Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Homeless Shelters Charge Rent in NY

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2009 8:25:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
What a money grab. Congress should overturn this law, there is no point to it, especially in a recession. They're only wounding those already bleeding.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2009 11:42:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I quote the article in that:

City officials this month began charging rent to working families staying in public homeless shelters.

and

Under that law, shelter managers started to require families to pay a portion of their income

They pay rent when:
1) They are a family.
2) They make an income.

It's not exactly criminal.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 12:24:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Even if that weren't the case, need is not a rightful claim, and if you forbid the purchase of such space, there will be even less of it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 10:05:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
If you want to do so, you can of course pay someone else's rent at any time :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 2:29:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 10:05:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If you want to do so, you can of course pay someone else's rent at any time :)

The reason why it is publicly funded is due to the fact that most people alone can't pay for another, fully-grown person's needs. They take it out of our taxes so we are paying, but they take it out of all our taxes, so its not just one person having to pay for it.

You can say that you can just provide it to a charity, but not everyone can rely on those. Government-funded homeless shelters are the only reliable source that these people have.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 2:35:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
They take it out of our taxes so we are paying, but they take it out of all our taxes, so its not just one person having to pay for it.

No, they make it from no one "having" to pay for it, to everyone "having" to :).

The problem is that no one should "have to" pay for anything they haven't chosen.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 2:50:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 2:35:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They take it out of our taxes so we are paying, but they take it out of all our taxes, so its not just one person having to pay for it.

No, they make it from no one "having" to pay for it, to everyone "having" to :).

The problem is that no one should "have to" pay for anything they haven't chosen.

Those who have lost their jobs due to the stupid decisions of some bankers who only want more money shouldn't "have to" lose their jobs, yet they still do.

That kind of logic is faulty. The reason why governments enforce laws, rules and taxes is because humans by nature are selfish, abhorrent and belligerent. You cannot just rely on someone's good faith to help you out of a situation that is no fault of your own; you have to rely on the government, because that is its entire raison d'etre.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 9:46:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 2:50:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/11/2009 2:35:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They take it out of our taxes so we are paying, but they take it out of all our taxes, so its not just one person having to pay for it.

No, they make it from no one "having" to pay for it, to everyone "having" to :).

The problem is that no one should "have to" pay for anything they haven't chosen.

Those who have lost their jobs due to the stupid decisions of some bankers who only want more money shouldn't "have to" lose their jobs
Who decided they would pursue a career working for those bankers, either not finding out whether said bankers were stupid and incapable of continuing to be capable of supporting jobs, or attempting a poor, nonsuccessful mechanism for finding out?

That kind of logic is faulty. The reason why governments enforce laws, rules and taxes is because humans by nature are selfish, abhorrent and belligerent.
Selfishness is my raison d'etre. And taxes and most of the rules and laws are abhorrent and belligerent.

You cannot just rely on someone's good faith to help you out of a situation that is no fault of your own;
What such situation? None being discussed here.

If you haven't earned your way out, that is a fault. Life is not a default state. It has to be continually gained by productive success.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 9:53:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Now, if sudden taxes crush your business, that's through no fault of your own :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 10:07:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 9:46:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Who decided they would pursue a career working for those bankers, either not finding out whether said bankers were stupid and incapable of continuing to be capable of supporting jobs, or attempting a poor, nonsuccessful mechanism for finding out?

So the choice is to not choose a job, just because they didn't know some bankers would make stupid decisions down the line? Is there some sort of predicting the future that libertarians know about that I don't?

Selfishness is my raison d'etre. And taxes and most of the rules and laws are abhorrent and belligerent.

Of course selfishness is your raison d'etre, it is for almost everyone. Difference is that you don't agree with taxes because of your selfishness, but I do because I know there needs to be something there to help those that you, I or the other guy won't or can't.

If you haven't earned your way out, that is a fault. Life is not a default state. It has to be continually gained by productive success.

Not everyone is as capable as you or I to get above the fray, and they have to live under us. That means they're subject to any stupid decisions we make are automatically transferred to them. That is not the fault of the employee - that is your fault.
You're all for personal responsibility, right? You should take the blame and the punishment for your decisions, not the employee.
But of course it doesn't work that way in the real world, and CEOs will cause the collapse of a company and the employees will lose their jobs. Then the government comes in with help, to make sure those employees don't suffer for your decision.

If life has to be continually gained by productive success, then it is wrong to let employees be shunted aside for no reason of their own. The government can provide assistance when those people are laid off so they don't drift away, as well as their families. By providing this assistance, the government helps the worker continue in society and eventually get another job, and once again contribute 'productive success.'
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 11:04:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 10:07:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/11/2009 9:46:22 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Who decided they would pursue a career working for those bankers, either not finding out whether said bankers were stupid and incapable of continuing to be capable of supporting jobs, or attempting a poor, nonsuccessful mechanism for finding out?

So the choice is to not choose a job, just because they didn't know some bankers would make stupid decisions down the line? Is there some sort of predicting the future that libertarians know about that I don't?
Well, considering how libertarians have been telling us these exact sort of crises would happen, at the very least since von Mises wrote down his stuff, and these things keep happening.
Yah, there is some sort of predicting the future. It's called looking at the subsidized credit going into the banks, looking at the business plan, thinking "Hmm-- Is there a reasonable chance that this could fall apart? Are a bunch of people likely to want their money at the same time? Or a bunch of homeowners likely to lose the ability to pay their mortgage at the same time? Waitaminnit, didn't we tie their mortgage to charge more interest the less likely they are to be able to pay it?-?---- And isn't capital being handed to us roughly in inverse proportion to how responsible we're going to be with it, up to a point where it's already too late? Haven't these very insitutions failed frequently before, and the solutions have just been to spread the risk so the failure will be put off but be even bigger when it finally comes?----- RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you think like that before you accept a job, you'll significantly reduce your risk of sudden unemployment due to bad companies. Primarily by avoiding industries that have been essentially set up for failure by the rules they have to operate under.

Nothing you can do can perfectly predict the future-- but you can do a better or worse job, and will be rewarded with better or worse odds accordingly.


Selfishness is my raison d'etre. And taxes and most of the rules and laws are abhorrent and belligerent.

Of course selfishness is your raison d'etre, it is for almost everyone. Difference is that you don't agree with taxes because of your selfishness, but I do because I know there needs to be something there to help those that you, I or the other guy won't or can't.
There needs, or the folks in question need?


If you haven't earned your way out, that is a fault. Life is not a default state. It has to be continually gained by productive success.

Not everyone is as capable as you or I to get above the fray, and they have to live under us.
No, they can also live on their own. The choice is theirs :).

That means they're subject to any stupid decisions we make
Technically, the government sponsored bankers make. This crisis is unequivocally a result of regulations-- the extent to which "regulations" can help any of it is solely to the extent that they cancel out other regulations.

are automatically transferred to them. That is not the fault of the employee - that is your fault.
You're all for personal responsibility, right? You should take the blame and the punishment for your decisions, not the employee.
I am taking the consequence for my decisions. He is taking the consequence of his in choosing to work under a nonviable model.
Besides, joblessness isn't a punishment, it's a default state.

But of course it doesn't work that way in the real world, and CEOs will cause the collapse of a company and the employees will lose their jobs.
If shareholders make dumb decisions in compensation structure. Such businesses are doomed to disappear, in favor of businesses which remove CEOs when the failure is theirs and do not have to pay them golden parachutes, or even simply when someone else can do a better job. Unless, of course, government continues to prop up businesses with bad models-- oh wait... that's not a very hard to imagine unless.


If life has to be continually gained by productive success, then it is wrong to let employees be shunted aside for no reason of their own.
A person is responsible for everything he involves himself with, to the extent he has involved himself.

The government can provide assistance when those people are laid off
At the expense of those who made better decisions in choosing careers.

so they don't drift away, as well as their families. By providing this assistance, the government helps the worker continue in society and eventually get another job, and once again contribute 'productive success.'
How? It encourages future unemployments, and discourages avoiding screwing up the production by choosing the wrong business in the first place.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2009 11:05:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Now, if the government actually owned any of the things it was distributing to do so, don't let me get in the way. But it doesn't. It points a gun at the people who earned those things, and then distributes them away from said earners.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 2:34:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/11/2009 11:05:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, if the government actually owned any of the things it was distributing to do so, don't let me get in the way. But it doesn't. It points a gun at the people who earned those things, and then distributes them away from said earners.

You'll more often find that gun pointed at certain non-governmental would-be expropriators, which is one of the major reasons the "earners" happily concent to the relatively milder government expropriations. If they didn't, they'd exit American property and attempt to find a new, less demanding landlord.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 3:08:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 2:34:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 5/11/2009 11:05:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, if the government actually owned any of the things it was distributing to do so, don't let me get in the way. But it doesn't. It points a gun at the people who earned those things, and then distributes them away from said earners.

You'll more often find that gun pointed at certain non-governmental would-be expropriators, which is one of the major reasons the "earners" happily concent to the relatively milder government expropriations.
No consent is asked or given.

A gun for protection from NGE's can be purchased at a far lesser price, by ACTUAL consenting payments, instead of the current non-consenting payments.

If they didn't, they'd exit American property and attempt to find a new, less demanding landlord.
"America" is not an entity. The USFG has not fulfilled the preconditions to property rights of that extent. And no such place to flee to exists. Not a single nation in the world accepts refugees from a condition that they are all guilty of creating. And nations do not tolerate uninhabited, non-nation land remaining out of their control when people seeking freedom try to live there.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 5:14:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 3:08:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/29/2009 2:34:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 5/11/2009 11:05:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, if the government actually owned any of the things it was distributing to do so, don't let me get in the way. But it doesn't. It points a gun at the people who earned those things, and then distributes them away from said earners.

You'll more often find that gun pointed at certain non-governmental would-be expropriators, which is one of the major reasons the "earners" happily concent to the relatively milder government expropriations.
No consent is asked or given.

Currently, it's tacit consent, mainly because "earners" by and large consider the formality of a written contract rather low on their list of priorities.

A gun for protection from NGE's can be purchased at a far lesser price, by ACTUAL consenting payments, instead of the current non-consenting payments.

Most "earners" don't share your penchant for danger. Those who don't appreciate the security service are free to vacate American property and hole up with as many guns as any other global landlord wishes to tolerate.

If they didn't, they'd exit American property and attempt to find a new, less demanding landlord.
"America" is not an entity. The USFG has not fulfilled the preconditions to property rights of that extent. And no such place to flee to exists. Not a single nation in the world accepts refugees from a condition that they are all guilty of creating. And nations do not tolerate uninhabited, non-nation land remaining out of their control when people seeking freedom try to live there.

"Uninhabited" would suffice. "Trying to live" in "freedom" on perfectly private property that one does not own is trespassing and illicit according to the tenets of your own religion. Unless you mean to place a limit on the proportion of total land that can be owned at any given time, you appear to give the immigrant no greater breathing room.

"Refugees" are not the only legal immigrants. Immigrants might otherwise be expected to fulfill some "arbitrary" prerequisites, but none that you wouldn't affirm are the right of any landowner to expect of would-be occupants.

As to the "preconditions to property rights", that's obviously the root of all the disagreement. Why would anyone accept your preconditions? They couldn't be less desirable if they were randomly conceived. They even violate Locke's Proviso, which--when criticizing government ownership--you're perfectly happy to appeal to.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2009 5:25:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 5:14:12 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 7/29/2009 3:08:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/29/2009 2:34:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 5/11/2009 11:05:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, if the government actually owned any of the things it was distributing to do so, don't let me get in the way. But it doesn't. It points a gun at the people who earned those things, and then distributes them away from said earners.

You'll more often find that gun pointed at certain non-governmental would-be expropriators, which is one of the major reasons the "earners" happily concent to the relatively milder government expropriations.
No consent is asked or given.

Currently, it's tacit consent, mainly because "earners" by and large consider the formality of a written contract rather low on their list of priorities.
There is no "by and large." Consent of any form cannot be generalized, it is a property granted by a single individual for himself and none other.


If they didn't, they'd exit American property and attempt to find a new, less demanding landlord.
"America" is not an entity. The USFG has not fulfilled the preconditions to property rights of that extent. And no such place to flee to exists. Not a single nation in the world accepts refugees from a condition that they are all guilty of creating. And nations do not tolerate uninhabited, non-nation land remaining out of their control when people seeking freedom try to live there.

"Uninhabited" would suffice. "Trying to live" in "freedom" on perfectly private property that one does not own is trespassing and illicit according to the tenets of your own religion. Unless you mean to place a limit on the proportion of total land that can be owned at any given time, you appear to give the immigrant no greater breathing room.
The fact of what must be done in order to own property is a limit, humans have a limited capacity to do such things. And there is plenty of non-property land available :).


As to the "preconditions to property rights", that's obviously the root of all the disagreement. Why would anyone accept your preconditions? They couldn't be less desirable if they were randomly conceived. They even violate Locke's Proviso, which--when criticizing government ownership--you're perfectly happy to appeal to.
What the hell is Locke's Proviso, and how do I appeal to something when I don't know to what it refers?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2009 9:39:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/29/2009 5:25:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/29/2009 5:14:12 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 7/29/2009 3:08:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/29/2009 2:34:46 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 5/11/2009 11:05:48 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Now, if the government actually owned any of the things it was distributing to do so, don't let me get in the way. But it doesn't. It points a gun at the people who earned those things, and then distributes them away from said earners.

You'll more often find that gun pointed at certain non-governmental would-be expropriators, which is one of the major reasons the "earners" happily concent to the relatively milder government expropriations.
No consent is asked or given.

Currently, it's tacit consent, mainly because "earners" by and large consider the formality of a written contract rather low on their list of priorities.
There is no "by and large." Consent of any form cannot be generalized, it is a property granted by a single individual for himself and none other.

Yes, that's what your Bible says, but "by and large" was only an explanation for tacitness-as-consent being the custom, not an excuse for individual nonconsent. There is no individual nonconsent. Maybe a lot of bitching, but all while consenting.

If they didn't, they'd exit American property and attempt to find a new, less demanding landlord.
"America" is not an entity. The USFG has not fulfilled the preconditions to property rights of that extent. And no such place to flee to exists. Not a single nation in the world accepts refugees from a condition that they are all guilty of creating. And nations do not tolerate uninhabited, non-nation land remaining out of their control when people seeking freedom try to live there.

"Uninhabited" would suffice. "Trying to live" in "freedom" on perfectly private property that one does not own is trespassing and illicit according to the tenets of your own religion. Unless you mean to place a limit on the proportion of total land that can be owned at any given time, you appear to give the immigrant no greater breathing room.
The fact of what must be done in order to own property is a limit, humans have a limited capacity to do such things. And there is plenty of non-property land available :).

Only thanks to governments. Without them, under your preferred rules, all valuable land would long since have been privatized. And if we were now to delete governments and switch to your rules, it wouldn't take long, your "limits" notwithstanding.

As to the "preconditions to property rights", that's obviously the root of all the disagreement. Why would anyone accept your preconditions? They couldn't be less desirable if they were randomly conceived. They even violate Locke's Proviso, which--when criticizing government ownership--you're perfectly happy to appeal to.
What the hell is Locke's Proviso, and how do I appeal to something when I don't know to what it refers?

Easy: you appeal to thing to which it refers! Locke's Proviso requires that anyone who would "create" (to use your term) land leave "enough and as good in common" (to use Locke's). "In common", of course, means only "to flee to" and live in "freedom", not collectively owned. Your 1st critique of government thus rests on the notion that governments have left nothing "in common" (i.e. violated Locke's Proviso). But of course, your private landowners are as unconstrained. Your 2nd critique, let's call it "Preconditions", is similarly exposed: neither have private landowners generally fulfilled them.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.