Me: “Anyone who does not have a viable address should be brought under institutional control.”
You: “I, myself, do not like Soviet political ideals.”
Me: Focus! The USSR has nothing to do with this. Individuals roaming the streets with addiction and psychiatric issues, who do not have a legitimate address to call home, need to be removed from public/private places that they are inhabiting, and be processed into treatment centers.
I can't support it.
Addiction and psychiatric issues are something else again. If their addictions are causing them to engage in prostitution or thievery, or their psychiatric issues are causing them to be aggressive or paranoid, then yes, people who are an actual threat to themselves or others need to be removed from the streets.
But mere "homelessness" is not an act of aggression. A surprising number of people are homeless "in transition": lost a job, hitchhiking across the country to find another one; just got discharged from the service, wants to see the country.
If there are no grounds to justify arrest, such as criminal or aggressive activity, just "not having an address" is not an adequate reason to round people up and institutionalize them.
Come out west and you will find many people that drift around. Many are retirees with a nice RV. They don’t have a ‘legitimate address’ except the RV park they are hanging out at this week. Who gets to decide who needs to be institutionalized? You? A bureaucrat? No thanks. Keep your to Soviet policies.
“Individuals roaming the streets with addiction and psychiatric issues, who do not have a legitimate address to call home, need to be removed from public/private places that they are inhabiting, and be processed into treatment centers.”
Do you have a lot of experience with the mentally ill or addicted?
In my experience, trying to force them into treatment when they don’t want it almost always unsuccessful.