Who should be able to buy houses?

[Forsher]

I never conflated housing and owning a house.

meh

That’s been my point this whole time.

I know. Your point is delusional, not complex. Watch closely:

You do not believe housing (not a house, housing) is a right

There is your claim. Housing (not a house, housing). Just as you say you're talking about. Now watch how you respond:

I do believe housing is a right, in the sense that people are entitled to shelter from the elements as a necessary condition to human survival. I do not believe the right to own a home exists.

Why are you repeating the statement that was just put to you? Well, evidently, you don't think you're repeating that statement. You think you're "clarifying" matters. Either your posts make no internal sense (which, frankly, I'm willing to believe), or you think that you disagree with "housing (not a house, housing)". Hence, conflation.

That's the difference. Nor do I believe anyone has the obligation to furnish you with housing unless you can prove that you are absolutely unable to, in which case it's the government's responsibility.

Anyone who can prove they can't own something, can afford to buy a mansion.

[-Ra-]

This is property rights. It has fuck all to do with housing (or even real estate) except insofar as real estate, housing stock and so on are ownable things.

Yes... you are correct. That's my point. A right to a home only exists insofar as you own the home.

It is not a right to housing... it may not even be a "right" at all in the sense that property rights are just an entitlement to have private property.

Not it isn't. An entitlement is a privilege that may be taken away and are dependent on the law. Property rights are inalienable and precede government.

No, not at all. You're now talking about something completely different that is wholly unrelated to what you've started with.

No I am not. I was only pointing out that there is a difference between the right to housing, as in the right to be sheltered, and the right to a home, which does not exist. I brought these two up because people in the thread were conflating them.

That isn't what a "right" is. That's what an entitlement is. They're not the same thing (pro-tip, if people use different words, then it's usually a sign they're talking about something different... and definitely a sign you can't presume they're the same thing).

It isn't an entitlement. It is a positive right. The program itself is an entitlement, but the right to have adequate shelter is a positive right based on the right to life, which is an inalienable right.

If you have a right to housing, you cannot qualify out of that right. If you can, it is not a right.

Again, here you are conflating the right to shelter with the right to own a home. Everyone has the right to a minimal standard of shelter that is necessary for their survival. If a person can absolutely prove that they cannot provide shelter on their own, then they are entitled to the state's dole.

[Forsher]

This is property rights. It has fuck all to do with housing (or even real estate) except insofar as real estate, housing stock and so on are ownable things.

Yes... you are correct. That's my point. A right to a home only exists insofar as you own the home.

That isn't a right to a home. Nor is it a right to housing. Stop using language that says otherwise. It's that simple.

It is not a right to housing... it may not even be a "right" at all in the sense that property rights are just an entitlement to have private property.

Not it isn't. An entitlement is a privilege that may be taken away and are dependent on the law. Property rights are inalienable and precede government.

Property rights aren't germane to this conversation, stop talking about them.

No, not at all. You're now talking about something completely different that is wholly unrelated to what you've started with.

No I am not. I was only pointing out that there is a difference between the right to housing, as in the right to be sheltered, and the right to a home, which does not exist. I brought these two up because people in the thread were conflating them.

You don't believe in a right to housing either.

And the point is that you've tried to justify relativity on the basis evolution exists. I don't care why you introduced whatever terms you're misusing.

That isn't what a "right" is. That's what an entitlement is. They're not the same thing (pro-tip, if people use different words, then it's usually a sign they're talking about something different... and definitely a sign you can't presume they're the same thing).

It isn't an entitlement. It is a positive right. The program itself is an entitlement, but the right to have adequate shelter is a positive right based on the right to life, which is an inalienable right.

It's not an entitlement, except it is an entitlement.

Make up your mind.

If you have a right to housing, you cannot qualify out of that right. If you can, it is not a right.

Again, here you are conflating the right to shelter with the right to own a home.

Notice the lack of the word "own"? Notice the lack of the word "home"? Notice the word that you claim you're all about, housing?

Now try and explain how a literate person can conclude I just said "if you have a right to a home, you cannot quality out of that right" if housing and home are different words with distinct meanings as we have both repeatedly said.

Ah...

Everyone has the right to a minimal standard of shelter that is necessary for their survival.

Except, no, they don't... since you can qualify out of that "right" at any time.

Your point is really fucking simple to understand. Just stop associating the word "right" with it and no-one would give a fuck what you think.

If a person can absolutely prove that they cannot provide shelter on their own, then they are entitled to the state's dole.

The real world will not be kind to you.

[-Ra-]

That isn't a right to a home. Nor is it a right to housing. Stop using language that says otherwise. It's that simple.

That is the right to property, or more specifically: the right to the home you already own. There is no such thing as a right to a home that isn't based on you already owning it. That's my point.

Right to housing =/= right to own a home out of your own means.

This isn't complex. It's just elementary logic.

Property rights aren't germane to this conversation, stop talking about them.

They are germane to this conversation, because people have conflated home ownership, which is based on the right to property, with the right to shelter, which isn't.

You don't believe in a right to housing either.

I do believe in a right to housing, though.

It's not an entitlement, except it is an entitlement.

Make up your mind.

The right to housing isn't an entitlement. It is a right. The government program that provides housing to those who cannot find it elsewhere is the entitlement. Read more carefully.

Notice the lack of the word "own"? Notice the lack of the word "home"? Notice the word that you claim you're all about, housing?

Now try and explain how a literate person can conclude I just said "if you have a right to a home, you cannot quality out of that right" if housing and home are different words with distinct meanings as we have both repeatedly said.

You are not making any sense here. Please rephrase in a way someone can actually understand. Housing and home carry two distinct meanings when speaking of rights and privileges.

Ah...

The real world will not be kind to you.

The world has been kind enough to me so far, mate.

[Forsher]

This isn't complex. It's just elementary logic.

Get this through your head: I know what you mean... I'm telling you what you mean is nonsense that has nothing to do with this topic.

Property rights aren't germane to this conversation, stop talking about them.

They are germane to this conversation, because people have conflated home ownership, which is based on the right to property, with the right to shelter, which isn't.

If you can't explain your point without needing to appeal to randos that you're not talking to, you don't understand your own point.

You don't believe in a right to housing either.

I do believe in a right to housing, though.

Not in a way that is sensible to anyone else. Your definition of a "right to housing" is "people have an entitlement to housing under very specific circumstances". That is not a right.

It's not an entitlement, except it is an entitlement.

Make up your mind.

The right to housing isn't an entitlement. It is a right. The government program that provides housing to those who cannot find it elsewhere is the entitlement. Read more carefully.

It's not an entitlement, except it is an entitlement.

Don't repeat the same things you've already said.

Notice the lack of the word "own"? Notice the lack of the word "home"? Notice the word that you claim you're all about, housing?

Now try and explain how a literate person can conclude I just said "if you have a right to a home, you cannot quality out of that right" if housing and home are different words with distinct meanings as we have both repeatedly said.

You are not making any sense here. Please rephrase in a way someone can actually understand. Housing and home carry two distinct meanings when speaking of rights and privileges.

Now, who introduced the word home? Oh, that's right... it was you.

The world has been kind enough to me so far, mate.

Considering you're literally inserting words where they don't appear, it hasn't. People who are hallucinating are not thriving.

[-Ra-]

Get this through your head: I know what you mean... I'm telling you what you mean is nonsense that has nothing to do with this topic.

You don't know what I mean, though. I don't think you know what you mean, for that matter. I think I've made my point clear on multiple occasions, while you can only offer obfuscation.

If you can't explain your point without needing to appeal to randos that you're not talking to, you don't understand your own point.

I don't have to appeal to "randos". You're guilty of the same mistake.

Not in a way that is sensible to anyone else. Your definition of a "right to housing" is "people have an entitlement to housing under very specific circumstances". That is not a right.

Not it isn't. A right does not imply that someone is required to provide something to you. The right to housing suggests that every individual is entitled to have shelter over their head as protection from the elements. If you have the financial or social means of providing shelter for yourself, such as by buying or renting a home, then there is no reason for you to appeal to the state. It is your responsibility to effect that right. If and only if you can demonstrate that you are financially or socially unable to find shelter on your own, the state provides it for you temporarily. The right to housing is essentially just the right to shelter, which the state must only provide to you if you can prove you are in want of it and cannot find it.

It's not an entitlement, except it is an entitlement.

The right is the right. The entitlement is the entitlement. The right is not the entitlement. The right to housing is different from a government entitlement that provides housing to people who cannot find it elsewhere. The entitlement fulfills part of the right, but the entitlement is not the right itself, nor is the state obliged to extend the entitlement to those who can find housing on their own.

Now, who introduced the word home? Oh, that's right... it was you.

Yes, that's what we are talking about. You are mistaking the right to shelter with the right to own a home. That's the object of this discussion, mate.

You seem very angry. Maybe this image of a kitten will help you relax.

[Grenartia]

Everyone has the right to minimally decent living standards. This includes access to food and water as well as protection from the elements that is sufficient for sustaining life.

So you agree with me and Iffy, then.

Well it isn't really working out for us.

Who is us? It’s working just fine for me, and even when it doesn’t come out swell I don’t always see fit to complain.

The current system doesn't even recognize the right to minimally decent living standards, food, or water. And just because its "working just fine" for you, personally, doesn't mean those of us who are less privileged than you are seeing those benefits.

[-Ra-]

Everyone has the right to minimally decent living standards. This includes access to food and water as well as protection from the elements that is sufficient for sustaining life.

So you agree with me and Iffy, then.

I would agree with you to the extent that I think shelter is a human right. Not that we need to abolish private property in order to shelter everyone. That’s just a ridiculous jump.

The current system doesn't even recognize the right to minimally decent living standards, food, or water. And just because its "working just fine" for you, personally, doesn't mean those of us who are less privileged than you are seeing those benefits.

I think it recognises it just fine. Western capitalist countries have the lowest incidence of malnutrition and homelessness in the world. There are tweaks we can make, places we can improve, but drastic changes are unnecessary.

[Neoliberal Consensus]

I'm glad that our trusted institutions like BlackRock are buying up houses to make sure Russian-backed working class populists don't use them to threaten our democracy.

[Forsher]

Get this through your head: I know what you mean... I'm telling you what you mean is nonsense that has nothing to do with this topic.

You don't know what I mean, though. I don't think you know what you mean, for that matter. I think I've made my point clear on multiple occasions, while you can only offer obfuscation.

Prove it.

If you can't explain your point without needing to appeal to randos that you're not talking to, you don't understand your own point.

I don't have to appeal to "randos". You're guilty of the same mistake.

Prove it.

Not in a way that is sensible to anyone else. Your definition of a "right to housing" is "people have an entitlement to housing under very specific circumstances". That is not a right.

Not it isn't. A right does not imply that someone is required to provide something to you.

No, it does.

You have the right to life, say,.. you have to specifically (and, often, you can't) extricate yourself from that right. It is a presumption that in many countries in inalienable.

You have the right to free speech without harm, say... you don't have to prove that your speech didn't cause harm, they have to prove that your speech did cause harm.

You have the right to education, say... the state has to make sure you can get an education. Not just to people who can't afford a "better" one, but to everyone. And if it wants to deny you that education, the state has to jump through hoops.

We use the word entitlement to describe situations where people could theoretically get something but they have no right to it. There is no presumption that they have it or even should be able to get it. And that is all you want. Thus: you do not believe people have a right to housing (not a house, housing).

It's not an entitlement, except it is an entitlement.

The right is the right. The entitlement is the entitlement. The right is not the entitlement. The right to housing is different from a government entitlement that provides housing to people who cannot find it elsewhere. The entitlement fulfills part of the right, but the entitlement is not the right itself, nor is the state obliged to extend the entitlement to those who can find housing on their own.

Then they don't have a right.

The notion that entitlements are related to rights is fucking insane. What right validates the welfare state? The right to life? In many countries, most actually, the welfare state is not enduring. There isn't even a commitment that the state must support you so long as you can prove you can't support yourself... your ostensible point, here... and, barely, a commitment that the state will support you so long as you can prove you're trying to get a job. Hell, in most countries, no distinction is recognised between "a job" and "being able to support yourself" even though these are just not the same thing (consider, for example, a volunteer job... it is a job but it gives no reward that can be used to support oneself).

Now, who introduced the word home? Oh, that's right... it was you.

Yes, that's what we are talking about. You are mistaking the right to shelter with the right to own a home. That's the object of this discussion, mate.

We're not talking about homes, we're talking about housing.

Once again, prove that I confused "housing" (the only term I have used in this thread in response to you) with "home" or even "house". I didn't. What happened was that you read a comment that said the word "housing" that just had the gall to disagree with your bullshit conclusions about what rights are and decided what I meant was "home". I didn't. I meant housing. Which is why I used the word "housing".

You imagined that I said "home" (or meant home) because it is convenient for you to do so, not because I actually said housing... nor because what I wrote actually means home.

[James_xenoland]

Where are you from OP? I mean this isn't a major issue or even really an issue in a lot of places. Usually people like that, and especially corporations, banks and things like that, want nothing at all to do with owning single residential or residential at all. (too many problems.. local and state laws/regulations, taxes etc) I know china has a major issue with stuff like that.. But it's not just super rich or even rich. It's a lot more complex but basically a lot of people use houses and apartments to save/hold money.

[The Blaatschapen]

Anyone who owns all the properties in a set.

viewtopic.php?p=38715632#p38715632

I expect payment for copying my joke in the form of a pint.

[TTow]

I think everyone should be able to buy a house, it's ok today. Building a house is always more expensive, that's why I'm planning to buy an existing house. I've found antalya real estate and want to conult with speciaists from Turkey Homes to reduce the risks. Anyway investing in property could be quite profitable for the future.

[The Nihilistic view]

Anyone who owns all the properties in a set.

viewtopic.php?p=38715632#p38715632

I expect payment for copying my joke in the form of a pint.

I'm suing for inaccurate instructions on how to play monopoly.

[The Blaatschapen]

viewtopic.php?p=38715632#p38715632

I expect payment for copying my joke in the form of a pint.

I'm suing for inaccurate instructions on how to play monopoly.

I forget the "explode in anger towards family members" part. I figured it was a given.

In monopoly there is only one truly winning move: Not to play.

[Krasny-Volny]

For single dwelling houses should hedge funds,corporations, millionaires and billionaires be allowed to suck up all the small properties to then hold on to and rent out while they artificially inflate the market by creating scarcity? I am talking like a 2-4 bedroom houses for families.

I think houses shouldn't be used as a investments and instead used to be provide shelter and a better quality of living for the population.

How exactly should this be done?

Couple of options I can think of, none of which I like:

Abolish ownership of multiple properties. Well, the really rich corporations and millionaires can simply use straw owners, or shell corporations, or find ways to say they own less than 50% of the stake in the property and some nameless nobody they bribed to put his name on the deed actually owns the rest. In the meantime, your average Joe who owns both a house and a hunting cabin in the woods somewhere gets arrested for technically breaking the law.

Abolish private ownership of housing. Now the government owns everything and grants the leases to everybody equitably. This is what they do in Tanzania, Angola, and a handful of other African countries. But there is a degree of trust granted to the state to distribute housing equitably that I simply do not have. There are massive abuses of the system going on all over Tanzania and Angola, including the same scenarios I just outlined above with the added caveat that the nameless nobodies with their names on the deeds are usually government officials. And those same officials award themselves and the politically connected the most desirable leases to the most desirable housing, in the most desirable areas.

If these are our alternatives, I'd rather stick with the flawed status quo.

[Adamede]

.

Literally what I just said. TWICE. I was complaining about your failure to recognise this distinction... "immediately after trying to conflate it".

Do you... not know what the word conflate means????



Hence:

1. You do not believe housing (not a house, housing
2. You use "housing" in an entirely standard use

You're one of the singularly most dishonest posters on this forum. Which, frankly, is a high bar to clear.

Sorry, I just don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I never conflated housing and owning a house. These have always been two separate thing. One is a right and the other one isn’t. That’s been my point this whole time.

Why not? If you have the right to live somewhere, why don’t you have the right to say it’s legally yours?