The Libertarian Solution To End Homelessness

[Sanguine]

No, of course not, why would it be? Being free to go where you want and never have to sleep in the same place every night is freedom. If a person wants a home but has no money to get one, the easiest solution is to commit a crime, he'll get given a free prison cell to sleep in and meals paid for too. This is the society we live in, if you're a law abiding citizen and can't feed yourself, tough luck, but if you're a criminal, we'll feed & house you.

Looks like somebody didn't look at OP.

This video is a fascinating example of communalism. Though, i don't think you guys are understanding the point of this. They aren't really happy with the tents, rather they are demanding affordable housing. Pardon me, but it seems more like something you guys would be against them rather than supportive of them.

[osan]

solution? Who said it was a problem in the first place?

Homelessness is not a problem?

I would approach this a bit differently.

Homelessness can be a problem. Or not.

That it is regarded as a one-size-fits-all deal is indicative of ignorance, a covert agenda, or both.

Regarding homelessness as a condition to be eliminated, IMO, it is a very foolish way of looking at the situation. Helping individuals who are having problems and doing so on a case-by-case basis makes sense to me. Going on a crusade to wipe the earth clean of "homelessness" is just another idiotic utopian vision with less than zero prospects for success. For one thing, not all people who are homeless want a "home" in the conventional sense. I have even been acquainted with a few such people who at the time lived on the streets of Manhattan. Some had been successful business people. One had been a doctor. They all walked away from it for varying reasons, all of which seemed to hold some similarities. They did not want to live in a house or apartment. They did not want the stresses and responsibilities. What would the do-gooders do; force these people into housing?

I'm not a fan of crusades in general. We have seen the results. Crusades against evil muslims. Crusades against evil Cathars. Crusades against alcohol; (some) drugs; sex; guns; free speech; inequality; poverty... all have lead to NOTHING more than death and misery. Not a single good thing can be said to have come of any of it. The crusade to end homelessness will produce the same lacking results.

You cannot save a world that does not want salvation.

[helmuth_hubener]

I would approach this a bit differently.

Homelessness can be a problem. Or not.

That it is regarded as a one-size-fits-all deal is indicative of ignorance, a covert agenda, or both.

Regarding homelessness as a condition to be eliminated, IMO, it is a very foolish way of looking at the situation. Helping individuals who are having problems and doing so on a case-by-case basis makes sense to me. Going on a crusade to wipe the earth clean of "homelessness" is just another idiotic utopian vision with less than zero prospects for success. For one thing, not all people who are homeless want a "home" in the conventional sense. I have even been acquainted with a few such people who at the time lived on the streets of Manhattan. Some had been successful business people. One had been a doctor. They all walked away from it for varying reasons, all of which seemed to hold some similarities. They did not want to live in a house or apartment. They did not want the stresses and responsibilities. What would the do-gooders do; force these people into housing?

I'm not a fan of crusades in general. We have seen the results. Crusades against evil muslims. Crusades against evil Cathars. Crusades against alcohol; (some) drugs; sex; guns; free speech; inequality; poverty... all have lead to NOTHING more than death and misery. Not a single good thing can be said to have come of any of it. The crusade to end homelessness will produce the same lacking results.

You cannot save a world that does not want salvation.

Osan, this is one of the most excellent and cogent posts you've ever written. Bravo, my good man! Bravo.

[kcchiefs6465]

No, of course not, why would it be? Being free to go where you want and never have to sleep in the same place every night is freedom. If a person wants a home but has no money to get one, the easiest solution is to commit a crime, he'll get given a free prison cell to sleep in and meals paid for too. This is the society we live in, if you're a law abiding citizen and can't feed yourself, tough luck, but if you're a criminal, we'll feed & house you.

I really do not even know where to begin.

First and foremost, a homeless person isn't free to go where they want. Did you even read the OP and the struggles Tent City in Lakewood, NJ is going through? If they're so damn free, why are the police there arresting those who refuse to leave? Is it so that the police, and the public at large, view them as not part of the public? (Considering public land is just that, public land, where are these authoritarians coming from?) Surely not the woods of Lakewood. This of course overlooks your obvious simplifications and ignorance of that which you speak about. In that regard, I'd urge you to come the realization of the definition of terms. Homeless does not equal house-less. For instance, the OP is trying to build himself a home. Whether or not he has a house is irrelevant. You've never been homeless, nor house-less, perhaps, so I do excuse your lack of understanding on the matter. Simply sleeping somewhere does not make it your home.

As to committing a crime to receive a "free" prison cell, you are speaking again of that which you do not know. Many would freeze to death, and do, before developing a want of prison. Many prisoners become institutionalized and when released, wish nothing more than to go back. It is the rare phenomenon of "breaking" a human (much the way dogs are). They feel uncomfortable in their outside surroundings, are respected and have things attended to for them in prison, and may commit a "crime" to go back. It is a symptom of the prison industrial complex which has arose as a means to supplement the lack of legitimized slave labor. And of course we must recognize that not every "criminal" committed a crime. Not everyone in jail is there rightly. By some calculations and admitted statistics of the Uniform Crime Report, we see that only 17% actually committed a crime (that is, broke a law to which there is a discernible victim).

That is aside from the fact that there is SNAP benefits for any and everyone. If you're a law abiding citizen that "can't feed yourself," funny money, inflationary, death schemes (that is, the death of foreigners, of course, though the tyranny of which ripples towards home), will feed you. Because God forbid, people take care of themselves or charity be more sufficient than debt schemes and indentured servitude. As evidenced in this thread, there is no tolerance for self subsistence. It's rather a blatant example of just what this country has become.

[PRB]

As to committing a crime to receive a "free" prison cell, you are speaking again of that which you do not know. Many would freeze to death, and do, before developing a want of prison.

Basically, they choose to die before choosing to live, right?

Many prisoners become institutionalized and when released, wish nothing more than to go back. It is the rare phenomenon of "breaking" a human (much the way dogs are). They feel uncomfortable in their outside surroundings, are respected and have things attended to for them in prison, and may commit a "crime" to go back. It is a symptom of the prison industrial complex which has arose as a means to supplement the lack of legitimized slave labor. And of course we must recognize that not every "criminal" committed a crime. Not everyone in jail is there rightly.

But as you said, some are happy to go back.

By some calculations and admitted statistics of the Uniform Crime Report, we see that only 17% actually committed a crime (that is, broke a law to which there is a discernible victim).

So about 80% are victimless crimes?

[kcchiefs6465]

Basically, they choose to die before choosing to live, right?

Being in a cage is not living. It isn't necessarily that they choose to die, either. Many underestimate the lows of the night. Liquor often plays a role as well. Drink a few, it isn't as cold; Go to sleep, never wake up.

But as you said, some are happy to go back.

Those who have been institutionalized, perhaps. The average homeless person isn't aching to go to jail no matter how cold it is. That they are often imprisoned through no crime of their own is simply testament to the society we have. For instance, Lakewood Tent City is being forbade from having a fire. With all of the so-called "humanitarian" rhetoric that is spewed by those "taking a stance" on "homelessness," they sure have no problem bullying, fining, or imprisoning peaceful people who are simply trying to survive. And I mean that literally; many do die. Especially being on the streets, (rather than building a home for yourself), where one is prone to robbery or wanton violence.

So about 80% are victimless crimes?

Yes, Sir. Drug laws being the biggest factor behind our prison population.

[helmuth_hubener]

First of all, the label for this problem -- "homelessness" -- is extremely biased toward a socialistic solution. It's like the problem of yachtlessness. There is only one sure-fire way to solve somethinglessness: give everyone that something, a yacht, or in this case a home. And then, when they trash it and move out, give them another one. And another. Forever. There is absolutely, positively no way to guarantee that no one ever goes without a home except for somehow externally guaranteeing that everyone be granted a home -- whather they earn it or not, and whether they like it or not. So in that sense, by naming it homelessness, the socialists have already won by disqualifying the free market from any hope of victory, by definition.

So, perhaps we should call the phenonenon instead "people living in the streets and parks."

In theory it is a problem in the sense that anyone living in less than all the luxury he wants is a problem. Anything less than Garden of Eden abundance is a problem. The market always works to solve this problem.

But in actual practical reality, the problem isn't actually a lack of housing as the label implies. The vast majority of homeless people in the US are that way because they have substance abuse problems or mental health problems. Now, I say "problems." But really, who am I to say? It's their lives. Taking a lot of crack cocaine or being constantly drunk may seem like a problem to me, and to everyone who could otherwise easily work out housing arrangements with them, but perhaps it does not seem like a problem to them. Their mental state may seem non-ideal to me, but it's their mind, and they can do what they like with it. "Mental illness" is ultimately unscientific. I follow Thomas Szasz in that regard.

So, what is the solution? The free market creates greater and greater prosperity. Assuming that there is not a large hard-core contingent of people who sincerely prefer living in parks and streets to living in more permanent shelter regardless of their income, then as a society becomes more and more prosperous there will be fewer and fewer of these street and park dwellers. Eventually, it will be so prosperous that even the most marginal, strange, addled, unproductive specimens will be able to afford a home. And a yacht. Then the problem, of course, will be Moon-vacation-palace-less-ness.

[Frank Lee Seaux]

First of all, the label for this problem -- "homelessness" -- is extremely biased toward a socialistic solution. It's like the problem of yachtlessness. There is only one sure-fire way to solve somethinglessness: give everyone that something, a yacht, or in this case a home. And then, when they trash it and move out, give them another one. And another. Forever. There is absolutely, positively no way to guarantee that no one ever goes without a home except for somehow externally guaranteeing that everyone be granted a home -- whether they earn it or not, and whether they like it or not. So in that sense, by naming it homelessness, the socialists have already won by disqualifying the free market from any hope of victory, by definition.

What the Hell would you call it, then? Those people are without a welcomed place to call home, whether it is rented, owned, or granted them. It isn't the socialists who came up with the term. But, I'm sure if it was left to the Republicans and the neo-cons they would be referred to as riff raff, pick pockets, lay abouts, and any number of derogatory terms which would tend to devalue and dehumanize them.

So, perhaps we should call the phenomenon instead "people living in the streets and parks."

That "term" would be far less accurate or universally applicable. Some of the homeless people are able to stay in shelters run by Christian organizations. So, unless you have a more universally applicable and intuitive term, I can't see any reason for changing it, unless, of course, doing so would somehow fit your own political agenda.

In theory it is a problem in the sense that anyone living in less than all the luxury he wants is a problem.

In the theory of your miserable delusions, maybe.

Anything less than Garden of Eden abundance is a problem. The market always works to solve this problem.

If the market actaully solved that problem or any other (except maybe the problem of how to consolidate all this wealth of resources and granted power and authority into the hands of the exceedingly few), there would be a decreasing number of homeless people, not a growing number. And, the numbers would not decrease by death toll either, so before your deluded brain produces that potential resolution, put it out of your mind (I'll grant that I'm jumping the gun here, but given your characterizations, I'd have to say I'm well justified).

Seriously, have you bothered to read aloud to yourself the things you've been writing? Does any of it actually sound like anything a rational sane person would say? Or does it sound more like the sadistic ravings of a maniacal brain?

But in actual practical reality, the problem isn't actually a lack of housing as the label implies.

Well, I will grant that there are, currently, plenty of empty houses available. If those people could find a $#@!ing job. And I know for a fact that, if there were jobs available, and if they had a mailing address, vehicle, and housing (even if just granted temporarily) that many of them could afford to either purchase, or rent one of those empty houses that are simply going to waste, and being claimed by wild animals.

The vast majority of homeless people in the US are that way because they have substance abuse problems or mental health problems.

That sounds very distinctly like a social ill, not a private one. All psychological problems can be traced to environmental influences. Society IS the environment. Thus, all those people who are addicted to substances, and all those people who have mental health issues (with exceedingly rare exceptions) are products of the system in which they were raised.

But, rather than fix the system, you, and people like you, would prefer to blame the victims. You think the homeless people are the illness... The illness is people who think the way you do.

So, what is the solution? The free market creates greater and greater prosperity.

What $#@!ing rock have you been hiding under? Define your terms. If you think that greater economic prosperity can be defined as concentrations of wealth and resources into fewer and fewer hands, and increased productivity, coupled with increasing margins of economic disparity, then you hit the nail on the head, but missed the bigger picture. Your brand of prosperity is railroading the very people you are blaming for their condition.

Assuming that there is not a large hard-core contingent of people who sincerely prefer living in parks and streets to living in more permanent shelter regardless of their income, then as a society becomes more and more prosperous there will be fewer and fewer of these street and park dwellers. Eventually, it will be so prosperous that even the most marginal, strange, addled, unproductive specimens will be able to afford a home. And a yacht. Then the problem, of course, will be Moon-vacation-palace-less-ness.

I reiterate what I said in my last, and only other post in this thread... Look at nations like Norway, Denmark Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and New Zealand.

[helmuth_hubener]

Thanks for your post, Frank! This is great. I love it when people come and try to tear my posts to pieces.

What would you call it, then?

People living in the streets and parks. You should read the whole post first, to get a sense of it, and then reply. Always the best practice.

Those people are without a welcomed place to call home, whether it is rented, owned, or granted them. It isn't the socialists who came up with the term. But, I'm sure if it was left to the Republicans and the neo-cons they would be referred to as riff raff, pick pockets, lay abouts, and any number of derogatory terms which would tend to devalue and dehumanize them.

Hmm, well I'm glad you know so well what these people would call them. I don't much care.

Perhaps if you had your way those who disagree with you would be called Republicans and neo-cons and other derogatory and dehumanizing terms. Oh, yep: sure enough.

That "term" would be far less accurate or universally applicable. Some of the homeless people are able to stay in shelters run by Christian organizations.

Well then they are not very well "homeless," now are they? "Those people are with a welcomed place to call home, whether it is rented, owned, or granted them." With, without,... I know all these terms and words can be confusing . I feel your pain. But actually with and without are opposites.

I can't see any reason for changing it, unless, of course, doing so would somehow fit your own political agenda.

Oh, it would! My agenda and the agenda of the vast majority of the denizens of Ron Paul Forums. Thus, I posted the suggestion here. Stop calling them "homeless" and start calling them street-dwellers and park-dwellers. Wasn't that a great idea? Perhaps we can make it go viral.

In the theory of your miserable delusions, maybe.

Zing! Zingers are so much zingier if they have some content in them, though. Just a little Pro-tip! But I'm sure that you are able to really hold your own in those arguments on the third-grade playground.

If the market actually solved that problem or any other (except maybe the problem of how to consolidate all this wealth of resources and granted power and authority into the hands of the exceedingly few), there would be a decreasing number of homeless people, not a growing number.

Kill the market! It is evil!

What is the market?

The free choices and transactions of everyone involved.

Let's abolish that! Let's replace it with.... what exactly?

Oh yeah, the only thing it can be replaced with: un-free choices and un-free transactions. Let's stomp our boot on everyone's face until they do what we say. What Frank says. Specifically. That will solve (fanfare): All of Our Problems! (TM)

Even on the third grade playground, just throwing your fists around doesn't work to solve anything. But, I guess that's all you ever learned. Maybe we here at RPF can help you advance beyond that. You can't always use your fists, little Frankie. Try using your words. OK?

And, the numbers would not decrease by death toll either, so before your deluded brain produces that potential resolution, put it out of your mind (I'll grant that I'm jumping the gun here, but given your characterizations, I'd have to say I'm well justified).

LOL!

Seriously, have you bothered to read aloud to yourself the things you've been writing? Does any of it actually sound like anything a rational sane person would say? Or does it sound more like the sadistic ravings of a maniacal brain?

I know you are, but what am I? I know you are, but what am I? Again, Frankie, you cannot stay in the third grade forever. All the grownups will laugh at you.

Well, I will grant that there are, currently, plenty of empty houses available. If those people could find a job. And I know for a fact that, if there were jobs available, and if they had a mailing address, vehicle, and housing (even if just granted temporarily) that many of them could afford to either purchase, or rent one of those empty houses that are simply going to waste, and being claimed by wild animals.

Well, there you go. Sounds like these people have a very trivially easy solution available to them. Problem solved. We can just leave them to it.

That sounds very distinctly like a social ill, not a private one. All psychological problems can be traced to environmental influences. Society IS the environment. Thus, all those people who are addicted to substances, and all those people who have mental health issues (with exceedingly rare exceptions) are products of the system in which they were raised.

But, rather than fix the system, you, and people like you, would prefer to blame the victims. You think the homeless people are the illness... The illness is people who think the way you do.

Oh good, you have come up yet again with such an easy answer! Why didn't I see it before? Just cure all their mental illnesses and psychological problems! That's all we have to do! What could be easier and more obvious? Obviously this is the way to go. And how are we going to cure all their mental illnesses and psychological problems? We are going to fix the system! The whole thing! From the ground up. This sounds like the most well-thought-out plan that I have ever heard of. What do you guys think, RPFers? This is brilliant, right?

"I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through."

Your brand of prosperity is railroading the very people you are blaming for their condition.

Everyone should blame themselves for their condition. Blaming others would be futile and a dead end.

I reiterate what I said in my last, and only other post in this thread... Look at nations like Norway, Denmark Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, and New Zealand.

Yes, these are some of the freest countries in the world, and they are indeed very prosperous because of their free market policies. It would indeed be good for us to look more closely at them, more in depth, to see what they are doing right. Let's do that! Where would you like to begin?

[Alex Libman]

Thank you very much for your input, everybody. I will catch up with replies later. But first, an update on an earlier post...


Via Facebook: Following a fundraiser, members of the New Jersey Libertarian Party visited Tent City to drop off propane heaters, propane, fire extinguishers, and gift cards.





HUGE thank you to NJLP for organizing this, and to everyone who has donated! NJLP candidates / administrators Ken Kaplan, Steven Uccio, Jay Edgar, Don DeZarn, Dorit Goikhman, and Justin Quinn have visited Tent City in person and brought donations.

I personally would like to note the contrast between what the Libertarian Party has done for Tent City, compared to the two larger parties... Chris Christie ignores us. Barbara Buono used us as a prop in yet another photo-op, and then forgot about us. MainStream Media ignores my request to PLEASE mention our Web-site in their coverage (like on the bottom of the screen for a few seconds), so people could go there and learn how they could help. There was no increase in donations associated with the Buono visit on Aug 22nd... Only Libertarians seem to actually care about Tent City!

[Alex Libman]

From MyCentralJersey.com -- Film screening of documentary highlighting Lakewood's Tent City residents to be shown in Sayreville on Friday --

South River resident's poignant documentary about homeless people living in a tent city in Lakewood will be featured in a screening on Friday.

A fund-raising film screening of Destiny's Bridge, an Ultravision Films release, will be held at 7 pm at Buddies Tavern [FB], 277 Johnsons Lane. The film will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the filmmaker, Jack Ballo, as well as several of Lakewood's Tent City residents featured in the film. One of the main characters, known as the Tent City Piano Man, will perform after the film. All proceeds from the event will go to Tent City, the Destiny's Bridge Organization, and the film's outreach program.

"I've been in the video production business for almost 30 years, and about seven years ago I started getting involved in humanitarian films", Ballo said. "Someone asked me to do some filming for them for something they were working on about families living in shacks in the Dominican Republic. There I met a Canadian guy, who went out there for vacation for a week and saw how terrible poverty was there and never left. He started putting his money into building homes for these homeless people. What he was doing was just an amazing story."

Ballo made two documentary films about the Canadian man's efforts to help the homeless in the Dominican Republic.

When Ballo returned to the states, a friend told him about the Lakewood's Tent City residents.

"When I started going to the Dominican Republic and telling people on Facebook what was going on there, I was surprised when people told me about people that are homeless here", he said. "I didn't think it could be as bad as it was over there in a third world country. I wanted to know where this is happening here, how bad it is and who is living there. I was shocked to find out how close it was. It was in Lakewood."

For about seven years, a group of 80 people have been living in a makeshift homeless camp in Lakewood, where Ballo filmed for almost a year.

"My first impression when I walked in there was how comfortable I felt there", Ballo said. "Everyone is so nice and friendly. They all have different stories. Most of them had good jobs at one time and were making good money. There are issues with some with mental illness and alcoholism and drug use, so there is a little bit of everything. It's really not much different really from regular society. It's a fascinating story. I was surprised no one did a documentary about this. I knew it was a perfect project for me."

At the camp, Ballo met camp founder, Minister Steve Brigham, a main character in the documentary. The film follows the stories of select camp residents, as well as the conflict between the township officials and the homeless who live on township property, Ballo said. With the town closing in and eviction on their doorstep, the homeless set out to create a self-sustained shelter.

The documentary, filmed in cinéma vérité style, highlights the group as they set out to create their own shelter called Destiny's Bridge in a community setting that instills ownership, dignity, and rehabilitation without any government assistance, Ballo said.

"This is what this Canadian man is doing in the Dominican Republic and they are trying to do it here", Ballo said "Destiny's Bridge is a concept. It's about new ideas in housing the homeless - building small houses people can afford on minimum wage."

"Destiny's Bridge" premiered in August at the Two River Theater Company in Red Bank, and has had several screenings throughout Monmouth and Ocean counties.

In conjunction with the showing in the borough, new and used items, including sleeping bags, winter coats, hoodies, hats, gloves, thermal socks, comforters, blankets and fire starters for Tent City residents may be dropped off at Buddies Tavern between 3 pm and 11 pm Friday.

Tickets to the screening are available online for $10 plus service fee or $12 at the door, while tickets last.

Additional information is available at www.DestinysBridge.com.

Please SHARE: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest.

Please INVITE everyone in the area to the Facebook Event.

[kcchiefs6465]

Looks like somebody didn't look at OP.

This video is a fascinating example of communalism. Though, i don't think you guys are understanding the point of this. They aren't really happy with the tents, rather they are demanding affordable housing. Pardon me, but it seems more like something you guys would be against them rather than supportive of them.

It seems to me, at least on Alex's part, that he wishes to be left alone to try and build a home for himself. I know not of the aspirations of all, but I can only assume you have never been homeless. Having a place to get off of the streets at night is essential. Providing everyone with a home (think 2008) is foolhardy and rather missing the point. Many are homeless because of their own choosing (I knew quite a few). Many are homeless because they are drug addicts or because they have mental issues they cope with (I knew quite a few). To simplify this problem down to a black or white, should they or should they not have homes is ridiculous. Yes, they should all have homes. At what cost though (and how do you give someone a home?)? Can they share your house? Have you reached out to provide charity for your fellow man? It seems a little authoritarian of you to force the people, through government, to do things they do not want to do. (no matter how noble, you think, or the cause may be)

Sly quips about affordable housing, a problem by and large exacerbated by the government, are petty. A place to go to get warm, where you are relatively safe from the creatures is a good thing. It would only get better. But instead your type, who has the people's best interest in mind I'm told, (not mine, though, mind you. I'm quite literally finding myself to always be the "forgotten man" so oft talked about) create code after code (for the children) and regulation after regulation. (written by trusts to "bust trusts") Not to mention the seizing and squandering of 230,000,000 acres of land to "save the environment" (while preventing healthy deforestation of dead trees, creating a match ready to be struck and forest fires destroying land [and the environment they allegedly wanted to save] on a seemingly unprecedented scale) be squandered and fraudulently given away to select corporations.

But it is me -- the one who advocates people be left the hell alone to improve their lives in any way possible so long as it does not infringe on another's rights; who advocates a money backed by commodity that cannot be inflated on corporate whim; who advocates charity (that is hindered with these policies) and a less suspicious society (which the suspicion or even discontent of one's neighbor is not created in a vacuum. The discontent many have, is because they feel they are being unduly taxed while others are gaining [unearned] benefits from them); and finally, who advocates an environment where businesses can start from nothing aside from capital, where there isn't the bribes and fees and loops and hoops to jump through to sell what you want at a price you think is fair, where jobs are more available, competition more seen, and a weight severed from society's ankle -- who is not supportive of the common man? Are you kidding me?

Your rhetoric may be butterflies and rainbows, but anyone with a sense of critical thinking skills sees behind the facade. Let's end poverty too - Give everyone a million dollars. I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work, right?

[Sanguine]

It seems to me, at least on Alex's part, that he wishes to be left alone to try and build a home for himself. I know not of the aspirations of all, but I can only assume you have never been homeless. Having a place to get off of the streets at night is essential. Providing everyone with a home (think 2008) is foolhardy and rather missing the point. Many are homeless because of their own choosing (I knew quite a few). Many are homeless because they are drug addicts or because they have mental issues they cope with (I knew quite a few). To simplify this problem down to a black or white, should they or should they not have homes is ridiculous. Yes, they should all have homes. At what cost though (and how do you give someone a home?)? Can they share your house? Have you reached out to provide charity for your fellow man? It seems a little authoritarian of you to force the people, through government, to do things they do not want to do. (no matter how noble, you think, or the cause may be)

Sly quips about affordable housing, a problem by and large exacerbated by the government, are petty. A place to go to get warm, where you are relatively safe from the creatures is a good thing. It would only get better. But instead your type, who has the people's best interest in mind I'm told, (not mine, though, mind you. I'm quite literally finding myself to always be the "forgotten man" so oft talked about) create code after code (for the children) and regulation after regulation. (written by trusts to "bust trusts") Not to mention the seizing and squandering of 230,000,000 acres of land to "save the environment" (while preventing healthy deforestation of dead trees, creating a match ready to be struck and forest fires destroying land [and the environment they allegedly wanted to save] on a seemingly unprecedented scale) be squandered and fraudulently given away to select corporations.

But it is me -- the one who advocates people be left the hell alone to improve their lives in any way possible so long as it does not infringe on another's rights; who advocates a money backed by commodity that cannot be inflated on corporate whim; who advocates charity (that is hindered with these policies) and a less suspicious society (which the suspicion or even discontent of one's neighbor is not created in a vacuum. The discontent many have, is because they feel they are being unduly taxed while others are gaining [unearned] benefits from them); and finally, who advocates an environment where businesses can start from nothing aside from capital, where there isn't the bribes and fees and loops and hoops to jump through to sell what you want at a price you think is fair, where jobs are more available, competition more seen, and a weight severed from society's ankle -- who is not supportive of the common man? Are you kidding me?

Your rhetoric may be butterflies and rainbows, but anyone with a sense of critical thinking skills sees behind the facade. Let's end poverty too - Give everyone a million dollars. I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't work, right?

Handouts of nominal amounts of money will obviously not decrease poverty. Rather, we should be focusing on what isn't in nominal amount: health care, housing, and energy. You know what would be great? Building homes for the homeless on inexpensive land. Some people want to be homeless? Cool, let them be, but those who don't shouldn't have to be. If you're going to advocate a capitalist system, then you have to take the responsibility of supporting the creation of the poor class. A warm shelter breaks a barrier for those in extreme poverty, providing shelter and a place of storage, where one can collect and organize themselves. Next is increasing employment opportunities, and expanding welfare to support these individuals. No need to spend half of a trillion dollars each year fuelling the military/security industrial complexes, or providing financial institutions the means to fail for the benefit of their executives. No need to bail out energy companies that are advocating impractical sources. No need to keep up the costly drug war, and there's no need to keep up funding things like an extensive TSA.

It isn't rainbows and sunshine. When you have many more empty houses than homeless and the government spends billions on pointlessly expanding its military, there's something really $#@!ing wrong with your country.

I'm an anarchist, not a capitalist. The state may be imperfect, but capitalism (being a hierarchal structure) requires a second hierarchal structure to prevent tyranny by the rich. What would obviously be better would be to do away with both (but good luck doing that). Besides, in the words of Adam Smith: "Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master."

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I'm an anarchist, not a capitalist. The state may be imperfect, but capitalism (being a hierarchal structure) requires a second hierarchal structure to prevent tyranny by the rich.

WTF? Apparently you cannot even fathom what Free Market Capitalism entails. Its the free and voluntary trade (without initiating aggression or committing fraud) between two individuals. That is it, end of story. Everything else is either a variation on this theme or else is not the Free Market. If there was no government, by the way, there could be no tyranny of the rich.

Besides, in the words of Adam Smith: "Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master."

Oh yea, you're SUCH an Anarchist. I call bull$#@!. You're likely a Syndicalist which boils down to shoving guns in other peoples' faces and demanding they do what you (ie - the collective) want. In other words, you're a Collectivist and not an Anarchist.

[kcchiefs6465]

Handouts of nominal amounts of money will obviously not decrease poverty. Rather, we should be focusing on what isn't in nominal amount: health care, housing, and energy.

You know, being lower income myself, I might go to the doctor one time every few years. This isn't because of a lack of government aid. It is because of the government "aid." When a system is ingrained that discourages frugality, encourages waste, and builds upon a moral hazard riddled with insurance mandates, you can imagine how healthcare costs became unattainable [for many]. But your solution, to a system by and large exacerbated by the government is more? You seem to be intelligent. Considering the current state our medical system is in, what on earth would convince you that the answer is more [of the same]. This is aside the fact that you can't do that [provide health care] without destroying a currency [which aggravates the cost of healthcare].

Housing I cover a little below. I am curious as to what exactly government housing entails to you? Price controls as well as Section 8? More? With regards to price controls, you might feel a little bit different if it were your property. Why shouldn't someone be able to sell for what they wish? Price controls have ruined apartment buildings. If the cost of living rises, (i.e. they buy another 85 billion dollars in bonds.. which they will) and the amount someone is charging for rent is capped, it creates an issue of what to fix, and how to fix it (turning many apartments [eventually] into slums [when they don't receive enough rent to keep up with rising maintenance costs and other expenses]). It also creates a deal of contempt between two parties who otherwise should be gaining something from each other.

I'm a little surprised you said energy. Solyndra lobbies millions of dollars, gets billions of dollars in contracts to be squandered away. I mean, are you serious? What on earth should the government have to do with energy? Furthermore why am I being taken [i.e. stolen] from to fund things I do not want or agree with? That's the problem with your supposed solutions. They require [immorally] destroying a currency, and/or aggressing against the Person at large.

You know what would be great? Building homes for the homeless on inexpensive land.

Why can't they build their own? There are organizations and even better, individuals who would be willing to help. Two-hundred thirty million acres of squandered land, city codes longer than the Bible, a populace grown towards contempt...

You can't see the forest through the trees.

Some people want to be homeless? Cool, let them be, but those who don't shouldn't have to be.

Many people are houseless. Many people have a house but not a home. Many people are trying to build a home and are impeded by the government at every step. People want to help pay for healthcare and housing for the houseless? Cool, let them; but those who don't shouldn't be forced (ultimately at the barrel of a gun) to.

If you're going to advocate a capitalist system, then you have to take the responsibility of supporting the creation of the poor class.

I am advocating a truly free market. If that in your mind is capitalism then we are in understanding of terms. The misuse of both terms is widespread.

A warm shelter breaks a barrier for those in extreme poverty, providing shelter and a place of storage, where one can collect and organize themselves.

Well the thing is, if you don't accept government grants (which requires applying and going through the process etc.), the police show up and destroy your $#@!. I think there is an article on that.. people were trying to provide for themselves, build a home..

Next is increasing employment opportunities[,.......]

The government cannot compete with the private sector in terms of job creation. Why? because they cannot fail. There is incentive to do poorly as that means a bigger budget the next year. The "jobs" the government is creating are bureaucratic positions for the various agencies you advocate. These people are a weight on society and don't produce a damn thing.

[.....] and expanding welfare to support these individuals.

Expanding welfare how? By having A and B vote they want C's money? That is legitimate? Or by printing money thus devaluing everyone's currency and ensuring conflicts around the world? That is intelligent?

What about corporate welfare? Is that what you mean? The [created by government] jobs of building needless weapons of war? The billions in farm subsidies? The billions in oil subsidies? The money sent to Monsanto? To Lockheed? To Solyndra? After all, without the corporate welfare, many would be out of a job.

No need to spend half of a trillion dollars each year fuelling the military/security industrial complexes,

Are you sure? The reason the B2 is spread out in all fifty states is to gain votes through promised jobs. Without that trillion dollars a year, the death builders may have to find other employment.

or providing financial institutions the means to fail for the benefit of their executives.

Well when you have a lender of last resort, which is just about a must for the system you advocate for, some people are going to speculate in ways otherwise considered foolish. Not to mention with your 'give everyone a house' mentality, the bubble created through artificial credit and illusory money schemes, through loans to people who otherwise would not qualify would also prove a catch 22. You don't see the forest through the trees. If you want the government doing all that you do, there is going to be a lender of last resort (i.e. Central Bank). There is going to be malinvestment propagated by the system creating a bubble that will ultimately burst. When it does, the people you want to help, or thought you were helping will lose everything; The banks will gain, and the cycle will repeat.

No need to bail out energy companies that are advocating impractical sources.

How does a bureaucrat in Washington know what is practical or impractical with regards to energy? Are they engineers, nuclear physicists, physicists.. anything? What would they know about energy? Is it possible what determines 'practicality' is the amount paid into the coffers?

This is all aside from what I mentioned earlier of encouraged failure. It's a money pit. $#@! it up, get paid more next year. There is no incentive to do the job right for the best price. They are raping this country, destroying the currency, and not helping the environment or our energy needs in the least. It's so absurd I really have trouble finding a spot to begin.

No need to keep up the costly drug war, and there's no need to keep up funding things like an extensive TSA.

We are in agreement.

It isn't rainbows and sunshine. When you have many more empty houses than homeless and the government spends billions on pointlessly expanding its military, there's something really $#@!ing wrong with your country.

There is something wrong with this country. People got this idea that because they are in a group, they have authority over the minority. People have become lazy, they've lost their diligence, and have become content with circuses and petty execisings of power over their fellow man. The regulations have crippled industry. The taxes have been squandered shamelessly. Public indoctrination and a victor's brand of history coupled with the theory of American Exceptionalism have perverted the mind. I'll be short with what all is wrong with this country. The correlations between the all in all failures of policy would take pages for me to properly describe.

I'm an anarchist, not a capitalist.

You advocate the use of force against your neighbor because of whimsical ideas of justice. You fail to see a contradiction in beliefs. Whether or not you specifically advocate for a "state", what would ultimately become of your vision would be as tyrannical as any throughout history.

The state may be imperfect,[....]

"Imperfect" is an incredible understatement.

[....] but capitalism (being a hierarchal structure) requires a second hierarchal structure to prevent tyranny by the rich.

My, and every other American's gun, would be a check against "tyranny by the rich." (which I fail to see as better or worse than tyranny by your majority.. if ever could be the case) After rereading this sentence of yours, I'm a little bit baffled. So the second hierarchical structure you see as the solution is an entity with monopolized and legitimized or even normalized use of force? I imagine you wouldn't be an "anarchist" if the status quo held your beliefs. So to me, and forgive me for being frank, I consider you an authoritarian. A disenfranchised authoritarian, but an authoritarian all the same.

What would obviously be better would be to do away with both (but good luck doing that).

Can you please define "capitalism." It's one of those words that has been intentionally misused and bastardized... so much so, in fact, that I usually refrain from using it. (as it has different connotations to different people)

Besides, in the words of Adam Smith: "Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master."

No man is infallible. Needless to say, I would not agree with that sentiment. Perhaps your point is going over my head. Can you clarify the relevance for me? Do you agree with that?

I do commend you for responding to my previous post. Reply as you get a chance, if you wouldn't mind, of course. I apologize for the time it took me to respond. I've been busy lately.

[Alex Libman]

Sorry, been very busy. I will catch up with this forum later.

For all the latest news, please LIKE "Tent City of Lakewood, NJ" on Facebook!


Some recent videos:

[kcchiefs6465]

"But uh, unfortunately there are some diehards out there who aren't interested in taking help from the government."-- Albert Akerman, Deputy Mayor of Lakewood Township.

The police confiscations and harassment, the blockading of sorts; God bless the "diehards."

"And in the meantime police will continue to check on residents, and offer shelter."

Translated for the dim, "Police will continue to check for warrants, and harass the people."

Stay warm. The weather will change before you know it.

[Alex Libman]

I'm sorry I've neglected this thread so much. I've been having some health problems, which exacerbated my depression, and I could barely keep up with e-mail and the Facebook Page, which is my top priority... I'll try to catch up a little bit at a time...

Our Tent City's population is now about 45 people, down from the peak of 122 in May 2013. The police keep new people from coming in, and existing residents gradually left - some got the promised "one year free housing", and many more (like the Berenzweigs) left without any help or compensation from the Township...



Bulldozers demolish tents / shanties of anyone who moves out, and all structures are numbered so new ones can't be set up. There are lots of homeless people who would be a lot better off if they could come to Tent City, but they aren't allowed to... Instead they end up living on the streets, or camping on their own.



There are several small "Tent Hamlets" popping up the the surrounding areas. Some are in the process of also being demolished [APP] [ABC], while others have not yet been "discovered" by the police...

At 2AM Saturday morning we've had a major tragedy - for the first time a person died in a fire in our Tent City [APP]...

We are still very much in need of donations, to keep the camp going as well as prepare for what's to come next...

[Alex Libman]

Tent City is in its final death-throws...

I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep this thread updated. I hope you were able to follow all the news on the "Tent City of Lakewood, NJ" Facebook Page.


If by any chance anyone here happens to be in the communist cesspool of New Jersey...

Please join us at Tent City (or by the intersection of Cedar Bridge Ave and S Clover St in Lakewood) any time you can this week with signs for a Rally Against Injustice At Tent City!

We are protesting unconstitutional and inhumane anti-homeless laws, government waste and corruption, and the bulldozing of a much-needed charitable institution!

Bring a token donation (ideally bottled water) in case the police question you, as it has been legally established that supporters are NOT trespassing when they bring donations to Tent City.

Please make and bring your own protest signs. Try to have a camera to take photos and videos of the events. If you are really brave, bring a tent.

[Alex Libman]

Does anyone wanna go camping on the Jersey Shore? We got a perfect camp-site here at Tent City, located just 9 miles from the ocean, 14 miles from Six Flags!

[Alex Libman]

Great article by Dave Gahary of the American Free Press -- An Orthodox Final Solution --

Struggling to survive, throngs of homeless are pushed out of NJ's "Tent City" to make way for construction of massive "yeshivas" subsidized by taxpayers.

One of the more biting ironies of recession-plagued America is the drama unfolding in the suburban town of Lakewood, New Jersey, where the homeless in that Ocean County township are being forced to defend themselves not just against the elements and regular police harassment, but against the powerful Orthodox Jewish community intent on stripping the last ounce of dignity from these down-on-their-luck Americans.

With no homeless shelters in the county, under the guidance of Minister Steven A Brigham -- a 12th generation American -- the homeless took up residence in the woods, constructing homes made of canvas tarps, wood, plastic and anything else they could rummage, in what would come to be known as "Tent City". Now, almost eight years later, Tent City is on its way out, a victim of Orthodox complaints of smoke from fires the homeless use to keep warm and cook their food.

The United States Census Bureau in 2010 listed Lakewood as the fastest growing of the Garden State's 566 municipalities, primarily due to that township's Jewish majority. They now constitute the bulk of the population of over 100,000, up a whopping 54% from the last census. The Orthodox population in Lakewood is projected to rise to 220,000 by 2030.

Founded by hard-working Americans in the late 1880s, a blast-iron furnace business kick-started the town's good fortune. Several magnificent estates sprouted around town, helping Lakewood to become a favorite winter retreat for the Eastern elite, including the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Goulds, Astors and others. President Grover Cleveland would spend his dying days in the town.

In what would be a turning point for Lakewood, a Polish-born rabbi purchased a building in 1943 and erected a yeshiva, a school where Orthodox Jews study their religion's central texts, like the Talmud and Torah, to cater to 13 students. Today, the Beth Medrash Govoha yeshiva serves around 6,500 students and may be the largest of its kind in the world.

The reason for the explosive growth is simple: Orthodox Jews like to proliferate. The average family has between five and eight children.

[...]

Minister Brigham, commenting on the matter, told this reporter: "For their own political gain, the politicians are taking the food out of the mouths of the American taxpayer and setting a banquet in front of those who mock us."

[Click for complete article.]

As I always repeat: This isn't about any specific ethnic / religious group. If the Yakuza, Cosa Nostra, La Eme, etc had been acting like the Vaad, it would be just as bad. Political power corrupts all! Also don't mistake this as anti-natalist criticism: I am very pro-natalist! Having lots of kids is a very good thing - if you can pull your economic weight!


Please like our Facebook Page (which is about to pass 6000 likes!) for all the latest. I will probably be arrested next week, but there are other people who will maintain the Page in my absence...

Please sign up for our new Tent City News Alerts e-mail mailing list as well!