more often than not has the opposite affect than what was intended.

I agree with the posting on minimum wage, no need to repeat that.

Consider also that direct subsidies are very counterproductive to self reliance. This can not account for all people, many just need a hand-up and not a hand-out, that is why we need charity.

Government forced charity is extremely ineffective, inefficient and expensive. We are the most charitable nation on the planet. Private charity is 10 to 100 times more efficient and effective than government forced charity.

Once we become firmly entrenched in government charity, it is extremely difficult to reform. Private charity will be closely watched by its contributors and watchdog groups and people will immediately pull their money away from ineffective and corrupt charity, and put it where it will be most effective.

If the government did not forcibly extract the first 40% to 60% of our fruits, we would have a lot more resources available for private charity and homelessness would decrease somewhat. No social system public or private can eradicate homelessness, but freedom of private charity and a truly free market have a much better chance of improving things for the poor and downtrodden.

Answer 6

As a minarchist libertarian, I believe that it shouldn't be the government's responsibility to interfere. It should be left to the states to decide what to do with this problem. I think more social programs and money spend on this isn't going to eradicate the problem. I believe private institutions should have a role in this, is also the responsibility of the homeless person to get out of this situation. We don't need a nanny government.

Answer 7

Anyone who wants to help a homeless person should be free to do so.

Answer 8

American Libertarians and conservatives are very beneficiant people. We supply to classes to help the homeless and people who're in poverty not by determination yet by circumstances. you're able to desire to understand that there are some who attempt to detect the variety to acquire charitable contributions while they are completely healthful and able to working for a living. persons of this variety are lazy and are taking from people who're quite in desire. it extremely is the reason church homes and American agencies who communicate approximately helping those in desire are much greater able to offering help than based on the government to take on the activity by elevating taxes and dispensing the wealth. while the government takes the helm that which has been accumulated to help those in poverty get basically an quite small token of what replaced into accumulated for that objective. something is shipped to different much less deserving projects at government descression. Make the government do the activity they are there for and get them out of the lives of the guy electorate. submit to in suggestions we've 9 participants of the judicial branch, we've 435 congressional representatives and a hundred senators. Do you quite have faith they are incomes what they are paid? each and each of them gets an usual of $a hundred seventy five,000.00 according to 3 hundred and sixty 5 days plus each and each of them have a a million.5 million greenback fee account. it extremely is the main overpaid team of people in usa. additionally they vote themselves a enhance each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days without fail. additionally submit to in suggestions that the congress does not have the comparable healthcare advantages as they try to push off at something of the electorate, theirs is plenty greater valuable. And Obama says that the yank electorate could desire to be thanking him for all of their difficult artwork.

Answer 9

Sounds good to me.

Answer 10

If they gain power it will be most Americans.