Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (21240)	8/9/2001 6:27:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

This is the central point of our disagreement. I don't think a prospective tenant has any natural or constitutional right to the prospective land owners property. I agree that that prospective tenant doesn't have any right to the property of that property owner. 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. He also has the right to buy food. This is so terribly basic. If he can't do that, he has no pursuit of happiness, he has no equal protection, he has no nothing. If no one will rent him a home or sell him food, then Uncle Sugar will have to do it for him. Surely you don't want this able-bodied, reputable person out on the street. We are supposed to be civilized after all. If no one will rent to him, then the government has to do something. Perhaps you'd rather it built him a house on public lands with your tax dollars? At least we have found the core disagreement rather then dancing around irrelevant sub issues or trading insults. Well, of course we did. Don't we always? Karen