This is just on the practical part, I'll respond to the rest later:

Yes, but there's no shortage of housing which means presumably there's no shortage of people who've chosen to build houses of their own free will. If suddenly no one wants to build houses then we might all have to muck in, but so far there's no evidence that this might be a problem, so why even raise the issue?

Construction functions in regard to market conditions. Houses don't just spring up spontaneously they are built according to demand.

Pfforest mentioned that there was no shortage of homes nation-wide. He mentioned that there were more homes than there are homeless people. This is probably true. The obvious wrench in the plan of putting the homeless in these homes is that these homes are probably owned by somebody. All of the land in the US has been claimed - it is owned by somebody, and very often but not always the owner of the land is the owner of the property. At the very least the land belongs to someone.

It's just not the case that there are open pastures of free, unoccupied and unowned homes out there. If this happened to be the case then I don't really care if homeless people decided to homestead in them. However, the local community probably would because it would plummet their home prices and they'd be faced with a ton of new domestic issues due to this influex of the homeless.

I'm not talking about shelters, I'm talking about housing (and jobs, and decent wages and healthcare etc).

So what are they entitled to? A dorm? A house? Plenty of homeless are either rejected from the shelters due to drugs/mental health or just refuse to live there in the first place because they have to be around other homeless people who, surprise surprise, aren't the most pleasant crowd. What is your solution to these people?

I've been trying not to participate in or encourage the off-topic digression into the merits of small vs big government, but I have a comment that maybe partially ties it back in:

If you start from the premise that small government is generally better, and that means more permissive laws (more liberty and immunity, fewer claims and powers), then it seems like you would demand a justification for every claim or power added.

The obvious first claim we'd want to add is a claim to property in our own bodies, which is to say a claim that we get to decide who is or isn't allowed to do what to our bodies. A claim against battery, basically. That's pretty easily defended. Nobody wants anybody to be able to just attack them.

We also usually want an exception to that claim: we want it to be permissible to act upon someone else's body as necessary to prevent them from acting impermissibly upon other peoples' bodies. Otherwise, the actions required in the defense against battery would be impermissible, so battery, while impermissible in principle, could nevertheless proceed unabated in practice.

A claim to property in anything else besides one's own body is an additional claim beyond that, in need of defense. And exceptions to that may likewise be warranted.

The first power that anybody usually wants to grant is the power to contract: the power to create claims against one another (or grant liberties otherwise prohibited to one another) by mutual agreement. This is an additional thing that needs defending, beyond any kind of property rights.

And there are likewise probably some important exceptions we'd want to make to that power in order for it to be workable in practice, just like the exceptions to the claims we normally make above.

The point I'm making here is that each of these steps toward what "small government" people typically want is actually a step toward bigger government than the presumed default of maximal liberty and immunity. The more exceptions to the power to contract, or the less the power to contract in the first place, the smaller the government. The more exceptions to claims to property, or the fewer the claims to property in the first place, the smaller the government. The smallest government possible would be one where anyone was allowed to do anything to anyone or anything, and where nothing, not even mutual agreement, could create obligations that limited that liberty.

Pretty sure that nobody wants government that small, not even anarchists (who are not anti-government, just anti-state). But if smaller is by default better unless otherwise justified, you need to justify each of those steps -- the claim to property in your own body, to property in anything else, and the power to contract -- and defeat the justifications of any exceptions to them that others might propose.

You're not an expert on these matters, neither am I. So it's absolutely pointless us trying to work out if there are undesirable consequences, or if they outweigh the desirable ones.

So you can't have an opinion on an issue unless you're an expert in it. Okay.

Our job as citizens is not to bash out the evidence (we don't have all the data) it's to decide what to do in the face of the uncertainty.

You're flying in the face of modern philosophy and science here: One of the key premises is that anyone is able to bring evidence and doubts, and that truth doesn't just lie in an appeal to experts.

And why would I? All you've presented is the distinction. No argument at all about why that distinction matters.

Lets start with the duty/slavery idea I mentioned earlier. In the right to life, your duty is just not to kill others. In the right to housing and everything along with it, your duty is now to take care of everyone's home. What if you don't want to? What if you're the only mechanic for miles?

I’m not going to type out all the arguments for you. If you’re curious they can be easily found. — NOS4A2

Yeah right. You could have filled a book out of all the crap you've written in defence of Trump and now suddenly it's too much effort to summarise a single argument? Either way, I'm not interested in the arguments at this stage. I'm sure that they exist - for both small and large government. Mere existence of an argument, then, is not sufficient to justify taking a position - especially one which will cause harm to others. You must be persuaded by it to the exclusion of others. So declaring the existence of an argument is pointless. You need to show why you are persuaded by it, and why you are not persuaded by arguments to the contrary, and why (in the light of this uncertainty) you've opted to err on the side of the more harmful option.

The “taking” aspect is the problem. You can do whatever you want with your own excess. You cannot do anything you want with mine. — NOS4A2

It's not your excess. It belongs to the government, if the government were to make a law requiring you to pay a certain amount of tax, then that money would legally be the government's not yours. Notwithstanding that, I absolutely can do something with your excess. I can gather together enough people to overpower you and take it.

Because caring involves taking care of the needs of others. Demanding others to care for others is not the same. — NOS4A2

Sounds the same to me. If I really cared about a dying man what would be the most rational expression of that care - me trying to save him myself, or me trying to persuade a qualified doctor to do it? Personally, I'd go with the latter.

Construction functions in regard to market conditions. Houses don't just spring up spontaneously they are built according to demand. — BitconnectCarlos

No they're not. If I held a gun to your head and said "build me a house" I suspect you would do so, regardless of whether the market demanded it. You're treating 'market forces' as if they were some kind of Law of Nature, they're just the result of the economic institutions we've set up. It's perfectly feasible to build houses for all sorts of reasons.

All of the land in the US has been claimed - it is owned by somebody, and very often but not always the owner of the land is the owner of the property. At the very least the land belongs to someone. — BitconnectCarlos

We're talking about government here though. The very same people who declare that these people are the 'owners'. Now you're mistaking our legal institutions for some kind of Law of Nature. If a person claims to own an excess and the government wishes to take that land back, they simply file a counter-claim. Claims are not physical laws.

Plenty of homeless are either rejected from the shelters due to drugs/mental health or just refuse to live there in the first place because they have to be around other homeless people who, surprise surprise, aren't the most pleasant crowd. What is your solution to these people? — BitconnectCarlos

As I said, I'm talking about housing, jobs, decent wages, healthcare, services... the whole package, the lack of which is largely responsible for the state of homeless people.

So you can't have an opinion on an issue unless you're an expert in it. Okay. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion. You've got to realise the gravity of what you're suggesting. There's a man on the street living under a cardboard box - no home, no job, no healthcare. He's starving hungry, probably ill (both physically and mentally) and ten times more likely to die than average. You're telling him that he can't have a little help from the man buying his second yacht because you 'reckon' in your completely lay interpretation of complex economics, that it would probably be a bad idea in the long run. This despite there existing perfectly well-educated experts who think it would be fine. You've decided to just let the man starve and side with the naysayers because you just 'reckon' they have it right. I'm trying to establish why - given that you're not sufficiently expert to decide, given that alternative , expert opinions are available, given the very high stakes, you've chosen the side you have.

I mean, if you're wrong (and we do nothing), people suffer miserably for no reason. If you're right, but we increase welfare nonetheless, the economy takes a dive (which is does periodically anyway). given that either could be the case, why err on the side of the wealthy?

Lets start with the duty/slavery idea I mentioned earlier. In the right to life, your duty is just not to kill others. In the right to housing and everything along with it, your duty is now to take care of everyone's home. What if you don't want to? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't understand your appeal to autonomy in this one area. We're obliged to do all sorts of things we don't want to do all the time. What if I don't want to drive on the left? What if I don't want to pay my taxes? What if I don't want to pay for the groceries I've just put in my trolley? Why is obliging people to help others suddenly an obligation too far when obliging people to uphold economic contracts occupies far more of their life?

The smallest government possible would be one where anyone is allowed to do anything to anyone or anything, and nothing, not even mutual agreement, can create obligations that limit that liberty. — Pfhorrest

The trouble is that if anyone were allowed to do anything to anyone, then one of those things they'd be allowed to do is collect together, from an armed administrative group and use that force of arms to make people obey the rules they set. In other words big government is itself allowed by small government. This is the central flaw in the argument against any kind of consequence of collective bargaining power, you have to put in place, right at the heart of your 'oh so free liberty-state' one absolutely massive infringement on liberty - that you cannot use collective bargaining. Otherwise you end up with the exact type of government we currently have. If you're going to ban collective bargaining right at the outset, then you've not only caused a massive infringement on liberty without justification, but you've swung the balance of power massively in favour of individual wealth.

So, I agree with your overall analysis - trying to get at the objective justifications for certain rights (and not others) is what I've been doing in my comments. But the very first right that needs to be justified in 'small government' is the banning of collective bargaining.

I realized re-reading my passage you quoted there that there is room for misinterpretation of it, so I've slightly edited it (in the post above) to read like so now:

The smallest government possible would be one where anyone was allowed to do anything to anyone or anything, and where nothing, not even mutual agreement, could create obligations that limited that liberty.

I also wanted to add an addendum to this bit from earlier:

A claim to property in anything else besides one's own body is an additional claim beyond that, in need of defense. And exceptions to that may likewise be warranted. — Pfhorrest

John Locke, the infamous big-government advocate, famously advocated exactly such an exception: the Lockean proviso that there be "enough, and as good, left in common for others".

Yeah right. You could have filled a book out of all the crap you've written in defence of Trump and now suddenly it's too much effort to summarise a single argument? Either way, I'm not interested in the arguments at this stage. I'm sure that they exist - for both small and large government. Mere existence of an argument, then, is not sufficient to justify taking a position - especially one which will cause harm to others. You must be persuaded by it to the exclusion of others. So declaring the existence of an argument is pointless. You need to show why you are persuaded by it, and why you are not persuaded by arguments to the contrary, and why (in the light of this uncertainty) you've opted to err on the side of the more harmful option.

I don’t need to do anything because I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. I was trying to answer your questions in good faith but was met with snark and appeals to emotion, both of which have failed to persuade me to your position. You couldn’t even declare the existence of an argument, let alone make one.

It's not your excess. It belongs to the government, if the government were to make a law requiring you to pay a certain amount of tax, then that money would legally be the government's not yours. Notwithstanding that, I absolutely can do something with your excess. I can gather together enough people to overpower you and take it.

It is my excess and I can do what I want with it because I produced it. Legal or not it’s still thievery and it’s still unjust. You cannot even gather enough funds to do what you demand of others, so I’m not worried about you gathering a mob. Besides, your acts of tyranny and authoritarianism will be met with opposition, even from your precious government.

Sounds the same to me. If I really cared about a dying man what would be the most rational expression of that care - me trying to save him myself, or me trying to persuade a qualified doctor to do it? Personally, I'd go with the latter.

I wouldn’t expect you to help him. That involves care and effort. Calling a doctor is the very least one can do for a dying man, just like paying a tax is the very least one can do to care for others.

I was trying to answer your questions in good faith — NOS4A2

My question - why do you think that the list of government services you want provided (and those you do not) amounts to more than just your personal preferences?

So far you've given me;
a) A difference exists between the types of service you prefer and the types you don't.
b) Academics have made arguments that the types of service you prefer should be the only ones provided.

(a) is insufficient on its own as an answer because the mere existence of a difference in type does not exclude items from the list. There is nothing preventing the government from providing more than one type of service.
(b) is also insufficient on its own to answer the question because academics have also provided arguments to the contrary. This makes the choice of which argument to go with just your personal preference, unless you can show why your preferred argument is more persuasive.

So no, you haven't tried to answer my question in good faith at all, you've tried to avoid it. In order to answer it you do indeed need to show why you are persuaded by your position (as I specified) because without showing that you have not shown how it is anything more than your own personal preference.

It is my excess and I can do what I want with it because I produced it. Legal or not it’s still thievery and it’s still unjust. — NOS4A2

No, it is theivery if it is illegal. That is the definition of thievery. If you have some other means (other than law) of determining who owns what I'd be interested to hear it, but - very important - I'd need to know why such a system is anything more than your own personal preference. Otherwise you cannot support an argument that your position is anything other than 'wants'.

No they're not. If I held a gun to your head and said "build me a house" I suspect you would do so, regardless of whether the market demanded it. You're treating 'market forces' as if they were some kind of Law of Nature, they're just the result of the economic institutions we've set up. It's perfectly feasible to build houses for all sorts of reasons.

Yes, but this isn't how houses get built in a free society. If you're putting a gun to someone's head or threatening construction crews with jail time you're pretty screwed as a society.

I didn't say you couldn't have an opinion. You've got to realise the gravity of what you're suggesting. There's a man on the street living under a cardboard box - no home, no job, no healthcare. He's starving hungry, probably ill (both physically and mentally) and ten times more likely to die than average. You're telling him that he can't have a little help from the man buying his second yacht because you 'reckon' in your completely lay interpretation of complex economics, that it would probably be a bad idea in the long run. This despite there existing perfectly well-educated experts who think it would be fine. You've decided to just let the man starve and side with the naysayers because you just 'reckon' they have it right. I'm trying to establish why - given that you're not sufficiently expert to decide, given that alternative , expert opinions are available, given the very high stakes, you've chosen the side you have.

I mean, if you're wrong (and we do nothing), people suffer miserably for no reason. If you're right, but we increase welfare nonetheless, the economy takes a dive (which is does periodically anyway). given that either could be the case, why err on the side of the wealthy?

This really gets to the heart of the matter in your view, and I'm glad you're laying it out it out on the table. I'm being serious here: I like that you're laying it out on the table and in direct way.

If you're just going to point to this man in the cardboard box and say "how could society allow this? "How dare you ignore this in a wealthy society such as the US!" then I don't know if I have an immediate rebuttal to your appeal. You're declaring something an emergency and emergencies shouldn't be questioned they should be solved.

It seems a human rights issue that the government must immediately save them and provide them with hot meals 3x a day + a warm shower and continued maintenance to ensure their house is a-ok and throw in food, support whatever children they have, I mean why not it's for the well-fare of society and billionaires and millionaires have plenty of money.

I'm guessing you're young. I would guess between 18-22, maybe 23.

In reality - and I know you're not to listen because this man's existence constitutes an immediate emergency that must be solved by whatever means necessary - the issue is much, much complex. We need to ask ourselves a number of questions:

1. Why is this man homeless? Where is his family? Why isn't his family accepting him?
2. Is he a drug user? Will he be able to function around other homeless people without being a danger to them?
3. Does he have any pertinent mental health issues that may make him for the time being unfit to live around others?
4. Can he be trusted to keep a home clean and maintain it? Does he have a criminal history?
5. Has he chosen to live on the street because of the freedom it provides and the panhandling opportunities that come with it?
6. What is his previous experience with homeless shelters? What is his previous living history?

I know it sounds cruel, but ask yourself this: Would you take him in? If you worked hard to finally own a house would you trust a few homeless people in your house or would you be okay leaving them unsupervised? If you wouldn't take the risk, is it fair to ask a community to take the same risk?

I don't understand your appeal to autonomy in this one area.

I don't really feel like arguing this one. If you're comparing having to pay for groceries with forcing people into manual labor there isn't a point in me going on about this point and we can drop it. I'm just glad that you're honest about the implications of your argument and you're able to accept the honest consequences. Cool beans - no need for a response here.

Yes, but this isn't how houses get built in a free society. If you're putting a gun to someone's head or threatening construction crews with jail time you're pretty screwed as a society. — BitconnectCarlos

The gun was an example. It could be nicer motives like duty. Notwithstanding, what makes you think we live in a free society. The builder is already being forced to build, someone stole the common land he could have used to fend for himself and so he is forced to work. Someone speculates on property, driving the prices up of his basic needs and he is forced to work longer and harder. In what way is that any more free than legally forcing someone to work for the common good?

In reality - and I know you're not to listen because this man's existence constitutes an immediate emergency that must be solved by whatever means necessary - the issue is much, much complex. — BitconnectCarlos

And this gets to the heart of where you're coming from. Yes it's complex, yet all of your complexities err on the side of not housing the man. Are you seriously presenting that list as an unbiased summary of the complexities? What about;

The effect free market national/globalising has on the local communities which might have supported the man.
The extent to which lack of government investment in youth and welfare services increase the chances of him being a drug addict and decrease the chances of his getting any long-term support to kick his habit.
The fact that government cuts to mental health services make it vastly more likely that he has an untreated mental health condition.
The way in which erosion of worker's rights mean fewer people have any pride or dignity in their work and this leaches out into their home lives.

I know you're intention might be good, but presuming everyone who disagrees with you must be young and idealistic, whilst you alone have the wise world-weary answer is condescending and a poor argument. I'm 54 and I know plenty of intelligent academics who are (some of them) even more left-wing than I am about these things. They are both old, and experts in their field, so let's leave the condescention out of this shall we?