Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not about what I believe, it is about what produces the least tyranny.
If there is vacant housing the homeless could settle into, or vacant land available to settle into, people should be able to.
Today a few entities on all these vacant properties, develop them to price ordinary people out, or sit on them and not allow anyone else to use them.
Does it make sense in terms of natural law to send police to bash the skulls of people freely living in a certain area by their own means?
What if I own 2 homes. One home in the north for the summer and a home in the south for the winter. If my home is vacant fir half the year, should someone else be able to move into my home when I am not there? What about my ski villa that I only use for a few weeks out of the year?
What if I own 2 homes. One home in the north for the summer and a home in the south for the winter. If my home is vacant fir half the year, should someone else be able to move into my home when I am not there? What about my ski villa that I only use for a few weeks out of the year?
How? You can only have one residence at a time.
The idea of owning a vacation house requires state force to maintain and goes against the laws of nature.
I have a big backyard and don't use some part of it.
Are you saying anyone can put a tent and live there? By your logic, if I don't use it - it is not mine anymore. And while we are on the subject, how is that unused part of my backyard made someone homeless.
Thanks.
There are social laws that don’t need legal protection.
If you own a big house with a large front yard fenced in, and without the great economic inequalities of today, people won’t casually make a tent city on it.
Once again, you spout baseless garbage with no basis in any sort of rational reality. If an investor buys a property, it doesn't normally sit empty, but is rented out, or used for some purpose that provides a return to the owner. Or, an investor buys the property with a view to redevelop, or to build better structures once financing is arranged, teh amrket studies performed, permits and approvals gained, etc.
Yes, if the property doesn't belong to them, they have no right to be there. What makes you think developers price ordinary people out? Are just envious because you aren't old enough to buy an awesome house in the spot you want to live, and think society owes you that?
The homeless generally live on the streets because that's where they feel comfortable. Every time Houston tries to do something for the homeless, they refuse the assistance. Some of the homeless are, like you, lazy, and think society owes them a living and a place to live. That's prima facie evidence of people who take without providing any benefit.
What I am seeing from your statements is that you oppose me buying a piece of property now that may take me a couple of decades to develop into my perfect retirement home. That pretty much makes you anti-freedom, and pro-tyranny, because you don't think I should have any choice that isn't approved by you.
Once again, you’re say nonsense:
1. Renting out gives invisible authority to the owners backed by the state. It’s the same thing as a tax. Why should you pay someone to live somewhere?
2. You’re lost
. You can own whatever property you wish, but you have to live on that property or else you are limiting the freedom of everyone else.
There are social laws that don’t need legal protection.
If you own a big house with a large front yard fenced in, and without the great economic inequalities of today, people won’t casually make a tent city on it.
But size is relative, is it an acre big, or 30?
What difference does it make 30 or 50 or 10?
You think 30 acres is the line, but someone else might think it is 10. Or 5. And by your logic that person would have a right to set up a tent on my backyard and live there as long as he feels I have too much of unused space. Are you suggesting we should throw away a notion of private property since anyone can claim it if he feels like it?
You don't live there, you don't utilize the land, so how is it yours. What gives you the authority to have excess power over others?
?
I find it is always confusing to debate using ambiguous terms.
How about we simplify things?
Let's say there is a huge island where a primal tribe resides. Let's say 100 families. Some of them hunt, some of them fish. And they live on the trees. Until one of them had an idea that if he digs a cave and moves there - he won't get wet. So he spends a year and digs a cave and moves his family there.
So now he lives in a cave, while everyone else live under the sky which is clear inequality by your logic.
Are you saying that everyone has a right to move into the cave he dug?
Ok. Let's assume you say that his cave is too small and he has a right to live there.
Let's move to step 2: he is good at digging caves and he knows that others would love to live in a cave.
So after his work day (hunting, fishing, etc) instead of relaxing , he goes and digs another cave. Every day for a year and wants to rent it to another family. Who wants to pay him (with fish or meat) for the right to live there. Everyone seems to be a willing participant in this transaction, but you say this is some form of oppression and you say he should not be allowed to rent it. But if this are the rules, he won't dig up that cave in a first place and that other family will be worse off.
What am I missing here?
What difference does it make 30 or 50 or 10?
You think 30 acres is the line, but someone else might think it is 10. Or 5. And by your logic that person would have a right to set up a tent on my backyard and live there as long as he feels I have too much of unused space. Are you suggesting we should throw away a notion of private property since anyone can claim it if he feels like it?
It's not hard.
You can fence off a backyard for yourself. If you fence off a land the size of a ranch that you never use, then that is different.
I find it is always confusing to debate using ambiguous terms.
How about we simplify things?
Let's say there is a huge island where a primal tribe resides. Let's say 100 families. Some of them hunt, some of them fish. And they live on the trees. Until one of them had an idea that if he digs a cave and moves there - he won't get wet. So he spends a year and digs a cave and moves his family there.
So now he lives in a cave, while everyone else live under the sky which is clear inequality by your logic.
Are you saying that everyone has a right to move into the cave he dug?
Ok. Let's assume you say that his cave is too small and he has a right to live there.
Let's move to step 2: he is good at digging caves and he knows that others would love to live in a cave.
So after his work day (hunting, fishing, etc) instead of relaxing , he goes and digs another cave. Every day for a year and wants to rent it to another family. Who wants to pay him (with fish or meat) for the right to live there. Everyone seems to be a willing participant in this transaction, but you say this is some form of oppression and you say he should not be allowed to rent it. But if this are the rules, he won't dig up that cave in a first place and that other family will be worse off.
What am I missing here?
Firstly I never want complete equality, if people work harder and get more, that's fine.
But the second part of your question is interesting because it is provable wrong. There is a reason neanderthals didn't have a rent economy, because it goes against natural law.
People have ownership of their own labor, not the capital it produces. If someone pays him to dig a hole, that is fine, and has happened to some extent.
But renting out a cave that is no longer owned by that man, and having a family forcible pay him for just living there, is authoritarian and requires coercion.
But you say what if people agree? That's odd. If you live in a house, you can pay whoever you want. But you should never be forced to pay someone for living in a house, regardless of who original made it.
Remember, as Lincoln said, labor precedes capital.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
