全 79 件のコメント

[–]Gootmud 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

Homelessness is man's primordial condition. The better question is what enables people to build, buy, or rent homes.

[–]Gordon_Gano 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

How can you possibly explain this? Do you mean like before we had huts we all lived in caves or trees or what have you?

[–]Th3JourneyManIn Freedom We Find Prosperity 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's pretty straightforward. When you are born, you possess no capability to provide yourself with a home. If you refuse to change, you will remain homeless.

Thus, the truly intriguing question is how do people acquire the skills needed to not be homeless.

[–]Gordon_Gano 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's pretty obviously a gross distortion of what is meant by "homeless". It's really upsetting to me how people refuse to look at the many reasons that different types of people lose their access to housing.

[–]Gootmud 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Yes. Mother Nature doesn't provide us with homes, by default she leaves us to sleep on the ground. Maybe under a tree or in a cave if we're lucky.

So nothing creates homelessness, it's our default state unless something occurs to change it. The useful question is therefore what enables billions of people to afford homes?

[–]Gordon_Gano 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

What sophistic and useless definition of homelessness.

[–]Gootmud 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Wow, zero for three.

No sophistry in what I wrote, just facts.

It's obviously not useless to ask, in the context of homelessness, how people come by homes.

I didn't even give a definition of homelessness.

Care to take another swing?

[–]Gordon_Gano 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

We don't live in caves, dude. People don't "come by" homes. Homelessness is clearly not the default in America in 2016. The definition you're operating from is incorrect in every possible way.

[–]Gootmud 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

People don't "come by" homes.

Of course they do, at least most of them. A home is not like an aorta, a natural birthright that everyone has unless something interferes. It's something people have to actively secure and maintain.

[–]Gordon_Gano 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I genuinely don't understand how you could look at the system we're living in and argue this.

[–]Gootmud 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't understand why you're ducking what seems an obvious truth, that homes don't fall from the sky. People have to actively build, buy, or rent them.

I have a home because I bought it. I was able to buy it because I worked a decent job for years, and government land use policy hadn't yet devastated the housing market. I got the job because I worked hard in school for decades.

All this happened within the context of "the system we're living in," but it certainly wasn't a birthright. Had I made different decisions, I might have a much better house. Or a shopping cart and a cardboard sign.

[–]BastiatFanAnarcho-Capitalist 7ポイント8ポイント  (20子コメント)

Mental illness and drug addiction. Temporary homelessness can be the result of war or natural disaster.

[–]Gordon_Gano 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

So what about the people who aren't mentally ill or drug addicted who are experiencing homelessness? How do you explain that?

[–]BastiatFanAnarcho-Capitalist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The statistics show that those people remain homeless for a very short amount of time. Long-term homelessness is the result of mental illness or drug addiction.

I only know about the United States, though. If there is a serious homelessness problem in Africa or South America, where people who are able to work aren't able to find any way to support themselves, then I'm not aware of it. I expect that the explanation would be that it's institutional. No one's confused about why there are poor people in Africa, though.

[–]CoffeeDimeLibertarian Socialist[S,🍰] 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

And what causes mental illness and drug addiction?

[–]ihaphleas 4ポイント5ポイント  (14子コメント)

These are essentially mental/psychological disabilities/diseases (disregarding the possible physical dependence on a drug). They are caused by a disruption in the function of the brain -- either by a change in the physical connections or a change in their activations, e.g. misregulated hormones. The root cause of these may be malformation of either the brain or hormone regulation from birth, physical harm, undue mental/psychological stress, or effects of various environmental factors, e.g. the drugs themselves, lead, etc.

Perhaps you want to focus on undue mental/psychological stress or on environmental exposure factors like lead? Perhaps you want to talk about the alienation of the modern worker -- and the psychological stress this causes? How can you be sure that this stress comes from being alienated from one's work and not from simply having to do work? Maybe I'm going too far afield now.

[–]auryn0151Don't force, Ask 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

You may be interested in the work of Dr. Gabor Mate. I guess you could say he's famous in the realm of addiction. His thesis is that addiction comes out of failed childhood emotional attachment, and that addictions of any kind, be it hard drugs, food, exercise, are all attempts to soothe lack of emotional regulation. The changes in the brain you talk about are real, but they aren't the cause - they are the symptom.

[–]luaudesignGame Theory 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

This puts an ominous expectancy for the future of the western world.

[–]auryn0151Don't force, Ask 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh absolutely. He's written numerous books with other doctors on the problems that all stem from stressed parents, daycare, peer orientation instead of kids attaching to adults, etc. It's all fascinating and troubling. I think we will see far more success in the coming decades of more traditional/conservative countries/families.

You can see some pretty compelling explanations for all sorts of societal problems in his work. Why are millennials immature in a way that no other generation has been? Because by and large they are the daycare generation, and you cannot have 1 adult bond to 10-20 children, and neither can the parents who are working the lion's share of an infant/toddler's waking hours. They are left to raise each other, and immature toddlers cannot raise mature adults.

While I'm not really a conservative, these findings make me look on disdainfully at the left's obsession with upending traditional gender roles/family structures. Empowering women is great - but ignoring the science of how sticking your 12 week old in daycare so you can continue your career is not good for your child really bugs me. At least if you want to keep your career, ease up on the stigma of stay-at-home dads!

sorry for the rant.

[–]luaudesignGame Theory 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah. I don't know what the new left have in their brains. Gay parents adopting orphans? Hell yeah! More kids with families. But then, fucked up families, rampant divorce with biased courts meant to make parent hate each other, and absent parents while kids are indoctrinated by ideologue teachers. Hell no.

When you look at every piece come together it does start to look like it's all engineered.

[–]auryn0151Don't force, Ask 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But then, fucked up families, rampant divorce with biased courts meant to make parent hate each other, and absent parents while kids are indoctrinated by ideologue teachers. Hell no.

Agreed. I find reddit in particular is incapable of blaming parents for their choices/mistakes/actions. It's because so many of them come from these messed up homes and they lack the intellectual/emotional honesty to examine their parents. They think anything short of movie-style physical/emotional/sexual abuse is permissible. Go into any spanking thread and you'll see rampant defense of a practice that is not supported as effective or healthy by research in any country.

God forbid you question the science of climate change though.

[–]ihaphleas 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hard to separate cause and effect here. Did the brain changes come first or the sense of emotional disattachment? As I've said in one of my posts -- don't posit a hypothesis as truth without some testing. A big problem with a lot of psychological hypotheses is that they're almost untestable. We are pretty good at studying drug use and addiction in rats though -- maybe humans have similar mechanisms. Kurzgesagt has a video on addiction which is pretty good. But, again, divining a root psychological cause is probably a vain exercise in over-simplification.

[–]auryn0151Don't force, Ask 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But, again, divining a root psychological cause is probably a vain exercise in over-simplification.

To the contrary, why does the explanation have to be complicated? We know the mind affects the body, so answers beginning in the mind, I think, deserve more credit than is typically accepted in Western Medicine. Admittedly Mate's work is the only stuff I've ever seen on addiction, but he is well respected (doesn't make him right), and he claims that he has yet to work with a patient that was not abused in some way as a child.

[–]CoffeeDimeLibertarian Socialist[S,🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Yeah, I want to hear more about alienation and how this stress effects people. I also want to hear an explanation from those who support a capitalist system.

[–]ihaphleas 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

More study needed, that's all I can say. The benefits of mass production are cheap, decent quality goods with relatively low skilled work (once the production line is actually set up -- that requires a lot of planning). I'm not sure how one would conduct an experiment to show that modern workers suffer more psychological stress than cottage industry workers. The main thing is to actually test the hypothesis -- not state an untested theory as fact.

If it's true (which I actually have strong reason to believe) -- how do we use that information to improve worker satisfaction ... without hugely increasing costs or decreasing productivity? The main problem seems to be that people in a production line see only what they actually do -- involving them in the rest of production would be expensive in training time.

Consider as well that no one is forced to work these factory type jobs. One could go into a trade, carpentry for example, on one's own ... but one just can't compete on the market that way (unless the quality is super high). The vast majority of people just want cheap things -- the quality of the workmanship and material comes second ... or maybe, the vast majority of people feel they can only afford cheap things ... or they prefer to spend their money on other things, entertainment and drugs, say. Perhaps because they themselves are just as alienated?

But humans have been spending as much time as possible on entertainment and drugs for as long as we've been around. Even monkeys like to get drop-dead drunk.

Do you know what happened to the mentally ill before modern times?

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

You sound like a Scientologist.

[–]CoffeeDimeLibertarian Socialist[S,🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

What gives you that impression? How would you define sociologist?

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Scientologists deny the causes of mental illness as determined by science.

[–]CoffeeDimeLibertarian Socialist[S,🍰] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

If anything I am a supporter of science. But far from scientology lol. I think most here are atheists needing something to argue about cause we already finished arguing a god's existence.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If you support science then what's this bs about alienation causing mental illness?

[–]SpanishDukeAristocratic Propertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

/thread

[–]Tiako [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.pdf

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness.

Have fun untangling the causation there, but I personally find it somewhat distressing that so many people walk by homeless people and think "wow, what a bunch of psychos".

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

Absentee ownership of vacant houses.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you banned the absentee ownership, the vacant houses would not have been built in the first place.

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because you say so, right?

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Uh no, because they were built for the purpose of absentee ownership in the first place.

Absentee owners thought it would be a good idea to build houses they wouldn't use, because they thought somebody who did want to use them would pay a higher price than it cost to build the houses. The absentee owners turned out to be wrong, so now they are sitting on these empty houses that nobody wants to buy.

If the absentee owners realized their idea wouldn't have worked, they never would have had the houses built in the first place.

[–]ironclad_capillaries:3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't have a place to live right now if not for absentee ownership.

[–]Madphilosopher3Market Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Which do you think produces more homelessness, private ownership of shelter or laws forbidding it? If it's the former, what reason do you have to believe this?

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

laws forbidding it

Laws forbidding what? Shelter?

[–]Madphilosopher3Market Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Laws forbidding private property (private ownership of shelter more specifically).

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm fairly sure we don't have those, so they can't be causing the homelessness here.

There are many times more vacant homes in the United States than there are homeless people. I've seen estimates ranging from 5x to 22x, depending mainly on how homeless people are counted.

[–]Madphilosopher3Market Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'd say the main cause of homelessness in the United States is regulations restricting choice on how to produce them, not private ownership. I don't know of any examples of places where it's illegal to privately own shelter, but do you think one could provide more people with shelter than places with private ownership without piggybacking off of the productivity of a previous private property regime?

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'd say the main cause of homelessness in the United States is regulations restricting choice on how to produce them, not private ownership.

Well, if that were the case, wouldn't we have a shortage of houses? Instead, we have a surplus in a market that doesn't clear.

I don't know of any examples of places where it's illegal to privately own shelter, but do you think one could provide more people with shelter than places with private ownership without piggybacking off of the productivity of a previous private property regime?

The current system has already overproduced homes. Even if a socialist system produces slightly fewer homes, it could still house all of its population just by actually letting people live in them.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, if that were the case, wouldn't we have a shortage of houses?

We do have a shortage of houses. Hence, there are homeless people. Not all houses are homogeneous, so it is entirely possible to have a shortage and a surplus at the same time. This is exactly the kind of misallocation of resources you get from government intervention.

[–]Madphilosopher3Market Anarchist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, if that were the case, wouldn't we have a shortage of houses? Instead, we have a surplus in a market that doesn't clear.

Not really. A big reason why so many people have shelter is because of the option to rent it out. If it weren't for that, there'd be far fewer homes produced and many more people would be homeless.

Even if a socialist system produces slightly fewer homes, it could still house all of its population just by actually letting people live in them.

Do you actually think it would produce only slightly fewer homes? Socialist systems have shown thus far to not be nearly as productive as capitalist ones, so you don't exactly have the evidence in your favor here. I'm not saying it's impossible for it to become a more competitive system or that it shouldn't be practiced by willing participants, just that outlawing private ownership of shelter would make society worse off in the long run, so it'd be better to have them compete on the open market. There are many people who currently have shelter due to participation in mutual aid programs, socialist co-ops and communist communes, and while they haven't housed nearly as many people, they serve as complimentary additional options to the capitalist housing market.

[–]Continuity_organizerMixed Economy 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Some people are just broken and can't help themselves.

The only way to end homelessness is to have the government pick up the homeless against their will, and force them to get help. (usually in the form of antipsychotic drugs)

Some people are opposed to such an action, and see it as a infringement on civil liberties, but is the freedom of yelling at strangers while sitting in your own piss something that precious?

If you were a mentally ill homeless person, wouldn't you want the government to save you from yourself?

It is really that different than pushing someone from in front of a bus?

[–]robstahAnarcho-Capitalist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

My problem with this is how broad a state can brush a term like "mental illness". Technically, a majority of people in here could easily be called/targeted as "mentally ill" by the state, since we are simply against it.

[–]Gordon_Gano 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your stereotype of homeless people as "yelling at strangers while sitting in your own piss" is so fucking rude. You have met and interacted with homeless people and you've had no idea. They are not "broken".

[–]luaudesignGame Theory 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because homes don't exist in nature and we have to build them, which takes resources, knowledge, energy and time. Also, even if the person could do all that alone, many governments would get there and demolish the house anyway. Then there's the problem of drugs and such.

People need jobs so they can pay for housing.

[–]robstahAnarcho-Capitalist 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

People don't need jobs, but jobs are definitely a path of lesser resistance into owning a home.

[–]luaudesignGame Theory 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The other options is to build the home all by themselves instead of taking part in the division of labor, work on something else while people that build homes for a living get paid so they also have something to eat while they build homes.

But when I said people need jobs I was mostly poking at unemployment rates and its causes.

[–]NoFrictionLibertarian Socialist 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Having to surrender part of what one produces for access to the means of subsistence, then not having enough remaining to surrender for access to private land/homes

"Mental illness", as stated by others, is a cop-out to disregard the unfortunate situations of those harmed by a cruel world.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

then not having enough remaining to surrender for access to private land/homes

Why don't they have enough remaining? You're telling me they can't even afford to buy an axe, chop down some trees on public land, and build them into a house?

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

That isn't legal anymore.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Not the fault of capitalism. Even where I live, in one of the largest cities in the world, there are patches of forest that are completely unowned. No capitalist wants them. Yet if I go and take a tree from there I will be locked in a cage.

It doesn't even need to get that complicated. In the city there is tons of trash. Much of that trash isn't actually trash, but could be assembled into a workable shelter. Yet again, if I take this refuse that capitalists specifically abandoned and do not claim ownership over, and construct it into shelter on land that no capitalist wants or cares about, I will be locked in a cage.

So tell me again how capitalism is the problem, when capitalism's "trash" could be made into shelter if only the socialists running the place would allow it.

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

You can say it's not the fault of capitalism, but it's also not the fault of homeless people. You can't blame them for not building log cabins in the woods when it's illegal.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think it's pretty obvious that I didn't blame them.

[–]TheDuckEnlightenmentLibertarian Socialist 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, you did a few posts up, but as long as you're not blaming them anymore, it's an improvement.

[–]ancap_throwaway0521 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No I didn't. I asked why they don't go solve the problem themselves, and you said why - somebody else, not capitalists, is preventing them.

[–]urdaughtersacutiewikipedia.org/wiki/banal_rights 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact that it's not worth decades of slavery to sit in a depressing, glorified crate, when one could, y'know, go camping, have fun.

"People with guns" is all non-homelessness has. It's fiat housing.

[–]_Hopped_Objectivist Libertarian Ultranationalist Moderate 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Poor choices (both conscious and unconscious).

[–]CoffeeDimeLibertarian Socialist[S,🍰] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why do they make poor choices? Which choices do they make specifically that are bad?

[–]_Hopped_Objectivist Libertarian Ultranationalist Moderate 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Drugs, debt, alcohol, not getting help for mental illnesses, not planning long term, etc.

[–]auryn0151Don't force, Ask 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not all mentally ill people are homeless. I've not sifted through the data to know what percentage are not mentally ill, but it's not unreasonable to assume not all of them are. What that means is, that those are not mentally ill either a)prefer to be homeless, or b) have burned every single relationship they've had such that no one will even offer them a couch or floor to sleep on. How do you do that? You pretty much have to be a colossal asshole to people.

[–]ghastly1302Classy Libertarian -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Yeah,because it is obviously a poor choice to not be born to rich parents...

[–]PardaleanAnarcho-Capitalist 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Your argument is ridiculous because inheriting a house is not the only way to acquire one.

You're also forgetting that while the person inheriting a fortune doesn't personally have any merit, their parents who acquired and saved more for the sake of their offspring do deserve to give their kids higher odds of survival.

When discussing the quality of one's choices in relation to their outcome, you might want to look at the entire bell curve rather than the extremity that fits your narrative best.

[–]RexFox 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not to mention rich kids squander away wealth all the time.

[–]robstahAnarcho-Capitalist 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

This. Poor to rich back to poor is a common cycle of generations.

[–]No-more-8-8Conservatarian 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I had poor parents, and I own a house.

[–]luaudesignGame Theory 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

So 99% of the people in the world are homeless. That's something new.

[–]ghastly1302Classy Libertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

If you are born rich,you are most likely gonna stay rich.

[–]robstahAnarcho-Capitalist 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not true.

[–]luaudesignGame Theory 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ok. Make your point. How does it tie to the subject of the thread?

[–]ghastly1302Classy Libertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You cannot say "all poor people are poor because of their choices". You cannot say "all homeless people are homeless because of their choices".

[–]luaudesignGame Theory -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yet you implied direct causality of people being homeless because they're born poor. Statistically, 99% of the people in the world are born poor. Which percentage are homeless?

[–]ghastly1302Classy Libertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yet you implied direct causality of people being homeless because they're born poor.

No I didn't. I implied that if one is born rich,they will most likely never be homeless.

[–]JobDestroyerProof-of-burn the state. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People not having their shit together, mostly. Either they're straight up crazy or they're addicted to something or they're just stupid.

[–]ironclad_capillaries:3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If their parents were supremely irresponsible and had a child when they weren't ready. There's your "cycle" of poverty right there.