jeremy waldron, homelessness and the issue of freedom (1981)
(309) homelessness as troubling on liberal grounds
(313) homeless forever at the mercy of others, regarding where they can be
(315) "[Homelessness] is one of the most callous an tyrannical exercises of power in modern times by a (comparatively) rich and complacent majority against a minority of their less fortunate fellow human beings" [let's not hold all the non-homeless reponsible, but ok]
(316) [Take-away is that everyone needs certain prerequisites in order to make use of freedom--one of which is a place to be, but others can be freedom from want, etc., etc.]
(317) In other words, it's absurd to speak of freedom separate of 'needs'--denial of basic needs is emphatically a denial of freedom
(318): the point about homelessness can be made in terms of 'negative freed' -- this is not about enabling people, but ensuring that they're not banned [of course, this speaks to the ambivalence of the positive vs. negative distinction]
(321) to justify a property system that condemns some to unfreedom, you need to summon other values. not freedom.
(329-330) you don't need individual intention for unfreedom to be of concern. [the 'invisible hand' can intend it, that's enough]
(309) homelessness as troubling on liberal grounds
(313) homeless forever at the mercy of others, regarding where they can be
(315) "[Homelessness] is one of the most callous an tyrannical exercises of power in modern times by a (comparatively) rich and complacent majority against a minority of their less fortunate fellow human beings" [let's not hold all the non-homeless reponsible, but ok]
(316) [Take-away is that everyone needs certain prerequisites in order to make use of freedom--one of which is a place to be, but others can be freedom from want, etc., etc.]
(317) In other words, it's absurd to speak of freedom separate of 'needs'--denial of basic needs is emphatically a denial of freedom
(318): the point about homelessness can be made in terms of 'negative freed' -- this is not about enabling people, but ensuring that they're not banned [of course, this speaks to the ambivalence of the positive vs. negative distinction]
(321) to justify a property system that condemns some to unfreedom, you need to summon other values. not freedom.
(329-330) you don't need individual intention for unfreedom to be of concern. [the 'invisible hand' can intend it, that's enough]
No comments:
Post a Comment