# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  The Libertarian Solution To End Homelessness

## Alex Libman

I truly hope that _everyone_ will see this upcoming documentary film called _Destiny's Bridge_. It is about the "Tent City" of Lakewood, NJ, where I am currently a resident:






Tent City is a voluntary institution that exists as the result of local supporters and mutual aid, saving the taxpayers 1-2 million dollars a year! It is a perfect example of how more can be accomplished on a voluntary nickel than on a dollar that has been stolen from the taxpayers by the corrupt and inefficient racket called the Welfare State! The government here has done nothing to help the homeless, and everything that it could think of to try to shut this place down... The film covers the personal stories of several individuals, as well as the never-ending harassment from the local government.

This film is an authentic look into the lives of otherwise-homeless individuals living in a little village of about 100 tents and shanties - a homestead that has been built on "public" woodland over the past 7-8 years. This film will be particularly enjoyable to people interested in off-the-grid living, agorism / homesteading, the small house movement, government corruption, protests / civil disobedience, and voluntary charity. It also explores some very complex issues, like the underlying causes of homelessness in America, artificial scarcity, sustainable living, personal responsibility, addiction, love, hope and despair...

When this documentary is a success, it will attract donor and volunteer attention to help set up another voluntary village for the homeless, someplace where the government wouldn't be quite as oppressive as it has been in Lakewood, NJ. (I'm obviously promoting the idea that the best place to do this is the Free State of New Hampshire.) The name of this new project (a 501c3 charitable organization), like the film, is Destiny's Bridge.

Libertarians are often mindlessly attacked for "not caring about the poor". Tent City is _living proof_ that the very opposite is true - it's the government that hurts the poor, and it's the voluntary sector that has the power to help them! My quixotic efforts to keep the government from shutting down this existing Tent City will continue, but that is a separate battle - _Destiny's Bridge is an idea whose time has come!_

Please help me spread the word about this documentary film! Please share the trailer with your friends. Visit *DestinysBridge.com* for more info, and subscribe to it on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, etc.

----------


## anaconda

What's the libertarian solution to panhandling?

----------


## Alex Libman

> What's the libertarian solution to panhandling?


That's not what this thread is about.  But - on private land, it would obviously be up to the property owner to set policy.  "Aggressive panhandling" (and aggressive anything else) is obviously out.

Now, let's get back to the issues of this thread - the Tent City of Lakewood NJ, the _Destiny's Bridge_ documentary, unemployed people living cheaply in tents / shanties, etc...

----------


## Origanalist

The government doesn't like people taking care of themselves.

----------


## anaconda

> That's not what this thread is about.


This is an awesome development, and great to see! I am interested in the movie! I will be interested to see how they approach the difficult problems of "homelessness" that extend beyond the availability of housing. Uptake for drug abuse, antisocial behavior, sickness, job skills, etc.

----------


## Alex Libman

> The government doesn't like people taking care of themselves.


I suspect that, all kidding aside, that really is one of their motivations, at least on some level of group-subconsciousness.  Tent City is saving the taxpayers lots of money - as Minister Steve Brigham (who is the lead organizer of this Tent City) pointed out recently at Town Hall here...  It's really making the government bureaucrats look bad...





> This is an awesome development, and great to see! I am interested in the movie! I will be interested to see how they approach the difficult problems of "homelessness" that extend beyond the availability of housing. Uptake for drug abuse, antisocial behavior, sickness, job skills, etc.


Thank you very much for your interest!  I'll post updates on this thread about local screenings, future digital distribution, etc.

----------


## Origanalist

> I suspect that, all kidding aside, that really is one of their motivations, at least on some level of group-subconsciousness.


Oh, I wasn't kidding. And I don't think it's subconscious at all.

----------


## Alex Libman

I can't really talk about this film about Tent City without also talking about my own experience at Tent City, and vice-versa...

The local bureaucrats here have a pretty effective plan for destroying Tent City - lure everyone away with "one year of free housing", and then, when they don't have as many people to deal with, send in the bulldozers and tear everything down!  Needless to say, I'm not taking that deal, but most people are...  Talk about selling out for a mess of pottage!  I think they'll regret it.  The housing will probably be one year at an overpriced (for the taxpayers) fleabag motel whose owner is friends with the legislators.  And some people may get kicked out over drugs, etc.  And what will they do when the year is up??

Perhaps a good way to explain my position on Tent City, as it fights for its very survival, is to quote my prepared remarks that I've previously read at the Town Hall.  The first is from the Lakewood Township Committee Meeting on April 18, 2013, when the legislature passed an ordinance essentially banning homelessness...   *[FB] [G+]




> I am here to speak out against this ordinance, and any other ordinance that seeks to harass low-income individuals on so-called "public" land.
> 
> I am not homeless.  I am a resident of Tent City, which is a voluntary community of low-income individuals.  We are not the caricatures of homelessness that exist in many people's imaginations - we are human beings, flawed but nevertheless worthy of our Natural Rights!
> 
> What does it really take to shelter a human being, in proportion to his or her labor?  I do not know any resident of Tent City who has not earned the Right to a few square feet of space, to put up a tent among the trees to call home.
> 
> In a competitive free market, the cost of housing would reflect economic reality - there is an abundance of land, and 21st century science and technology make shelter ever-cheaper to construct.  We can pull our economic weight!  And we can help each-other.
> 
> The root cause of homelessness among low-income individuals is government intervention into the marketplace, through countless restrictions and taxes and regulations and zoning laws that create artificial scarcity and multiply our cost of living.  It would take not 3 minutes but 3 bookshelves to describe all the ways in which the government hurts the poor!
> ...


The official minutes for that meeting were never made public.  

On May 23rd, I gave them a fully-fledged libertarian rant:  [FB] [G+] [TW]




> Hello. My name is Alex Libman. I am a resident of Tent City.
> 
> I am here today to tell everyone about a gang problem that we have at Tent City. There is just one gang, but they are armed and dangerous, and they have a total hegemony of power over Tent City. This gang is harassing all residents of Tent City, and many other people who live in Lakewood Township.
> 
> I've lived in Tent City since March 1st of this year, and I personally have not experienced any acts of theft or violence, except for the theft and violence that is routinely perpetrated by this gang. Whenever I am fortunate enough to find some work, like loading and unloading trucks at the Lakewood Industrial Park, this gang demands a fraction of my paycheck as protection money. Whenever I go out to buy something, this gang demands payment as well. For example, if I was to buy a pack of cigarettes, this gang wound demand tribute of at least 3 dollars.
> 
> The people involved in this gang seem to identify themselves by wearing certain gang colors. The enforcers of this gang wear blue, and have shiny pieces of gang jewelry pinned to their chests. Persons wearing those gang colors routinely harass residents of Tent City, and sometimes abduct individuals who haven't done anybody any harm and put them in a cage. They also routinely harass the supporters of Tent City, by preventing them from driving into Tent City to drop off donations, and putting their names on some sort of a vindictive "list".
> 
> In another example of their harassment, the enforcers of this gang routinely bully Lakewood residents who are trying to peacefully solicit a ride from a friendly stranger driving past them. On this gang's turf, hitchhiking seems to be a protected privilege.
> ...


The official minutes merely recorded that I "complained about a gang problem at Tent City"...  

And, on June 6th I wanted to set the record straight about the specifics of some inaccurate (or downright slanderous) local news coverage about Tent City:  [FB] [G+]




> Hello again.  My name is Alex Libman.  I've now been a resident of Tent City for over 3 months, and a resident of Lakewood Township for about 3 years.
> 
> I am here to express an opinion on several recent news stories that have mentioned Tent City, which I believe to have been inaccurate, and to help clear up any false perceptions that those stories may have perpetuated.
> 
> On May 29th, Asbury Park Press reported on the sensational arrest of a 47-year-old man who was driving in Manchester.  This story, including in its headline, repeatedly claims that the perpetrator was a resident of our Tent City.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, neither the police nor the press have made any effort to investigate this claim.  He obviously was not in the census.  No one has ever presented any evidence tying that man to Tent City.  No one at Tent City has ever heard of such a man, and everyone who would know believes that this claim is false.
> 
> This is a perfect example of how the truth about Tent City gets distorted - no one makes an effort to gather the facts, and people always assume the worst.  Tent City only has a handful of "bad apples" among its one-hundred-plus residents, and they're there only because Minister Steve isn't legally allowed to evict them.
> ...

----------


## Alex Libman

I've also written this (as comments to a news article) about *the economic situation that is the root cause of unemployment*:




> I've been a resident of Tent City in Lakewood since March 1st.  *Pretty much all Tenters I know are looking for work, if not full-time then at least part-time.*
> 
> I personally don't feel that anybody owes me anything - hand-outs, a job, or anything else. If/when I work, it should be a voluntary, mutually-beneficial agreement between myself and the employer. For example, there are some jobs that I would be happy to do even for below "minimum wage" - if that's what my labor is worth relative to everyone else's.
> 
> The biggest problem is with *all the ways in which gov't gets in the way of employers coming into the region*. These "special deals" the gov makes are just for show. If the gov't gives you crutches, it first breaks your legs!
> 
> *Why would a company do something in NJ, where the gov-backed mandatory unions can demand ridiculous collective deals? Why do business in one of the highest taxed and regulated states in the nation?! Jobs are moving South / West, to the more economically free states within the US. And of course many jobs are moving abroad.*
> 
> USA has the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world! We could get away with it back in the 20th century, when the rest of the world was even worse off, but today Russia actually has a 13% flat income tax! Etc. The point is, *NJ and USA are losing their competitiveness.
> ...

----------


## KrokHead

> What's the libertarian solution to panhandling?


Panhandling is pure libertarianism done to the bone.  No politics, just the pure freedom to ask for money to keep buying the drugs libertarians want legal!


No matter what there will always be homelessness.  Michael Moore came up with putting homeless people in storage facilities, because they are heated and air conditioned.  Obviously it was a joke he came up to say Americans aren't taking care of the problem.  But I'd rather store myself than sleep on park bench.

----------


## Alex Libman

> Panhandling is pure libertarianism done to the bone.  No politics, just the pure freedom to ask for money to keep buying the drugs libertarians want legal!


You are forgetting that restrictions on human action mustn't necessarily come from that overgrown mafia gang that calls itself "government".  In a free society, restrictions can come from parents / guardians (with legitimate power over their children / dependents), property owners (with legitimate power over their property / territory), contractually-established entities, etc.

A shopping mall most definitely can have a "no panhandling" policy - and most probably would.  Homeless shelters / philanthropically-subsidized residential neighborhoods for the poor / etc can legitimately set policies about things like alcohol and drugs.  I personally don't think it's good to throw people out just because they have an addiction, but that's up to the people in charge.  As institutions compete for donor money as well as beneficiary patronage, the marketplace will decide...  "If you don't like the rules, then go to a differently-minded shelter, if you can find one."

There are also new alternatives to panhandling.  For example, I have an idea about organizing some "homeless" folks / Tenters to pick up trash on "public property" around the town (and there's an unusually high amount of litter here in Lakewood, NJ).  We'd take a "before" picture of a littered place, then an "after" picture of it all cleaned up, and then post them on the Internet, maybe make some YouTube videos of us working, etc.  And we'd use that to solicit donations.  "Invent your own job, and see if anybody will pay."





> No matter what there will always be homelessness.


If there's a super-abundance of places where otherwise-homeless individuals can go, including very tolerant ones that will take _anybody_, then being homeless (outside of such an institution) will be just another "lifestyle choice".

And, if all land is private, people would inevitably be some place where they have the owner's permission to stay.  Homelessness is only really possible when you have a "tragedy of the commons" on gov't territory.

But that doesn't mean homeless will have no place to go.  It's a big universe out there, and all human beings have some value.  People feel good about themselves when they help others - sorry, Miss Rand, some amount of altruism is hardwired into our brains...





> Michael Moore came up with putting homeless people in storage facilities, because they are heated and air conditioned.  Obviously it was a joke he came up to say Americans aren't taking care of the problem.  But I'd rather store myself than sleep on park bench.


Think about that for a moment - why is it cost-effective to build storage facilities that people could live in, but not residential facilities that are just as affordable?  Regulations!  Duh!

Like I've said in my Town Hall speech quoted above: "there is an abundance of land, and 21st century science and technology make shelter ever-cheaper to construct".

Government intervention into the marketplace is the only reason why the poor are paying $1000/month rent, instead of buying a $1000 mass-produced Tiny House, placed on donated untaxed land, and being set for life!

----------


## Working Poor

I like it. I send you my best wishes and look forward to hearing more.

----------


## amy31416

//

Lots of interesting stuff here.

----------


## Working Poor

I would like to see this getting a lot more media attention.

----------


## Alex Libman

That's what I'm trying to do, but (obviously) I'm not a "media relations" / PR pro.  The local rag press and MSM are against us.  We could use all the help we can get, particularly with the promotion of this documentary.  I'm really hoping my libertarian / Ron Paul supporter friends will help get the word out...

----------


## Czolgosz

Cock at :58.

----------


## fisharmor

> Panhandling is pure libertarianism done to the  bone.  No politics, just the pure freedom to ask for money to keep  buying the drugs libertarians want legal!


Actually,  panhandling is a symptom of statism done to the bone.  If panhandlers  were to try to work, or make things to sell, or otherwise try to improve  their lot without begging, then they immediately hit barriers.

As my brother says: give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, _and now he has to get a license_.




> No matter what there will always be homelessness.


Yeah, but in a libertarian system, the homeless will be voluntarily homeless.
When  was the last time anyone in the US saw a genuine hobo?  But that seems  like a perfectly acceptable life to me.  How come leaving your office  job and putting everything you need on your back and going out into the  world is only acceptable if it's a vacation?


Back OT: definitely looking forward to seeing this, and keep up the good work!

----------


## Alex Libman

Good points, fisharmor, thank you.





> Cock at :58.


And "pigs" in the background:


Minister Steve Being Arrested by Alex Libman, on Flickr

Now let's be serious...

Having roosters around is just good survivalism (even if they do wake me up at like 4am).  Chickens turn old bread into protein better than any mammal, though people in Tent City almost never eat them - they also keep down the bug population, which is very important for everyone's health and safety.  (The couple who takes care of the birds here are vegetarians, and so are a number of other people in the camp.)

The shot you've mentioned is of a good man being arrested...


Minister Steve Arrest Protest by Alex Libman, on Flickr

----------


## Alex Libman

From the Destiny's Bridge blog -- *Tent City / Destiny's Bridge Documentary Soon To Go Public* --




> The documentary entitled "Destiny's Bridge" has been edited into an 86-minute *DVD, which will be available to the public following initial public screenings, expected to begin during the first or second week in August 2013*. 
> 
> Independent film maker Jack Ballo has woven a tapestry of images and stories into a compelling narrative about the plight of the people of Lakewood, NJ's (USA) "Tent City", and their *hopes for a new type of community following the concept of Destiny's Bridge*; it is expected that Rev. Steven Brigham (widely known as "Minister Steve") would have a prominent role in the management of such a community, as he has with Lakewood’s Tent City since at least 2006.
> 
> More to follow...


[WP] [FB] [G+] [TW] [SU] [TU] [PIN]

DVD cover:

----------


## Alex Libman

I've clumsily started something like a chat-room about Tent City / Destiny's Bridge on Facebook, and introduced the situation to some of my FB friends.  (Clumsily because I refused to use "social networks" before just a couple of months ago, when someone asked me to use it "for the cause", and sometimes FB doesn't behave the way you expect...)


Some _very_ interesting people were able to weigh in...


*L. Neil Smith* [FB] [TW] [WP] [WQ]:




> All I have to contribute to the topic is this, but it is enough.
> 
> Buy a copy of my book _Down With Power: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis_. Over my 50-odd years as an activist and advocate, *I am convinced that involuntary homelessness and poverty are the result of deliberate practices on the part of the government* and its various corporate symbionts.
> 
> We can see this clearly on the world stage, where there is widespread hunger but no shortage of food. *What creates starvation is a political class whose greed and lust for absolute power stands in the way of freedom from both misery and tyranny.*
> 
> There is also the United Nations, whose upper echelons (although the "embedded media" ignore it) have openly declared that they want to see 90% of the human race exterminated.
> 
> The only action you can take that will have any lasting meaning or effect is to read my book, and then join me in speaking out to end both taxation and economic regulation, which are the chains by which we are held captive. The result will be an immediate 8-to-10-fold increase in real wealth and purchasing power, and an end to the problem you're concerned with.
> ...



*Mary J. Ruwart* [G+] [FB] [IN] [WP]:




> L Neil Smith is correct: *most homelessness is a direct result of zoning and building restrictions, which keep housing prices high*. When I was renting to low income tenants, the city of Kalamazoo enforced ridiculous codes (like the length of a kitchen counter), so that landlords would have to do expensive renovations, raise rents, and drive the poor out of the city. The inspectors told me they did this deliberately and were proud of how they were "cleaning up" the city. They didn't think about the homelessness that would and did result.



*Davi Barker (The Muslim Agorist)* [G+] [FB] [IN] [TW] [YT] [FTL] [SS]:




> I wrote this years ago about a particular homeless man who got himself out of poverty in a very libertarian way, entrepreneurship. Of course it was the city that came and shut him down in the name of helping him.
> 
> Minimum wage, licensing laws, and vending permits have a lot to do with it too. I've been trying to think my way into an actual solution since I wrote this, but so far everything I've come up with would be criminal. But my short answer is, *if you want to help the homeless, train them to be Agorists*.
> 
> Alex, I love what you're doing.
> 
> *http://www.examiner.com/article/what-about-the-poor*



*L. Neil Smith*:




> Here's something that may interest you.
> 
> *http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2008/tle497-20081214-04.html*
> 
> I first wrote this speech in the early 1970s for delivery to Libertarian Party audiences. I gave a version of it at a Future of Freedom conference in Culver City, California in 1987; among others in the audience was the great Robert Anton Wilson, who came to me afterward and praised the speech and my delivery highly. Made me blush and almost made me weep.
> 
> The version here has been modified to support my social contract, the "Covenant of Unanimous Consent" but you can disregard that aspect of it if you wish. The general idea is the effect of freedom on the economy. I'm going to prepare a more generic version in the near future and probably make an audio recording of it.
> 
> Here you go ...
> ...





> Thank you, Mary.  Robert LeFevre used to tell some very funny (and infuriating) stories about his attempt to open a restaurant in San Francisco. I suspect Robert Heinlein drew some of his "The Tale of the Twins Who Weren't" in _Time Enough For Love_ from LeFevre's experience.
> 
> One story involved the requirement for a legal occupancy notice -- we've all seen them: "This Room Seats 120 People". He had a sign maker draw him up a nice one on poster board, only to be told he was in violation: the sign had to be made in cast bronze, and by some odd coincidence, the Mayor's brother just happened to have a foundry ...
> 
> It cost something like $800 in the 1950s. How many jobs in the kitchen did that wipe out? I've always said that *poverty is the government's most important product and its proudest achievement*.

----------


## amy31416

Hobnobbing with the bigwigs, eh Alex?

Awesome stuff.

----------


## Alex Libman

> Hobnobbing with the bigwigs, eh Alex?


Just wait till I get to Ron and Rand.

----------


## Darguth

Would love to see the documentary if there are to be any screenings in the southeast or mid-Michigan areas.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

When is the entire documentary going to be available?

I've seen a community such as the one you are living but never anything so extravagant. You guys really did good for yourselves, it's a shame the harassment you face by the local pigs. Hopefully you are able to retain your home.

----------


## bolil

Okay, I do not want to make a new thread and will offer my input on the current topic before going forward.  There is no libertarian solution to homelessness.  It is a condition incumbent upon the sufferer or possessor to alleviate.  The libertarian philosophy, as I understand it, is without artificial devaluation of property (LVT/property tax) and jobs(but there IS no inflation, tell that to a fifties dollar, punk), the 'homeless' numbers would be negligible.  BUT THEY WILL NEVER DISAPPEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Liberty is a philosophy of contrasts, there will be rich and there will be poor.  That is the one thing a philosophy of liberty has in common with the other lesser brands.  In a free society, however, or so I believe, the rich and the poor would not be subject to the current ulterior universes.  EG the rich get kidneys while the poor get dialysis or death.  By simple fact of supply the poor will always be more powerful that the 'rich' (I mean the justly rich, not the haliburton types) by virture of their superior numbers.  Nietzsche breaks this down in a better way, even though translated, than I ever could.  Out of respect for scholarly curiosity I withhold the source.

Indeed, since there will always be more poor they will always have more power, so long as they choose to see it.  Power to tell corporations like Walmart to get $#@!ed (now, besides that, I will speak no ill of walmart since  for a long time they gave me a safeish place to sleep which is more than I can say of any mom and pop that would've had me in $#@!ing irons before the sun came up... then again I am yuppie spawn, a homeless scion of sell out hippies one might say).

----------


## Alex Libman

> Would love to see the documentary if there are to be any screenings in the southeast or mid-Michigan areas.


Hopefully there will be.  The DestinysBridge.com *Screenings* page will be updated as decisions about premiere and screening locations are made.  You can also follow Destiny's Bridge Documentary on *Facebook*, *Twitter*, and *IMDb* for more info.





> When is the entire documentary going to be available?


We'll definitely have DVD's, and we'll see if we can do something like Netflix as well.  Use links above to subscribe for the latest.

----------


## Alex Libman

> I've seen a community such as the one you are living but never anything so extravagant. You guys really did good for yourselves, it's a shame the harassment you face by the local pigs. Hopefully you are able to retain your home.


We could have done a lot better if the Township had just left us alone.  (Nevermind actually helping us, even though they steal plenty of tax-victim money in the name of "helping the poor".)

All their slander and harassment has chased away a lot of volunteers, and destroyed a lot of goodwill with local businesses and the public...  Gov't stooges in the local press have constantly spread false rumors about us, like that Tent City is already closed.  Without this harassment, and all the energy that has been wasted on trying to counteract it, Tent City could have been a _much_ cleaner, greener, and friendlier place...

I personally see it as my calling to help out in such a place the best that I can.  If/when this Tent City is shut down, I'd like to help start a new one, hopefully in a much less tyrannical place than Lakewood, NJ...





> There is no libertarian solution to homelessness.  It is a condition incumbent upon the sufferer or possessor to alleviate.


As L Neil Smith emphasized in the quote above, we are talking about "*INVOLUNTARY* homelessness".

I also prefer to avoid using the word "homeless" when talking about my fellow Tent City residents, although it is the label that most people are familiar with.  I prefer terms like Tenters, tent-dwellers, or "otherwise-homeless" individuals.

Many people would be "otherwise-homeless" without their home, and for us our home happens to be a cheap tent.  I don't know anyone who is incapable of earning that much in a free market and pulling one's own weight, and of course there's voluntary charity as well.  Give somebody a $90 tent (not necessarily new), and a place to put it up where they won't be harassed (plus perhaps a $25 sleeping bag, some plywood to build an elevated platform, a sheet of tarp, and a few other low-cost items) - and s\he's no longer homeless!

The problem that I'm talking about solving is the problem of artificial scarcity and other examples of government failure.  Take that away, and no truly-involuntarily-homeless people would remain, and the rights of people "homesteading government land" like us would be recognized.





> [...]  there will be rich and there will be poor.  [...]


I agree completely.  I'm not pushing for any kind of "equality of outcomes" here!  I live in a tent because, in terms of my material assets, _that is what I deserve_.  That said, in a free society, there must be equality of _negative_ Rights.  The richest and the poorest are equal in their (natural, negative) Right to Life, Liberty, Property, Parents' Rights, and Right of Contract.  Bill Gates shouldn't be able to steal (or "tax") even a penny from the poorest person in the world, and vice-versa.

Contrary to popular propaganda, *it is the socialists that really hate the poor*, especially when they refuse to be used as propaganda pawns to encourage the socialists' "welfare" racket.  I'm sure the socialists would love me to go back to a highly-paid programming job, so that they'd get most of my paycheck, and I'd not have the time and energy to speak out against their falsehoods and injustice...

Libertarians / pro-capitalists / free market advocates are the greatest allies that the poor people have.  It is the free market that pushes down the cost of living, while the socialists / statists are raising it.  The local Walmart store here has done more to help the poor (including by letting people who sleep in their cars stay on their parking lot) than all the politicians in this town!


(I apologize for the selective and raving reply - I may do better later).

----------


## Alex Libman

On Friday, from _The Lakewood Scoop_ -- *Township Tears Down Illegal Tents at Tent City* --




> Illegal may be a relative term when dealing with an illegal encampment, but the Township on Friday tore down approximately 20 illegal tents at Tent City in an effort to crack down *on those not willing to take part in the closing of the encampment* -- despite the court orders -- and on those who moved in following the court order.
> 
> After the recent court order and agreement which would officially put an end to the homeless camp by finding placement for those eligible, most of the residents present at the encampments at the time of the settlement agreed to be counted, documented and IDd -- along with their structures -- as officials from the Township, County, and STEPS work on placement.
> 
> However, the Mayor confirms to _TLS_ that *some decided to not take part in the program*. So on Friday, those who wished to remain in the camp "illegally", saw that _Officials mean business_. []
> 
> "Per our agreement, no new people are allowed to move in," Mayor Akerman tells _TLS_. "We gave notice to those who moved in after the court order that we will be tearing down their tents."
> 
> And if new ones are built, they too will be torn down.
> ...


Note that by "new people moving in" they don't mean me; I came to Tent City on March 1st, and that's well in advance of their deadline - I simply refused to accept their deal. I'm just a libertarian guy living in the woods, trying not to pay the bad guys' salaries, helping out around Tent City, and fighting for the Right to homestead government land. I've complied with the census, as per my personal policy of transparency, but I've refused to take an ID card. (Enough about me, back to the article.)

*By "illegal" they mean that a handful of bureaucrats got together and decided that "public property", which the government stole from the marketplace, cannot be used by members of the "public" who they've hurt the most. This gave them exactly what they wanted - an excuse to rob the tax-victims for a few million more...*

When they reference the Consent Order "agreement" to justify evictions... It's just simply laughable! These people must have slept through the first day of Contract Law 101! Person A and Person B cannot sign an "agreement" binding Person C to do something! The majority of Tenters signed up for "One Year Of Free Housing" - _I didn't_. What's next, maybe those lawyers will decide to marry me without requiring an "I do"?!

Everything in this article is wrong, including the number 20. The total number of tents marked for demolition is about 15, and only a fraction of the work was completed on that day. The bulldozers and police came back at around 8:30am today (Monday), and the demolition "work" continued. 

They're demolishing slowly and ineptly (I wonder if we can build new shanties faster!), but no doubt at a huge cost to the taxpayers... It probably costs more to run those bulldozers for a day than it does to run the whole camp for a month, supporting the lives of over 100 otherwise-homeless human beings!

Lots of trees are being damaged by the bulldozers. The local chickens / cats / dogs / rabbits / etc might get hurt as well. I've even heard unverified rumors of reckless endangerment of human life, as some guy allegedly had to cut his way out of a tent as it was being demolished...

And of course this article is wrong in its unreferenced claim that "even the current residents of Tent City are not happy about some of the new arrivals". I haven't heard this generalization from anybody. This resident for one would love to see more people move right in!

----------


## Alex Libman

The premiere date for *Destiny's Bridge* -- the feature-length documentary about the Tent City of Lakewood, NJ -- has now been set!  

I hope that you can *join us at the premiere event* on August 7th in Red Bank, NJ!


_Please help me promote this event by inviting your friends in the area via events on Facebook and Google+._


Other screening locations, DVD's, and possibly online distribution will be announced in the near future...

----------


## presence



----------


## Barrex

Bump for later.


Where do you get  your internet from? You carry it from post office in buckets?
During winter how do you keep warm in those plastic tents without any insulation?

What are your plans? Will you sleep in front of city hall or something like that if they kick you out?

I apologize if I am too intrusive with my questions. Just curious.

----------


## Alex Libman

Regarding the bulldozer-mobbing pictures Presence posted - that's not going to happen here.  With pretty much everybody else taking the "one year of free housing" deal (heck-knows-when, heck-knows-where, with heck-dozen restrictions and hoops to jump through), it's just me - and backflip-offa-bulldozer gymnastics aren't exactly my specialty...  I'm a fat slow unphotogenic uncharismatic stuttering dope, so nothing grand will happen here...  If you want action, go join the beautiful people in Keene, NH (or at least subscribe to their YouTubes and Qik.coms).  I'm all about philosophy out here, and I don't have any particularly bright ideas right now...

But when I do - I'll post them here.  





> Where do you get  your internet from?


Cellular 4G.  It's fast enough, but we can't afford more than 10 gigs a month, so no video.  I go to other places in town (but not the library!) to download video.





> During winter how do you keep warm in those plastic tents without any insulation?


Hating commies as much as I do automatically raises your body temperature quite a bit.  

Then, to keep the heat in - longjohns, sweaters, sleeping bags, blankets, one of those Russian hats...  Don't even _really_ need a stove (or so I hear, I've only been here since March 1st), but if you've got one then it's no problem at all.





> What are your plans? Will you sleep in front of city hall or something like that if they kick you out?


Nah, I'm not charismatic enough for that kind of activism, and it would be off-point - one can't exactly homestead City Hall...  I'll just go to another patch of woodland - stolen from the marketplace by the government in the name of the "public", until they remind me, again, that the "public" doesn't include me...

Maybe in NH - but, if the forums are any indication, NH people are sadistic book-burning fiends...  Seeking freedom in an agorist chain-gang with those people is no freedom at all...  Might as well stay and fight where I am now...  It is better to be wounded by your enemies than by your supposed allies...

----------


## Barrex

Thanks.

I didnt meant for you to homestead City hall 

Just let them ask them selfs a question: If we destroy then they must go somewhere else. Where?

----------


## Alex Libman

Oh they're always willing to steal more tax money and put people in motels.  Higher taxes => higher cost of rent and less jobs staying in the area => more people homeless => even higher taxes...  That's their solution, and it isn't working!

I'm advocating ending the Welfare State racket and leaving Tent Cities alone.  It's perfectly possible for poor people to survive cheaply - let us.  Living in tents is exactly what some people deserve...

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

I wish you guys the best of luck. I was just reading about this the other day via NJ Libertarian Party.

And did the police really arrest that priest? The one who originally gave out the first tent? Shame on them!

----------


## Alex Libman

Thank you very much.

Yeah, Minister Steve Brigham had been arrested on several occasions.  From what I understand, that was their strategy at one point - get him out of the camp, so that it would "fall apart" without his leadership.  Basically the township interests sent their stooges to TC to raise all sorts of trouble (including theft), and then blame Brigham for trying to drive them out.  It probably would have worked, but there was too much of a backlash to his arrests, and also someone volunteered to pay his bail.  There was also a time when they wanted to fine him personally _millions of dollars a month_ ("X dollars times Y stoves times Z days").  I don't know all the details of that - it was before my time at Tent City.

Right now the harassment has changed its nature due to that "one year of free housing" offer, that _almost_ all residents (who were there on certain date) had signed up for.  The township thinks they've won -- that TC will be bulldozed gradually as people are placed in housing, and anyone not taking free housing is evicted by force -- so other forms of harassment have been dropped...  Minister Steve is walking a tightrope, and must appear to be onboard with their plan... for now...

Some of the aforementioned gov harassment is covered in the documentary, premiering in Red Bank, NJ on August 7th.  Other screening locations, DVD's, and online distribution will be announced some time after that.  *We're really counting on that film being a success and bringing a lot of attention to our cause...  Please help us spread the word!*  Share and invite your friends in the area via Facebook, Google+, etc...

----------


## Alex Libman

I'm very happy that other libertarians, in New Jersey and elsewhere, are starting to talk about Tent City.  For example, my forum writings have been *picked up by the NJLP*.  There's also been a great blog post by Dorit Goikhman with some _constructive_ criticism of Tent Cities not being a perfect solution - I will respond to that later.  I would very much like to hear more libertarians discuss this issue - on this forum, on their blogs, on our Facebook page, etc.

On Saturday, Tent City had a visit from *Steven J Uccio*, Libertarian candidate for the NJ State Assembly (14th Legislative District).  He posted photos of his visit on FB.  (My tent is the one under blue tarp, with a collapsed pillar, and hanging laundry, LOL.)  Steven wrote:




> There's a place called "Tent City" in Lakewood, NJ. It's a group of about 100 homeless people who have no where else to go. The closest shelter is in Atlantic City and it's full. The township's solution is to offer everyone a free year of housing. It's a trick. When those people are gone the township's going to bulldoze the place to the ground and hope they never return. That's "Government Chairty," bulldozing a person's home.
> 
> There's no long term solution. These people would be better off if they were left alone. There are private charities willing to help, but I'm told the township is trying to discourage people from helping them.


I couldn't agree more!  I also agree with one of the FB comments - "first candidate I've seen talk about this".  In the history of Tent City, a Dem or two might have mentioned TC in an urge to tax-and-spend, but they too want it to be shut down.  I think Libertarians are the only ones who can push for a fair and rational solution - _recognize the negative Rights of Tent City residents, call off the bulldozers, and let private charity work!_


Another Tent City that has recently been in the news is Nickelsville [FB] in Seattle, WA.  Governments seem to be playing from the same gamebook, as those Tenters were also given a "mess of pottage" offer to GTFO...

A lot of excuses for Big Government are made "in the name of the poor".  Voluntary Tent Cities, if some improvements are made, can be a perfect counter-example!


---


Unrelated to TC, but a great quote:

----------


## osan

> That's not what this thread is about.  But - on private land, it would obviously be up to the property owner to set policy.  "Aggressive panhandling" (and aggressive anything else) is obviously out.
> 
> Now, let's get back to the issues of this thread - the Tent City of Lakewood NJ, the _Destiny's Bridge_ documentary, unemployed people living cheaply in tents / shanties, etc...


OK, let us examine this a bit so I may understand more clearly.  We have "unemployed people" living "cheaply in tents".  With you so far.

Being unemployed, I feel it is reasonable to assume these people have no substantive investment portfolios or even much of a nest egg.  Why, after all, would they be living cheaply in tents if they could live in houses?

So, if these people living "cheaply in tents" have no income and at best a very small volume of cash on which to so live, what do they do when the money runs out?  How will they eat?  Even if we accept absolute bare minimal living, which some may refer to as "mere existence" with a measure of justification, wouldn't at least a bar of soap be a not unreasonable desire for the sake of rudimentary hygiene?  Where will the $$ come for that, or are we suggesting blowjobs in exchange for Ivory?

Seriously, when all the money runs out, what then?  Shall these people simply roll over and die for the convenience of their fellows?  If not, whence their daily sustenance?  Shall they band together to pool resources and hunt local wild game?  Granted, NJ has an almost grotesque over population of deer, but even those will not last forever if tens of thousands of people are expecting to eat venison daily.  If only 100K people end up in tents, that leaves only about 5 deer per capita.  That might sound like a lot, but over time it is not nearly enough to support sustained predation at the rates in question.  100K may sound like a lot of people, but in the grand scheme of the larger population it is a tiny proportion - just over 1%.

Let us not entertain such cities on private property as this is not likely to happen with any frequency.  Let us consider public lands.  They pop up like mushrooms... where?  State parks?  Not the best locations from several points of view such as basic services such as water and toilets.  So if you have, say, 100 people living in a tent city, that is 100 people crapping and peeing _somewhere_ every day at least once.  In time, you will not be able to take a step without landing a shoe or, gasp, a bare foot in a steamy fresh lunker, courtesy of one of your neighbors.  Or does everyone agree to poo in one place?  Now THERE'S a healthy solution.  Thus far, things are not looking so great.

So... we perhaps go closer to town... perhaps the fairgrounds?  Likely the same problems as out in the woods.  Town square?  OK... assuming there are public rest facilities.  Will there be enough so that when that outbreak of cholera hits everyone will be able to $#@! their guts out when needed and not have to wait in lines?  Porta potties?  Sure... who pays?  Speaking of which, how will the rest of the townfolk feel about all this?  I can smell the tragedy of the commons somewhere in all this, but never mind that for now.  What about the dreaded property tax and... wait for it now... "fairness"?  How fair do you think people in a $#@! hole like NJ are going to feel it is that they are paying $15K in property taxes on their 1/8 acre "estates" while those in tent city pay nothing?  How fair will they find yet another tax hike because funds are needed to "support" our less fortunate brethren?  I can also smell "redistribution of wealth by stealthy and back-door means" somewhere in this as well.

And we have not even begun to address the teetering economy and unemployment in households where there is an actual house in which people live.  Strip away all the noise elements and get down to the basics here and what we see is a growing, if albeit artificially contrived, scarcity of resources.  As the scarcity grows, so do the various pressures upon one and all not living off a huge investment portfolio and who can afford Gulstreams as mere toys.

Staying with me, what do we see as the inevitable outcome of growing demand in an environment of similarly growing scarcity?  Must I spell it out?  OK, I will: people will begin to lose their sense of humor about things and in turn, their manners.  They will eventually begin to quarrel and the little that this one may have will be looked upon with great covetousness, if not outright avarice and in time quarreling will devolve into violence.  The historical record on this is long, ugly, and vigorously unequivocal on this.  And I say this not because people will not cooperate to make things better as  communities, but because they will not be able to.  They hold claim to what basic resources to which they may add value and sustain themselves?  VERY few and almost certainly not enough.

Example: say I am the only guy in "town" with a rifle.  It is not terribly unreasonable to find that I become the town hunter.  I spend my days in the woods depopulating the deer.  Am I working for free?  Probably not.  I do, after all, have to have ammunition... so whence does that come?  What about other needs?  I can use only so many blow-jobs in exchange for that which I provide, which in this case for many is life itself.  And once again there is the issue of relations with those still in houses.

Oh yes, this sort of thing stands to go out of control.  Perhaps that is what Theye want.  After all, would these tensions not provide an ideal and readily accepted pretext for further usurpation and action pursuant thereto?  "Normal" townfolk are sick to death of the filthy squatters who get free rides on someone else's nickels for at least some services.  Taxes have gone up to pay for this $#@!.  The tenters are hovering on the edges of... what?  Nothing good, so they are not exactly the happiest campers... literally.  Perhaps violence has broken out already in spots or is just threatening to do so.  Everyone is tense and miserable.  In comes 'Bammy with he rescue trux full o'food'n'stuff.  Loahd puRAYUZ 'Bammy, or whatever other scumbag wretches forth such hairballs into the laps of the "community".  Nevertheless, what do we feel the likely response shall be?  Nothing less than a grand lay-down.  $#@! my freedom and my rights because I need to eat.  $#@! my freedom and my rights because I want those filthy tenters outta my town.  $#@! my freedom and my rights because...

And the list of reasons to say $#@! my freedom and my rights will be twenty miles long.  This, I believe, is part of Theire strategy - to wear people down so far by making it impossible for them to succeed on their own that they simply give up due to the artificially imposed practical barriers.  In the end, a full stomach will trump civil rights.  Let things go far enough, but not too far, and you will get the proles to eat from you hands, or the end of your pecker, such as may please you at a given moment.

Tent cities in a world as heavily laden with conflicting populations and interests as is this one, especially in crap holes like NJ where the population density cannot be sustained without great artifice, can perforce only be short term solutions, and there time and size are mutual antagonists.  Grow one and the other must of necessity shrink.  This dooms the "solution" by virtue of fabric.  In other words, it is a non-solution.

Yes, we are in some deep kimchee and Theye are loving it.

EDIT:  I forgot to mention that we see clearly how the suppression of prosperity destroys the fabric and spirit of a culture.  Given this, why are we not out hanging these bastards by their necks until they are dead?

----------


## MelissaCato

Interesting. And thanks for being my friend on facebook. Good Luck.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Michael Moore came up with putting homeless people in storage facilities, because they are heated and air conditioned.  Obviously it was a joke he came up to say Americans aren't taking care of the problem.  But I'd rather store myself than sleep on park bench.


 Most storage units are _not_ heated nor cooled, nor ventilated in any way.  That is not to say one couldn't live in one.

----------


## ZakCarter

Very cool Alex!  Maybe we need to introduce your tent city to the guys featured in this film! - http://thesparkfilm.com/

----------


## Alex Libman

Thank you very much for words of support.  Sorry I skipped a couple of things - I'll catch up with replies later.

Quick Tent City of Lakewood, NJ news round-up:

The Aug 7th "world premiere" of _Destiny's Bridge_, a feature documentary film about Tent City, is *SOLD OUT*!  A successful launch likely means there will be more screenings in other locations nationwide, film festivals, etc.  Be sure to like / follow the film on  Facebook or Twitter for updates.  It should also be possible for people to sponsor or host screenings in their area - PM me if you're interested, and I'll talk to the filmmaker.There's been a lull in the confrontation with the government - for now.  Minister Steve Brigham wanted to appear cooperative, stay away from Town Hall, let them tear up a few tents, and hope they forget about Tent City for a while - particularly that they don't interfere with the film premiere.  (Which we couldn't hold at the Strand Theater in Lakewood - mainly because they're part of the same good-ol-boy network as the municipal gov't.)  I've decided to follow his lead.  It looks like it worked, at least for a while...  For their part, after they've had their latest "show of force" with the bulldozers, the piggies got lazy again and there's been less harassment than usual..."Less harassment than usual" is still A LOT of harassment to deal with.  A few days ago cops came in and fired 5 bullets at one of our dogs...  In another recent example, they've blocked off the road to prevent a church youth group from entering with donations.  Times are hard, and donations to Tent City are drying up, mostly because a lot of people have been misinformed by the unfriendly local media that the place is already shut down...There's a lot of incompetence and confusion about that "free apartment for a year to GTFO" bribe that everyone except me accepted.  Only a couple of people have been placed so far...  So the population of the camp is the highest it's ever been, with a lot of people jumping on board just before the deadline to get free housing.  (Some people are what we call the "Bad Apples", and they could be deliberate monkey-wrenches thrown at us by the municipal gov't - they make up ridiculous slander against Minister Steve, and try to scare away any donors that come in.  Remember that we're not allowed by the gov't to evict anyone...)  A lot of people thought the government would follow through quickly and keep its word - LOL...  I've been trying to help Tent City grow its online presence, but, to be perfectly honest...  I'm just a burned-out half-blind manic-depressive ex-programmer living off-the-grid...  Promoting the documentary has taken up most of my productive energy.  (I've also been frustrated by the fact that I can't get anyone else here to help me do some serious internal journalism and writing for the Web-site; and not everybody at Tent City is happy with my libertarian positions...)  I could really use everyone's help in spreading the word about Tent City.  Please invite all your friends to *the TentCityNJ page on Facebook*.  If you run a blog, please give Tent City a mention to help spread the word...Last night _Drudge Report_ had a picture of Chris Christie (Vote Ken Kaplan! F/T) and a link to a news story about a tent city in NJ!  BUT, in what to me is a huge snub, it had to be a story about the relatively tiny and disorganized tent city in Camden, not our Tent City in Lakewood...  WTF?!

----------


## Alex Libman

Dutch TV show about Tent City - 30 minutes:  [FB] [G+] [TW]




A reality show from the Netherlands called *Destination Unknown*, season 3, episode 3.  Dutch and English dialog, with English subtitles where needed.  The episode aired in Europe on March 29, 2012.

The show meets up with random young people in the Netherlands, and offers to take them on a free trip, but there's a catch - they won't know their actual destination. In this episode, the young people are excited to learn that they're going to the USA - they're thinking Vegas, Disneyland, NYC... But they end up somewhere completely unexpected!

Tent City is a village of about 100 otherwise-homeless individuals living in the woods of Lakewood, NJ - about an hour drive from New York City. These are people who, for various reasons, were unable to pay the rent (which in the area starts at $1100/month for a one-bedroom apartment), had no other place where they could stay, and had no choice but to live in a shanty or a tent on "public" land.

----------


## Alex Libman

I apologize for the delay in my response.





> OK, let us examine this a bit so I may understand more clearly.  We have "unemployed people" living "cheaply in tents".  With you so far.


First of all, "unemployed" is a somewhat inaccurate term to apply to _all_ Tent City residents.

What most Tent City residents have in common (excluding 1-2 political activism nuts we have here, hehe) is that they cannot afford better housing.  And the term "afford" doesn't merely mean having enough savings / income to get an apartment for a few of months, and then likely fail to make rent and get evicted again, ending up penniless and worse off than before.  It's not worth-while to commit to an apartment unless you have some security about being able to afford it on a long-term basis, and have enough money left over for other things as well.  As the result of countless regulations, zoning laws and other contributing factors to artificial scarcity, property tax, etc, a one-bedroom apartment is pretty much impossible to afford for one person working full-time at near-minimum wage.

Almost all Tent City residents I know -- even the drunks and the addicts -- look for work at least some of the time.  They go to employment agencies, and they stand in certain places where employers pick them up for a day's construction work.  People tend to go through cycles of discouragement - at the peak of this cycle they make their best effort to get their lives together and find work, but then they get disappointed and surrender to their addictions for a while...

Some residents are in their 60s and 70s.  A few are physically or mentally disabled.  Some are living off disability or veteran's benefits (a disproportionately large fraction of TC residents are vets), which isn't enough to afford an apartment.  Some work full time, but haven't yet been able to leave Tent City.  Some have a large fraction of their salary deducted because they're behind on Child Support payments...  One very resourceful Tent City resident makes a respectable amount of money collecting scrap metal.  At some point we had an artist who would intermittently get lots of money by selling an artwork, but then have no income for months.  So they cannot afford an apartment, but they could be off welfare, pulling their weight, and have a fairly decent quality of life in a place like Tent City.

Tent City does have a significant turn-around rate - people come here when they're down on their luck, and leave when they've had full-time work for a while and were able to afford better options.  I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd say that of the hundreds of people who've come through Tent City, only a (highly visible) minority stayed more than 1-2 years.

As I state above, government is the cause of many problems that Tent City residents are having: it in effect discouraged job creation in the area, it multiplies the cost of rent, it creates resentment against them by stealing in their name and accomplishing very little positive with that money, it stifles voluntary charity, it makes addiction worse through prohibitionism, etc.

Tent City is the free market answer to the problem - it routes around government BS and provides a lower cost of living, which is what the marketplace demands.






> Being unemployed, I feel it is reasonable to assume these people have no substantive investment portfolios or even much of a nest egg.  Why, after all, would they be living cheaply in tents if they could live in houses?
> 
> So, if these people living "cheaply in tents" have no income and at best a very small volume of cash on which to so live, what do they do when the money runs out?  How will they eat?  Even if we accept absolute bare minimal living, which some may refer to as "mere existence" with a measure of justification, wouldn't at least a bar of soap be a not unreasonable desire for the sake of rudimentary hygiene?  Where will the $$ come for that, or are we suggesting blowjobs in exchange for Ivory?


My ideal would be to see Tent Cities where everyone can pull their own weight working at least part-time, but currently this isn't the case.  I do support legalizing prostitution, but I think everyone will have better options for employment.  We need voluntary organizations that make it easier for poor people to find at least part-time work.  Poor people can also pull some of their economic weight by building their own shelter, building and tending greenhouses that grow food, etc.

At present, our Tent City relies heavily on a network of *local volunteers* who donate food, bottled water, and other survival essentials.  For example, one champion supporter (Jeff "the Chef" Doucette) cooks a weekly meal for the entire camp.  He also alleviated our drinking water shortage with the aid of two 120-gallon tanks - one kept at the camp to dispense water, and another in his truck to bring refills for the first.  We also accept *financial donations* (ex. via *PayPal* and BitCoin), which go to things like trash bags, propane (with which we heat food and water), and gasoline for the electrical generator (which powers the groundwater pump for the shower, and the car batteries which now recharge my laptop, which has also been donated).

Voluntary charity is not only far more moral than the Welfare State, but it is also far more efficient, and it averts the danger of centralized power inevitably being misused to tyrannical ends.

Some people help the poor for religious or altruistic reasons, but there are also rational and selfish reasons to do so.  Homelessness and extreme poverty are problems that the free market needs to solve in order to flourish, and people who help solve these problems should get all the recognition and respect they deserve.  I'll comply with any donor's request to remain anonymous, but I encourage them not to.  We need to build a culture where voluntary philanthropy is valued, and where building a Tent City gets you more respect than driving a Lamborghini - then that will be the death of the Welfare State, and all other Statism along with it!

Cost-effective solutions to poverty often call for ingenious technological solutions.  Like Howard Roark agreeing to architect a housing project for the poor in exchange for nothing but an agreement to retain creative control, because the economic design challenge fascinated him, many competent individuals will find perfectly selfish motivations to voluntarily help the poor.  Rational people will help eliminate poverty - not because they see themselves as "their brothers' keepers", but because they love innovation, efficiency, and freedom!





> Seriously, when all the money runs out, what then?  Shall these people simply roll over and die for the convenience of their fellows?  If not, whence their daily sustenance?  Shall they band together to pool resources and hunt local wild game?  Granted, NJ has an almost grotesque over population of deer, but even those will not last forever if tens of thousands of people are expecting to eat venison daily.  If only 100K people end up in tents, that leaves only about 5 deer per capita.  That might sound like a lot, but over time it is not nearly enough to support sustained predation at the rates in question.  100K may sound like a lot of people, but in the grand scheme of the larger population it is a tiny proportion - just over 1%.


You're way off on some imaginary tangent.  No one is advocating a hunter-gatherer lifestyle (with the possible exception of one particularly nutty he-man "troll" I've met on the FSP forum, whose nonsense was debunked to pieces).

If we really needed to produce our own food, it would be more efficient to grow potatoes, beans, corn, kale, mushrooms, hemp, etc.  But that's not really necessary in the modern world.  We never have any real shortage of food at Tent City - donated canned beans, perfectly fresh bagels, and yesterday's surplus pizza (donated daily) are the worst case scenario.  We usually have a BBQ several times a day here.  There are about a hundred chickens and some rabbits living in Tent City, but I've only heard of a couple of occasions of people eating them - they are said to reduce the population of ticks.

What the homeless in the USA lack the most isn't food, but land!  This obviously isn't because USA is some tiny overpopulated island like Hong Kong, but because so much land is hoarded by the state; the so-called "public land", from which homeless people are being bulldozed!  Keep that in mind the next time some socialist tells you that "public" government institutions are necessary to help the poor!


(Gotta run.  Will finish replying later.)

----------


## osan

> I apologize for the delay in my response.
> 
> (Gotta run.  Will finish replying later.)


Who was that masked NJ-ite?

Seriously, I hope you all can pull it off, but it seems to me that the odds are agin' you not because the people are incapable, but because government is going to do its best to torpedo you.  The very last thing they want is an independent colony to do its own thing.  This is doubly dangerous to Themme if that colony begins to prosper because the rest will see it and want to do the same.  This is why the interminable grey blandness must be universal and uniform to a fairly high tolerance.  The minute someone steps out of sync and starts achieving more, the rest see it and want the same.  That is the beginning of real trouble for the tyrant and he will therefore not likely tolerate it.

----------


## Alex Libman

A rant on *the hypocrisy of "public" land* (or "public" anything)...

It has been demonstrated over and over again in economics that market mechanisms encourage efficiency, innovation, and user satisfaction.

You don't like a private Internet cafe, you go to a different one (or pursue some other means of attaining the same benefit).  But you have to pay for the "public" library - whether you use it or not, and whether you like it or not.  *They keep telling us that "public" institutions are necessary to help the poor* - not everyone can pay at a private cybercafé.  That justification is flawed, but it's still the most coherent and popular justification for public schools, public parks, etc, etc, etc.

"In the name of the poor" the government spends $62,000/year per family below the poverty line (and that's just entitlements, not all "public" institutions).  In the name of the poor we have government monopolies in child education, many aspects of transportation, increasingly in health insurance, etc, etc, etc.  If just a fraction of that money had been redistributed directly (i.e. Guaranteed Minimum Income), there'd be no poor in this country, no excuse to retain those government monopolies, and market institutions would bring great efficiency and innovation to all those fields.

The land that Tent City is situated on has been withdrawn from the marketplace and made "public".  *The government didn't homestead this land through labor or obtain it through voluntary trade; it is the default owner through the institutionalized coercion of state.*

The "upper" and "middle" income classes didn't need that service from the government - they can support plenty of greenery (directly or indirectly) in their neighborhoods, county clubs, golf courses, private parks, etc.  They pay more in taxes than they get back, and what they get back isn't necessarily what they want.

Thus *this excuse for "government ownership" of land (which was built on false premises to begin with), breaks down completely when laws are passed prohibiting the poorest people from using it*!

----------


## Alex Libman

Last night our Tent City [FB] had a visit from a current political celebrity - *Barbara Buono* [FB] [TW] [WP].

In case anyone didn't know, Barbara Buono is the  NJ State Senator who is the Democratic Party nominee for NJ Governor, running against incumbent Chris Christie and NJ Libertarian Party candidate Ken Kaplan [FB] [TW].





A statement from Minister Steve Brigham, who runs Tent City:




> *It was a pleasure having Barbara Buono in Tent City yesterday.  Although I cannot endorse her as a candidate because of my affiliation to a non-profit, on a personal level I was extremely impressed with the down-to-earth manner in which she interacted with the residents and sympathized with their plight.  To put it simply, Barbara Buono is always welcome in Tent City, no matter what job she has.*



*News Coverage:*

NJ 101.5: Buono To Visit Lakewood's Tent CityNJ Today: Buono Tours Lakewood Tent CityWOMB: Buono Takes Sobering Look at Lakewood Tent CityLakewood Scoop: Governor-hopeful Sen Barbara Buono Visits Lakewood's Tent CityAsbury Park Press: Buono says Lakewood's Tent City points to Christie policy problemsNorthJersey.com: Buono tours homeless encampment as Christie picks up 'Cake Boss' endorsementOcean County Signal: Buono Uses Tent City Visit to Criticize Christie for Giving False Promises to the HomelessThe Daily Beast: Barbara Buono, the Ultimate Underdog

*Video:*










---


Needless to say, my own participation in this has been minimal, except of course doing my "job" as Tent City's "Webmaster" in posting some stuff to http://TentCityNJ.org/Barbara_Buono or http://FB.com/TentCityNJ.

I've also commented on a bunch of news articles (and the seemingly-infinite syndications of an AP story) - and it seems like that got me in trouble with a local radio station...

----------


## Alex Libman

By Rosemary Conte on Patch.com -- *Film Destiny's Bridge Showing in Ocean Twp, NJ* --




> Perhaps you heard about the *World Premiere of Destiny's Bridge*, the film about the homeless community in the woods of Lakewood that was shown at Two River Theater, Red Bank in August. It was sold out... a glorious event; but 100 people had to be turned away as no seats were left!
> 
> Good news is that *we are showing the film again on Thurs, Sept 19, at 7pm* at Middlebrook Cinemas, 1502 Rt. 35 So, Ocean Township, NJ.  *Tickets are only $10 and can only be purchased ONLINE* (print your own ticket) at DestinysBridge.com.
> 
> After the film, there will be a Q&A, with filmmaker Jack Ballo; Tent City Founder Minster Steve Brigham; and Tent City residents featured in the film. 
> 
> Here's what Alex Libman, Lakewood posted after viewing the film: "The experience in Red Bank was unforgettable! The Q&A alone is worth the price of admission! It's definitely the kind of movie you wanna see more than once." 
> 
> Please join us to view this acclaimed and beautiful film made in a technique known as *cinéma vérité* (ver-i-tay.) No narration by the filmmaker. No interviews by the filmmaker. He fades into the background as the camera captures daily life in the woods. Ballo spent a year at the encampment filming its challenges, its conflicts and its joy. In the film you get to know residents - how they got there, and what they think and feel as they talk among themselves, and go about their job of surviving... living through conflicts, attending their tent church, growing vegetables, taking turns cooking for 100 tent residents, tending to their pets and chicken preserve...playing music, and allowing their stories to unfold in the purest way. 
> ...


*Please invite all your friends in NJ to the Facebook Event!*

Most direct link to buy tickets - http://BrownPaperTickets.com/event/450416





For updates on future screening locations, announcements about DVD's, etc please follow Destiny's Bridge on Facebook or Twitter.


---


*Video of the premiere* - film screening, Q&A, and after-party from Aug 7th:  [FB] [G+] [TW]

----------


## Alex Libman

My open e-mail to ilya.hemlin@townsquaremedia.com about http://wobm.com/lakewood-works-towar...-city-closure/ - subject "*Very Inaccurate Article About Tent City*":





> Dear Ilya Hemlin,
> 
> My name is Alex Libman. I am a resident of Tent City (Lakewood, NJ), where I have been trying to help out by maintaining the Tent City Web-site (http://TentCityNJ.org) and Facebook Page (http://FB.com/TentCityNJ).
> 
> I just came across your latest article - which left me (and everyone else I talked to at Tent City) shocked and confused, and in many cases boiling with indignation, because your article is inaccurate on almost every point!
> 
> Where did those numbers come from?! The last I heard, at most 6 residents, out of 122 that were on the census, were placed in housing. This is also the first time I'm hearing about a "health screening". Furthermore, *not all 122 agreed to sell their Rights for the promised "one year free housing" (heck knows when, heck knows where) at tax-victim expense!*
> 
> Akerman comes across as a complete psychopath in thinking that his bulldozing of Tent City will be remembered "in a positive light".  *It will be remembered as a horrible violation of Human Rights, and further proof of the great absurdity of so-called "Public Land" (i.e. land that the government stole from the marketplace, mainly in the name of the poor)! It will be remembered as a blunder that has increased taxes and pushed more and more businesses to leave the area, further contributing to the downward economic spiral that the government has created!*

----------


## Alex Libman

*Tent City Bumper Stickers* - ranging from serious to religious to political to downright silly. What better way is there to promote a cause?

_Tweak 'em, print 'em, stick 'em where you want._ 

Join our TC-BS (Tent City Bumper Stickers) Facebook Group to help brainstorm new ideas or post your design.


If these images get cut off for width, press Ctrl-Minus to zoom out your browser:





































We're ordering some bulk-printed right now to hand out to visitors to Tent City, and of course at _Destiny's Bridge_ screenings and events as well.  If you can't make it in person, and you don't happen to have the special printer hardware - there are many different online services (ex. BuildASign.com) that will print and ship a sticker for about $3.

----------


## Alex Libman

Here is an example of some of the speed bumps that I deal with in my online advocacy of Tent City...

There is this character who calls "him"self "Chris" (ChrisTentCityResident@gmail.com), who has made many malicious and demonstrably false online comments about Tent City.  This includes comments on a local spam and fascist propoganda rag called "The Lakewood Scoop", in whose site's comments section "he" can lie unanswered, as my detailed and tediously-factual comments are always resentfully edited or deleted.  "He" has tried to *vandalize our wiki*, excibiting much stupidity in the process.  He also tries to poke me every few days via e-mail...

"He" claims to be a Tent City resident who expects to get free housing for a year, and is senselessly afraid that I'll get in the way of his mooching.  I have reasons to wager that the reality is even more pathetic - that "he" is a made-up persona, most likely used by more than one person, created by political interests who want Tent City bulldozed.  Here's "his" latest e-mail (with my added emphasis), which seems to be a response to a nasty comments exchange that "he" initiated on Tent City's *Google+ Reviews Page*:




> I am one person, my real name is Chris, and for my own security i cannot disclose my last name as you will scout me out. The facts are on my side as i had a conversation with some of the neighboring residents and i know what goes on inside here. You on the other hand are a new comer here, *brainwashed by Steve Brigham and his cronies* and are totally biased - all you want is that Steve should continue controlling and he is a complete control freak, however *all i want is for us to be placed properly at least for a year* so that i can continue on my life and maybe have some sort of a successful one, You don't want me to expose my evidence on the public forums, it will definitely not do good for you and for me, because the evidence that i have, will taint Steve and your image forever as well as the entire Tent City leaving me with no place to live in the interim. Trust me if you know what i have been documneting and recording you will run for dear life before.......... gotta go now........ see yah later



This is typical nonsense, but the accusation that I've been "brainwashed" by Minister Steve Brigham warrants a response, not only to "him" but as publicly as possible...  So, here's my open reply:




> Dear Bulldozer Troll (which shall be your name until you stop hiding behind anonymity while fortifying your whining on claims of being a Tent City resident),
> 
> *You have never ever presented a single shred of evidence to justify your verbal diarrhea, which is hurting 100+ actual residents of Tent City by scaring away donors and harming potential for goodwill with the surrounding community!* The "for my own security" humbug isn't going to convince anybody - if you were an actual Tent City resident, you would know that there already are plenty of other malicious lying $#@!s here trying to give Minister Steve a hard time, and they get to enjoy complete impunity as Minister Steve continues to tolerate them and provide for their needs. If you refuse to discuss your accusations openly, on the basis of evidence and reason, then you are not only a liar but also a coward.
> 
> I've told you that I will not waste time in e-mail conversations with you, and I believe that wasting my time is your primary purpose. *I will, however, address your ridiculous claim that I have been "brainwashed by Steve Brigham".* As with my other e-mail responses, this is mainly written for the benefit (or amusement) of other people who'll see these e-mails, not you.
> 
> Steve Brigham and I agree on very little. I am an atheist, pro-technology futurist / transhumanist, anti-socialist / pro-capitalist activist, and a tax resister. He is an ordained Christian Minister, with much professed fondness for the "communism" of the Early Church, and lots of additional nutty ideas involving primitivism, eschatology, long-debunked Peak Oil nonsense, etc. Although he has said a number of things about *the virtue of Tent City saving much taxpayer money*, which is entirely in line with my position, that's merely an example of a stopped clock being right twice a day; Minister Steve has no qualms about campaigning for tax-funded help for the homeless, which I oppose. He is also particularly critical of the gentrification of Lakewood by the Orthodox Jews (something that I've actually referenced as a positive example in my writings about what can be accomplished by libertarians with something called the Free State Project in New Hampshire); where he sees "segregated neighborhoods", I see voluntary communities that would be perfectly acceptable in a free market, if only HUD money were not involved... I've disagreed with Minister Steve on many specific things, including the chickens (I hate them!), water tanks, civil disobedience (after the "Consent Order", I wanted to actively encourage more people to come; he refused), fundraising techniques (he doesn't want the Web-site to appear "too commercial"), etc.  Etc.  Some interesting existentialist thought experiments aside, my brain has not been "washed" nor my perspectives altered in any significant way since coming to Tent City.
> 
> Nevertheless, *in spite of our disagreements, my cooperation with Minister Steve is founded in the respect that I have for him as a person with a long and well-documented history of integrity and hard work. I consider what he has accomplished in Tent City to be a great thing* - if you believe otherwise then you should spend some time in other Tent Cities, like the $#@!-hole that I've visited in Camden. In my philosophy, *solving the crucial problem of providing "basic needs" to the poor and the dysfunctional, without coercive taxation or taking away their incentive to work, is a great accomplishment*. Minister Steve lets me gulch in Tent City and all that it provides (as I am genuinely untaxably penniless), and, in gratitude, I spend a couple of hours a day to help him with TC's online presence, some light secretarial work, and other related tasks.
> ...

----------


## Barrex

Keep us updated.
+rep

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

I think the issue of homelessness in a libertarian society can actually get very thorny. Why is it acceptable, from a libertarian viewpoint, to homestead this land, but not "private" land that has been made inaccessible due to the state enforcing (private) claims to essentially abandoned property? Think of all the vacant lots in Detroit that could become thriving centers of mutual aid and libertarian charity. The only difference between Detroit and this particular case in New Jersey seems to be that the Detroit sites are not state parks... The justification for setting aside swaths of unimproved, truly publicly-owned land (think state or national parks) is typically that they have some sort of aesthetic value and everyone should get to enjoy them without the trappings of civilization. Who is anyone to say that this claim isn't any less legitimate than the justification for the state enforcing what is essentially "absentee landlordism"? 

It is impossible to tell (like most things) how much of a problem homelessness would be in a truly free society. I think the answer stems from different conceptualizations of property rights and what is and isn't acceptable. If the goal is to maximize social welfare, then it seems as though the mutualist viewpoint (that there is actually such a thing as "absentee landlordism" and that it is a "problem") would be a good framework, but a more propertarian viewpoint would more easily dissolve into "inefficient" use of land and thus open the possibilities for "more" homelessness, I would think. 

Anyway, very interesting topic, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic that squatting on public land is any more different than squatting on abandoned privately-held land in principle.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Why is it acceptable, from a libertarian viewpoint, to homestead this land, but not "private" land that has been made inaccessible due to the state enforcing (private) claims to essentially abandoned property?


 Because, Rothbardian, there is a difference between "essentially" abandoned property and "actually" abandoned property.

There is a spectrum of abandonment, and at some point the land becomes rehomesteadable; you're absolutely right.  Given our current social conventions, and the way humans use property, and the length of the human lifespan, that point is _not_ just two or three years, especially if major and substantial improvements (such as a house built) have been made.  If the houses stay vacant for another 7 years and are crumbling away, then the point becomes debatable, and justice may indeed be served by allowing people to re-homestead it.

This guy agrees:

http://mises.org/media/4692/Use-It-o...teading-Theory

----------


## Alex Libman

> Keep us updated.
> +rep


Thank you very much.  

Will try my best to keep this thread updated, though unfortunately my time is very limited...

This thread expresses my personal positions and activism.  Tent City itself, and any/all associated organizations, officially do not endorse any political positions.

For complete news coverage of our Tent City saga, *please LIKE our Facebook Page*.  Please help spread the word about Tent City by sharing, and inviting all your friends to our Facebook page.  If you run your own Web-site, social networking page, blog, an online radio show, etc - coverage of our Tent City would be much appreciated!

----------


## angelatc

> I'm advocating ending the Welfare State racket and leaving Tent Cities alone.  It's perfectly possible for poor people to survive cheaply - let us.  Living in tents is exactly what some people deserve...


It's always me.  But this isn't your land.

Detroit sells homes for $1.

----------


## Alex Libman

> I think the issue of homelessness in a libertarian society can actually get very thorny. Why is it acceptable, from a libertarian viewpoint, to homestead this land, but not "private" land that has been made inaccessible due to the state enforcing (private) claims to essentially abandoned property? Think of all the vacant lots in Detroit that could become thriving centers of mutual aid and libertarian charity. The only difference between Detroit and this particular case in New Jersey seems to be that the Detroit sites are not state parks... The justification for setting aside swaths of unimproved, truly publicly-owned land (think state or national parks) is typically that they have some sort of aesthetic value and everyone should get to enjoy them without the trappings of civilization. Who is anyone to say that this claim isn't any less legitimate than the justification for the state enforcing what is essentially "absentee landlordism"? 
> 
> It is impossible to tell (like most things) how much of a problem homelessness would be in a truly free society. I think the answer stems from different conceptualizations of property rights and what is and isn't acceptable. If the goal is to maximize social welfare, then it seems as though the mutualist viewpoint (that there is actually such a thing as "absentee landlordism" and that it is a "problem") would be a good framework, but a more propertarian viewpoint would more easily dissolve into "inefficient" use of land and thus open the possibilities for "more" homelessness, I would think. 
> 
> Anyway, very interesting topic, but I'm not sure I agree with the logic that squatting on public land is any more different than squatting on abandoned privately-held land in principle.


First of all, I make a strict distinction between the terms "*squatting*" and "*homesteading*".  The former primarily means trespassing on Private Property (although it has occasionally been mis-applied to the oxymoron of "public property" as well).  The latter is bringing natural resources that have no legitimate prior owner into the economy through your management and labor.

All existence should ideally be privately owned as soon as it enters into the reach of the human economy, and thus becomes a part of our civilization.  (And, if there be rational and sentient extraterrestrial / "artificial" / non-human intelligence, the same negative Rights should be recognized in them as well.)  The universe is the body of existence, and the Free Market is its mind - a massively-parallel neural network of individual self-owning self-directing materialistic economic actors like ourselves.  An unfree market is a mind that is broken and bound for self-destruction, as evolution finds a way to route around it.  Only through consequentialist incentives can this mind maintain emergence - achieve stability and growth.  (My lengthy epistemological rants on evolutionary pragmatism and Rational Law can be found elsewhere, but are yet to be organized into a single book.)

So I am highly skeptical of any claim about "abandoned" Private Property.  Who are we to say that it is "abandoned"?  If there is a specific individual / contractual entity (corporation) with a legitimate claim of ownership, then it's up to them to decide whether their Property is to collect dust or be used for something (in our humble opinion) more constructive.  Sometimes it makes sense to leave a lot of land as-is while you're putting together a plan of what to do with it - that is more efficient than starting one thing and then demolishing when a better idea comes along.  As with making homesteading claims (i.e. landing a beacon on an asteroid), there should be specific protocols for reasserting ownership, and I think that in a free society (i.e. without property taxes, etc) a property owner failing to keep up with them would be a very rare thing.  This is hardly an issue worth discussing.

The forested land upon which the Tent City of Lakewood Township, NJ is situated -- municipal block #961.02, lot #3 (119.7 acres) and lot #4 (20.23 acres) --  used to be Private Property, but was stolen by the government thugs many decades ago due to non-payment of protection money ("taxes"); and, as I understand, the past owners are long gone...  It became municipally-owned "public property" - a contradiction in terms.  This land sat unused (not a part of a "public park", of which Lakewood has plenty), while Lakewood's population skyrocketed (the fastest growing town in the most densely populated state).  Government failure has resulted in jobs leaving the area, and the cost of shelter skyrocketing through the roof.

From the aesthetic point of view, the presence of Tent City has destroyed only a tiny fraction of the trees on that land, and I would argue that a well-managed community of tents / shanties / "tiny houses" amidst the woods is much more aesthetically pleasing than woods where no one can go to appreciate their beauty.  The government has done much to sabotage Tent City's potential - it could have been a much cleaner and greener place than it is today...

I agree that our issue is indeed very thorny.  I'm not trying to set a precedent that anyone can homestead any "public land" by simply planting a flag - for now this should be managed on case-by-case basis.  But I am calling for the ownership of _this land_, upon Tent City is situated, to be transferred to an NGO that will run a well-managed homeless camp, as a gradualist step in the right direction.  We've been here for over 7 years.  We've built Tent City.  The government can't afford to house all the homeless.  Homeless people are victims of government intervention that drastically increases the cost of rent.  Even on a pragmatic level, I don't see any better solution than for the government to recognize our homesteading claim.

I know that pragmatic case-by-case solutions aren't pretty, but that's the best we can do right now.  I am a gradualist.  I firmly believe that waving a magic wand to make all involuntary government disappear in an instant would do more harm than good, as people are still uneducated, and therefore markets will need time to adjust.  The disappearance of government will happen gradually, through free trade, fragmentation, and intergovernmental competition, as the more socialist regions lose brains and capital to the more capitalist ones and are eventually forced to reform.  These reforms need to be managed wisely.  (Unless of course there's an all-powerful competition-stifling World Government - then the human race is $#@!ed.)

Government is cancer, but taking a chainsaw and cutting out every bit of cancerous tissue at once will kill the patient.  The way to cure cancer is through nanobots that gradually eat the cancer (government and its coercive monopolies) and let healthy tissue (businesses and NGO's) grow to take their place.  I am here in the battle between the living cell that is Tent City, and the bulldozer-powered cancerous disease that is the Welfare State.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's always me.  But this isn't your land.


 But it isn't anyone else's either.  It ostensibly "belongs" to the government.  Which pretends that it actually "belongs" to the people.  But the government has no legitimate business managing amusement areas, such as parks, golf courses, forests, waterslides, laser tag arenas, etc.  And so it probably is not illegitimate to squat there.  Though you could say it belongs to the tax payers who are getting ripped off to pay for it, and so if the squatters are depriving _them_ of enjoyment that is some kind of minor trespass.




> Detroit sells homes for $1.


*Plus property tax.*

You're in Michigan.  You should know better.  $1 + property taxes is no deal for a house in Detroit.  At least, for many of these houses in Detroit.  Which is why they go unsold.  If they were a good deal, someone would buy them.  But I, and anyone else intelligent who has heard the rumors of super-cheap houses and then _actually looked into them_, quickly realizes the reality.

----------


## angelatc

> But it isn't anyone else's either.  It ostensibly "belongs" to the government.  .


It does not matter who else (either singular or plural) owns the land.  He does not own it, and therefore has no right to it.


Detroit tax waivers: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...ones/FAQs.aspx

----------


## amy31416

> It does not matter who else (either singular or plural) owns the land.  He does not own it, and therefore has no right to it.
> 
> 
> Detroit tax waivers: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...ones/FAQs.aspx


Detroit property will NEVER be a bargain until the entire gov't of Detroit is $#@!-canned and replaced with reasonable people. Even if there's a tax waiver, they're shutting down small businesses and adding more penalties, while the police are no better than the criminals.

----------


## mczerone

> It does not matter who else (either singular or plural) owns the land.  He does not own it, and therefore has no right to it.
> 
> 
> Detroit tax waivers: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...ones/FAQs.aspx


By homesteading it, he's created a right to it. He's come to own it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It does not matter who else (either singular or plural) owns the land.  He does not own it, and therefore has no right to it.


 Well, "In the Beginning" God said let there be light, and behold, when the lights turned on, Adam and Eve looked around and realized that _none_ of the land nor any other natural resource, indeed _nothing in existence anywhere on or in planet Earth_ (except for their own bodies) was owned.  They then proceeded, piece by piece, to start owning things.




> Detroit tax waivers: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments...ones/FAQs.aspx


[/QUOTE] Well that sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare.  I think I'll go apply to have my house declared a Historic Landmark instead, if I get a hankering for a bureaucratic nightmare in my life.

All I know is that I looked online at some of these can't-believe-your-eyes, too-good-to-be-true, "super-cheap" houses in Michigan and in Texas, back at the bottom of the housing crash, and it turns out they were _not_ a good deal.  Not for me, anyway.  Apparently not for anyone else, either.

----------


## Alex Libman

I've recently received e-mails from a lawyer, partially quoted below:




> [...] *I'm one of the attorneys working on Lakewood's attempts to close down Tent City.* Steve tells me that any attempt to get housing from the government would present a conflict with your personal beliefs. Now, if this is true, I'm actually sympathetic to your point of view. However, I need to let you know about the legal consequences of your refusal. If you have the time and access to a phone, would you please call me [...]





> [...] here's what I wanted to say by phone:  *if you do not apply for housing, Lakewood has the right to remove you from Tent City, something that they signaled on a phone call just yesterday that they are about to request from the court.*  I believe I understand your objections to applying, but if you do not meet the Consent Order's terms, you may face ejectment in the near future, maybe within a few weeks.  Please consider it.  Thanks. [...]


(Hyperlinks and emphasis added.)


Here is my reply, quoted in full:




> I don't have a cell phone, but we can communicate via e-mail (or, if you prefer, Facebook, etc). I reserve the right to (and likely will) make any part of our communications public.
> 
> It has been my openly-expressed position since I first arrived at Tent City (on March 1, 2013) that *I refuse to accept any handouts of tax-payer money* (that can be avoided). I chose to not be represented by your law firm, and am not a party to the "one year free housing to leave Tent City" agreement that some people have made. As a courtesy, I've agreed to provide all information that you wish to have about me, as I prefer to do everything in the open. For this reason I've agreed to participate in the census to answer questions and be photographed, but not to carry an additional ID card.
> 
> I take full responsibility for my homelessness and penniless-ness, which are largely a consequence of my own choice to walk away from a promising career as a computer programmer, and to focus on self-directed studies, which, among other things, have led me to what most people would describe as radical libertarian (pro-capitalist / anti-socialist) political and philosophical views. By staying in Minister Steve Brigham's Tent City, or by starting new ones on other secluded plots of "public land", *I am exercising Civil Disobedience against the anti-homelessness laws*, which (as even many of my socialist debate opponents agree) are contrary to the NJ State and US Constitution. *Through my perpetual arrests and stints in jail, I also hope to bring attention to the failings of the Welfare State, and the hypocrisy of this dubious concept of "public property", as government apologists try to justify most government interventions in the marketplace "in the name of the poor".*
> 
> *I do not agree with the legal position that the government has an "obligation" to provide housing.* Idealistically, I believe that this _involuntary_ redistribution of funds from the producers to those that fail to pull their economic weight constitutes theft. Pragmatically, you will find that providing free apartments / motel rooms isn't a viable solution for NJ's 12,000+ homeless individuals, especially as more and more brains, businesses, and jobs are fleeing the state due its tax burden, which is already one of the highest in the nation. Elsewhere on the Internet, I make economic arguments that people like the *Tent City residents are victims of government intervention into the marketplace, which has created artificial scarcity in affordable housing and multiplied their cost of living*.
> 
> My philosophical position, even if it isn't legislatively convenient, is that homeless people should (in circumstances such as ours) be allowed to homestead so-called "public land". More specifically, this means that *the land on which we've built Tent City over the past 7+ years should be transferred to an NGO, to create a competently-managed community for otherwise-homeless individuals*. I believe that communities such as Tent City, funded through _voluntary_ charity and mutual aid, can exist in harmony with nature and all of our surrounding neighbors. We can find ways to solve problems like smoke pollution, establish better resident screening and safety policies, gradually evolve from tents to "tiny homes" as revenues permit, etc. Unlike the government housing, we can create a solution to homelessness that is simultaneously moral, compassionate rather than bureaucratic, cost-effective and accountable to its funders, and not contrary to the residents' individual incentive to find work.
> ...



In other news...  I've just figured out the [TWEET] tag here and I'm just itching to use it, so here's a reminder of why we can't keep spending $1500/month (plus huge bureaucratic overhead) to put homeless people in apartments / motels:

----------


## PRB

> Homelessness is not a problem?


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.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> 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.


You're completely right, that is the easiest solution today.  Along with those things, they also get a few bonus gifts, such as a criminal record, loss of freedom to be able to move around by being locked in a cage, and being told what to wear, and what to do and when to do it.  They're locked in cages as though they're hideous beasts and treated that way, they're actually molded into becoming more like hideous beasts, they're surrounded by each other where they have to put up with each other that way or can learn to sharpen their criminal skills from each other.

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rceration_rate

I suppose many of these individuals are just venturing to take this option - because it's the easiest.  Nevermind that by committing a crime for this purpose, a homeless person is probably risking their life (I guess that's no big deal, if that ain't you in that situation).  But homelessness is not a problem, so why do we need to speak of solutions if there is no problem; right?

----------


## 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?

----------


## PRB

> You're completely right, that is the easiest solution today.  *Along with those things, they also get a few bonus gifts, such as a criminal record, loss of freedom to be able to move around by being locked in a cage, and being told what to wear, and what to do and when to do it. *


You tell me what's worse. One is freedom, one is shelter. One is being told what to wear, one is having little to wear.

----------


## 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.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> You tell me what's worse.


They're both lousy things to have to choose between.  What difference does it make which is worse?  Whichever's worse is only a superficial discrepancy.




> One is freedom, one is shelter. One is being told what to wear, one is having little to wear.


You're cherry picking, and it seems like it's to make one appear to look good and the other to look bad.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.
> ...



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

Please INVITE everyone in the area to *the Facebook Event*.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.
> ...


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

----------


## 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!

----------


## 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?

----------


## Natural Citizen

What about these?

Anti-homeless spikes installed in posh London neighborhood No?





Also these?




Inquiry on anti-homeless furnitures in Paris...

----------


## 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.
> ...


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!

----------

