[JasonFruit]

It's regrettable that there are people living on the streets, but whose housing in particular do they have a right to? Or to whose labor to provide them with housing? Is it more just to provide them with housing by coercion, or to make laws and regulations in such a way as to encourage and reward charitable activity? Or is there another way that doesn't require an implicit gun at the givers' heads?

[chillwaves]

Natural resources are fenced off by society, to great profit of the wealthy class. It's not unreasonable to ask society to provide the bare necessities for the least fortunate.

[komali2]

Society doesn't have to be a raw libertarian "paradise" - it's acceptable to say "we should all, together, help house the homeless (with our tax money).

[devit]

Banning childbirth or immigration if a fully owned home is not owned by the new person.

[dane-pgp]

> owned by the new person

You think that unborn children should be required to legally own property before they are allowed to be delivered?

I've heard of "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" but this is a new level of absurdity.

[devit]

Yeah, as in parents should commit to donating them a home pre-birth, along with insurance on it and they should not be allowed to sell unless they own another home

Then no one will ever be homeless.

That's the only non-state solution that guarantees this outcome (well, barring major catastrophes that destroy the home and cause the insurance to not be effective at replacing it).