Everybody knows New York City is an expensive place to live. But the United Nations wants to know if affordable housing is so tough to come by that it actually violates human rights.The United Nations has assigned an official, “a special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing,” to check the city’s affordable housing. The rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik, is to tour the city for the next three days with housing advocates and city officials to “hear the voices of those who are suffering on the ground,” she said. [...]
At a town hall meeting last night in Morningside Heights, residents wept and shouted at Ms. Rolnik. They complained about deteriorating public housing, the lack of housing subsidies for AIDS patients, landlord harassment and many other issues, large and small.
She told them: “I am representing the right of adequate housing as a human right.”
One advocate and resident of public housing, Agnes Rivera, wept after telling Ms. Rolnik that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg “doesn’t care about the poor.”
Insanity. On so many levels. Seriously, the UN is going to investigate the United States for human rights violations because the government doesn’t further enslave the productive members of our society to hand over houses to people who can’t do more than cry “I deserve a home! You don’t care about me! I want it! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!“?
After her tour of New York City, she will survey the housing situations in Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Washington, a South Dakota Indian reservation, and Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Her report to the General Assembly is planned for March.
Geez, wonder why Detriot isn’t on The Rapporteur’s Grand Tour? In this video Ms. Rolnik asserts
“If we take housing as a human right, you have to go back to the idea that housing is a social issue before, and more priority, than housing as a commodity, as a financial asset.”
Ms. Rolnik, with all due respect, is full of sh*t. And she knows it, too, because she has to base her whole assertion on a conditional phrase.
Housing is not a “human right.” It does not take the efforts, time or talent of other people to give me my life, my speech, my conscience. It would take the efforts, time and talent of dozens of people to give me a house and since that house would be “my right”, then those people are compelled to provide it for me regardless of any other consideration.
Moral actions require voluntary choice. Helping our neighbors, pitching in to improve our communities, rehabbing abandoned homes for low-income families — all these charitable actions result in not only meeting real needs but in improving the character of both the giver and receiver. When someTHING (house, food, health care, clothes, cell phone, flatscreen tv) is considered a “right” then people feel entitled to it; no gratitude, no counting one’s blessings, but only resentment towards anyone that doesn’t fulfill the wish right immediately.
The bigger the Government, the smaller the people.
(h/t Carin)
***************************
Previously:
Property rights? What property rights?
America’s Affordable Housing Choices Act
From the pub: Obsessive Housing Disorder
Comment by Carin on 10/26 @ 9:37 am #
They complained about deteriorating public housing, the lack of housing subsidies for AIDS patients, landlord harassment and many other issues, large and small.
Exactly why is it deteriorating? Humn?
Landlord harassement?
In my old neighborhood, you can tell which homes are rented. They are the ones with garbage in the garden. Unkempt yards. Doors that are left hanging open. Garbage barrels left in the road for days after pick up.
Section 8 houses vouches, apparently, wised up and now folks are required to keep their homes nicer or risk losing the voucher. I know this because the guy who is fixing up my house rents to both vouchered and non-vouchered folks. Tells me it’s better to get a section 8 renter, because they will at least NOW keep your home in better shape.
It’s a well known fact that in urban areas such as detroit, most renters are going to TRASH your house.
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 9:42 am #
Carin
The link I have up about the auctions in Detriot is worrisome. Locals who would be buying seized homes to be owner-occupied are being crowded out by outside speculators. WTF?
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/26 @ 9:43 am #
Wait.
Doesn’t NYC have rent controls?
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 9:45 am #
“…is an expensive place to live…”
Hmmm, I wonder whether that fact might have anything to do with rent controls and the artificial distortions imposed upon the housing market by the benevolent government?
Comment by JD on 10/26 @ 9:46 am #
This is just surreal …
Comment by SPC Jack Klompus on 10/26 @ 9:48 am #
Maybe all of those skilled masons and carpenters and designers that work at the UN can pitch in and build entire blocks of clean, safe, high rise, low income housing that has worked so well throughout urban America.
Comment by JHo on 10/26 @ 9:52 am #
Given that healthcare is a right now, and given that between Medicare and prescription plans, the federal “health” cabal has put us roughly one hundred trillion dollars in debt and obligation from before the time we entrust them to take us all under their comforting wing, I think you are all racists.
Preemptive logic. It’s the progressive way.
Comment by JHo on 10/26 @ 9:53 am #
It has Charlie Rangel…
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/26 @ 10:00 am #
Oh my…The real estate agents aren’t going to like this one. I guess that ObaMarx will have to concoct another emergency to pay them off somehow…
But, you know, at least now they’ll have justification for re-inflating the housing bubble; the UN demands!, CRA comes to the rescue…
All on our nickel
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 10:03 am #
Bob
yeah, never mind the human rights violations of Hugo Chavez seizing farms from property owners… Someone in NYC is crying that Bloomberg “doesn’t like poor people”.
Priorities!
Comment by Carin on 10/26 @ 10:07 am #
The houses are being bought up mostly by foreigners. I simply don’t know where that is heading.
Of course, there are still plenty of homes available.
Anyone interested in MINE …
There are tons of homes available to rent, etc, in Detroit. The real problem is that there are no jobs. 28% unemployment.
Comment by Jeff Y. on 10/26 @ 10:07 am #
Darleen, this is one of your best posts. We should apply the same arguments more widely for more policy questions.
Bravo.
Comment by Eben on 10/26 @ 10:14 am #
Also, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the authority to regulate housing purchases. In a new law, soon to be introduced, you will be required to purchase a house for someone else who cannot afford to buy one themselves. If you make less than $100k per year, you will be required to lease a home for someone else who cannot afford to lease one themselves. Failure to comply will result in a fine. In a nation as rich as ours there is no reason for people to be dying in the streets due to a lack of housing.
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 10:21 am #
Failure to comply will result in a fine. In a nation as rich as ours there is no reason for people to be dying in the streets due to a lack of housing.
Jesus, Eben, I’d laugh but somewhere some Leftist is seriously applauding…
Comment by geoffb on 10/26 @ 10:22 am #
Also Zimbabwe, every dirtbag dictator at the UN general assembly and all communist regimes starting with the USSR 1930s.
Comment by dicentra on 10/26 @ 10:22 am #
If it’s too expensive to live where you are, MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. Your welfare check can be mailed to small-town America as easily as the Bronx.
Locals who would be buying seized homes to be owner-occupied are being crowded out by outside speculators. WTF?
It’s happened before, in 1968. See Iteration 3 in this post.
Hint: It leads to a very bad place.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 10:22 am #
Los Angeles is already a fascist dream in terms of draconian housing regulation. This is why the city is so prosperous and hundreds of businesses are moving here every month. I know the rest of the country is in recession but economic growth in Los Angeles hasn’t slowed down a bit. Why? Wise leadership is why. I hope the UN hoochie takes lots of notes.
Comment by cranky-d on 10/26 @ 10:25 am #
This argument isn’t just for a right to housing, it’s an argument for a right to live wherever you darn well please and have someone else pay for it. Anyone who cannot see the repercussions of any act along these lines is a damn fool.
If any legislation along these lines ever passes, I’m quitting work and moving to Hawaii, and the few remaining suckers will have to pay for my house.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/26 @ 10:26 am #
This very idea has me so flummox that i’m just going to cut and paste what I said at Carin’s place:
Comment by BJTexs on 10/26 @ 10:27 am #
flummoxed … more than I thought …
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 10:32 am #
it’s an argument for a right to live wherever you darn well please
Only at first. When the scheme collapses you’ll have Jerry Brown leading the pack to dictate all housing … say goodbye to any pretense of home ownership.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 10:33 am #
Damn, the poor Human Rights Industry can’t seem to catch a break these days. It’s getting such that even its friends are leveling subversive criticism at the sweet old-dear.
Comment by geoffb on 10/26 @ 10:37 am #
Soon to be the “New Improved Faster and more Comprehensive” CRA.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/26 @ 10:47 am #
That legislation is even more odious than you think.
Right now many banks can get around the “make at least some loans to low income buyers” CRA requirements by writing loans to community non-profits, like the Boys Club or a local YMCA. Charitable donations to local, community based organizations also count. This legislation might just do away with that loophole and require banks to make a fixed percentage of their loans to potential low income home owners. That will help stabilize local banks something fierce.
I predict that, even then, Ms. Rolnick will condemn Amerikka for it’s racist human rights violating ways. After all, there’s no housing shortage in Brazil.
Is there?
Comment by Snowcone on 10/26 @ 10:53 am #
Paying your taxes improves your character.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 10:53 am #
Agnes wept.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 10:58 am #
Khaled doesn’t weep. He gets busy creating hope and change.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 11:04 am #
Palestinians are losers. If I were a palestinian I’d be embarrassed.
Comment by Akatsukami on 10/26 @ 11:05 am #
“Paying your taxes improves your character.”
Ah. That explains why Daschle, Dodd, and Rangel are such scum.
Comment by JHo on 10/26 @ 11:08 am #
How long have you been on welfare?
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 11:08 am #
“Mrs. Raquel Rolnik is an architect and an urban planner…”
There you go. No background in political philosophy whatsoever so how should she be expected to know what is a human right and what is not?
Comment by JHo on 10/26 @ 11:15 am #
But rights are self-evident, sdferr; that from our previous conversation on them. What I mean is that Rolnik is an obvious zealot who god speaks through so as to dispense these endowments. I’d say that at the least she’s a strong case for the argument that rights aren’t inherent but must be agreed.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 11:17 am #
“But rights are self-evident…”
So also is helio-centrism, once one stops supposing that the earth is holding still. The thing is, that rights are also extremely limited in their self-evidence, an idea which Mrs. Rolnik seems not to have encountered as yet.
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/26 @ 11:36 am #
Between the continued devaluation of the dollar, and the number of forclosed properties on the market, everyone in large urban areas should get used to the idea of foreign buyers scooping up the real estate; for a bargain…
The entire premise of Ms. Rolnik’s “investigation” is more evidence of the uselessness and double standards of the UN. We don’t need their transnational hand-wringing and scolding. Why don’t they go to Iran, or Venezuela, and lecture the governments on the failure to provide affordable home ownership for the masses?
Hint: Because those places would tell them where to stick Ms. Rolnik’s opinions…
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 11:39 am #
Is better for responsible foreign peoples to own the houses than for loser no money down Americans to own them I think.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 11:44 am #
If we could somehow figure out a way to let the palestinian pipples in on the foreclosure auctions we would get a very very glowing report from the fascist UN hoochie I bet. Who would love us very, very much? Teh whole damn world, brother.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 10/26 @ 11:46 am #
The bigger the Government, the smaller the people.
Better Cafepress that sum’bitch, Darleen!
Comment by cranky-d on 10/26 @ 11:46 am #
Do other countries allow non-citizens to own property? Just wondering about the “fairness.”
Comment by JD on 10/26 @ 11:47 am #
Snotnose just explained its utter and complete lack of character.
Comment by JHo on 10/26 @ 11:47 am #
That’s not at all fair, cranky.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 11:47 am #
Hah! Climate change bedtime, take one. Climate change bedtime, take two. h/t Russ Roberts
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 10/26 @ 12:03 pm #
Wonder if the UN’s ever heard of Habitat for Humanity, or can guess in which country it began.
Comment by Pablo on 10/26 @ 12:05 pm #
sdferr, that’s hilarious.
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 12:12 pm #
sdferr
hahahahah!
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 10/26 @ 12:15 pm #
How many low income familes could be housed at UN HQ in NYC?
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 12:15 pm #
all the funny youtubes are blocked
Comment by No one you know on 10/26 @ 12:22 pm #
Cass Sunstein, administration sooper genius, advocates the same thing, housing as a human right.
Comment by B Moe on 10/26 @ 12:29 pm #
So just one useless occupation wasn’t enough, eh?
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 12:30 pm #
If you let housing become a human right then be prepared for Barack Obama’s dirty socialist fuckpuppets to disallow living by yourself I think. Housing will become like semi-private hospital rooms. That’s just how these ones think.
Comment by happyfeet on 10/26 @ 12:33 pm #
It’s cause they’re fascists.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 12:34 pm #
“…living by yourself…”
“Living by yourself?”, they’ll say, “You call that living? Step right over here please.”
Comment by Bob Reed on 10/26 @ 12:38 pm #
It’ll be like in Dr. Zhivago where “the masses” slowly occupy the families house in Moscow, crowding the family into but one suite of rooms. Eventually, in the name of the revolution, they declare that they are seizing that room also…
Comment by Chris S. on 10/26 @ 12:39 pm #
I’ve always found it interesting that people are willing to trade actual property rights for fake housing rights.
Comment by dicentra on 10/26 @ 12:49 pm #
Right now many banks can get around the “make at least some loans to low income buyers” CRA requirements by writing loans to community non-profits,
Such as ACORN, wouldn’tcha know. No, really. ACORN totally shook down banks by entering into participatory deals with ACORN so that they could help establish underage brothels.
Comment by Darrell on 10/26 @ 12:50 pm #
I believe that a modern, enlightened, wealthy society is obliged to provide the opportunity for every one of its people to succeed, to be housed, to be secure. Unreasonable barriers to that opportunity, in the form of actual racial discrimination, for example, should be addressed.
The United States does this already, perhaps to a greater degree than any other country in the world, and yet is accused of oppression and discrimination when its citizens fail to take advantage of the opportunity afforded them (and who, nonetheless, are given public support). Now, its government is attempting to bypass the whole “opportunity” thing and go straight to success part.
It’s difficult to see how this can result in anything but disaster; on one hand, a vast segment of the population that resents the obligations placed upon it by the government, and the remaining segment of the population that resents the former’s resentment.
The only question that remains is how much the first segment will tolerate before they openly revolt — and what the government/second segment will do in response.
Good luck, guys.
Darrell in Canada
Comment by JeffS on 10/26 @ 12:54 pm #
The UN is checking on human rights in the United States? Time to lock and load.
Comment by BJTexs on 10/26 @ 12:55 pm #
Chris S. wins the thread.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 12:56 pm #
“…[descriptorless] society is obliged to provide the opportunity… etc, etc”
Is obliged by what? By whom? Surely your belief alone isn’t to be taken as sufficient? Filling out such detail is all the problem.
Comment by dicentra on 10/26 @ 12:56 pm #
What I mean is that Rolnik is an obvious zealot who god speaks through so as to dispense these endowments.
Never underestimate the unspeakably powerful rush of endorphins that zealotry can provide. These people cannot get enough of their do-gooding crusading, which is partly why they are less concerned with actual results than with getting the endorphin rush from their sociopathic selflessness.
I’d say that at the least she’s a strong case for the argument that rights aren’t inherent but must be agreed.
I wouldn’t. She argues that adequate, affordable housing is a “right” when it’s actually a NEED. A right is something you are born with that a government cannot legitimately infringe upon. I don’t actually NEED freedom of expression to live, but I have that right by virtue of my human existence.
But as Darleen pointed out, the need for housing necessarily imposes a burden on someone else. If housing were a “right,” you would forbid Congress from enacting laws that impede one from getting housing. You would NOT guarantee that everyone have somewhere to live.
Comment by dicentra on 10/26 @ 1:02 pm #
Darrell in Canada
Thanks, Darrell. Us folks in middle America aren’t much into riots and such, but don’t put it past us to withdraw, Go Galt, or Vote The Bums Out. Obama is definitely overreaching, and the sleeping giant has awakened.
obliged to provide the opportunity
I would reword that to say “obliged to remove any obstacles from the opportunity.” Which is pretty much what you were saying, but I’m a compulsive editor so sue me.
Comment by B Moe on 10/26 @ 1:07 pm #
If Freedom of Speech meant guaranteeing everyone had something to say, for instance, imagine the poor bastard that had to write for Snowcone.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/26 @ 1:22 pm #
, but I’m a compulsive editor so sue me.
If I did, dicentra, would you return the lawsuit notice marked up with red pencil?
Comment by carly on 10/26 @ 1:35 pm #
Hmmm…. There’s a fundamental right to live in NYC? Manhattan? Certain neighborhoods??? I could live in spacious splendor in THOUSANDS of municipalities for what I spend to occupy (share, actually) a tiny box in Manhattan.
I suspect that I wouldn’t get any ear time with this fool though, being a self-employed entrepreneur/small business owner and member of no particular victim group….
Insane! But so is the world today….
Comment by geoffb on 10/26 @ 1:40 pm #
Freedom always results in a curve that is long between the 1st percentile and the 99th percentile. The Left looks at this disparity and wishes to “fix” it by compressing the curve somehow. Housing or healthcare same story.
When they do the compression they always leave the 99.9th percentile, the elite, alone and shove everything else to the left so that no one gets above where the 25th percentile was at before and most are below. Hyde Park and the South Side are a model they like, and will attempt to spread widely.
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 1:41 pm #
marked up with red pencil?
IIRC editors use a blue pencil…
…oh…I just dated myself again, didn’t I?
Comment by Darrell on 10/26 @ 1:52 pm #
sdferr,
> Is obliged by what? By whom? Surely your belief alone isn’t to be taken as sufficient? Filling out such detail is all the problem.
Not really. To me it’s self-evident that a black person ought to have the same opportunity as a white person to earn a living and have somewhere to live. If they don’t, and the reason they don’t is systemic in nature, I’m OK with the state taking reasonable steps to iron that out, provided they don’t diminish anybody else’s opportunity in the process. (dicentra nailed it: “If housing were a ‘right,’ you would forbid Congress from enacting laws that impede one from getting housing. You would NOT guarantee that everyone have somewhere to live.”)
I realize that my humble opinion on this issue is of insufficient weight to compel the United States government. Really, I was saying what I think, and to that end, my belief alone is entirely sufficient.
dicentra,
> I would reword that to say “obliged to remove any obstacles from the opportunity.” Which is pretty much what you were saying, but I’m a compulsive editor so sue me.
Against the advice of my attorney, I won’t launch proceedings against you. I don’t really trust the bastard, and besides, your edit is indeed an improvement.
Comment by BuddyPC on 10/26 @ 1:54 pm #
59. Comment by dicentra on 10/26 @ 12:56 pm #
Never underestimate the unspeakably powerful rush of endorphins that zealotry can provide. These people cannot get enough of their do-gooding crusading, which is partly why they are less concerned with actual results than with getting the endorphin rush from their sociopathic selflessness.
Isn’t that what used to be called The Rapture?
Cheezes, can’t we give the secular reborn some rattlesnakes to hold?
34. #Comment by Bob Reed on 10/26 @ 11:36 am #
Hint: Because those places would tell them where to stick Ms. Rolnik’s opinions…
I’d bet on those places skipping the “tell” where and going straight to the “sticking”, active verb, all Cannibal Holocaust-style.
Comment by B Moe on 10/26 @ 2:04 pm #
Is being fat and lazy systemic in nature? I should say extremely fat and lazy, because I am kind of fat and lazy and still manage to support myself.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 2:13 pm #
“Systemic in nature” is gobblygook B Moe. Darrell doesn’t wish to examine the premises underlying the attribution of anything to nature, let alone examine human nature as such to get at the origins of the rights we so readily claim unto ourselves, which we do today as much as a matter of our tradition (what our ancestors said or did) as opposed to what we understand. So hand waving of that sort will do just as well, apparently. I do find it odd though, that Darrell could even entertain the thought that “[his] humble opinion on this issue is of insufficient weight to compel the United States government.” as if it were ever a question.
Comment by Darrell on 10/26 @ 2:43 pm #
> Darrell doesn’t wish to examine the premises underlying the attribution of anything to nature, let alone examine human nature as such to get at the origins of the rights we so readily claim unto ourselves, which we do today as much as a matter of our tradition (what our ancestors said or did) as opposed to what we understand.
All I said was that I think one American ought to have the same freedom as another to earn their way. I am under the impression that the U.S. Constitution guarantees that very freedom. I also said that it seems that the current administration is actively working to do away with that freedom and replace with the assurance of a favourable outcome. I concluded that the result of this attempt would be a disaster.
Disagree all you want, correct me if you think I’m wrong, chastise me if I’ve been unclear; but at least disagree with what I said, and don’t embarrass yourself with sophomoric attempts to analyze my motivation.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 2:47 pm #
Perhaps it is sophomoric of me, Darrell, but how else am I to understand this answer “Not really.” to this question “Filling out such detail is all the problem.”?
Comment by JD on 10/26 @ 2:54 pm #
Sdferr – You are many things, but sophomoric is not one of them.
Comment by Eben on 10/26 @ 2:54 pm #
You’ll have to excuse sdferr, he’s a reactionary, given sometimes to sophomoric tirades.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 2:59 pm #
See, we began with Mrs. Rolnik, who evidently hasn’t a clue what our rights are nor where they come from. You come along and say “society is obliged to provide…” and so on, to which I merely ask, is obliged by what, by whom? An obvious invitation to explore the antecedent principles which are then taken up as the basis for going forward with all manner of “programs” and need fulfillments. The question counts, I think, because it may turn out to be of some far reaching significance.
For instance, it may matter a great deal if we begin with the premise “Man is a Creature born fit for Society” as opposed to the contrary “Man is a Creature not born fit for Society”. In the one case we could end up with a design for communist utopia. In the other case, we could end up with a design for a representative republic. The Mrs. Rolniks of the world might benefit from the discussion, as might we ourselves.
Comment by RTO Trainer on 10/26 @ 3:16 pm #
I thought that houses wer the product of human labor.
I also thought that we agreed, with the 13th Amendment, that no one is entitled to to the labor of other people.
Comment by JD on 10/26 @ 3:33 pm #
As they have proven with healthcare, cap&destroy, etc …, RTO, they care very little about the product of your human labor, except for how they can take it, and exploit it. Get back to work.
Comment by DarthRove on 10/26 @ 3:48 pm #
So when is Obama gonna send Jimmy Carter over here to build me a damn house? I got a right to a gen-you-wine Jimmy Carter-built Habitat House. So get crackin’, Peanut Boy.
Comment by Squid on 10/26 @ 3:52 pm #
I get what you’re saying, Darrell, and I largely agree. I think you just ruffled some feathers when you used the phrase “obliged to provide the opportunity.” Inasmuch as you’ve clarified your meaning along the lines of removing barriers to equal opportunity, I doubt you’ll find much argument from most of us.
Which isn’t to say that we’re not always on alert for those who’d redefine the ideal of equal opportunity to equal the ideal of equal outcome, but that’s an old, old argument.
Comment by Squid on 10/26 @ 3:54 pm #
As far as the U.N. Special Rapporteur goes, I encourage her to report to her heart’s content. She should rest assured that the people of the United States will give her report the attention it deserves.
I love English’s ambiguities…
Comment by N. O'Brain on 10/26 @ 4:23 pm #
” Unreasonable barriers to that opportunity, in the form of actual racial discrimination, for example, should be addressed.”
HELLOOOOOO, BARRIERS!!
How’s that?
Comment by Silver Whistle on 10/26 @ 4:28 pm #
It’s not so much that Ms Rolnik is especially fruity on these “rights” – by the standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, she is quite correct. It’s right there in Article 25:
If you have a strong stomach, you may care to browse through the rest of the Declaration. You’ll be surprised at what you’ve got a right to, according to the UN General Assembly.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 4:32 pm #
Perhaps I should interject for purposes of clarity here that it was never the case that I didn’t “get” what Darrell was saying, nor the case that I think in the final analysis that he was incorrect, nor that I would tend to disagree with him in his opinion. I too embrace the notion of equal opportunities for human beings taken as fellow citizens, whatever other categories, whether substantive or arbitrary, may be applied to them. I raised another and different, question. My only concern was to stop carrying on for a moment, to examine what sits behind the agreements we ordinarily claim, that’s all. It seems to me a mistake to so frequently skip the examination of our assumptions, without which nothing proceeds, as if they are decided once for all and need no further or returning inquiry.
Comment by newrouter on 10/26 @ 4:44 pm #
“or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
you can drive a tank through that opening.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 10/26 @ 4:50 pm #
Indeed, newrouter. The world is beyond my control. Pump my gas, bitch.
Comment by Darleen on 10/26 @ 5:15 pm #
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Amazing … someone clue the writer in that this is fiction.
Comment by mcgruder on 10/26 @ 5:24 pm #
As someone who lives in/around NYC, I am vastly amused at the prospect of some rococco Marxist choppering in—three days!!!!–and writing what we all know will be the inevitable take-out.
I am even more amused since all of NYC housing laws, private and public, are written by and for true liberals.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 5:26 pm #
Within the space of a few words span the document begins to unravel itself, for where are we to find the inherent dignity in disregard, contempt and barbarous acts?
Comment by Darrell on 10/26 @ 5:36 pm #
sdferr, I’m sorry I called you sophomoric, as you clearly are not. I was undisciplined and I do apologize.
> You come along and say “society is obliged to provide…” and so on, to which I merely ask, is obliged by what, by whom?
It seems to me that if a nation is based on the principle that “… all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” it is then obliged by its own promise to ensure that its citizens are not prevented from enjoying those rights. Otherwise, they are just pretty words.
When I flippantly answered “not really” to your entirely reasonable point that “Filling out such detail is all the problem,” I meant only that, as I see it, the issue is not complicated: all Americans must have the same opportunities, or the promise is broken.
Mrs. Rolnick is not wrong to desire that all Americans should enjoy prosperity and the warmth of a home. However, to attain that end, she would edit the words “the pursuit of” from the promise, as, it seems, would the Obama administration. I think the attempt can only end in disaster.
Comment by John Bradley on 10/26 @ 5:46 pm #
The bigger the Government, the smaller the people.
Better Cafepress that sum’bitch, Darleen!
Have a design… (2208×570).
Comment by SBP on 10/26 @ 5:50 pm #
Darrell: “pursuing” happiness doesn’t guarantee that you’re going to catch it.
If they’d wanted to guarantee that, it would have said something like “government-subsidized happiness.
Hint: equality of opportunity and equality of outcome aren’t the same thing.
I can pursue a dream to play basketball like Michael Jordan or sing like Enrico Caruso all I want. That’s my right. Doesn’t mean I’m going to get either of those things, though.
As long as we’ve got food, housing, and medicine all covered, though, I’m wondering about my right to have hot monkey sex with Jewel Staite. Firefly-era rather than Serenity, given my choice, but either way works for me.
Isn’t the desire for sex even more fundamental than food? So why shouldn’t that be provided by the government, too?
Comment by newrouter on 10/26 @ 5:53 pm #
government provided sex? perish the thought
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 5:55 pm #
Thanks for that Darrell. Let me pick on Mr Hobbes to take us further, if I may, and begin where he begins.
So, if he is correct, our view of human nature is of men irrepressibly concerned with their own individual interests first and the interests of society as such only secondarily and that only insofar (he goes on to say) as society can aid those primary interests.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 6:10 pm #
Hobbes, of course, didn’t have the genetic population studies of a Robert Trivers to look to for support of his claim that man, by nature, is always and everywhere selfish (not to put too fine a point on it), but we do. Altruism just doesn’t cut it in politics (or reproduction). Reciprocal altruism, while a powerfully explanatory tool, nevertheless abandons the meaning of altruism as such from the jump.
Comment by Rusty on 10/26 @ 6:29 pm #
93.Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 6:10 pm #
Hobbes,
Oh.Man. That stuffed tiger is awesome!!
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 6:32 pm #
And very funny too, if you give him half a chance Rusty.
Comment by Joe on 10/26 @ 6:51 pm #
New York, London, Paris, Munich, everyone is looking for, ummm, cheap housing!
Talk about cheap housing, Hong Kong too. Don’t forget Dubai. Or Singapore. Or Tokyo.
As for NYC–yeah a dig in Manhattan is going to cost a lot (especially south of the 90s). There are cheaper places to stay in Queeens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Harlem, Staten Island and of course in Jersey. And guess what, you do not even need a car if you pick a place close to a transit/subway line or bus route.
And compared to most of those cities listed above, NYC is cheap in comparsion.
Comment by Joe on 10/26 @ 6:52 pm #
Try getting cheap housing in Vancouver, BC, or Toronto, or Calgary. Prices going up there too.
Comment by JHo on 10/26 @ 6:57 pm #
Article 26 specifies the right to a free education. In case there was any doubt that in pursuit of its utopia, progressivism couldn’t alter the very laws of nature.
Although in that same context “education” is left undefined, so maybe only they know what they mean there if you know what I mean.
Comment by Darrell on 10/26 @ 7:21 pm #
sdferr, with your every post my embarrassment at calling you “sophomoric” expands by an order of magnitude.
All I know of Hobbes is what I just read in your post, so I’m reluctant to really say anything at all…and I’m going to listen to that little voice for once and shut up.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/26 @ 7:24 pm #
89. John Bradley
Oh, that is excellent!
Minor quibble: if that were a bumper sticker, I’d want the “the smaller the people” part a bit larger so that the driver behind me doesn’t run into me trying to read it.
;^)
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/26 @ 7:30 pm #
Darrell,
Oh, that happens to me at PW, too. I need to listen to that little voice a bit more often myself.
Comment by sdferr on 10/26 @ 7:32 pm #
Let me link you to him then Darrell, he actually is a funny (or impish, as Strauss puts it) fellow, as well as being the man standing at one root of our modern natural rights scheme.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/26 @ 7:56 pm #
24.Comment by BJTexs
No, there isn’t… well, I suppose you could call it “housing”, after a manner of speaking. Yep, there ya go: the USA is a “human rights violator” because we don’t allow decrepit shantytowns in our big cities.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/26 @ 7:59 pm #
Oh, lookie! I did the “cliché mashup”.
After a fashion, in a manner of speaking… you get the drift.
Comment by Darrell on 10/26 @ 8:07 pm #
Thank you, sdferr. I’ll look into this man. The passage you quoted made me think of Ayn Rand. Perhaps she wasn’t the real discoverer of Objectivism?
Spiny Norman, this is the first time since I discovered the Internet that I’ve even considered shutting up. It’s…so….hard. Must……pontificate…….
Comment by RTO Trainer on 10/26 @ 8:22 pm #
Yes. With your choice of Nancy Pelosi or Al Franken.
Comment by geoffb on 10/26 @ 8:23 pm #
Pistols at dawn. However you can have first shot in recompense for my unfortunate words on another thread yesterday. I shall however do my best, a woman who knows her way around tools, is cheerful, and is not afraid of grease is a prize indeed.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/26 @ 8:25 pm #
Ah geeze, RTO! I just ate dinner!
:::urp::
Comment by RTO Trainer on 10/26 @ 8:26 pm #
Eduation is part of the human condition. As such it is always free. (How many will touch the hot stove a second time?)
Access to professional educators, however, and we’re back to someone having a right to the labor of another.
Comment by B Moe on 10/26 @ 8:27 pm #
All right, let’s be honest. Who else would have a tough time with that decision?
Comment by Rusty on 10/26 @ 8:33 pm #
110.Comment by B Moe on 10/26 @ 8:27 pm #
With your choice of Nancy Pelosi or Al Franken.
All right, let’s be honest. Who else would have a tough time with that decision?
Is running away an option?
Comment by Spiny Norman on 10/26 @ 8:49 pm #
#109 RTO Trainer
To the Socialist/Marxist, society (aka, the State) has the right to everyone’s labor.
Comment by SBP on 10/27 @ 7:22 am #
#111 Good question. Also, is committing suicide an option? How about bashing your head against a wall to the point of unconsciousness?
Comment by MarkD on 10/27 @ 7:35 am #
Let the UN move out, say to Haiti or Darfur and make the UN HQ into condos for the poor. That would demonstrate their sincerity.
Comment by geoffb on 10/27 @ 10:41 am #
And it gets even worse with this addition.