Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 151

Thread: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central....[W:118]

  1. #121
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,442

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Points of debate brought up on this thread (because the topic is interesting and I want to try to get it back on track)

    How strong should property rights be in a case like this? Especially versus societal treatment of the homeless.

    Was it a good idea to close down the asylums in the 80s and should we bring them back?

    Stuff brought up by the OP (will I will quote for convenience)
    Property rights should not change depending onthe situation.

    A business needs to créate a safe place for its customers to enter its doors.

    If homeless people are sleeping right in front of the door, they will lose business.

    That may be OK for you, but not for the business owner.

    Again I will ask how far will you take your idea to take away peoples property rights?

  2. #122
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    Please expand on your idea that societal concerns outweigh property rights. How far would you take that?

    Is it OK for somebody to take something because they need it?
    For me its a situational thing. The original question posed to me was basically asking whether a person should be able to do whatever he wants since its their property. My view is that while I don't see an issue with discouraging loitering or vagrants, the cover of property rights isn't so absolute as to be able to ignore the greater social morality of using what amount to basically animal traps. Doing so contributes to changes in culture where such a thing is permissible and makes going one step further that much smaller a leap. The harm this causes, in my mind, is more important than some small compromise a property owner would be required to make.

  3. #123
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    Property rights should not change depending onthe situation.

    A business needs to créate a safe place for its customers to enter its doors.

    If homeless people are sleeping right in front of the door, they will lose business.

    That may be OK for you, but not for the business owner.

    Again I will ask how far will you take your idea to take away peoples property rights?
    I will expand on what I wrote on the last reply. The business owner is free to put up a plant, a sculpture, an advertisement, or anything really, but not what amounts to beast traps. That crosses a line. If they were to use pretty much anything else, there would be no problems here.

    Also I strongly disagree that property rights should not change based on the situation, as with anything, rights have to exist in a balance if any social order is to be preserved.

  4. #124
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,442

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    For me its a situational thing. The original question posed to me was basically asking whether a person should be able to do whatever he wants since its their property. My view is that while I don't see an issue with discouraging loitering or vagrants, the cover of property rights isn't so absolute as to be able to ignore the greater social morality of using what amount to basically animal traps. Doing so contributes to changes in culture where such a thing is permissible and makes going one step further that much smaller a leap. The harm this causes, in my mind, is more important than some small compromise a property owner would be required to make.
    You have a very odd view of reality.

    Property right only extend until somebody else wants to take them away. That is odd.

    How do you compare 1 inch spikes to an animal trap? Are you saying homeless people aren't capable of rational thought? You think they will see that and get trapped by the spikes?

    These spikes cause no harm, they are a deterrent, not a punishment.

    Would it be better if the business closes so the building could be taken over by the homeless? Is that your ultimate goal here with your opinion that property right only exist up until somebody wants to take them from you?

  5. #125
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    You have a very odd view of reality.

    Property right only extend until somebody else wants to take them away. That is odd.
    Property rights, like any rights are granted by application of force, in our modern society, we have largely given that over to various institutions. So in essence, you are correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    How do you compare 1 inch spikes to an animal trap? Are you saying homeless people aren't capable of rational thought? You think they will see that and get trapped by the spikes?

    These spikes cause no harm, they are a deterrent, not a punishment.
    My concern isn't necessarily what the homeless person does, but the greater societal treatment of the homeless. Also, not all homeless are in their right minds, which is why they are homeless, so the potential exists. However, this wasn't my point. The point is our treatment and loss of empathy as a society being justified by gadgets such as these.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    it be better if the business closes so the building could be taken over by the homeless? Is that your ultimate goal here with your opinion that property right only exist up until somebody wants to take them from you?
    Really? Your going to go into absurdity as a defense? Obviously I don't support the homeless taking over someone's property.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Why was it even believed to be an "anti-homeless" measure? Was it on their website or something?

  7. #127
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Why was it even believed to be an "anti-homeless" measure? Was it on their website or something?
    Tesco pretty much admitted to it. They installed these things in response to customer service concerns.

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    Tesco pretty much admitted to it. They installed these things in response to customer service concerns.
    So they said it was for the homeless, then said it was for loitering?

  9. #129
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    So they said it was for the homeless, then said it was for loitering?
    I used the term loitering out of sensitivity, I don't really like the term homeless all that much. That was my doing.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Tesco removes one-inch 'anti-homeless' spikes from outside central London Metro s

    Quote Originally Posted by tacomancer View Post
    How strong should property rights be in a case like this? Especially versus societal treatment of the homeless.
    Unless you have reports of someone being harmed by the spikes I fail to see the problem. I also frankly fail to see how your concerns outweigh rights at all. Btw, no one was treated in any sort of way. Tesco didn't act towards the homeless.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •