Jeremy Waldron's Homelessness And The Issue Of Freedom

Political philosopher, Jeremy Waldron, argues that homeless people are less free than people who own homes and other material resources. Freedom can be defined as the opportunity to do what is wanted for oneself. Waldron is stating that people with valuables and homes have more freedoms than the homeless since they have more opportunities and a better chance of doing what they please. In this paper, I am supporting Jeremy Waldron’s argument that the homeless people are less free than others with material resources. In “Homelessness and the Issue of Freedom”, Waldron states that a homeless person is free to the degree in which common property is present. If a person is not free to be in a place, then they are not free to do whichever they

People that own valuable things have a greater ability of gaining other valuable things and experiences than others. What I mean by this is that people that already have money and own properties have their own abilities to do what they please since they own that property. A person can do almost whatever they want on their own property to an extent since they are owning the private property. Homeless people do not own their own property, therefore they do not have property to be free on. They do not have an area where they can freely express their wants since they are not on their own free area. On the other hand, there are some areas of private property that can let homeless people have certain freedoms, but only to a certain extent. On these private properties, there are sometimes certain rules and regulations that need to be followed when in that specific place. These rules can sometimes limit our freedoms and especially the freedoms of homeless people. Private property owners have the ability to not allow people inside their property lines therefore the homeless people are not allowed to practice their freedoms there anymore. Waldron specifically says “As far as being on private property is concerned – in people’s houses or gardens, on farms or in hotels, in offices or restaurants- the homeless person is utterly and at all times at the mercy of others. And

I do not agree with this objection because in the end, homeless people still end up with less freedom. This objection basically agrees with Waldron’s initial claim if we used the word ability instead of freedom. By saying this, I mean that the argument would simply just change into; homeless people have less ability than homeowners. The homeless do not have the same abilities as homeowners, therefore they do not get to have the freedoms. Since they do not have the abilities to do the things they want, they then lack the initial freedom that was there in the first place. Freedom and ability can correlate with each other to help support Waldron’s