4 ms·
It's regrettable that there are people living on the streets, but whose housing in particular do they have a right to? Or to whose labor to provide them with h
by JasonFruit 8y ago
It's regrettable that there are people living on the streets, but whose housing in particular do they have a right to? Or to whose labor to provide them with housing? Is it more just to provide them with housing by coercion, or to make laws and regulations in such a way as to encourage and reward charitable activity? Or is there another way that doesn't require an implicit gun at the givers' heads?
- chillwaves 8y agoNatural resources are fenced off by society, to great profit of the wealthy class. It's not unreasonable to ask society to provide the bare necessities for the least fortunate.
- komali2 8y agoSociety doesn't have to be a raw libertarian "paradise" - it's acceptable to say "we should all, together, help house the homeless (with our tax money).
- devit 8y agoBanning childbirth or immigration if a fully owned home is not owned by the new person.
- dane-pgp 8y ago> owned by the new person You think that unborn children should be required to legally own property before they are allowed to be delivered? I've heard of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" but this is a new level of absurdity.
- devit 8y agoYeah, as in parents should commit to donating them a home pre-birth, along with insurance on it and they should not be allowed to sell unless they own another home Then no one will ever be homeless. That's the only non-state solution that guarantees this outcome (well, barring major catastrophes that destroy the home and cause the insurance to not be effective at replacing it).