That’s code for “house payment and three car payments, fuel, and maintenance for all four combined. At least I don’t pay property tax on the H3.”
Probably! But even one house payment can be code for “Step in line, because we know - literally and figuratively - where you live.” Yet, this somehow equates to “security” for some people.
1 Like
I getting sick of saying this, but can you stop associating involuntary homelessness with voluntary nomadism? You don’t plan to become homeless and its about as empowering as having a bunch of people kick the shit out of you.
Yes, I have had the misfortune to compare the two. You can give me a big wooden box (or brick box in my case) over worrying if you will find somewhere safe to sleep any day.
8 Likes
I had a former freelance graphic artist I worked with who had fairly recently started his own business. When I asked how he risked giving up the security of a paycheck, he replied that early on in his career he’d lost everything and been living on friend’s sofas. And he survived. And so since then he was much less fearful because he’d gone through the worst and didn’t fear it any longer.
1 Like
You might find homeless empowering, but you probably agree you should not impose homelessness on others who depend on you and may not share your ideal. Your hypothetical young kids need to be able to go to school and be focused, not think about their grumbling stomachs and worry where their next meal is coming from. Starting a business should not be limited just to people without families and the wealthy. 
2 Likes
As a parent, many of my attitudes and decisions about life are unavoidably “imposed” upon my children. If I made them live in an expensive box I would be “imposing” that on them instead.
My kids do go to school, but I can take it or leave it. The education is rather mediocre and basically just trying to groom them for employment, which is counter to what we’re aiming for as a family. Yes, focus is hugely important. No, I was not recommending that anybody starve their children! Believe it or not, living in a box is not a prerequisite to eating.
I agree. But the problem is that banks and the state actually state explicitly that this won’t happen without an address. People without fixed residences don’t “just happen” to be without financial resources - this is done on purpose. There is no practical reason why a person without an address shouldn’t be able to engage in these same sorts of activities.
I think you are missing the context. If someone is homeless because they lost everything in a country that does not offer social security, then (eg.) food security is part of that loss. You seem to be talking about different circumstances - that of lacking just the home, not lacking security. The point about lack of social security is that security may not be there for people who need it. Homelessness in the context of having no security doesn’t mean “without an address”, it also means food insecurity, etc. etc.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
