The Story of a Woman Who Has an Apartment And Lived on the Street - Case Study Example

A Woman Gives up her Flat to Live on a Train Client Insert Name Client Insert Institution A Woman Gives up her Flat to Live on a Train Introduction The changing modern world today has many experiences that influence people’s decisions and behaviours on different grounds some of which are as appalling as they are shocking, and others are just plainly put, difficult to fathom. Owing to the increasing flow of information in what is known as the information age we find ourselves in today, people are at liberty to make decisions and live their lives in whichever way they want as long as such decisions to do so does not infringe on the rights of others within their vicinity (Beier & Ocobock, 2008). It is everyone’s constitutional right within their jurisdiction to be at liberty to do whatever pleases them and therefore it is inappropriate to purport to seek to bar them from enjoying what is rightfully their tight. This notwithstanding, it is very important to understand that with every right an privilege, freedom and liberty, comes the responsibility to ensure that such privileges, rights, freedoms, and liberties do not infringe on others’ interests (Vigo, 2005). Based on this surmise, it is not only inappropriate but also highly amoral for Leonie Müller to take this weird decision to vacate her rented premise to live on a train. There are many people live Müller who live in unusual places such as streets, tree houses in the central park, corridors and verandas of malls among other places. This discursive essay gives detailed and rational arguments against making such decision supported by legislations and conventional and providential rule of law that bars such behavior condemning it to what it truly is; inappropriate and unacceptable behavior. Practices tantamount to Leonie Müller’s Behavior in Modern world today Looking at Leonie Müller’s story from her point of view creates the impression that being young and adventurous; she is trying to do something novel particularly with her blog which she says continues to gain traction. In her argument, she claims that one of her key motivations is to, “inspire people to question their habits and the things they consider to be normal” further claiming that, “the next adventure is waiting just around the corner, provided that you want to find it” (Bianca, 2015, p. 1). In addition to this, she claims that the continued hustle and struggle of dealing with a landlord was a key factor in her decision to live on the train claiming that after her decision to do so, she now does not feel burdened by the responsibility of paying her rental dues. This is just one example of people living in unusual places. There are also a section of people who consider themselves ‘couch-surfers’ as O'Neill (2006) calls them. These are a group of people who move from place to place preferring to live on other people’s couches based on a pre-arranged agreement as a way of saving on costs of accommodation while on transit (O'Neill, 2006). The homeless living on streets for different reasons also constitute this type of people living in unusual places according to Kleinig (2010). These people may live on streets in the real sense but there are also those that live on corridors of buildings, and even shopping malls and they have different reasons supporting their lifestyle preferences in this regard. From an objective point of view, these people’s arguments as is Müller’s, supporting their decision are nothing short of escapist, minimalistic, and simplistic thinking that cannot be sustained with any rationale argument worth of any level of sanity. Like for the case of Müller’ it is outrageously callow to argue that when unable to pay rental dues, one could take the decision of living on a train just in order to save £50 oblivious of the complex inconveniences that come with living on a train (Iverson, 2010). In harsher terms, it is pure foolishness for one to argue that a decision to carry one’s belongings, (clothes, all showering paraphernalia, study books, and bulky toiletries among others) to be constantly used on different trains (or on some corridor on the street) to freshen up and study could in any be considered adventurous! This whole process is very tedious for her and very unsafe as such people would not have ample time to rest since they are always worried about their safety and the safety of their vagrant property let alone the lack of proper concentration due to poor conditions for studying and leading a normal lifestyle. In fact, according to Uys (2003), what these people do is tantamount to vagrancy, a concept that is captured in law and in many jurisdictions around the world, it is legally abhorred (Uys, 2003). By definition, vagrancy refers to the practice of people (usually those considered poor) who wander from one place to another without a regular home or stable employment. It refers to people without a regular home who wander in different places and the condition of such people is usually associated with poverty and lack of stable income (Edgar, Doherty & Meert, 2002). Inasmuch as some of these cases like Müller’s case may not portray overt instances of poverty as its motivation (as she is able to purchase her ticket, pay for food, and public libraries where she can freshen up), most of the other aspects like living on streets, malls, tree houses in central park among others, is closely similar to that of vagrants (Terminski, 2011). Over time in the history of mankind, modern settled communities usually consider vagrants such as Müller as outsiders and as such, as objects of scorn and mistrust (Burger, 2014). They are considered people who need help and charity in addition to pity being passive objects worthy of gifts of alms (Lister & Ward, 2014). In fact, Roncarati (2008) further argues that they are outlawed people making parasitical living from others and this paints them as people to be wary of. Where does this all lead to? What people like Müller hope to achieve some level of satisfaction that they are leading unique lives but in real sense, it is just irresponsible and it is highly unlikely that such decisions could lead them to such an achievement; in the actual sense, people who would understand what they do are likely to be more disgusted and infuriated at such lifestyles than they would be excited by it. By the virtue of them living in these unusual places, most people that come in contact with them are likely to be bothered by the big luggage they carry which after time should start to stink, consuming a lot of space around them making it very hard for those around them to behave ‘normal’ (Greg, 2007). Under legislation in most jurisdictions such as Germany, Müller is a vagrant and is therefore her actions should be understand and judged thus. According to the 1871 Penal Code (§ 361 des Strafgesetzbuches von 1871), conditions of vagrancy were grounds for confining someone to a labor house (Kleinig, 2010). This means that the fact that one is in constant movement from one place to another without somewhere they can call home provokes authorities to consider such a person a threat to the society and one engaging in asocial behavior and therefore in need of help (O'Neill, 2006). It is not definitely something to be proud of but rather something that attracts shame, unnecessary attention and scrutiny that one should surely be able to live without. Müller’s lifestyle is not only problematic but also highly inconveniencing to those around her. The Problems with Lifestyles of People living in Unusual Places From an objective and unbiased point of view, these people’s lifestyles are problematic on all fronts; from the personal convenience of daily freshening, to their studies; from their needing to carry around big luggage of their earthly belongings to storming visit their friends. There is everything wrong with the way these people lives their lives. Having a place of residence according to Marjorie (2009), is not just about having a roof on top of your head but comes with certain conveniences that are paramount for human existence; basic human needs attributes such as being able to have a level of sanity and calm in life (Marjorie, 2009). This is the essential fact that Müller and people leading similar lifestyles overlook in making the decision of forfeiting this all important aspect of living in the hope of merely saving some little money. It is unimaginable for one to make such a decision given that there is so much that comes with staying in a home that cannot by any form of imagination be superseded by the need to live a vagrant life staying of all places, on a train! Taking the example of Müller’s life, it may be helpful to take out a section of her daily life experience. The foregoing discussion has already established that it is weird for her to lose so much in life in exchange of a £50 bill and now taking a section of her typical day further clouds her reasoning with further awe and dismay. On a typical day, Müller would have to shower, wash her clothes and dry them, brush her teeth and clean her shoes among other essential things that normal people do on a daily basis. This will require that she has a regular place that allows her to engage in these basic practices. In addition to this, being a student, Müller will need to study, do assignments, and prepare school reports that ultimately require a quiet and conducive environment for such (Dave, 2011). The environment in which she finds herself in throughout the day, provides neither of these basic conveniences. Of paramount importance however is the need for privacy and living a private life. Having an apartment like she did before, she was afforded the convenience of having a private life and doing things that were just specific to her. She would be able to host visitors, lead a normal life and even own property in terms of merchandise that she could buy. All these are not possible now that she stays on the train. She is in an awkward position with her friends who may want to visit her from time to time and even her boyfriend may also find it awkward that his girlfriend does not have a place she calls home. The fact that she admits that from time to time she has to visit her family and boyfriend and spend some time at their places is evidence enough that living on a train does not satisfy her let alone suit her entirely (Marjorie, 2009). Conclusion In conclusion therefore, modern times have different attributes to living that influence people into doing different things in different circumstances. Inasmuch as everyone is entitled to their own decisions and opinions of how they should lead their lives, it is important to note that such decisions come with responsibilities; every right and freedom has a responsibility to act sanely and in a way that does infringe on the safety, convenience and normalcy of others (O'Neill, 2006). Based on this Müller (as an example of many people living in unusual places) choosing to stay in these strange places is a decision that has many points of concern that inform the argument that it is problematic on many fronts. In the first instance, it does not make any rational or argumentative sense for one to forfeit the comfort of living in a home to go lead a nomad life all in the hope of saving £50! In addition to this, the security concerns and the inconveniences associated with this lifestyle surpass any evidential proof that exists in support of living on a train. In this regard, it is not only inappropriate but also irrational for people to choose to live such outrageously unusual places as trains, car parks, streets, verandas and corridors of malls! References Beier, A. & Ocobock, P. (2008). Cast Out: Vagrancy and Homelessness in Global and Historical Perspective. Ohio: Center for International studies. Bianca, L. (2015). “Woman, 23, becomes so sick of landlords that she gives up her rented flat to live on a TRAIN and says it's 'like being on vacation all the time'”. Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3208621/Woman-23-sick- landlords-gives-permanent-abode-live-TRAIN-says-s-like-vacation-time.html. Burger, M. (2014). The Yogyakarta Principles, Principle 15: The Right to Adequate Housing. New York: Sage Publishers. Dave, B. (2011, April 28). Hobo Living - Freight Train Hopping in America – Freight-hopping. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhlaCvOJPig. Edgar, B., Doherty, J. & Meert, H. (2002). Access to housing: homelessness and vulnerability in Europe. Berlin: The Policy Press. Greg, M. (2007). "Seeking help for homeless on Common: Program hopes to offer housing", Boston Metro newspaper, Monday, September 17, 2007. Iverson, W. (2010). Hobo Sapien. Berlin: Robert Reed Publishers. Kleinig, J. (2010). "Policing the Homeless: An Ethical Dilemma". Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 2 (4): 12 – 19. Lister, S. & Ward, M. (2014). Guide to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Rebates 2013-14. London: Ashford Colour Press. Marjorie, K. (2009). Controlling Misbehavior in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Neill, S. (2006). "Homeless advocates urge council to remember 'couch surfers'". Inside Toronto, 2(4): 6 – 12. Roncarati, J. (2008). "Homeless, housed, and homeless again". Journal of the American Academy of Physician's Assistants, 2(1): 121 – 131. Terminski, B. (2011). "The right to adequate housing in international human rights law: Polish transformation experiences". Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos, 22(2): 241 – 249. Uys, E. (2003). Riding the Rails: Teenagers on the Move During the Great Depression. New York: Routledge. Vigo, J. (2005). Nomadic Sexualities and Nationalities: Postcolonial Performative Words and Visual Texts. Inscriptions in the Sand Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean University Press. Read More

Of paramount importance however is the need for privacy and living a private life. Having an apartment like she did before, she was afforded the convenience of having a private life and doing things that were just specific to her. She would be able to host visitors, lead a normal life and even own property in terms of merchandise that she could buy. All these are not possible now that she stays on the train. She is in an awkward position with her friends who may want to visit her from time to time and even her boyfriend may also find it awkward that his girlfriend does not have a place she calls home.

The fact that she admits that from time to time she has to visit her family and boyfriend and spend some time at their places is evidence enough that living on a train does not satisfy her let alone suit her entirely (Marjorie, 2009). Conclusion In conclusion therefore, modern times have different attributes to living that influence people into doing different things in different circumstances. Inasmuch as everyone is entitled to their own decisions and opinions of how they should lead their lives, it is important to note that such decisions come with responsibilities; every right and freedom has a responsibility to act sanely and in a way that does infringe on the safety, convenience and normalcy of others (O'Neill, 2006).

Based on this Müller (as an example of many people living in unusual places) choosing to stay in these strange places is a decision that has many points of concern that inform the argument that it is problematic on many fronts. In the first instance, it does not make any rational or argumentative sense for one to forfeit the comfort of living in a home to go lead a nomad life all in the hope of saving £50! In addition to this, the security concerns and the inconveniences associated with this lifestyle surpass any evidential proof that exists in support of living on a train.

In this regard, it is not only inappropriate but also irrational for people to choose to live such outrageously unusual places as trains, car parks, streets, verandas and corridors of malls! References Beier, A. & Ocobock, P. (2008). Cast Out: Vagrancy and Homelessness in Global and Historical Perspective. Ohio: Center for International studies. Bianca, L. (2015). “Woman, 23, becomes so sick of landlords that she gives up her rented flat to live on a TRAIN and says it's 'like being on vacation all the time'”.

Mail Online. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3208621/Woman-23-sick- landlords-gives-permanent-abode-live-TRAIN-says-s-like-vacation-time.html. Burger, M. (2014). The Yogyakarta Principles, Principle 15: The Right to Adequate Housing. New York: Sage Publishers. Dave, B. (2011, April 28). Hobo Living - Freight Train Hopping in America – Freight-hopping. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhlaCvOJPig. Edgar, B., Doherty, J. & Meert, H. (2002). Access to housing: homelessness and vulnerability in Europe.

Berlin: The Policy Press. Greg, M. (2007). "Seeking help for homeless on Common: Program hopes to offer housing", Boston Metro newspaper, Monday, September 17, 2007. Iverson, W. (2010). Hobo Sapien. Berlin: Robert Reed Publishers. Kleinig, J. (2010). "Policing the Homeless: An Ethical Dilemma". Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 2 (4): 12 – 19. Lister, S. & Ward, M. (2014). Guide to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Rebates 2013-14. London: Ashford Colour Press.

Marjorie, K. (2009). Controlling Misbehavior in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Neill, S. (2006). "Homeless advocates urge council to remember 'couch surfers'". Inside Toronto, 2(4): 6 – 12. Roncarati, J. (2008). "Homeless, housed, and homeless again". Journal of the American Academy of Physician's Assistants, 2(1): 121 – 131. Terminski, B. (2011). "The right to adequate housing in international human rights law: Polish transformation experiences".

Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos, 22(2): 241 – 249. Uys, E. (2003).

Read More