NationStates Jolt Archive

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).

Earlier this year did they pledge a no income tax year?

Earlier this year did they pledge a no income tax year?

Not that I can recall. I Googled it, and found only this:


There are some changes to income taxation in France for 2006. From 2006, certain abatements will be abolished, and the tax rates will be reduced from seven to five, with a top rate of tax of 40%, lowered from 48.9%, the previous highest rate.
http://www.frenchentree.com/france-tax-advice/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=2254


Now back on topic, please! :p

i'm honestly surprised this isnt counted as a basic human right already. i mean, i know that it isn't legally, but i don't understand why.

i'm honestly surprised this isnt counted as a basic human right already. i mean, i know that it isn't legally, but i don't understand why.

Ditto. And yet I'm sure some people will oppose it, on ideological right-wing economic grounds or something. I'll just be glad if they actually get it done, setting a precedent.

It'd be interesting to see how they'll go about implementing this. Some kind of affordable housing scheme or a firsttime buyer's grant or something else.

Thakns for checking Aridda.

I suspect it will be a Government funded ghetto scheme.

Build massive apartment blocks and pack the poor into them.

Good on France. I hope it really helps the homeless out and something positive comes to the whole of their society if they implement this. Hopefully it wont turn out like the US's low-income housing projects that basically became a haven for criminal activity. The whole ghetto/crime problem comes with segregating the poor and homeless from everyone else, rather than equal distribution.

It seems that in Dubai they have acheived soemthing like this. The homeless actually have quite a bit of political power in Dubai at this time because there are so many and they organize. THough some of their housing projects have gone horribly wrong as well.

Tell Chirac to come over to America and visit our welfare housing before having his government draw up any kind of law about it.

If the French people want their money to go to providing housing for the homeless, fine. Do they want it to go towards providing American-style housing for the homeless? Where drug addiction and crime run rampant, rats and disease run through every floor, gang violence breaks out every other night, and the façade is dirty and broken and graffiti'd? I think not.

That sounds very humane, but I wonder if perhaps France is not, how you say, writing checks they are unable to cash.

The US government once tried to provide 'low income housing' for people in its cities.
You know what people call those areas now?

It seems that in Dubai they have acheived soemthing like this. The homeless actually have quite a bit of political power in Dubai at this time because there are so many and they organize. THough some of their housing projects have gone horribly wrong as well.

Interesting. Where did you hear about this? I haven't been able to find anything about it.

Going against the grain here.. but I think it's a bad idea.

Look, I'm not about ignoring the plight of the homeless, and I do think that having some kind of program to assist homeless people to find a place to live is a good thing, but when you turn that into a covil right, suddenly you WILL have people taking advantage of it.

Look at it this way. If h ousing is considered a basic right, then it implies the Government will have to take on some level of responsibility to see to it that there's enough housing to go around. That means revenue has to be generated to pay for it. Where is that coming from? Taxes, of course. Look for a higher, not a lower, tax rate.

People who are homeless in France all get a house. Good. Now what? Will they be made to work? No. If housing is a basic right then it can't have any conditions or stipulations attached. That means no incentive to get a job. If you *KNOW* you will have a roof over your head whether you work or not, and any country that guarantees housing for all probably has some pretty generous feeding-the-poor programs, then you have no real reason to work at all anymore, do you?

You might be thinking "but working is responsible. It allows me to generate income to pay for other things as well. It's the right thing to do and people will do it." I don't think so. By and large people tend to take advantage of freebies, and there's no reason to suppose this will be any different.

To make matters worse, France's immigration problem will balloon with people coming form other places to the land of the free houses, and now you'll have a massive burden on the Government to house all these people. Tax rate goes up again because all the immigrants are going to have trouble finding work even when they're willing to do it. I mean, when you already have a tax rate that approaches 50% how are the taxpayers going to survive?

Moving into free Government housing, I guess. Time to build even MORE houses and now where's the money coming from?

There has got to be some level of personal responsibility. People must be responsible for their own housing. If nothing else, it's an incentive to work and contribute to society. Some people are homeless, yes, but the solution is to empower them to take care of themselves, not do it for them.

If you want to dismiss what I've just said as nothing but a right-wing economic tirade, then please, by all means tell us where I'm wrong.

No wonder the french economy is crap.

They think the government is their mom.

MOTHER, GIVE ME A HOUSE.

What is funny is that those who doesnt have houses are the ones who pay the less taxes. That is why France is so fucked up.

Good on France. I hope it really helps the homeless out and something positive comes to the whole of their society if they implement this. Hopefully it wont turn out like the US's low-income housing projects that basically became a haven for criminal activity. The whole ghetto/crime problem comes with segregating the poor and homeless from everyone else, rather than equal distribution.


I think you're being disingenuous. A program meant to assist low-income people somehow becomes, to you, some kind of racist ethnic cleansing operation. How is it the Government's fault that statstically, low-income families tend to produce higher criminal rates?

You call it segregation. What's the solution? Force wealthy families to live in the projects and take some of the unemployed families and subidize them living in big suburbian houses?

My experience tells me something.

A couple of years ago the government (federal district) approved a huge housing project. They could not finish it. Homeless families occupied the parcel after the prison that originally stood there was demolished, as desperate as they were, setting up tents among the rubble.

There have been some interesting concerns raised in this thread so far (except by Northern Borders's childishness). I'm assuming the government will look at failed experiments abroad, and consider all these concerns by itself before doing anything.

Bear in mind that France curently has a right-wing government.

That doesn't detract from the fact that the idea itself is a laudible one, and that having a roof over your head should indeed be a priority and a basic human right.

No wonder the french economy is crap.

They think the government is their mom.

MOTHER, GIVE ME A HOUSE.

What kind of mother would give there adult offspring a house?

What is funny is that those who doesnt have houses are the ones who pay the less taxes.

um, well yes. There's a reason it's called social welfare.

What kind of mother would give there adult offspring a house?

A dead one. Inheritence FTW!

A dead one. Inheritence FTW!

LOL

No wonder the french economy is crap.

They think the government is their mom.

MOTHER, GIVE ME A HOUSE.

What is funny is that those who doesnt have houses are the ones who pay the less taxes. That is why France is so fucked up.

I'm not certain, but I imagine the bottom 95% of french wage earners do better than the bottom 95% of US earners.

But if you like working 60 hrs a week for someone elses country club fees, by all means.

Housing is not a right.

A right is generally something that, in a society, we are all mutually responsible for making sure that every person has that right. For example, we in the USA (theoretically) watch out for each other and make sure that our right to free speech is protected, that our right to worship is protected. In other words, it is the responsibility of Government/society to protect and guarantee the right.

Housing is something that you are responsible for only to yourself and your family. Saying that people are collectively responsible for housing each other is a very warm and fuzzy notion but it doesn't work in real life. It's like saying that we're all responsible for clothing and feeding each other.

That mentality only works when people act for the good of their community always. In reality, this doesn't happen. People look out for their family/selves first, then the rest. It's instinct. Making people responsible for their own food, clothes and shelter is the incentive they have to work and be productive members of society. Without incentive, it all breaks down. That's not utopian, but it is reality.

This is why Communism fails.

At the risk of sounding heartless: Who is owed a living?

Next question: Who owes it them?

That's the problem I have with "positive" rights formulations: Invariably, advocates claim that people have the right to be provided something independent of their own effort.

So what happens if everyone decides they want "free" housing, medical care (including medical services providers who decide to down tools and get it "free" from somebody else), etc.?

I'll tell you what happens: Either the government forces someone to provide those services at gunpoint (we call that involuntary servitude), or expects to be able to exploit someone's altruism.

A dead one. Inheritence FTW!

Or a rich one.

My cousin got lucky by meeting a very rich (and dumb) hot blond in college and married her. Her family got him and her a fully furnitured house worth $750.000 dolars as a gift.

And now he, who got a major degree on biology, works for his wife´s father who is a big player in the land and buildings business.

And what is worst. This hot blond women got pregnant and now she looks like shit :(

Housing is not a right.

France would disagree

A right is generally something that, in a society, we are all mutually responsible for making sure that every person has that right.

That's what taxes do.

For example, we in the USA (theoretically) watch out for each other and make sure that our right to free speech is protected, that our right to worship is protected. In other words, it is the responsibility of Government/society to protect and guarantee the right.

That's what tax collectors do.

Housing is something that you are responsible for only to yourself and your family. Saying that people are collectively responsible for housing each other is a very warm and fuzzy notion but it doesn't work in real life. It's like saying that we're all responsible for clothing and feeding each other.

Once again, what do you think your taxes do, exactly?

That mentality only works when people act for the good of their community always. In reality, this doesn't happen. People look out for their family/selves first, then the rest. It's instinct. Making people responsible for their own food, clothes and shelter is the incentive they have to work and be productive members of society. Without incentive, it all breaks down. That's not utopian, but it is reality.

This is why Communism fails.

Pay your taxes or go to jail.

That enough incentive for you?

One other thing...

Welfare, low-income housing, food stamps, etc are all good and necessary systems as long as they are TEMPORARY. They assist those who are in legitimate need to get through a time of temporary unemployment or disability. We do this because our economy is strong and it's the right thing to do. The problems arise when these systems become abused and are lived on permanently. Then we've eliminated incentive.

There has got to be some level of personal responsibility. People must be responsible for their own housing. If nothing else, it's an incentive to work and contribute to society. Some people are homeless, yes, but the solution is to empower them to take care of themselves, not do it for them.

I agree; those living in such housing should be required to check up with government officials at regular intervals to report whether they are actively seeking jobs or not, etc. Eventually, if they show no signs of even attempting to get jobs, they should be ejected and replaced with someone who actually deserves the housing.

Housing is not a right after all; it's a privilege. Making it a right will not be good in the long run. Look at the US's free housing.

France would disagree

That's what taxes do.

That's what tax collectors do.

Once again, what do you think your taxes do, exactly?

Pay your taxes or go to jail.

That enough incentive for you?

My second post addressed some of this, but as for the rest:

Tax collection is a way of generating revenue by force, as you said. The more taxes you collect, the less incentive people have to work hard. Look at what someone posted earlier, where the income tax rate in France is between 40 and 50%. If suddenly the Government decides to pay for th ehomeless to all have a place to live, that tax rate is going up. It'll go up because some people will voluntarily leave the work force because they're now guaranteed a home, and join those who are already unemplyed. That will only increase the tax burden on those who already have a wekened incentive to work.

You think that's a viable system?

In the USA our taxes are partially used to pay for social welfare, but it's a good thing when that assistance is temporary. We don't treat it as a right.

My second post addressed some of this, but as for the rest:

Tax collection is a way of generating revenue by force, as you said. The more taxes you collect, the less incentive people have to work hard. Look at what someone posted earlier, where the income tax rate in France is between 40 and 50%. If suddenly the Government decides to pay for th ehomeless to all have a place to live, that tax rate is going up. It'll go up because some people will voluntarily leave the work force because they're now guaranteed a home, and join those who are already unemplyed. That will only increase the tax burden on those who already have a wekened incentive to work.

You think that's a viable system?

In the USA our taxes are partially used to pay for social welfare, but it's a good thing when that assistance is temporary. We don't treat it as a right.


One could argue even a right can be restricted or removed if abused. You and I have the right to free association and free movement, but commit a crime and that right gets restricted

I think similarly a situation could be in place, you have the right to housing...provided you don't abuse that system

Fair play to them, I say.

I agree; those living in such housing should be required to check up with government officials at regular intervals to report whether they are actively seeking jobs or not, etc. Eventually, if they show no signs of even attempting to get jobs, they should be ejected and replaced with someone who actually deserves the housing.

Housing is not a right after all; it's a privilege. Making it a right will not be good in the long run. Look at the US's free housing.

One could argue even a right can be restricted or removed if abused. You and I have the right to free association and free movement, but commit a crime and that right gets restricted

I think similarly a situation could be in place, you have the right to housing...provided you don't abuse that system

Exactly. Then it would turn the idea of "housing rights" into a simple generous welfare system, which may not be a bad idea. The problem is that when people start to treat it as a right, then the Government CAN'T eject them.

Remember that, in our system at least, rights can only be taken away as a result of criminal convictions. (voting, gun ownership, etc) In order to take people out of their homes in a system where housing is a right, you'd have to criminalize unemployment, and that's not a pretty road to go down.

Interesting. Where did you hear about this? I haven't been able to find anything about it.

it was on NPR a couple months ago I think, but I looked and couldn't find a link to the story. Sorry.

I think you're being disingenuous. A program meant to assist low-income people somehow becomes, to you, some kind of racist ethnic cleansing operation. How is it the Government's fault that statstically, low-income families tend to produce higher criminal rates?

You call it segregation. What's the solution? Force wealthy families to live in the projects and take some of the unemployed families and subidize them living in big suburbian houses?


I don''t know where you are getting that out of what I said. When did I say anythign about race or ethnicity?

Are you trolling or do you seriously think I was suggesting that it was ethnic cleansing. With statements that suggest I want to "force wealthy families to live in the projects", it would seem that you were indeed trolling.

I'll address your post, maybe, when I am done beign irritated with your tone.

I don''t know where you are getting that out of what I said. When did I say anythign about race or ethnicity?

Are you trolling or do you seriously think I was suggesting that it was ethnic cleansing. With statements that suggest I want to "force wealthy families to live in the projects", it would seem that you were indeed trolling.

I'll address your post, maybe, when I am done beign irritated with your tone.

Be irritated. Makes no difference to me. Here's what you said:

Hopefully it wont turn out like the US's low-income housing projects that basically became a haven for criminal activity. The whole ghetto/crime problem comes with segregating the poor and homeless from everyone else, rather than equal distribution.

Creating public housing is not segregation (a word with a decidedly racist tone). You suggest that somehow people are being hidden away from the rest of society deliberately. You also mention equal distribution which sounds like taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor by force.

It's possible that I misunderstand your meaning, but don't take it personally. Rather, rephrase to clarify. Calling me a troll won't fix it.

Ditto. And yet I'm sure some people will oppose it, on ideological right-wing economic grounds or something. I'll just be glad if they actually get it done, setting a precedent.


So its ideologically right-wing to have a thing against a bankrupt government, gee-wiz I think being bankrupt is what caused the violatile and bloody French Revolution, and with the relatively recent riots its not hard to see history repeating its self. I don't think its right wing to oppose bankrupting my nation, I think its common sense. (I think its called Classical Liberalism, you know Voltaire,Adam Smith,Thomas Jefferson, etc. etc.)

Congratulations Chirac you just found a way to kill your nations economy even faster.

i'm honestly surprised this isnt counted as a basic human right already. i mean, i know that it isn't legally, but i don't understand why.
Because it requies that other people give you something. Rights don't generally work like that. A right to vote doesn't require anyone else lose anything. That same is true for free speech, the right to life, even the right to own property.

But the right to housing requires that someone construct housing so you can live in it. Because it creates an obligation for others, it fails the test.

So its ideologically right-wing to have a thing against a bankrupt government

Congratulations Chirac you just found a way to kill your nations economy even faster.

I see you have access to undisclosed information regarding how this is going to happen, have you?

Or could it be that your comment was just simplistic, ignorant and, yes, ideological?

:rolleyes:

I see you have access to undisclosed information regarding how this is going to happen, have you?

Or could it be that your comment was just simplistic, ignorant and, yes, ideological?

:rolleyes:


Well I'm sure they're not magically going to pull housing from their asses. So we can agree that it would require work to build housing for the homeless, correct? Now usually for work we pay people correct? Who's going to pay these workers, certainly not the homeless otherwise, hell they'd have homes. So we can assume its going to be the government right? Now who pays the governments bills.... OH THATS RIGHT, its the people who already have homes and who actually work! And with France already funding a welfare state and unemployment rate continuing to rise, I think its safe to say this is like pushing a stumbling man down a flight of stairs.

Answer was yes simplistic (because the situation is simplistic.). Ignorant... no not really. And the idealogical ones here are Chirac and his government believing that they can actually pay for such a program.

Well I'm sure they're not magically going to pull housing from their asses. So we can agree that it would require work to build housing for the homeless, correct? Now usually for work we pay people correct? Who's going to pay these workers, certainly not the homeless otherwise, hell they'd have homes. So we can assume its going to be the government right? Now who pays the governments bills.... OH THATS RIGHT, its the people who already have homes and who actually work! And with France already funding a welfare state and unemployment rate continuing to rise, I think its safe to say this is like pushing a stumbling man down a flight of stairs.

Answer was yes simplistic (because the situation is simplistic.). Ignorant... no not really. And the idealogical ones here are Chirac and his government believing that they can actually pay for such a program.

You also can't forget about maintenance and utilities of said homes.

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).

Sounds nice...on paper. But in reality that would be to costly to fund and maintain on any real level. Would be nice to have, but won't happen because no nation can pay for it.

People who are homeless in France all get a house. Good. Now what? Will they be made to work? No. If housing is a basic right then it can't have any conditions or stipulations attached. That means no incentive to get a job. If you *KNOW* you will have a roof over your head whether you work or not, and any country that guarantees housing for all probably has some pretty generous feeding-the-poor programs, then you have no real reason to work at all anymore, do you?


Hardly no incentive. The housing they will provide will be at the bottom of the barrael type housing. Your idea only works if all the french people who take advantage of these places have no ambition whatsoever. I'd imagine that those who have a house will have an insentive to move on to better things after they have a house

This programe of the French's actually solves the employment problem for homeless people. You have a catch 22 with regards to housing and employment. If you are homeless and you attempt to get a job, if you do not have a home, an employer is far less likly to take you in. And if you try to get a home but do not have a job, an estate agent or bank is very unlikly to give you the time of day. This solves that problem nicely.

It'd be interesting to see how they'll go about implementing this. Some kind of affordable housing scheme or a firsttime buyer's grant or something else.
It will be interesting. Let's see if the French can pull this off right.

Emotionally, I agree with the concept that housing should be a right. I seem to remember a party in Ireland making similar promises during elections a few years back.

But rationally, I think it will cost a lot of money and create a lot of problems, not least of them the simple fact that people who pay rent/buy houses might feel that if others don't have to pay, why should they?
Another problem will be the ghettoisation of poverty. France already has a massive problem with poverty and crime in the banlieus, and homeless housing projects certainly will not be located in the best areas, either. Nor is it very likely that money and time will be spent to draw up a concept of how to disperese those housing projects throughout the communities; it's far more likely that they will be dumped somewhere on the outskirts of towns.

However, I will just hope for the best here. :)

While I like the idea in theory, I feel that in practice it will wind up being a huge mistake.

*grabs popcorn*

*waits*

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).


What, no cable? :p Free HBO is a right! :mad:

The extent of my tolerance for socialist ideas goes as far as to think that people who work 40 hours per week have a right to expect a comfortable living on their salary. Nobody should be working full-time AND be below the poverty line. *nod*

THat's as far as I'm willing to go.

The extent of my tolerance for socialist ideas goes as far as to think that people who work 40 hours per week have a right to expect a comfortable living on their salary. Nobody should be working full-time AND be below the poverty line. *nod*

THat's as far as I'm willing to go.

That's a fair step from where we are today, and would still have you branded as a borderline extremist in a lot of circles, unfortunately.

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).

i don't know if this is even possible, but at least the right to pitch a tent someplace anyone can at no cost and no one is harrased for doing so is definately the right idea on general principals.

food, shelter, education, public transportation, hospitals, parkgardens and libraries; these are the basics that can give a nation a reason to exist and justify its doing so. something which the country by which i am surrounded mundanely, the u.s. of a. does poorly to such a limited degree that it does at all, and with excruciatingly absurd appearant reluctance to do what little it does.

soverignty has no devine right to exist. only to the degree that it can be of real bennifit does it have any moral justification for doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

although i think morally its a good idea.

there are several big problems that means in the the long run this won't help the people.

First, the government is going to want to do this on the cheap, so we can expect high rise blocks on the outskirts of cities.
As few of the homeless are probably in serious relationships/married (at least in the eyes of the gov.) many of the apartments with be small, 15 to 30 square metres.
So far we have poor location and poor size. One would not be so bad if not for the other. In terms of value, small apartments are popular with young single workers, but location is important. Outskirts is fine with more affluent, larger families, but size is generally important.
Next the government said to provide housing, not home ownership for these people. So i'm working on the assumption they are not going to give these properties to the people that are going to move in. This means in terms of future growth (mortgages and such) the bank is unlikely to give them anything as they have not colateral, which means they won't be able to easily increase the value of the property.

The benefits its of course to give these people roofs over their heads, etc...

What they need to do is in new housing projects/complexes a certain % needs needs to be offered to the disadvantaged. That way they are not simply sticking all the poor together on the outskirts. Also by placing these people with their more affluent co-citizens they are more likely to improve themselves and their children are more likely to better themselves and so on.

Sounds nice...on paper. But in reality that would be to costly to fund and maintain on any real level. Would be nice to have, but won't happen because no nation can pay for it.

Well, if no nation can pay for it it's strange that it's already a right to have somewhere to live in Sweden. I haven't seen a homeless person for whole my life. I know they excist but those are mostly drug addicts or alcoholics who refuse to get help. To be homeless here you need to be a major screw up and not many people can screw up that much.

Well, if no nation can pay for it it's strange that it's already a right to have somewhere to live in Sweden. I haven't seen a homeless person for whole my life. I know they excist but those are mostly drug addicts or alcoholics who refuse to get help. To be homeless here you need to be a major screw up and not many people can screw up that much.

also the fact the it goes below 0ºc in winter must help;)

(jk)

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing. A first bill should be discussed in Parliament quite soon.

If they actually do this, it would be an excellent thing in my opinion. But I'll remain a little sceptical until I see how it actually goes, what possible clauses and restrictions there'll be, and so on.

More information here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6227237.stm) and here (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/france.html).

that would be nice. though if they manage housing the same way my government manages most things, I think I'd rather pitch a tent.

also the fact the it goes below 0ºc in winter must help;)

(jk)

Right know it's 8ºc here and I live somewhere in the middle. Still waiting for it to snow. This winter has been one of the warmest so far.

Well, if no nation can pay for it it's strange that it's already a right to have somewhere to live in Sweden. I haven't seen a homeless person for whole my life. I know they excist but those are mostly drug addicts or alcoholics who refuse to get help. To be homeless here you need to be a major screw up and not many people can screw up that much.
Yeah, it's pretty much the same where I live. We also have time-unlimited benefits, and most people still work and want to own their own home. Comprehensive social welfare within a society of people who generally want to work and maximize their material and social rewards is more ideologically impossible than actually impossible.

Tell Chirac to come over to America and visit our welfare housing before having his government draw up any kind of law about it.

If the French people want their money to go to providing housing for the homeless, fine. Do they want it to go towards providing American-style housing for the homeless? Where drug addiction and crime run rampant, rats and disease run through every floor, gang violence breaks out every other night, and the façade is dirty and broken and graffiti'd? I think not.

Czardas is right on with his comments here.

Will they be made to work? No. How are you going to make them work when there's an unemployment level? If there's an unemployment level, some people will not be working, by definition.

Because it requies that other people give you something. Rights don't generally work like that. A right to vote doesn't require anyone else lose anything. That same is true for free speech, the right to life, even the right to own property.The right to own item X requires that other people lose the ability to use item X.

How are you going to make them work when there's an unemployment level? If there's an unemployment level, some people will not be working, by definition.

The right to own item X requires that other people lose the ability to use item X.

Jello, my friend, you're preaching to the ignorant idealists who see only pretty flowers, sunshine and nice, white, fluffy clouds (and probably still live with their parents, or at least, on their parents' dime). You really can't expect them to grasp the sometimes harsh realities of economics -- or life in general, for that matter.

Jello, my friend, you're preaching to the ignorant idealists who see only pretty flowers, sunshine and nice, white, fluffy clouds (and probably still live with their parents, or at least, on their parents' dime). You really can't expect them to grasp the sometimes harsh realities of economics -- or life in general, for that matter.That's an interesting thing to say, regarding what I said...

...is this some kind of trick? :)

I find two primary points of opposition to this foolishness, one is economic which has already been stated, so I shall not waste text, the other is me letting a bit of a hyper-aggressive conservative through, which probably also has been stated.

But, while I'm here.

The vast bulk of (America's homeless, at least) are not functioning, productive members of society. Instead they are, by and lar, the mentally ill and people who are addicted to the nastiest nasty drugs. The solution would most certainly not be to provide them with free housing, but to institutionalize them. Prison style hospitals, psychiatric and rehabilitative would be the only way to make an impact on homelessness, because just giving these folks free houses is not going to solve this problem.

Well, if no nation can pay for it it's strange that it's already a right to have somewhere to live in Sweden. I haven't seen a homeless person for whole my life. I know they excist but those are mostly drug addicts or alcoholics who refuse to get help. To be homeless here you need to be a major screw up and not many people can screw up that much.

That's how it is in most major industrialized countries.

The homeless are not some misfortunate but noble underclass.

They're, almost universally, dirty, violent and mentally ill. They are incapable, for chemical or medical reasons, to function in normal society.

...is this some kind of trick? :)

http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/ninja.gif

Hardly no incentive. The housing they will provide will be at the bottom of the barrael type housing. Your idea only works if all the french people who take advantage of these places have no ambition whatsoever. I'd imagine that those who have a house will have an insentive to move on to better things after they have a house

This programe of the French's actually solves the employment problem for homeless people. You have a catch 22 with regards to housing and employment. If you are homeless and you attempt to get a job, if you do not have a home, an employer is far less likly to take you in. And if you try to get a home but do not have a job, an estate agent or bank is very unlikly to give you the time of day. This solves that problem nicely.

You've apparently never been homeless. What home wouldn't seem like a palace compared to living on the street or under a bridge?

You've apparently never seen slums where people live because they don't have the ambition or the will to improve their circumstance. They're either satisfied with their situation, or they don't care.

France has a very high unemployment rate. I believe it's somewhere around 20%. That's either because the culture is very laid back in that area of there simply aren't jobs enough to go around. Neither is going to be affected by this sudden magical motivation you're describing.

With an unemployment rate that high, suddenly providing addresses for the homeless isn't going to get them jobs.

How are you going to make them work when there's an unemployment level? If there's an unemployment level, some people will not be working, by definition.


...so we agree.

...so we agree.No, I disagree that there should be a condition of employment for people to have housing.

As has been stated the economic viability of this concept has already been proven useless, so no need to beat that dead horse any further.

As I stated before, temporary help for the unemployed/homeless/underemployed is a good thing. It's a good thing morally (love thy neighbor) and it's a good thing economically (helping someone get back into the economy in a positive way).

But the key word is temporary. If France were setting up a program to gurarantee temporary housing to the homeless, I'd stand up and applaud. It would be great to see it in the USA. As it stands, they are not. By declaring housing a right, they are painting themselves into a corner where such housing would be permanent, for at least the majority of cases.

I see little value in giving someone a free ride. People in society are expected to contribute. It's better for them, better for their family, better for the community. In an ideal society every single person would work and have a home. Giving people a free ride is not going to get us to that goal. Some people are naturally ambitious and would truly use such a system only temporarily. (In reality, most such people would never need it at all.) Unfortunately there will always be some part of that population who will never rise above it, and they can't be evicted because if it's a human right, it cannot be taken away.

If you really want to cut down on the homeless problem, my suggestion is:

-Build temporary housing for the homeless.
-Provide some sort of education/trade skill learning
-As much as possible, have this work done by the homeless themselves, if they already posess the skills. Pay them a fair wage to do it.
-Set up a kind of job placement program.

Of course, the above requires a job market that can support the new workers, which means a growing economy.

No, I disagree that there should be a condition of employment for people to have housing.

I know, but the comment you were quoting me on was in reference to the fact that if housing is considered a right, then they wouldn't be made to work anyway, regardless of the unemployment rate because a right, by definition, comes with no conditions.

Guaranteeing housing removes incentive? With that logic you could argue that banning corporal punishment against your employees removes incentive.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere denoting what is needed and what isn't for the individual, and I would argue that housing is on the right side of that line, because without a stable address you are unable to secure your finances, attain a job and avoid discrimination.

It'll cost more, yeah, but this is France, not America, people don't care so much about that.

*shrug*

if housing is a right (that is housing not a house) then every city has to have small rooms for people to stay in when they have no place else to go. if there are places for everyone to stay, you can roust those who live on the streets and get them out of sight. no more unsightly poor people dirtying up the place eh?

Guaranteeing housing removes incentive? With that logic you could argue that banning corporal punishment against your employees removes incentive.

How do you figure? Wouldn't you agree that the threat of being fired is an incentive? Whay does corporeal punishment have to do with it?


There has to be a line drawn somewhere denoting what is needed and what isn't for the individual, and I would argue that housing is on the right side of that line, because without a stable address you are unable to secure your finances, attain a job and avoid discrimination.

Which is why I've spoken in support of a temporary measure.


It'll cost more, yeah, but this is France, not America, people don't care so much about that.

Right. because in France money grows on trees and flows down the Sienne.

Tell Chirac to come over to America and visit our welfare housing before having his government draw up any kind of law about it.

If the French people want their money to go to providing housing for the homeless, fine. Do they want it to go towards providing American-style housing for the homeless? Where drug addiction and crime run rampant, rats and disease run through every floor, gang violence breaks out every other night, and the façade is dirty and broken and graffiti'd? I think not.

How much of that is because we allow upstart soccer moms petition to disallow them to be built anywhere and they end up turning into lightweight ghettos because the only place they are allowed to build is right next to another one?

Going against the grain here.. but I think it's a bad idea.

Look, I'm not about ignoring the plight of the homeless, and I do think that having some kind of program to assist homeless people to find a place to live is a good thing, but when you turn that into a covil right, suddenly you WILL have people taking advantage of it.

Look at it this way. If h ousing is considered a basic right, then it implies the Government will have to take on some level of responsibility to see to it that there's enough housing to go around. That means revenue has to be generated to pay for it. Where is that coming from? Taxes, of course. Look for a higher, not a lower, tax rate.

People who are homeless in France all get a house. Good. Now what? Will they be made to work? No. If housing is a basic right then it can't have any conditions or stipulations attached. That means no incentive to get a job. If you *KNOW* you will have a roof over your head whether you work or not, and any country that guarantees housing for all probably has some pretty generous feeding-the-poor programs, then you have no real reason to work at all anymore, do you?

You might be thinking "but working is responsible. It allows me to generate income to pay for other things as well. It's the right thing to do and people will do it." I don't think so. By and large people tend to take advantage of freebies, and there's no reason to suppose this will be any different.

To make matters worse, France's immigration problem will balloon with people coming form other places to the land of the free houses, and now you'll have a massive burden on the Government to house all these people. Tax rate goes up again because all the immigrants are going to have trouble finding work even when they're willing to do it. I mean, when you already have a tax rate that approaches 50% how are the taxpayers going to survive?

Moving into free Government housing, I guess. Time to build even MORE houses and now where's the money coming from?

There has got to be some level of personal responsibility. People must be responsible for their own housing. If nothing else, it's an incentive to work and contribute to society. Some people are homeless, yes, but the solution is to empower them to take care of themselves, not do it for them.

If you want to dismiss what I've just said as nothing but a right-wing economic tirade, then please, by all means tell us where I'm wrong.

Pfft. I expected a right-wing economic tirade like that in response.

Seriously though. I'm not a law expert, but couldn't this leave the French government open to being sued by homeless people who claim they are not able to get housing, even if it available, for whatever reason?

Chirac has stated that one of his priorities for 2007 will be to introduce a law granting homeless people a legal right to housing.

For the sake of discussion, what if - hypothetically - no one wants to build or provide a home for homeless individual "A?" What is the legal recourse?

Pfft. I expected a right-wing economic tirade like that in response.

Seriously though. I'm not a law expert, but couldn't this leave the French government open to being sued by homeless people who claim they are not able to get housing, even if it available, for whatever reason?

That's an interesting point. Not only that, but couldn't the tentants in such housing alsu sue the Government for a variety of items like poor maintanence, safety issues, etc?

i'm honestly surprised this isnt counted as a basic human right already. i mean, i know that it isn't legally, but i don't understand why.

Because it requires the labor or property of another in order to satisfy the right.

If no one wishes to build or provide a home, then a builder must be forced to build a home or an owner be deprived of his property in order to satisfy this "right" of the homeless.

Why is it acceptable to violate a builder's or owner's rights?

Because it requires the labor or property of another in order to satisfy the right.

If no one wishes to build or provide a home, then a builder must be forced to build a home or an owner be deprived of his property in order to satisfy this "right" of the homeless.

Why is it acceptable to violate a builder's or owner's rights?
That's what taxes are for. In most cases people dont actually own their land or their money - that's what governments are for.

That's what taxes are for. In most cases people dont actually own their land or their money - that's what governments are for.

One; no, it's not what taxes or governments are for.

Two; it doesn't answer the question.

Thakns for checking Aridda.

I suspect it will be a Government funded ghetto scheme.

Build massive apartment blocks and pack the poor into them.

That's what they did with the Algerians, and look what that got them:

riots, riots, and more riots...

One; no, it's not what taxes or governments are for.

Two; it doesn't answer the question.
One - sure it is; two - sure it does.

One - sure it is; two - sure it does.

No and no.

Because it requies that other people give you something. Rights don't generally work like that. A right to vote doesn't require anyone else lose anything. That same is true for free speech, the right to life, even the right to own property.

But the right to housing requires that someone construct housing so you can live in it. Because it creates an obligation for others, it fails the test.
QFT.

I would consider this "right" more of a privilege.

*Emphasis mine.

One - sure it is
Depends on the nature of the government. Some people may believe that they never bargained for this, and decide to secede. I would support them in this. I only support a voluntarily-contracted-with "government" that is delegated my right to self-defence, and nothing other than this.

No and no.
Well if it makes you happier to think so and you dont mind small things like facts getting in the way of your belief, then carry on thinking as much.

It's a simple fact that taxes go to pay for goods and services and that this is the more common mode of a government securing goods and services in this day and age (as opposed to say pressing people involuntarily into unpaid labour gangs or simply taking the property of random people).

It's a simple fact that in most cases governments reserve the right to print and retain ultimate ownership of their national money and often to give and take back title to land.

Depends on the nature of the government. Some people may believe that they never bargained for this, and decide to secede. I would support them in this.
Probably fuck-all people about today were about when what they've got was bargained for if you are talking origins of nations...it probably makes more sense to look at the current situation as having been and currently being, and likely to continue in the future to be bargained.

Probably fuck-all people about today were about when what they've got was bargained for if you are talking origins of nations...it probably makes more sense to look at the current situation as having been and currently being, and likely to continue in the future to be bargained.
The Social Contract theory is used usually to justify the status quo with its notion of implicit consent. For me, it makes sense to look at this as something to be changed, and not "bargained" with. For those who take a liking to it though, it's theirs to keep. :)

Well if it makes you happier to think so and you dont mind small things like facts getting in the way of your belief, then carry on thinking as much.

Yeah, yeah...

You've got your idea of government, I have mine.

Still, the fact remains that your post failed to answer the question.

The Social Contract theory is used usually to justify the status quo with its notion of implicit consent. For me, it makes sense to look at this as something to be changed, and not "bargained" with. For those who take a liking to it though, it's theirs to keep. :)
How utterly irrelevent given we are purportedly talking about those that did bargain (in order to have alledgedly not gotten what they bargained for)...:confused:

None the less, if you want to get a group together and secede, I suppose that's one option, although I doubt it'll have any impact on Chirac's housing plans for the destitute of France, either way.

How utterly irrelevent given we are purportedly talking about those that did bargain (in order to have alledgedly not gotten what they bargained for)...:confused:
No, it really isn't irrelevant, considering we're left with the mess that others bargained for (the notion of implicit consent saying we acquiesce to it). My point is that I would rather see the entire theory supporting this mess done away with, and negotiate on my own terms with the so-called protector of my rights.

None the less, if you want to get a group together and secede, I suppose that's one option, although I doubt it'll have any impact on Chirac's housing plans for the destitute of France, either way.
I am not French, although I certainly believe that France is simply one of the first to recognise this "right".

I see little value in giving someone a free ride. People in society are expected to contribute. It's better for them, better for their family, better for the community.

The way I see it is this. I know my family expects me to succeed. However, I also know that as bad as things got my parents would never let me sleep on the streets. People who are currently homeless obviously don't have that kind of support. So who am I to complain that giving this to them 'takes away any incentive' or 'rewards laziness' or whatever?

I think in a truly humane society some stuff has to be unconditional. Healthcare, food, shelter. Enough to survive on, not enough to go see a film, use a mobile phone, get drunk on a Friday evening or anything else most people wouldn't give a second thought about. That's all.

It'd be much easier to simply turn homeless people into lingerie.

The way I see it is this. I know my family expects me to succeed. However, I also know that as bad as things got my parents would never let me sleep on the streets. People who are currently homeless obviously don't have that kind of support. So who am I to complain that giving this to them 'takes away any incentive' or 'rewards laziness' or whatever?

I think in a truly humane society some stuff has to be unconditional. Healthcare, food, shelter. Enough to survive on, not enough to go see a film, use a mobile phone, get drunk on a Friday evening or anything else most people wouldn't give a second thought about. That's all.

I agree with everything you said, as long as it's a temporary solution.

Yeah, yeah...

You've got your idea of government, I have mine.
Really, you're government presses people into forced labour rather than running a tax racket? How unfortunate for you and your country-folk - compared to being a slave, even taxes look good.:rolleyes:

Still, the fact remains that your post failed to answer the question.
You're question is of no import in this context, since even if your government presses citizens into slave labour, France doesnt

Good.
All these dirty poors in large dirty towers with the Algerians and others Blacks people.

The Jewish Gettho of Warshaw was paradise in comparison.

French gov is clever, the police would now only have to act in subburbs, center city will be clean at last.

Sure, once a year some riots to make a fun, they cant afford soccer or even a TV licence, whatever, the f*king poors have the house they wanted.

'bout electricity and gas ... hm that of course is OK until they pay the invoices.

But remember, thses people are consumer.
Alcool, drugs, guns etc... an interesting market.
And gambling, a very good state business.

In the Theocraty of Jesuites we have no poor people, we export them, fast.

Really, you're government presses people into forced labour rather than running a tax racket. How unfortunate for you and your country-folk - compared to being a slave, even taxes look good.:rolleyes:

Uh, yeah...

Whatever you say...

You're question is of no import in this context, since even if your government presses citizens into slave labour, France doesnt

Ah, so, you have no answer.

That's fine, now that it's clear...

It'd be much easier to simply turn homeless people into lingerie.

Soylent Green. If you make them into lingerie, eventually there's a bad smell...

I agree with everything you said, as long as it's a temporary solution.

Of course it should be temporary, but enforcing that would at some point mean chucking someone out on to the street, perhaps with children. I see your point that it would detract from the urgency of finding a job, but I just don't really see that as acceptable.

Because it requies that other people give you something. Rights don't generally work like that. A right to vote doesn't require anyone else lose anything. That same is true for free speech, the right to life, even the right to own property.

But the right to housing requires that someone construct housing so you can live in it. Because it creates an obligation for others, it fails the test.

the rights to life, free speech, property ownership, and even voting most certainly do entail some major obligations from other people. all rights do. otherwise they would just be things you happen to do. for example, their mere existence as rights necessitates the existence of rights exercise and enforcement mechanisms, which don't just magically show up from vacuum fluctuations.

which don't just magically show up from vacuum fluctuations.

Ahem.

As a person of science, and not of religion, you seem to assure us that life itself arose from vacuum fluctuations (assuming that matter and energy arose from vacuum fluctuations).

With that sort of "miracle" happenning without any directive, I could expect a fount of wisdom to spring from the Earth unbidden.

Ahem.

As a person of science, and not of religion, you seem to assure us that life itself arose from vacuum fluctuations (assuming that matter and energy arose from vacuum fluctuations).

With that sort of "miracle" happenning without any directive, I could expect a fount of wisdom to spring from the Earth unbidden.

what's this, off-topic cyberstalking?

what's this, off-topic cyberstalking?

Hardly. You're asserting that things don't spring out of the vacuum.

When, if you believe in the Big Bang, and evolution, you MUST believe that things just spring out of vacuum fluctuations.

And if they do, so can any assortment of laws and rights. And houses, too.

Uh, yeah...

Whatever you say...



Ah, so, you have no answer.

That's fine, now that it's clear...
Non-questions tend to go with non-answers.
This is a case in which taxes (not pressed labour or randomly seized property) will pay for the goods and services should they ever eventuate. Either you do or do not live somewhere with the same kind of system. If you do, then you can see as a matter of fact taxes pay for these things - ie that my initial statement was completely factual wether or not it's a fact you personally happen to like or approve of. While you might have ideas about how you'd like the world to be, it is the way it is. Ignoring reality sure won't help you change it.

Hardly.

ah, just idiocy

Non-questions tend to go with non-answers.
This is a case in which taxes (not pressed labour or randomly seized property) will pay for the goods and services should they ever eventuate. Either you do or do not live somewhere with the same kind of system. If you do, then you can see as a matter of fact taxes pay for these things - ie that my initial statement was completely factual wether or not it's a fact you personally happen to like or approve of. While you might have ideas about how you'd like the world to be, it is the way it is. Ignoring reality sure won't help you change it.Right-libertarians view taxes as seized property, except not randomly so.

the rights to life, free speech, property ownership, and even voting most certainly do entail some major obligations from other people. all rights do. otherwise they would just be things you happen to do. for example, their mere existence as rights necessitates the existence of rights exercise and enforcement mechanisms, which don't just magically show up from vacuum fluctuations.

Yes, they do.

the rights to life, free speech, property ownership, and even voting most certainly do entail some major obligations from other people.

How? Particularly free speech?

what's this, off-topic cyberstalking?
Well certainly attacking someone with an off-topic point from some other thread is pretty much described as such in one of those 'rules' stickies floating around about the place...
Otherwise you could just conclude that Eve-Online thinks that everything possible within the limits of the set 'the physical universe' actually will inevitably occur within the limited possibilities of the much smaller set 'human social interactions', although admittedly both options leave Eve looking a bit silly.:rolleyes:

Non-questions tend to go with non-answers.

Just because you choose to ignore my question doesn't make it a non-question.

It means you can't answer it.

Be honest and just admit it.

Or not, your choice...

How? Particularly free speech?

free speech requires that other people and entities not silence you or punish you for speaking. they are obligated to act in certain ways that they might not otherwise wish for the right to even exist. and since they don't uniformly act that way, we need often elaborate enforcement mechanisms to force them to do so.

free speech requires that other people and entities not silence you or punish you for speaking. they are obligated to act in certain ways that they might not otherwise wish for the right to even exist. and since they don't uniformly act that way, we need often elaborate enforcement mechanisms to force them to do so.

Yes, you get further by putting some people against the wall, and shooting them, come the revolution...

Right-libertarians view taxes as seized property, except not randomly so.
They might be right on an ideational basis, but they're wrong on a factual basis. Property/ownership requires a right in title and in modern nations the fundamentals of such rights are dictated/defined by law. Whether it is morally good or ideal is a different issue from the legal facts, and the legal facts are the reality, while the idealistic wishes of various persons are just that - idealistic wishes. You can argue that taxes oughten be for 'X', but if that's what they're used for, that's what they are for; you can argue that taxes are like property theft, but a look at the law-books clearly demonstrates that isnt currently the case in most cases.

free speech requires that other people and entities not silence you or punish you for speaking.

It requires no such thing.

Just because someone might beat me up in no way removes the right of free speech. It might affect the exercise of the right, but not the possession.

It requires no such thing.

Just because someone might beat me up in no way removes the right of free speech. It might affect the exercise of the right, but not the possession.Then whence does the possession come from?

It requires no such thing.

Just because someone might beat me up in no way removes the right of free speech. It might affect the exercise of the right, but not the possession.

Free Soviets misses the days of the great purges, comrade!

Then whence does the possession come from?

It is a part of the human condition. One may as well ask where does the possession of our intellect come from.

It is a part of the human condition. One may as well ask where does the possession of our intellect come from.If that's the case, then what's the difference between a human right and simply something that humans do?

Just because you choose to ignore my question doesn't make it a non-question.

It means you can't answer it.

Be honest and just admit it.

Or not, your choice...
Your question doesnt apply. I'd type slower but I dont see it would really help you. You wanted to know why someone should be pressed into labour unwillingly. That doesnt apply to the case in France because that is the kind of thing the French use taxes rather than forced labour to resource. Again, if you really do live somewhere they use forced labour rather than taxes, I expect you'd have some excuse for not understanding this rather simple point, I expect you wont have time to type any further reply though because surely slave labourers dont get that long of a break.

Or then again perhaps you do comprehend and prefer to not admit as much. Either way, unless you have something new to add, I can only reiterate that I am sure no slave labour will used in the construction of these homes, should they ever eventuate into more than unfufilled pork barrels.

It requires no such thing.

Just because someone might beat me up in no way removes the right of free speech. It might affect the exercise of the right, but not the possession.

in what sense do you possess a right if it may be freely violated with no recourse? and assuming such a sense does exist, then how is it functionally different from claiming a right to all things or the nonexistences of any right whatsoever?

It is a part of the human condition. One may as well ask where does the possession of our intellect come from.

and if we are drugged or have our brains chopped up, do we retain possession of it?

If that's the case, then what's the difference between a human right and simply something that humans do?

In essence, not much. The only limit is when that act by a human infringes upon the ability of another human to act as he sees fit.

My concept of rights comes from Locke. Not so much that I am copying him, but because his mechanism agrees with mine.

To give the Reader's Digest's Cliff Notes version, if you can do it, all by yourself, on a deserted island, it's pretty much a right.

In essence, not much. The only limit is when that act by a human infringes upon the ability of another human to act as he sees fit.

My concept of rights comes from Locke. Not so much that I am copying him, but because his mechanism agrees with mine.

To give the Reader's Digest's Cliff Notes version, if you can do it, all by yourself, on a deserted island, it's pretty much a right.Ah, "natural rights". What about if one other person is there?

Your question doesnt apply. I'd type slower but I dont see it would really help you.

How is that long nose you're looking down?

You wanted to know why someone should be pressed into labour unwillingly.

I wanted to know the legal recourse the homeless would have should NO ONE be willing to build or provide them with a domicile.

That doesnt apply to the case in France because that is the kind of thing the French use taxes rather than forced labour to resource.

What good will taxes do, if no one is willing to bid for the contract to build the homes or if no one is willing to sell? Taxes are irrelevant.

So, care to try to answer the question?

In essence, not much. The only limit is when that act by a human infringes upon the ability of another human to act as he sees fit.


Okay, so let's say I somehow manage to build a small but powerful nuclear weapon. It's okay for me to be able to hover my finger over the button as long as I don't set it off. Grand.

if you can do it, all by yourself, on a deserted island, it's pretty much a right.

that's not locke, that's more hobbes.

in the state of nature.

That sounds very humane, but I wonder if perhaps France is not, how you say, writing checks they are unable to cash.
There are only 90,000 homeless people in France. They'll be pretty OK with the costs of the matter, what with them being able to simply do up older, more delapidated buildings and get people in them.

in what sense do you possess a right if it may be freely violated with no recourse?

Having a right does not guarantee being able to exercise it.

If someone tries to violate your rights, you are within your rights to do what you wish to put a stop to it.

Or, choose to do nothing.

That's a fair step from where we are today, and would still have you branded as a borderline extremist in a lot of circles, unfortunately.

Well maybe I'm a nut, but the 30 year old retard working at McDonald's geting my fries ready is providing me, no this country with a valuable service, and I don't see why he should not make a comfortable living doing so. Okay, maybe he shouldn' be driving around in a Lexus, but he should be able to make ends meet. *nod*

and if we are drugged or have our brains chopped up, do we retain possession of it?

If drugged, yes.

If brains chopped up, no. The dead have little intellect or rights.

Ah, "natural rights". What about if one other person is there?

Then, one's rights stop at the point where they infringe upon those of the other.

Okay, so let's say I somehow manage to build a small but powerful nuclear weapon. It's okay for me to be able to hover my finger over the button as long as I don't set it off. Grand.

You got it.

Any more explorations into La-la land?

How is that long nose you're looking down?



I wanted to know the legal recourse the homeless would have should NO ONE be willing to build or provide them with a domicile.'
The same recourse they'd have if NO ONE would be willing to educate their children - you can read this in the linked to article yourself.

What good will taxes do, if no one is willing to bid for the contract to build the homes or if no one is willing to sell? Taxes are irrelevant.
What good would sunscreen be if the sun refused to come up tomorrow, depletion of the ozone layer is irrelevent....meanwhile in reality it remains an utter waste of time to speculate on what would happen if no one wanted to take the French government's money to build the proposed houses because even if it is in some far-fetched realm possible, there is no existing likliehood in which it's even mildly probable. Any more explorations into La-la Land?

So, care to try to answer the question?
Try to deal with reality. What if bus drivers all over the States tomorrow refuse to work for money and insist on being paid in lemon drops, what if Bad Jelly the Witch steals all the sugar off your sugar frosted breakfast cereal, or what if you just admit that in reality governments like France are able to use their taxes to pay for the goods and services at issue, even if you dont think they should?

that's not locke, that's more hobbes.

in the state of nature.

As I said, it is a condensed and simplistic overview.

So, while avoiding the question, Zagat delves off to visit La-la land for a vacation. Maybe to buy a condo.

You got it.

Any more explorations into La-la land?

It's a hypothetical son. It's not about the technology, it's about the rights.

Would you allow private citizens to own weapons of mass destruction?

Well, if no nation can pay for it it's strange that it's already a right to have somewhere to live in Sweden.

Interesting. Is that an actual legal right? If so, how does it work? What happens when a homeless person applies for housing?


This programe of the French's actually solves the employment problem for homeless people. You have a catch 22 with regards to housing and employment. If you are homeless and you attempt to get a job, if you do not have a home, an employer is far less likly to take you in. And if you try to get a home but do not have a job, an estate agent or bank is very unlikly to give you the time of day.

Good point. I don't want to be too optimistic, but if this helps reduce unemployment, that'd be great.

Would you allow private citizens to own weapons of mass destruction?

Yes.

But, it's not a big concern of mine, considering the expense of the materials.

Then, one's rights stop at the point where they infringe upon those of the other.Okay, then, so property ownership is not a natural right.

Okay, then, so property ownership is not a natural right.

Sure it is.

Once you develop the property - provided it does not belong to another - it is yours.

All alone on that deserted island, you clear the brush from a few hundred square feet and grow some crops. You've improved that few hundred square feet, making it yours.

So, while avoiding the question, Zagat delves off to visit La-la land for a vacation. Maybe to buy a condo.
You have no applicable unanswered question. The French government will pay for the goods and services concerned the same way it pays for its other goods and services - through taxes, people will not refuse to work for the money or sell goods for the money anymore than US bus drivers will refuse to work for anything other than lemondrops. The legal right will be the same as the legal right in France to education (as the article clearly states) so that would mean the redress (where denied) would be the same.

Your question regarding the how has been answered (money from taxes will be used to pay people either for their goods or services - which will be provided by people the same way US bus drivers provide their services in return for money. Legal redress will (so far as the article indicates) be the same as in cases where education were denied in the same country.

Your question regarding "what if people suddenly wont work or sell goods for money" is as relevent as the question "what if Bad Jelly the Witch steals the sugary goodness from your sugar frosted breakfast cereal".

What aspect of this confuses you off in your grim La-la Land where people suddenly wont work for money and governments are more likely to press people into involuntary labour gangs than use tax raised funds to secure their goods and services?

Sure it is.

Once you develop the property - provided it does not belong to another - it is yours.

All alone on that deserted island, you clear the brush from a few hundred square feet and grow some crops. You've improved that few hundred square feet, making it yours.All alone on the deserted island, it's yours whether or not you do anything with it, so clearly adding your labor to it isn't a necessary condition.
Furthermore, even if you did add something to it, if you left the island and someone else came along, it would be theirs.
In other words, there is the natural right to use something, but not to own it (exclusive use).

All alone on the deserted island, it's yours whether or not you do anything with it, so clearly adding your labor to it isn't a necessary condition.
Furthermore, even if you did add something to it, if you left the island and someone else came along, it would be theirs.
In other words, there is the natural right to use something, but not to own it (exclusive use).
If you returned to the island you could exercise the right of self-defence of the labour you expended, and reclaim it, if you succeed. I own my labour, and therefore I own anything it is mixed with, provided it is previously unowned. You have a right to disagree with this, but I will not capitulate on it. Even in the case of communal property, ownership does creep in. Practical matters aside, should the community face someone desiring its resources it will assert its right to ownership and to defend its property. Again, this amounts to a right of exclusive use for that community - it would be impossible for it to use its property were the other community to expropriate it.

The fact that you can claim the entire island for yourself stems from the fact that there are no competing agents to homestead it.

If you returned to the island you could exercise the right of self-defence of the labour you expended, and reclaim it, if you succeed.

that ain't self defense. that's aggression.

that ain't self defense. that's aggression.
The other party expropriating the product of your labour was the aggression, in the form of theft.

It's a hypothetical son. It's not about the technology, it's about the rights.

Would you allow private citizens to own weapons of mass destruction?


Having the power to do something, in this case mass destruction, and actually doing it are separated by a fine line, but a line never the less.


Back to the French politics issue- I'm living in France for the year and some of you may or may not be interested to know that everybody my age seems to think that Chirac is an idiot. They compare him to George W. Bush and sigh with relief, but they take it for granted that he's kind of silly.
It would be great if this law went into act, and I wouldn't exactly dismiss it as the French making promises they wont keep. They did promise to crack down on the outrageous smoking issues of the country, and have improved quite a bit. It'll be hard to stamp out underage smoking entirely, seeing as the average that kids begin smoking is 12, but they are doing their best. Likewise, providing housing for homeless people will be difficult, but, I trust, not impossible.

If you returned to the island you could exercise the right of self-defence of the labour you expended, and reclaim it, if you succeed. I own my labour, and therefore I own anything it is mixed with, provided it is previously unowned. You have a right to disagree with this, but I will not capitulate on it. Ownership itself is not a natural right, as it implies exclusive use, which you wouldn't have with another person there.

The fact that you can claim the entire island for yourself stems from the fact that there are no competing agents to homestead it.Yes, which is why I asked what it would be like if there was someone else; Myseneum could have argued that there would be exclusive use by default, on a deserted island, which is true. With someone else there, though, there is no exclusive use.

Sure it is.

Once you develop the property - provided it does not belong to another - it is yours.

All alone on that deserted island, you clear the brush from a few hundred square feet and grow some crops. You've improved that few hundred square feet, making it yours.

That's not a "natural right"; it is something which is recognised as a right by the norms and values of specific societies. The view that "improvement" of land generates ownership is historically a Western one, which is very different from land ownership laws still existing today in many Pacific countries, for example.

You're refering to a "right" created by society, not a "natural" one.

Ownership itself is not a natural right, as it implies exclusive use, which you wouldn't have with another person there.
It is a natural right, stemming from self-ownership (which is axiomatic). You own your labour exclusively, in whatever form it may come, as well as its product. The right to self-defence counters another person expropriating you. Failing to exercise a right does not negate it.

Yes, which is why I asked what it would be like if there was someone else; Myseneum could have argued that there would be exclusive use by default, on a deserted island, which is true. With someone else there, though, there is no exclusive use.
They would compete for exclusive use (definitely of the product of their labour), or agree to share. Either way, ownership will come into play.

It is a natural right. You own your labour exclusively, in whatever form it may come, as well as its product. The right to self-defence counters another person expropriating you. Failing to exercise a right does not negate it.Demonstrate that there is the right to the product of your labor without first demonstrating that there is the right to labor (with an object).
Demonstrate the right to labor with an object without first demonstrating the right to use it.

They would compete for use, or agree to share. Either way, ownership will come into play.Only if they agree to establish ownership rights.

Demonstrate that there is the right to the product of your labor without first demonstrating that there is the right to labor (with an object).
Demonstrate the right to labor with an object without first demonstrating the right to use it.
They are subordinate rights to self-ownership, not rights in and of themselves (as is the case with free speech and so on - such a right could not be exercised without self-ownership). If you claim ownership of yourself, the rest follows logically. And it would be absurd to assert that you do not own yourself. At any rate, you may choose not to exercise a right (of exclusive ownership), but again this does not negate its existence. A legitimate collectivist society would be one in which this right is voluntarily surrendered.

Only if they agree to establish ownership rights.
They will have to, inevitably. Even if they decide to allocate usage on a "democratic" basis, a problem will come into play when the same resource is required for use. How do they decide who gets to use it? Furthermore, if a third party arises which desires to expropriate them whether they like it or not, will they not, in defending the land, be making an ownership claim? Inevitably, they will.

So, if I get plane tickets to Paris, and neglect to save any money for my four week hotel stay, I can just tell the hotel that "I have a legal right to stay here, backed by the full force and law of the land of France!" and put my bags in any suite I choose?

They are subordinate rights to self-ownership, not rights in and of themselves (as is the case with free speech and so on). If you claim ownership of yourself, the rest follows logically. And it would be absurd to assert that you do not own yourself. Not at all. Unless ownership rights are established, nobody owns themselves. They do, however, have the right to use their bodies, minds, etc.

At any rate, you may choose not to exercise a right (of exclusive ownership), but again this does not negate its existence. A legitimate collectivist society would be one in which this right is voluntarily surrendered.No, it would be one in which this right is never granted, or at the very least, where it is recognized that people don't have the right to extend themselves indefinitely.

They will have to, inevitably. Even if they decide to allocate usage on a "democratic" basis, a problem will come into play when the same resource is required for use. How do they decide who gets to use it? If they cannot come to a democratic agreement, force will have to be used, but this doesn't mean that the force is just.

Furthermore, if a third party arises which desires to expropriate them whether they like it or not, will they not, in defending the land, be making an ownership claim? Inevitably, they will.No, they will be defending their usage rights.

Not at all. Unless ownership rights are established, nobody owns themselves. They do, however, have the right to use their bodies, minds, etc.
That is nonsense. If you do not own yourself, who does? God? Nature? The "community"? No, none. Must you ask God for permission to use your voice, or mind? By owning usage of your mind, voice etc., which is essentially you, you own yourself. There is no way around this. If ownership is defined as exclusive usage, this fits the definition just perfectly.

No, it would be one in which this right is never granted, or at the very least, where it is recognized that people don't have the right to extend themselves indefinitely.
Then what of individuals who do recognise this right in themselves? Will it forbid them from leaving and disassociating with it? Furthermore, if it pays no heed to such rights, it has no right to claim self-defence when it is aggressed.

No, they will be defending their usage rights.
Which stem from their right to self.

That is nonsense. If you do not own yourself, who does?Nobody. As I (may have) said, I reject the concept of ownership.

God? Nature? The "community"? No, none. Must you ask God for permission to use your voice, or mind? By owning usage of your mind, voice etc., which is essentially you, you own yourself. There is no way around this. If ownership is defined as exclusive usage, this fits the definition just perfectly.Not at all. Anyone else is welcome to use my body, provided that their use does not interfere with mine. Simply because I use my body perpetually does not mean I use it exclusively.

In which case it violates this right. It is then illegitimate.Not at all. Simply because one owns themselves doesn't mean they own anything they happen to change.

Nobody. As I (may have) said, I reject the concept of ownership.
Any further argument is then futile. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Any further argument is then futile. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.Perhaps. On what do you base the idea of self-ownership? Is it an axiom?

Perhaps. On what do you base the idea of self-ownership? Is it an axiom?
As far as I am concerned it is.

As far as I am concerned it is.Ah. Well then, in that case I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then. :)

Does everyone else who believes in property rights have this same axiom?

Does everyone else who believes in property rights have this same axiom?
Depends on the argument evoked. The axiom self-ownership (and the non-aggression axiom) are from the Austrian School, and tied into its theories. Others such as David Friedman defend property on consequentialist/utilitarian grounds (essentially utilitarianism, that anything that produces good consequences is morally right). I am not sure what Rand and her Randroids argue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were something akin to the Austrian School.

The good thing about people like Jello is that since they don't believe in ownership of property, they can't believe in money, which is merely the unitary symbol of property ownership in its abstract form.

So I don't have to pay him at the end of the pay period.

All alone on the deserted island, it's yours whether or not you do anything with it, so clearly adding your labor to it isn't a necessary condition.

Not so. As soon as a second party came along and improved any of the island, title would belong to the other for that improved part because I had not improved the land.

Furthermore, even if you did add something to it, if you left the island and someone else came along, it would be theirs.

That would be abandonment. One has no right to that which they abandon.

In other words, there is the natural right to use something, but not to own it (exclusive use).

No. There is a natural right to own, even for exclusive use. But, if I abandon some property that I had improved, I have given up the property, not the basic right.

Depends on the argument evoked. The axiom self-ownership (and the non-aggression axiom) are from the Austrian School, and tied into its theories. Others such as David Friedman defend property on consequentialist/utilitarian grounds (essentially utilitarianism, that anything that produces good consequences is morally right). I am not sure what Rand and her Randroids argue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were something akin to the Austrian School.Ah, fair enough. I suppose I meant more specifically those in this thread.

The good thing about people like Jello is that since they don't believe in ownership of property, they can't believe in money, which is merely the unitary symbol of property ownership in its abstract form.

So I don't have to pay him at the end of the pay period.Not exactly. While I don't agree with the concept of ownership, I accept that societies have the right to establish it. While my ideal society does not have ownership, for various reasons I choose to live in this one.
In this case, I accept that my employer has the right to own something that he doesn't use provided that he pays me at the end of the pay period.

Not so. As soon as a second party came along and improved any of the island, title would belong to the other for that improved part because I had not improved the land.

That would be abandonment. One has no right to that which they abandon.

No. There is a natural right to own, even for exclusive use. But, if I abandon some property that I had improved, I have given up the property, not the basic right.By not using it, you abandon it.

And all to speak from an hypocritical point of view.
What do you know about the French system?
Do you believe everything in the world is working with "your" rules, your system of thoughts?
ERROR.

That's why nobody like the great lost dream from America, that's why the rest of the planet look at these aliens and shut up...
Confidence is dead, the dream turned to be a nitemare.

But they have to prove themselves as adults, then they talk in the same time they are their own slaves of a corrupt system.

Amen

The other party expropriating the product of your labour was the aggression, in the form of theft.

It depends.

If you abandon the property and another squats on it, you would maintain title, as long as the other party had not improved upon the property at all. Once they make improvements, title would transfer to them, as you abandoned the property.

Unless, of course, an agreement were made to allow you to maintain title during your absence and thus demonstrating that no abandonment was intended.

At least, this is how I see it...

It depends.

If you abandon the property and another squats on it, you would maintain title, as long as the other party had not improved upon the property at all. Once they make improvements, title would transfer to them, as you abandoned the property.

Unless, of course, an agreement were made to allow you to maintain title during your absence and thus demonstrating that no abandonment was intended.

At least, this is how I see it...
Personally I believe a person's claim to property consists in their ability to defend it. In advanced societies, this would mean keeping up payments to the agency delegated with the right to self-defence. In primitive ones, it would mean either personally defending the property, or getting someone else to. The problem with the abandonment case is that unless it is done explicitly, it will end up as a conflict of opinions. In the case of a defensive agency being present, there is no problem if someone drops payment. In other situations, as is the case with the island, the individual may argue they did not abandon the property and take it back by force, reclaiming what they'd argue was theirs.

Ah, fair enough. I suppose I meant more specifically those in this thread.
The way I see it, the entire natural law perspective (or Rand's Objectivism) is our claim to morality, just as many collectivists argue that ownership is immoral. This is why it is near-impossible to come to any sort of compromise on this, given that no one morality can be taken for absolute truth. The difference between the Austrians and Rand is that we do not believe in enforcing our moral viewpoint on others, even if we consider you fundamentally wrong; Rand would argue that any governing force which does not recognise individual rights is immoral, and can be legitimately destroyed. Utilitarian arguments allow for a greater scope when it comes to compromise, but I strongly dislike both compromise and utilitarianism. :) Natural rights can also be argued for from a utilitarian perspective, as von Mises did I believe, with all the concomitant advantages and disadvantages of utilitarianism.

Ownership itself is not a natural right, as it implies exclusive use, which you wouldn't have with another person there.

Ownership has nothing to do with use. You use the land in walking over it, but that does not imply ownership.

Yes, which is why I asked what it would be like if there was someone else; Myseneum could have argued that there would be exclusive use by default, on a deserted island, which is true. With someone else there, though, there is no exclusive use.

As I said, use is irrelevant. The relevant issue is improvement. On an island with two inhabitants, the first to improve the land owns it. And, only that which they improve. For example, the few hundred square feet in my earlier post.

You're refering to a "right" created by society, not a "natural" one.

I do not discriminate among rights. That which is a right, is. To my mind there are no subsets.

If one improves unimproved land, that land belongs to one. Property rights thus come into force. Property rights as in the right to own that improved property.

Does everyone else who believes in property rights have this same axiom?

At the basis of all such arguments one bases their beliefs off of such an axiom, regardless of which direction it favors, otherwise we wind up with little more than a nihilistic anarchy.

By not using it, you abandon it.

Use does not establish ownership. It could be coinsidered to maintain it, but not to establish it.

So, non-use might be a qualifier to determine abandoment. But, use could include merely having the land support me from falling into a gravity well.

At the basis of all such arguments one bases their beliefs off of such an axiom, regardless of which direction it favors, otherwise we wind up with little more than a nihilistic anarchy.
Even the oh so vaunted philosophy is utilitarianism is axiomatic I suppose - its hidden premise is utility maximisation.

Personally I believe a person's claim to property consists in their ability to defend it.

That's part of it. Well, I suppose one could say ALL of it, since "defense" needn't mean clubbing the tar out of an opponent. Saying, "Hey! This is mine!" is a form of defense, albeit low-level. Putting up a sign against trespassers could also work. Though, it would be easily overcome by aggressors.

So, if one considers all forms of defense, then you are correct.

The problem with the abandonment case is that unless it is done explicitly, it will end up as a conflict of opinions.

If one leaves one's land with no consideration to preventing squatters, then it would be hard, as I see it, to deny abandoning the property. But, if the squatter hasn't improved the land in your absence, then the squatter would have no title to the land and your claim would persist.

In other situations, as is the case with the island, the individual may argue they did not abandon the property and take it back by force, reclaiming what they'd argue was theirs.

As long as the new occupant made no improvements, the argument would be valid. Otherwise, force would have to be used and right would be on the side of the squatter. This is the point where society could step in and use established rules of order to adjudicate the case appropriately. If a society exists.

That's part of it. Well, I suppose one could say ALL of it, since "defense" needn't mean clubbing the tar out of an opponent. Saying, "Hey! This is mine!" is a form of defense, albeit low-level. Putting up a sign against trespassers could also work. Though, it would be easily overcome by aggressors.

So, if one considers all forms of defense, then you are correct.
Typically when one means defence they mean defence in the form of retaliatory force. By virtue of the non-aggression axiom, the right to self-defence is delegated voluntarily to a defense agency (call it government, if you will). So basically it can mean anything from force to legal defence, yes.

If one leaves one's land with no consideration to preventing squatters, then it would be hard, as I see it, to deny abandoning the property. But, if the squatter hasn't improved the land in your absence, then the squatter would have no title to the land and your claim would persist.
Problem being that what constitutes an improvement is a matter of opinion. More appositely, you have homesteaded the land (which is not necessarily, but usually is, an improvement) - homesteading applies only to unowned resources though. In this case, unless the absentee individual considered their absence to be abandonment, they'd argue that they have been aggressed against. As I said, before a court the person refusing to pay for defence of his/her property would be considered to have abandoned it ; matters change for the worse as in the case of the island example.

As long as the new occupant made no improvements, the argument would be valid. Otherwise, force would have to be used and right would be on the side of the squatter. This is the point where society could step in and use established rules of order to adjudicate the case appropriately. If a society exists.
Only if the right to self-defence of one of the two parties has been delegated to an authority in said society - otherwise it's just a matter of a grouping of individuals siding with one individual or the other. If the defence agency intervenes in an affair in which it has not been delegated the right to self-defence, it is initiating force, thereby violating the non-aggression principle upon which it is based. Unlike Rand, I do not believe a defence agency ever has the right to initiate force.

Typically when one means defence they mean defence in the form of retaliatory force. By virtue of the non-aggression axiom, the right to self-defence is delegated voluntarily to a defense agency (call it government, if you will). So basically it can mean anything from force to legal defence, yes.

But, if no government exists? As in the case of the two individuals on an island. My argument is based a bit on the assumption that both individuals will behave and act civilly. I.e., the one will not attack the other for his land. And, he will gladly give it up, if it is abandoned, to the original owner if it is proper to do so.

Problem being that what constitutes an improvement is a matter of opinion.

True. Would it include merely moving the rocks out from under one's sleeping bag? Or, would it require tilling and planting? These would be important questions.

More appositely, you have homesteaded the land (which is not necessarily, but usually is, an improvement) - homesteading applies only to unowned resources though. In this case, unless the absentee individual considered their absence to be abandonment, they'd argue that they have been aggressed against. As I said, before a court the person refusing to pay for defence of his/her property would be considered to have abandoned it ; matters change for the worse as in the case of the island example.

The issue of abandonment applies to more than land. It has even been applied to garbage placed on the street for pick-up. Arguments have been made that this trash is still the original owner's property until the trashman picks it up. Others say that once placed upon the ground, it is abandoned.

Difficult issues. But, in the case of the two on the island, with no court and no society, I would think that leaving the boundaries of the land would constitute abandonment. But, it would only be finalized if the new occupant improved the land. 'Course, what would constitute improvement is something else.

Unlike Rand, I do not believe a defence agency ever has the right to initiate force ; its clientele may do so of their own initiative to avoid implicating it and uninterested parties.

I would agree. If it initiates force, then it becomes an offensive, rather than defensive, entity.

I do not discriminate among rights. That which is a right, is. To my mind there are no subsets.

If one improves unimproved land, that land belongs to one. Property rights thus come into force. Property rights as in the right to own that improved property.

You're missing my point. I don't deny (obviously) that the laws of certain societies establish a right in that way. But I was contesting your claim that it is a "natural" right. It is defined by Western societies (for example), and other societies define it very differently indeed.

You're missing my point. I don't deny (obviously) that the laws of certain societies establish a right in that way. But I was contesting your claim that it is a "natural" right. It is defined by Western societies (for example), and other societies define it very differently indeed.
You're misconceiving natural rights. It does not mean a right that is universal - it means one that stems from the nature of man. That it is not recognised or violated does not negate its existence.

But, if no government exists? As in the case of the two individuals on an island. My argument is based a bit on the assumption that both individuals will behave and act civilly. I.e., the one will not attack the other for his land. And, he will gladly give it up, if it is abandoned, to the original owner if it is proper to do so.
Then no issue arises.

True. Would it include merely moving the rocks out from under one's sleeping bag? Or, would it require tilling and planting? These would be important questions.
This would depend on how much the individual wanted to own. If they want a substantial piece of the island, it would potentially involve fencing off the bit, and perhaps even tilling and planting, depending on what use they intended it for.

The issue of abandonment applies to more than land. It has even been applied to garbage placed on the street for pick-up. Arguments have been made that this trash is still the original owner's property until the trashman picks it up. Others say that once placed upon the ground, it is abandoned.
What you must keep in perspective is property rights. If the trash is dropped on someone else's property, it is an aggression against their property right.

Difficult issues. But, in the case of the two on the island, with no court and no society, I would think that leaving the boundaries of the land would constitute abandonment. But, it would only be finalized if the new occupant improved the land. 'Course, what would constitute improvement is something else.
Precisely. And this is why it would degenerate into a conflict of opinions. Without the non-aggression axiom, it would be hard to conceive of a civilised society.

You're missing my point. I don't deny (obviously) that the laws of certain societies establish a right in that way. But I was contesting your claim that it is a "natural" right. It is defined by Western societies (for example), and other societies define it very differently indeed.

I consider the way I am defining it to be the way it is, regardless of the ways other societies may define it.

Yeah, I'm arrogant. Evil American and all that.

I had a gut intuition of what I considered rights to be, then read Locke. He put into words the way I see it. And, I consider him - and myself - to be right.

If I belonged to one of those other societies, I'd probably consider their way the proper way. But, I don't. I'm a Western Civilization, US kinda guy...

That's what they did with the Algerians, and look what that got them:

riots, riots, and more riots...
Probably because they couldn't get them jobs, something i suspect will happen with the homeless, a lack of employment tends to be the main reason why someone has no where to live.

At the risk of sounding heartless: Who is owed a living?

Next question: Who owes it them?

That's the problem I have with "positive" rights formulations: Invariably, advocates claim that people have the right to be provided something independent of their own effort.

So what happens if everyone decides they want "free" housing, medical care (including medical services providers who decide to down tools and get it "free" from somebody else), etc.?

I'll tell you what happens: Either the government forces someone to provide those services at gunpoint (we call that involuntary servitude), or expects to be able to exploit someone's altruism.

Any so-called "positive" right has a corresponding negative right. The right to housing implies a negative right to not be forced to live on the street. You can't seperate postive and negative right.

I'm sure france will devolve into a police state for trying to help its worst off citizens. :rolleyes:

Come down from your ivory tower, and take a look at the real world. Cute little economic theories don't seem to apply down here.

I consider the way I am defining it to be the way it is, regardless of the ways other societies may define it.

Yeah, I'm arrogant. Evil American and all that.

I had a gut intuition of what I considered rights to be, then read Locke. He put into words the way I see it. And, I consider him - and myself - to be right.

If I belonged to one of those other societies, I'd probably consider their way the proper way. But, I don't. I'm a Western Civilization, US kinda guy...

As long as you're aware that your view is culturally subjective, in the sense that it derives from the cultural norms of the society you were brought up in, there's nothing inherently wrong in you considering it to the "right" way.

One of the reasons why I like to know how things are perceived in other parts of the world is precisely so as to be able to question what is considered "normal" in my society.

Any so-called "positive" right has a corresponding negative right. The right to housing implies a negative right to not be forced to live on the street. You can't seperate postive and negative right.
Negative rights are evoked to limit government actions. Positive rights apply to individuals (for instance the right to self-defence replaces the notion of a right not to be murdered). If you accept the non-aggression axiom, rights that violate it are automatically invalidated. Sure, you can reword the rights as you please, but their wording is such for the abovementioned reasons (to set out what government may not do and what its citizens may do).

Look at what someone posted earlier, where the income tax rate in France is between 40 and 50%. If suddenly the Government decides to pay for th ehomeless to all have a place to live, that tax rate is going up.
I doubt it. It won't be that expensive. Certainly well worth it to wipe out the homelessness problem.

It'll go up because some people will voluntarily leave the work force because they're now guaranteed a home, and join those who are already unemplyed. That will only increase the tax burden on those who already have a wekened incentive to work.
People don't work only for shelter. There's also food, drink, leisure, etc to be considered. Even among the least ambitious of people.

In the USA our taxes are partially used to pay for social welfare, but it's a good thing when that assistance is temporary. We don't treat it as a right.
That's why America has a homelessness problem.

It should be a right. I don't fathom how you think that anyone deserves to live on the street just because they don't have a job.

Because it requies that other people give you something. Rights don't generally work like that.
Yes, rights do work like that. The right to private property isn't sacred as you may think.

Would you also argue that I have no right to be protected from foreign enemies by my country's military? It's a right I pay for with my taxes.

Personally I believe a person's claim to property consists in their ability to defend it. In advanced societies, this would mean keeping up payments to the agency delegated with the right to self-defence. In primitive ones, it would mean either personally defending the property, or getting someone else to.

-snip-
What in the world got you believing in such dystopian bullshit?

By not using it, you abandon it.
Define use.

If I acquire property as an investment, I'm using it by allowing it to appreciate. Or by simply holding it as an asset against which I can leverage things. That's use.

What in the world got you believing in such dystopian bullshit?
What in the world got you believing in the dystopian bullshit you believe in?

What in the world got you believing in the dystopian bullshit you believe in?
That's no way to answer a question.

That's no way to answer a question.
And the way you questioned me is no way to question a person. It simply oozed with self-righteousness. So do not expect an answer.

That's why America has a homelessness problem.

It should be a right. I don't fathom how you think that anyone deserves to live on the street just because they don't have a job.
I can think of three reasons why people live on the street.

1. They want to. Fine - their choice. No reason to stop them.

2. They're mentally ill. Assuming mental illness is a real thing, this is a different problem entirely.

3. They made bad decisions. By allowing the existence of negative consequences, you discourage those bad decisions. That's a positive outcome.

Many of those bad decisions are caused by the unrealistic expectations of poor people. There's no reason why a poor family should expect to be able to afford its own home, either through rent or ownership. If they shared a home, they'd have a much better chance of not ending up homeless.

Plus, if there is some sort of guaranteed housing (and probably food - you'd like that too), what incentive do I have to find a job at all?
Would you also argue that I have no right to be protected from foreign enemies by my country's military? It's a right I pay for with my taxes.
That's not a right. That's a service for which you paid.

An economicly devistating move.

That's no way to answer a question.

Considering your question, I think he made an appropriate response.

I doubt it. It won't be that expensive. Certainly well worth it to wipe out the homelessness problem.

So your logic is that anything that's worth it is, by definition not expensive.


People don't work only for shelter. There's also food, drink, leisure, etc to be considered. Even among the least ambitious of people.

A society that's willing to provide you with a free place to live probably already supplies food and other basics to the poor.


That's why America has a homelessness problem.

As if it were America alone.


It should be a right. I don't fathom how you think that anyone deserves to live on the street just because they don't have a job.

Your mentality is backward. Living on the street isn't some kind of punishment for failing to work. You're suggesting that it should be a right simply because the people living on the street haven't done any wrong to deserve it.

That's not how reality is. In reality, shelter, food, clothing, etc are all basic needs that are provided by the efforts of SOMEBODY. Either they're provided by the individual for his own needs, or by someone else. In our society, we believe that you work to provide your own sustenance, and for your family's if you're the breadwinner. That's how it is. Even animals understand this concept.

To suggest that somehow every person is owed a place to live, by right, is to suggest that they're owed pretty much everything else, too. And if yuo aren't personally responsible for your own support, then who is? Not mine. Not society's as a whole.

To give money/shelter/food to the homeless is a charity. It's an opportunity to do the right thing specifically because we don't HAVE to do it, we do it because we're good people, and because we can.


Yes, rights do work like that. The right to private property isn't sacred as you may think.


No, they don't. What does private property rights have to do with the responsibility to provide? If I own a car, it's because I worked for it.


Would you also argue that I have no right to be protected from foreign enemies by my country's military? It's a right I pay for with my taxes.

Find it in the Bill of Rights.

We have a military as a way we collectively pitch in and fund a way to defend ourselves. As a citizen, you are entitled to that protection, but that protection is subject to a number of conditions. Rights aren't.

It was efficient.
To what end?

And the way you questioned me is no way to question a person. It simply oozed with self-righteousness. So do not expect an answer.
Apologies. Now that I've come to my senses, I realise and regret my bad manners.

Alright, what led you to advocate such bizarre and extreme political views?

I agree mostly with a market mixed-economy system, as I believe that has been proven to be the best system devised by humans. I see your views as regressive, and not conducive to the quality of life, and freedom, of most citizens.

Alright, what led you to advocate such bizarre and extreme political views?
Rationality and consistency. It's a double standard to allow one group of individuals (qua government) to use force, yet outlaw it for citizens. This I consider as the biggest threat to my freedom. I am a radical individualist, and perhaps even dogmatic in my beliefs, but I have no intention of changing them any time soon.

I agree mostly with a market mixed-economy system, as I believe that has been proven to be the best system devised by humans. I see your views as regressive, and not conducive to the quality of life, and freedom, of most citizens.
I do not believe they'd have this effect, but even if they did, I wouldn't change them. I have certainly seen evidence that systems based on opposite principles to mine have led to disaster though.

Apologies. Now that I've come to my senses, I realise and regret my bad manners.

Alright, what led you to advocate such bizarre and extreme political views?

I agree mostly with a market mixed-economy system, as I believe that has been proven to be the best system devised by humans. I see your views as regressive, and not conducive to the quality of life, and freedom, of most citizens.
What if the quality of life of most citizens is incompatible with the freedom of most citizens? Which do you choose?

I'm with freedom, even if it means people suffer as a result of their own bad decisions.

What if the quality of life of most citizens is incompatible with the freedom of most citizens? Which do you choose?

I'm with freedom, even if it means people suffer as a result of their own bad decisions.
Likewise.

I do not believe they'd have this effect, but even if they did, I wouldn't change them.
Seriously? You would advocate a system that turned out worse, just for theoretical reasons?

What if the quality of life of most citizens is incompatible with the freedom of most citizens? Which do you choose?

If it is incompatible, then it probably isn't a real freedom (or a real aid to quality of life) we're talking about.

I think that the purpose of government is to serve the people of the nation it governs.

I'm with freedom, even if it means people suffer as a result of their own bad decisions.
I'm with reality, where the bad things that happen to people aren't always their fault. Without a (metephorical) safety net, a nation has nothing.

Seriously? You would advocate a system that turned out worse, just for theoretical reasons?
Out of principle, yes. It is the extreme individualism/egoism that contrasts the extreme Left's altruist-collectivist principles. To actually see how this sort of society would turn out though it'd have to be put into practice first. I am willing to do so with likeminded individuals. Mixed markets have the problem that they are either based off amorality (ie they ignore morality altogether), or a sort of consequentialism/utilitarianism, philosophies I am highly dubious of.

Ownership has nothing to do with use. You use the land in walking over it, but that does not imply ownership.But ownership means that you get to decide who uses it.

So, non-use might be a qualifier to determine abandoment. But, use could include merely having the land support me from falling into a gravity well.Certainly. And someone else would have the right to use that land (with usage rights) as long as their use doesn't interfere with yours.

At the basis of all such arguments one bases their beliefs off of such an axiom, regardless of which direction it favors, otherwise we wind up with little more than a nihilistic anarchy.I don't know that the axiom I use is similar to Europa Maxima's, but I agree that belief systems are axiomatic at the foundation.

True. Would it include merely moving the rocks out from under one's sleeping bag? Or, would it require tilling and planting? These would be important questions.Certainly. What if there was a situation where there was a community of people, who mixed their labor with land, but none of the other people ever said that the land was improved? By your definition, the laborers would not have the right to the land, and therefore not establishing property rights does not violate the rights of others.

I would agree. If it initiates force, then it becomes an offensive, rather than defensive, entity.How interesting. I view property rights themselves as the initiation of force.

Define use.

If I acquire property as an investment, I'm using it by allowing it to appreciate. Or by simply holding it as an asset against which I can leverage things. That's use.The person who is actively using it is using it. By putting, say, a house up for rent, the person who lives there uses the house. Since you are not using the house, you don't have the right, unless property rights are established, to charge them to use it.

You'd think they would have learned from the failure of almost every single public housing project in the history of the world that this probably isn't the wisest idea. If you really want to solve homelessness, you're going to need to give the homeless the skills, help and education they need to get out of their situation. Those who need help and who are willing to work to build a life deserve that opportunity. Those that do not, do not deserve it and there should be no compromise on that because every person has a responsibility to contribute to the system they are a part of.

Now, government assistance for housing/education I support, but not giving them housing as a right. Housing is something provided by the market, and any attempt by the government to control it has failed; one only has to look at the ravages of rent control or public housing projects in urban areas to see the effects of government intervention.

If we get the government involved, we should devote its resources to curing the problem of homelessness, not causing more of them. All programss like this will do is leave a trail of wasted money, crime, hopelessness and devastated property values.

Mixed markets have the problem that they are either based off amorality (ie they ignore morality altogether), or a sort of consequentialism/utilitarianism, philosophies I am highly dubious of.

Mixed markets are based off consequentialism. Why you ask, its because in general consequences are the most practical/pragmatic way to judge the usefullness of something. Furthermore the reasons capitalism is so exclaimed is because of its consequences. Capitalism has made us richer. If Communism had worked out and capitalism didn't then most of the world would be communist now.

The best arguements agaiinst mixed markets are also consequentialist in nature. Ludwig von Mises was basically a consequencialist. He thought a minarchist government and capitalist economy simply resulted in the best consequences. Most arguements for free markets are based on its wealth creation ability and efficiency.

But ownership means that you get to decide who uses it.
A question - how exactly does one use your body if you're not using it? It is in constant use, as you said, and this is so as a dictate of biological reality. It is by its very nature exclusively used. This leads back to ownership. The only way for someone to use your body would be to obtain your consent, which is a decision on your part, implying ownership, or on the other hand to coerce you. By claiming a right to disagree with me, you are claiming the right to make use of all the resources necessary, which is your body in its entirety, i.e. a claim of exclusive usage, i.e. a claim of ownership.

How interesting. I view property rights themselves as the initiation of force.
Against whom? To be an initiation of force, what is being appropriated must be owned. If you reject the concept of ownership from beforehand, there is no force being initiated. As I said before, pure usage rights are impractical, for if three people want to use a resource at once, on what basis would they allocate use? They may not agree with an existing basis, which would lead to conflict. A community could outline a basis for usage (I would surmise by majoritarian methods), but again, it then presumes itself to be the owner of the property, as it decides the terms of usage. For what if another group of individuals sees the community's exclusive use of resources a violation of their usage rights (which are basically pointless without something to use)? Conflict would ensue. In the end, it degenerates into something very similar to property, with all the situations the latter was created to avoid recurring. Animal territory is itself a precursor to property, and even this goes beyond mere usage rights - it is exclusive ownership of the resource being used (don't believe me? watch what happens to a tiger invading the territory of another tiger).

The only way to obtain usage of something without the user's consent is by use of force, which will lead to self-defence. Ergo, the defence agency is still not initiating force. And how one uses something is entirely subjective.

Mixed markets are based off consequentialism. Why you ask, its because in general consequences are the most practical/pragmatic way to judge the usefullness of something. Furthermore the reasons capitalism is so exclaimed is because of its consequences. Capitalism has made us richer. If Communism had worked out and capitalism didn't then most of the world would be communist now.
Very true - Friedman & co. would take such a line of argument. Perhaps Hayek and Lord Keynes based their reasoning on this too. It could verily be used to justify anything from Brave New World to any form of anarchy.

The best arguements agaiinst mixed markets are also consequentialist in nature. Ludwig von Mises was basically a consequencialist. He thought a minarchist government and capitalist economy simply resulted in the best consequences. Most arguements for free markets are based on its wealth creation ability and efficiency.
Absolutely. I believe he considered natural rights optimal from a consequentialist point of view. I do not have a problem with consequentialism per se ; the only problem with it is that what is good to one person is a bad to another. It is heavily subjective, and I suspect this is in spite of an objective viewpoint it might have been opted for (to be truly objective would require one to literally be an outside observer, which is impossible for humans, as they base all their ideas on subjective notions). Add to this that what constitutes a fact is subject to debate, and that causal links are often very hard to draw, so even if Mises' ideas were to realise, and achieve a great deal of good, it may fail the test according to others. Mises after all believed that it was up to the individual to decide what was best for itself.

So, if I get plane tickets to Paris, and neglect to save any money for my four week hotel stay, I can just tell the hotel that "I have a legal right to stay here, backed by the full force and law of the land of France!" and put my bags in any suite I choose?


Not at all. You would have to be a French citizen, have no home (having one in a different country doesn't count), have no job and no money. It's not a law you can take advantage of. Anyway, you wouldn't be given the best housing; specific housing for homeless people will be made, my bet being that it will include electricity, running water, heat, and nothing else.

Probably because they couldn't get them jobs, something i suspect will happen with the homeless, a lack of employment tends to be the main reason why someone has no where to live.

I doubt that. They may be encouraged to get jobs, or enrolled in classes, but no where does it say that they will provide jobs. Only shelter.

I'm sure france will devolve into a police state for trying to help its worst off citizens. :rolleyes:



Believe me- no time soon will France be reliying on its police force!:D

A question - how exactly does one use your body if you're not using it? It is in constant use, as you said, and this is so as a dictate of biological reality. It is by its very nature exclusively used.There are a few exception where it is possible to use someone's body without their permission, but in such a way that your use does not violate their use of their body.

This leads back to ownership. The only way for someone to use your body would be to obtain your consent, which is a decision on your part, implying ownership, or on the other hand to coerce you.Or, for instance, if you are sleeping in a hammock on a sunny day, your body would provide a certain amount of shade. I could conceivably lie in the shade, using your body as a shade provider, without obtaining your consent to do so, but not violating any of your rights in the process.

By claiming a right to disagree with me, you are claiming the right to make use of all the resources necessary, which is your body in its entirety, i.e. a claim of exclusive usage, i.e. a claim of ownership.And if I disagree with you without claiming the right to disagree with you?

Against whom? To be an initiation of force, what is being appropriated must be owned. If you reject the concept of ownership from beforehand, there is no force being initiated. I reject the concept of ownership, but everybody has the right to use anything, provided that their use does not violate the use of the person/people who come before them. To claim and maintain exclusive use of something is an initiation of force against usage rights.

As I said before, pure usage rights are impractical, for if three people want to use a resource at once, on what basis would they allocate use? First come, first serve.

They may not agree with an existing basis, which would lead to conflict. A community could outline a basis for usage (I would surmise by majoritarian methods), but again, it then presumes itself to be the owner of the property, as it decides the terms of usage. If everybody in the community decides the terms of usage, they assert their usage rights in an orderly manner.

For what if another group of individuals sees the community's exclusive use of resources a violation of their usage rights (which are basically pointless without something to use)? The only way this could happen is if the initial community is using up all of the resources. If this is the case, they are, by definition, not using some other resources, since a person/group of people can only use a finite amount of resources. The latter community could then use some other resources, and perhaps trade.

Conflict would ensue. In the end, it degenerates into something very similar to property, with all the situations the latter was created to avoid recurring. Animal territory is itself a precursor to property, and even this goes beyond mere usage rights - it is exclusive ownership of the resource being used (don't believe me? watch what happens to a tiger invading the territory of another tiger).Tigers aren't capable of forming explicit contracts with each other. Humans are. The neighboring communities could form a social contract with each other deciding how to use the resources in their geographic area, if need be.

The only way to obtain usage of something without the user's consent is by use of force, which will lead to self-defence. Ergo, the defence agency is still not initiating force. And how one uses something is entirely subjective.The defense agency of usage rights is not. The defense agency of property rights is, because, as I said, they are defending the violation of usage rights.

Or, for instance, if you are sleeping in a hammock on a sunny day, your body would provide a certain amount of shade. I could conceivably lie in the shade, using your body as a shade provider, without obtaining your consent to do so, but not violating any of your rights in the process.
You are not using my body then. You are using the shade beneath it, which is not the product of my labour even.

And if I disagree with you without claiming the right to disagree with you?
A positive right is nothing more than a statement to the effect that you can do something. To reject the right you must admit you cannot disagree.

I reject the concept of ownership, but everybody has the right to use anything, provided that their use does not violate the use of the person/people who come before them. To claim and maintain exclusive use of something is an initiation of force against usage rights.
Theoretically all well and good. In reality? This would not stand. One may claim exclusive rights of usage on the ground that they can for as long as they hold the resource put it to better use. The other would argue they could put it to better use.

First come, first serve.
One might argue that they have a greater need of using the resource. The first user may disagree. The community has no objective way of ascertaining who has greater need - it is after all opinion-based. This does not solve the issue.

If everybody in the community decides the terms of usage, they assert their usage rights in an orderly manner.
I.e. by majority decision, correct?

The only way this could happen is if the initial community is using up all of the resources. If this is the case, they are, by definition, not using some other resources, since a person/group of people can only use a finite amount of resources. The latter community could then use some other resources, and perhaps trade.
Or, the latter community could like the individual above assert that it would be able to put the resources to better use, and that therefore the former community must either surrender the goods or die. It rejects the first-come, first-served basis.

Tigers aren't capable of forming explicit contracts with each other. Humans are. The neighboring communities could form a social contract with each other deciding how to use the resources in their geographic area, if need be.
Assuming the goodwill of the latter community. Might makes right remains after all an attractive concept.

The defense agency of usage rights is not. The defense agency of property rights is, because, as I said, they are defending the violation of usage rights.
Your first-come first-served basis is a violation of usage rights as well then.

You are not using my body then. You are using the shade beneath it, which is not the product of my labour even.But I am using your body as a shade provider. The shade wouldn't exist without your body providing it.
And of course, there's the whole product of your labor thing...how does that stem from self-ownership? I mean, I can see how someone who believe that people own themselves would say that the farmer has the right to plant seeds, but why would the farmer have the right to the crops?

A positive right is nothing more than a statement to the effect that you can do something. To reject the right you must admit you cannot disagree.Really? Simply because I am capable of doing something means that I have the positive right to?

Theoretically all well and good. In reality? This would not stand. One may claim exclusive rights of usage on the ground that they can for as long as they hold the resource put it to better use. The other would argue they could put it to better use.

One might argue that they have a greater need of using the resource. The first user may disagree. The community has no objective way of ascertaining who has greater need - it is after all opinion-based. This does not solve the issue.I am not arguing from a utilitarian point of view; the better use is irrelevant, unless the better use is vital to sustain human life.

I.e. by majority decision, correct?Most likely. It might require a super majority or even a consensus decision.

Or, the latter community could like the individual above assert that it would be able to put the resources to better use, and that therefore the former community must either surrender the goods or die. It rejects the first-come, first-served basis.It has the right to reject that basis. In my subjective opinion, people have usage rights, based on a first-come, first-served basis. Objectively, though, rights are determined by social contract. If there is no social contract, there can be no determination, and therefore no violation of rights.

Assuming the goodwill of the latter community. Might makes right remains after all an attractive concept.Certainly. Of course, knowing this gives people all the more reason to band together to fight someone attempting to use force.

Your first-come first-served basis is a violation of usage rights as well then.Only if the first individual refused to let anyone else use the resource, regardless of anyone else's intended use of it. The first person would not have the right to do this.

But I am using your body as a shade provider. The shade wouldn't exist without your body providing it.
No, you're using a by-product (since the shade was not intentionally created). Myseneum has addressed this below anyway.

And of course, there's the whole product of your labor thing...how does that stem from self-ownership? I mean, I can see how someone who believe that people own themselves would say that the farmer has the right to plant seeds, but why would the farmer have the right to the crops?
Because it is by his labour that they were produced. They could not have arised otherwise. If you own yourself, you necessarily own your actions, which are your labour. Keep in mind that product-creation means transformation of a resource (to simplify things, assume it is unowned rather than in your title), which cannot be done but by your labour. To deny one the product of their labour would be, for example, to deny a sculptor of his sculpture.


Really? Simply because I am capable of doing something means that I have the positive right to?
A positive right is simply that - a statement to the effect that you may do something. You may ask what limits me then. The right of another to oppose me in self-defence. A natural right is nothing more than this. What then of negative rights you may ask? Nothing. They are simply there to limit government. You cannot formulate most positive rights into a negative without imposing an obligation on someone else. For instance, to say "I have the right not to be killed" imposes an obligation on another party not to kill me. In reality, this is unenforceable (except by means of social contract). The "right to life" means I may defend myself againt someone's aggression against my body, and therefore is not restrictive. It is the consequence of my self-defence that will deter the would-be aggressor ; I may fail in so doing, of course. I may also delegate my right to self-defence to someone more able in exercising it for me.

To clarify something, in a society based on the non-aggression axiom the right to aggress is voluntarily surrendered. If someone violates this, they have in effect initiated force, thereby provoking the aggrieved's right to self-defence. Furthermore, by virtue of their action they demonstrate that they reject the nonuse of force, and therefore may not protest against its retaliatory use.

I am not arguing from a utilitarian point of view; the better use is irrelevant, unless the better use is vital to sustain human life.
And herein creeps in the problem. This is essentially no different to one asserting they have a right to property because they got there first. Do you honestly think another party is simply going to acquiesce to this?

Most likely. It might require a super majority or even a consensus decision.
Then the individual is compelled to accept the majority's decision (unless they agree to it), or alternatively leave the society. The community is in effect asserting an ownership right of sorts. This is precisely why I said that the only legitimate collectivist society is one that can arise from an individual agreeing to limit their claim to the product of their labour, and restricting themselves to self-ownership.

It has the right to reject that basis. In my subjective opinion, people have usage rights, based on a first-come, first-served basis. Objectively, though, rights are determined by social contract. If there is no social contract, there can be no determination, and therefore no violation of rights.
Self-contained positive rights (i.e. which do not impose obligations) are not. You can do something even if it isn't recognised as a right. Not exercising the right does not constitute non-existence. Negative rights, on the other hand, are necessarily the result of a Social Contract. The right to housing, as could be recognised by France, is a negative right reformulated into the proposition that I have the right to a house. It can only arise via a social contract, i.e. by someone's agreement to provide this house.

Certainly. Of course, knowing this gives people all the more reason to band together to fight someone attempting to use force.
We agree on this.

Only if the first individual refused to let anyone else use the resource, regardless of anyone else's intended use of it. The first person would not have the right to do this.
But they are using the resource constantly. Why must they give up its use?

Im a landlord and have a different perspective on subsidized housing and why it fails. In the US, the government doesnt supply homes to the low income, it provides housing vouchers or simply"money" to pay landlords to house them. This money is "guarenteed" payment from the government so you would think "ok, problem solved". The problem is the nature of humanity ruining a good thing. People who earn things tend to treat them well. People who are given things tend to treat them like shit.

As a landlord i simply refuse to accept social services vouchers and refuse to rent to these people. Im not a cruel, mean nor a heartless or uncompassionate person. The simple facts are, that as a rule of thumb, you are FAR FAR more likely to have your apartment returned to you mostly destroyed by a tenant on social services, or that have driven out other "good" tenents by the additional noise and smell and traffic. Recovering the damages that the tennant has done from the government, is costly and sometimes simply impossible. Try proving to the government that the horrible piss smell coming from the carpets wasnt there before the guy with 4 pitbulls moved in. There goes $3000-$5000 out of your pocket. You would have been better off leaving the place empty.

Now mind you this is using housing vouchers and making a LANDLORD responsible for repairs etc. Can you imagine making these derelics responsible for repairs taxes insurance and all other responsibilities of home ownership on thier OWN? Dont make me laugh.

Would you trust a homeless person to babysit your child? Why should i trust a homeless person to care for any of my property?


Disclaimer: Yes i KNOW not all people on welfare treat others property with disrespect yadayada but as a general rule its absolutly true and a general rule can mean the difference from sucess and bankruptcy for a business.

Incidentally, Scotland already has similar policies (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/716f63c0-9b55-11db-aa70-0000779e2340.html) (they were saying so on French news last night also), which have apparently inspired the French government.

Surprisingly, even hardline neoliberal Nicolas Sarkozy says he approves of the idea.

But ownership means that you get to decide who uses it.

Yes, it does. But, if use implied ownership, then ownership would be constantly changing as the property was used.

If I own a house and rent it out to another, I do not surrender my ownership because another is using my house. I still retain title.

Certainly. And someone else would have the right to use that land (with usage rights) as long as their use doesn't interfere with yours.

No. Once I have ownership, no one has any rights to my property. They may have privileges - such as my allowing them to use the property to some end - but they have no rights to it.

Certainly. What if there was a situation where there was a community of people, who mixed their labor with land, but none of the other people ever said that the land was improved? By your definition, the laborers would not have the right to the land, and therefore not establishing property rights does not violate the rights of others.

As I said, the level of improvement may have to be set by agreement between parties. But, barring such an agreement, I would have to say that the simplest of improvements would suffice. If no consensus could be reached, then I would hold that the mere movig of rocks from under one's sleeping bag would constitute improvement. Of course, only for that 6' x 3' area.

So, in your example, if the community was in agreement that the land was not improved by whatever labor was performed, then, by their agreement, the land was not improved and thus no ownership conferred.

How interesting. I view property rights themselves as the initiation of force.

Actually, you were quoting me, not Europa Maxima. That aside, how are property rights an initiation of force? If I improve property, giving me title, how have I applied force on anyone?

The person who is actively using it is using it. By putting, say, a house up for rent, the person who lives there uses the house. Since you are not using the house, you don't have the right, unless property rights are established, to charge them to use it.

The mere existance of the house implies improvement and title to it and the land upon which it sits resides with the party who built or bought the house and land. Property rights are already established.

But I am using your body as a shade provider. The shade wouldn't exist without your body providing it.

No, you're not.

You are taking advantage of a by-product of another's acts. You are not causing the shade through any positive act of your own. Thus, you are using the shade, not the body blocking the sun's rays.

Further, you do not own the shade by your use of it. Should the person using the hammock choose to get up and walk off, the shade would disappear and you would have no recourse to require that person to return and provide the shade that you were using.

Unless you applied force to him and forced him to return.

And of course, there's the whole product of your labor thing...how does that stem from self-ownership? I mean, I can see how someone who believe that people own themselves would say that the farmer has the right to plant seeds, but why would the farmer have the right to the crops?

Fruits of one's labor.

Really? Simply because I am capable of doing something means that I have the positive right to?

As long as you do not violate the rights of another, yes.

Lets just thumbnail the scope and cost of the problem and do a rough analysis.

Figure there are 800,000 in need of homes. The numbers from the experts seem to vary widely and ive seen them reported as high as a million or more but for sake of arguement lets use 800k homes needed. A reasonable estimate in the US for low income housing is in the $45,000 a unit/person range. This of course has many nearly countless variable factors of course but im fairly familiar with construction costs and its a roughly reasonable estimate for these purposes. so $45k X 800k=36B. Now lets throw in 35% annually to pay for maintenence, insurance, cost of regulation and implementaion of programs plus the cost of the value of the property being taken off the public tax rolls (it now no longer collects taxes it becomes a tax liability) Then another 10% annually as the housing stock ages and needs to be replaced. Thats another 15-16B. Figure a pricetag of 50B+. The French Annual fed budget is $375B. Whos paying for THAT?

Lets just thumbnail the scope and cost of the problem and do a rough analysis.

Figure there are 800,000 in need of homes. The numbers from the experts seem to vary widely and ive seen them reported as high as a million or more but for sake of arguement lets use 800k homes needed. A reasonable estimate in the US for low income housing is in the $45,000 a unit/person range. This of course has many nearly countless variable factors of course but im fairly familiar with construction costs and its a roughly reasonable estimate for these purposes. so $45k X 800k=36B. Now lets throw in 35% annually to pay for maintenence, insurance, cost of regulation and implementaion of programs plus the cost of the value of the property being taken off the public tax rolls (it now no longer collects taxes it becomes a tax liability) Then another 10% annually as the housing stock ages and needs to be replaced. Thats another 15-16B. Figure a pricetag of 50B+. The French Annual fed budget is $375B. Whos paying for THAT?

The French people. Just raise taxes.

The French people. Just raise taxes.

You'd have a lot more homeless and poverty, that's for sure. An additional $1500 per taxpayer would ruin them even more than they currently are; their GDP per capita is only about $30,000, and those new taxes would eat up another 5% of their income...that's something the country cannot afford.

I mean, you can't continue to bleed the country dry when it's already got a near-stagnant economy and 10% unemployment, not to mention significant underemployment among immigrants and the young.

You'd have a lot more homeless and poverty, that's for sure. An additional $1500 per taxpayer would ruin them even more than they currently are; their GDP per capita is only about $30,000, and those new taxes would eat up another 5% of their income...that's something the country cannot afford.

I mean, you can't continue to bleed the country dry when it's already got a near-stagnant economy and 10% unemployment, not to mention significant underemployment among immigrants and the young.
I'm being facetious, you know. Although the power might exist for the electorate to vote themselves the treasury, it has its limits.

I'm being facetious, you know. Although the power might exist for the electorate to vote themselves the treasury, it has its limits.

Oh, I know. ;)

There are people who would support that option, and I think they need to know what would happen. The economies of Europe can no longer afford these programs in their current forms.

No wonder the french economy is crap.

They think the government is their mom.

MOTHER, GIVE ME A HOUSE.

What is funny is that those who doesnt have houses are the ones who pay the less taxes. That is why France is so fucked up.
Lack of support for a minimum wage, joy in the erosion of labour rights and social welfare, a for-profit healthcare system, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, and an absolute lack of sympathy for the most destitute among you...THAT is why the US is so fucked up.

Thank goodness there are still sane people among you who stop you from totally descending into chaos:rolleyes:

Lack of support for a minimum wage, joy in the erosion of labour rights and social welfare, a for-profit healthcare system, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, and an absolute lack of sympathy for the most destitute among you...THAT is why the US is so fucked up.

The incarceration rate is why we've had a 65 percent drop in violent crime over the past decade.

The incarceration rate is why we've had a 65 percent drop in violent crime over the past decade.

Sure it is, and sure you have.

Sure it is, and sure you have.

You sure messed up.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

From 1993 to 2001 the rate of firearm violence fell 63%

On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

You sure messed up.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Sure I did.

Sure I did.

You were saying that I was wrong about the decline in violent crime, and it turns out I linked to a source that indicates that you are quite wrong.

And this has what to do with French public housing again?

Lack of support for a minimum wage, joy in the erosion of labour rights and social welfare, a for-profit healthcare system, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, and an absolute lack of sympathy for the most destitute among you...THAT is why the US is so fucked up.
Prove it. Furthermore, prove that the USA is fucked up, and that specific European countries by comparison are not.

Prove it. Furthermore, prove that the USA is fucked up, and that specific European countries by comparison are not.

Well, I live in the US, and I don't think its too rosy over here. The fact that real wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years while productivity has exploded might have something to do with it.

Absolutely. I believe he considered natural rights optimal from a consequentialist point of view. I do not have a problem with consequentialism per se ; the only problem with it is that what is good to one person is a bad to another. It is heavily subjective, and I suspect this is in spite of an objective viewpoint it might have been opted for (to be truly objective would require one to literally be an outside observer, which is impossible for humans, as they base all their ideas on subjective notions). Add to this that what constitutes a fact is subject to debate, and that causal links are often very hard to draw, so even if Mises' ideas were to realise, and achieve a great deal of good, it may fail the test according to others. Mises after all believed that it was up to the individual to decide what was best for itself.

You criticize the subjectivity of consequentialism yet ignore the fact that what constitute's a natural right is also highly subjective. Should we go with Hobbes' absolute government, a Lockean social contract, a Rawlsian social contract, or a Amartya Sen's functional capabilities approach?

Well, I live in the US, and I don't think its too rosy over here. The fact that real wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years while productivity has exploded might have something to do with it.
Live in Europe, then proceed to comparing with the USA. I will say it isn't too rosy here either.

You criticize the subjectivity of consequentialism yet ignore the fact that what constitute's a natural right is also highly subjective. Should we go with Hobbes' absolute government, a Lockean social contract, a Rawlsian social contract, or a Amartya Sen's functional capabilities approach?
What are the respective bases of their approaches? If any of them contain a right that imposes an obligation, it fails to constitute a natural right (because in so doing it must violate another natural right), and can only be considered a contractual right.

Prove it. Furthermore, prove that the USA is fucked up, and that specific European countries by comparison are not.

Meh, you miss the point. Anyone can make stupid statements about a country and declare "and THAT is why *insert nation* is so fucked up". So go back, and ask the poster I quoted the same question about France, hmmm?

Meh, you miss the point. Anyone can make stupid statements about a country and declare "and THAT is why *insert nation* is so fucked up". So go back, and ask the poster I quoted the same question about France, hmmm?
I'm pretty sure I'll get answers from both of you whether I ask or not anyway. :)

Live in Europe, then proceed to comparing with the USA. I will say it isn't too rosy here either.

I made no comparison. I was merely stating a fact.

Well, I live in the US, and I don't think its too rosy over here. The fact that real wages have been stagnant for the past 30 years while productivity has exploded might have something to do with it.
Thats simply because we are becoming more globalized...hence, workers get less (we outsource), productivity grows, and products become cheaper. Not saying I agree with it but its hardly Americas problem....globalization is, well, global.
Lack of support for a minimum wage, joy in the erosion of labour rights and social welfare, a for-profit healthcare system, the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, and an absolute lack of sympathy for the most destitute among you...THAT is why the US is so fucked up.

Thank goodness there are still sane people among you who stop you from totally descending into chaos:rolleyes:
First of all you were totally owned by Eve Online in the posts somewhere above me about incarceration.

Second of all, there is support for a minimum wage in America (and I live in a red state)..just not to keep raising it and raising it. Our minimum wage is fine as it is...and actually, my friends who work at the local supermarket (Publix) make LOADS more than this Dutch girl I chat with who has worked for factories and shops...so maybe you should go bitch about what the Dutch are getting paid.

Social Welfare and (beyond basic needed..which we have) labor rights arnt univerisal truths..and MANY people oppose, be they Canadians (Alberta anyone?), Europeans, (I could find tons of political parties that oppose this) or Americans. And anyway, social welfare introdudes upon MY right to do what I want with MY money. If I dont want to give it to shanequa the crack hore, I shouldnt have to.

A for profit health care system? So? Why should we have to pay the government to pay for OTHER peoples medical bills? Tell me why.

The incarceration rate I dont even have to address, as Eve Online simply OWNED you there.

A lack of sympathy? Our poor are loads better off than the poor in Africa, or India...or China....if you want to play "sypathetic" go worry about those that are actually in poverty...instead of the ones who are so poor they have to live in a trailer park (which usually includes, AC, heating, a tv with a satellite dish, a bed, and roof over the head). Please, stop using our poor to further your anti-colonization agenda, Indian.

Please, stop using our poor to further your anti-colonization agenda, Indian.
This does not bode well for the future of this thread. :eek:

The incarceration rate I dont even have to address, as Eve Online simply OWNED you there. I'd care, if it was actually an argument I was wanting to pursue. Seems like you missed the point too...people from the US just HATE it when the stupid shit they say about other countries is thrown right back at them, don't they? It's okay to make blatant, unsupported generalisations about everyone else...but anyone doing it about you is immediately BAD. Suck it up princess.

Please, stop using our poor to further your anti-colonization agenda, Indian.

No deal, racist.

It's okay to make blatant, unsupported generalisations about everyone else...but anyone doing it about you is immediately BAD.
Actually, I didnt say anything blatantly general about France in this thread. Scroll up...nothing there.;)

Actually, I didnt say anything blatantly general about France in this thread. Scroll up...nothing there.;)
No, nor was I referring to you, since I was actually talking about the poster to whom I originally replied. Generality with generality...but instead of seeing that, you took it as an attack...that poster hasn't replied to me yet, so perhaps you took it upon yourself to get offended about a blatant generalisation in response to a blatant generalisation?

Look, I know you are obsessed with me, I know you are half in love with me, and how disturbing that must be to someone like you who is so undeniably in love with his own white skin...I know you've missed me, but I'm really not interested. You don't actually have anything to say about my rhetorical comments and replying to them at all is just a bit creepy, and even calling me "Indian" is not going to get you the reaction you so hopelessly long for. I'm not going to satisfy your kink, dear. Sorry.

No, nor was I referring to you, since I was actually talking about the poster to whom I originally replied. Generality with generality...but instead of seeing that, you took it as an attack...that poster hasn't replied to me yet, so perhaps you took it upon yourself to get offended about a blatant generalisation in response to a blatant generalisation?

Look, I know you are obsessed with me, I know you are half in love with me, and how disturbing that must be to someone like you who is so undeniably in love with his own white skin...I know you've missed me, but I'm really not interested. You don't actually have anything to say about my rhetorical comments and replying to them at all is just a bit creepy, and even calling me "Indian" is not going to get you the reaction you so hopelessly long for. I'm not going to satisfy your kink, dear. Sorry.
Eh, I don't...Uh...I, uh.....so, what you're.....wait...umm....I, uh....what!?

Eh, I don't...Uh...I, uh.....so, what you're.....wait...umm....I, uh....what!?

It's okay, we all get weird crushes from time to time:p

It's okay, we all get weird crushes from time to time:p
I honestly dont even know how to reply to all that...well, all that whatever it is that you posted.

Anyway, I'll have you know that, in relation to this thread, I do not think France is falling apart at all..though it does have its problems. (dont all our nations have problems, though.)

And about those weird crushes..I know exactly what you mean...though I assure you this is not one of those.:p

And I actually think the Indian thing was a bit mean...I was just sort of angry at the time. I know I know..."internet..serious business" (:rolleyes: ) :p So..actually, I'm a bit sorry about that.

I'm not certain, but I imagine the bottom 95% of french wage earners do better than the bottom 95% of US earners.For the record..
It is nothing like that..

chances are you would be "doing better" in the US.

Most of the people posting here would "do better" in the US.. but.. but you must be able shut-down/slow-down your concience.. or pledge total ignorance.

The only people "doing better" in EU is the bottom 15 or maybe 20%.. (these are general averages.. specific situations may difer.. for example the medical fieldd/jobs)

And I actually think the Indian thing was a bit mean...I was just sort of angry at the time. I know I know..."internet..serious business" (:rolleyes: ) :p So..actually, I'm a bit sorry about that.Well I appreciate the apology. You still ain't getting any nooky though :P

For the record..
It is nothing like that..

chances are you would be "doing better" in the US.

Most of the people posting here would "do better" in the US.. but.. but you must be able shut-down/slow-down your concience.. or pledge total ignorance.

The only people "doing better" in EU is the bottom 15 or maybe 20%.. (these are general averages.. specific situations may difer.. for example the medical fieldd/jobs)Wait...OceanDrive? Are you actually saying something...sort of positive about the US? *dies*

Wait...OceanDrive? Are you actually saying something...sort of positive about the US? *dies*First: the truth is the truth.

Second: I can think of a million positive things about US..
US(we) are a very Lucky/succesful Country.

First: the truth is the truth.

Second: I can think of a million positive things about US..
US(we) are a very Lucky/succesful Country.

No puedes ser el hombre rabioso que a mí me gusta tanto...que pasó con el verdadero OceanDrive? Lo mataste? Díme...

No puedes ser el hombre rabioso que a mí me gusta tanto...que pasó con el verdadero OceanDrive? Lo mataste? Díme...Para saber la verdad.. vas a tener que amarrarme a mi cama y torturarme :D

Para saber la verdad.. vas a tener que amarrarme a mi cama y torturarme :D

ooohhhh....

ooohhhh....si... jaime ca kand tu fais ca. :cool:

si... jaime ca kand tu fais ca. :cool:
Mistahi kisakihitin nichimos... a little Cree for ya :D

Mistahi kisakihitin nichimos... a little Cree for ya :Dlets do it tuesday. ;)

lets do it tuesday. ;)

Hahaha, I'm a little tangled up in something else at the moment :p Besides, I prefer to be the one tied to the bed.

Hahaha, I'm a little tangled up in something else at the moment :p yo no soy celoso. ;)


Besides, I prefer to be the one tied to the bed.ladies first -mi casa es tu casa- just do it©nike...

if housing is a right, what would be the incentive to work exactly? Isn't this basically asking for the economy suffer?

Good luck to France. Hopefully, it turns out a little better than the public housing programs over here.

if housing is a right, what would be the incentive to work exactly? Isn't this basically asking for the economy suffer?

So, people only work to provide themselves with housing?