4 ms·

Law abiding citizens are the suckers it seems everywhere. It's easy to be nobel and generous when you are not the one being taken advantage of. Regardless of w

• hgomersall 2y ago
  Said every tyrant ever.
  • AlbertoGP 2y ago
    Isn’t a tyrant someone that is above the law, not subject to the rule of law like other citizens?
    • hgomersall 2y ago
      Sure, but using the law as a basis for oppression is straight out of the tyrants handbook.
    • kerkeslager 2y ago
      Tyrants are still subject to the law. Why would they not be, given they make the law?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Law abiding citizens are the suckers it seems everywhere. True! When laws are made that benefit a few and harm everyone else, you'd be a sucker to follow them. > It's easy to be nobel and generous when you are not the one being taken advantage of. It's easy to abide by the law when you are the one the law benefits. > Regardless of who benefits from Lawlessness, it always ends up destroying the society Maybe it's not that surprising that those excluded from housing by society are okay with destroying society that actively harms them.
  • kjkjadksj 2y ago
    This is like toddler logic. “If I can’t have anything nice neither should anyone else.” The energy spent colluding with organized crime to squat is probably better spent trying to get laws passed that support new housing construction if the problem is to be solved.
    • kerkeslager 2y ago
      My logic is more, "If some people can't have one home, then other people shouldn't be amassing multiple homes." Toddler logic is pretending you don't understand what I'm saying. And to be clear: I own a home, and I'm not squatting. It's just I have a sense of basic empathy too. > The energy spent colluding with organized crime to squat is probably better spent trying to get laws passed that support new housing construction if the problem is to be solved. "Energy spent trying to not be homeless would be better spent... being homeless!" Let me be abundantly clear: this is a political conversation for you, it's a survival need for them. Demanding that people remain homeless while they fight for justice by rules that are made by people like you who clearly neither understand nor care about homeless people is absurd. I mean let's be serious, when do you think this will be solved? This problem has been going on for decades, and we cannot even get people like you to agree that the solution to homelessness is homes. People like you don't have solutions and you oppose every solution that would actually solve the problem. And people like you make the rules. So you can't be surprised when the people you're screwing over don't care about your rules. I mean, supporting new housing construction is great, but how are you going to prevent investment capital from just snapping up all the new inventory and continuing to jack up the rent? Houses are sitting empty now, because it's profitable for them to be sitting empty. This isn't going to stop until we end landlords. But let me guess--you oppose that, too? So yeah--we should implement a real solution to homelessness. But given we aren't going to any time soon, you can't be too surprised when people don't follow the your rules just because you make the same broken promise that if they just do things the right way solutions will surely come.