[ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: Farewell toAlms]

spike spike66 at att.net
Fri Feb 8 17:56:53 UTC 2008


> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Olga Bourlin
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:54 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [ExI] A Small Request [was Re: Impressive book: 
> Farewell toAlms]
> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
> > They didn't make the patients leave.  They merely realized 
> they hadn't 
> > the legal authority to make them stay.
> I don't know if you live in a sizeable metropolitan area, 
> Spike ... but if you've seen (e.g., in San Francisco, in 
> Seattle, etc.) the number of poor souls wandering around, 
> homeless, sick, cold and hungry (not to mention, completely 
> out of their minds), well ... it just does not seem like a good thing.

Ja, I am not arguing that homelessness is good.  I don't think we disagree
here.  I live near San Jose, I see the homeless will-work-for-fooders every
day.  San Jose has a homeless shelter that charges nothing, and will even
feed them.  But of course they can't make the homeless go there.

> I am old enough to remember when there were no homeless 
> people - at least, none that I can remember seeing offhand 
> (where I grew up, in San
> Francisco) - although there probably were some, somewhere.
> The homeless population in the United States grew just as the 
> residents of some of those institutions were being let out.  
> There's some cause and effect there, for sure. Olga

Ja, the homeless are they who would otherwise be in the mental institutions,
this I agree.  Homelessness is bad, as are addiction, laziness, mental
illness, all the stuff that causes homelessness.

I know what you mean about San Francisco.  Certain areas of that city are
downright scary because of the street people.  San Jose isn't as bad, but
there are certain areas one avoids.

I have a solution I have advocated here before, but I will not speculate on
whether such a thing could ever be made legal.  If a person is homeless,
then they could theoretically be charged with vagrancy.  If a person is
charged thrice with vagrancy, I would propose they be sentenced not to jail
but to transportation, but not exile (exactly).  We could set up a homeless
colony in Darwin California, a former mining community, now a ghost town.


There are plenty of empty homes there (of sorts) so it would be transformed
to a homeful community.  Once the several hundred existing homes are
occupied, the feds could bring in the unused FEMA trailers (the ones that
the Louisianans rejected.)  The now-homeful residents would not even be in
prison, for they could leave if they wanted, but I propose a way to make
them want to stay.  Supply the homeful with food, water and all the
recreational pharmaceuticals they desire, using the controlled substances
seized by the constabulary.  Then instead of burning the stuff (creating
possible hazardous waste and air pollution), they would put it thru the
bodies of volunteers, thus converting these toxins to harmless urine and
recreational insanity, all out of sight of those of us who would prefer to
not see it.  

Darwin is a (long) one-day bus ride from San Francisco.  It wouldn't bother
the neighbors (there aren't any).  Given that incentive, I can imagine three
quarters of the SF homeless might go voluntarily.  We could empty our
prisons of people who are there on drug charges only; parole them to Darwin.
The Darwinians could even offer society a payback, indirectly, by serving as
counter-examples of how to live one's life.  We could discourage our own
children from using recreational pharmaceuticals by showing them America's
Scariest Home Videos, which would be webcams of stoner zombies from Darwin.

As a parting shot, I would propose we rename the place O'Leary.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list