And if the economy goes south, will chronic homelessness increase or decrease?  What has been advocated is that "let charities do all the work".  Well, if the funds aren't there, and are cut back, then what happens?  That is the issue here that I was discussing, particularly if people being homeless on the streets is outlawed.

Neither... at least not in regards to the homeless.  The funds are there.

Chronic homelessness is completely indifferent to economic factors.  I think the problem is you keep seeing chronic homelessness as some guy that's just poor... when anyone who cares studies the homeless problem can tell you that's not the case.

The Chronic homeless will increase, though it has nothing to do with funding or the economy.  It's going to increase due to the war on terror as the number of PTSD soldiers with no social support network will explode.

The Chronic homeless has nothing to do with economic factors, and pretty much everything to do with some kind of mental trauma.  Most common is severe childhood trauma like sexual abuse, though adult related PTSD will be catching up.

The problem isn't funding, it's getting people to

A) use the services, as like said above, most are menetally ill, often in ways that make the wary of people and authroity.

B) using them in a smart way with more focus on privately run transitory group homes.

C) Finding the way to have the right balance between the strictiness needed to maintain some level of safeness in homeless shelters/transitory homes but also have enough leeway to adjust for the fact that a lot of these people are mentally ill.

D) Again, being homeless on the streets is outlawed for the homeless peoples saftey.  It's to force you to go to a shelter, and if your not in the position to go (Ie: drunk of high) they take you to jail for the night, where you will be safer then sleeping on the streets.

Oh, and by the way, you'll note while the number of mentally ill people are high in JAILS, it's not as high as PRISONS.  Which is kinda of another stumbling point in your arguement.  Jails are places where people are held before trial or serve sentences less then 1 year.   Prisons are where people are sent for good.  So Jail's really aren't used like insitutions because they can only keep someone for a year.

There are plenty of funds there, and will still be there, despite cutting funds in the past unsheltered chronic homeless has decreased because the money has been spent smarter.

Essentially chronic homelessness exists because we give people freedom and don't believe those who are mentally ill should be involentairly committed unless they are a severe present danger to society.  In general, it's because of "Innocent before being proven guilty" that chronic homelessness, and chronic unshelted homelessness will always exist.

This notion of theft only applies if the government has not made this decision as a result of the people's due will. If we, as a community, agree that such donations should be made, everyone should give their share, or give their share while they work to change that will, but abide by the system nevertheless

Now, forgive me if my comprehension is not up to scratch, here, but are you seriously arguing that it isn't theft if the majority have voted for it? Do you not care about rights at all?

People vote for all kinds of shit, especially with the right propaganda.

Well this goes back to the varying definition of "rights" at the end of the day. But as with most of our supposedly inalienable rights, they only extend so far. Even if we are to entertain the idea that private property is inalienable, that should not quench the notion that private property can be curtailed in extreme scenarios (e.g. excessive wealth) or in small doses across the board, much like so many elements of the Bill of Rights are undermined, and yet these underminings are accepted (can't create a clear and present danger with free speech, the right to own assault weapons is not protected, etc.). My point is not that the government can get away with these things, but that they are tolerated because we have common sense in our applications of rights.

The right to private property and against slavery is, at its moral foundation, meant to stop the government from crushing the middle and underclass, not meant to keep the government from taking Mr. Howe's third yacht.

so who should be the overlord determining if you have to much wealth or not. who are you or anyone else to decide if someone has too much money.

as for the right to own an "assault weapon" not being protected, that is  flase. and the term "assault weapon" is erroneous in it self. any weapon can be an assault weapons, they are all assault weapons. and we do have the right to have, much to liberals disdain.

Not really. The Supreme Court has, in the language on its rulings on gun control, stated that the right to high-end assault weapons is not unlimited.They simply have not made an actual ruling on the matter since they have not had a chance to, though the government is pondering bans on the high-capacity clips used to mow down Gabriel Giffords, and i would imagine that that is the sort of thing they're talking about.

And assault weapons is a perfectly viable term: these are weapons that have no use other than aggressive endangerment of the lives of others. You don't need an M16 for self-defense, and if you claim you do, you're either paranoid or a liar. Even with the bad excuse that things like handguns can prevent more violence than they cause, there is a class of weapons with no good other than assault on other persons.

And as for who determines what is enough? We do. That's the point of democracy, is to make equitable decisions for self-governance, with certain ground rules in place that are much harder to change for the peoples' own good.

and what exactly is a high capacity clip?

5 rounds, 10 rounds, 15, 20, 50, 100. what is it. if i want a weapon that can fire a 100 rounds, so be it.

and you also dont need need an hand gun for self defense, just as much as you dont need a shotgun, or an M16 (im assuming you are talkng about the AR15).

its not a binary thing, guns arent just for self defense OR attacking people. there are many other reasons for them. like collecting, hunting, sport, and fun and rereation.

So democracy now decides if one has too much money, shit im sure glad i dont live in a democracy like that.

The basis of something being theft can't be because a majority voted for it.  What comes in the theft debate has to do with the nature and quality of life, based upon what societies must do to maintain things.  Societies can vote to have government do a number of things, like provide fire protection, police, infrastructure maintenance, medical coverage and so on, to prevent problems from arising and maintaing a degree of order and predictability that has people feel they can live and succeed.  These services need to get paid for, and can be either done voluntarily or by the use of government.  So, on the theft front, what do you call a society that doesn't pay for these services that are needed?  Is it possible for a society to rob from itself?

I don't really get your point. Is it that if a society votes for fire protection, but then isn't provided with it, then that is essentially theft from the society?