If you could add one thing to the Bill of Rights...

What would it be?

[Jas0n]

Explicit property rights guarantees.

[Thorgrim]

Like other nations have adopted, the Right to Basic Housing or Healthcare

There is no reason we should watch fellow Americans suffer in 3 degree weather, its unpatriotic

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Like other nations have adopted, the Right to Basic Housing or Healthcare

There is no reason we should watch fellow Americans suffer in 3 degree weather, its unpatriotic

Right to housing and medical technology? These are supposed to be inalienables, not luxuries.

[RMNIXON]

A clearly defined protection of Private Property Rights. The founders probably thought it was not needed with the exception of Eminent domain. That was before socialist and marxist economic theory.

In fact the Bill of Rights almost didn't make the final text. George Mason, Jefferson, and James Madison are to be thanked!

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Right to housing and medical technology? These are supposed to be inalienables, not luxuries.

Welcome aboard

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Right to housing and medical technology? These are supposed to be inalienables, not luxuries.

How is housing a luxury?

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Welcome aboard

Howdy!

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

A clearly defined protection of Private Property Rights. The founders probably thought it was not needed with the exception of Eminent domain. That was before socialist and marxist economic theory.

In fact the Bill of Rights almost didn't make the final text. George Mason, Jefferson, and James Madison are to be thanked!

What kind of private property rights would you add? Would you take away Eminent Domain?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Right to housing and medical technology? These are supposed to be inalienables, not luxuries.

But it was so predictable!


To be provided by whom? When is it a right to have a government body take from one person and give to another the products of their skill and labor? It makes people who control these actions look and feel good do doubt, but how does this fall under a definition of rights? You might as well say people have a right to a certain income level.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

How is housing a luxury?

Housing is a luxury insofar as it is something that comes at an expense. You aren't born with housing, and fundamentallys peaking "housing" as such isn't something that is necessary for survival. The freedom to own a house is another story entirely... if you don't have the freedom to possess what you earn, your existence is guaranteed only until someone (state, neighbor, whoever) decides to take it away. For that reason, property rights must be recognized. But ... housing? No, housing as such is something that if a person wants, a person can earn.

Here's a question for you. Suppose housing was somehow guaranteed to people. Who would pay for it? Or, in other words, at whose expense would everyone be getting housed? And by what right do those newly-housed people manage to extort from their providers mandatory walls and a roof?

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect freedoms. Guaranteeing material goods (housing, medical technology, etc.) runs directly counter to the spirit of that text.

[7960]

I wouldn't add anything. I'd remove ambiguity...

1. I have no idea how people can argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee our right to bear arms. They use sideways logic to say if you're not in a militia then you should have the right to own a gun (morans).

2. I'd clean up the 1st amendment to make separation of church and state clear.

3. And lastly I'd rewrite the 14th amendment to what I believe it SHOULD be, that NOT everyone born here is automatically a citizen. If a mexican woman runs over the border and drops a baby it is under the jurisdiction of MEXICO, not the US, so the baby is NOT automatically a US citizen.

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

How is housing a luxury?

Why should I have to pay for someone else's house?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

What kind of private property rights would you add? Would you take away Eminent Domain?

I think eminent domain was well writen. To any rational person the intent and meaning is clear. Public use of property is a school, a road, a damn project. Claiming that an increase in revenue is a public good does not imply the actual land itself as a necessary public benefit, and it is a benefit to the private developer who is not always operating in the public interest unless an area is truly blighted. Worst Supreme Court Decision in a very long time!

[Jas0n]

I would take away eminent domain. Really, that would be sort of implicit in any real property rights clause, but unless it's stated explicitly, someone will find a way to avoid it.

Originally Posted by 7960

I wouldn't add anything. I'd remove ambiguity...

1. I have no idea how people can argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee our right to bear arms. They use sideways logic to say if you're not in a militia then you should have the right to own a gun (morans).

2. I'd clean up the 1st amendment to make separation of church and state clear.

3. And lastly I'd rewrite the 14th amendment to what I believe it SHOULD be, that NOT everyone born here is automatically a citizen. If a mexican woman runs over the border and drops a baby it is under the jurisdiction of MEXICO, not the US, so the baby is NOT automatically a US citizen.

Why should I have to pay for someone else's house?

I don't have a clear argument for this one, so bear with me.

Why should we allow some of our citizens to be homeless? Jason explained it very well why it shouldn't be in the Bill of Rights, but I still feel that housing is such a basic need, that no person should be denied housing. I'm NOT saying free housing for all, or free housing for the lazy who don't want to work. I'm just saying it is a basic need that should be fulfilled for all people.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Here's a question for you. Suppose housing was somehow guaranteed to people. Who would pay for it? Or, in other words, at whose expense would everyone be getting housed? And by what right do those newly-housed people manage to extort from their providers mandatory walls and a roof?

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect freedoms. Guaranteeing material goods (housing, medical technology, etc.) runs directly counter to the spirit of that text.

You know what the Nazi's (National Socialist Workers Party NSDAP) promiced? Housing and employment for all Germans!

[7960]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

I don't have a clear argument for this one, so bear with me.

Why should we allow some of our citizens to be homeless? Jason explained it very well why it shouldn't be in the Bill of Rights, but I still feel that housing is such a basic need, that no person should be denied housing. I'm NOT saying free housing for all, or free housing for the lazy who don't want to work. I'm just saying it is a basic need that should be fulfilled for all people.

In his explanation of why it shouldn't be in the bill of rights was also the same argument for why is isn't a right at all. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's house? Are we going to determine who needs a house and who is just too lazy to work? According to your post (this post) the answer won't matter because everyone has a right to a house. IMO you may feel like everyone deserves a house, but why should I be forced to pay for it?

[7960]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You know what the Nazi's (National Socialist Workers Party NSDAP) promiced? Housing and employment for all Germans!

aww fuck



/thread

Originally Posted by 7960

In his explanation of why it shouldn't be in the bill of rights was also the same argument for why is isn't a right at all. Again, why should I have to pay for someone else's house? Are we going to determine who needs a house and who is just too lazy to work? According to your post (this post) the answer won't matter because everyone has a right to a house. IMO you may feel like everyone deserves a house, but why should I be forced to pay for it?

I completely agree with you to be honest.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

You know what the Nazi's (National Socialist Workers Party NSDAP) promiced? Housing and employment for all Germans!

Ja doch - weil sie ohne Beschaeftigung waren, um 45% glaube ich.