6 ms·

"Clearing the camp likely will be difficult both logistically — it’s more challenging to remove structures and vehicles that don’t run than tents — and ethicall

by oliv__ 5y ago

"Clearing the camp likely will be difficult both logistically — it’s more challenging to remove structures and vehicles that don’t run than tents — and ethically — there are few places for the displaced residents to go." This might be an unpopular opinion, but since when did kicking "a sprawling camp of dozens of people, a maze of broken-down vehicles and a massive amount of trash" off of your private property become unethical? I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in that kind of "ethical" world.

sp332 5y ago
The problem is in the part you quoted - when you get them off your property, they don't stop existing. Where do you want them to go to?
- rlp 5y ago
  The property owner should not be responsible for answering that question.
  - Teever 5y ago
    The property owner in question has evaded paying billions of dollars in taxes, taxes that could have gone to fix the systemic issues in America that perpetuate homelessness. Think different indeed.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      But Apple does it legally so its ok. And I am sure the hopeless can pull themselves by their bootstraps. If they cant eat bread, why don't they eat cake?? If you are homeless just buy a house! Its that simple. /s Jezz, I am reading through the comments here and i am not sure if i am on HN or subreddit for edy teens with the shallowest and one-dimentional view of the world.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Some people having millions of times more than they could possibky need while these people don't have the basics is the cause of the problem.
  - zR0x 5y ago
    Property owners are human members of society They’re not above participating in solving human problems You want to live in a bubble, go off grid None of us get up and contribute to society to spare anyone else dealing with it’s problems Just because that’s the way laws are written doesn’t mean biology gives a shit
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    I do like how we think owning property is like a natural right that just exists. Apple only owns that property because our social contract says they can, that social contract can be broken if we feel like they're abusing that "right".
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
  I exist and I'm not camping in your front yard. Isn't that crazy how that works? Somehow the laws of physics don't break when I leave your lawn.
  - smnrchrds 5y ago
    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." - Anatole France
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  You not solving their/society's problem doesn't make it unethical.
  - monkeybutton 5y ago
    Maybe if they'd paid their fair share in taxes, they'd feel less guilty about the ethics. As it stands, they're not exactly helping society fix these problems.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Go to being a responsible person. Some of these people are mentally ill. Many others are just content to live a minimal existence, getting high, and not following any of the rules that normal people do. I see no reason to offer them support in that lifestyle.
  - sp332 5y ago
    This is irrelevant. SF has very low supply of housing and very high homelessness compared to other places. It could happen to basically anybody. One person in the article physically built her own house and then was kicked out by her ex-boyfriend. That person sounds way more responsible than I am, and I'm not homeless. https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/lifestyle/silicon-valley-google-rv-housing-crisis-us-workforce-motor-homes-a8928936.html https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/lifestyle/silicon-valle...
- isatty 5y ago
  Sure you’ve identified the problem but the problem is not the responsibility of the owner of said private property.
  - addicted 5y ago
    So if someone dying of thirst lands at my doorstep, yes, it’s not my responsibility to give them a glass of water. Whether it’s my responsibility or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it’s ethical for me to not give them a glass of water. Maybe it is ethical to send them away thirsty. But that would be based on a lot more than whether it’s my responsibility or not. Being ethical isn’t limited to doing just what one is responsible for. In fact, often they can be in conflict.
    - addicted 5y ago
      Personally, I think Apple does indeed have an ethical dilemma here caused by government specifically, and society broadly, failing in their responsibility towards habilitating the homeless and the mentally ill.
    - nradov 5y ago
      I think most of us would give the dying person a glass of water. Would we also give them food? Clothes? A place to sleep? Money? Job training? It's hard to determine the bounds of our ethical obligations. I don't see a clear answer.
swiley 5y ago
It's unethical in the same place where building large apartment complexes on private land is also illegal. They have to have somewhere to go and people don't want their view blocked by a building.
judge2020 5y ago
Probably just internal employee pushback against doing such a thing, likely because the homelessness problem is well-known and they honestly don't have a place to go. Plus, when they're on Apple property, all it does is make it not look like utopia on earth; assuming they keep to themselves and don't impede traffic nor destroy property it doesn't affect Apple operations.
- daenz 5y ago
  >they honestly don't have a place to go Do most homeless originate from the city that they habitate?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    At least regarding San Diego, 79% in a survey reported they did become homeless within San Diego. https://www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/WeAllCount.pdf#page=2 https://www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/WeAllCount.pdf#pag...
CryptoPunk 5y ago
There is an entire industry of government funded NGOs who work with the homeless, who rely on these kinds of precepts, like evicting squatters being unethical, being accepted, for their funding. They're the ones who place enormous pressure on others to adopt this extreme compassion worldview.
drudu 5y ago
There are many systems of ethics where the right of someone to live on the land where their home is (tent or otherwise, owned by them or someone else) takes precedence over private property rights. I, sure as hell, would love to live in in a world where that was put into practice.
brailsafe 5y ago
Well, it became unethical after everyone who had huge budgets bought up all the property, displacing everyone who couldn't. In a sense, it's a question of the ethics of owning property being inherently displacing. If there is only private property that nobody wants others on, and public property that isn't housing and nobody wants others on, then you're kind of both screwed and you're subject to the consequences of the system that let you have those things in the first place.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  I'd rephrase this in what I think is a more succinct way. It's unethical because you're profiting off of displacement, in a system that allows you to do so, then being mad when the displaced don't care about the system that doesn't care about them, and so they take it back by setting up on your doorstep. Whatcha gunna do rich boi!?
guerrilla 5y ago
When? Always. Good luck finding a popular ethical system where it's moral to have millions of times more than you need while others have nothing and then turn then away: Christianity, Islam, Utilitarianism, Buddhism...
underseacables 5y ago
Well it’s California, and a hot button issue that many blame corporations for. Once the woke crowd gets involved it could mean chaos at Apple; damages, employee walkouts, press etc. You’re absolutely right but Apple won’t act unless they are confident they can control the narrative. Surprised they haven’t offered to teach them how to code, or some other virtue signaling

by oliv__ 5y ago

sp332 5y ago

The problem is in the part you quoted - when you get them off your property, they don't stop existing. Where do you want them to go to?

rlp 5y ago
The property owner should not be responsible for answering that question.
- Teever 5y ago
  The property owner in question has evaded paying billions of dollars in taxes, taxes that could have gone to fix the systemic issues in America that perpetuate homelessness. Think different indeed.
  - me_me_me 5y ago
    But Apple does it legally so its ok. And I am sure the hopeless can pull themselves by their bootstraps. If they cant eat bread, why don't they eat cake?? If you are homeless just buy a house! Its that simple. /s Jezz, I am reading through the comments here and i am not sure if i am on HN or subreddit for edy teens with the shallowest and one-dimentional view of the world.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Some people having millions of times more than they could possibky need while these people don't have the basics is the cause of the problem.
- zR0x 5y ago
  Property owners are human members of society They’re not above participating in solving human problems You want to live in a bubble, go off grid None of us get up and contribute to society to spare anyone else dealing with it’s problems Just because that’s the way laws are written doesn’t mean biology gives a shit
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- aaomidi 5y ago
  I do like how we think owning property is like a natural right that just exists. Apple only owns that property because our social contract says they can, that social contract can be broken if we feel like they're abusing that "right".
andrewmcwatters 5y ago
I exist and I'm not camping in your front yard. Isn't that crazy how that works? Somehow the laws of physics don't break when I leave your lawn.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." - Anatole France
CryptoPunk 5y ago
You not solving their/society's problem doesn't make it unethical.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  Maybe if they'd paid their fair share in taxes, they'd feel less guilty about the ethics. As it stands, they're not exactly helping society fix these problems.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Apple builds tens of millions of products every year that increase productivity. They're not indebted to society, let alone to the US where they are providing billions in salaries and capital appreciation income.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      Of course they are, without society enfircing property rights then anyone could do the same. They also owe (as everyone does) society for even being in a state where they can exist and operate. They depend on society exstentially. It's not like they paid for infrastructure, business ecosyatem, the conditions for consumers to consume, etc. Without societ they'd be nothing at all.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        Society gets high quality products that enhance productivity, and enormous tax revenue that more than makes up for any public services that could conceivably contribute to their productivity, so of course they're not indebted to society. >>Without societ they'd be nothing at all. Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving.
        guerrilla 5y ago
        You seem to have forgotten that we buy that from Apple. On top of the massive amount of research that we fund one way or anogher. > Society constitutes them as well, so they are also contributing to the existence of this society, which means they are giving as much as they're receiving. Society can exist without them but they cannot exist without society. That's a difference you're missing.
throwawayboise 5y ago
Go to being a responsible person. Some of these people are mentally ill. Many others are just content to live a minimal existence, getting high, and not following any of the rules that normal people do. I see no reason to offer them support in that lifestyle.
- sp332 5y ago
  This is irrelevant. SF has very low supply of housing and very high homelessness compared to other places. It could happen to basically anybody. One person in the article physically built her own house and then was kicked out by her ex-boyfriend. That person sounds way more responsible than I am, and I'm not homeless. https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/lifestyle/silicon-valley-google-rv-housing-crisis-us-workforce-motor-homes-a8928936.html https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/lifestyle/silicon-valle...
isatty 5y ago
Sure you’ve identified the problem but the problem is not the responsibility of the owner of said private property.
- addicted 5y ago
  So if someone dying of thirst lands at my doorstep, yes, it’s not my responsibility to give them a glass of water. Whether it’s my responsibility or not has absolutely no bearing on whether it’s ethical for me to not give them a glass of water. Maybe it is ethical to send them away thirsty. But that would be based on a lot more than whether it’s my responsibility or not. Being ethical isn’t limited to doing just what one is responsible for. In fact, often they can be in conflict.
  - addicted 5y ago
    Personally, I think Apple does indeed have an ethical dilemma here caused by government specifically, and society broadly, failing in their responsibility towards habilitating the homeless and the mentally ill.
  - nradov 5y ago
    I think most of us would give the dying person a glass of water. Would we also give them food? Clothes? A place to sleep? Money? Job training? It's hard to determine the bounds of our ethical obligations. I don't see a clear answer.

swiley 5y ago

It's unethical in the same place where building large apartment complexes on private land is also illegal. They have to have somewhere to go and people don't want their view blocked by a building.

judge2020 5y ago

Probably just internal employee pushback against doing such a thing, likely because the homelessness problem is well-known and they honestly don't have a place to go. Plus, when they're on Apple property, all it does is make it not look like utopia on earth; assuming they keep to themselves and don't impede traffic nor destroy property it doesn't affect Apple operations.

daenz 5y ago
>they honestly don't have a place to go Do most homeless originate from the city that they habitate?
- judge2020 5y ago
  At least regarding San Diego, 79% in a survey reported they did become homeless within San Diego. https://www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/WeAllCount.pdf#page=2 https://www.rtfhsd.org/wp-content/uploads/WeAllCount.pdf#pag...

CryptoPunk 5y ago

There is an entire industry of government funded NGOs who work with the homeless, who rely on these kinds of precepts, like evicting squatters being unethical, being accepted, for their funding. They're the ones who place enormous pressure on others to adopt this extreme compassion worldview.

drudu 5y ago

There are many systems of ethics where the right of someone to live on the land where their home is (tent or otherwise, owned by them or someone else) takes precedence over private property rights. I, sure as hell, would love to live in in a world where that was put into practice.

brailsafe 5y ago

Well, it became unethical after everyone who had huge budgets bought up all the property, displacing everyone who couldn't. In a sense, it's a question of the ethics of owning property being inherently displacing. If there is only private property that nobody wants others on, and public property that isn't housing and nobody wants others on, then you're kind of both screwed and you're subject to the consequences of the system that let you have those things in the first place.

brailsafe 5y ago
I'd rephrase this in what I think is a more succinct way. It's unethical because you're profiting off of displacement, in a system that allows you to do so, then being mad when the displaced don't care about the system that doesn't care about them, and so they take it back by setting up on your doorstep. Whatcha gunna do rich boi!?

guerrilla 5y ago

When? Always. Good luck finding a popular ethical system where it's moral to have millions of times more than you need while others have nothing and then turn then away: Christianity, Islam, Utilitarianism, Buddhism...

underseacables 5y ago

Well it’s California, and a hot button issue that many blame corporations for. Once the woke crowd gets involved it could mean chaos at Apple; damages, employee walkouts, press etc. You’re absolutely right but Apple won’t act unless they are confident they can control the narrative. Surprised they haven’t offered to teach them how to code, or some other virtue signaling