After reading the replies to my original post, I've learned that some libertarians have a much bigger problem than their understanding of economics. Their complete lack of empathy is fucking astonishing. I suggested that paying half your income in rent because the alternative is sleeping in a freezing car isn't exactly a wonderful example of economic freedom. The responses were an extraordinary collection of lectures about voluntary exchange, personal responsibility, property rights, and why homelessness is apparently just another consumer preference. Here are the five most common arguments. 1. It's voluntary because nobody is forcing you. Apparently, choosing between unaffordable rent and sleeping in your car is the expression of liberty. Sure, nobody is holding a gun to your head. But someone with $500 in the bank doesn't have the same bargaining power as someone with $10 million in property. A decision made under financial desperation is still a decision. That doesn't mean the person has meaningful economic freedom. If your definition of liberty includes celebrating someone's choice to freeze in their car, perhaps your philosophy needs some fucking work. 2. Just move, get roommates, buy a house, or sleep in your car. This was my favorite. One person suggested getting a gym membership so you could sleep in your car and still shower. Others recommended second jobs, roommates, or simply buying a house. Fucking brilliant. But what happens when millions of households simultaneously move somewhere cheaper? Demand increases, and those locations become less affordable unless housing supply expands. What works for one individual doesn't necessarily work for everyone. It's called the fallacy of composition. An entire housing crisis cannot be solved by giving millions of people individual financial advice. Yet apparently, sleeping in a Toyota Corolla now constitutes a comprehensive economic policy. 3. Government regulations and central banks caused expensive housing. This was actually a reasonable argument, at least initially. Restrictive zoning and excessive development regulations absolutely can contribute to expensive housing. But blaming government for every undesirable market outcome is just ideological laziness. Housing prices also depend on incomes, credit conditions, construction costs, land values, population growth, speculation, and investment expectations. Developers build when they expect sufficient profits, not simply because people need somewhere to live. Removing bad regulations can improve housing supply. It doesn't magically eliminate every other economic problem. An economy is an interconnected system, not a fucking supply-and-demand diagram. 4. The landlord provides a mutually beneficial service. Several people argued that rental transactions must benefit both parties because otherwise they wouldn't happen. Yes, someone facing homelessness might prefer paying half their income in rent to sleeping outside. Congratulations. You've established that people prefer shelter to freezing. But that doesn't prove the housing market is competitive, affordable, or producing desirable outcomes. People routinely accept terrible arrangements because their alternatives are worse. Individual rationality doesn't guarantee desirable outcomes for society. The existence of a transaction isn't proof that the economic system is working particularly well. 5. You aren't entitled to someone else's property or labor. And naturally, someone had to start screaming about communism. Apparently, suggesting that people shouldn't have to sleep in freezing cars is now revolutionary Marxism. I support private property, competitive markets, and private enterprise. But supporting capitalism doesn't require celebrating every outcome it produces. Property rights don't automatically guarantee affordable housing, economic efficiency, or an equitable distribution of resources. You can defend private property without treating human suffering as an acceptable demonstration of economic liberty. Now, here's what genuinely disturbed me. I expected arguments about economics. What I didn't expect was how enthusiastically some people recommended homelessness. Sleep in your car. Get a gym membership. Work three jobs. Move away. Stop complaining. These weren't hypothetical responses. People actually suggested these things. Imagine seeing someone struggling to afford shelter and immediately explaining why they should be grateful to their landlord. What kind of fucking worldview produces that reaction? Markets are supposed to serve human beings. Human beings aren't supposed to suffer simply to validate someone's economic philosophy. I'm a supporter of free markets, but I don't believe that requires abandoning basic human empathy. The irony is that people who constantly preach individual liberty seem perfectly comfortable dismissing the economic circumstances that restrict it. If your response to someone facing homelessness is to congratulate them on having the freedom to sleep in their fucking car, perhaps you've spent too much time defending capitalism and not enough time interacting with actual human beings.

EXCLUSIVE: James Lindsay is a swinger who had a nazi mistress he had an affair with. She leaked EVERYTHING on the anti-Woke Right crusader, from the sexts, to secret handlers, to pedophile sex cults. mysterymachinenews.com/p/jam…

Me trying to avoid all the political ads during election season

Kind of dismaying that the friends to lovers trope is so popular with men but repugnant to a lot of women when it probably results in the most natural and healthy relationships.

Ben Shapiro dismisses the growing “America First or Israel First” debate among young Americans as a low-priority issue, calling those who disagree “dolts.” “Nobody actually believes that a tiny country in the Middle East of 10 million population is actually running the US.” Follow: @AFpost

Cep telefonu kullanımı bundan daha iyi anlatılmadı

This is what teachers think about your white sons if you have them in public schools

This is a public service announcement for all women everywhere ever. A fight does not happen by mutual consent. A fight happens because one person decides to start it. That's ONE. Uno. Un. Eins. Ichi. Yī. Unus. Ett. Hana. Wāḥid. One is not two. Your man is not in a fight because he looked at the other guy, and they both said, hey, let's totally throw down, bro, as if fighting were a pickup game of basketball. Your man is in a fight because one person decided to attack. That person is not necessarily your man even if, and I cannot stress this enough, even if your man is the one who throws hands first. Yes, you read that right. If you don't understand, if it makes no sense to you, that's because you know nothing about fighting. If you grab your man and try to restrain him, you are not preventing the fight. You are restraining him while the fight occurs. Just because you would like your man to exit the situation does not necessarily mean he can. Even if he can, that does not necessarily mean he should. He knows about fighting. Some men know less about it, and some men know more, but unless you are Ronda Rousey or Lena Miculek, your man always knows more about fighting than you. If you have something you want him to do, like exit the situation if he can, use your words like a big girl. Do not touch him. He will ignore you, of course, because you have no idea what you are talking about, but you can talk if it makes you happy. Do not touch him. Step back from the area of conflict and get out of the way. Keep him between you and the threat if possible. Do not get between him and the threat. That is retarded. Also do not touch him. If you do touch him, do not be surprised if you shoves you hard enough to land you on your butt ten feet away. This is the appropriate response. He is trying to protect himself and you from your willful ignorance. Do not touch him. If you do touch him, and he survives, do not be surprised if he ends the relationship afterwards. You grossly disrespected his judgement, and put him in serious danger with your selfish desire to be right all the time. Do not touch him. The time to have a conversation about whether the fight should have happened is after the fight, not while people are in danger. Do not touch him. Okay, quick reading comprehension test. What should you not do?

Woman cries for three hours after passenger refuses to swap seats so she can sit beside her husband on 10-hour flight from Turkey to the US

Hi, lawyer here. Lots of people who frankly should know better are taking this out of context. Yes, this teen carefully planned and carried a mass shooting that killed and wounded several people at a food festival. Yes, the judge let the mass shooter walk free. Here’s why: 🧵

the death toll from the drugs the FDA was slow to approve is likely higher than the deaths they've prevented

today I learned the only way to defend yourself is to permanently disfigure people

Kate Manne, the Cornell Professor who advises the Student Reporters lauded for supposedly "breaking" the Jane Doe story, says the current generation of young men should be known as "the rapey generation," and be restricted from social media to stop them from raping so much