Mixed emotions about this one in regards to Personal Property rights.
1) Infringement on City owned streets has its own contradictions, though I’m fairly certain on Privately owned roads and sidewalks, vagrancy would not be allowed. In that situation, these homes would’ve been rightfully removed.
2) Assuming it’s a communal road by an HOA (which is acceptable for AnCaps?), vagrants would not be allowed either.
3) My interactions with numerous homeless and going through my share of horrible employees, I have no sympathy for homeless people in that area. There are rare exceptions, but much of the time it has to do with mental illness and substance addiction. Sure, you can make the intellectual argument that $10/hour minimum wage makes it difficult to find work, but I’m quite familiar with numerous restaurants that pay under the table with staff that simply can’t speak English. Most of the homeless portrayed CAN speak English.
If any of these homeless, speaking fluent English, could easily replace one of these illegal immigrants who can’t speak English in these restaurants, then why aren’t the homeless willing to at least work those jobs?
I have numerous housekeepers and maintenance staff that can’t speak any English. The reality is that none of these homeless people would be able to keep the job due to their own deficiencies. Whether the homeless have control over their own deficiencies or not is a separate question.
4) Illegal immigrants manage to not be homeless in the same area. What is the difference between the illegals and the homeless who can work in the US legally?
5) The interview of the homeless man who loves children, and was once a mechanical engineer. He says there are no jobs, and shows that some kid would like the toy he found in a dumpster dive. That’s someone who doesn’t understand Human Capital.
Somehow, I believe Reason is attempting to portray these homeless people somehow as victims to State Tyranny. I agree that the optics make it SEEM as though something is off, but this seems more like mistaken perception of “the oppressed” vs “oppressor” that SJWs love to use.
From the Rothbardian perspective on violations of Property Rights, I’m not seeing the problem.
This brings up a separate question on how many homeless people there would be in an AnCap society. This video hints that $1,200 homes are sufficient for the homeless and they call it “home.” Based on this definition, and without Government thugs that call these structures “unsafe for habitation,” these homeless would be able to support a standard of life they find acceptable at a much lower cost. You could imagine entire neighborhoods filled with $1,200 homes and lots on private property. Most likely they would not be in the City since you can’t make much profit from that, but there would most likely be entire towns that support that kind of lifestyle. Thus, by definition, they would no longer be “homeless.”
There’s nothing wrong with having the ambitions for a simpler lifestyle. By many accounts, living in a $1,200 home is most likely still better than how most humans live on the planet. They would still be ABOVE AVERAGE. And if you were to look at the Quality of Life in relation toward the existence of humans in the last 500 years, the Quality of Life doesn’t look so bad.
As a single college student, I was quite content sharing a small bedroom with all my personal belongings. Of course, that’s seen as being okay because it’s portrayed as simply being temporary. With different priorities in my life, I could imagine maintaining such a lifestyle and being content.