4 ms·

> There's clearly a gap between imaginary noble okupas addressing housing crisis via occupation of unused bank property and reality of weed smoking anarchists a

> There's clearly a gap between imaginary noble okupas addressing housing crisis via occupation of unused bank property and reality of weed smoking anarchists and their collaborating deoccupying mafia harassing mostly not-so-rich middle class, who can't afford the security measures the rich can. Ah yes, the not-so-rich middle class who can afford to own houses they leave vacant. Is it your opinion that smoking weed makes someone's political opinions disingenuous or that smoking weed means they deserve to be homeless? What's your solution to the lack of housing? Anarcho-capitalist HN is always worried about the unintended consequences of laws but never seems to be concerned about the intended consequences of the law, or have any other ways to solve that problem. It begins to sound like you just don't care about homelessness.

rudnevr 2y ago
Smoking weed is neutral. Smoking weed anarchist is a demographic which tends to justify its modus vivendi pretending they have views. They aren't against private property. They're against other people's private property. My solution to the lack of housing is to build more housing or having fewer people, it's that trivial and obvious.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Smoking weed anarchist is a demographic which tends to justify its modus vivendi pretending they have views. They aren't against private property. They're against other people's private property. Or, maybe they're just homeless and using politics to feel better about what they have to do to get homes. Let's face it, smoking weed has nothing to do with this conversation, it's just a way to discredit people. > My solution to the lack of housing is to build more housing or having fewer people, it's that trivial and obvious. "Having fewer people"? I have to say I'm pretty concerned about what policy decisions you think that entails. Sadly, building more housing doesn't solve the problem. You have to build more housing and prevent it from being removed in the same way housing is currently removed from the market by landlords and speculators. And... where are you going to build it? Property rights apply to land too, right? And you're going to fund this... how? Progressive taxation? Well, it turns out that when you start talking details, a lot of the people who are really concerned about property rights just happen to think all the things that would be necessarily to actually provide homes for the homeless are too expensive, too restrictive, etc. So when it comes down to it, they're for getting rid of the bad solution for homelessness (squatting) and providing no better solution, because their concern was never homelessness. Ultimately, you're right: the solution to homelessness is homes. But, I'm frankly pretty cynical given decades of homeless policy which solves how homelessness affects rich people and doesn't solve homelessness. If your main concern about homeless people is that they're squatting, then I just don't trust that you're actually concerned with solving homelessness. That's why I'd like to see homelessness solved first. Once that's solved, we can solve the squatting problem, if it even still exists. Because doing otherwise starts to sound like yet another attempt to sideline the issue of homelessness.

rudnevr 2y ago

Smoking weed is neutral. Smoking weed anarchist is a demographic which tends to justify its modus vivendi pretending they have views. They aren't against private property. They're against other people's private property. My solution to the lack of housing is to build more housing or having fewer people, it's that trivial and obvious.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> Smoking weed anarchist is a demographic which tends to justify its modus vivendi pretending they have views. They aren't against private property. They're against other people's private property. Or, maybe they're just homeless and using politics to feel better about what they have to do to get homes. Let's face it, smoking weed has nothing to do with this conversation, it's just a way to discredit people. > My solution to the lack of housing is to build more housing or having fewer people, it's that trivial and obvious. "Having fewer people"? I have to say I'm pretty concerned about what policy decisions you think that entails. Sadly, building more housing doesn't solve the problem. You have to build more housing and prevent it from being removed in the same way housing is currently removed from the market by landlords and speculators. And... where are you going to build it? Property rights apply to land too, right? And you're going to fund this... how? Progressive taxation? Well, it turns out that when you start talking details, a lot of the people who are really concerned about property rights just happen to think all the things that would be necessarily to actually provide homes for the homeless are too expensive, too restrictive, etc. So when it comes down to it, they're for getting rid of the bad solution for homelessness (squatting) and providing no better solution, because their concern was never homelessness. Ultimately, you're right: the solution to homelessness is homes. But, I'm frankly pretty cynical given decades of homeless policy which solves how homelessness affects rich people and doesn't solve homelessness. If your main concern about homeless people is that they're squatting, then I just don't trust that you're actually concerned with solving homelessness. That's why I'd like to see homelessness solved first. Once that's solved, we can solve the squatting problem, if it even still exists. Because doing otherwise starts to sound like yet another attempt to sideline the issue of homelessness.