4 ms·

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?

by sp332 5y ago

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.

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?

by 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.