Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Torrocca]

Then enact government programs to assist the homeless in relocating (if they so wish) to these new, free homes.

And besides that, there's plenty of structures that could be converted into housing units that aren't being used in places where homelessness is more rampant.

As I said, these empty homes are mostly in regions people moved away from, and for good reasons, as they have huge unemployment problems, lack infrastructure and/or important services nearby and often therefore aren't very desirable. You will not find many people willing to move to them.

I'm certain homeless people would prefer a stable, tax-free roof over their heads, even if there's a lack of jobs, over no home.

In the Bay Area, where homelessness and housing shortage is among the worst, which structures could be converted? Why not just loosen the laws regarding zoning etc. so more housing could be built by the private sector? Your ideas would seem to increase the size of the government rather than reduce it, and for no good reason.

According to this, there's over 30k vacant homes alone in the Bay Area. Assuming those were turned into homes for four people each, you could easily curb the homelessness issue in that area.

[Benuty]

As I said, these empty homes are mostly in regions people moved away from, and for good reasons, as they have huge unemployment problems, lack infrastructure and/or important services nearby and often therefore aren't very desirable. You will not find many people willing to move to them.

I'm certain homeless people would prefer a stable, tax-free roof over their heads, even if there's a lack of jobs, over no home.

In the Bay Area, where homelessness and housing shortage is among the worst, which structures could be converted? Why not just loosen the laws regarding zoning etc. so more housing could be built by the private sector? Your ideas would seem to increase the size of the government rather than reduce it, and for no good reason.

According to this, there's over 30k vacant homes alone in the Bay Area. Assuming those were turned into homes for four people each, you could easily curb the homelessness issue in that area.

Why anyone would want to live in San Fran is beyond me especially considering they post maps of where to avoid human feces and other waste...

[Pilarcraft]

I'm certain homeless people would prefer a stable, tax-free roof over their heads, even if there's a lack of jobs, over no home.



According to this, there's over 30k vacant homes alone in the Bay Area. Assuming those were turned into homes for four people each, you could easily curb the homelessness issue in that area.

Why anyone would want to live in San Fran is beyond me especially considering they post maps of where to avoid human feces and other waste...

Because the alternative would be No home at all. When you don't have a roof on your head, even smelly San Fran would be a prize.

[Benuty]

Why anyone would want to live in San Fran is beyond me especially considering they post maps of where to avoid human feces and other waste...

Because the alternative would be No home at all. When you don't have a roof on your head, even smelly San Fran would be a prize.

A better alternative would not be to live in San Francisco at all or firebomb "Babylon", and rebuild it. You know if the Soviets call the place a whorehouse it must be pretty bad.

[Pilarcraft]

Because the alternative would be No home at all. When you don't have a roof on your head, even smelly San Fran would be a prize.

A better alternative would not be to live in San Francisco at all or firebomb "Babylon", and rebuild it. You know if the Soviets call the place a whorehouse it must be pretty bad.

Yeah. But if they had the kind of budget to leave San Fran and have a home somewhere else... don't you think they would have already?

[Benuty]

A better alternative would not be to live in San Francisco at all or firebomb "Babylon", and rebuild it. You know if the Soviets call the place a whorehouse it must be pretty bad.

Yeah. But if they had the kind of budget to leave San Fran and have a home somewhere else... don't you think they would have already?

Oh please, I am not interested with anyone leaving Babylon voluntarily, but being escorted out to somewhere saner to live. What kind of an authoritarian would I be if I didn't use coercion to create entirely new cities, and avoid potential new spies in the great game?

[Pilarcraft]

Yeah. But if they had the kind of budget to leave San Fran and have a home somewhere else... don't you think they would have already?

Oh please, I am not interested with anyone leaving Babylon voluntarily, but being escorted out to somewhere saner to live. What kind of an authoritarian would I be if I didn't use coercion to create entirely new cities, and avoid potential new spies in the great game?

So your solution is to... give them homes somewhere else and ship them off there? Because if you're not giving them homes, then the only possible action that won't eff up the new colonies would be just killing them.

[Elwher]

Oh please, I am not interested with anyone leaving Babylon voluntarily, but being escorted out to somewhere saner to live. What kind of an authoritarian would I be if I didn't use coercion to create entirely new cities, and avoid potential new spies in the great game?

So your solution is to... give them homes somewhere else and ship them off there? Because if you're not giving them homes, then the only possible action that won't eff up the new colonies would be just killing them.

It worked for Australia and the British.

[Elwher]

New York State may actually get a Libertarian who can at least beat the GOP. I doubt he can take the state thanks to New York City, but it will at least look decent.

https://www.facebook.com/Sharpe4Gov/videos/1985334211796271/

[Zurkerx]

New York State may actually get a Libertarian who can at least beat the GOP. I doubt he can take the state thanks to New York City, but it will at least look decent.

https://www.facebook.com/Sharpe4Gov/videos/1985334211796271/

Isn't Larry Sharpe, for the most part, financing his campaign? And that would be amazing if that happens.

[Great Minarchistan]

And who will build those free homes?

Who needs to build free homes when the unoccupied homes in America alone outnumber the homeless three to one? :^)

>Let people occupy housing that wasn't built by them for free, ignore the tens/hundreds of thousands spent on fixed capital

[Torrocca]

Who needs to build free homes when the unoccupied homes in America alone outnumber the homeless three to one? :^)

>Let people occupy housing that wasn't built by them for free, ignore the tens/hundreds of thousands spent on fixed capital

Yes, actually. Stable housing allows more people to become productive wage slaves, after all. :^)

[Pilarcraft]

Who needs to build free homes when the unoccupied homes in America alone outnumber the homeless three to one? :^)

>Let people occupy housing that wasn't built by them for free, ignore the tens/hundreds of thousands spent on fixed capital

I don't think there's really a debate on the economic question of "do people work better if they're not homeless". That was answered along with "do people work better if they are insured for possible injuries" and "do people work better if they aren't depressed". (The answer to all three is Yes, btw)

[Great Minarchistan]

>Let people occupy housing that wasn't built by them for free, ignore the tens/hundreds of thousands spent on fixed capital

Yes, actually. Stable housing allows more people to become productive wage slaves, after all. :^)

What if the homeless sell their houses and then beg for more housing?

[Torrocca]

Yes, actually. Stable housing allows more people to become productive wage slaves, after all. :^)

What if the homeless sell their houses and then beg for more housing?

Then that's just capitalism. :^)

[Pilarcraft]

Yes, actually. Stable housing allows more people to become productive wage slaves, after all. :^)

What if the homeless sell their houses and then beg for more housing?

If the State can force people to give up property to the Homeless, it definitely can force the poor not to scam it that obviously.

[Great Minarchistan]

>Let people occupy housing that wasn't built by them for free, ignore the tens/hundreds of thousands spent on fixed capital

I don't think there's really a debate on the economic question of "do people work better if they're not homeless". That was answered along with "do people work better if they are insured for possible injuries" and "do people work better if they aren't depressed". (The answer to all three is Yes, btw)

Say one of those vacant houses in San Fran, studio apartment rents are pricing at 2500$ or so a month. Renting is usually 0.5-0.8% of the total price, at least here. So we are talking about one studio apartment worth $390000. Add in depreciation over time (thank accounting classes for reminding me of it) which can be quoted at 25 years and a residual selling price of... $150k? and you have an annual depreciation burden of $9600 a year. In other words, for a homeless person to compensate the stolen capital and generate revenue for the society, they need to bring up an extra $22600 in added productivity every year over a whole three decades (390000/30+9600), and will solely start generating net revenue to the society after the 30th year. I don't need to conclude that this is unrealistic, right?

[Torrocca]

I don't think there's really a debate on the economic question of "do people work better if they're not homeless". That was answered along with "do people work better if they are insured for possible injuries" and "do people work better if they aren't depressed". (The answer to all three is Yes, btw)

Say one of those vacant houses in San Fran, studio apartment rents are pricing at 2500$ or so a month. Renting is usually 0.5-0.8% of the total price, at least here. So we are talking about one studio apartment worth $390000. Add in depreciation over time (thank accounting classes for reminding me of it) which can be quoted at 25 years and a residual selling price of... $150k? and you have an annual depreciation burden of $9600 a year. In other words, for a homeless person to compensate the stolen capital and generate revenue for the society, they need to bring up an extra $22600 in added productivity every year over a whole three decades (390000/30+9600), and will solely start generating net revenue to the society after the 30th year. I don't need to conclude that this is unrealistic, right?

How's about, better yet, we label housing as an unalienable right (same with food and water and clothing) and just remove housing entirely from the free market? :^)

[Pilarcraft]

Say one of those vacant houses in San Fran, studio apartment rents are pricing at 2500$ or so a month. Renting is usually 0.5-0.8% of the total price, at least here. So we are talking about one studio apartment worth $390000. Add in depreciation over time (thank accounting classes for reminding me of it) which can be quoted at 25 years and a residual selling price of... $150k? and you have an annual depreciation burden of $9600 a year. In other words, for a homeless person to compensate the stolen capital and generate revenue for the society, they need to bring up an extra $22600 in added productivity every year over a whole three decades (390000/30+9600), and will solely start generating net revenue to the society after the 30th year. I don't need to conclude that this is unrealistic, right?

How's about, better yet, we label housing as an unalienable right (same with food and water and clothing) and just remove housing entirely from the free market? :^)

Someone still needs to pay for it tho. It'll just mean higher taxes for everyone.

[Great Minarchistan]

Say one of those vacant houses in San Fran, studio apartment rents are pricing at 2500$ or so a month. Renting is usually 0.5-0.8% of the total price, at least here. So we are talking about one studio apartment worth $390000. Add in depreciation over time (thank accounting classes for reminding me of it) which can be quoted at 25 years and a residual selling price of... $150k? and you have an annual depreciation burden of $9600 a year. In other words, for a homeless person to compensate the stolen capital and generate revenue for the society, they need to bring up an extra $22600 in added productivity every year over a whole three decades (390000/30+9600), and will solely start generating net revenue to the society after the 30th year. I don't need to conclude that this is unrealistic, right?

How's about, better yet, we label housing as an unalienable right (same with food and water and clothing) and just remove housing entirely from the free market? :^)

This doesn't replace the lost capital magically doe, you'll have to attain those $22600 yearly implicitly or explicitly

[Torrocca]

How's about, better yet, we label housing as an unalienable right (same with food and water and clothing) and just remove housing entirely from the free market? :^)

Someone still needs to pay for it tho. It'll just mean higher taxes for everyone.

Better than widespread homelessness ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Great Minarchistan]

Someone still needs to pay for it tho. It'll just mean higher taxes for everyone.

Better than widespread homelessness ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you don't care about a likely chronic net loss of some $450 million a year (implying an added productivity of $7000 a year and I frankly don't even think that they can get to it) for SF only then idk

[Torrocca]

Better than widespread homelessness ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you don't care about a likely chronic net loss of some $450 million a year (implying an added productivity of $7000 a year and I frankly don't even think that they can get to it) for SF only then idk

economics are an imaginary thing anyway, we could get rid of them and be perfectly fine :^)

[Great Minarchistan]

If you don't care about a likely chronic net loss of some $450 million a year (implying an added productivity of $7000 a year and I frankly don't even think that they can get to it) for SF only then idk

economics are an imaginary thing anyway, we could get rid of them and be perfectly fine :^)

why do you keep ruining my serious posting

[Torrocca]

economics are an imaginary thing anyway, we could get rid of them and be perfectly fine :^)

why do you keep ruining my serious posting

because economics aren't actually real, they're just a condition created by humanity to fuck everything up about the world :^)))