Unfortunately, millions believe they are. From "at some point you've made enough money" to a full-on rejection of property rights, there's a big chunk of the populace that flat-out embraces "I have a right to a chunk of what's yours" and a whole bunch more who excuse such behavior because it's their tribe/team that condones it.
You are falling into a trap which allows the Dems to contrast how the GOP defends property rights whereas the Dems defend human rights such as to shelter. There are a lot more renters out there than landlords and so this is a losing argument for the GOP. Yes, it's a hypocritical argument for the Dems but integrity is in short supply nowadays.
Not sure if you're suggesting we simply concede the rent control matter to the Left?
If someone is creating a problem, and then using the problem he created to blame everyone else for the problem, should we walk away and concede he's figured out a winning tactic, or should we point out the source in the hope of breaking people from that someone?
The only way this gets better is if we open more eyes to the reality.
Take note, by the way, that more and more Dems are making big angry noises about having to house migrants. It was easy to virtue signal when the flood was contained to Red states, but now that places like NYC are having to find homes for tens of thousands, and burning money that progressives wanted used elsewhere, the squawks are coming from their side of the aisle.
I don't have an answer. I don't think that the market can respond in a cycle shorter than our elections to the issue of affordable housing. This issue like abortion will be used to decimate the GOP and we know what happens when those claim to "care for the people" are in charge.
There is only one remedy, albeit a long-shot. Putting a bit of faith in people's ability to see through bullshit, if only they're given the opportunity.
If all you hear is one side of an issue, you can be excused for being swayed by it. But, plant some factual seeds of rebuttal, and you might - just might - break through to a few.
No people don’t have a right to shelter. They have the right to work and procure shelter in exchange for part of their earnings. They don’t have a right to make others provide them with shelter, the government or private citizens. They don’t have the right to take what others have in their pursuit of happiness. That would make theft legal.
The reply will be what if they are unable to earn enough money to provide for themselves. I know people who already have to work several jobs to make ends meet.
It's no different from the argument that home invaders should not be resisted, as I blogged the other day.
Once you open up the utilitarian door, i.e. "they can't make ends meet, so government has the right to take from others," you obviate a principled defense of individual rights.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what a big chunk of our taxes is about. We can reasonably justify taxes that pay for goods and services that benefit us, such as courts, police, firefighting, military, sanitation, and yes, roads. This is the "user fee" form of taxation I've blogged about many times, as in pay for what you use.
But, a huge part of what is taken from us is simply given to others, whether it be as welfare, housing, or what have you. This is flat-out immoral, and any society that understands that property rights are individual rights cannot defend such. We don't live in such a society, sadly.
This is a serious problem in Ontario, Canada. As a landlord there (duplex), I was for a very long time unable to raise rents beyond a set maximum. The only way to get past it was to actually move into the unit, do some upgrades, and then re-rent it. That obviously doesn't work for owners of larger buildings.
If the SC gives the libertarians a victory, it will be a pyrrhic one at best much like Dobbs is proving to be for the pro-life movement. In the absence of restrictions, housing will be converted to the form which provides the greatest return to the landlord. In turn, this means that middle to lower class persons and families will be priced out and they will take out their wrath on those who made that possible. This will definitely be good news for the Dems and bad news for almost everyone else including renters in the long run.
No one is entitled to other peoples’ stuff. I don’t know why that that concept is so difficult to understand.
Unfortunately, millions believe they are. From "at some point you've made enough money" to a full-on rejection of property rights, there's a big chunk of the populace that flat-out embraces "I have a right to a chunk of what's yours" and a whole bunch more who excuse such behavior because it's their tribe/team that condones it.
You are falling into a trap which allows the Dems to contrast how the GOP defends property rights whereas the Dems defend human rights such as to shelter. There are a lot more renters out there than landlords and so this is a losing argument for the GOP. Yes, it's a hypocritical argument for the Dems but integrity is in short supply nowadays.
Not sure if you're suggesting we simply concede the rent control matter to the Left?
If someone is creating a problem, and then using the problem he created to blame everyone else for the problem, should we walk away and concede he's figured out a winning tactic, or should we point out the source in the hope of breaking people from that someone?
The only way this gets better is if we open more eyes to the reality.
Take note, by the way, that more and more Dems are making big angry noises about having to house migrants. It was easy to virtue signal when the flood was contained to Red states, but now that places like NYC are having to find homes for tens of thousands, and burning money that progressives wanted used elsewhere, the squawks are coming from their side of the aisle.
I don't have an answer. I don't think that the market can respond in a cycle shorter than our elections to the issue of affordable housing. This issue like abortion will be used to decimate the GOP and we know what happens when those claim to "care for the people" are in charge.
There is only one remedy, albeit a long-shot. Putting a bit of faith in people's ability to see through bullshit, if only they're given the opportunity.
If all you hear is one side of an issue, you can be excused for being swayed by it. But, plant some factual seeds of rebuttal, and you might - just might - break through to a few.
No people don’t have a right to shelter. They have the right to work and procure shelter in exchange for part of their earnings. They don’t have a right to make others provide them with shelter, the government or private citizens. They don’t have the right to take what others have in their pursuit of happiness. That would make theft legal.
The reply will be what if they are unable to earn enough money to provide for themselves. I know people who already have to work several jobs to make ends meet.
Does such a difficulty warrant theft?
It's no different from the argument that home invaders should not be resisted, as I blogged the other day.
Once you open up the utilitarian door, i.e. "they can't make ends meet, so government has the right to take from others," you obviate a principled defense of individual rights.
Are you saying that tax revenue cannot be used to help the poor?
But, as I noted in a previous exchange, I also recognize that unraveling the welfare state is an effort that would span decades.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what a big chunk of our taxes is about. We can reasonably justify taxes that pay for goods and services that benefit us, such as courts, police, firefighting, military, sanitation, and yes, roads. This is the "user fee" form of taxation I've blogged about many times, as in pay for what you use.
But, a huge part of what is taken from us is simply given to others, whether it be as welfare, housing, or what have you. This is flat-out immoral, and any society that understands that property rights are individual rights cannot defend such. We don't live in such a society, sadly.
This is a serious problem in Ontario, Canada. As a landlord there (duplex), I was for a very long time unable to raise rents beyond a set maximum. The only way to get past it was to actually move into the unit, do some upgrades, and then re-rent it. That obviously doesn't work for owners of larger buildings.
The stunts they force people into engaging, just to tread water, is its own topic.
the problem of course is that politicians can count. There are thousands more tenants than landlords...
So true.
When we had the restaurant, I often lamented that we had no political power because we were small and few.
If the SC gives the libertarians a victory, it will be a pyrrhic one at best much like Dobbs is proving to be for the pro-life movement. In the absence of restrictions, housing will be converted to the form which provides the greatest return to the landlord. In turn, this means that middle to lower class persons and families will be priced out and they will take out their wrath on those who made that possible. This will definitely be good news for the Dems and bad news for almost everyone else including renters in the long run.