The Street Kids of San Francisco(blog.priceonomics.com)
blog.priceonomics.com
The Street Kids of San Francisco
http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/43085729257/the-street-kids-of-san-francisco
35 comments
I'm curious to know why you see them as a guest in your home, rather than the other way around?
Presumably because he either pays property taxes or pays rent to someone who uses it to pay property taxes.
Fundamentally, one can see people living on the street as belonging to a complex subgroup in our society: one which can be both symbiotic and parasitical.
It is symbiotic in the sense that it provides a culture with which many can identify, especially those who have experienced hardship or difficult home lives as children. In this way street communities can provide a sense of catharsis -- almost a group therapy session. Belonging to a community can provide mental comfort which can seem even more important than physical comfort. In other words, street communities can take our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
However, in many cases they can also be parasitical. Consuming societies' group benefits, in a way similar to herd immunity, while also spreading danger in the community, either through violence or excessive drug use.
I think what many people, both in the street communities and not, may fail to realize is that it is entirely possible that a street community can represent a local optimum, but not a global one. There may be a way to provide people both the sense of community they desire and a way to integrate them into the larger community so that they can contribute in more impactful ways.
Fundamentally, one can see people living on the street as belonging to a complex subgroup in our society: one which can be both symbiotic and parasitical.
It is symbiotic in the sense that it provides a culture with which many can identify, especially those who have experienced hardship or difficult home lives as children. In this way street communities can provide a sense of catharsis -- almost a group therapy session. Belonging to a community can provide mental comfort which can seem even more important than physical comfort. In other words, street communities can take our tired, our poor, our huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
However, in many cases they can also be parasitical. Consuming societies' group benefits, in a way similar to herd immunity, while also spreading danger in the community, either through violence or excessive drug use.
I think what many people, both in the street communities and not, may fail to realize is that it is entirely possible that a street community can represent a local optimum, but not a global one. There may be a way to provide people both the sense of community they desire and a way to integrate them into the larger community so that they can contribute in more impactful ways.
There's an old wobbly story: A wobbly was riding a freight train across the midwest one summer, in between jobs. The train sided out in the middle of nowhere, and it was scorching hot, so the wobbly got off the train and started walking down a dirt road.
After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree.
The wobbly sat there enjoying the shade for 20 minutes, until a farmer came across him. "You can't be here!" exclaimed the farmer, "This is my land!"
The wobbly looked up at the farmer and asked "Really? What makes it your land?"
"What are you talking about you dirty tramp, I inherited it from my father!" replied the farmer, almost bewildered at such an indignant question.
"Hmm, and what made it his land?" asked the wobbly.
"Why, he inherited it from his father!" replied the farmer, now really angry. "It's been in my family for three generations!"
"And what made it your grandfather's land?" asked the wobbly.
The farmer, now barely able to contain himself, yelled proudly "Why! My grandpappy fought the indians for it!"
The wobbly nodded, stood up, pulled back his sleeves, and replied "Uh huh. Then I'll fight you for it, right now."
The point being that a lot of these conceptions about who belongs and who doesn't are based on private property, but that there fundamentally isn't any real justification for private property. Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down.
I can understand two groups being in conflict with each-other, but I can't understand conceptualizing one as the "guests" of the other group simply because they don't own property.
After a couple of miles, the road passed by an apple orchard. The wobbly hopped over the fence, and sat down to rest under the shade of a big apple tree.
The wobbly sat there enjoying the shade for 20 minutes, until a farmer came across him. "You can't be here!" exclaimed the farmer, "This is my land!"
The wobbly looked up at the farmer and asked "Really? What makes it your land?"
"What are you talking about you dirty tramp, I inherited it from my father!" replied the farmer, almost bewildered at such an indignant question.
"Hmm, and what made it his land?" asked the wobbly.
"Why, he inherited it from his father!" replied the farmer, now really angry. "It's been in my family for three generations!"
"And what made it your grandfather's land?" asked the wobbly.
The farmer, now barely able to contain himself, yelled proudly "Why! My grandpappy fought the indians for it!"
The wobbly nodded, stood up, pulled back his sleeves, and replied "Uh huh. Then I'll fight you for it, right now."
The point being that a lot of these conceptions about who belongs and who doesn't are based on private property, but that there fundamentally isn't any real justification for private property. Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down.
I can understand two groups being in conflict with each-other, but I can't understand conceptualizing one as the "guests" of the other group simply because they don't own property.
Here's a justification for private property. How will there ever be an orchard otherwise? Orchards don't just burst spontaneously into existence.
Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing the farmer asked for in return was to sell his surplus. Lowering the cost of apples to all.
Then some jackass jumps off a train and expects it all handed to him for free or he'll attack the farmer.
I can understand the idea of not wanting to participate in a capitalist system, but I can't understand what makes someone 'evil' just because they've created something that you haven't.
Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there. Over the years through hard work, dedication and sacrifice the land was amended and the trees grew creating the orchard. The only thing the farmer asked for in return was to sell his surplus. Lowering the cost of apples to all.
Then some jackass jumps off a train and expects it all handed to him for free or he'll attack the farmer.
I can understand the idea of not wanting to participate in a capitalist system, but I can't understand what makes someone 'evil' just because they've created something that you haven't.
A nice turnaround, but in the story, the land wasn't a vacant waste, it was acquired by force. The story isn't "Oh, you moved into emptiness and created something, so I'll fight you", it was "you fought the people here before, so I'll continue with your method of ownership".
Similarly, the wobbly wasn't demanding an apple, but enjoying the shade. Was the farmer selling shade? Lowering the cost of shade to all?
The idea of a one-sided "fuck off, this is MY land" seems to be a new-world Anglo thing - back in Europe a lot of countries have a form of right to roam that sits in conflict with property rights. While there is certainly a 'my land!' aspect, there's also the competing philosophical idea that people are free to travel over it or use it recreationally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_i...
Similarly, the wobbly wasn't demanding an apple, but enjoying the shade. Was the farmer selling shade? Lowering the cost of shade to all?
The idea of a one-sided "fuck off, this is MY land" seems to be a new-world Anglo thing - back in Europe a lot of countries have a form of right to roam that sits in conflict with property rights. While there is certainly a 'my land!' aspect, there's also the competing philosophical idea that people are free to travel over it or use it recreationally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Right_to_roam_i...
Also in Europe we had common land, and while you can argue about the tragedy of the commons, enclosure destroyed many peoples only source of livelihood.
It wasn't acquired by force by the farmer, it was acquired by force by the great grandfather.
Either way, you disprove your own point. The farmer has a more legitimate claim because he worked for it, he didn't attack someone for it like the guy who showed up wants to.
Either way, you disprove your own point. The farmer has a more legitimate claim because he worked for it, he didn't attack someone for it like the guy who showed up wants to.
My point was that the parent post was misrepresenting the original story. I'm not sure how that's disproved by what you're saying.
> Imagine that no one 'fought the natives for it'. Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there.
Dear Randian, These statements imply that you consider the native people "no one" and native vegetation rather than industrial crops "a vacant waste". I think those are rude presumptions.
Dear Randian, These statements imply that you consider the native people "no one" and native vegetation rather than industrial crops "a vacant waste". I think those are rude presumptions.
It's more than rude: you should see what Ayn Rand had to say about the native Americans.
> Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right
> to take over this continent.
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
[deleted](1)
I like this rhetorical technique: completely alter the story then craft an argument based on your version of the story.
In the less artificial world (where orchards are not usually created out of barren moonscapes)- it's always a little odd - and self-serving - the degree to which people think improving land magically cancels all previous taint of expropriation.
In the less artificial world (where orchards are not usually created out of barren moonscapes)- it's always a little odd - and self-serving - the degree to which people think improving land magically cancels all previous taint of expropriation.
> Instead the land was a vacant waste with no one living there and nothing growing there.
Funny that is the childish misconception I had as a child about America before settlers came here. Just an empty lush land, as gift of God, waiting to embrace its new owners.
Funny that is the childish misconception I had as a child about America before settlers came here. Just an empty lush land, as gift of God, waiting to embrace its new owners.
Preach, brother. SF didn't spring magically into existence either -- it was built once, then destroyed in a quake, and then built again.
I think that things don't have to stop at the orchard. Years ago, there used to be a big flophouse on Columbus Ave, full of trash and indigents. Transients. Beat "poets", the sort of people glorified by City Lights books.
And then they tore it down and built the TransAmerica pyramid! Now that's progress.
I think that things don't have to stop at the orchard. Years ago, there used to be a big flophouse on Columbus Ave, full of trash and indigents. Transients. Beat "poets", the sort of people glorified by City Lights books.
And then they tore it down and built the TransAmerica pyramid! Now that's progress.
[deleted]
I don't see why you need a broad intellectual foundation here. Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction. Where did the government get the property? It claimed it and enforced its claim by force.
So I guess my answer to the story would be: fine, you can fight the owner for it, but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government. If you are so inclined to fight the government, fine, but don't be surprised when people who find the abstraction useful and productive, or even simply find the other mechanisms of the government productive, decide to fight back.
So I guess my answer to the story would be: fine, you can fight the owner for it, but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government. If you are so inclined to fight the government, fine, but don't be surprised when people who find the abstraction useful and productive, or even simply find the other mechanisms of the government productive, decide to fight back.
> Property is granted by governments. Why? Because it's a useful abstraction.
This is where that 'broad intellectual foundation' comes in. You may think that it is, sure, but why? Not everyone does, and there's a whole lot of philosophical discussion on this very topic. Our conception of 'private property' has only been around ~200 years, and humanity's been around just a bit more than that.
This is where that 'broad intellectual foundation' comes in. You may think that it is, sure, but why? Not everyone does, and there's a whole lot of philosophical discussion on this very topic. Our conception of 'private property' has only been around ~200 years, and humanity's been around just a bit more than that.
I'm a pragmatist. I find the philosophical 'discussion' on the metaphysical "purpose" of private property to be uninteresting and mostly worthless.
I am, however, perfectly willing to entertain many possible critiques, if they are shown to be practical and better than the alternatives. Feudal property law, for example, I don't find to be nearly as flexible or efficient (which was around for quite a while, as well). It's no accident that our notions of property came into greater strength with the industrial revolution. If you look at the states with both strong public and private property systems, like the Scandinavians, you'll find that our system has also been far from static.
Speaking as someone with a minor in philosophy, I have to agree with Paul Graham[1] that unfocused philosophy based on general principles (like "what is 'property?'") is terribly useless. If you want to make a difference, innovate.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
I am, however, perfectly willing to entertain many possible critiques, if they are shown to be practical and better than the alternatives. Feudal property law, for example, I don't find to be nearly as flexible or efficient (which was around for quite a while, as well). It's no accident that our notions of property came into greater strength with the industrial revolution. If you look at the states with both strong public and private property systems, like the Scandinavians, you'll find that our system has also been far from static.
Speaking as someone with a minor in philosophy, I have to agree with Paul Graham[1] that unfocused philosophy based on general principles (like "what is 'property?'") is terribly useless. If you want to make a difference, innovate.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
Graham's critique is remarkably like the one Karl Marx had of "metaphysical" philosophy, in favor of praxis-oriented philosophy. ;-)
From the end of his Theses on Feuerbach: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".
From the end of his Theses on Feuerbach: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it".
I never said I disagreed with Marx's critique! However, I would note that goal and result are not necessarily the same.
I would say Marx succeeded in producing a lot of interesting practical results which could actually be implemented. On the other hand, some of his stuff smacks more of religion than it does of praxis. His "law of value," for example, seems very unfalsifiable, in a sense. He speaks of the approach to true value when supply and demand equilibriate, but his conditions of equilibrium are often either poorly defined or simply tautological (e.g., the true value of a good is when it meshes with the law of value, thus the law of value is the true value of commodities).
Indeed, many of Marx's ideas have been through the crucible. Some, like a command economy, have mostly been burned to disintegration. Others, like the provision of health care to anyone who needs it, financed by the people according to their ability, seems to have had huge success among most of the civilized world.
All in all, I don't have problems with Marx's approach, just the idea that rehashing ideas from a century ago in pretty much identical ways counts as innovation.
I would say Marx succeeded in producing a lot of interesting practical results which could actually be implemented. On the other hand, some of his stuff smacks more of religion than it does of praxis. His "law of value," for example, seems very unfalsifiable, in a sense. He speaks of the approach to true value when supply and demand equilibriate, but his conditions of equilibrium are often either poorly defined or simply tautological (e.g., the true value of a good is when it meshes with the law of value, thus the law of value is the true value of commodities).
Indeed, many of Marx's ideas have been through the crucible. Some, like a command economy, have mostly been burned to disintegration. Others, like the provision of health care to anyone who needs it, financed by the people according to their ability, seems to have had huge success among most of the civilized world.
All in all, I don't have problems with Marx's approach, just the idea that rehashing ideas from a century ago in pretty much identical ways counts as innovation.
Thank you for making my point even better than I would.
So you think private property was invented in 1813?
I guess the War of 1812 was more important than anyone could have dreamed at the time?
You really need to read more. Like... a lot more.
I guess the War of 1812 was more important than anyone could have dreamed at the time?
You really need to read more. Like... a lot more.
... yes, I meant exactly 200 years, to the letter. Obviously. The tilde, which is generally taken to mean 'approximate', was absolutely superflous. In a thread about John Locke's conception of property and its effects on modern day states, I plant the turning point at 1813. You got me.
(the ~200 figure comes from the Inclosure acts, which, as Wikipedia says, "the majority were passed between 1750 and 1860". Even that is obviously a rough time period, and only one of many significant historical events. Even if we take Locke's birthday, 29 August 1632, as the birth of private property in the current sense, that's still roughly 380 years ago, which is still pretty new as far as human history goes.)
(the ~200 figure comes from the Inclosure acts, which, as Wikipedia says, "the majority were passed between 1750 and 1860". Even that is obviously a rough time period, and only one of many significant historical events. Even if we take Locke's birthday, 29 August 1632, as the birth of private property in the current sense, that's still roughly 380 years ago, which is still pretty new as far as human history goes.)
Property isn't a philosophical or legal concept. It's a practical aspect of human psychology that has always existed. If you've ever watched two kids fight over an ice cream cone you've witnessed private property in action. People aren't emotionless robots or hyper-rational homo economi. If you can't be bothered to learn even a little bit about humanity, your political philosophies will be every bit as disastrous as Bolshevism (and Castroism, and whatever the hell North Korea does).
Even if we just want to talk about private property as a legal institution, we can go back at least to the code of Hammurabi, and probably further if I could be bothered to do the research, which I can't. Even during the middle ages there was an active merchant class. And arguably feudalism is just the extension of the property concept to encompass ownership of people.
Even if we just want to talk about private property as a legal institution, we can go back at least to the code of Hammurabi, and probably further if I could be bothered to do the research, which I can't. Even during the middle ages there was an active merchant class. And arguably feudalism is just the extension of the property concept to encompass ownership of people.
Property has not always existed and it's not a fundamental "aspect of human psychology". If you said possession, I'd probably agree with you but you could say the same thing about sharing and cooperation.
While I am on your side in the sense that we both agree that private property exists and is necessary, I think it's very dangerous to assume that property only exists when there is a government to enforce it. Furthermore, you seem to assume that only governments can own property and that the 'delegate' the ownership to citizens as it were - a point I take offense with, I am the owner of all my property, any government be damned.
Government grants private property by agreeing to defend your exclusive use of it, and by dictating the conditions under which it will maintain or terminate that exclusive use.
If you find that you have the ability to defend your exclusive use of something, you're either appealing to a sovereign, or you have become a sovereign. To be a sovereign, you need a very large stick.
If you find that you have the ability to defend your exclusive use of something, you're either appealing to a sovereign, or you have become a sovereign. To be a sovereign, you need a very large stick.
I imagine the wobbly will quite happily let the farmer go and get a representative of the US government for him to fight. Likely he will have naturally moved on before such a representative responds to 'someone is enjoying my shade against my will!'
I agree that people can commit crimes without getting caught much of the time?
I'm not sure if you have a point.
I'm not sure if you have a point.
It's a sad world we live in when "sitting in the shade" is called a crime - and imply that it's bad people aren't getting 'caught' for such trivial things.
I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.
I mean, if we're talking about absurdity of points, you are saying that a single travelling poor man sitting in the shade is something that is worthy of invoking the power of the federal government to combat.
"sitting in the shade" is not the crime; trespass is the crime.
The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access.
If said farmer has had problems with transients damaging his property in the past, he will certainly appreciate the right to deny access, with the power of the government backing the decision.
The concept of private property is useful enough on the whole that governments are willing to enforce it, and leave discretion for right-of-access to the owner of said property. This allows the property owner to assess people in terms of risk they pose to said property and either grant or deny access.
If said farmer has had problems with transients damaging his property in the past, he will certainly appreciate the right to deny access, with the power of the government backing the decision.
Surely then, this would be the province of the local law enforcement, not something worth summoning in the Feds for.
The only person to mention the federal government was you.
but the real owner isn't me, it's the United States government - Locke1689, 5 hours ago
I am not an American, but I've been online for nearly 20 years now, and I've seen a lot of US politics pass under the bridge. I've never seen anything that goes contrary to the notion that 'the United States government' is 'the federal government [of the US]'. The two terms are used interchangably in online discourse in my experience.
If I am wrong in this, can you please provide me with some links to explain how 'the federal government' of the US is a different entity to the 'the United States government'. I'd be very interested to read them, because it would be a very curious oddity in the way politics are described over there. Does 'the federal government' operate at a higher or lower level than 'the United States government', or do they operate in parallel? It's an intriguing concept.
I am not an American, but I've been online for nearly 20 years now, and I've seen a lot of US politics pass under the bridge. I've never seen anything that goes contrary to the notion that 'the United States government' is 'the federal government [of the US]'. The two terms are used interchangably in online discourse in my experience.
If I am wrong in this, can you please provide me with some links to explain how 'the federal government' of the US is a different entity to the 'the United States government'. I'd be very interested to read them, because it would be a very curious oddity in the way politics are described over there. Does 'the federal government' operate at a higher or lower level than 'the United States government', or do they operate in parallel? It's an intriguing concept.
Well, at least the farmer didn't just shoot him and invoke the castle doctrine.
Because some people might not know: Wobbly=member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a union opposed to capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World . They're over a century old, and are still active.
>The point being that a lot of these conceptions about who belongs and who doesn't are based on private property, but that there fundamentally isn't any real justification for private property. Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down.
Its negation breaks down too, computer-hoarder.
Its negation breaks down too, computer-hoarder.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Even John Locke's attempts to justify it break down."
How so? It's a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to avoid an Hobbesian free-for-all.
How so? It's a perfectly reasonable explanation of how to avoid an Hobbesian free-for-all.
This would be really significant if philosophy had any bearing on real life.
Oliver, is that you?
Probably because he produces the value that makes the land a desirable place to mooch, while the street kids don't produce any of the value that makes it desirable place for him to sell his services to others.
And unlike in your Wobbly story, they wouldn't be able to produce that same value "if only" the greedy OP quit hogging that land he lives and works on.
You ever wonder why the street kids don't exercise their freedom to roam in less wealthy areas? Food for thought.
And unlike in your Wobbly story, they wouldn't be able to produce that same value "if only" the greedy OP quit hogging that land he lives and works on.
You ever wonder why the street kids don't exercise their freedom to roam in less wealthy areas? Food for thought.
This isn't entirely true. While the street kids aren't specifically responsible for the neighborhood's legacy, they are part of a line that has given the neighborhood a certain magic for tourists and nostalgics anyway
Probably because he contributes to society in his local neighborhood, likely cleaning up the steps that they so eloquently defecate upon. Paying the taxes that keep the green grass growing in the parks they chill in.
Are you genuinely curious, or trolling?
I'll answer sincerely if you don't understand.
I'll answer sincerely if you don't understand.
Hi Dewitt --
I presume Moxie's genuine. I'm not quite sure how to interpret his question, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.
--nate
I presume Moxie's genuine. I'm not quite sure how to interpret his question, but I'd like to hear more of your thoughts.
--nate
Hey Nate!
The way I see it is that we're all guests in any new environment when we first get there. Over time, after investing love blood sweat energy tears, these places gradually become our homes. Sometimes it feels like it happens fast, sometimes it feels like it takes forever. Sometimes we are embraced by whomever is there before. Sometimes we're not and we displace (ask me how I felt moving to Avenue D back in the day). Sometimes we're not and we're the ones displaced.
For me personally, the Haight didn't start feeling at all like home for quite a long time. Years. But over time I started recognizing the shopowners. Getting to know them, their names, where they lived, what was on their mind. And my neighbors (those that stay long enough to get to know). And the cops (on the rare occasion you saw one). And the postal carrier. And the street cleaning crew. Etc.
And, especially relevant to this thread, I began to recognize the local transients. I might see a handful guys over and over again who have been walking the streets of our neighborhood for a decade or more. (Which I guess technically makes them in-transient, but they're likely not under the same roof every night like I am.) This is their home, too.
But what I don't see is the same faces among the street kids. I see new kids every day. They're here one day, gone the next. It's rare that I'd see a kid last a week. Maybe a handful I've seen come back after a year or two. But that's the exception, not the norm.
So my point about it being "our extended home" is that, after these many years, love or hate the Haight, it has become my home, and it is the home for the others that have invested something of their lives in our neighborhood.
For most of these street kids, the ones the author is writing about, the ones that I see every day, they don't consider it home. They don't treat it as their home. But I do. And so do my neighbors.
Does that explain it a bit better?
Edit: Moxie in another comment mentions the (true) squatter scene, which is a very important (and itself diverse) subculture to recognize. I agree completely. I'd suggest that the Haight is also their home as much as it is mine. Hell, a million times moreso if we're talking actual blood sweat and tears.
The way I see it is that we're all guests in any new environment when we first get there. Over time, after investing love blood sweat energy tears, these places gradually become our homes. Sometimes it feels like it happens fast, sometimes it feels like it takes forever. Sometimes we are embraced by whomever is there before. Sometimes we're not and we displace (ask me how I felt moving to Avenue D back in the day). Sometimes we're not and we're the ones displaced.
For me personally, the Haight didn't start feeling at all like home for quite a long time. Years. But over time I started recognizing the shopowners. Getting to know them, their names, where they lived, what was on their mind. And my neighbors (those that stay long enough to get to know). And the cops (on the rare occasion you saw one). And the postal carrier. And the street cleaning crew. Etc.
And, especially relevant to this thread, I began to recognize the local transients. I might see a handful guys over and over again who have been walking the streets of our neighborhood for a decade or more. (Which I guess technically makes them in-transient, but they're likely not under the same roof every night like I am.) This is their home, too.
But what I don't see is the same faces among the street kids. I see new kids every day. They're here one day, gone the next. It's rare that I'd see a kid last a week. Maybe a handful I've seen come back after a year or two. But that's the exception, not the norm.
So my point about it being "our extended home" is that, after these many years, love or hate the Haight, it has become my home, and it is the home for the others that have invested something of their lives in our neighborhood.
For most of these street kids, the ones the author is writing about, the ones that I see every day, they don't consider it home. They don't treat it as their home. But I do. And so do my neighbors.
Does that explain it a bit better?
Edit: Moxie in another comment mentions the (true) squatter scene, which is a very important (and itself diverse) subculture to recognize. I agree completely. I'd suggest that the Haight is also their home as much as it is mine. Hell, a million times moreso if we're talking actual blood sweat and tears.
Thanks, this is excellent insight. My current role is as a business owner in Oakland. Many of the "transients" are fixtures of the neighborhood. Some we allow to charge their cellphones in the store, with others we call 911 as soon as they come in. The guest metaphor is interesting, but difficult to apply in the case of overlayed and possibly incompatible subcommunities.
This is an excellent response. A neighborhood is home to those who treat it as a home, which often coincides with material ownership.
From the OP:
"But they all stayed for the same reason: They found a community..."
Ridiculous.
As a youth, I had a lot of contact with homeless teens. (I was bounced around a lot, but not quite homeless.) Many were kicked out (homosexual), many more were escaping (domestic violence, pedophilia, rape), a few were "free spirits" (or merely didn't feel the need to share their stories).
My SO volunteers at a local homeless teen shelter. The kids she encounters have had terrible lives thus far. Not many happy stories there.
My city tries to do more than the norm for homeless people. Women, children, teens, vets, mentally ill. It's an uphill battle. The ones that are just down on their luck have the tools and resources to bounce back. The rest aren't so fortunate.
In addition to your suggestion, the author should volunteer at a shelter or mission. As a rule, the people we see are just a fraction of the homeless, the panhandlers an even smaller percentage.
"But they all stayed for the same reason: They found a community..."
Ridiculous.
As a youth, I had a lot of contact with homeless teens. (I was bounced around a lot, but not quite homeless.) Many were kicked out (homosexual), many more were escaping (domestic violence, pedophilia, rape), a few were "free spirits" (or merely didn't feel the need to share their stories).
My SO volunteers at a local homeless teen shelter. The kids she encounters have had terrible lives thus far. Not many happy stories there.
My city tries to do more than the norm for homeless people. Women, children, teens, vets, mentally ill. It's an uphill battle. The ones that are just down on their luck have the tools and resources to bounce back. The rest aren't so fortunate.
In addition to your suggestion, the author should volunteer at a shelter or mission. As a rule, the people we see are just a fraction of the homeless, the panhandlers an even smaller percentage.
And judging from the other comments, people who have no first-hand exposure to this enviroment are simply eating the article up, believing they have the full story. I'd invite anyone who is prepared to generalize about street kid culture based on this one article alone to spend just one /evening/ walking around Haight and Stanyan. Head into the park a ways.
You don't have to go more than 50 yards. I guarantee you take back many of the things you've said on this thread.
You don't have to go more than 50 yards. I guarantee you take back many of the things you've said on this thread.
Reading the article, I pretty much had the exact same thoughts. It really seemed like the writer had a particular feel-good story in mind ("hippies still live in the Haight!") and went out there trying to find it. The error in the article is casting the entire scene as the same slice of peace-n-love that is espoused in the story, leaving aside -- as you say -- the things that happen after dark. Serious mental illness, the sexual risks inherent in being homeless, run-ins with gangs, disease and the worsening of any future prospects as the "tree of life" is embraced.
I was once similarly enamored with the hippy scene and dated a flower child for quite some time, even visited the commune in Lake county that she grew up in, etc. There is a distinctly darker side of the whole experience whose surface is not even scratched by this article.
I was once similarly enamored with the hippy scene and dated a flower child for quite some time, even visited the commune in Lake county that she grew up in, etc. There is a distinctly darker side of the whole experience whose surface is not even scratched by this article.
I think the point of the article is that it's not as bad, or their word, "Dickensian," as people think. The article is missing some hard numbers: how many are choosing the lifestyle? How many of those that do are engaging in criminal / disruptive activity?
It's pretty cool you got to check out a commune in Lake county.
It's pretty cool you got to check out a commune in Lake county.
> It's pretty cool you got to check out a commune in Lake county.
It was a little creepy, to be honest. They have pictorial banners up in the woods, without any words. I was only allowed into the bookshop, and every single book and CD was by the commune leader. Every single one.
Edit: I'll add some detail here since people seem to be interested. Lake County is a very, very remote area a few hours north of San Francisco. The commune has been functional since the 60s, sucking up its members' wealth in exchange for living under the direction of a charismatic leader. While a generation lived under this leader's direction, their children suffered the brunt of the eccentricity and thoughtlessness that the era inculcated. The one incident that I recall hearing about is when several children (including the person I was dating) in the 8-12 age range were randomly ordered to live with different parents on a whim, and the families complied. A significant fraction of the kids of that generation are somewhat screwed up, with causes ranging from heroin addiction to the effects of sexual abuse as children. It put a very dark tint on the rainbow of the 60s for me.
It was a little creepy, to be honest. They have pictorial banners up in the woods, without any words. I was only allowed into the bookshop, and every single book and CD was by the commune leader. Every single one.
Edit: I'll add some detail here since people seem to be interested. Lake County is a very, very remote area a few hours north of San Francisco. The commune has been functional since the 60s, sucking up its members' wealth in exchange for living under the direction of a charismatic leader. While a generation lived under this leader's direction, their children suffered the brunt of the eccentricity and thoughtlessness that the era inculcated. The one incident that I recall hearing about is when several children (including the person I was dating) in the 8-12 age range were randomly ordered to live with different parents on a whim, and the families complied. A significant fraction of the kids of that generation are somewhat screwed up, with causes ranging from heroin addiction to the effects of sexual abuse as children. It put a very dark tint on the rainbow of the 60s for me.
Whenever I read the good, realist observations of the dark underbelly of hippy culture, I always think of the movie "Easy Rider" which explored some of that effectively.
The writer was duped. There is quite a chasm between the flower child from Novato coming down for the weekend to trade peace patches for shrooms and the addict gutter punk types who live there permanently.
Those people are scary. The writer might have actually had to work at getting his story, rather than collecting anecdotes from those that have romanticized the lifestyle.
True tho perhaps you need some folks closer to the edge to ensure the avail of substances people further out won't touch en masse. Ultimately some edge players are needed to give everyone access which ensures the greater scene. Legalize and this wouldn't need to be the case
Relevant: http://www.hanc-sf.org/next-meeting/the-homeless-bill-of-rig...
Tonight.
Tonight.
"The bill helps protect homeless people from discrimination in employment, ..."
|face-palm|
|face-palm|
There appears to be some goofy stuff in there, but giving them somewhere to defecate so they don't do it where I'd like to walk would be worth every penny. This is basic public health stuff.
We're rivaling some sub-continental regions in open defecation densities.
The Mission comes a close third to the Haight and the Tenderloin.
Perhaps Mr. Dorsey is attending to the wrong neighborhoods.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/289809936421109760
The Mission comes a close third to the Haight and the Tenderloin.
Perhaps Mr. Dorsey is attending to the wrong neighborhoods.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/289809936421109760
I'm also a long time resident of the neighborhood, and agree with my neighbors sentiments - the article is interesting and informative, but in no way speaks to the day to day (or more importantly, night to night) life of interactions between the local homeless and the rest of the community. As an example, the sit/lie measure was in part prompted by a violent attack on a local resident. And if you've every walked down Haight with a woman (or are one yourself), the obscenities and outright harassment that the less flowery members of the homeless community will offer will shock you.
The one question that I always ask (and instantly makes me unpopular) of the hippie/transient/counter-culture types, is, "Do you realize you would all likely be dead of hunger withing two to three weeks without a massively efficient capitalist system supporting you?"
They are able to exist because of people who are willing to work to support them. Even the communes rely on fertilizer, fuels, metals, foodstuffs from 2000+ years of increasingly efficient capitalists economies.
Don't get me wrong - I love spending a week to ten days out on the playa, and have never had such a wonder experience of "community" anywhere else - but I never, ever kid myself into believing that such a lifestyle is sustainable.
I don't like to use the word, "parasite", but I can't really think of a better word to describe the Haight street pan-handlers/garbage divers. They can't survive without people providing for them.
They are able to exist because of people who are willing to work to support them. Even the communes rely on fertilizer, fuels, metals, foodstuffs from 2000+ years of increasingly efficient capitalists economies.
Don't get me wrong - I love spending a week to ten days out on the playa, and have never had such a wonder experience of "community" anywhere else - but I never, ever kid myself into believing that such a lifestyle is sustainable.
I don't like to use the word, "parasite", but I can't really think of a better word to describe the Haight street pan-handlers/garbage divers. They can't survive without people providing for them.
> "without a massively efficient capitalist system"
Efficient is a tricky word. Burning through non-renevable fossil, freshwater, (arable) land and mineral resources at an accelerating pace, with no regard for the environment or future generations has allowed the world to reach levels the overpopulation that China spent thousands of years reaching -- in less than 200 years. But without any structure, government or system that has any hope (or indeed even any goal) of breaking the pace of expansion in a way suitable to avoid massive disasters and system failure.
As for the US, given the wast resources left, and the (comparatively) sparse population -- it appears to me to be one of the few countries that actually could become more efficient (resources spent per capita) -- without forcing particularly bad consequences on in its citizens.
But yes, a group producing no, or little value, paying none, or little in tax could indeed be seen as parasites. I can think of a few group that I'd consider harmful parasites, though.
Efficient is a tricky word. Burning through non-renevable fossil, freshwater, (arable) land and mineral resources at an accelerating pace, with no regard for the environment or future generations has allowed the world to reach levels the overpopulation that China spent thousands of years reaching -- in less than 200 years. But without any structure, government or system that has any hope (or indeed even any goal) of breaking the pace of expansion in a way suitable to avoid massive disasters and system failure.
As for the US, given the wast resources left, and the (comparatively) sparse population -- it appears to me to be one of the few countries that actually could become more efficient (resources spent per capita) -- without forcing particularly bad consequences on in its citizens.
But yes, a group producing no, or little value, paying none, or little in tax could indeed be seen as parasites. I can think of a few group that I'd consider harmful parasites, though.
I think it's an interesting and reasonable question but I'm not sure the basis of the question is correct.
First, the 2000+ years of capitalism assertion is fairly flawed, consider feudalism, but for the sake of argument lets say capitalism goes hand in hand with industrial revolution era.
Then when you say 'massively efficient capitalist system' it seems like you're referring to a "net efficiency" in terms of production of wealth, and that allows a community of grifters to benefit from that as a kind of downstream recipient.
You are touching upon a valid point, this lifestyle is a function of current society and it appears to be parasitic rather than self-sustaining. However, I would argue that this demonstrates that current capitalism is actually pretty inefficient to allow this.
First, the 2000+ years of capitalism assertion is fairly flawed, consider feudalism, but for the sake of argument lets say capitalism goes hand in hand with industrial revolution era.
Then when you say 'massively efficient capitalist system' it seems like you're referring to a "net efficiency" in terms of production of wealth, and that allows a community of grifters to benefit from that as a kind of downstream recipient.
You are touching upon a valid point, this lifestyle is a function of current society and it appears to be parasitic rather than self-sustaining. However, I would argue that this demonstrates that current capitalism is actually pretty inefficient to allow this.
Where I live, the answer might run as follows. For fifty thousand years, the local hippies avoided starvation with a one-hour workday. Now that the place is full to bursting point with slaves of some massively efficient system, they have to work a bit harder.
And, unless you can photosynthesize, you're a parasite too.
And, unless you can photosynthesize, you're a parasite too.
Plants are just parasites of the sun man. And even the sun is just a rapist of mass energy.
Don't be an apologist for solar-parasites.
The point that I probably failed to make, is that trying to drop out of the work-for-wages/acquire capital/hire-people/produce goods ecosystem only works as long as you have a lot of people prepared to work-for-wages/acquire capital/hire-people/produce goods who will create the environment that keeps you alive.
I would never besmirch the good name of the sun, nor suggest that we don't all depend on it. I think we can all agree that we've greatly benefited from living within the sun's ecosystem.
I would never besmirch the good name of the sun, nor suggest that we don't all depend on it. I think we can all agree that we've greatly benefited from living within the sun's ecosystem.
Well, everyone has to live within the environment they find themselves in; the "artificial" ecosystem is just another kind of ecosystem, and people look for niches within it. And it's true that there are plenty of lifestyles that would have to be different in a different ecosystem. But that's true of a wide range of niches you could inhabit. Someone who's spending their full-time efforts building a social music player is in a way piggy-backing off a whole bunch of other stuff that already exists and is providing their food/shelter/medicine/etc. You can't exactly eat social-music systems, so it's only possible to have the luxury of working on them if someone else is providing your material needs. Is that being a "parasite"? Well, the way the economy is currently set up, they can carve out a niche where they can survive doing it. But then, so can the street kids, just on different terms...
I would have written a different story. I lived 2 blocks from Haight and Stanyan for a long time and I was connected to street kids by skateboarding and guitar and being someone who talks to anyone (e.g I gave away a lot of Dunlop jazz3 guitar picks). While there may be a few people on the streets willingly (the new arrivals), and some are talented musicians/artists/artisans, the author chose to ignore the violence and the scourge of alcoholism and meth, the ones who have no family or safety net or options. He didn't look in the backpacks and see pepper spray, sawed off baseball bats, golf clubs and rocks (Skateboards are capable weapons also), he didn't see people lose most of their teeth in a year, or the armed guards at Whole Foods, stuff like that. The homeless are in the Haight becuase they wouldn't last long in the Mission, South of Market, Potrero, places like that
U sed to work at the Round Table in Albany. It is quiet and not much happens there. At that time the same owner owned my store, and the one in downtown Berkeley. One night I was asked to fill in at the Berkeley store.
Tacked on the wall where you give your order is an "86" list. These are the homeless that are asked to leave the instant they appear. All others are allowed to stay as long as they don't disrupt the business.
I saw that list and laughed, but 10 minutes later a homeless man stood outside the window and screamed obscenities at me as I worked. He was on the list, so 911 was called.
A little while later a "street kid" walked in and asked if we had spare slices. I was about to say no, when the manager said sure, and handed over a slice. When I asked I was told that when they made mistakes, put onions on a pizze that called for no onions, they saved them and handed out slices to those that asked nicely.
I guess it all depends on who and how you act.
Tacked on the wall where you give your order is an "86" list. These are the homeless that are asked to leave the instant they appear. All others are allowed to stay as long as they don't disrupt the business.
I saw that list and laughed, but 10 minutes later a homeless man stood outside the window and screamed obscenities at me as I worked. He was on the list, so 911 was called.
A little while later a "street kid" walked in and asked if we had spare slices. I was about to say no, when the manager said sure, and handed over a slice. When I asked I was told that when they made mistakes, put onions on a pizze that called for no onions, they saved them and handed out slices to those that asked nicely.
I guess it all depends on who and how you act.
hi-- Haight St shop owner and resident (Buyer's Best Friend Wholesale & Mercantile, Haight @ Cole, bbfdirect.com), member of the Haight St Merchants Association, own two other shops around town, happy to answer any questions. Some FAQs:
- no, the street kids don't steal or bother us much, but also not especially helpful. They and the shopowners largely keep to themselves.
- yeah, the filth is unpleasant and bad for business.
- SIT/LIE hasn't been abused much AFAICT-- it's gone into the cops' "tools" for dealing with people who cross the line. Plenty of people sit on the sidewalks still, but now you can get them to move if being polite doesn't work. As with any enforcement tool, I'm sure there's some abuse and I won't defend it. The cops I've met are thoughtful.
- we've had to call the cops only a handful of times - not bad for a big city.
- cyclical/seasonal business and cost of living are bigger annoyances than the kids.
- the Haight Ashbury merchants are as crazy as anybody-- half of them want to kick out the bums, the other half feed them, half want to legalize pot, the other half get more cops. The issues are complex.
I second Dewitt's comments btw -- we know each other both from the 'hood and from work.
I second Dewitt's comments btw -- we know each other both from the 'hood and from work.
Great post!
I lived right next to the park for the better part of a year. I feel like there are two more aspects to the street kids lives that deserve more attention:
(1) Their pets: Most of these kids have a dog (or sometimes a cat), love their pets and for the most part seem to treat them well. One night, after finding a dog with a collar roaming alone in the park, I helped her find a temporary home. The next day I saw some really worried street kids posting hand written signs with a photo of the dog and reunited them. It was a sight to behold. Homeless with pets are controversial but at least amongst the street kids, the pets seem to have a net positive effect on them.
(2) Mental illness: OP alluded to this, but mentally ill homeless who live in the same area are a huge issue for people who associate them with the street kids. There is no easy fix for this problem and I have always wondered what the street kids think about the mentally ill amongst them and what should be done to help them.
I lived right next to the park for the better part of a year. I feel like there are two more aspects to the street kids lives that deserve more attention:
(1) Their pets: Most of these kids have a dog (or sometimes a cat), love their pets and for the most part seem to treat them well. One night, after finding a dog with a collar roaming alone in the park, I helped her find a temporary home. The next day I saw some really worried street kids posting hand written signs with a photo of the dog and reunited them. It was a sight to behold. Homeless with pets are controversial but at least amongst the street kids, the pets seem to have a net positive effect on them.
(2) Mental illness: OP alluded to this, but mentally ill homeless who live in the same area are a huge issue for people who associate them with the street kids. There is no easy fix for this problem and I have always wondered what the street kids think about the mentally ill amongst them and what should be done to help them.
I became homeless at the cusp of 14, escaping from sleeping with mice on a bare mattress from a Sunset District garage - where my crack-addicted mother (she, a Stanford engineering graduate) put me. I lived on the streets of San Francisco, almost exclusively the Haight until I was 17 1/2. The horrors of my story paled in comparison to the kids I crewed up with in Upper/Lower Haight, and there were a lot of us.
There still are. For many years I have done active outreach work to the homeless youth there as well as risk reduction community mediation meetings between homeless kids, their outreach service workers, and local residents (some of these meetings have taken place at The Booksmith).
I am currently very successful in the tech arena, despite never having returned to school after having to find a place to live and food to eat when I was halfway through ninth grade; I never graduated and have no formal education. I am a very lucky exception.
Why do I tell you this? So you can begin to understand why I have to tell you that if this article is claiming to be about life for, or about, homeless youth in the Haight, the article is so inaccurate it ought to be considered harmful.
This article is the biggest lie and mischaracterization of homeless youth in the Haight I have ever read. I'm too astonished at the moment to be outraged.
There still are. For many years I have done active outreach work to the homeless youth there as well as risk reduction community mediation meetings between homeless kids, their outreach service workers, and local residents (some of these meetings have taken place at The Booksmith).
I am currently very successful in the tech arena, despite never having returned to school after having to find a place to live and food to eat when I was halfway through ninth grade; I never graduated and have no formal education. I am a very lucky exception.
Why do I tell you this? So you can begin to understand why I have to tell you that if this article is claiming to be about life for, or about, homeless youth in the Haight, the article is so inaccurate it ought to be considered harmful.
This article is the biggest lie and mischaracterization of homeless youth in the Haight I have ever read. I'm too astonished at the moment to be outraged.
A lot of people read this and this kind of story and they want to talk about the morality or value systems of these kids, themselves, and so forth.
I propose that there is a much more important reading:
Youth unemployment is extraordinarily high (effecting minorities even worse than these mostly-white kids, of course). Youth incarceration rate / engagement with the justice system is very high.
The numbers of people "dropping out" of legitimate society altogether look to be high and growing.
People's personal feelings about all this aside, it pays to notice when society starts to fray so badly as this.
I propose that there is a much more important reading:
Youth unemployment is extraordinarily high (effecting minorities even worse than these mostly-white kids, of course). Youth incarceration rate / engagement with the justice system is very high.
The numbers of people "dropping out" of legitimate society altogether look to be high and growing.
People's personal feelings about all this aside, it pays to notice when society starts to fray so badly as this.
I was one of those kids. And I can tell you that the article is pretty accurate. I am female, small and skinny. At the time, I was 19 years old and I had given up a one-way ticket to Hawaii, where I was going to transfer to another Dave and Buster's. I decided that even in paradise, I didn't want to work for those assholes anymore. So I packed up about 1/10 of my belongings (what I considered valuable: my violin, some clothes and a ton of beads). When I got to SF, I instantly made friends. I was drawn to the ones who didn't like begging- the buskers and merchants. I slept in the park every night for months. I wandered Haight & Ashbury- at night. Yes, I got robbed by the Fillmore Kids once, but I deserved it for selling on their turf. I never got in any fights, nor did any of the kids I was hanging with. I never even had anything stolen (not that I had anything to steal). The whole point is to be totally detached from society. Looking back, I think it should have been scary, but it wasn't. It was fun. I got to play my violin all day and sing Janice Joplin to the gypsies at night by campfire on Ocean Beach. I met some fascinating characters. One kid had joined a cult. When they refused to let him play jazz piano, he decided that working in a vegan-bakery-sweat-shop run by jesus freaks wasn't for him. He collected rocks and must have been really fucking strong because he had the heaviest pack I have ever held. At least he could be sure that no one would steal that thing! There were a lot of kids with psychosis there, too. One kid wrote poetry all day and occasionally sang to himself. When I asked him what he was saying, he'd say, "a song I wrote for you." Though the sentiment was sweet, he didn't write it. It was 'Tangled Up in Blue' by Bob Dylan. It was ALWAYS 'Tangled Up in Blue'. I thought the comment about "respecting the spot," was interesting, too. We really do that. No one is greedy. If we feel we've made enough cash for beer or cigarettes, we leave. I've even had other kids tell me about a good busking stop they had just left vacant. "Warmed it up for ya." It's easy to see why this lifestyle is so appealing. However, the same cannot be said of why it's a lot less dangerous than most would think. But I lived it and I can tell you, I never felt unsafe in the HAIGHT (I emphasize Haight because I did venture to a soup kitchen near Polk and Geary and that was fucking terrifying). Despite any negative feelings some of the gypsies might have toward the cops, the police generally go easy on the stray kids because they know they keep the real crime out of the tourist area.
In the end, I got bored of that life and moved to Austin to pursue music. I'm still a gypsy at heart, but I also care a lot about the real world. These kids don't have any opinions on real events and feel no sense of loyalty to society. They're not dangerous, they're just just freeloaders. Plain and simple.
I can't see a community like this surviving if a lot more people join in. The article describes someone refraining from 'panhandling excessively', but if you have more people, there will always be those who think less for the benefit of others
"and have limited options when they get too old for the lifestyle"
That's what would sour me. Guess I am showing my age... I like hot showers, clean clothes, and warm beds too much.
That's what would sour me. Guess I am showing my age... I like hot showers, clean clothes, and warm beds too much.
[deleted]
I picked two up (well they're not kids, they're in their late 20s) and they've been working with me ever since. Can't wait until they move out, but at least they learned some electronics!
You sound pretty awesome. Thanks for reaching out.
It was a little weird that the author felt they had to give the definition of 'panhandling'.
[deleted]
This is actually pretty fascinating - I would have never thought to ask. Thanks!
Sounds like fun for about 1-2 weeks, and then it would be a sucky life. Gotta have mental stimulation sometime.
The communities of kids like that that I know make circuses and free schools and are extraordinarily well-read.
Actually, if you planned for this well, I would not be surprised if you ended up with much more mental stimulation than your day job. Have an ereader, download ebooks on everything under the sun. You don't have shit or taxes or property beyond what you carry on you to worry about. Heck, if you saved up $100k or $200k beforehand, you'd probably end up saving/making more money per year than the average American.
Mental stimulation wouldn't be the issue. Risk of violence or disease, however...
Mental stimulation wouldn't be the issue. Risk of violence or disease, however...
Where is the lack of mental stimulation? Conversation and books are free. You have plenty of time to think. I would think working in an office day-in day-out stringing together commands for a computer out of a limited vocabulary would be a lot more boring and non-stimulating.
Booze and drugs helps a lot.
Being able to read books, meet new people, and reflect all day, every day seems more mentally stimulating in certain ways than working in the same field for 5, 10, 20, 30 years.
We're a biased set, in that most of us have, at least, the option for mentally stimulating work. As fucked as the software industry is, it's better than most other places.
Most of them are choosing one (purportedly, although I think I'm right that neither of us has tried it) brain-dead lifestyle over another one.
That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the economy. What makes the typical mind-numbing office life superior to a (supposedly) mind-numbing domestic existence?
Most of them are choosing one (purportedly, although I think I'm right that neither of us has tried it) brain-dead lifestyle over another one.
That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the economy. What makes the typical mind-numbing office life superior to a (supposedly) mind-numbing domestic existence?
>That's why I get irked when people talk about housewives becoming "braindead" from being outside of the economy.
Every housewife I know has some kind of mentally stimulating hobby, and most of them make some amount of income from it (photography, crafts etc...). In fact most of them shouldn't really be called "housewives" any more than male remote programmers should be called "househusbands".
Every housewife I know has some kind of mentally stimulating hobby, and most of them make some amount of income from it (photography, crafts etc...). In fact most of them shouldn't really be called "housewives" any more than male remote programmers should be called "househusbands".
Let's get real, most homemakers are simply indulging their bourgeois fantasies. Not that I blame them, I'd do the same thing if I thought I could get away with it, but I'd probably get served divorce papers.
...or they are providing their own childcare and managing their household.
However, they don't necessarily need to be that competent to provide their own childcare. It's not like the kid is going to fire the parent is the parenting isn't above average. A stay at home parent caring for kids is as likely to play on reddit while the kid watches tv as interacting with the kid all the time and teaching them information, good values and good habits.
Your comment ignores my original point which is that homemakers have economic value, but it's still worthy of a response.
Obviously children are not in control of who takes care of them, but that would be true whether the parents worked or not; parents decide how their children will be cared for in any case. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever tried to browse reddit and watch a toddler at the same time, but I can say from experience it's not as easy as you might imagine. Children, especially when they are younger than school-age, demand a lot of attention just to keep them safe and healthy let alone educated and civilized.
Obviously children are not in control of who takes care of them, but that would be true whether the parents worked or not; parents decide how their children will be cared for in any case. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever tried to browse reddit and watch a toddler at the same time, but I can say from experience it's not as easy as you might imagine. Children, especially when they are younger than school-age, demand a lot of attention just to keep them safe and healthy let alone educated and civilized.
I don't argue for a mind-numbing office life. I argue that being stoned 24/7 doesn't fit how _I_ would spend my time if I were (f)unemployed _by choice_. I would backpack, ski, travel, hack, learn new trades, build things, etc. Maybe some of that requires money, but not all do.
I'm fairly certain there's more to living on the street than sitting around and being stoned 24/7. You're being quite judgmental and haughty toward a lifestyle which you most likely know nothing about.
Really, such as? The article doesn't present many of those and I doubt there are. All I am saying is it sounds boring as hell, stoned or not.
Thanks Rohin! Your blog is one of my favorite things to read. Quite a change from the normal hacker news articles.
Does anyone else find this really sad? It's not abject poverty, but it's a loss of talent to the world, and I'm old and honest enough to know that it's the world's fault.
I liked one of the signs. "You don't have to fuck people over to survive." That's what our positive-sum technocracy is supposed to represent: a world in which you can focus on getting work done and making society better. That's what it actually is if you have a degree of freedom, autonomy, and comfort that is (alas) very rare. Yet most of these "street kids" face a world of soulless, zero-sum, corporate status-grubbing where they do have to make that choice, and they're making the less approved but perhaps morally nicer one.
I liked one of the signs. "You don't have to fuck people over to survive." That's what our positive-sum technocracy is supposed to represent: a world in which you can focus on getting work done and making society better. That's what it actually is if you have a degree of freedom, autonomy, and comfort that is (alas) very rare. Yet most of these "street kids" face a world of soulless, zero-sum, corporate status-grubbing where they do have to make that choice, and they're making the less approved but perhaps morally nicer one.
s/talent/a worker bee/
it's not the world's fault there exists free-will.
it's not the world's fault there exists free-will.
There's something in between wasting talent and becoming a worker bee. I was part of a similar community and found it disenchanting because I wanted to make new things. So I left, and now I make a lot of awesome things, and I'm much happier. I can make contributions and put them on the internet to impact people far and wide. These kids create strong, loving communities and that's as much or more than most people contribute to the world, but I personally felt like I was wasting my particular talents. So I left, But it wasn't to become a worker bee. It was to achieve self-actualization on my own terms, which is the same thing these kids are doing for themselves.
The perception that embarking on a career that you think will make the world a better place is selling out or becoming a drone is really harmful. Being a professional member of a hippy/punk community or an avowed member of the CrimethInc Ex-Worker's Collective or a Slingshot producer or a freegan is a valid choice, but it is hardly more pure than anything else.
The perception that embarking on a career that you think will make the world a better place is selling out or becoming a drone is really harmful. Being a professional member of a hippy/punk community or an avowed member of the CrimethInc Ex-Worker's Collective or a Slingshot producer or a freegan is a valid choice, but it is hardly more pure than anything else.
I would like to know what you can get in the Haight for $1500 / month. Not much I'll bet.
The legalization of marijuana will utterly destroy this community. From the article, it sounds like weed facilitates a significant part of the economy as both a trade good and a consumable while LSD is a luxury item and hard drugs are not tolerated. Cheap weed will probably induce a net loss of value (that being the value of knowing how to procure it, and trading that value).
It's fascinating that these kids are the opposite of the usual drug dealer stereotype. Based on my limited knowledge, drugs (in particular marijuana) trace back to either small individual growers, medical marijuana patients, or a gang or cartel. (As far as I know, LSD is very difficult to produce because of its highly regulated precursors. Only a few people in the world produce LSD, and they probably sell it to gangs to distribute.) Individual growers and patients aren't so bad, but for areas of the country where this is rare, gangs probably supply most of the marijuana. Gangs/cartels are known for having basically the opposite of the values of these "street kids." I wonder if these two demographics often come into contact for business purposes, "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels"-style.
Does anyone have any better, more specific information about the distribution chains for marijuana or LSD?
EDIT: clarifying first sentence
Does anyone have any better, more specific information about the distribution chains for marijuana or LSD?
EDIT: clarifying first sentence
Most American LSD is distributed through the "Rainbow Family" distribution network. Basically the same people you see on the streets of San Francisco. It's a stretch calling these people a gang. It has zero connection to drugs like heroin, cocaine, and meth.
and that is because there is no profit in LSD (I suppose related to it not being addictive?)
In SF, $50 will get you an eighth of pot, whereas LSD is like $5/hit (so a twenty is enough to meet God)
In SF, $50 will get you an eighth of pot, whereas LSD is like $5/hit (so a twenty is enough to meet God)
A vile costs less than $1 per hit and a fraction of that price for someone "in the family". You can only move so much though since it's not a habit.
Several factors favor a small source of distributors. Ergot is dangerous to work with, it's a difficult synthesis, and the overhead costs of making 1,000 hits and 1,000,000,000 is essentially the same.
Several factors favor a small source of distributors. Ergot is dangerous to work with, it's a difficult synthesis, and the overhead costs of making 1,000 hits and 1,000,000,000 is essentially the same.
Why use vials? Unpredictable dosage, charged by weight if arrested... (of course, I'm not sure how much SFPD cares about hippie drugs)
Not to mention the guys selling it for $20/sheet every 4/20 on Hippie Hill -- there's your year's supply right there.
Not to mention the guys selling it for $20/sheet every 4/20 on Hippie Hill -- there's your year's supply right there.
Just an example. It's been a while since I've been involved in any scene.
The article described the kids working on "weed farms" in exchange for "beer, food, and weed". Maybe they're selling the gleanings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleaning
That makes sense for weed, but they probably have a larger supply chain if they're dealing on a day to day basis. Also, the post mentions "flipping" LSD - they buy it for a lower price and sell it for a higher price. Someone has to sell it to them.
Wondering many make the move from GG park to Market Street... Where the homeless are a whole different breed.
Hard drugs, since they can be closer to the tenderloin and mission most likely.
Its sad because peace, love & family is not the way things are handled down there and a lot of them dont make it very long once they graduate.
Its sad because peace, love & family is not the way things are handled down there and a lot of them dont make it very long once they graduate.
"Our initial hypothesis was that life on Haight Street would be a grim, Dickensian hellhole. Instead, we discovered a world of misunderstood, modern-day nomads, blithely toeing the line between poverty, drug dealing, and hippy nirvana."
We had to interview homeless people in DC as part of a college project, and found something similar. I think the common perception is that homeless people are just people like you and I who hit hard times, but almost everyone we talked to was homeless by choice (and some probably had mental illness). Talk to homeless people sometime, it may change your ideas.
We had to interview homeless people in DC as part of a college project, and found something similar. I think the common perception is that homeless people are just people like you and I who hit hard times, but almost everyone we talked to was homeless by choice (and some probably had mental illness). Talk to homeless people sometime, it may change your ideas.
This simplifies the general problem of homelessness, which in reality makes up a large number of people in drastically different situations. Some are families, some are mentally ill, some are sex offenders or felons, some are career homeless, etc. DC's homeless are pretty tame compared to those you'd encounter in Florida, for example.
The article was a neat little look into a single park's homeless culture, but it can be really rough if you wander into the wrong park or alley. Or just taking a bus.
The article was a neat little look into a single park's homeless culture, but it can be really rough if you wander into the wrong park or alley. Or just taking a bus.
As someone who has lived in the Haight-Ashbury for 9 years now, I can say this is a well-written and balanced perspective. Although, it glosses over the additional crime (mainly property theft, occasional assault) brought by the street kids. The key thing noted here is that the vast majority of street kids in the Haight are there by choice, up to and including the choice to panhandle to make enough for $18 bags of organic dog food.
It's refreshing to read, because I'm tired of the two extremes usually presented, either that the street kids are people to be pitied or trash to be thrown out. The street kids are more just a fixture. Like the trees in Buena Vista, they were not here originally, but they're a fixture now, and they'll be here for quite some time to come.
It's refreshing to read, because I'm tired of the two extremes usually presented, either that the street kids are people to be pitied or trash to be thrown out. The street kids are more just a fixture. Like the trees in Buena Vista, they were not here originally, but they're a fixture now, and they'll be here for quite some time to come.
This story reminds me a lot of this old "Hipster Animals" gag.
http://hipster-animals.tumblr.com/post/5609675345/raccoon
http://hipster-animals.tumblr.com/post/5609675345/raccoon
I'm a 23 year old with purple hair, but I'm also a PhD student at a top 10 university for computer science. I've hung out in tons of squats and punk houses, and briefly been a street kid, but I got a 2380 on my SATs. I lived in a non-residential warehouse for months - months when I was taking Physics, Linear Algebra, Computer Science and Sociology 321 - Class and Inequality. I've dug through dozens of dumpsters, and I've hiked hundreds and hundreds of miles on the Appalachian Trail. I've been in jail and won the prize for Best Undergraduate Research at my university.
I fell out of touch with the anarchopunkier half of my friends when I got serious about artificial intelligence and computer science - I love these things and they're very important to me, and in the coffeeshops we always talked about how to get rid of tyrants and inequality. I have always believed in technology. OLPC, Ubuntu, Khan Academy, Coursera, solar panels, cell networks - the list goes on.
Startup folks and street punks have a lot of similar ideas about what we want, but really different aesthetics. The punks I've known are much more well-read and just as bright as the grad students I spend time with now. On the other hand, they're in denial about capitalism. Both groups have a lot to learn from each other, if only they can look over the other's smarminess/smelliness.
I fell out of touch with the anarchopunkier half of my friends when I got serious about artificial intelligence and computer science - I love these things and they're very important to me, and in the coffeeshops we always talked about how to get rid of tyrants and inequality. I have always believed in technology. OLPC, Ubuntu, Khan Academy, Coursera, solar panels, cell networks - the list goes on.
Startup folks and street punks have a lot of similar ideas about what we want, but really different aesthetics. The punks I've known are much more well-read and just as bright as the grad students I spend time with now. On the other hand, they're in denial about capitalism. Both groups have a lot to learn from each other, if only they can look over the other's smarminess/smelliness.
Radical punk rock literally saved my life. As someone who's been a part of both of these worlds off and on for 16 years, I couldn't disagree with you more.
I see the aesthetics of the hacker and punk scenes as being extremely similar, where as the underlying motives are currently lightyears apart.
For instance, "hacker houses" and "collective houses" have a similar aesthetic. Both are about people living together, and sometimes the actual form even looks the same. But "hacker houses" fundamentally seem to be about "networking" and "making connections" to other entrepreneurs. Collective houses, on the other hand, are about building relationships -- precisely because it's so difficult to find meaningful connection in a world based on exchange. These two things look similar, but (having experienced both) I believe are radically different.
Another clear example is "hacker spaces" vs "social spaces." Again, the aesthetic is similar -- both are supposed to be "creative" spaces that have a similar logistical form. But what actually happens in both places is radically different. Anarchist "social spaces" are built on a social narrative for what people do there, where as "hacker space" activity (in the US, at least) is largely absent any kind of narrative. "Maker culture" in the US is based mostly on doing things that are "neat," and that's really the end of it. There are obvious exceptions, and the EU hacker culture has more of a narrative to it, but this is has been my experience on the whole.
I see the aesthetics of the hacker and punk scenes as being extremely similar, where as the underlying motives are currently lightyears apart.
For instance, "hacker houses" and "collective houses" have a similar aesthetic. Both are about people living together, and sometimes the actual form even looks the same. But "hacker houses" fundamentally seem to be about "networking" and "making connections" to other entrepreneurs. Collective houses, on the other hand, are about building relationships -- precisely because it's so difficult to find meaningful connection in a world based on exchange. These two things look similar, but (having experienced both) I believe are radically different.
Another clear example is "hacker spaces" vs "social spaces." Again, the aesthetic is similar -- both are supposed to be "creative" spaces that have a similar logistical form. But what actually happens in both places is radically different. Anarchist "social spaces" are built on a social narrative for what people do there, where as "hacker space" activity (in the US, at least) is largely absent any kind of narrative. "Maker culture" in the US is based mostly on doing things that are "neat," and that's really the end of it. There are obvious exceptions, and the EU hacker culture has more of a narrative to it, but this is has been my experience on the whole.
I haven't had exposure to the hacker houses on the West Coast, so I can't really speak to that.
The motives of hackers I've known usually have to do with impacting the world and making it better for more people. I've been in punk houses with hackers, but we mostly had parties with art people, and collaborated with anarchists. I'm not talking about the Silicon Valley startup scene, which I know nothing about. I'm moving to MV in a month (to intern with an educational nonprofit), so I guess I'll find out.
I think I was probably wrong when I said 'startup folks', and I meant some other demographic - but it's a demographic of hackers that I've actually met in various places - Baltimore, Seattle, rural Washington state and Austin. And I (perhaps naively) thought that my various and scattered friends with a common ideological thread were representative of the makers of interesting things.
The motives of hackers I've known usually have to do with impacting the world and making it better for more people. I've been in punk houses with hackers, but we mostly had parties with art people, and collaborated with anarchists. I'm not talking about the Silicon Valley startup scene, which I know nothing about. I'm moving to MV in a month (to intern with an educational nonprofit), so I guess I'll find out.
I think I was probably wrong when I said 'startup folks', and I meant some other demographic - but it's a demographic of hackers that I've actually met in various places - Baltimore, Seattle, rural Washington state and Austin. And I (perhaps naively) thought that my various and scattered friends with a common ideological thread were representative of the makers of interesting things.
Perhaps my perspective is tainted by living in the bay area through two (three?) tech bubbles, however I still don't see it. I agree that HN-type hackers and anarchists both use aesthetically similar language, like "changing the world," but I think that means something substantially different in each context.
My sense is that when tech people talk about changing the world, they generally mean keeping the form of the world basically the same, but making it more efficient.
Here's an example from HN and YC, 42floors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4500176
They use the language you're talking about -- they want to "change the world" ...with a commercial real-estate search engine! I'm sure that these folks are doing fine work, but really, the world is going to be fundamentally the same, it just might be a little easier to find commercial real-estate in it.
On the other hand, the anarchist basis is that fundamental aspects of society (police, prisons, judges, rulers, laws, taxes) were all the inventions of kings, which were later appropriated rather than destroyed. That it was a mistake to think it was possible to "change the world" simply by putting these same structures in the hands of different people, and that what's actually required is to eliminate them completely.
These, I think, are pretty different ways of conceptualizing that phrase.
I will agree that there are sometimes unusual intersections (the history of twitter, for instance).
My sense is that when tech people talk about changing the world, they generally mean keeping the form of the world basically the same, but making it more efficient.
Here's an example from HN and YC, 42floors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4500176
They use the language you're talking about -- they want to "change the world" ...with a commercial real-estate search engine! I'm sure that these folks are doing fine work, but really, the world is going to be fundamentally the same, it just might be a little easier to find commercial real-estate in it.
On the other hand, the anarchist basis is that fundamental aspects of society (police, prisons, judges, rulers, laws, taxes) were all the inventions of kings, which were later appropriated rather than destroyed. That it was a mistake to think it was possible to "change the world" simply by putting these same structures in the hands of different people, and that what's actually required is to eliminate them completely.
These, I think, are pretty different ways of conceptualizing that phrase.
I will agree that there are sometimes unusual intersections (the history of twitter, for instance).
My perspective is this: I want to make really awesome intelligent tutoring systems. I'm inspired by Enders Game, Diamond Age, and the Aristotle essay by Hillis.
I want to do this because I think that the current model for distributing education privileges people who are already very advantaged, but an intelligent tutoring system could be reproduced over and over and over for free. I obviously love Khan Academy, which is being made static and delivered to places with limited/no internet connection.
I think that this is radical because the vision is to use technology and the fact that things are so replicable to essentially destroy educational inequality. If you could make an educational system good enough, and distribute it widely enough, then I think that would really change the world. I want to be part of making that happen, and I'm an AI and cognitive science person, so I'm working on the tutor part.
But even this vision has so many things that other hackers are working on. Just making the net more efficient, or creating better wireless systems, or cheaper technology (or even better, technology that people can make themselves). Or empowering people to use Arduinos and to hack their own open source stuff. Or producing pedagogical content and translating it into other languages. I feel like a world in which everyone has total access to an amazing education is a world-changing proposition, and lots of hackers are working on things that really bring us closer to that.
Also I personally think that the thing that is wrong with the government is unequal application of laws and illegal hiding of government activity. I'm not convinced that there's not a place for laws, police, and taxes in a totally just society. I think that anyone who is working to destroy the (really widespread) lies and spying and unequal treatment and unjust policies and sociopathic violence of the government is doing something that, if it succeeds, will result in a truly different world. One where the laws aren't different for people depending on their class, and violence by the state is not tolerated.
I'm not claiming that working for education, diy technology, government accountability or a total overhaul of the legal system is more revolutionary than being an insurrectionist or running a totally awesome Food Not Bombs. I'm just saying that there's this idea of a better world, a fundamentally different world where things make sense and capricious cruelty is gone and everyone is essentially free to pursue the future they want and self-actualize instead of worrying about where the day's calories will come from or if it's safe to go outside. If we can have that world, I don't care if it's in an anarcho-syndicalist form, a set of independent microcountries, or just a very very reformed version of the constitutional democracies we have now. I see cheap, open source 3D printers and Food Not Bombs as having a similar mission.
I'll sum this up with a quote from an Evan Greer song "I want something that's better than this, and I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I think that we could build it if we try together."
But even this vision has so many things that other hackers are working on. Just making the net more efficient, or creating better wireless systems, or cheaper technology (or even better, technology that people can make themselves). Or empowering people to use Arduinos and to hack their own open source stuff. Or producing pedagogical content and translating it into other languages. I feel like a world in which everyone has total access to an amazing education is a world-changing proposition, and lots of hackers are working on things that really bring us closer to that.
Also I personally think that the thing that is wrong with the government is unequal application of laws and illegal hiding of government activity. I'm not convinced that there's not a place for laws, police, and taxes in a totally just society. I think that anyone who is working to destroy the (really widespread) lies and spying and unequal treatment and unjust policies and sociopathic violence of the government is doing something that, if it succeeds, will result in a truly different world. One where the laws aren't different for people depending on their class, and violence by the state is not tolerated.
I'm not claiming that working for education, diy technology, government accountability or a total overhaul of the legal system is more revolutionary than being an insurrectionist or running a totally awesome Food Not Bombs. I'm just saying that there's this idea of a better world, a fundamentally different world where things make sense and capricious cruelty is gone and everyone is essentially free to pursue the future they want and self-actualize instead of worrying about where the day's calories will come from or if it's safe to go outside. If we can have that world, I don't care if it's in an anarcho-syndicalist form, a set of independent microcountries, or just a very very reformed version of the constitutional democracies we have now. I see cheap, open source 3D printers and Food Not Bombs as having a similar mission.
I'll sum this up with a quote from an Evan Greer song "I want something that's better than this, and I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I think that we could build it if we try together."
You don't have to defend yourself to me. I'm not saying you (or "hackers") are wrong or something, just that these are not necessarily shared beliefs among anarchists.
What you're describing is more akin to (classical) liberalism. For instance, here you draw on a couple of the core tenants of liberalism:
1) Equality. In the Jeffersonian sense (ie, under the law). This is really the cornerstone of liberalism. The classic structuralist response would be something like "Yes, yes... all men will be tried equally for the crime of stealing bread crumbs to feed their starving children."
2) Freedom of information. Also at the heart of liberalism is the idea that in a world where anyone can participate, speak, and think freely, we'll be able to select from a marketplace of ideas for how the world should look. The classic anarchist response is that we live in a specific political and economic reality that wasn't of our choosing, but which influences our desires, the way we think, how we think, and what we conceptualize as possible. Simply talking about other social or economic possibilities does not have the same effect, so just being able to speak freely is not necessarily meaningful in that context.
3) Transparency and accountability. A typical anarchist response to projects like wikileaks is something like "What is the value of truth in a world where we have no agency?" The insurrectionist, for example, doesn't attempt to shame, expose, or reform institutions of power, but rather expects their injustices as their fundamental nature. You can't blame a tiger for being a tiger.
It's true that it is possible to draw similarities in the sense that hackers and anarchists on the whole probably want "good things and not bad things." But to the extent that we're never fully going to get there, it's the tension that really matters, and that's where I believe the differences are currently quite deep between these two groups.
What you're describing is more akin to (classical) liberalism. For instance, here you draw on a couple of the core tenants of liberalism:
1) Equality. In the Jeffersonian sense (ie, under the law). This is really the cornerstone of liberalism. The classic structuralist response would be something like "Yes, yes... all men will be tried equally for the crime of stealing bread crumbs to feed their starving children."
2) Freedom of information. Also at the heart of liberalism is the idea that in a world where anyone can participate, speak, and think freely, we'll be able to select from a marketplace of ideas for how the world should look. The classic anarchist response is that we live in a specific political and economic reality that wasn't of our choosing, but which influences our desires, the way we think, how we think, and what we conceptualize as possible. Simply talking about other social or economic possibilities does not have the same effect, so just being able to speak freely is not necessarily meaningful in that context.
3) Transparency and accountability. A typical anarchist response to projects like wikileaks is something like "What is the value of truth in a world where we have no agency?" The insurrectionist, for example, doesn't attempt to shame, expose, or reform institutions of power, but rather expects their injustices as their fundamental nature. You can't blame a tiger for being a tiger.
It's true that it is possible to draw similarities in the sense that hackers and anarchists on the whole probably want "good things and not bad things." But to the extent that we're never fully going to get there, it's the tension that really matters, and that's where I believe the differences are currently quite deep between these two groups.
I'd give good odds you're already aware, but you should totally come to noisebridge when you're in SF.
Best parties I've been to were a healthy blend of web folks, hippies, anarchists, engineers, and discordians.
I did observe that despite having fairly good classical training and historical knowledge--more than I had, certainly!--there did not seem to be a lot of self-educated people who knew physics and hard-sciences beyond a somewhat populist level. I suggest that this may be due theoretical physics and whatnot requiring a sounder grounding in mathematics than is easy to pick up on your own.
I did observe that despite having fairly good classical training and historical knowledge--more than I had, certainly!--there did not seem to be a lot of self-educated people who knew physics and hard-sciences beyond a somewhat populist level. I suggest that this may be due theoretical physics and whatnot requiring a sounder grounding in mathematics than is easy to pick up on your own.
How did you connect with that crowd?
I've noticed a very high overlap between techies and hippies, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to stumble into a group of discordians short of randomly wandering the streets shouting "hail eris!".
Funny story, actually.
Was drinking one night hanging out with some hippy friends (who I'd met in some computer science courses back at university, doing a software rasterization project). They mentioned a great place with a bunch of different folks, and said I should go. A few nights later I showed up with another friend, and that was that.
It was an amazingly chill party--young folks up through old hippies, people smoking out in the garage at the back of the lot, tech folks chatting about different projects in a kitchen, some other really far out stuff happening elsewhere.
I'd suggest that the big thing to do is to be relaxed, chill, and ask a lot of questions. Don't bore people with your own life if it doesn't enhance what they're talking about or if they don't ask, and keep your mind open to the idea that there is not one fixed path to happiness in life.
Don't brag or be condescending, do be friendly, and be helpful--basically, just be a decent person and doors will open.
EDIT: Addendum. I saw a few things happening that were probably not legal, and I certainly was a bit out of my element. That said, being okay with politely refusing offers that weren't my thing and not making trouble for other folks helped me fit in.
Was drinking one night hanging out with some hippy friends (who I'd met in some computer science courses back at university, doing a software rasterization project). They mentioned a great place with a bunch of different folks, and said I should go. A few nights later I showed up with another friend, and that was that.
It was an amazingly chill party--young folks up through old hippies, people smoking out in the garage at the back of the lot, tech folks chatting about different projects in a kitchen, some other really far out stuff happening elsewhere.
I'd suggest that the big thing to do is to be relaxed, chill, and ask a lot of questions. Don't bore people with your own life if it doesn't enhance what they're talking about or if they don't ask, and keep your mind open to the idea that there is not one fixed path to happiness in life.
Don't brag or be condescending, do be friendly, and be helpful--basically, just be a decent person and doors will open.
EDIT: Addendum. I saw a few things happening that were probably not legal, and I certainly was a bit out of my element. That said, being okay with politely refusing offers that weren't my thing and not making trouble for other folks helped me fit in.
In the bay area, there's a constant stream of events that are in the spirit of the Cacophony Society - for example, http://allworldsfair.com/ , or the Lost Horizon Night Market ( http://blog.sfgate.com/inthemission/2010/12/13/guerrilla-nig... ) - and these things are put on by a community of people that's actually fairly small - I'm not sure they'd all self-identify as "Discordian" but, as a Discordian myself, I'll claim them.
This is seriously making me want to move to SF, because events as artfully crazy as these simply can't happen with any regularity in Singapore. There's just no cultural history for them to - no support or interest from the very pragmatic, have-to-be-up-early-tomorrow society over here. Sames goes for the very chill party mentioned by angersock: it just couldn't happen.
When I lived in Philadelphia I don't think there were regular events of that nature, so I guess it's mostly a Bay Area/SF thing? Manhattan certainly seemed more lively in that regard.
When I lived in Philadelphia I don't think there were regular events of that nature, so I guess it's mostly a Bay Area/SF thing? Manhattan certainly seemed more lively in that regard.
> This is seriously making me want to move to SF, because events as artfully crazy as these simply can't happen with any regularity in Singapore.
If you're serious, I should tell you that SF is by some estimates the most expensive city in the world:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/most-expensive-city...
Also, having lived there myself for years, it's cold most of the year except in August and September, and because of its setting it's difficult to get to or from anywhere else (bridges and crowded freeways). And finally, it's very pretty and it has enormous charm.
If you're serious, I should tell you that SF is by some estimates the most expensive city in the world:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/most-expensive-city...
Also, having lived there myself for years, it's cold most of the year except in August and September, and because of its setting it's difficult to get to or from anywhere else (bridges and crowded freeways). And finally, it's very pretty and it has enormous charm.
SF has high rental prices but others costs (including taxes) are vastly more in some other cities.
To varying degrees you get this stuff in Austin, Portland, Seattle, Brooklyn...
And actually I've seen parties like the one angersock describes in places like Bloomington, Indiana and Huntsville, Alabama - it's a matter of knowing the right people, there's a network of social connections. I don't know if it reaches to Singapore, but it doesn't sound impossible to me.
"I've noticed a very high overlap between techies and hippies..."
Have you seen The Net? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQAwLb-DEE
Have you seen The Net? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQAwLb-DEE
And perhaps more on point:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Dormouse-Said-Counterculture-Pers...
I agree - I think it's somewhat cultural. That community has a lot of good ideas, but few fleshed-out solutions, which are harder and require more technical/modeling skills. It's hardly unique to them - education researchers (for instance, as I've been noticing recently) and many administrators are equally quantitatively lacking. Part of it may also be that doing novel critical analysis requires few resources, but doing most novel science is a high-capital endeavor.
I'm not sure that being quantitatively lacking is a bad thing--but certainly you need to have those folks in contact with more implementation-capable minds to help!
I saw something similar at my local Occupy protests--once we'd put in a somewhat more concrete intellectual framework for discussing grievances, things became a lot more productive.
Hit me up on email if you'd like to chat more about these things.
I saw something similar at my local Occupy protests--once we'd put in a somewhat more concrete intellectual framework for discussing grievances, things became a lot more productive.
Hit me up on email if you'd like to chat more about these things.
But be honest: part of the reason you lived that lifestyle was how romantic it is. If there were a more sexy way to convince young people that you don't have to sleep in a dank moldy shell of a building and eat out of dumpsters to have a positive effect on the world, there'd be less of this type of living-off-the-land. I'm glad you bought into capitalism, too :)
It was totally sexy.
I think the answer is free copies of Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon in every soup kitchen ;)
> On the other hand, they're in denial about capitalism.
Could you expand on the flaws in their disdain of capitalism? Or, if that's too broad a question, perhaps direct us to some reading material on the subject?
I don't mean this in a snarky or side-taking manner... in fact I'm struggling with my own views on capitalism and would love to expand my knowledge on the issue.
Could you expand on the flaws in their disdain of capitalism? Or, if that's too broad a question, perhaps direct us to some reading material on the subject?
I don't mean this in a snarky or side-taking manner... in fact I'm struggling with my own views on capitalism and would love to expand my knowledge on the issue.
So part of the problem is their alternatives to capitalism. Which are mostly primitivist (as in, destroy infrastructure) communist (in the central planning, grey way depicted in i.e. The Dispossessed) or just kinda goofy. As a lifestyle choice, living off the refuse of a bloated and exorbitant society is actually quite sustainable until you need serious healthcare. As something for everybody to do, a new way of governing, it fails because there will be no society from which to absorb the waste. I think efforts to establish autonomous, non-hierarchal, consensus-based organizations or communities within capitalism is awesome. But ultimately, seven billion people are never going to form some totally sweet Zapatista-style worldwide commune. At that scale, the markets are going to be at work. Capitalism is inevitable.
My perspective is that appropriate solutions to this problem involve taxing externalities (pollution, murderous working conditions that cost society), and reducing the cronyism and corruption that breaks capitalism. Also deciding as a society that we are better off if people are not involuntarily homeless or hungry or dying and agreeing on a social contract to provide welfare.
I want to make the world a better place, so I choose to work on making more, better, cheaper, smarter education available to everyone everywhere. And from society's perspective, this is actually a good investment because it increases human capital and also reduces future costs (as educated folks have fewer kids).
I love communist farms and kibbutzim and I can absolutely imagine living on one and participating in one of those societies. And if you hate capitalism, that's a good way to protect yourself from it. But the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system.
My perspective is that appropriate solutions to this problem involve taxing externalities (pollution, murderous working conditions that cost society), and reducing the cronyism and corruption that breaks capitalism. Also deciding as a society that we are better off if people are not involuntarily homeless or hungry or dying and agreeing on a social contract to provide welfare.
I want to make the world a better place, so I choose to work on making more, better, cheaper, smarter education available to everyone everywhere. And from society's perspective, this is actually a good investment because it increases human capital and also reduces future costs (as educated folks have fewer kids).
I love communist farms and kibbutzim and I can absolutely imagine living on one and participating in one of those societies. And if you hate capitalism, that's a good way to protect yourself from it. But the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system.
As someone who's just recently read The Dispossessed, I would be remiss if I did not correct your characterization of it. The lunar society in that book is quite clearly anarcho-syndicalist. Much of the conflict early in the story stems from the syndicate structure of that society.
This should not be confused with Soviet-style centrally planned, state-capitalist, 'Communism' if that's what your acquaintances called it. It should also not be confused with actual communism, i.e. a classless, moneyless, stateless social order.
>Capitalism is inevitable.
Spoken like a true capitalist. Fukuyama would be so proud.
>the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system
If the revolutionaries had their way, they wouldn't have to be.
This should not be confused with Soviet-style centrally planned, state-capitalist, 'Communism' if that's what your acquaintances called it. It should also not be confused with actual communism, i.e. a classless, moneyless, stateless social order.
>Capitalism is inevitable.
Spoken like a true capitalist. Fukuyama would be so proud.
>the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system
If the revolutionaries had their way, they wouldn't have to be.
Well, the premise of The Dispossessed is that the anarcho-syndicalist society actually becomes an oppressive monolithic power. As a result, the protagonist is unable to find an outlet for his special talents, and has to turn to other means of success.
I thought The Dispossessed did a very good job of showing the problems with centralization of planning - it's an attempt at an anarcho-syndicalist commune that self-defeats through strict social mores. I do think that syndicalism is probably the best vision I've seen for an anarchist future - but ultimately, either those syndicates would have to participate in capitalist trade, or they would have to be controlled by some governing body, or they would have to be totally self-sustaining. Just think about how difficult-to-produce drugs would be distributed between communities. There can't be a producer in each one. So are the producers of that drug going to just gift it? How can they sustain themselves if they are making something difficult to produce that they are only consuming a tiny portion of? Well maybe because they are so generous they will get many gifts. This is starting to sound a lot like something that either has to be a market or centrally planned to me.
I thought The Dispossessed did a very good job of showing the problems with centralization of planning - it's an attempt at an anarcho-syndicalist commune that self-defeats through strict social mores. I do think that syndicalism is probably the best vision I've seen for an anarchist future - but ultimately, either those syndicates would have to participate in capitalist trade, or they would have to be controlled by some governing body, or they would have to be totally self-sustaining. Just think about how difficult-to-produce drugs would be distributed between communities. There can't be a producer in each one. So are the producers of that drug going to just gift it? How can they sustain themselves if they are making something difficult to produce that they are only consuming a tiny portion of? Well maybe because they are so generous they will get many gifts. This is starting to sound a lot like something that either has to be a market or centrally planned to me.
The Left Hand of Darkness is one of my favorite scifi books...I've been meaning to read The Dispossessed but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I will not argue with you about my disdain for hippies and their views, but to mention a few things from a slightly different perspective...
> But ultimately, seven billion people are never going to form some totally sweet Zapatista-style worldwide commune.
Most serious communists would agree, at least for the near-term: you'd need a few generations of socialism before that'd even be remotely possible.
> At that scale, the markets are going to be at work. Capitalism is inevitable.
Note that 'capitalism' != 'markets,' or even 'free markets.' Mutualism, for example, is market socialism.
> But the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system.
Totally, 100% agree.
> But ultimately, seven billion people are never going to form some totally sweet Zapatista-style worldwide commune.
Most serious communists would agree, at least for the near-term: you'd need a few generations of socialism before that'd even be remotely possible.
> At that scale, the markets are going to be at work. Capitalism is inevitable.
Note that 'capitalism' != 'markets,' or even 'free markets.' Mutualism, for example, is market socialism.
> But the farms and kibbutzim themselves are still participants in a larger capitalist system.
Totally, 100% agree.
Here's the basics, from an anarchist/communist perspective: http://blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2012-03-31-anti-capitalis...
[deleted]
[deleted]
Went for a walk through this area about two weeks ago. As you near the park, lot of dealers pop up. In the park, on every corner of the paths people offered to sell me drugs. Marijuana, LSD, Mushrooms were all offered. I could sense different groups competing for territory in the park. I felt uncomfortable.
If you live here, you have to harden yourself against constant harassment for money and offers of drugs, and you have to get used to stepping around garbage and shit in the street. As much as SF should strive to be tolerant, at a certain point it must be recognized that if you don't want to be taken advantage of, as I believe is the case here for "authentic" residents of Haight-Ashbury, i.e. people who pay local taxes and own or rent and have what I would call a more vested interest in the community improving, steps have to be taken to curb the more destructive behaviors. The fact is, we already have disincentives for littering, disturbing the peace, selling drugs, etc, but they don't seem to be working. So I'm not sure what can be done.
I'm from the East coast and I recently visited SF again after a long time away. I was appalled by the amount of human feces in public. Street people just pull down their pants and shit right on the sidewalk or on a doorstep.
But what's far more appalling is that straight people in SF put up with it as part of the cost of doing business.
But what's far more appalling is that straight people in SF put up with it as part of the cost of doing business.
[deleted]
From the "only in SF" files:
"When work crews pulled open a broken BART escalator ... they found so much human excrement in its works they had to call a hazardous-materials team."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-down...
"When work crews pulled open a broken BART escalator ... they found so much human excrement in its works they had to call a hazardous-materials team."
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Human-waste-shuts-down...
In 2006-2008 the crusties formed a gauntlet between Cole and Clayton on Haight. They were rude and aggressive and always had at least one rottweiler or pit bull. The locals and tourists could not stand them and the only reason they lasted as long as they did was because they were white. Eventually everyone got too fed up which is why the no sit laws were passed.
I vividly recall walking west on Haight to The Alembic in the summer of '07...it felt like something out of Mad Max or a post-apocalyptic zombie movie.
I visited SF not too long ago and I found the filth appalling. And the beggars were quite aggressive vs. other cities. It did not leave me with a positive impression.
I don't mind sellers of various good (incl. drugs) so long as they are peaceable and not... in your face.
I don't mind sellers of various good (incl. drugs) so long as they are peaceable and not... in your face.
San Franciscans in aggregate don't have the political will or desire to do what needs to be done.
What needs to be done is fairly obvious, since it was already done successfully by Giuliani in NYC - strict enforcement of laws plus draconian penalties for violating those laws, applied over a sustained period of time.
Like it or not (and I'm certainly not suggesting everything about it was likeable), it worked wonders for Manhattan.
What needs to be done is fairly obvious, since it was already done successfully by Giuliani in NYC - strict enforcement of laws plus draconian penalties for violating those laws, applied over a sustained period of time.
Like it or not (and I'm certainly not suggesting everything about it was likeable), it worked wonders for Manhattan.
You could be describing Dolores Park.
Anybody remember the article a few days ago with the author complaining about the Google bus and the invasion of tech folks into the Bay Area and how they weren't improving the community?
And how a lot of people were like "Hey, well, it's putting wealth into helping San Francisco!".
Well, how's this fit into that calculus?
And how a lot of people were like "Hey, well, it's putting wealth into helping San Francisco!".
Well, how's this fit into that calculus?
It's definitely a mixed bag.
Rents here are now incredibly high. If you talk to residents who got here decades ago, people like this wouldn't have been sleeping on the streets back in the day. They would have clubbed together to get a crash pad. But that's implausible now.
Those high rents are being driven by the tech boom. There are a lot of startups in SF, and the various peninsula buses have made it much more plausible to live in SF but work in Mountain View. Building managers near GBus stops have flat-out told me that Google buses are a big driver in rising rents.
Rents here are now incredibly high. If you talk to residents who got here decades ago, people like this wouldn't have been sleeping on the streets back in the day. They would have clubbed together to get a crash pad. But that's implausible now.
Those high rents are being driven by the tech boom. There are a lot of startups in SF, and the various peninsula buses have made it much more plausible to live in SF but work in Mountain View. Building managers near GBus stops have flat-out told me that Google buses are a big driver in rising rents.
Probably in the "pearls before swine" sense. Long-time natives just don't appreciate how much the influx of tech folks is improving things, nor how few cities would love to have such a "problem".
Thats because the long time natives don't view them as improvements. They view them as outsiders coming in and disrupting their communities eventually driving them (the natives) out.
The general consensus in most parts of the Bay Area is that people want things to stay the same as it was the day they arrived.
The general consensus in most parts of the Bay Area is that people want things to stay the same as it was the day they arrived.
Yep, that's the San Francisco lefty for ya: "You're welcome to immigrate to our country ... just not our city."
As a comment on an article about urban expansion put it, "NIMBY liberalism married to Asperger's-induced libertarianism "
Er, would you like to rephrase that? A fast reading would seem to suggest that you are referring to the natives as swine.
It's a biblical reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearls_before_swine
OFF-TOPIC: is there a good reason the sidebar repositions itself on every windows.scroll instead of just setting position:fixed in the CSS? It's jittery and distracting when scrolling.
I don't want to be insensitive, but some of these individuals' behavior smacks of privilege. When I think about the fact that someone whose family "owns a major medevac company" is taking up space at a shelter or panhandling on the street, I get really frustrated. These are resources that should be used by those who are really down on their luck and have no other option, not someone/some group who wants to live out their bohemian fantasy.
If I knew I just gave five bucks to someone whose familial net worth trumps mine 100 fold, I'd be irate.
If I knew I just gave five bucks to someone whose familial net worth trumps mine 100 fold, I'd be irate.
> When I think about the fact that someone whose family "owns a major medevac company" is taking up space at a shelter or panhandling on the street, I get really frustrated.
Just to play the devil's advocate, given a spoiled kid of wealthy parents on the threshold of adulthood, would you prefer he stay in the ivory tower, or experience the raw life of the street, even if only as a lifestyle tourist?
As it happens, there is a long tradition among the wealthy (not all the wealthy, but some) of making their kids experience ordinary life in advance of making important decisions about the direction of their own life.
Just to play the devil's advocate, given a spoiled kid of wealthy parents on the threshold of adulthood, would you prefer he stay in the ivory tower, or experience the raw life of the street, even if only as a lifestyle tourist?
As it happens, there is a long tradition among the wealthy (not all the wealthy, but some) of making their kids experience ordinary life in advance of making important decisions about the direction of their own life.
I see that as a false dichotomy. There are many other options between staying in the ivory tower and playing homeless.
> There are many other options between staying in the ivory tower and playing homeless.
Yes, there are. But one advantage of "playing homeless" is that you might run into actual homeless people and find out about their lives.
Yes, there are. But one advantage of "playing homeless" is that you might run into actual homeless people and find out about their lives.
I think you could do that just as easily without the lifestyle tourism. Volunteering at a shelter/soup kitchen is something that comes to mind.
I've been fortunate enough to live a comfortable life, but I was able to get some experience living on the street through a volunteer project I did in college working with the homeless in Washington DC. We spent the first 48 hours of our time in DC living on the street with no money. We slept in a church parking lot for 2 nights in snowy weather. We then donated all of our panhandling money not spent on food for those 2 days to the homelessness organization we were working with and spent the rest of the time volunteering in soup kitchens and raising awareness about an upcoming bill regarding homelessness. That certainly changed my perspective on things AND I was able to provide a net benefit for the organizations that help people on the streets.
Sure, living on the streets for 2 days isn't the same as living there for 2 years but there are ways to get perspective without being an unnecessary drain on a system already spread thin.
Sure, living on the streets for 2 days isn't the same as living there for 2 years but there are ways to get perspective without being an unnecessary drain on a system already spread thin.
You might find http://www.scratchbeginnings.com an interesting read.
> In many ways, the street kids seemed to be having a lot more fun than us.
This is key.
This is key.
But in a city that lionizes entrepreneurs who sacrifice everything to create the next big thing, there is something admirable about the street kids’ total embrace of drugs, freedom, and a lifestyle that society scorns.
This. In an isolated society of highways and McMansions where it's taboo to converse with random strangers, what the world needs now is not the next big social iPhone app, but a stronger sense of community, which we could learn a thing or two from these 'kids'.
This. In an isolated society of highways and McMansions where it's taboo to converse with random strangers, what the world needs now is not the next big social iPhone app, but a stronger sense of community, which we could learn a thing or two from these 'kids'.
I too enjoyed the article having volunteered at HAFMC and seeing so many on need. That was decades ago, but I've often wondered when the wandering quest winds down, what became of their experience? The article hints at the Elders but I suspect that is the minority. Would be interesting to see a Up series a la Micheal Apted
Slightly related is this documentary, Skid Row (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795381/), in which a guy goes and lives in Skid Row in Los Angeles for 9 days. It's free to watch on hulu and probably other video sites.
This article should really be titled "The Street Kids Of Hippy Hill." By going to one place in order to get a feeling for "street kids," they've gotten an extremely myopic view of that scene.
The full picture is much more varied. Traveler kids who go to hobo gatherings would never be caught dead at a rainbow gathering. Rainbow family kids don't drink, and alcohol is even forbidden at gatherings (where nothing else is forbidden). Gutter punks live to spange for 40s. Anarcho punks would rather starve than fly a sign.
Each has its own music scene, its own values, its own social norms. For this article to suggest that most street kids don't have a political analysis might be true for hippy hill, but isn't true at all for the squatter scene (see 'homes not jails' and 'food not bombs' for instance).
The full picture is much more varied. Traveler kids who go to hobo gatherings would never be caught dead at a rainbow gathering. Rainbow family kids don't drink, and alcohol is even forbidden at gatherings (where nothing else is forbidden). Gutter punks live to spange for 40s. Anarcho punks would rather starve than fly a sign.
Each has its own music scene, its own values, its own social norms. For this article to suggest that most street kids don't have a political analysis might be true for hippy hill, but isn't true at all for the squatter scene (see 'homes not jails' and 'food not bombs' for instance).
Will you write a blog post about this?
He has a few here: http://www.thoughtcrime.org/stories.html
IMO, learning about the sub-groups of the "street person" culture isn't going to net you much useful knowledge. A lot of the differences between people here are political, ethical or social (anarchists, hippies, gangs). At some point you realize everyone's just living out a script.
IMO, learning about the sub-groups of the "street person" culture isn't going to net you much useful knowledge. A lot of the differences between people here are political, ethical or social (anarchists, hippies, gangs). At some point you realize everyone's just living out a script.
I see the street kids as guests in our extended home. When everyone is peaceful and respectful I don't really have an issue. But when they are violent, or a health risk (defecation on the sidewalk and on the stoops is a real concern, and it happens all day every day), or harass my family or my neighbors, I do take issue, and believe we need to set and enforce limits for the safety of everyone.
As far as it being a lifestyle _choice_ for some. Indeed it is. But not for all. It's a spectrum. Overall it's a good article, but it's not the whole story.
Edit: And to the author, try walking around and doing those interviews after dark some night. The perspective would be ... different.