Hacker News Reader

Comment by SpecialistK | Hacker News Reader

People have no choice but to smear feces on the wall and leave needles on the floor of public restrooms, or urinate inside a moving bus because housing is too expensive?

Housing and wealth inequality is an undeniable issue. So is anti-social behaviour. You can be poor and even homeless without throwing self-respect out of the window. People are either responsible for their actions, in which case criminal and civil charges are on the cards, or they are not (due to mental illness and/or substance abuse) and need to be institutionalized.

View on HN

When the social contract fails you, why pay any regard to it at all? It's not a matter of pure, exogenous choice to do those things. It's not some abstract preference that surviving in the margins has afforded the freedom to exercise. It's a way to make sense out of the world and to have some shred of a sense of agency in a world where a person otherwise has no power.

No, it's mostly severe drug addiction and mental illness.

Far and away the strongest predictor of homelessness is not mental illness or drug addiction, it's housing costs. Housing cost and the subsequent increase in homelessness is the precipitator that promotes addiction and exacerbates manageable mental health issues into mental health crises.

>It's a way to make sense out of the world and to have some shred of a sense of agency in a world where a person otherwise has no power.

Wouldn't poo-cassos be better framed in an institution cell away from the other 90% of society? That way they can get the mental support they need and rebuild their agency. If you don't have agency, you need conservators to help you address it. For children, those are parents. For adults, that's the state.

Otherwise we're admitting participation in a society is pure benefit without any responsibilities.

Because you're a decent person. Or, put another way, if you choose to disregard the social contract, you show your lack of quality of character. Either way, it's still a choice and not forced upon people by their circumstances.

“You have nothing, sure, but you still better participate in this social contract that has actually offered you no security or even basic shelter, else we give you even less nothing.” Like... why? Why would that person care? It's called the social contract, not the social religion. A contract has terms that are supposed to be fulfilled by both parties. If one party isn't holding up their end, why would the other?

If your antisocial protagonist chooses to destroy something then he or she is not "giving the finger to the man" or anything like that. He or she is making life worse for other people, most likely normal people who have not done anything whatsoever to ruin the life of your poor widdle antisocial hero. Meanwhile, the billionaires will not be affected much.

> When the social contract fails you, why pay any regard to it at all?

That may be a valid defence when stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family. Doesn't apply to trashing public bathrooms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com