8 ms·

The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to have shelter in slums. Anywhere in the US it would be highly illegal and violate many regulations.

by xyzzy4 10y ago

amalag 10y ago
It is true, poor people in those places really don't need much. You can live, eat grow for almost nothing. People can have happy lives without much money.
- magic_beans 10y ago
  It's even true in city outskirts (e.g. the homeless encampments around San Francisco, Skid Row in LA).
  - vkou 10y ago
    The thing about homeless encampments is that (frequency depends on the city) every few months/years, the police raid them, evict the residents, and steal/burn everything that the residents can't carry out. The mayor claps his hands, makes a press release about how great it is that we've finally cleaned up this den of filth/violence/drug abuse, while the homeless get to sleep under bridges for a few months.
mrob 10y ago
People downvoting this, did you also approve of UC Berkeley deleting videos because they were not captioned for deaf people? Setting minimum standards on housing quality without guaranteeing affordable housing availability seems very similar to me.
jschwartzi 10y ago
Why is this being downvoted? It's objectively true in every place I've lived.
thrownblown 10y ago
I don't understand the downvotes. Rent is just theft based on the monopolization of land. Forcing the poor to pay to live in government approved ghettos is more extortion of their limited resources by those who monopolize the commons.
- thrownblown 10y ago
  Downvote me too. It's ok. All property is theft.
  - thrownblown 10y ago
    Private property "rights" can only exist if the state violently enforces it. Not just that, but all property claims are backed by threats of force, state or not. The universe doesn't anoint anyone Legitimate Property Owner, and if you can't convince others to leave you with your object of claim, then your claim has to be backed by force. Otherwise, it's just hot air.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    So, where did you steal that computer that you're composing your messages on? Where did you steal your phone? Your car? You sound like you want a world where cars and computers are free. In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. Or are you only talking about "property" in the sense of real estate? But if the land doesn't (enforceably) belong to me, I'm not going to build anything substantial on it - not a skyscraper, not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters. In parts of the world without secure property rights, a family can't take a loan on their property so that the wife can buy a sewing machine and develop an income. It makes it harder for people to climb out of subsistence. So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world. (Your post parallel to this one is correct - property rights can exist only if the state enforces them. The thing is, it is good that the state does so.)
    - thrownblown 10y ago
Nomentatus 10y ago
Witnessing the loss of squatter's rights across much of the industrialized world is one of the most shocking things I've experienced during my lifetime.
mmsimanga 10y ago
I agree with your post, perhaps the word slums didn't sit well with some people. If I were to rephrase it I would say, 'The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to build shelters without approval from city/building councils." Sometime ago on HN, there was the story of the Canadian gentleman who built his house. His crime was that he didn't use wood stamped by inspectors. It was found that he used wood far superior to what was required. Back home, people make their own bricks. South Africa is more advanced than other African countries. The poor here do not make their own bricks. There too many laws and the laws are enforced.

The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to have shelter in slums. Anywhere in the US it would be highly illegal and violate many regulations.

by xyzzy4 10y ago

The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to have shelter in slums. Anywhere in the US it would be highly illegal and violate many regulations.

amalag 10y ago

It is true, poor people in those places really don't need much. You can live, eat grow for almost nothing. People can have happy lives without much money.

magic_beans 10y ago
It's even true in city outskirts (e.g. the homeless encampments around San Francisco, Skid Row in LA).
- vkou 10y ago
  The thing about homeless encampments is that (frequency depends on the city) every few months/years, the police raid them, evict the residents, and steal/burn everything that the residents can't carry out. The mayor claps his hands, makes a press release about how great it is that we've finally cleaned up this den of filth/violence/drug abuse, while the homeless get to sleep under bridges for a few months.

mrob 10y ago

People downvoting this, did you also approve of UC Berkeley deleting videos because they were not captioned for deaf people? Setting minimum standards on housing quality without guaranteeing affordable housing availability seems very similar to me.

jschwartzi 10y ago

Why is this being downvoted? It's objectively true in every place I've lived.

thrownblown 10y ago

I don't understand the downvotes. Rent is just theft based on the monopolization of land. Forcing the poor to pay to live in government approved ghettos is more extortion of their limited resources by those who monopolize the commons.

thrownblown 10y ago
Downvote me too. It's ok. All property is theft.
- thrownblown 10y ago
  Private property "rights" can only exist if the state violently enforces it. Not just that, but all property claims are backed by threats of force, state or not. The universe doesn't anoint anyone Legitimate Property Owner, and if you can't convince others to leave you with your object of claim, then your claim has to be backed by force. Otherwise, it's just hot air.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  So, where did you steal that computer that you're composing your messages on? Where did you steal your phone? Your car? You sound like you want a world where cars and computers are free. In practice, that would be a world without cars and computers. Or are you only talking about "property" in the sense of real estate? But if the land doesn't (enforceably) belong to me, I'm not going to build anything substantial on it - not a skyscraper, not even a decent suburban home. I'm not going to build anything but what I absolutely need, because I can lose it. And I can't get a loan on it, either. This matters. In parts of the world without secure property rights, a family can't take a loan on their property so that the wife can buy a sewing machine and develop an income. It makes it harder for people to climb out of subsistence. So your position makes a nice soundbite, but it doesn't actually work very well in the real world. (Your post parallel to this one is correct - property rights can exist only if the state enforces them. The thing is, it is good that the state does so.)
  - thrownblown 10y ago

Nomentatus 10y ago

Witnessing the loss of squatter's rights across much of the industrialized world is one of the most shocking things I've experienced during my lifetime.

mmsimanga 10y ago

I agree with your post, perhaps the word slums didn't sit well with some people. If I were to rephrase it I would say, 'The poor in Bangladesh are at least allowed to build shelters without approval from city/building councils." Sometime ago on HN, there was the story of the Canadian gentleman who built his house. His crime was that he didn't use wood stamped by inspectors. It was found that he used wood far superior to what was required. Back home, people make their own bricks. South Africa is more advanced than other African countries. The poor here do not make their own bricks. There too many laws and the laws are enforced.