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

31–37 of 37 posts

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

#31

Post by esarbe »

jaldhar wrote: post #26
esarbe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think I argue from social needs. I solely argue from individual needs and rights; the need of the individual to food and shelter; the right to existence; the appropriation of the common good for individual property. Please let me know if I diverge from that at any point, since "social needs" are highly subjective, whereas the individual needs usually aren't.

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

#32

Post by esarbe »

esarbe wrote: post #29
jaldhar wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

I don't usually downvote. But when I do, I add a comment explaining my action.

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

#33

Post by downerending »

esarbe wrote: post #4
extro wrote: post #3

This is basically theft. I bought a home in my home country and still working in foreign land to pay for it, so the home stands there empty, but i would kill if somebody would just "occupy" it while i am landlocked in a different country because corona.

This is wrong on so many levels. First; no, it's not basically theft. Theft is when you take away something without permission. They are not taking away the house, they are using it. So, it's basically not theft. Second; this is a vacant house, it's not currently used. By not renting out houses to an affordable prices, the landlords are creating artificial scarcity. Desperate people make desperate choices, if you don…

Please tell us where your car is parked--I'm sure that you're frequently not using it.

I do think we as a society should ensure that all can be housed. But random squatting is not the answer.

(Also, for those who have never dealt with it, squatters tend to be intensely destructive of property.)

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

#34

Post by esarbe »

jaldhar wrote: post #26
esarbe wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Addendum;

Sure, society can always compel and force somebody to obedience. That's why a society usually tries to monopolize the exertion of power through law enforcement. That might even give society the power to expel a homeless mother along with her children from a house that's been empty for 35 years.

My argument is not about ability but about morality.

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

#35

Post by esarbe »

downerending wrote: post #33
esarbe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong on so many levels. First; no, it's not basically theft. Theft is when you take away something without permission. They are not taking away the house, they are using it. So, it's basically not theft. Second; this is a vacant house, it's not currently used. By not renting out houses to an affordable prices, the landlords are creating artificial scarcity. Desperate people make desperate choices, if you don…

Please tell us where your car is parked--I'm sure that you're frequently not using it. I do think we as a society should ensure that all can be housed. But random squatting is not the answer. (Also, for those who have never dealt with it, squatters tend to be intensely destructive of property.)

> I do think we as a society should ensure that all can be housed.

That's a good point. That we should indeed.

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

#36

Post by r_luna »

extro wrote: post #3

This is basically theft. I bought a home in my home country and still working in foreign land to pay for it, so the home stands there empty, but i would kill if somebody would just "occupy" it while i am landlocked in a different country because corona.

I don't think anyone on this thread read the article. They are taking over houses bought for the 710 extension that will never be built. I say, if moving into a house helps keep it nice, let them. This sounds cheaper than housing subsidies the county pays. Furthermore, if the kids are being taken care of that's a good thing. Those kids are less likely to grow up and rob and end up in prison @50k per year in cost to the taxpayer.

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

#37

Post by extro »

esarbe wrote: post #31
jaldhar wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think I argue from social needs. I solely argue from individual needs and rights; the need of the individual to food and shelter; the right to existence; the appropriation of the common good for individual property. Please let me know if I diverge from that at any point, since "social needs" are highly subjective, whereas the individual needs usually aren't.

https://i.imgur.com/322zDhK.jpg
Post reply on HN