Regardless of where you travel in the US, chances are you will encounter homelessness. Everyone sees the problem, but solutions are elusive. Ignoring the problem and letting the homeless camp out wherever they want, on sidewalks, blocking businesses, setting up tent communities on public or sometimes private land, doesn’t address the problem. The non-solution simply creates unsafe conditions and exacerbates crimes, drug use, and suffering on the part of the homeless themselves. Criminalizing the simple fact of homelessness is an unjust affront to the very freedom that is central to the values of our Founders. Some cities have tried housing people in unused hotel rooms and apartment buildings. And of course there are the overcrowded shelters that are better than the street, but that cannot provide a long term solution. Simply hiding people away without examining their circumstances doesn’t solve the problem, it just hides it from view for a short time.

There are many causes of homelessness, and the appropriate response is not a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores the unique circumstances of the individual. The cause of an individual’s or family’s homelessness has a great bearing on what response will best fit the need. Unfortunately, the problem calls for varied philosophical solutions, not just varied physical ones.

For an individual or family of sound mine just down on their luck, getting them into permanent housing with a chance at a job may be all that is needed. For this class of homeless, government subsidized housing needs to be more available. The solution is to build it – not at market rental rates but at cost. This should include leveraging work requirements for able bodied individuals receiving assistance to supplement labor to setup affordable units. Individuals helping to build their own housing units are more likely to take care of them. Prefab approaches based on the Tiny House concept can help keep costs under control. Public service commitments can also be a way to incentivize those receiving shelter to give back while providing some freedom of choice in their surroundings.

The idea of choice is an oft-ignored element of the solution. Being homeless does not extinguish the desire for free will and choice. Offering tradeoffs – a tinier unit for less work, a larger one for more – perhaps options about location based on the willingness to contribute back with time and effort to the local community. Some may not want choices and may need to be guided. But for many, the ability to choose can help restore a sense of self and control over their own lives. For the disabled, there are often still ways they can give back some, but they should not be denied based on disability.

Then there are those who suffer from mental incapacity. Many years ago, our country decided that keeping an individual who was mentally unable to care for themself in a public institution involuntarily was no longer permissible. This was a huge error. An individual who is unable to care for themself needs to be taken care of. In return for that care, we cannot necessarily offer the luxury of choice that those who are mentally able can be given. This is not to suggest returning to the horrors of mistreatment and neglect that characterized many of those long gone institutions. Standards of care must be enforced, and individuals who show a propensity to begin to care for themselves should be transitioned back into the world of personal choice, much as described above.

A related class of homeless are those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Like the mentally unwell, they too should be housed involuntarily to receive treatment until able to care for themselves. In these instances, transition must be carefully monitored to watch for signs of backsliding into old patterns of substance abuse. In the worst cases of individuals who simply cannot stay clean on their own, permanent placement in a care facility may be called for.

Finally, there are two other categories of homeless: able-bodied homeless who nevertheless refuse to contribute in any way to give back for being housed and the homeless who are guilty of violence or other serious crimes against others. Both of these categories of homeless require some sort of involuntary confinement. Those who are able bodied but simply refuse to do anything to contribute to their well being can be required to live in supplied subsistence level housing. Refusal could lead to confinement in such housing. Those guilty of serious crimes should be handled through the criminal justice system and confined until they have served and are ready to transition to one of the other categories.

The aim in all cases should be to favor opportunity and the potential for freedom of choice as much as can be handled while providing targeted involuntary placements for those who cannot handle personal responsibility and the obligations that come with that freedom.

After all, freedom isn’t free. We shouldn’t pretend it is when it comes to resolving homelessness in our country.