Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is owning a home a right or a privilege?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:06 PM
Original message
Is owning a home a right or a privilege?
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:51 PM by Atman
No doubt many of you already know where I'm going with this. It's a serious question.

What other "privileges" are granted to us by the government? Which ones should force us to surrender our constitutional right in order to participate?

(ON EDIT:) I won't amend the original post above, but by way of clarification, allow me to re-phrase the original premise: is the ability to purchase a home, or access to home ownership, a right or a privilege? Too many are getting hung up on making an analogy where I am not trying to make one. Of course it is a "privilege" in terms of having the money to buy one. But does the state have the right to deny you that privilege if you can afford to make the purchase and otherwise stay current on all obligations associated with said owndership?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Definitely a privilege.
And I have no idea where you're going with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. So, if I can afford a home and can get a mortgage, the state can still tell me "NO?"
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:11 PM by Atman
I don't get it. Why? How?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. How can the state tell you "no"?
I don't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Exactly. How can the state deny you the "privilege" of owning a home?
That is the argument with driver's licenses...since it is a "privilege" to be allowed to drive, the state can suspend your legal rights and search you whenever you are in a car...moving or not.

I am guessing that those who feel home ownership is a privilege therefore feel they should acquiesce to have their homes searched at any time for any reason. Right? The whole argument seems to base upon right vs. privilege, yet the very first two respondents to this thread called ownership of shelter a "privilege."

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I don't understand where this business of the state denying one from owning a home is coming from
Are you saying that "Owning is a home is a privilege" is equivalent to "State can deny one from owning a home"? If so, that is a definition of privilege I am not familiar with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. The state/feds own the road ways
that is the difference.

You can drive all day long on your private property, drunk as a skunk, high as a kite, as fast as you want - on your private property, without a license.

Take it out on the roads, the turf they allow you to travel on, the property they give you the privilege of using, and you have to comply with their laws.

It is pretty simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wartrace Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
32. The state can not search your vehicle without probable cause.
Same thing with your home or your "person". Home ownership is not a "right", it is not a privilege either. Home ownership is the same thing as car ownership in that you can own a car if you have the means to purchase it. As long as that car is on your property the state has no laws regarding its use. Once you take the car out on public roads the state will require a valid drivers license & insurance. If you use the car to drive around your property it does not need to be insured, licensed or be operated by a qualified driver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
33. I think if houses travelled at 70 mph and struck and killed people you would have a better analogy
For the record I think that quite often police do violate the fourth amendment in regard to vehicle searches, but at the same time I have no problem with them taking away the driving privileges of those who do not drive responsibly and put the lives of others in danger.

Comparing houses which do not pose a threat to anyone to cars that kill many people every year is a bad analogy though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
48. Can they deny you the privilege of living in a home?
I have the right to own a car whether or not I have the privilege of driving it on public highways.

I also have the right to own a house whether or not I have the privilege of living in it. A failed building inspection, for example, could make it illegal for me to live in a house that I own.


However, in the former you do NOT have the privilege until and unless you pass a test, and in the latter you DO have the privilege until and unless your home fails a test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
49. The difference you keep failing to understand is...
When I buy property I don't sign away my rights. Something being a privileged doesn't necessarily require you to give up your rights.

On the other hand when you accept a license YOU ARE ACCEPTING that
1) you can be forced to give breathalyzer results.
2) If you refuse you can be detained and blood taken.
3) You give up the refuse to delay the process (even to consult w/ an attorney).

The license is a contract between you and the state.
Even if you are unaware when you accept/sign for your license you are giving the state permission to do all of the above.

By the time you are in a situation (drunk) the cops can force you to do 1-3 above because YOU ALREADY GRANTED THEM PERMISSION TO DO SO years ago (maybe even decades ago) when you accepted the license to drive.

If you look carefully at a driver's license application (which you sign) they will reference he statutes. Accepting the license is IMPLICITLY GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS as they pertain to those statutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
11 Bravo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
55. You clearly have never lived in a condominium or any other dwelling within the confines ...
of a Neighborhood Association. You absolutely sign away certain rights if you purchase a home under either of those jurisdictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. You never sign away CONSTITUTIONAL rights
You might agree to binding arbitration as opposed to court, but that doesn't mean you sign away your right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. There is no comparison.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. What about....
Suspect signing away Miranda rights?
What about a Plea Bargin deal? (sign away right to Jury Trial)


The truth is you "signed away" (if you want to use those terms) some of your rights when you accepted a driver's license and drive of govt controlled roads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. The key word being "unreasonable"
It's not unreasonable to do a test immediately because your blood alcohol content changes over time, and what is important is your blood alcohol content at the time of the stop. There is no other way to get that information other than the test. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conduct the test at the moment. Your claim that it's unreasonable and is therefore unconstitutional simply doesn't hold water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. You keep focusing on the act of giving your breath.
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 02:25 PM by Atman
I am not. You are very narrowly focusing your entire argument, I am not. And talking about AFTERWARDS. The phone call. The right of your lawyer to present certain witnesses or even question the validity of the science, or of the machine. Why do you insist upon making this all about the act of submitting to a breathalyzer test, when the ramifications and implications go far, far beyond that one act, that one instance in time? Why must you give away so many other legal rights that have nothing to do with the privilege of driving? You say you read the article, so you know what I'm talking about.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #69
74. Huh? I'm focusing on giving breath? What are you talking about?
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 02:37 PM by Pithlet
I most certainly am not. I'm not interested in giving away one single legal right. Really, my sole participating in this thread and the original one was really a call for rational thought. The article in the original thread was crap. All the red flags were there that this was just someone with an agenda, and not an actual factual article. There was appeal to emotion. Arguing from authority. It's precisely the kind of article that MADD would write. He was doing the very thing he accuses MADD of. Not the kind of article to gather facts from to base a good solid opinion from. I saw a lot of "Wow, he's right! MADD is bad! He is good! Throw out the laws!" Mine was an appeal to reason. He's doing the same thing they are! Let's hold up! Maybe those laws aren't as bad as you think. The consequences of just throwing those laws out could be very bad. Let's be rational about this.

No one has presented any evidence that the actual laws themselves are the problem. I will never, ever defend anyone's rights being trampled on. For example, if a boneheaded cop somehow violates someone's rights when they pull someone over for a DUI? Throw out the case. If breathalyzers don't work, give people the right to get a blood test right away. That's how you remedy the situation. We have due process for a reason. No one, not the article nor anyone defending it has presented me with any evidence that the laws themselves are a breech of our constitutional rights and therefore need to be repealed. I've seen nothing. If the argument is that DUI isn't an excuse to trample on constitutional rights? I'm with you. If the argument is that current laws do that? I don't see the evidence they do. So far, I'm getting "Well, driving is a right". Sorry. Like any right, it can be taken away with due process. We have to be able to enforce law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tangerine LaBamba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
81. No, no, no...........
We're talking about you being forbidden to buy a house. That's not what my question was, so don't go throwing up a strawman as you try to make a point.

Look, when you apply for a driver's license, you are entering into a contract with the state - you promise to obey their rules for the privilege (which is precisely what it is) of being allowed to drive on their roads, and, in exchange for that promise and your payment of fees, including insurance, you get to drive. If you violate that contract, you are no longer allowed to drive.

If you do something that makes police think you are posing a hazard, breaking a law, then they are obligated to pull you over and examine you. If you don't want to go along with that, and you want a lawyer, that's fine, and you're allowed to do that. But, because of that contract you have with the state, the state has the right to pull your driving rights until the matter is settled.

Now, I hope you can understand what I just explained to you. I'm sure it'll make your life simpler, and you won't have to go around bleating the bullshit you've been pitching. And that Fourth Amendment reference you seem to have pulled out of your ass is pure silliness.

By the way, you never answered my question. Why is that? How does the state interfere in your ability to buy a house?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #81
90. Don't be rude. I wasn't rude to you.
And there is no question to answer...I never said or inferred that the state interferes with one's ability to buy a house. YOU made that part up out of whole cloth, apparently thinking you were scoring some point or something.

"How does the state interefere with your ability to buy a house?" It doesn't. It's not germane. It's has nothing to do with my op.

Now, I'll say it for the umpteenth time...I am not saying the police shouldn't be allowed to place road blocks and screen all passing drivers. I am not saying that you cannot be required to submit to a breathalyzer test. Get of your condescending high horse and read what I have posted repeatedly. At the moment you come into police custody for suspicion of driving while intoxicated, you are in custody for suspicion of a crime. At that point, you should be afforded the same legal rights any other criminal is afforded. I'm tempted to add some similar condecending "It'll make your life simpler..." crap like you did. But I won't. You all keep missing this main point. No one is arguing that police should not be allowed to administer a breathalyzer. Ya got that? Capiche?

But once it has been administered, there are evidenciary rules which are thrown out for DUI suspects, there are discovery rules which are thrown out for DUI suspects, there are even rules forbidding one's attorney -- when he is finally able to contact one -- from even questioning the quality of the evidence against his client! They don't do this for rapists, murderers, or other criminals. That is my argument. It is NOT about whether people should be allowed to drive drunk, or whether police should be allowed to place check points (which I still think is specious, at best, but I am not necessarily opposed to them).

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #90
91. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Balbus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I think you're definition of privilege and my definition are a tad different.
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:16 PM by Balbus
But to answer the off-topic question you posed, I'd say no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. A privilege can be earned or granted.
In your example, you have earned the privilege to own a home. The state has nothing to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. What about a drivers license?
Once I pass my test and have earned the privilege to drive, why do most of my legal rights cease?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. "why do most of my legal rights cease"? Please elaborate.
Because I don't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Are you following the "DUI Exception to the Constitution" thread?
If not, please check it out. But before commenting, please, please read the article to which it links. Comments without the background of the article are useless.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4745758&mesg_id=4745758

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. If that thread was so integral to your OP, why didn't you just post it to that thread?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Why can't you simply respond, or ignore the thread.
If you've read the article and participated in the thread, I'd respect your opinion. You haven't, and appear to simply want to pick a fight.

That thread has grown exceedingly long, and devolved into several contentious sub-threads between particular posters. I am trying to expand upon the discussion in a way that isn't really possible as yet another sub-thread over there. Thanks for your concern.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. They didn't cease.... you choose to give them up
The terms and conditions of driving are defined by the license.
LICENSE also know as PERMIT as in PERMISSION, i.e. the govt granting you PERMISSION.

Kinda the same reason I get angry when people say my 2nd ammendment right should be subject to permit (permit = permissions. how can their be permission granted for a right?)

Anyways if you CHOOSE to drive then you CHOOSE to accept the terms the govt has laid out.

The govt didn't take anything. You GAVE them away the instant you moved your vehicle onto public property.

Don't like it?
The simplier fix would be to lobby to change the restrictions on driving.
It would still be a permission albiet one with restrictions you find more appealing.

Long term fix would be to move to ammend the constitution making it a protected right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #25
35. "The govt didn't take anything. You GAVE them away the instant you moved your vehicle..."
Correct, but only in terms of DRIVING. I am talking about the rights that you surrender long after you've left the roadway...right to phone calls, right for your attorney to present evidence to defend you, etc. READ THE ARTICLE in the other thread.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:42 PM
Original message
I did and understand the issue.
It is a gray line, I agree.

However now that you accept that driving on public roads is a privilege granted by the state:

One of the conditions is that you ACCEPT is that you GIVE UP your right to not have your breath used against you. You give up right to consult w/ an attorney before being questioned. You give up right to challenge the evidence in court.

By accepting the license and then exercising it (by driving) you GAVE UP those rights.

By the time the Police stop/arrest/detain you, you have ALREADY given them permission to use your breath as evidence against you.
You gave the permission by virtue accepting the license to drive and then driving.

It is no different that a suspect signing away their Miranda rights and then giving a confession.
The only difference is you SIGN AWAY YOUR RIGHTS at the time you accept the driver's license.


Not understanding what rights you sign away in advance is no defense.

Don't like it. You have 4 options:
1) Don't drive
2) Build a private road network. Private property is not subject to state issued driver's license.
3) Lobby to get law changed. You accept driving is a privilege BUT believe the conditions are too harsh.
4) Lobby to have Constitution Amended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
50. Where does it say these things on your drivers license application or handbook?
"One of the conditions is that you ACCEPT is that you GIVE UP your right to not have your breath used against you. You give up right to consult w/ an attorney before being questioned. You give up right to challenge the evidence in court."

I've never seen them before. They made them up after the fact. It would seem to almost be fraud to say "Oh, yeah, we didn't tell you about this, but..." In any other contract situation, that would be bullshit.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. Ignorance is no defense.
Go to your DMV and ask for an drivers license application. Look at the small print at the bottom.

I am paraphrasing here (it will be in legalize) but there is something to the effect of:
"Accepting of this license is acceptance of conditions of statute 123.456.x".

If you then look up that statute in your state legal code you will see that you just signed away your rights to refuse all those things you are complaining the state "TOOK FROM YOU".

They didn't take anything. You gave them away. Maybe you can argue you were "tricked" out of your rights but
1) Ignorance of the law has never been a defense
2) Courts routinely rule that the police/state has the right & authority to gain a conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. Privelege.
If you want to make it a right then start work raising money to amend the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ikojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. I think shelter is a right. In a country as wealthy
as the US, there should be no one sleeping in the streets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Agree. Shelter is a right.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Yes, shelter is or ought to be a right. But that isn't what the OP asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ikojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:22 PM
Original message
I think home ownership is a privilege
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:23 PM by ikojo
one underwritten by our tsx dollars.

If this country can afford to subsidize home ownership via the tax code, then it can afford to help people get into an apartment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wartrace Donating Member (920 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
40. We do use subsidies to get people into apartments.
Just as all homeowners do not use the mortgage interest deduction (I didn't), most apartment dwellers do not get subsidies. On the other hand, section eight housing is a direct use of tax dollars to subsidize housing for those in need.

The mortgage interest deduction is not a really "great deal". If you send in 10,000 dollars in interest every year to a bank you deduct 2500 to 3600 dollars off your tax bill. If you donate 10,000 to the red cross it is the same thing. I don't like banks enough to send them 10k in order to get 2500 off my taxes. I would rather donate to charity for my deduction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Shelter is a right. Shelter != Ownership
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. Having a home be it rental or mortgage is a right.

You don't own a home until it's paid for. Until that happens, the bank owns it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Let's get past the semantics games...
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:20 PM by Atman
What makes it a "privilege" in the context to which I am referring? Since it is a "privilege," who grants that privilege, and do you give up your legal rights by accepting the "privilege?"

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Semantics are not a game - they are a key to effective communication
Effective communication being something that there is not very much of on this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
30. Privelege == Private emollument
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:32 PM by realpolitik
Right == a common weal.

One does not have a right to own property.

One may be privileged to own property. But if you forget to pay property tax,
that privilege can be withdrawn with minimal legal complication.

If you hold something by right, like life and liberty, it takes a lot more for the state to take them from you.
A right, for our purposes, exists by virtue of your birth.

Shelter, IIRC is covered under the four freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. Lucid response
to a murky, rather ambiguous post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
10. owning a home is a privilege
having a place to live is a right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
16. Dude....it's America. We have the best rights money can buy.
If your poor or broke, fuck you - you don't have the right to anything but a hard time.

Got a shit load of money and can afford the lawyers, and lobbyists? Come one over; we'll bend the rules just for you and yours.

It sounds harsh, but that's the reality of the situation. When you model a society after a corrupt, Roman style, "representative" democracy like we currently have, you end up with the golden rule of "he who has the gold makes the rules."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
19. I think owning a home is a scam
unless you can afford it. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
23. It's a privilege. No one has the right to own a home.
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:29 PM by Pithlet
If you don't pay your mortgage, they're going to take the home away, aren't they? You can't claim it's your right to own it, and the bank doesn't have the right to take it away, can you? No.

But I do know what you're getting. The state doesn't issue home owner's licenses, granting you the right to use your home the way they do for cars. But most do charge property taxes, and will take that property away from you if you don't pay them, so in effect they license homes that way. And then there's things like zoning laws, and having to have permits to do certain things on your own property, etc. So your home isn't totally and completely yours. It's also part of the community. You're not completely free and clear to do whatever you please with it, depending on where you live and the local laws.

No right is absolute. When you abuse the right in such a way that damages society, then society has a right after due process to punish you for that abuse. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't put others' lives at risk by driving drunk. It's really that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. That is ridiculous. Everyone has a right to own a home if they can afford it.
If not, who grants the "privilege?" Remember, I'm not saying anyone should GIVE you a home. Never said that. No one GIVES you a drivers license, either. You have to pay to get it, pay to renew it, and even pay your property taxes in most areas...skip out on your excise tax for your car, you lose the "privilege" of renewing your license.

You see, it really isn't that simple. Simply saying it's simple doesn't make it simple.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. Not it isn't a right
Take a city like NYC, not much land left.

You have NO RIGHT to buy/own that land unless someone is willing to sell it to you.
If someone is unwilling to sell you can't make them sell it. You can't sue to force them to sell it to you.
You are subject to their "permission" to buy it.

Compare that to another right.
Heller was prohibited from buying/owning a weapon in DC.
He sued DC and the Supreme Court ruled he has a RIGHT to own/possess that weapon (Heller vs DC).

Imagine if you sued all the way to Supreme Court arguing your RIGHT to own property.
Do you think SCOTUS would decide you have that right? Unlikely. There is no right there.

Eventually in larger cities land will become even more scarce.
Some property in NYC hasn't been sold in 50, 60, 70 years.
You have no RIGHT to buy it if someone is unwilling to sell it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. You're expanding into silly territory.
You know I am not talking about forcing anyone to sell you anything. That isn't at all what I am saying...

All other situations being satisified -- clear title, availability, willingness of the owner to sell, fees and taxes paid, etc, etc -- you're telling me that it is not your right to purchase a home?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. It is your right in that situation, but you can't compare that to DUI law
A drunken homeowner quite simply does not pose the same risk to public safety that a drunken driver does, your analogy makes no sense at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. I'm not saying you said that.
But you do seem to be saying that people basically should just be free and clear to do whatever they please without any consequences, because the removal of those consequences is an infringement of rights. Quite simply, it isn't. People have the right to be free. Does that make jails an infringement of rights? No, it doesn't. We have to be able to punish people somehow, or we can't have a functioning society. Owning a home is a right. Of course. But banks have to be able to take back homes, or no one would be able to buy any, because banks would never lend any money if they couldn't protect their investment. Driving is a right. Yes. But we have to be able to punish drunk driving offenders, or the roads would never be safe to drive on. Yes, taking away a driver's license is an imposition. But so is losing a house. So is going to jail. So are a lot of consequences. Removing those consequences, claiming that people having these unassailable rights that just can't ever be taken away ever ever no matter what, means we can't have a functioning society.

Basically, it boils down to No, you can't just do whatever the hell you please. Society can dole out consequences to you. And you may not like them. Yes, we do have rights, and it is important that we safeguard those rights. That's what Due Process is for. We have to make sure Due Process is followed. As long as we do that, we're golden. Due Process does not mean "You can't take away my driver's license no matter what offense I commit, so there! It's my right to drive!" Yes. The state does have a right to take away our licenses. It has to have that right. Otherwise, our roads get clogged with dangerous drivers. As long as they follow due process to determine who loses that right, I'm fine with it. No one's constitutional rights are violated. Just as no one's constitutional rights are violated when they're sent to jail after a speedy trial of a jury of their peers with adequate representation in a court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
46. You haven't read the article in question, have you?
Where did I "seem to say" that anyone has a right to do anything they please? I simply never stated any such thing.

If you don't know where this fits into the DUI discussion, then reading the article should clear things up for you, because you make several flat-out wrong statements in your response. There is no question that it is illegal to drive drunk. But once you are in police custody, you are no longer driving. Except, the court has ruled that there are many "DUI Exceptions" to the constitution. You may agree to submit to sobriety tests when you accept a drivers license, but I checked mine, and nowhere does it say I otherwise accept suspension of my due process rights. But that is what is happening. READ THE ARTICLE.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. Oh, no. Not another "you haven't read the article"
Yes. I've read the article. I've gone on at length about The Article, in The Thread that spawned all this. I'm well aware of how this all fits in. I participated in that thread. Read my responses there to see how I view the article.

In short; I'm not on either extreme of this issue. I'm not a member of MADD. I haven't lost anyone dear to me in a drunk driving accident. Nor have I received a DUI nor do I know very well anyone who has received one. So, I'm not very emotionally invested in this issue. I'm pretty middle of the road, here. I don't think the current laws generally are egregious and need to be repealed, nor do I think they're weak and think they need to be strengthened in order to toughen up and crack down on drunk drivers. I think MADD is clearly an organization that probably doesn't have the issues of the rights of defendants at heart, and I think the guy that wrote The Article is biased very heavily in favor of people accused and convicted of DUI, and wishes to see DUI laws weakened, and doesn't really have the issues of road safety at heart. He's the opposite extreme of MADD. I'm neither. I think DUI laws are a good thing, and I'm not going to jump on the DUI laws are bad bandwagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinqy Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #46
63. Read the actual court cases.
The article distorts and misrepresents the actual decisions. For example, the article cites http://laws.findlaw.com/us/496/444.html">Michigan v Sitz (1990) and represents it as
Some of you say, "Well, that cant happen in the United States. We have the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which says police officers have to have probable cause to stop you. They have to have a reason to believe youve done something criminal before they can stop and detain you." And so said the Michigan Supreme Court in 1990 in the case of Sitz v. Michigan. The Court said, "The Fourth Amendment does not permit these types of roadblocks" and reversed the DUI conviction. The case went up to the United States Supreme Court, unfortunately, and that august body decided that somewhere in the Constitution there is something called a "DUI Exception". And in a 5 to 4 vote sent it back to Michigan saying there is no violation here
But how can it possibly be portrayed as a "DUI exception" when the decision was based on a previous decision involving roadblocks to check for illegal immigrants?

And it's a distortion anyway. Yes, the police must have a specific reason to pull over an individual. Pulling over EVERYBODY is not the same thing as pulling over an individual for no reason. At the roadblocks, the police only detain those people who they do suspect of having done something wrong..

The next case misrepresented was http://laws.findlaw.com/us/468/420.html">Berkemer v McCarty where the article states
In 1984 in Berkemer v. McCarty, the United States Supreme Court fooled around for about 20 or 30 pages of opinion and finally concluded that there was apparently a DUI exception to the constitution. And that, "Well, we really cant tell you when youre supposed to give Miranda in a DUI case. We do know that it is later than in other types of criminal investigations."
But the opinion doesn't say anything about only applying to DUI cases! The court ruled (and this applies to ALL cases) that Miranda rights don't have to be read until/unless the person is actually in custody. (Even then rights don't have to be read unless they question you). A simple traffic stop is not considered to be "in custody." The officer does not have to read you your rights before asking how fast you were going (OMG! a speeding exception to the constitution). For ALL investigations, until the suspect is actually in custody (usually defined as not being able to leave) rights don't have to be read. So in Berkemer, the statements he made before he was arrested are admissible, the statements he made after he was arrested are not because he wasn't read his rights.

I could go on, but please, sho ONE thing that applies ONLY to DUI.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Thank you! I'm not the only one.
I was really trying in that thread to get that across. He's trying to distort the cause, and make it look like big, bad evil DUI laws that have to be stricken from the books. But it really is just this distorted agenda piece. I could see no concrete evidence anywhere in that article that the problem was DUI laws, and that they're just this egregious constitutional violation. Of course, we have to be constantly vigilant in protecting our rights. On that I have no doubt, and our justice system is flawed. There's no reason to twist that fact into agenda to get rid of perfectly good laws that actually do do some good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
45. What if you don't have a mortgage? Is it then a right?
Of course there are laws which you have to follow, taxes, zoning, making sure it is built to code, etc.

And yes, there are always laws that affect everything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #45
56. Well, I guess the landlord can kick you out for not paying rent.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. I own my home, no mortgage. It happens.
I still have to follow zoning laws, building code, pay taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithlet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. Oh, I see what you're saying. You still have to pay taxes, though right?
Unless it's some highly unusual situation, like you've claimed you're a church or something, then you could still conceivably lose your home. At any rate, the OP is trying to make a false analogy, and it really isn't working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #60
79. Yes and I agree. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
27. Decent HOUSING should be a right
If you can't afford a home, then there should at least be a right to clean, safe and affordable housing.

People forced to live on the streets in the most prosperous nations in the world is a disgrace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
28. Home Ownership not an enumerated right in our Constitution & I don't see how it's an un-enumerated
right under the Ninth Amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
29. It should be a right (nm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. IMO, owning a home, renting, owning a share in a condo or co-op, or whatever, is a choice -- but
in any nation wealthy enough, especially one that touts itself as The Greatest Nation On Earth as ours continually does, everyone should be able to fulfill their choice, within reason of course. I'm not saying someone making 40K should be able to live in a million dollar home. However, I believe any nation which considers itself an advanced civilization (whether or not America still considers itself one after eight years of Bush/Cheney) must achieve a few basic living standards; an adequate supply of decent, affordable housing, whether a person chooses to rent or own, is one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
39. an albatross..
unless you own your home outright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
41. Acquiring any material thing is a privilege
...because you have to get it from someone else.

ACCESS to home ownership, however, IS a right. In the United States, merely being born confers the right to
pursue home ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjorn Against Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
42. I think there should be a right to shelter, but I wouldn't say we have a right to own a home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
44. It's neither
You buy a house because you have the money/credit to do so--it's no different from buying any other object you desire and have the means to do so. I suppose that if you have your money/credit merely because of who you are (i.e., you inherited it), then that would be a privilege. But for the vast majority of homeowners, it's just a free market decision like anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
53. Are you going to live in the house safetly or blow it up and endanger your neighbors?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
54. There is a difference between owning a home and driving a car.
It is good to look at issues like this, but there is a difference between the 2 things, and some similarities.

Similarities is that there are legal guidelines with both.

Car driving: you are supposed to get a drivers license which entails (usually) paying money and taking a test. If you get break traffic laws, there are consquences. Traffic laws are in place to try and keep as many people safe as possible since autos are big killing machines.

Home: there are building codes, zoning regulations and taxes as part of house building/ownership. They are to try and keep people safe by building safely, to bunch types of places together (business, residential, etc.) (some say to keep property values up or down), and taxes to help pay for things that each of us as individuals cannot afford individually (schools, libraries, fire/police, roads, etc).

If you build and do not follow building codes, which are stricter some places, and are caught, the county inspectors can make you stop building and deny you the ability to live (legally) in your structure.

One law that bothers me is the one about getting caught with drugs and having your house, boat, car, seized. I am not sure if that is still a law as I know a few yrs back there was a bunch of whoohaw about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
57. That depends
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 01:59 PM by LWolf
on whether a "home" is secure, stable shelter and sanctuary, or a commodity.

I think that owning your home, meaning that nobody can evict you or take it away from you, is a right.

A right that is obscured because homes are also financial investments, assets, and commodities.

I'd like to see homes be ONLY homes. I'd like to see the real estate industry come to an end, and profit removed.

I don't know how to do that without crashing the economy further.

Your question is about the right to participate in the industry, not about the right to private, secure shelter.

I guess, if you will guarantee adequate, safe, private, secure shelter to all for life, then the ability to purchase real estate is a privilege.

I like to own my home, because nobody can take it away from me, for at least as long as I can pay my taxes and mortgage. Nobody can tell me whether I can paint, or what colors to use, or whether I can knock a wall down, or anything else.

It's mine, and I'm not living here under someone's sufferance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zorahopkins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
64. It's A Right
If anyone is able, then the government should not prevent that person from owning a home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
65. Shelter is a right; owning a home is a privilege for those who can afford it
And if you're talking about driving, no one ever got drunk and killed people by pushing their house down the road.

People can and do get along without cars and have throughout most of human history. They have always used some kind of shelter, even if it was only a cave or a tent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #65
71. The people who got along without cars back in "history"
were also people who had enormous local support systems, and who weren't expected to commute ten to fifteen miles or more to get to their jobs every day.

One of the biggest obstacles to the advancement of the American people is this: the affordable, safe homes are rare in the places where the jobs are, and the jobs are rare where the affordable, safe homes are. We are no longer localized. We must fix this enormous problem before we expect most Americans to be able to function without cars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #71
76. That's why I chose to live in a walkable neighborhood with
what passes for good public transit in the Twin Cities. (Buses every twenty minutes on weekdays, every half hour on weekends! Big whoop! Tokyo, London, or even Portland would consider that BAD transit.) In my immediate neighborhood are a food co-op, a hardware store, a bakery, a public library, a coffee shop, four restaurants, an ice cream parlor, a hair salon, and a bunch of other businesses. Within reasonable walking distance are a dry cleaner's, another bakery, another coffee shop, and what used to be a supermarket and will soon be a drugstore. If I'm really feeling ambitious and it's not too cold, I can walk 40 minutes to the old downtown of the suburb of Edina, which has even more necessities and amenities.

I lived without a car in Portland for ten years. That is getting easier and easier to do as they expand their transit system (it's pretty good, even in the suburbs). While I lived there, I started seeing more and more people give up their cars.

I still need a car in Minneapolis to fill in the many gaps in the transit system and to run errands for my mother. However, I drive so little that I get by on an average of a tank of gas per month.

Every last one of my relatives lives in non-walkable suburban neighborhoods. They chose to do so, even though some of them were in perfectly acceptable urban neighborhoods before. Unless your urban neighborhood is considered cool or trendy, there's a lot of social pressure to move into the burbs.

But back to the main point about driving as a privilege. Outside of The Wizard of Oz, a house is not a lethal weapon. A car has that potential. The average American is more likely to be killed or injured in a car crash than by a criminal. If someone repeatedly drives drunk or otherwise recklessly, damn right his license should be revoked.
A few months of getting up extra early to walk to work or take the bus could literally be a sobering experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
66. Its a right to own but there is no need for the Government to give me one
Kind of like guns and cars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lyric Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
68. Owning a home is a right, if you can afford to do so.
Safe, clean, affordable housing is also a right--whether you can afford it or not. Or at least it would be in MY universe. We'll work on making it a right in this universe too, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
70. Isn't it already a right created by the fair housing laws?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinqy Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
72. Since you're going for the DUI analogy....
There are circumstances where the police can enter and/or search your house without a warrant. And, the police can go and knock on every door in a neighborhood if they want to, and if they see or hear anything suspicious, they can search at least part of the house and/or search the homeowner/occupant. Hmmmm sounds like a DUI roadblock and search to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YellowRubberDuckie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
73. Decent housing/shelter is a right....OWNING a home is a privilege.
Oh that should be under taken when you can afford it.
Duckie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
75. I think the state can and does..
regulate/legislate who can buy homes/land where. It is a privilege to know the right people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
varelse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
77. Neither
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 03:01 PM by varelse
Equal opportunity to own a home is a right. We're not even trying to create those opportunities in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
78. Property ownership is a right but that does not guarantee you a home even if you have money.
Everyone should have the right to owning their own home but they are only able to own what someone is willing to sell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
80. Tough one
I'd say both. Very short version-- Reasons? Part of the racial inequities we see are a result of racist policies that didn't allow the passage of generational wealth. Whites "owned" (ownership is a difficult concept for me, with my socialist tendencies and all) homes, blacks often didn't, for example. There was little accrual of wealth, leading to cycles of poverty that are still evident today. When we have that kind of social distortion, it creates a very unhealthy society with the social cancers of racism, bigotry, prejudice and sexism very much in play today.

So why a right? If I can afford my home, and I bought one recently, having moved out of one I thought I was buying through family (a toxic sludge dysfunctional family story, I'll spare you details) I live in a poor, working class neighborhood, where there still was "affordable" housing in my city. I've lived here for years. Many here have lost their homes. For sale signs up everywhere. Some of those who lost their home worked two and three jobs to maintain their families and it still wasn't enough. Immigrants, some of them who hadn't the educational background or whose education in their country of origin didn't count here. There was no recourse for them. No help. They worked their asses off, and it wasn't enough. What happens to the generation of children that lives in poverty and under the scorn of the dominant culture? They create their own sub-cultures and not all of those are healthy.

I also live not to far from newer housing projects where the plan is a kind of rent to own, and some Habitat for Humanity houses. What this does for people is helps them invest in their own future, and so invests in the future of our society. Home ownership is a benefit to society in general.

Why a privilege? There are always the bad intentioned, the scam artist, the ones who take advantage. So when I say "right" I have to remember that those kind of people will shit all over any rights others have or are trying to get

Kind of rambling, I know. I know what I mean, I'm not getting the words out correctlyx(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
82. My home is paid for but if I don't pay taxes it will be taken from me.
So I guess I don't really own it, I just don't have a mortgage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
83. I think it's a right to buy your own home with your own money
Not all rights are specifically enumerated, and I can't for the life of me think of anything that would say I don't have a "right" to purchase a home with my own money as long as I'm a citizen of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
84. Owning property is a right. You have a right to purchase any legal goods you can afford. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
85. You're making a false analogy
The two issues are not parallel. You can't kill someone if you drink and then sit in your car. You don't have to take out a license and regularly get it renewed for sitting in your house.

But if you have the money, you ought to be able to buy a house if you want. Still, this has nothing to do with the drunk driving issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
86. Kick and rec for a deserving topic.
Everyone in America should be involved in this conversation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
87. It is both
Edited on Thu Jan-01-09 05:19 PM by SoCalDem
Unfortunately there is no more "free land..just for the taking", like there was in the "olden days". All "our" land is owned by someone, so anyone who wants a piece of his/her own property must now come to an agreement with the person who holds the current deed to said property.

You do not have to be a citizen to own land here, so it's not really a "privilege" of citizenship. Your "privilege" of citizenship itself, may allow you to have the wherewithal to be able to "afford" a home of your own..but it does not guarantee you a home.

It's a simple case of trading two things of value... land has value, and money has value. The two parties involved, swap..

It's just a transaction, because one party is purchasing something from another party, and the "deal" is not complete until the deed is transferred upon completion of the payments.

If you have satisfied the terms of the sale agreement, and keep the property taxes current, you have the "right" to stay there..If you do not, then it's the right of the "rightful owner" to toss you out..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stellabella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
88. Owning is a privilege, but having a safe, warm, clean place to live is a right.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-01-09 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
89. Do you accept that the state has the right to license operators of motor vehicles?
Operators of motor vehicles on the roads that it maintains?

Apparently not, because you're really stuck on these bullshit red herrings. Owning a home has nothing to do- nothing- with driving a car. They are two totally separate circumstances.

And, yeah, the state CAN tell people where they can or can't live, in certain circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 19th 2021, 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC