[583] in libertarians
Interesting discussion re: the 'right' to housing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (KHOOD@wccf.mit.edu)
Wed Jan 25 15:54:22 1995
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:11:48 -0500 (EST)
From: KHOOD@wccf.mit.edu
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Hi
I'm not a subscriber to this list, so please forgive me if this has
already come up. There is a very heated discussion underway on the
newsgroup alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives (I subscribed out of
curiosity) and it could use some libertarian input (there is some
already, see the following excerpts).
Kris Hood
Forwarded messages:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <D2v9FD.HAv@world.std.com>, ruthe <ruthe@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>It seems to me that all this pseudo-discussion about a "right to
>housing" is a smokescreen over the real issue. Esoteric
>politicizing aside, few of us believe in any inherent "right" to
>housing. By pretending that we do, you property owners can get on
>your high moral horses and pontificate about our supposed
>"unrealistic expectations" all you want. But it doesn't mean
>anything, because you're arguing with invisible opponents. You're
>basically just slapping each other on the backs. It's much easier
>to, in effect, demonize tenants so you can revel in the us/them
>thing, rather than to consider, even for a moment, that tenants
>are perhaps being screwed over royally by the free market system
>that you're all so fond of.
>
>And by screwing over large numbers of people over a long period of time,
>strange schemes like rent control result, out of frustration. And strange
>schemes will no doubt be devised again, unless the basic cause of that
>frustration is addressed.
>
>We're not claiming we have a "right to housing"; what we claim is
>a RIGHT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. A very different thing. If I'm
>willing to fork over, say, one-third of my after-tax earnings for
>housing, that I should be able to get a decent apartment in a
>decent neighborhood. What I hear from you guys is this: you'll pay
As I have mentioned previously, what if I worked 10hrs/wk at McDonalds
and my wife stayed home just pumping out babies? I'd be happy to fork
over one-third of my income for housing, but I highly doubt that any
landlord could afford to run an apartment complex on that kind of
income. Perhaps those whose income is not sufficient to pay for a nice
place to live are subtly being told "the market would prefer you find
another occupation which is in higher demand and pays better." Although
many would find this idea repulsive, ie "I love painting pictures of
roadkill, and dammit, I don't care WHAT society values, I'm gonna keep
doing it and expect a place to park this couch."
As I'm sure you can imagine, there would be far too many arbitrary
cut-offs and limits needed for implementation of a "I'll pay whatever I
want for this housing" plan. Who decides what jobs are sufficient to
take a fraction of income for rent? Who decides what fraction is taken?
>whatever I SAY you'll pay, 'cause I own the property, and the free
>market (AKA whatever I say the free market is) says that I can
>charge you anything I want. So if you have to double up or triple
>up in order to afford my one-bedroom apartment, tough!
>
>Of course this won't work unless you all agree on it, and since
>you do (now THERE's a surprise) that's pretty much what we've got:
>a bunch of greedy moneyed folk hiding behind the slogan "free
>market" and robbing the poor folk, who are unable to buy property,
>and who, by paying inflated "free market" rents, will be rendered
>forever unable of saving anything toward buying.
Where are the evil landlords hiding to prevent these poor folk from
perhaps obtaining a higher education or getting a better job?
>And you put the salve to your consciences by a) making righteous
>lectures to tenants advising them how to manage their money (when
>I was your age, i lived for 20 years in a freezing garret and
>saved every penny...la-da, la-da, la), or b) having stupid
>discussions among yourselves about how those darned tenants are so
>"unrealistic".
>
>Rent control was perfect for you guys, cause it was, indeed, a
>flawed system. It put the burden on a few landlords, and
>splintered tenants into RC and non-RC. So you could spend all your
>energy railing against rent control. Now that it's gone, you've
>got another problem: the dawning consciousness of tenants
>everywhere that rents are too high, for everybody! They might get
>together and demand something ridiculous, like a cap on your
>profits -- ALL of your profits, not just selected unlucky RC
>landlords. "Rent Laws" they might be called -- something to put a
>curb on your unbridled greed. Wouldn't THAT be nice!
>
>Oh, don't worry. I won't hold my breath. But I couldn't read
>anymore of your self-righteous babble without mentioning it. Sure
>would be awful if all those tenants got together and said,
>"Enough! already!" -- wouldn't it!
HELLO! I think you've got it. If tenents did organize, it would be just
like that thing you referred to as the "free market" at work. They
refuse to pay a certain price, rents come down, they agree on a new price
for the market. It's simple supply and demand.
--
Wilbur
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Doss, |
IU School of Law | Have you seen my pants?
Go Boilermakers! |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <rednbluD2pM09.Fr@netcom.com>, rednblu@netcom.com (Riley M.
Sinder) wrote:
>The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
>Rights (1966) recognizes a right to decent housing.
>The United States is the ONLY industrialized country
>that has refused to sign the International Covenant.
>Whether a right is appropriately provided for does
>not detract from the legal basis for the right.
>Again, the United States is the only civilized country
>that resists the fundamental idea of a right to housing.
If a "right" to housing exists, then some people must be forced to
provide that housing. Apartments, condominiums, and homes are
not natural resources, but are instead created by human labor.
By holding that some have a right to housing, you are saying
that it is good and appropriate that some people be enslaved
to provide that housing for others.
Fortunately, this state of affairs is prohibited in
the constitution:
13th Amendment
Sect. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place
subject to their jurisdiction.
Sect. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
--
Paul Stoufflet Don't tread on me
Decision Systems Group
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
