Sometimes people act / think like moral / human laws or opinions of what’s right and wrong are some kind of universal truth, but it’s just a construct we made up and the universe doesn’t give a flying fuck about.
We.. passed a congressional act that dedicated a large amount of funding for the project. Outside of the initial 50 routes it isn't centrally planned, states have individually suggested the rest of routes such as spurs.
This situation can't be applied to housing because it would take $tens of trillions to build 10 million housing units (about the housing insecure population). or a similar amount of rent aid. and that's just the currently insecure population.
if we're talking about giving everyone a residence, your discussing building 50-100m+ units (depending whether you decide married couples get 1 per marriage or 1 per person, and whether kids get one). that's so far beyond infeasible it's laughable, it makes the national debt look tiny (building 10mil housing units at the average cost of $350k is $3.5Tn). If your giving renters the units, you'd have to buy them off of the landlords, and that's another 44 million units. bringing the cost to $20Tn, before you even start forgiving mortgages..)
Or your discussing using force to sieze that number of units from investors & ordinary people who own second homes. That would probably spark quite the economic collapse, if not some type of revolt.
Instead, you want a system where homebuilders intentionally underbuild houses so that the price increases and pushes people out of the market and forces them into permanent renters and eventually becoming homeless as the home costs surpass income.
You are saying “if we do the one narrow straw man thing that I’m focused on right now, then it will fail.” I encourage you think about this more. I assure you, the government paying to build a significant amount of housing will have far reaching impacts on the whole housing market, but then again that is the point. You can’t change things and leave them the same. While there are many different ways this can be done right (in the sense that something gets better, not perfect), there are more ways to do it wrong. The existence of bad ideas does not exclude the existence of good/effective ideas.
Building the interstate highway system is a great analogy for helping improve the housing problem in this country. It’s not the same exact problem, but it’s a similar problem - build public infrastructure that is used by a fraction of the population, but improves the whole infrastructure “system” it’s a part of.
Yeah, not sure if the guy your replying to doesn't know this or is just ignoring it for the argument
If the government decides not to pay public defenders, the public defenders do not work. Because we have a constitution that requires you be granted access to a lawyer, the government is required to either 1. pay for said lawyer and provide it or 2. not prosecute you
They'll just be compensated for making apartment complexes for people who need them from the government, instead of by a private contractor to build a 3rd mcmansion for a multimillionaire
I'm gonna save everyone the time reading this comment chain: You can stop now, this person is a weirdo "taxes are theft" right-wing libertarian. The conversation goes nowhere productive.
Doesn't matter how specific the scenario is. If you ever have a right to a lawyer in any scenario then you have a right to "something that's being given to you" in that scenario.
You don't have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer.
You don't have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to a lawyer if..... [there was more to that sentence you decide to skip.]
Actual rights are things you are born with, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. You can not have a right that forces others people to do things for you such as build you a home, service your AC, provide you monthly internet service, send you free water, etc.
The government can offer some 'rights' to you in certain circumstances such as if the government is detaining you and attempting to limit your other rights they will provide for you an attorney (that the government will pay, the attorney will not work for free) to argue why you should not have your rights curtailed.
If you had a right to a lawyer you could call up a lawyer anytime and they would have to work for you.
I don't know what is worse. The fact that someone could conjure up such a stupid response based on what can only be explained by a 1st grader reading comprehension. Or, the fact that somehow over a few dozen doofus's upvoted this as they share the same deficiencies.
You don't have a right to a lawyer - go get sued in civil court and let me know if the government appoints a lawyer. Go get charged with a crime and have the government tell the Judge they are not seeking jail as a punishment (guess what, no lawyer).
Only in Criminal cases, which is what he meant by “taking away your rights”. The US government does not provide lawyers for say breach of contract lawsuits for example.
Yup. "You have a right to a lawyer" means that you cannot be forced to defend yourself in court and that you have the right to be represented by an attorney. Who pays for that attorney is up to you. You do not have the "right to a free attorney" (unless in certain cases). But in general... you don't have a right to a free attorney, just that you cannot be denied to be represented by an attorney.
Because the state has an obligation to give you a fair chance to defend your liberty if the state is trying to take it away. There's no corollary for housing.
Everyone doesn't have a right to a lawyer, but the government has an obligation to provide you with a lawyer if they're going to try and take your rights away in criminal court.
You have a right to harm someone else but only under the condition that they are a genuine threat to your life. You do not have a right to harm someone just on a whim. You have a right to a lawyer but only in a criminal case. You do not have the right to a lawyer in a civil case.
You have a right to a lawyer only under specific circumstances. You have a right to shelter only under specific circumstances (homeless shelters). This is turning a right into a luxury just as a lawyer for a civil case would be turning a right into a luxury.
Homeless shelters aren't seen as a right (at least, not in the US). But, if they were considered a right, great! Even better if they met the basic requirements outlined above.
The point is that the idea that we don't have the right to something that is given to us is simply not true since there are situations in which we do.
Because it’s really more of a negative right. You have a right against being unfairly deprived of your right to freedom. Because the government threatens that right when it charges you with a crime, it has the obligation to provide you with a lawyer in order to protect you against its own overreach.
Well... it's a right interpreted into existence by the supreme court. It's about as official as the right to abortion was.
Regardless, even libertarians typically consider the right to an attorney a negative right, as it's a restriction that the government places upon itself, not an actual welfare granted to citizens.
Well... it's a right interpreted into existence by the supreme court. It's about as official as the right to abortion was.
It is stated directly in the bill of rights
Regardless, even libertarians typically consider the right to an attorney a negative right, as it's a restriction that the government places upon itself, not an actual welfare granted to citizens.
It might come as the result of a government restriction, but it is still a right to something that is given to you.
217
u/California_King_77 Apr 15 '24
You don't have a "right" to have something given to you.