Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Under no circumstances (Score 1) 223

A guarantee is not a demand, it is something society agrees to pay for. No one has anything taken if the resource is provided by the gov't.

A healthy, housed and fed populace is *good* for the gov't AND its people.

What I'm saying literally prevents the situation here where a landlord is most definitely damaged by tenants who can't pay.

Be it moving to public housing built by the gov't for housing people down on their luck or victims of natural disaster. We already do this for storms...why not for someone being laid off in a bad job market?

Or via actual rent payment, etc.

The gov't can remove the damage being done to the landlord in a multitude of ways that are far cheaper than the long trial and eviction process. That also don't end up with people being put out on the street.

But as I said, we don't live in an intelligent society.

Comment Re:Under no circumstances (Score 1) 223

A free market, which is your point, demands one specific factor - choosing not to participate with no ill effects.

There are 2 obvious exceptions to this - housing and medical care.

You can't choose to not fix a broken leg.
You can't choose to be homeless.
I'll add a third, access to water.

All three things are direct threat to your life.

An intelligent society would guarantee everyone those basic things as the minimal cost associated in their provision would be far eclipsed by the resulting growth in society. Sadly, we don't live in an intelligent society.

I've lived in slum lord housing...it's not fun and it absolutely is a racket jacking prices on the most vulnerable.

And hey, shouldn't the landlord have done a better job at vetting potential tenants? Shouldn't they suffer the consequences of their bad decision? Or should we find a middle ground to help everybody?

Comment Re:I can't think of anything stupider (Score 1) 17

it being a text 'key' makes me question how resistant it would be to a court order.

They aren't forcing you to actively decrypt your backups, they're using the key you 'have' not 'know'. That's conceptually no different than a key to a lock box...and you have to turn over that key if ordered. A key isn't incriminating so it's not protected by 5th Amend.

Slashdot Top Deals

The person who can smile when something goes wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.

Working...