• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    You clearly understand the situation I’m describing. This is a high level situation.

    Responding with the pedantry of existing law is in bad faith, as the nature of my comment clearly speaks of future hypotheticals.

    The operative word is “should”. any critically capable reader (uh oh!) should be able to detect I’m discussing the practical, hypothetical challenges any given state would face, of they found the sufficient funds and motivation to pursue this topic far beyond their neighbors: they would see an influx of folks looking for these serbices, thus overwhelming their isolated effort.

    The complication would be coordinating efforts across the country to provide services as I described, at such a pace and parity that regions, and then states would not become overly burdened by migrating homeless.

    • Armok: God of Blood
      link
      fedilink
      01 month ago

      Trying to sell this idea to people—this idea that the Constitution will get changed to support this fantasy of yours—as anything other than mad ravings is what’s bad faith in this conversation. Confront the reality of the situation if you are truly interested in making change happen.

      Men will not look at things as they really are but as they wish them to be and they are ruined.

      — Niccolo Machiavelli

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 month ago

        Miss.

        What I’m selling is the need for many states, or the federal government to act in coordination, such that one state isn’t the only place homeless folks can go for these services