Down These Mean Streets

 

I guess it was inevitable that someone would finally state the obvious.  The National Coalition of the Homeless released their survey of 147 cities in 42 states and found Las Vegas to be the Ameanest@ as far as their treatment of the homeless is concerned (ALas Vegas: >meanest= city,@ Review-Journal, August 6).  Cities that depend upon tourist dollars always have a policy, enforced by the local police (who are under direct orders from the local powers that be), of keeping the streets clean and Asanitized@ from various forms of Agarbage,@ including those considered Ahuman garbage.@

Predictably, whenever something bad is written about a city, the leaders immediately come forward to deny what is reality.  So Mayor Goodman and a representative of the police department denied they were mean, saying that we were doing everything possible about the homeless.  Maybe the most honest response came from Sgt. Eric Fricker who said Aif you=re going to be in Las Vegas and break the law, you=re going to be treated as a criminal.@  What he did not say, of course, was unless you are a Ahigh roller@ and want a lady for the evening, even though prostitution is illegal in Clark County.    However, we are missing the bigger picture and need to go a little deeper with some historical perspective.

One of the main functions of the police since the first police departments were formed in the 19^th century is to Amaintain order.@  To Amaintain order@ is not the same as Aenforcing the law.@  Quite often during our history the police have been called up to control the Adangerous classes@ or to manage the Arabble@ by keeping them Aout of sight and out of mind.@  Why else would local jails, since they were invented, be constantly filled with petty offenders - drunks, vagrants, petty thieves, etc.  This has nothing to do with serious crime.  This has plenty to do with maintaining a peaceful Abusiness climate.@  But it is even more than this.

Many have praised the great accomplishments of a Afree market@ capitalist system over the years.  Even Marx, the most astute observer of capitalism, praised its accomplishments (as noted in his classic work ACapital@).  On the other hand, there has always been a negative side to this kind of economic system.  While capitalism has produced a wonderful array of goods and services that has made life much more pleasurable, at the same time it has produced much misery, for the majority of the population (not just here but worldwide) has not been the recipient of its products.  Indeed, given the fluctuations of the market - especially in recent times - most people in America continue to live one paycheck away from the streets.  (The phrase, Athere but for the grace of God go I@ is appropriate here).  So what do we do with this Asurplus population@ that is inevitably created by capitalism?  In European countries and Canada a social Asafety net@ is provided to offset the negative effects of capitalism.  Here in American we have jails and prisons, plus a few shelters (never enough), but little in the way of a safety net, since the attitude is that this will reward deviance and laziness. (Curiously, corporate welfare does not generate the same response, however..)  It is inside these Aedifices@ that we find the surplus population.

Now before you call me a raving Marxist, let me point out that any mainstream economist or sociologist, if he or she is honest, will agree with my analysis.  They do know about these surplus populations - how can you ignore them when you drive around in any large city?  They should also know that people just don=t wake up some morning and say, AGee, I think I would like to be homeless so I can barely survive, be exposed to the elements, be abused by others.@ Or they freely choose to be drug addicts, alcoholics, unemployed, etc.  It is a long and involved process.  We are all products of our genetics and a multitude of environmental exposures.