26 May 23
@averagejoe1 said"Then next, what right does a guy sitting on a bench have in a bulding or a chicken coop that someone owns across the street to go live in it?
Let us go back to the basic discussion. I myself hear a lot on this Forum that one person has a right 'to the stuff' of another person. If we can thresh that out, resolving that, then we go to the next phase,.. what rights does a person have living life next to other people, their space. If all of us, through payment of taxes by some of us, own the sidewalks in SFcisco ...[text shortened]... that someone owns across the street to go live in it?
You can do this,, Shav. Stay the course.
You can do this,, Shav. Stay the course."
There are a lot of unoccupied homes in the USA. Many people are wealthy and have second homes. They only come up to live in those homes in the summer on weekends. Eliminating homelessness is doable, but it requires taking away the rights of the owners of unoccupied homes. There is also the question of incentive for people to work after getting their big break. The very reason some people are homeless is because they have difficulty keeping jobs.
The reason people do not keep jobs is because they pay so little. The solution is raising minimum wage, but that goes against the economic slavery model. Business owners do not like government taking away their ability to exploit employees by giving them as little money as possible.
26 May 23
@metal-brain saidYou cannot be serious that I would 'make my 2nd home available ' for someone to live in, not even one night. Just the hassle and expense of moving all of my contents and furniture out (storage?) would wreck my life. Would it not yours?
"Then next, what right does a guy sitting on a bench have in a bulding or a chicken coop that someone owns across the street to go live in it?
You can do this,, Shav. Stay the course."
There are a lot of unoccupied homes in the USA. Many people are wealthy and have second homes. They only come up to live in those homes in the summer on weekends. Eliminating homelessne ...[text shortened]... overnment taking away their ability to exploit employees by giving them as little money as possible.
26 May 23
@AverageJoe1
Not all jobs are mminimum wage. My grandson started,, minimum wage, at a landscape company. He is not making miniumum anymore. And is sure not digging dirt anymore, but what a great education. He prob said midway, 'man, i got to do better, gotta get outta here, move along in life, make more money'. Music to my ears.
There IS more money,, you know.
26 May 23
@wajoma saidLol said the rambling idiot who tried to elevate his right opinions to an argument regarding the definition of words.
kev, this is over your head, you used a bunch of inappropriate meaningless words. There was nothing 'hazy' about the definition I posted. It was very clear, crystal clear.
"A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others"
This is natural right theory, and not that difficult. Everyone has the same rights, regardless of wealth and regardless of ...[text shortened]... red a right.
When and if you respond try doing so without the aid of your random word generator.
I know your sort don’t put much stock in the will of the people but unfortunately for you democracy has been established as the go to form of government over the lords and peasants model.
If the will of the people decide by democratic mandates that something within their defined political society is a RIGHT then it is a RIGHT. You know like the constitution in the US gives you the RIGHT to bear arms. Unless specifically barred by an overriding constitution the RIGHT to decent housing can be mandated by law.
I’m sorry this is all too complicated for you sonny but it’s just a fact of life I’m afraid.
26 May 23
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYes, people can vote to require 2nd homeowners, for instance, to open those homes to people from Mx getting off the bus in Martha's Vineyard. But, stay with me Kev, that is not presently a requirement or a law, so why do you write so inanely and mundanely? So much for your pushing dem mandates. Whew.
If the will of the people decide by democratic mandates that something within their defined political society is a RIGHT then it is a RIGHT. You know like the constitution in the US gives you the RIGHT to bear arms. Unless specifically barred by an overriding constitution the RIGHT to decent housing can be mandated by law.
I’m sorry this is all too complicated for you sonny but it’s just a fact of life I’m afraid.
THEN you attempt to compare right to bear arms with rights that you seem to dream up? You think the right which EXISTS, to bear arms, should have right to housing in the same paragraph of the Constitution? Then you casually say the right to (decent??) housing CAN BE MANDATED by law. Well, the right for you to be able to take one of my cars can be mandated by law. What a waste of typing, and boy, are you right about your reasoning being 'too complicated'!!! Bring Suzianne and Sonhouse back!!!!!
Edit: If you say the right to housing can be mandated by law, you are in effect conceding that no such right exists. Too complicated?
26 May 23
@averagejoe1 said“Yes, people can vote to require 2nd homeowners, for instance, to open those homes to people from Mx getting off the bus in Martha's Vineyard.”
Yes, people can vote to require 2nd homeowners, for instance, to open those homes to people from Mx getting off the bus in Martha's Vineyard. But, stay with me Kev, that is not presently a requirement or a law, so why do you write so inanely and mundanely? So much for your pushing dem mandates. Whew.
THEN you attempt to compare right to bear arms with rights that yo ...[text shortened]... ing can be mandated by law, you are in effect conceding that no such right exists. Too complicated?
Why are you misrepresenting what I said!
A government taking peoples houses off them regardless of how many they have is nothing to do with the RIGHT to decent housing.
It would be the governments duty to build, or have built decent low rent public housing in order to adhere to the democratically arrived at RIGHT to decent housing, or they could regulate and monitor the private rented sector in order that they are obliged to maintain their properties to the agreed standard and charge no more than the maximum mandated rent, they could also subsidise this sector to keep it reasonably profitable fir the landlord.
Respond to what’s posted or I will flag it up as misrepresentation, it’s a basic rule of the forums.
26 May 23
@kevcvs57 saidI speak to you as being Marxist, so a little bit of leeway would be in order, when all I did was refer you to your statement that a government can mandate, or, people can vote to rid the country of dogs, which, of course they can…., the government can mandate anything. I was saying that we can all stipulate that the government can mandate anything. So you again waste a lot of typing to say that., So the issue is, to what extent should the government, using your words, regulate and monitor our personal lives. Why don’t you touch on that for us, standing by. Let’s say I have a ski home, a beach home, a lake home, mountain desert home, and one in Puerto Vallarta. Also mention that Nancy Pelosi has 14 bedrooms in her San Francisco home. But you won’t.
“Yes, people can vote to require 2nd homeowners, for instance, to open those homes to people from Mx getting off the bus in Martha's Vineyard.”
Why are you misrepresenting what I said!
A government taking peoples houses off them regardless of how many they have is nothing to do with the RIGHT to decent housing.
It would be the governments duty to build, or have built dec ...[text shortened]... Respond to what’s posted or I will flag it up as misrepresentation, it’s a basic rule of the forums.
26 May 23
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidRules of Forum?? But, you yourself change your own post, by saying early-on that people have a right to housing. Those are Shan’s words, also. But now you have slipped in a qualifier, you now say ‘decent’ housing. You did not say that before so now that changed the entire perspective…I have to rethink your post and try to respond to something you change, which is against forum rules. I AM going to report you.! *. Jesus, I think I will go play golf.
“Yes, people can vote to require 2nd homeowners, for instance, to open those homes to people from Mx getting off the bus in Martha's Vineyard.”
Why are you misrepresenting what I said!
A government taking peoples houses off them regardless of how many they have is nothing to do with the RIGHT to decent housing.
It would be the governments duty to build, or have built dec ...[text shortened]... Respond to what’s posted or I will flag it up as misrepresentation, it’s a basic rule of the forums.
*Not really..,, having you around, helps me to keep my high score of debate-wins right up there.
26 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidI'm serious...how bout a coherent explanation of this? Who are the powerful? Billy Graham was powerful for god sake. Some simple backwoods preachers are equally as powerful. And that is just preachers, rich and poor. Are you speaking of rich people, or successful people. You know, a successful person does not necessarily have to be rich.
And, what does this even mean? I havent had my coffee yet.
In your words...'Too complicated for you?"
26 May 23
3 edits
@averagejoe1 saidOf course "who pays?" is the government. That's the whole topic of the thread, although it's not even remotely possible that a private sector initiative would be successful at housing hundreds of thousands of people that don't have any money.
Give us a prospectus, I would love how you think that would work. I know that you really do not mention much about who pays for it with the care and maintenance..,oohhh, the tenants do that!, and things of that nature. Who would pay taxes on all this land.? what would you do with the losers iand the vagrants who tear the damn place up. Get serious. Oh, I guess there would ...[text shortened]... Suzanne is ranting and raving about Woke, as if they do a damn thing. What is wrong with you people.
There are so many options (both semi-free market and public), I would prefer any of them to do-nothing-ism that seems to plague modern politics.
1) Public housing. Just let government build the ~1 million housing units needed in SF and give them to low-income individuals.
2) Grant-incentivized initiatives. Competitive bidding for contracts. Government gives money to contractors to build lots of units and sell them at cost. These units would come with strict restrictions on what can be done with them i.e. no second homes, and you can't sell it for more than what you paid plus inflation.
3) Conversion of office space. No one is using ~20% of office space. That's hundreds of thousands of square feet that could be homeless shelters, food kitchens etc.
4) Eminent domain. Seize Nancy Pelosi's property.
5) etc etc. More roofs more beds. Any way possible. All are better than Earl's plan.
26 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidI said you would have to lose rights. Didn't at all say you would like it.
You cannot be serious that I would 'make my 2nd home available ' for someone to live in, not even one night. Just the hassle and expense of moving all of my contents and furniture out (storage?) would wreck my life. Would it not yours?
26 May 23
1 edit
@metal-brain saidPutin, Castro and Hitler and any other dictator said the same thing, you must be psychic, really cool.
I said you would have to lose rights. Didn't at all say you would like it.
Tell us, what rights lost to us would be the ones lost that we would not like to lose. Would it mean our legally-acquired assets over the years, I just spent $3.8 for a ski lodge, Deer Valley, a small one. Would you fellers take that? Do you take title to it? A 99 year lease ...? What.?
Would the most successful people lose the most? If people have been losers, living off the government like some who post here, would they be excepted from government confiscation? A lot of questions we could debate.
Uh, why would I 'have' to lose rights? Been minding my own business, living like a hermit, and you knock on my door? What is your mindset as you type such things?
26 May 23
@wildgrass said#1: 'Give?' them to low income individuals? Dont get that.
Of course "who pays?" is the government. That's the whole topic of the thread, although it's not even remotely possible that a private sector initiative would be successful at housing hundreds of thousands of people that don't have any money.
There are so many options (both semi-free market and public), I would prefer any of them to do-nothing-ism that seems to plague mo ...[text shortened]... 's property.
5) etc etc. More roofs more beds. Any way possible. All are better than Earl's plan.
#2: No problem as long as the private contractors are not restricted to their profits. If they are, then they should turn down the money and make big money elsewhere.
#3: Define conversion: If I own some office building and it wants to be converted by an individual or the government, do I still sell it for FMV?
#4: Funny Pelosi joke, but you will have to apply def of Eminent Domain to her house. I don't think because illegals and dopeheads need housing will work. If I need a highway widened next to her house, so I can get my laborers to my job site where I make money off of their backs, I will petition the city to declare eminent domain. Pretty cool, actually. All for it.
#5. Keep trying. Imagine all the needs you speak of not having been a big deal until the day Biden took office with his money printing ventures. Now everyone is broke, homeless and aimless. Well, not everybody.
26 May 23
2 edits
@kevcvs57 saidWhether or not it's an opinion is irrelevant, what you're posting is an opinion. How boring to have to clarify this extremely obvious point. Try to address this:
Lol said the rambling idiot who tried to elevate his right opinions to an argument regarding the definition of words.
I know your sort don’t put much stock in the will of the people but unfortunately for you democracy has been established as the go to form of government over the lords and peasants model.
If the will of the people decide by democratic mandates that somethin ...[text shortened]... y law.
I’m sorry this is all too complicated for you sonny but it’s just a fact of life I’m afraid.
"A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."
Try to define what a right is, what the word means. Because a mandate is a mandate, which is not a right. Natural right theory states that all humans have the same rights, regardless the will of the mob or what the CCP says. Regardless of a bullet speeding towards your head, up until that moment you have a right to life, a right to live without the permission of others.
What you're saying is there are no rights. One can argue the right to own the means of self defence is a corollary of the right to life and that it does not come from the constitution but rather the constitution recognises that right. And we're back to the quote that suzi had such a problem with, not that Rand, or Locke, or the constitution determine what rights are but rather they recognise rights that exist by nature of what man is.
"The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong.
Nobody decides - nature does not decide, it merely is. Man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes what is." Ayn Rand
And again kev needs to apologise for what he believes and bluster it up a bit, it's all empty kev.
26 May 23
@averagejoe1 saidI am simply pointing out that there is plenty of shelter to go around. Hunting cabins alone could house all of the homeless. That is not even counting people that own 3 or 4 homes.
Putin, Castro and Hitler and any other dictator said the same thing, you must be psychic, really cool.
Tell us, what rights lost to us would be the ones lost that we would not like to lose. Would it mean our legally-acquired assets over the years, I just spent $3.8 for a ski lodge, Deer Valley, a small one. Would you fellers take that? Do you take title to it? A ...[text shortened]... iness, living like a hermit, and you knock on my door? What is your mindset as you type such things?
Not that any of that is necessary. Just using the money government is spending on the Ukraine war could end homelessness easily, but our fascist government has other priorities.