Quote from: kokjo on April 12, 2013, 07:51:53 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 11, 2013, 11:09:52 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 11, 2013, 10:59:39 PM

Quote from: myrkul on April 11, 2013, 10:57:43 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 11, 2013, 10:55:16 PM

and liberalism rob people of their home, if they can't pay the bills...

they shouldn't have signed the mortgage.

then they would still be without homes.

Not at all. They could rent, live with friends, or parents, or get together with some other people and share a house.

so they could not live in an empty house, because someone could potentially earn money from it, if someone was willing to buy?

i do not agree that there should be homeless people, when there are empty homes.

No, they should not live in an empty house because it is not theirs. Squatters typically destroy the homes they occupy.

If, however, they were to take responsibility for an abandoned - not simply empty - house, and maintain it, that's something else entirely. That's taking ownership.

Quote from: kokjo on April 12, 2013, 07:53:10 AM

Quote from: myrkul on April 12, 2013, 12:06:01 AM

Personal responsibility. It's a bitch.

and if people did not have to care about it, they would be more productive.

Wrong. Productivity is a direct result of responsibility.

Compare the worker who gets paid the same amount no matter how many widgets he makes a day, no matter how many get rejected by QA, to the worker who only gets paid for the widgets he makes that pass QA. The former, not responsible for his speed nor his quality of work, will only do as many, and those only as good, as needed to avoid being fired. The latter, who is held responsible for the speed and quality of his work, will attempt to make sure every piece he produces is perfect, and put out as fast as possible. If the former worker is protected from being fired, his work will suffer even more.

Rule one of economics: Incentives work.