The Unsheltered

  Video Links: [TikTok] [YouTube] 

Today, we’re diving into a topic that’s as tangled as a pair of old headphones—our ever-elusive, perpetually debated, and mysteriously unsolved problem of the unsheltered.

Now, we already know that politics is a grand circus where the clowns are often in charge and the acrobats can't seem to keep their balance, but there is no act more spectacularly amusing than a politician's tango with homelessness. This topic is a personal issue for me, so I am understandably offended when Old Party politicians treat the plight of the homeless and unsheltered like a waltz of lofty promises and grand gestures, all while tiptoeing around the mess they helped create. And then, during campaign season, what ticks me off more than anything is the deliberate double standard of an Old Party politician being deliberately presented as a paragon of virtue, a beacon of integrity, and a champion for the downtrodden … at least when the cameras are rolling.

Here's a bold statement that I have yet to hear anyone dispute: The Unsheltered are the ONLY societal group for whom laws are specifically written to persecute rather than protect. But let me be clear on my terminology because, in my personal opinion, there is a distinct difference between the "unsheltered" (those living on the streets or in empty fields) and the "homeless" (those without a residence but may be able to shelter with family/friends).

Let's take a look at how each political party views both the homeless and the unsheltered:

Republicans on the Homeless and Unsheltered

"When it comes to the homeless and unsheltered, out of sight is out of mind."

"Sometimes pushing people around, sometimes pulling out the rug, sometimes pushing all the buttons, sometimes pulling out the plug."

So, yes, let’s talk about personal responsibility. This is the classic line we hear from politicians who insist that homelessness is just a matter of people not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. “If only they’d get a job, or maybe just a pair of boots!” they proclaim. Yet, these very same politicians are often the ones cutting funding for job training programs and affordable housing. It’s like saying, “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,” but then making sure no one can actually afford boots. A real classic!

And the "law and order" angle? Some politicians suggest that cracking down on vagrancy will solve homelessness. “Let’s make it illegal to be homeless!” they propose, as if the solution to homelessness is simply making it more difficult to be, well, homeless. It’s a charmingly optimistic plan, sort of like trying to stop the rain by getting really good at avoiding puddles. It’s a bit like proposing a “Food Enjoyment Act” that provides free food coupons but no actual food.

Democrats on the Homeless and Unsheltered

"Even our neighbors deserve a roof over their heads, unless they're stealing out WiFi."

"Sometimes building ivory towers, sometimes knocking castles down, sometimes building you a stairway [to] lock you underground."

But then, there's the “local vs. federal” debate. Some politicians are staunch supporters of local solutions, arguing that every community should handle its own problems. “Let’s leave it to the experts who live in the neighborhood!” they cheer. Ironically, these local experts often have their hands tied by federal regulations or lack of funding. It’s a bit like telling someone, “You’re in charge!” but then putting them in a tiny room with a broken microwave and a can of beans.

Some may advocate for the “Housing First” model, which is actually a pretty solid approach. “Give people stable housing, then work out the rest!” they say. Yet, this approach is sometimes met with resistance or lack of funding, which leads to a lot of talk about solutions without actual implementation. It’s like knowing that putting on sunscreen is a great way to avoid sunburn, but then deciding it’s better to stay indoors and complain about how hot (sunny) it is outside.

Libertarians on the Homeless and Unsheltered

"The Unsheltered are still people and they deserve dignity and respect, not condemnation and neglect."

Libertarians do not have a standard policy to address the issue of homelessness or the plight of the unsheltered. Instead, many Libertarians support the role of local private charities and nonprofits in addressing homelessness. We generally believe that these organizations are better equipped to provide targeted, compassionate, and effective assistance than government programs. Those of us who actually go out to assist the homelessness and unsheltered (and there are a lot of us) tend to approach the issue from a different direction. We try to treat them as individual people who deserve the same respect that ALL people deserve, and not as a unified group who is only worthy of indifference, neglect, and  condemnation.

While Libertarians generally advocate for minimal government intervention, some of us argue that local governments should (at least) provide certain public spaces or facilities to help manage the issue, while others might contend that such responsibilities should be left to private entities. Many of us support policies that balance the rights of all individuals, including the homeless, while also respecting the interests of those who use or maintain public spaces. We may not agree with the idea of the unsheltered encamped on private property against the owner's wishes or in public spaces where they may be unsafe, most of these encampments typically exist in out-of-the-way areas that pose no hazard or threat to anyone else, and we believe that they are undeserving of the antagonism expressed toward them. Admittedly, our largest challenge is finding a balance that respects property rights while addressing social issues effectively.

"It's the power and the glory, it's a war in paradise. A Cinderella story on the tumble of the dice."

Let’s not forget the great champions: private sector solutions. Some politicians believe that the magic of the marketplace will solve homelessness. “Let’s let the private sector handle it!” they exclaim, as if a billionaire’s philanthropic endeavor could single-handedly end poverty. It’s a bit like expecting the guy who owns a taco stand to solve the energy crisis because he’s really good at making tacos. Delicious, yes. World-changing, perhaps not so much.

And then there’s the issue of mental health and substance abuse. Many politicians agree that these are significant contributors to homelessness. “We need more mental health services and addiction support!” they shout from the rooftops. But, hold on a second—let’s not get too hasty. When it comes to actually funding these services, they might say, “Well, let’s put that on hold until we balance the budget.” It’s like having a party and announcing, “We’re going to have a fantastic time! But first, no drinks until we find the corkscrew.”

"Big money goes around the world, big money give and take. Big money done a power of good. Big money makes mistakes."

While being unsheltered in Denton County is not as large an issue as it seems to be in Dallas or Tarrant Counties, it is still an issue that I believe deserves our attention. I was unsheltered myself once, a long time ago. Despite the passing of time, the uncertainty and foreboding that I felt then is not something that I would wish on anyone. But that period of my life seems altogether pleasant after listening to some of the personal stories of Denton County's unsheltered citizens. Many of the unsheltered to whom I have personally spoken, or whose stories I have overheard, describe their situations in terms that relate more directly to post-traumatic stress (PTS) than to any other causal event. The list is as long and saddening as it is widely varied.

Make no mistake in my intentions: despite their existing social standing and (in many cases) lack of authoritative identification, the vast majority of the unsheltered are still United States citizens and deserve to be represented in the state legislature. Even those unsheltered who are not citizens still deserve the respect and consideration that all people deserve. This is not a quid pro quo (Latin: something for something) situation for me, so despite the larger possibility that I will never receive their votes, I still want to help be their voice in the Texas House.

"Big money got a heavy hand, big money take control. Big money got a mean streak. Big money got no soul."