But the tenant, assuming he is reputable and can pay, has a right to
someplace to live, which requires that someone sell or rent him a home.
This is not clearly obvious. Not that I necessarily disagree, but . . .
When the founders used the term "right," they meant it one way. The right not to be interfered with. The right to life, to them, meant the right not to have your life arbitrarily taken away. All anybody else had to do to preserve your rights was not do certain things to you.
We have transformed the term right from the right not to have others interfere with you to the right to make demands on other people's time or money.
As you note, if there is a right to housing, then that creates the right to force somebody else to build it for you, rent it to you, or whatever. If there is a right to food, then that creates the right to force somebody else to grow it for you, build the tractor for the farmer, etc. if there is a right to health care, which Hillary Clinton would say there is, then there is the right to force some people to go to medical school, force them to come out at 2 in the morning to look at your broken leg, etc.
These are a whole different class of rights. They don't just require others to leave you alone. they require others to commit time and money to provide you those rights.
As a society I don't think we've done a good job identifying the generally unrecognized shift from the first class of rights to the second, which really shouldn't be called rights but should be called demands. |
