Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've heard the nobility of homelessness and joblessness expressed as an ethos countless times by people who wouldn't care for the work of living off-grid. I happen to work in a town with some of the highest taxes in the country that's also one of the most attractive places for indigent campers. The park across from where I live has become a tent city. I get the pleasure of paying for its "upkeep" while also having to step over needles and human waste every day. A natural extension of the philosophy that people who work for a living are amoral slaves, and that only the indigent are noble is, of course, that it's permissible to steal anything any worker drone has. When I got to the part in this article about his glee at erecting tent cities I really became disgusted. What's beautiful about it? It produces nothing of lasting value. It erodes the physical and social landscape. At best as a society itself, it's a drum circle, getting high, talking about the universe without doing anything much, and escaping. What future is there for anyone who wants all the parks filled with tent cities?

The one thing you can't do without money, without an economy, is take care of anyone else. You can give them things that other people gave you - castaways of castaways. But you can't produce anything new to help anyone. So what claims to be cooperative and egalitarian is really just parasitic.

Maybe it's not surprising that the largest effort made on behalf of parasitism is its attempt to disguise itself as something moral.

You sound mad that this fellow has found a way to not contribute to the society you think everyone should. Jealous?

No, I think he's missing out on the best part of life - building creative things for others to enjoy and to improve their lives. And elevating the total refusal to add an iota of value to the world from your own existence into a form of sainthood is the apogee of lazy Gen Z culture, isn't it? I pity the guy, as any sane person should, but I also think it's grotesque that hangers-on are attracted to his lame opinions.

Did you read the article? He wrote and distributed multiple books, and is also coding some kind of video game on a flash drive with whatever computers he has access to. I would wager he's building more creative things for others to enjoy than most people who have jobs, and I say this as someone who would not give this man any money or food.

He's entitled to point out how he thinks tax he is paying is being wasted. Deriving multiple traits from this seems irrational. Especially given its based on a paragraph or two of text.

He also has an unhealthy relationship with money. Withholding money from being spent is immoral because that money is needed to pay debts and saving money causes unemployment. Spending all the money you get is moral. Of course you are allowed to spend your money on stocks and bonds to maintain real savings.

> Spending all the money you get is moral.

Extending this logic, I would also like to posit that jumping off a cliff is flight.

Do you have any resources that explain how saving money hurts others?

I never understood the animus against saving. Saving just means you have produced more than you consumed, and I admire that.

It's a pretty natural conclusion from many economics teachings that will highlight money only has value in the middle of a transaction and is virtually ethereal while sitting in any account.

That's like saying potential energy doesn't exist, only kinetic energy.

Money is like a loaded gun. It doesn't have to be fired. Just walking into a room waving one around will change the nature of most interactions.

It reduces the multiplier on money supply, which can be harmful in aggregate if it is sufficient to create a deflationary monetary environment. Given how little impact a single earner who isn't Jeff Bezos can make, or even Bezos himself in the face of offsets from central banks, I highly doubt any individual's savings efforts are doing any harm in practice.

You may as well say that taking any water out of the ocean is immoral because if all water was removed, the fish would die.

If you accept that living exclusively off the handouts of others is immoral, then saving money of course is not inherently immoral. It helps you not do that.

>At best as a society itself, it's a drum circle, getting high, talking about the universe without doing anything much, and escaping.

People have different values. Long ago we forgot that if it's not shown on mtv as something to aspire towards it's not the best pursuit of our time.

All the best chasing that lambo you'll never afford whilst looking over your shoulder at others smart enough not to get into that game.

You're talking to someone who lived on the road for 10+ years and spent plenty of time in music circles on beaches discussing the nature of the universe. All of which came to very little. I don't work and earn to chase a new car. I do it to give my life meaning and to afford a good future for myself and my family. And yeah, I have every right to look down at the people who think they're being so smart by "not getting in that game". Even on the road, I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many. Often, other travelers would look down on me for that. Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves.

I have know a lot of homelessness.

In 99.99% of the cases, they weren't homeless by choice, or ideology.

But yes--most of them thought they were there by choice.

It must be some ego defense mechanism?

For some reason a disproportionate amount were former Programmers? I knew Jim Fox. He was a cocreator of Wordstar, but got zero credit. I watched him slip from employment to wearing a Penguin outfit playing a ukleee begging for change. We used to talk tech, and he would notice someone walking towards us. He would jump out, and do his dance. He was always positive. He once got a job. He went to Goodwill to buy a suit. (He thought he needed a suit for a startup.) He was fired a few days in. That whole cultural fit. He always used to tell me, I just hope I don't die of pneumonia in an alley. Well he didn't get his wish. He died homeless.

There is a saying amoung homeless, and it's this, "Homeless for a year, homeless for life."

Meaning the mind is gone after living like they do. I have watched our local police departments make there guys life more miserable for 30 years.

I'm glad you weren't an entrenched homeless person.

The homeless we have need help. Most are not their by choice if you get them to let their guard down.

I do have some hope in CA. The government might actually do something besides jaw boning about what needs to be done.

Besides long term shelter, I hear talk of safe places to park, and sleep, without getting a ticket, or worse?

Homeless in Dunphy Park, got tickets for not obeying a rule. The ticket was $500. The issuing officer told the IJ, fee is high because we know they won't ever pay it.

I just threw up my hands.

How is issuing a ticket that can eventually turn into a warrant helping out anyone?

I done. I'm starting to get angry. Homelessness has always been a sore spot for myself.

This is a thoughtful answer. I should be clear that I draw a bright distinction between young traveling punks sleeping rough (often by choice) and people who are long-term homeless not by choice. I knew a lot of the former, but only encountered some of the latter as the graybeards in mostly young communities. And I'd say most of them still had some choice, they just didn't see a reason to go back to normal society.

I'm just objecting to the glorification of homelessness as an ethos, and the diminution of people who work as a consequence. I'm not saying the ethos is responsible for all or even most homelessness. It can, and does, draw some intelligent people into making really bad decisions, though.

I'd also add that I've known many people living rough who were happy to have work, and worked hard when they could. And I don't include them in any of what I'm saying about the ethics of surviving on other people's charity, because they indeed did not wish to.

It is realy easy to look down on people for all kinds of reasons. It is much harder to empathize with the challenges and point of views that are alien to your perspective.

Our society needs more people willing to take on that challenge instead of allowing their own insecurities to drive them into contempt.

There's a difference between being empathetic to those that have problems and need help and those that choose knowingly to opt out of the surface level of the system while still receiving its benefits.

While GP comment may be painting groups with an overly broad brush, I'm not sure I see any fault with the criticism of the specific type of person they describe, which does exist, even if it may not be all of that group (or even a sizable minority).

Any policy that is followed, such as "help and show empathy for those less fortunate" should be actually examined and understood, not just blindly applied. People that wish to participate in society but have fallen on hard times deserve our sympathy and help. People that have health problems that cause their situation deserve our sympathy and help. People that decide to opt out of most of our society and so remove themselves from most of the society deserve our respect, or at least our ambivalence. People that say they want to opt out of society but really just don't want to give anything to society (whether that's time, effort, restraint, whatever) but want to get some benefit of society deserve our scorn.

Far too many people get stuck following the actions of an ideology rather than the precepts. Not everyone that appears homeless is "less fortunate" in their own eyes, and giving to them is not necessarily helping in a way that the precept of helping those less fortunate espouses, but instead a way to trick yourself into thinking you are doing something good without having to put thought into whether you actually are.

In general, we could all do with a lot more introspection as to what our actions are actually doing and whether they serve the purpose we think they are. As a side benefit, a lot of bullshit from both sides of the political spectrum wouldn't survive the light of day some critical thought brings.

You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other. I think my criticism applies equally to the people who look down on people for particpating in the system as to those who call them parasites.

Critical rational thought can take you all sorts of violent and negative places if you don't make an effort to pair it with empathy and a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of those you are tempted to despise.

Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.

> You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other.

I'm not sure why you think that, or even what the "sides" are in this case. I thought your response seemed a bit canned, so used it as a jumping point to talk about how I think a bit more critical thinking is good in some of these cases.

And critical it the operative word, not necessarily rational (as many seem to interpret it at least, to me rationalism without accounting for how it affects the human condition is somewhat worthless). The only reason critical thought would take you to violent and negative places is if you're doing it wrong. Lack of critical thinking leads to violence and negative places far more often from what I've seen.

> Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.

This isn't about dehumanization. It's about not blandly lumping people together without forethought. That works for not assuming all homeless are drug addicts and criminals as well as it does for not assuming they're all completely upstanding citizens that for the quick right type of help could be your neighbor. They are an amalgamation of many people in many circumstances, and we should remember that and consider that.

If you are going to split hairs between "rational thought" and "critical thought", you'll have to elaborate because the two seem to be pretty much synonymous.

Generally, anytime you find yourself looking down with scorn on something, that is a great indication that there probably is something you don't understand and an attitude of contempt certainly won't help you figure out what that is.

> If you are going to split hairs between "rational thought" and "critical thought", you'll have to elaborate because the two seem to be pretty much synonymous.

I thought my aside about "rationalism" did that. For some people "rational" is loaded, and since you brought it up, I wanted to address it somehow. Whether true or not, some people equate rational with rationalism, and rationalism with not accounting for feelings and how people are in reality.

> Generally, anytime you find yourself looking down with scorn on something, that is a great indication that there probably is something you don't understand and an attitude of contempt certainly won't help you figure out what that is.

I agree in the general sense. But the only way that can be true in every sense is if nobody ever deserves scorn, and I think we can agree there are plenty of people that do deserve it because of their actions, from the extreme such as rapists and murderers to the mundane such as narcissists that they deserve whatever good fortune they can find or take, regardless of impact on others.

If you agree there are people worth scorning, the question in not whether "generally" this is a time or not, but given the specific subgroup in question has been described as those that decide they don't want to contribute to society and state that as the reason to live mostly outside it, but then want to receive the benefits of society, deserve that scorn. That is, to be clear, and as has been stated previously a few times, not all homeless people, but specifically those mentioned by the original commenter.

If you want to make a case that those people are misunderstood and perhaps their reasoning is X, Y or Z, feel free to do so, and I'll consider it. If you just want to defend them because they're part of a larger group you think deserves help, or because you feel compelled to defend them on principle, I ask you what purpose that serves? Critically thinking about the subject and coming to a better understanding is laudable, and defending something to cause some critical thought is as well, but I think we're beyond the point you could say no critical thought is being given to this, so unless you have actual points to add about this subject, I'm not sure what merit is left in calling out negative assessments as inherently bad or based only on not understanding.

Another way of looking at this is that if I had said serial rapists deserve our scorn, would you say that I'm just not understanding the situation or the people in question? If not, then that's an example of when scorn is sometimes acceptable, and we're left with whether the subject in question is actually deserving of it. In this case, you aren't providing any evidence one way or the other, just making broad assertions about thinking.

I don't despise, dehuminize, wish violence upon, or lack empathy for crusty street kids, because I can fully relate to them. And when I was one - or at least traveled as one - I was one of the few who bore no ill-will toward the people who chose to have cars and homes and careers and children. When I was 22 I thought the careerists had a limited view of the world: I still do. I just realize now that the punkabestia have a limited view, too. As you say, no one should be blinded by their social status into dehumanizing anyone else. But by the same token, it's possible to arrive at the conclusion that some things lead to objectively less miserable personal and social outcomes than others, based on experience, without apologizing to people who are still blinkered by certain views.

"Parasite" is a pretty dehumanizing term

I'm talking about an individual's relationship to society, not a born condition. It's a choice. This particular guy made it his life's mission to act in a parasitic fashion. No one's dehumanizing him, they're lionizing him. He's degraded himself more than any external characterization of him could do justice to. The word fits.

Is that logically distinct from sitting at a desk muttering to HN?

Is lying in a ditch distinct to sitting at a desk?

I'd venture yes.

>You're talking to someone who lived on the road for 10+ years

>I have every right

>I always worked. I didn't do drugs regularly. And I never begged. I wasn't a parasite, like so many

>Where are they now? Lying in ditches, muttering to themselves.

Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you.

Once again, people have different values. Maybe that leads them to your hypothetical ditch, maybe it gives them motivation to be like yourself. Or maybe they find happyness some other way.

If someones choice of values leads them to wilfully and proudly become a parasite and a burden to the people around them, then they are the ones with the mental disorder.

> Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you.

Maybe they are! And if they are, eventually I hope they stop listening to the romantic rubbish about what "freedom" consists of and what capitalist society owes them, as spewed by the leaders of camps and troupes who are mainly interested in keeping a parasitic lifestyle surrounded by runaway girls and boys who'll do what they say. Those visionary camp leaders are the real narcissists. This one gives his game away when he talks about how he should be the one to manage the shit show when money is abolished. It's all wankerish nihilism dressed up as Marxist dialectics, with the dialectic controlled by someone with slightly more reading than their followers.

FWIW, I upvoted this comment. I agree it's fine for people to have different values. Eventually, me-on-a-beach will hopefully find values that lead toward self-actualization and personal growth, and away from sloth and the bitterness and wasted time of jealousy towards people who have more. In the interim I don't blame them, I just think their philosophy is childish and poorly conceived. If that makes me a narcissist, so be it.

> Dude, you're a narcissist. You're free to change your values over time but no one else is? Maybe the next person squatting in your town square is a former you.

This was exactly what was going through my head while reading their post. That, or that they are making up a BS backstory to gain some sort of credibility, but there is no point in that sort of speculating.

There's a huge difference between "chasing that lambo" and working to build and keep a stable environment for your family, community, and society.

Please don't think I meant literally saving money to buy a lambo. More a general trend towards unhealthy materialism that is seen as only being a positive. ie my bank account is bigger than yours beause I'm better than you.

The people in the park are part of the community and a societal element.

“People have different values.”

That’s for sure. The values of the poster you’re replying to are better than the values of a professional parasite.

A parasite he may be, but people can do a lot more harm as part of the economy than that.

It’s simply a question of leverage, even something as seemingly pleasant as Disney World causes significant direct and indirect ecological harm in ways a homeless person doesn’t. And frankly you can find plenty of far worse examples than Disney World.

So? There will always be someone worse or more harmful - that doesn't excuse the bad actions of anyone else.

This is pure whataboutism.

“you can't produce anything new to help anyone.” Suggests only economic activity is a benefit, as if talking to another person or giving a hug can’t enrich their lives.

Pointing out a moral standpoint is more harmful than what’s being criticized is hardly whataboutism. It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior rather than the posters personal preference. Which therefore directly counters their morality argument.

But it's not just about economic benefit. Most people don't work to afford toys for themselves, they work to support others. At the end of the article, this guy expresses sadness that he's estranged from his two children as a result of his choices, but then attempts to justify it by saying he's not going to let having children keep him from making a better world for his children - a world in which there is no money. I would think his kids would probably prefer having a father who was present for them than one who couldn't see them because he'd deluded himself into thinking that a complete lack of effort was his way of saving the world.

If you can't take part in your children's lives as a result of your choice not to take part in the economy, then you're sort of failing at both moral standards aren't you?

> If you can’t take part in your children’s lives…

That’s a question without an objective answer. For example some people are better off in the foster system. It’s an oversimplification to assume some kind of standard life for other life choices.

But by the guy's own standard, the most important thing for him is to make the world better for his children. Even at the cost of actually knowing his children. Subjectively or objectively they may be better off with him not in their lives, but I fail to see how that bolsters his moral argument for how society should work.

What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent? You've far from proved the net harm of Disneyland, but what has that got to do with homelessness in BC?

> It’s a demonstration that taking part in the economy is not inherently superior

sure, but this is a straw-man. The proposition isn't that participating in the economy is automatically of greater value, it's that not participating (other than to leech off it) produces non.

> directly counters their morality argument

It's possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

> What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent?

The GP listed doing anything productive as a moral stance, Disneyland is therefore part of that anything.

> net harm of Disneyland

Promoting millions to take longer trips and regularly visit the middle of Florida directly causes travel related pollution. Simply developing that land is harmful to the local ecosystems. Producing all the merchandising is similarly an issue.

> It’s possible to oppose this guy and Disneyland.

If you oppose Disneyland for environmental reasons you’re hard pressed to then support the most of the rest of the economy. I would welcome an argument that draws a line there without excluding say suburbs.

> anything productive as a moral stance

If Disneyland is harmful, it isn't productive

> rest of the economy

which this guy is also dependent on

> Of Disneyland is harmful, it isn’t productive.

Any activity that burns fossil fuels directly produces measurable harm. Feel free to think about what that means for all current economic activity.

So does any activity that produces CO2, including natural forest fires, and breathing.

The whole idea that CO2 is harmful, came from modern scientific knowledge - also part and product of the economy/society. The same economy could come up with solutions e.g. carbon taxes or other tech advances.

You are taking a complex issue, CO2, the economy and its planetary effects, and turning it into a simplified concept of "harm". Humans have consumed some amount of CO2 forever, it's only an issue now because there are significantly more humans (who also create more CO2, but that's beside the point of the first).

In order to survive in growing numbers, humanity will need to manage its CO2. Incidentally this isn't the first time something like this has happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

Nothing about this the hobo lifestyle suggests it will produce a solution to this problem beyond the fact that it's unlikely to support communities of a certain size for other reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com