4 ms·
At the most you’ve established that homeless moms need to live somewhere. It is not necessary to live in a particular house in L.A. for survival.
by jaldhar 7y ago
At the most you’ve established that homeless moms need to live somewhere. It is not necessary to live in a particular house in L.A. for survival.
- esarbe 7y agoIf I've established that, I'm already very happy we've had this exchange. Now we can bicker about the details. :D
- jaldhar 7y agoSure. It is possible to be against theft and for compassion at the same time. However I am not in CA and it seems “society” over there has decided its not interested in housing homeless moms.
- esarbe 7y agoIf society is unwilling to take responsibility, then society has no right to expect obedience.
- jaldhar 7y agoJust 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?
- esarbe 7y agoI 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.
- extro 7y agohttps://i.imgur.com/322zDhK.jpg https://i.imgur.com/322zDhK.jpg
- esarbe 7y agoAddendum; 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.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]