Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#21

Post by foxyv »

esarbe wrote: post #5
whb07 wrote: post #2

" is a human right" == "please spend time, money, and effort so as I can have it without paying, sucker" Now replace it with housing, healthcare, and any other thing du jour.

As a society, the moment that you allow for private property, you take over responsibility for the livelihood of everyone. Property is theft on the common good. If you steal from the common good, you have to deal with the consequences. If you deprive people from making their own living, you have to accept that these people will find ways and means. You didn't build that.

> "Property is theft on the common good."

Who are you? George Orwell?

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#22

Post by esarbe »

jaldhar wrote: post #19
jaldhar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we all started out as hunter/gatherers millennia ago. We are not now. We have been mostly improving the wastelands ever since. (I say mostly because occasionally we re-waste them again but thankfully less and less often these days.)

The Amazon has 50,000 species of beetles which is good for beetles I guess but what makes it wasteland or not is what it does for humans. There as well we can discuss whether cattle or biodiversity is a better improvement but that is a different topic.

The Amazon (and similar environments) has been supporting human life for millennia. Even if you discount beetles (as I wouldn't, since beetles are awesome), calling it a wasteland does not seem very appropriate to me.

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#23

Post by esarbe »

jaldhar wrote: post #20
esarbe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I've established that, I'm already very happy we've had this exchange. Now we can bicker about the details. :D

Sure. It is possible to be against theft and for compassion at the same time. However I am not in CA and it seems “society” over there has decided its not interested in housing homeless moms.

If society is unwilling to take responsibility, then society has no right to expect obedience.

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#24

Post by esarbe »

foxyv wrote: post #21
esarbe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a society, the moment that you allow for private property, you take over responsibility for the livelihood of everyone. Property is theft on the common good. If you steal from the common good, you have to deal with the consequences. If you deprive people from making their own living, you have to accept that these people will find ways and means. You didn't build that.

> "Property is theft on the common good." Who are you? George Orwell?

Indeed, I am. How did you figure it out?

Seriously; where does any property come from?

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#25

Post by [deleted] »

jaldhar wrote: post #20
esarbe wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I've established that, I'm already very happy we've had this exchange. Now we can bicker about the details. :D

Sure. It is possible to be against theft and for compassion at the same time. However I am not in CA and it seems “society” over there has decided its not interested in housing homeless moms.

[deleted]

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#26

Post by jaldhar »

esarbe wrote: post #23
jaldhar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. It is possible to be against theft and for compassion at the same time. However I am not in CA and it seems “society” over there has decided its not interested in housing homeless moms.

If society is unwilling to take responsibility, then society has no right to expect obedience.

Just a while ago weren’t you arguing that social needs trump individual rights. (I.e. the right to property.) If society through its chosen spokesmen decides homeless moms don’t need to be provided housing (they are still free to find it in some legal way.) why can it not compel their obedience?

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#27

Post by jaldhar »

esarbe wrote: post #22
jaldhar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Amazon has 50,000 species of beetles which is good for beetles I guess but what makes it wasteland or not is what it does for humans. There as well we can discuss whether cattle or biodiversity is a better improvement but that is a different topic.

The Amazon (and similar environments) has been supporting human life for millennia. Even if you discount beetles (as I wouldn't, since beetles are awesome), calling it a wasteland does not seem very appropriate to me.

Waste as used in e.g. the Domesday Book literally means “land not under [human] cultivation.”

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#28

Post by jaldhar »

esarbe wrote: post #11
jaldhar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are taking away the ability to use the house. They have not received permission to do so. This is theft. And of course you’re good with that because you’re a communist and communism is an extended apology for organized crime. What is “an affordable price”? Who determines this? You? The attraction of communism is that every communist thinks they are the one philosopher-prince who will arrange everything just righ…

[edit] The tone of the reply was a bit snarky, I admit. What makes you think I subscribe to the ideology of communism? What makes you think it was responsible for millions of deaths (as opposed to say, tyrannical dictatorship?) What are your proofs that is - as you say - objectively evil?

Saying “Property is theft” is a good sign of being a communist. I have no wish to relitigate “True communism” (another hallmark of a communist confronted with reality.) but I will say “tyrannical dictatorship” far from being opposed to communism is a requirement.

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#29

Post by esarbe »

jaldhar wrote: post #28
esarbe wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[edit] The tone of the reply was a bit snarky, I admit. What makes you think I subscribe to the ideology of communism? What makes you think it was responsible for millions of deaths (as opposed to say, tyrannical dictatorship?) What are your proofs that is - as you say - objectively evil?

Saying “Property is theft” is a good sign of being a communist. I have no wish to relitigate “True communism” (another hallmark of a communist confronted with reality.) but I will say “tyrannical dictatorship” far from being opposed to communism is a requirement.

Sure, the USSR was a communist regime, no "True Scotsman" discussion required here.

Although I'd say "tyrannical dictatorship" is a necessary and sufficient condition to get to mass murders and atrocities. No need to further involve communism.

Well, property /is/ theft. You can take up a stick and say it's yours because you made it pointy. That doesn't mean it's not theft on everyone else no longer able to use the stick. Before it was a stick for everyone to use. Maybe someone decided to not make it sticky for a certain purpose. After you take it and make it yours, no one else can take it and make it theirs anymore. So, property is theft (of the common good).

Re: Group of homeless moms and families are taking over a house – this time in L.A

#30

Post by esarbe »

jaldhar wrote: post #27
esarbe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Amazon (and similar environments) has been supporting human life for millennia. Even if you discount beetles (as I wouldn't, since beetles are awesome), calling it a wasteland does not seem very appropriate to me.

Waste as used in e.g. the Domesday Book literally means “land not under [human] cultivation.”

That's an interesting definition I knew not about. Thanks for sharing!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wasteland

In the previous discussion, I was mainly focused on the 'barren' and 'barely inhabitable' aspects. If your sentiment was about cultivation; yeah, you're probably right. Hunter/gatherer societies usually do very little cultivation.

(There's some indication that the Amazonas river fronts were heavily cultivated in pre-columbian times, as the presence of terra preta implies, though)

In that case however we'll run into the discussion about 'improving the land', since arguably cutting down woods to make room for agriculturalists is not improving the land for hunter/gatherers.

Post reply on HN