Can we frame the desire behind creating such a system as a belief that there is a basic right to shelter in the same way that proponents of Medicare For All believe that there is a basic right to health care?
I wouldnāt say it is the same. Right to healthcare should apply wherever you are. Right to shelter is more of a right to have a home somewhere not shelter anywhere
There is definitely a subset of the homeless population that lives that way by choice. Tiny fraction though for sure.
Wonāt somebody please think of the empires?!
This isnāt just for @alex . Any one of the liberals are welcome to play too! Like I said above, I canāt imagine we could actually have a coherent āargumentā as long as the liberals prefer their trolling & Semanikesā¢ & going round-n-round & all that other monkey business that theyāve spewed the last 15,000,000 posts. So Iām just going to leave this here for them.
In the meantime, letās chat about history insteadā¦
Activists in South Africa have been fighting this battle for 40 years now. To me, that seems like a big enough āsample sizeā to draw at least some conclusions from.
Agreed, tiny %. Iāve got a couple regulars with full military pensions that prefer the lifestyle. Underlying mental illness is a factor for sure.
Homeless shelters are awful. Iād much rather sleep in a tent and I suspect most people here would make the same choice.
3 Likes
Yep, a tiny%. OTOH a staggering 2.5 million children are now homeless each year in *America*. Thatās 1 in 30 children, for those keeping score.
Meanwhile, we have Mr.Econ smarty-pants telling us if we donāt pay for those robo-cops to violently keep all these children homelessā¦ well, itās a little hard to follow their gibberishā¦ then ZOMG the homeless childrenās childrenās children will be worse off because the rich people wonāt pay construction workers to build houses that none of these children, or their children, or their children will own.
Canāt āargueā with āscienceā I guess. Those 2.5 million children are just going to have to ātake one for the teamā. There is no alternative. All hail capitalism !!!1!
Mr.Econ smarty-pants: ZOMG donāt these homeless momās understand Econ? WTF are they thinking? Donāt they understand incentives? What a buncha fools. Those homeless moms are setting back the fight to end homelessness catastrophically !!!1!
1 Like
Fiction:
- War is peace
- Freedom is slavery
- Ignorance is strength
Fact*:
- Poverty helps the poor.
- Homelessness helps those without shelter
- Violence ācreatesā more housing
ā*ā: Or so says Mr.Econ smarty-pants. Canāt āargueā with āscienceā.
I love it how Mr.Econ smarty-pants just ignores all the trade-offs involved in the real world.
Like, theyāll spew that without all that rent-seeking there wonāt be any wealth ācreationā. Of course they got things ass-backwards, and once again demonstrate their shocking ignorance of standard economics. But, letās imagine we were in a bizzaro world. A world where rent-seeking actually did ācreateā wealth. What then?
Well theyād be saying the misery of those 2.5 million homeless children was a small price to pay for more wealth ācreationā. Those kids just gottta understand ECON, and that somebody is going to have to ātake one for the teamā. Maybe if their parents had learned to code, or didnāt drink Starbucks, or saved some flippin money, someone elseās children would have to ātake one for the teamā instead. So itās not the capitalists fault at all, there is no alternative, and itās those lazy poor folks own fault like always.
Dude stop playing this dumb-ass game. If you want to argue for banning evictions, fucking argue for banning evictions. The fact that we are in a pandemic does not mean that anything about the system or burden of proof or leverage has fundamentally changed.
1300 posts in and you havenāt bothered to ask a single person itt how they would address homelessness. Fuck you for using homeless children as a prop for your silly game.
1 Like
Iām not going to āargueā with myself.
Why is it my ājobā to go around asking peeps anything about anything anyways? Iām not following what you are getting at at all here.
I donāt understand what you mean by āusingā¦ as a propā. Can you explain what you mean in 25 words or lessā¦ without referencing me personally, or anything to do with Mr.Econ smarty-pants? Ignoring this bizarre non-sequoia-terā¦
I was merely pointing out an obvious fact: there are real world tradeoffs involved here that Mr.Econ smarty-pants is ignoring. One of these real world tradeoffs is the misery of the 60k families with children that are homeless every night in the US.
How dare you politicize the suffering of homeless people in a discussion on housing policy!
4 Likes
None of his posts are a good faith discusion though.
Itās all:
Troll post
Troll post
Troll post
Troll post
Wonāt someone think of the children!
Troll post
The fact that you become aggravated reading them doesnāt make them ātroll postsā.
LOL. But if that was true, youād be the pot calling the kettle black.
Heās obviously playing a lot of games and trolling, but the post about homeless children was neither of those.
Heās a smart guy with something interesting and quite different to say - you might do well to put up with some trolling and just try harder.
Whether you are right or wrong, your position is a dime-a-dozen. If @Sabo alienates you itās no big loss for him.