A while back, I took a class in political philosophy and utterly unsurprisingly, the “thinkers” - if you can even call them that - discussed, with the one exception of Robert Nozick, to whom my professor gave short shrift anyway, were all predominately leftist and statist to the core. However, one essay by Jeremy Waldron called “Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom,” did raise a rather interesting objection to private property market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, though I doubt very much it was Waldron’s intention specifically to do so.
Waldron’s argument begins with a few truisms: that we all occumpy space and that it is necessary for us to occupy space in order to do things and thus to exist in the world.
Then, in what Waldron mockingly calls the “libertarian paradise,” the homeless, owning no property of their own, and on private land no matter where they go (since everything is privately owned) actually would not be free to be at all, assuming no private property owner could countenance a homeless man on his property. Under these conditions, Waldron says, homeless people are actually not even free to exist, and hence not free at all. This, according to him, necessitiates the existence of “public” land owned by the state and funded by taxes on which the homeless could always be guaranteed the right to be present without being under threat of being thrown off.
How would anarcho-capitalists anwer this argument?
If all land was privately owned and people could literally find no one who wanted to take them in they would have to be some pretty shady mofos and probably deserve it.
This supposes that land in anarchy will be treated universally as property. I don’t believe this will be the case.
I prefer the idea of homesteading use rights rather than prperty rights. Therefore any unused land (any land without people or property on it) will be free for the homeless to use.
I rather dislike the idea that my existance is dependant on the goodwill of others. I hope any appeal to this ideal is in jest.
A person who has no property at all and engages (peacefully) in no way with other people is not actually part of society. Most polar bears are also not part of society and sometimes they starve.
Also, it doesn’t follow that a private law society would have every piece of land on earth owned.
I rather dislike the idea that my existance is dependant on the goodwill of others. I hope any appeal to this ideal is in jest.
This is just a fact of life, particularly in a capitalist economy. Your existence depends upon a plethora of externalities; people stronger than you tolerating you, the sun, oxygen, etc.
This is just a fact of life, particularly in a capitalist economy. Your existence depends upon a plethora of externalities; people stronger than you tolerating you, the sun, oxygen, etc.
Yes. Society is mob rule. You can have a sensible mob or a crazy one, a nice mob or an angry mob; but it’s always mob rule.
And if we assume the state could not countenance homeless people within its territory? After all, they don’t pay taxes or anything; it’s rational for the state to want them to disappear.
Plus, there would be no homeless in libertarian paradise. Duh!
It seems to me that all land could theoretically be private, but who is going to constantly enforce it? For instance, you can walk down to a subdivision sidewalk or a barren field and nobody is going to come at you with a rifle and say, “git off my property!” Private property is usually enforced when its necessary to exclude, but other than that, you can mostly carve out spaces to occupy. I would imagine in a large city, there will be roadsides and sidewalks like we see today and nobody is going to go through a check of everybody to see if they have been approved. Permission to “occupy space” on land like that is assumed, for business and practical reasons.
But I guess you may be talking about a private stretch of city or something with homeless people sleeping on the bench or living in a cardboard box right?
That is a socialism 101 argument. I would be more worried about being forced to work at a male brothel for equality for unattractive women in the socialist system than being homeless due to lack of “goodwill” in the market. Which is more likely to happen?
It’s also pretty inane in the sense that it assumes that on the market people are all antisocial jerks but for some reason people are all caring and giving under statism. Crackpottery.
Waldon says that in a privatized society, since homeless own no land, they would not be accepted anywhere they go. I somewhat agree with him. Anarchists are not utopians (well most of us aren’t anyway), we realize that there is not such thing as a perfect society, so would some people suffer from privatization? yes. But, that exact same thing happens in a society that has a State, right? The State make laws saying that it should be illegal for people to sleep on public benches, public parks, or even sleep in their own cars… These homeless are not being accepted in public property. To take the argument further, I would ask, “Why are people homeless in the first place?” One response: Most homeless cannot get jobs because in order to get a job anywhere in the United States, you HAVE to have I.D., an address and your social security card… Most homeless do not own or have one of these necessary requirements. Sure, one can go to the DMV and apply for a new I.D. or social security, but that is such a hassle. For example, in order to get a social security card, you have to have an address that you have been living in for a few months, an ID and you have to pay a fee. So even if the homeless applied for a new social security card, they still would fail to meet some of the requirements to obtain a SS card. In order to get an ID, you have to have an address that you have lived in for a couple months, a birth certificate, and your SS card and you have to pay a fee. Again, even if the homeless applied for a new ID, they would fail to meet the requirements. So aren’t the laws, created by the State, limiting the amount of people that can get jobs? Yes… I would say to Waldron that even in his wonderful Statist world, homeless are treated like crap. his argument about State public service over privatization in regards to the homeless is nonsense.
Then the homeless have every reason to use force to survive. If you choose to use force to keep them from standing on ‘your land’, they will just have to fight for thier right to exist.
Defence of lines on a map seems like aggression to me.
Then the homeless have every reason to use force to survive. If you choose to use force to keep them from standing on ‘your land’, they will just have to fight for thier right to exist.
And they’ll get their asses kicked because they’re bums.
Defence of lines on a map seems like aggression to me.
Then you clearly don’t understand propertarian theory. Land is property, the materials of it, not some abstract geometric concept but the actual boundry defined hunk of rock. Land is not ‘special’, people have no more ‘right’ to be on your spot of the surface of the Earth than they have a right to be on the roof of your car. If some loser isn’t accepted by anyone on the planet I don’t really care if he dies. In any case he has no ‘right’, and no one any ‘duty’ to provide him access.
Your ‘arguments’ are basically leftoidal emotional BS.
This is nonsense. Have you ever bothered to ask your teacher what`s the point of his argument? Are we supposed to give everyone free shelter? Is he aware of what that will do to the world?
Homeless people will always exist. I had this french teacher who would constantly brag how she likes to help the homeless in Canada, she would brag on how “lucky” she is to have a job and how kind was “destiny” with her.She would constantly remind us to help the homeless.
Now this strikes me as a weird thing, because I’m sure more then 50% are on welfare, getting welfare here is incredibly easy, only someone who doesn’t wait in line doesn’t qualify.
in anarchy, the cost of providing housing for the homeless would go way down. I volunteered at a homeless shelter here in New Hampshire, they ware only allowed to be open for the 100 coldest nights of the year due to a city ordinance, and they had to spend a great deal of time fundraising to have a $5,000+ sprinkler system installed to meet fire code.
Then the homeless have every reason to use force to survive. If you choose to use force to keep them from standing on ‘your land’, they will just have to fight for thier right to exist.
Sure, but obviously right or wrong, people who support a more market oriented system think that homelesness or what ever would be more or less a non issue in the fact that it will be eliminated to any significant degree. This is kind of the point on concerning oneself with the social sciences.
So ‘homeless’ means someone who does not own the abode in which they live?
I don’t own the house I live in… I pay rent. Oh God, my landlord is going to evict me because he can’t countenance my presence! It’s so obvious!
Oh no, wait… I have a contract with him. He can’t evict me as long as I abide by its terms, the most important being the payment of rent. Not only can’t he evict me, but he has a contractual duty to deal with all the general maintenance, expenses and upkeep of the house and land.
Good luck living as well as I do in your state hobo internment camp.