Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   Homeless hippies in San Francisco are forcibly redistributing "vacant" houses. You can't like "own" property, man   (sfgate.com) divider line 554
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

18934 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2010 at 4:39 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



554 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-05 07:11:01 PM  
nastro: Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

I would spend what I had to to maintain the properties while trying to sell/rent them out. Problems? Or should I just say, oh well. Let's give them to the hobos.


Or at the least, give my friends and family in the area free rent! Who doesn't like free rent!? Besides no good filthy hippies.
 
2010-04-05 07:11:28 PM  
The Icelander: GoldSpider: These people aren't called "squatters" because they tend to respect and take care of the living spaces they occupy.

Wouldn't it be better for the government to both insure against destruction and pay the owner a lower rent (or maybe just waive property taxes) AND inspect the property than to rely on the owners to defend their property against squatters?


In a word: NO. Govt insuring property involves a cost, subsidizing rent involves a cost, inspecting property involves a cost. Sounds like a real winner, there.

Has anybody noticed that the more programs there are to help the poor, the more poor there seem to be? I know it sounds callous, but are these programs supposed to keep people poor, or to help them out? Some people (extremely few) use the help and go on to be productive humans, and others (overwhelming majority) live off of the goverment perpetually
.
 
2010-04-05 07:11:38 PM  
Porthos: My ex wife was a hippie wannabe. what was I thinking? Problems that bothered me on a daily basis:
1. Juggling between pretending to be a vegetarian and eating meat because you're sickly and your doctor is forcing you to go back on meats for a bit.
2. biatching about conformity, and yet...wearing only hippie-approved attire.
3. REFUSING to listen to any music unless it's:
a. from the 60s/70s
b. music heavily influenced by the 60s/70s
c. exotic world music
d. featured in a the soundtrack to a stoner film
4. Your friends. My God, they're the most self-absorbed people I've EVER MET. They don't care about the rainforest. They care that you notice that seem to care about the rainforest.

but I digress...


When I was in college I had a friend who was dating a homeless hippie. I couldn't stand him, and he hated me.

1) I was in college for a better job, and he accused me of being a fat cat. He said the same about the friend of mine he was dating.

2) He worked at a place where he repaired bicycles for free. There wasn't even a policy of "Pay or give what you can." When I asked how he covered the cost for parts, he screamed at me for being a capitalist. I thought it was an honest question. He might have been stealing the needed parts.

3) He saw in my car a bag from Wal-Mart. I got the rants for shopping at the evil Wal-Mart, the rant about not shopping at a local store (The local stores really suck when it comes to the latest Transfomers toys), and the consumer mentality that I had (I wanted that Transformer. Yeah it's just another repaint, but damnit, I wanted THAT repaint!).

4) I couldn't stand being downwind from him, nor could I stand his self important holier than thou attitude.

5) And the shiat storm that he would produce when you told him 'no' when he asked for money/food/a bed to sleep on/anything else. Damn you for not giving him anything and damn you for working to earn the money to pay to that thing he was asking for you to give him.
 
2010-04-05 07:11:39 PM  
Salmon: I'd let homeless hippy chicks into my house


I think I know where you're going with that and I must advise extreme caution lest you catch something a laser won't take off.
 
2010-04-05 07:14:32 PM  
Zamboro: On the one hand, it's pretty morally perverse to be sitting on a load of empty houses and doing nothing with them while your former neighbors sleep in the alleys. On the other hand, this is theft, plain and simple. Seems like there should be some reduced rent setup where all vacant houses can be occupied for a very low monthly amount provided the occupants consent to periodic police inspection (to make sure they're not being used as crackhouses or brothels) and provided that they move out as soon as the owner finds someone able to pay full price.

Call me morally peverse but, I don't want those people for neighbors. The value of my property may not be increased by a vacant house, but it sure as hell will decrease when the low-rent folks move in. Forced police inspection? Are you serious? Did I wake up in 1984? While they're at it, will they report a family who has "enough kids" and recommend sterilization?

It would be nice if people were willing to share of their good fortune. But it isn't law, it isn't required and it isn't realistic.
 
2010-04-05 07:14:52 PM  
RanDomino: Even if it's not perfect, it would be far-and-away better than the way things are now.

The comforting thing about idiot moron idealists is that they will never have enough influence or power to move out of their parents basement, let alone change the world.
 
2010-04-05 07:15:43 PM  
RanDomino

I think it's incredible how people can simultaneously hold two contradictory ideas, and even express both in the same breath.


"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

F. Scott Fitzgerald

Yes, I bet you would find that to be incredible.
 
2010-04-05 07:15:52 PM  
RanDomino: plausdeny
Other than that, a solid rule: if you don't work, you don't eat.

Will the workers own their own means of production? If not, how would a situation where one person owns practically everything be avoided again?


jshine
Although there's always the occasional case of outright fraud, the vast majority of people who are in debt signed the contracts of their own free will.

contracts are bullshiat. if you have to depend on coercion to get someone to live up to their end of a bargain, you shouldn't have been working with them in the first place.

I'm interested in a world where there is no coercion, got it?


The_Sponge
So in other words, if somebody worked hard and saved up enough money for two properties, moochers and free-loaders can have a right to trespass and squat on the unused property, right? Yeesh.

It depends on why they have two properties. If they use both, fine, keep 'em. If they intend to rent out the other one for profit, that's unearned profit.


ExtremeHobo
'"It's not actually vacant. I use it for my own personal uses," Ara Tehlirian of Daly City said in an interview'

What say you?

What is that use?


doopid
So, you should only be entitled to own one house?

If you actually live in both of them, and if you got the money fairly, go for it.


muck4doo
I should be entitled to Jay Leno's cars. No way he could be driving them all, all the time.

Now you've got it!


Exactly what farking world are you from? Unerned profit for renting out a house/apartment building? WTF dude. If you are a landlord, you have to pay property taxes, keep the building in good repair and procide certain things. The landlord is earing money by providing shelter to those who cannot afford a house in exchange for money. (Unless of course your argument is that no one should be able to own more than one house and the rest should be distributed to those who cannot afford a house.)

As for your direct response to my post:

If you actually live in both of them,
Why the hell does it matter if I live in both of them or not. Again, as long as I am not violoting any laws or allowing the property to become a blight, I have every right to never step foot in that house if I do not want to. If I can afford to purchase it, it is no ones damn business what I do with it.


if you got the money fairly, go for it.
This is an interesting comment. How exactly would you define fairly and unfairly aquiring money, outside of those methods that are currently deemed illegal?

Does buying a house, making some improvemnts and selling it to someone who agrees to the value unfair? Is investing in a company (be it stock or start up money or the like) unfair? After all, I just allowed someone else to use my money so that they could make money. Hell, maybe I should have just gave it to them. Oh wait, if I GAVE THEM MY HARD EARNED farkING MONEY AND DID NOT ASK FOR IT BACK THEY WHY THE fark WOULD THEY WANT TO WORK.

Tell you what, I will build you a farking time machine and let you use it, for free even (everyone else on here has to pay me though, becuse it is to them I will be actually providing the service) back to 1950's Russia. I hear they had this "ideal" of giving everyone the same regardless of their actual contribution to society. It sounds like what you want.

Atlas shrugged indeed.


You can take my 2nd 3rd, nth farking house, car, TV, computer after you make my body swiss cheese. I put up one hell of a fight, though.
 
2010-04-05 07:16:40 PM  
Great Janitor: Porthos: My ex wife was a hippie wannabe. what was I thinking? Problems that bothered me on a daily basis:
1. Juggling between pretending to be a vegetarian and eating meat because you're sickly and your doctor is forcing you to go back on meats for a bit.
2. biatching about conformity, and yet...wearing only hippie-approved attire.
3. REFUSING to listen to any music unless it's:
a. from the 60s/70s
b. music heavily influenced by the 60s/70s
c. exotic world music
d. featured in a the soundtrack to a stoner film
4. Your friends. My God, they're the most self-absorbed people I've EVER MET. They don't care about the rainforest. They care that you notice that seem to care about the rainforest.

but I digress...

When I was in college I had a friend who was dating a homeless hippie. I couldn't stand him, and he hated me.

1) I was in college for a better job, and he accused me of being a fat cat. He said the same about the friend of mine he was dating.

2) He worked at a place where he repaired bicycles for free. There wasn't even a policy of "Pay or give what you can." When I asked how he covered the cost for parts, he screamed at me for being a capitalist. I thought it was an honest question. He might have been stealing the needed parts.

3) He saw in my car a bag from Wal-Mart. I got the rants for shopping at the evil Wal-Mart, the rant about not shopping at a local store (The local stores really suck when it comes to the latest Transfomers toys), and the consumer mentality that I had (I wanted that Transformer. Yeah it's just another repaint, but damnit, I wanted THAT repaint!).

4) I couldn't stand being downwind from him, nor could I stand his self important holier than thou attitude.

5) And the shiat storm that he would produce when you told him 'no' when he asked for money/food/a bed to sleep on/anything else. Damn you for not giving him anything and damn you for working to earn the money to pay to that thing he was asking for you to give him.


Cool Story Bro.

"A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah."
[Ronald Reagan]
 
2010-04-05 07:16:42 PM  
The Icelander: Joe Blowme: Too much, keeps them dependant

So the city should remove all support and allow the homeless to fend for themselves.

Meaning they'll be robbing convenience stores.

Smart idea, Mr. Boot McStrapperson.


Sounds like you buy into the whole welfare blackmail scheme, give me da cash or ill rob something
 
2010-04-05 07:19:25 PM  
schattenteufel: 1) Announce through the homeless community that there is a vacant property ripe for the squatting.
2) Wait for hippies to move in.
3) Bolt the doors & burn the place to the ground.
4) ???
5) Profit.


4 = have a soylent green BBQ

/what happens when we reveal ???
 
2010-04-05 07:21:23 PM  
RanDomino: That's the thing. We already have all these existing means of production. How is the situation supposed to be rectified? The current owners won't sell unless there's somehow more money in it for them!

Excellent! Then we can deal with each other on an equal basis. I have the hypothetical food, and you have the hypothetical means of producing something I want, plus a food-backed currency.

I'll trade you FB$500 (food-bucks) for 500 rounds of .308 Winchester ammunition. Have you the means to produce that?

Or I'll trade you FB$200 for a well. Or FB$50 for a solid shovel with which to dig a well. Or $10FB for the metal to make the shovel blade and FB$5 for cured wood for the handle. Or FB$1 for the iron ore and FB$0.05 for the location of a tree with a handle-sized branch.

I've got lots of things I'd like you to produce, some of which I will use to create more means of production. That's Capital, and I've got some and you've got some.

By the way, who's this "we" that has the hypothetical means of production, and why are you bugging me about my hypothetical stockpile of food? Go means-of-production yourself a cheeseburger, you don't need to involve me... unless you want some cheese. I'll sell you some cheese.

Well, maybe you don't have the means-of-production that will result in me trading you some food, and nobody else wants what you've got. I just don't want what you're selling. Tell you what: that stuff could be useful at some point. I'll trade you a bunch of food-bucks and some means-of-production that can actually earn you food for your current stock of means-of-production. When it's useful again, you can either buy it back, or I'll hire you to teach someone to use it or you can use it on a commission basis. We'll all come out ahead. I consider it an investment.
 
2010-04-05 07:22:43 PM  
Well, at least 4 of these folks were actually cited. Then released. After doing FSM knows what kind of damage to the place.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/05/BAP21CQ2SJ.DTL
 
2010-04-05 07:23:16 PM  
hailin
Title-based property ownership is how it works in this country.

It's what most people recognize, sure... but just because something is a certain way now doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.


HunterNIU
But if you don't work, resources probably won't be shared with you, and if you do work they probably will be? But if you work 10 hours a week and require 10 lbs of food you should get 10 lbs of food, and if you work 80 hours a week and require 8 lbs of food, you should get 8 lbs of food, lastly if you work 0 hours a week and require 20 lbs of food you should get none because its not fair to the people who worked 1, 10, 40 or 80 hours? But it is right for the 80 hour worker to be forced to share with everyone else so long as they worked more than zero?

No one should be forced to give up anything they've made as long as they produced it themselves, but they'll almost certainly give up anything that would spoil or go unused because the vast majority of people are decent and selfless. People will even help others if it means they don't get quite enough, because that's human nature.

The enforcement would be entirely handled by the producer. If you don't want to give up anything you've made or anything you're using, you shouldn't have to; there shouldn't be a formal enforcement agency. OTOH, since most production is done as part of a small group, it's up to that group to decide what to do with the product. A couple of people who know each other well and like each other can almost always reach an agreement.


Jim_Callahan
When everyone in the thread doesn't think that two ideas are particularly contradictory (in this case, that the law can accept different justifications of ownership in varying circumstances or consider more than one thing when making a decision), but you still insist on strict dualism regarding something that in practice hasn't been exercised according to such ever

If we want to improve things, we have to figure out how they work. How are title-based and use-based rules of property ownership not contradictory, and how is that contradiction reconciled?
 
2010-04-05 07:23:56 PM  
rufus-t-firefly: Little.Alex: dryknife: Redistributing?

Stealing is in fashion now, haven't you heard? And if you disagree; it means you're a racist.

No, disagreeing that stealing is in fashion (or that stealing is wrong, not clear on your point) is not racist.

However, assuming that it would only be people of color doing the stealing IS racist.

:ahem:


Yes; you are racist. Please violate yourself with an iron bar at your earliest convenience.

The point I was making is this: What's the difference?

People on this thread object to a bunch of hippies stealing someone's house. Fine. But why is the house special? What about all your other assets? What about your paycheck? Successful Americans pay well over 50% in taxes. Why is it terrible to have people occupy your rental property, but fine to force the owner to pay for other people's education, healthcare, retirement, housing, food.

It seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line. And the response here surprised me, because normally the Fark Crowd is very anti-property rights.
 
2010-04-05 07:25:19 PM  
plausdeny: RanDomino: That's the thing. We already have all these existing means of production. How is the situation supposed to be rectified? The current owners won't sell unless there's somehow more money in it for them!

Excellent! Then we can deal with each other on an equal basis. I have the hypothetical food, and you have the hypothetical means of producing something I want, plus a food-backed currency.

I'll trade you FB$500 (food-bucks) for 500 rounds of .308 Winchester ammunition. Have you the means to produce that?

Or I'll trade you FB$200 for a well. Or FB$50 for a solid shovel with which to dig a well. Or $10FB for the metal to make the shovel blade and FB$5 for cured wood for the handle. Or FB$1 for the iron ore and FB$0.05 for the location of a tree with a handle-sized branch.

I've got lots of things I'd like you to produce, some of which I will use to create more means of production. That's Capital, and I've got some and you've got some.

By the way, who's this "we" that has the hypothetical means of production, and why are you bugging me about my hypothetical stockpile of food? Go means-of-production yourself a cheeseburger, you don't need to involve me... unless you want some cheese. I'll sell you some cheese.

Well, maybe you don't have the means-of-production that will result in me trading you some food, and nobody else wants what you've got. I just don't want what you're selling. Tell you what: that stuff could be useful at some point. I'll trade you a bunch of food-bucks and some means-of-production that can actually earn you food for your current stock of means-of-production. When it's useful again, you can either buy it back, or I'll hire you to teach someone to use it or you can use it on a commission basis. We'll all come out ahead. I consider it an investment.


Chill out, man; I think he just wants you to give him a house.
 
2010-04-05 07:26:06 PM  
Little.Alex: rufus-t-firefly: Little.Alex: dryknife: Redistributing?

Stealing is in fashion now, haven't you heard? And if you disagree; it means you're a racist.

No, disagreeing that stealing is in fashion (or that stealing is wrong, not clear on your point) is not racist.

However, assuming that it would only be people of color doing the stealing IS racist.

:ahem:

Yes; you are racist. Please violate yourself with an iron bar at your earliest convenience.

The point I was making is this: What's the difference?

People on this thread object to a bunch of hippies stealing someone's house. Fine. But why is the house special? What about all your other assets? What about your paycheck? Successful Americans pay well over 50% in taxes. Why is it terrible to have people occupy your rental property, but fine to force the owner to pay for other people's education, health care, retirement, housing, food.

It seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line. And the response here surprised me, because normally the Fark Crowd is very anti-property rights.


don't be obtuse.
 
2010-04-05 07:26:17 PM  
You know, it just occurred to me that I read this morning that the NUMMI plant in Fremont closed down today. That's 380 ACRES ripe for homeless living. Maybe they can help save on cleanup costs.
 
2010-04-05 07:27:04 PM  
RanDomino: ExtremeHobo
Totally agree, remember when the Kuwaitis weren't making good use of their land in the 90s?

It's not whether property is being used well enough, just whether or not it's being used. If someone asks what you're doing with some place or thing, if your answer doesn't involve you personally using it for anything, then you have no case you should tell them to mind their own farking business.


remus
The Ant, in this case, should have worked harder in school and paid attention to get good grades, then worked his "industrious" arse thru college so he could get a better job instead of whining that he's the lowly paid day laborer subject to the whims of the "rich" owner.

So we should relegate huge swaths of the population to destitution? Why should anyone be in poverty if they're doing any job, if we assume that if someone is paying for it then it has to be done?

I know too many people who screwed off high school, skipped college, and now whine because they have a tough life. Boo Hoo

The Ant's mistake was to not organize with the other workers for their fair share.


Yeah, I don't see people with entitlement attitudes taking people who are defending their property down in a fight.

/Bring it.
 
2010-04-05 07:28:27 PM  
TheWoozle: But the only way that world will exist is through coercion. That's one hell of a conundrum you've got there, pal.

That's what crossed my mind... "So we'll be forced to live in a world without coersion?"

MorePeasPlease: I hope you have a good bullet puller.

Hey, I have one of those! Mine's not that cool orange color, though.
 
2010-04-05 07:30:32 PM  
I see a reasonable solution:

1. Procure several tear gas grenades, the kind used by the National Guard to disperse riots;

2. Tell the parasites they must leave the house at once because they are not welcome;

3. Let them laugh in your face, and videotape it;

4. Wait until early morning, 6 AM or so, these people always sleep late;

5. Enter the house quietly, and close all the windows, and slide dead-locks under all but one of the doors, bolting them from the outside. A 2 x 4, about 4 foot long, jammed under the doorknob, works well for this;

6. Pop the tear gas grenades, and run like hell for the last open door;

7. Bar the door from the outside, using the 4-foot 2 x 4 I described earlier;

8. Run like hell, get far away from that place, and play dumb to avoid prosecution.

Gets rid of the rats every time, and doesn't kill anyone.

\\\ Plus it's good clean nasty fun.
 
2010-04-05 07:33:28 PM  
olddinosaur: I see a reasonable solution:

1. Procure several tear gas grenades, the kind used by the National Guard to disperse riots;

2. Tell the parasites they must leave the house at once because they are not welcome;

3. Let them laugh in your face, and videotape it;

4. Wait until early morning, 6 AM or so, these people always sleep late;

5. Enter the house quietly, and close all the windows, and slide dead-locks under all but one of the doors, bolting them from the outside. A 2 x 4, about 4 foot long, jammed under the doorknob, works well for this;

6. Pop the tear gas grenades, and run like hell for the last open door;

7. Bar the door from the outside, using the 4-foot 2 x 4 I described earlier;

8. Run like hell, get far away from that place, and play dumb to avoid prosecution.

Gets rid of the rats every time, and doesn't kill anyone.

\\\ Plus it's good clean nasty fun.


nice.
 
2010-04-05 07:34:24 PM  
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

So you'd actually give it to them for free? God you're a cold hearted monster if I've ever seen one.

The food essentially makes you very rich and powerful. Not considering the consequences is no different from any other abuse of power. Ignorance is not an excuse. The only sane moral solution is one that will in the medium and long term ensure propensity for the city. Keep in mind that the food essentially makes you king and that means your decisions are very difficult indeed. People may not die in the short term but the world is not a utopia and you're no longer in a position that allows such thinking. Millions could and will die horribly if you think that way. Among other things it's quite clear from the scenario that there is no properly working government in the area and the infrastructure is an utter mess.

Free food would destroy the local agriculture marketplace by dropping the price below what it costs to make food by traditional means. As a result farmers and other food producers will have no choice but to go out of business. At best in a decade you'll have years of famine worse than anything that'd have happened if you didn't give your food away (as the food infrastructure would be in much worse shape than it was ten years before).

Equally likely warlords will manage to acquire the food, have fun coming up with a scheme they can't beat, and then use it to cement their hold on power. Then you'll get genocides now in addition to famine later.

I'd try to sell food at some rate that would allow farmers to make a decent profit while also financing public works projects with the money I gain (like say, investing in farms). Some sort of militia would also be needed and financed by the same means. The exact details of it all would require very careful research. The end goal being to create a self-sustaining democratic-ish system with power/wealth spread across many competing factions while keeping self-centered wanna-be kings at bay. As a note, giving away all my money would just create a very nasty power vacuum so the air must be let out slowly from the regime.
 
2010-04-05 07:36:25 PM  
Aero28: Yeah, I don't see people with entitlement attitudes taking people who are defending their property down in a fight.

Oh, I don't know... Some people get awfully angry when they learn for the first time that they might have to get off their asses and work for their food and shelter. Learning that you're entitled to very little in this life is a harsh reality and some people would probably risk life and limb to avoid having to understand that.
 
2010-04-05 07:36:51 PM  
Little.Alex: rufus-t-firefly: Little.Alex: dryknife: Redistributing?

Stealing is in fashion now, haven't you heard? And if you disagree; it means you're a racist.

No, disagreeing that stealing is in fashion (or that stealing is wrong, not clear on your point) is not racist.

However, assuming that it would only be people of color doing the stealing IS racist.

:ahem:

Yes; you are racist. Please violate yourself with an iron bar at your earliest convenience.

The point I was making is this: What's the difference?

People on this thread object to a bunch of hippies stealing someone's house. Fine. But why is the house special? What about all your other assets? What about your paycheck? Successful Americans pay well over 50% in taxes. Why is it terrible to have people occupy your rental property, but fine to force the owner to pay for other people's education, healthcare, retirement, housing, food.

It seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line. And the response here surprised me, because normally the Fark Crowd is very anti-property rights.


Because its the government doing the stealing and they have tanks.
Cant take out a tank w/ my .45 but i can take out a squatter.
 
2010-04-05 07:41:06 PM  
poot_rootbeer: Jim_Callahan: The article is talking about people who lost their homes because of the housing speculation bubble.

The 80-year-old man whose story is described in the article is an idiot who rented an apartment for his entire adult life and didn't have a contingency plan for when his landlord got tired of dealing with him as a tenant.

If other trespassers were homeowners who invested badly, it's not indicated in this article.


if the renter had any spine,surely he would have bought his own by now. 40 years of renting? thats nuts all by itself. for what he paid in rent and likely much less then he paid in rent,he could have owned a place by now and let all his free loading friends stay with him.
 
2010-04-05 07:47:09 PM  
The_Sponge: Salmon: I'd let homeless hippy chicks into my house


Hippy chicks have crabs.


i love crabs,a little melted butter and WHAM, you got a meal.
 
2010-04-05 07:50:01 PM  
2wolves: On a millennial scale, you're only renting.

And in reality, everybody's renting.

If you think you own your home, try not paying taxes for a year, then you'll find out who really owns it.

I pay about $500/month to the government to "own" my average-sized home.
 
2010-04-05 07:50:15 PM  
RanDomino: No one should be forced to give up anything they've made as long as they produced it themselves, but they'll almost certainly give up anything that would spoil or go unused because the vast majority of people are decent and selfless. People will even help others if it means they don't get quite enough, because that's human nature.

If people are so decent and selfless than why does this thread even exist? Why aren't all those decent and selfless people letting the homeless stay with them? It's a small sacrifice and most homeowners (which most Americans are) can probably spare at least one bedroom.

RanDomino: The enforcement would be entirely handled by the producer. If you don't want to give up anything you've made or anything you're using, you shouldn't have to; there shouldn't be a formal enforcement agency. OTOH, since most production is done as part of a small group, it's up to that group to decide what to do with the product. A couple of people who know each other well and like each other can almost always reach an agreement.

So you've now got bartering? Soon they'll decide to somehow keep track of agreements. Maybe they'll use something that's rare and compact like gold to do so. Next thing you know you'll have money lenders, investors and capitalism.
 
2010-04-05 07:50:19 PM  
Great Janitor
5) And the shiat storm that he would produce when you told him 'no' when he asked for money/food/a bed to sleep on/anything else. Damn you for not giving him anything and damn you for working to earn the money to pay to that thing he was asking for you to give him.

He's doing it wrong.


FarkinHostile
Yes, I bet you would find that to be incredible.

okay, let me rephrase: How can someone function according to two contradictory ideas?


doopid
Does buying a house, making some improvemnts and selling it to someone who agrees to the value unfair?

No, and if things usually worked that way there wouldn't be a problem.

Oh wait, if I GAVE THEM MY HARD EARNED farkING MONEY AND DID NOT ASK FOR IT BACK THEY WHY THE fark WOULD THEY WANT TO WORK.

People work to provide. I like to feel productive, I like to feel like I'm contributing. I just don't like to feel like I'm being forced to.

Tell you what, I will build you a farking time machine and let you use it, for free even (everyone else on here has to pay me though, becuse it is to them I will be actually providing the service) back to 1950's Russia. I hear they had this "ideal" of giving everyone the same regardless of their actual contribution to society. It sounds like what you want.

They had an authoritarian dictatorship with a command economy. There was nothing Anarchistic about it. Why don't you look into Lenin's purges of Anarchists, for example?

You can take my 2nd 3rd, nth farking house, car, TV, computer

No one's going to take anything you don't want to give up.

I mean, really- the vast majority of unused property isn't owned by individuals, but by property holding companies and banks. Does anyone really have any sympathy for them? Does anyone get the same gut reaction to a bank losing a house as they do to a person losing something?

If anything, the mistake of the people in TFA was in not taking a house that was owned by a bank. People can have sympathy for individuals, but never for faceless, soulless banks. They would have won the PR fight instantly if they had done it right.


plausdeny
By the way, who's this "we" that has the hypothetical means of production

I was referring to humanity as a whole.

trade, trade, sell, trading, selling, trade, buy, hire, commission

Capitalism in any form leads to financialization, speculation, exploitation, and, theoretically, collapse. We don't want to play that game any more. If you want something I've got, ask for it, and I'll either give it or not. If I want something you've got, either give it for free or don't give it at all. If you think of me as just a source of profit, I don't want to have anything to do with you. I want my society to be populated by my friends, not heartless business partners. We'll give freely to each other, and you can join or piss off.


Aero28
Yeah, I don't see people with entitlement attitudes taking people who are defending their property down in a fight.

Historically, free people have usually been defeated by overwhelming numbers of slaves, yes. But to not keep trying is to accept defeat.
 
2010-04-05 07:50:46 PM  
Kim-Chi_and_Blaze: Lets just put it this way, say you were sitting on a stockpile of food. And lets say it was enough to feed a city for ten years, also that even if the hungry masses got pissed off enough to try to take it they couldn't. Now this is more food then you will ever need and people are going to go without if you don't share. Do you keep it all to yourself and let people starve because "it's yours"?

Let's NOT put it that way. That way is stupid.

That is all.
 
2010-04-05 07:51:58 PM  
Korben_Dallas: birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

I'm not shedding any tears because you live in the basement...


He lives in his MOM'S basement.

FTFY
 
2010-04-05 07:55:59 PM  
Hippies are so FUN!
 
2010-04-05 07:57:25 PM  
porterm: if the renter had any spine,surely he would have bought his own by now. 40 years of renting? thats nuts all by itself. for what he paid in rent and likely much less then he paid in rent,he could have owned a place by now and let all his free loading friends stay with him.

Why is there an expectation that everyone wants to own or should own a house? The property taxes on a condo in my neighborhood are about the same as my rent, and I don't need the extra space that I'd need to buy with it. I like being able to tell my landlord there's a problem, and come home the next day to it repaired for no extra cost. I hate taking care of a lawn as well, and that's also built into my rent.

Why would I want to spend more or live somewhere I don't want to just for the sake of owning instead of renting?
 
2010-04-05 07:57:47 PM  
Rakishi
If people are so decent and selfless than why does this thread even exist?

Because the sociopaths who are sane enough to function (aka "capitalists") have successfully taken control by keeping people in line with fear and propaganda. Police and politicians enforce the status quo and give people the illusion of democracy.

Why aren't all those decent and selfless people letting the homeless stay with them? It's a small sacrifice and most homeowners (which most Americans are) can probably spare at least one bedroom.

Why should we have to when there's so much unused, vacant housing?

So you've now got bartering? Soon they'll decide to somehow keep track of agreements. Maybe they'll use something that's rare and compact like gold to do so. Next thing you know you'll have money lenders, investors and capitalism.

That entire discussion is part of Anarcho-Syndicalism, which you can read about for yourself, because I'm going to check out of this thread pretty soon.
 
2010-04-05 08:01:11 PM  
olddinosaur: I see a reasonable solution:

1. Procure several tear gas grenades, the kind used by the National Guard to disperse riots;

2. Tell the parasites they must leave the house at once because they are not welcome;

3. Let them laugh in your face, and videotape it;

4. Wait until early morning, 6 AM or so, these people always sleep late;

5. Enter the house quietly, and close all the windows, and slide dead-locks under all but one of the doors, bolting them from the outside. A 2 x 4, about 4 foot long, jammed under the doorknob, works well for this;

6. Pop the tear gas grenades, and run like hell for the last open door;

7. Bar the door from the outside, using the 4-foot 2 x 4 I described earlier;

8. Run like hell, get far away from that place, and play dumb to avoid prosecution.

Gets rid of the rats every time, and doesn't kill anyone.

\\\ Plus it's good clean nasty fun.


Kind of did that in Philly in 1985 but they just dropped da bomb on them. Wiki MOVE Organization.

Old bad joke from the time "What's the difference between Wilson Goode (mayor of Philly) and Coppertone?"

Coppertone blocks out the burn and Goode burns down the block.

Ba dum dum
 
2010-04-05 08:05:31 PM  
This is the largest gathering of ITGs on the Internet.
 
2010-04-05 08:06:34 PM  
Shemp Mo-Din: The comforting thing about idiot moron idealists is that they will never have enough influence or power to move out of their parents basement, let alone change the world.

Did you just happen to arrive here on planet Earth? Idealists have farked over the world constantly throughout history. We just suffered on of the worst economic disasters in modern history primarily because of "free market" ideologues. Motivated idealists destroyed the Russian monarchy and took over one of the largest land empires ever and caused a 50 year cold war.

Of course some idealists do good things, like found a nation based on the rule of law.
 
2010-04-05 08:08:07 PM  
Nice job, SFPD. You should have sent Inspector Harry Callahan to handle the hippies:

www.fsdip.com

What's the point of having police at all, if they aren't going to enforce the laws? I hope the owner sues the city for millions.
 
2010-04-05 08:08:23 PM  
birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

This is a troll, right? Just because someone can afford two homes, they should have to worry about someone just walking in and taking one of them?

You need to be kicked out of America.

\seriously
 
2010-04-05 08:08:36 PM  
RanDomino: Rakishi
If people are so decent and selfless than why does this thread even exist?

Because the sociopaths who are sane enough to function (aka "capitalists") have successfully taken control by keeping people in line with fear and propaganda. Police and politicians enforce the status quo and give people the illusion of democracy.

Why aren't all those decent and selfless people letting the homeless stay with them? It's a small sacrifice and most homeowners (which most Americans are) can probably spare at least one bedroom.

Why should we have to when there's so much unused, vacant housing?

So you've now got bartering? Soon they'll decide to somehow keep track of agreements. Maybe they'll use something that's rare and compact like gold to do so. Next thing you know you'll have money lenders, investors and capitalism.

That entire discussion is part of Anarcho-Syndicalism, which you can read about for yourself, because I'm going to check out of this thread pretty soon.


Wow, you've reeled us all in.

"We just got back from our first semester at college..." (new window)
 
2010-04-05 08:09:51 PM  
el wharrrgarblo: birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

This is a troll, right? Just because someone can afford two homes, they should have to worry about someone just walking in and taking one of them?

You need to be kicked out of America.

\seriously


LesserEvil: Nice job, SFPD. You should have sent Inspector Harry Callahan to handle the hippies:



What's the point of having police at all, if they aren't going to enforce the laws? I hope the owner sues the city for millions.



Largest. Gathering. Of. Internet. Tough. Guys. Ever.
 
2010-04-05 08:10:06 PM  
RanDomino

Why does it matter is the bank or some Joe owns the property. You do not own it. The homeless do not own it, the farking bank owns it. It is not yours, it is the banks.

It is the banks because the previous owners could not pay the mortgage on it. Except in case of outright fraud, it is no ones problem that they could not afford their house but their own. I have no sympathy for you taking out a loan that you could not afford. (I do have sympathy for those that lost their jobs and could not longer make payments.)

When I bought my first house, we were approved for almost 3x what we actualy bought. I bought a house I knew I could afford. And you know what, 3 years later, I was out of work for 5 months because my company went belly up. Yep it sucked, but I was able to keep making payments.

While you proclaim to be an anarchist, you are much much closer to true socialism. Neither one works. Anarchy works less than socialism because after short period of time, some war lord will rise up and take control. True socialism does not work either.

I do not have a problem giving these bums (those who are homeless and do not have any mental issue or the like) a LIMITED term housing and providing them with job training. Help them find a job: GREAT. Give them a basic set of clothes (a few shirts, a few pairs of pants, socks, underwear and a pair of shoes): Great. Even having a program that provides up (example) 1 year of subsidized housing, based on their income: Fine. However, the bum has to make an effort, has to work, has to make some, even if meager, contribution to society. If they are willing to do that, I am all for giving them the help, assistance and training they need to do. However, if they will not put forth any effort, fark em. They can rot or freeze for all I care.

I very much belive that if you give a man a fish he will come back tomorrow asking for more fish, but if you teach him to fish you will never have to give him a damn thing again.

I am a firm beliver in the
 
2010-04-05 08:10:37 PM  
inkblot: el wharrrgarblo: birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

This is a troll, right? Just because someone can afford two homes, they should have to worry about someone just walking in and taking one of them?

You need to be kicked out of America.

\seriously

LesserEvil: Nice job, SFPD. You should have sent Inspector Harry Callahan to handle the hippies:



What's the point of having police at all, if they aren't going to enforce the laws? I hope the owner sues the city for millions.


Largest. Gathering. Of. Internet. Tough. Guys. Ever.


i think you should post this a third time for anyone who didn't get to see it first.
 
2010-04-05 08:11:12 PM  
inkblot
This is the largest gathering of ITGs on the Internet.

I wish I could figure out why people get so angry when you talk about the nature of property rights; but then again, this is the Internet, bastion of middle-class white men, by and large the beneficiaries of the current system.
 
2010-04-05 08:12:24 PM  
RanDomino: inkblot
This is the largest gathering of ITGs on the Internet.

I wish I could figure out why people get so angry when you talk about the nature of property rights; but then again, this is the Internet, bastion of middle-class white men, by and large the beneficiaries of the current system.


No one could be this goddamn naive. Then again, I would sooner rent than own a house. As was mentioned above: not having to perform maintenance and upkeep.
 
2010-04-05 08:13:39 PM  
pxlboy: inkblot: el wharrrgarblo: birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

This is a troll, right? Just because someone can afford two homes, they should have to worry about someone just walking in and taking one of them?

You need to be kicked out of America.

\seriously

LesserEvil: Nice job, SFPD. You should have sent Inspector Harry Callahan to handle the hippies:



What's the point of having police at all, if they aren't going to enforce the laws? I hope the owner sues the city for millions.


Largest. Gathering. Of. Internet. Tough. Guys. Ever.

i think you should post this a third time for anyone who didn't get to see it Boobiesed it twice because the two posts I quoted proved my farking point.

I don't even get it. Isn't Fark normally about 90% libtard?
 
2010-04-05 08:13:53 PM  
Little.Alex:
People on this thread object to a bunch of hippies stealing someone's house. Fine. But why is the house special? What about all your other assets? What about your paycheck? Successful Americans pay well over 50% in taxes. Why is it terrible to have people occupy your rental property, but fine to force the owner to pay for other people's education, healthcare, retirement, housing, food.


Considering that the TOP tax bracket is 35%, I'm having trouble believing your numbers.
 
2010-04-05 08:16:42 PM  
doopid
Why does it matter is the bank or some Joe owns the property. You do not own it. The homeless do not own it, the farking bank owns it. It is not yours, it is the banks.

Only if you accept title-based property ownership.

Anarchy works less than socialism because after short period of time, some war lord will rise up and take control.

People always say that, but they never seem to have a reason. Like it apparently just goes without saying. It's probably because so few people actually understand what Anarchism is and what it really stands for, believing instead the media's narrative that it's just chaos and everyone doing whatever they want with no structure, which couldn't be further from the truth. Warlords arise in vacuums, but Anarchy (as opposed to "anarchy") isn't a vacuum.

I do not have a problem giving these bums...However, if they will not put forth any effort, fark em. They can rot or freeze for all I care.

That's exactly what I've been saying! The question is who determines how much to give, if anything? I say, it's up to the giver and no one else. If you want to help someone, give them as much or as little as you want. Just don't enforce nonsensical, authoritarian property rules that disenfranchise people and force them into exploitative relationships.
 
2010-04-05 08:19:00 PM  
inkblot: pxlboy: inkblot: el wharrrgarblo: birdboy2000: If you want to keep the property, live in it. I won't shed any tears for anyone who can afford two houses.

This is a troll, right? Just because someone can afford two homes, they should have to worry about someone just walking in and taking one of them?

You need to be kicked out of America.

\seriously

LesserEvil: Nice job, SFPD. You should have sent Inspector Harry Callahan to handle the hippies:



What's the point of having police at all, if they aren't going to enforce the laws? I hope the owner sues the city for millions.


Largest. Gathering. Of. Internet. Tough. Guys. Ever.

i think you should post this a third time for anyone who didn't get to see it Boobiesed it twice because the two posts I quoted proved my farking point.

I don't even get it. Isn't Fark normally about 90% libtard?


anyone using this word is not to be taken seriously. just the same as using "rethuglicans", "republiKKK*nts*, etc
 
Displayed 50 of 554 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report