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: Lane3 who wrote (21257)	8/9/2001 6:30:04 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I must go away again, but I am glad I checked in. See you tomorrow.....

To: Lane3 who wrote (21257)	8/9/2001 6:32:25 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I think the only way to square things with our Constitution is to have Uncle Sam build the housing or sell the food, OR offer cash as an inducement to the reluctant landlords. If you read those travel cases they are simply tortured. I have more sympathy for the right to privacy cases- because at least you CAN see how one has a right over one's own body. But I really can't see, with our constitution, how you can have a right to exercise control over how people use their private property. I mean those rights ARE gone now, but I can't square it with our constitution.

To: Lane3 who wrote (21257)	8/9/2001 6:34:20 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

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.

To: Lane3 who wrote (21257)	8/9/2001 6:53:34 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

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. If the prospectice tenant indeed does not have any right to the property of that property owner then he has not right to take it for his own use (whether he pays or not) or to make the government do this for him. He has a right to buy food or a place to live from anyone who will sell it to him but not to make them sell it to him. Ofcourse if you truely get a situation where no one will sell anything to one group of peopole and they don't own land to live on or raise food on then you either get the practical tragedy where they die or you get them stealing from other in order to live. I wouldn't try to stop the government from preventing this practical tragedy but I wouldn't call it a case of enforceing anyones rights. Of course in reality even in the deep south before the civil rights movement discrimination while bad was never quite this bad. Black people in 1950 could find food and a place to live at least if they had any money to buy food or a place to live. It might have taken them longer to find lower quality food and shelter. Discrimination in these areas might have made life a struggle and it certainly was a bad thing that we are well to be mostly past in the US, but it was never the case that no one would sell to black people. Well, of course we did. Don't we always? Sometimes we might take a little longer to get to either establish agreement or understand why we disagree but your right we can usually do one other before too long and we don't trade insults. But I'm sure we have both had converstations here and elsewhere where finding either common ground or an understanding of the different opinions does not come so easily or without anger or insults. Tim