Why would it be a cage? Isn't the idea of a free society is that it is a society? A group of responsible adults could agree that events could occur which result in people having to live on the streets for no reason of their own. I agree with some forethought these events could be planned for, but this is the sense of noblesse oblige. It recognises that not all people in the community are able to plan with the same level of forethought, and that the resources they have to work with will forbid this level of planning. And so a wealthy society can afford to look after all people if they so desire. If they wish to opt of the safety net then that is fine, I don't see how it's a cage.
> I agree with some forethought these events could be planned for
Really? One of the things that Hayek is well known for, the 'socialist calculation problem', states that too much central control is bad because it's simply impossible to 'calculate' an economy - it's best left as a dynamic system with millions of independent actors. However, doesn't that also apply to individuals? You can do your best to make plans, only to run into things beyond your knowledge or control.
I agree that it's not possible to calculate an economy. I was talking on a personal level, a rational person in a situation where at any time they may lose their job and be thrown on the streets will save and put aside enough money to survive for a reasonable amount of time. However if you're already living hand to mouth, you lose your job, the bank forecloses on your house and you're out on the street, well it seems in the US it's tent city here I come. Many of the people are victims of an economic event out of everyones control. A social security safety net would prevent tent cities from happening. Which is the greatest cost to a society - having citizens living in tents without any sanitation or health care, which will increase crime and health care needs - or provide all citizens with a safety net of a subsistence wage?
I agree - which is my point, that it's more or less correct to point out that a government, with everything available to it, is unable to 'calculate' an economy, but by the same token, individuals can try their best and miss the mark too. There ought to be something there for them to help pull them up and get them going again.
You are ignoring Pat's point, which is that many of the homeless choose to be homeless. So you must answer the question: should we force homeless people into shelters?
I never said anything about forcing people into shelters. My point was by providing a basic level of social security the tent city could be avoided. In Australia there are still some homeless living under bridges and so on, this can't be prevented, but we have no tent cities (except for the occasional political protests).
There are some shelters run by charity groups for the remaining homeless, who provide food and shelter for the night if so required. Most of these people have mental disorders / drug problems / or homeless kids who've left home, and there are mechanisms that help these as best as possible, but it's not 100% successful. Most of them choose to find a shelter for the night.
This situation is different from the one that creates the tent cities. From the interviews these are people who lost their jobs because of the economic collapse. Shouldn't a 21st century society provide some sort of safety net for these people so they can maintain some diginity?
