by resters | 2025-04-16 19:40:59+00:00
> A few years ago I co-founded a non-profit working mostly with inner-city youth

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply and give major credit to you for being personally and directly involved. Much respect.

People wanting to be able to live in a safe environment free from violence and coercion is the essence of the social contract. We create institutional structures like a judicial system and penal system in an attempt to create fair systems that create the desired incentives for all.

There are certainly a small number of people who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse challenges that render them incapable of participating in the social contract in the same way as other people. Society has replaced private charity with state welfare which also includes care for the elderly, for orphans, etc.

I think the defining characteristic of a properly functioning social contract is that it provides an incentive for everyone to cooperate and to preserve the status quo. SF is at a disadvantage because of how badly other cities treat the underserved. I've heard stories even about private hospitals in SF putting very ill homeless patients in a taxi and sending them to the public hospital (in violation of a multitude of laws and ethical standards), and a similar scenario exists with other cities that are less hospitable to the have nots.

Thus SF has become a sanctuary city. Much like a bird sanctuary that offers habitat to beings that would otherwise starve or die off, SF provides habitat for humans who simply would not have anywhere to go.

In the past we've had laws that criminalize drugs and prevent many modes of treatment, creating a drug epidemic in the US far worse than exists in places that provide care without moral judgment. But in the US moral judgment is insatiable and sells politically.

That's why I am trying to help identify what I call the "right-wing impulse", the idea of the downtrodden as the political "other" that must be feared and stopped. While any kind of dehumanization rhetoric is harmful and cuts of empathy and critical thought, dehumanization targeting the weakest in society has been strongly on the rise in the US in recent years.

In my view, the post-911 response of "see something, say something" and widespread, state sponsored suspicion of brown people fueled what would eventually become Trump's anti-immigrant (fundamentally anti-brown) movement. The US Government spent billions on advertising telling us to fear or neighbors.

The right wing impulse is what the public is trained to have by that kind of advertising. The idea that we should be suspicious, fearful, and that policing and surveillance is the solution.

Much like an abundant apple orchard will attract all kinds of species with the smell of blossoms and fruit, an abundant society will attract people from all walks of life. It will give hope to those who are too damaged to be contributors to society and whose role it is to receive charity. I think we need to change our impulse response from the right-wing one to the realization that it is our good fortune that makes our cities places where those with no hope go to find hope.