On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place

I.e. "I don't want to think about this critically and logically only emotionally. Your examples and analogies are too difficult to defend, so I'll claim fallacy and ignore."

It is wrong for the government to legally mandate a person's goods or services to another for free...

End of story.

 

I have zero respect for this Supreme Court. They just ruled that Nestle cannot be sued for using black child slave labor in Africa TODAY. This is the same Nestle that has joined the woke left in messaging. They are using little black kids as slaves for producing their product while they support BLM. The entire woke movement is about transferring power from working people to the powerful, to the mendacious and to the sadists. This is ALL a woke company has to do to satiate the left, woke marketing. They are then free to pillage at will with a complete free pass. Your company is free to serve up product produced by modern day black slaves and nobody will blink an eye. All virtue signaling and NO VIRTUE at all.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-nestle-in-child-slavery-case.html

 

Ahhh so it'a OK to force those property owners to give up their property rights but not for you. How rich.

 

Again, you are engaging in a pseudo debate trick, personalizing via anecdote a subject of public policy. Who gets to decide? Elected policy makers.


The problem with libertarian thinking is that it doesn't base policies on how people are, it creates policy based on how the libertarians/conservatives, etc., wish people would behave.

Libertarianism is do-nothingism. That's a philosophy, I get it, 'let the free market work' "the invisible hand" and all that.

But that doesn't recognize the fact that millions aren't as savvy as you, and probably never will be, regardless of built in free market incentives to do so.

Libertarians and conservatives say' so what'? Democrats and liberals believe Government has a responsibility to help them. That doesn't mean 'helping lazy people' either or necessarily, which is how those on the right love to twist the argument into ( a strawman ).

Libertarians and conservatives say, 'well', it's our money, taxpayer money' and the gov has no business taking my money to help someone else I don't want them to help.

Democrats and liberals will respond, 'Per the US constitution, the government has a legitimate claim on a portion of your income, and, as such, it does not belong to you, it belongs to the state, to be spent, per the US Constitution, for the 'general welfare of the country' ( or language to that effect which is really broad language which can be interpreted in a number of ways, noting that the taxes will fall on those most capable of shouldering the burden and less on those less capable, per progressive's policy goals. Also taxation, as such, policies never please everyone. If I wanted to personalize the argument as you are doing, I would say 'don't spend my money on bloated defense budgets', but I won't, because personal anecdote is not the proper way to derive public policy but the point is, what you don't like, note that taxation spends money in ways every one doesn't like, well you're not the only one policy makers have to deal with, in one way or the other, tax policy can NEVER please everyone, all the time, let alone you or me.).

One philosophy isn't more correct than the other, they are just different, and it's a matter for voters to decide.

Let the voters decide on what kind of America they want to live in.

It's as simple as that.

 

You've assumed that all renters are not paying rent, and for most landlords who own lots of rental properties, apartment buildings, that just isn't the case.
Only a small percentage of America became unemployed due to Covid.

As for landlords who have, say, only one property, who do not have the wherewithal to endure the losses during the pandemic should a renter lose his or her income and be allowed to stay because of the moratorium on evictions, I would recommend a moratorium on foreclosures and a program to make their mortgage situation whole after the pandemic passes.

In my city, the local city has a program to help restaurants who took a dive during the pandemic, and their all sorts of creative things the gov can do to help folks,

I keep getting the idea that conservatives believe nothing can be done, and they just throw up their hands and shrug their shoulders, and let people suffer.

 

5-4 is a close decision. Liberals pushed the lockdowns, hurting people, and to try to fix that mess, they have to hurt yet more people.

 

If only a small percentage of Americans became unemployed, why did everyone (except a few of us) get checks? If you were working, you were still getting a paycheck and did not need the extra money.

I would have liked to have seen only the people get checks that had been actually hurt by the government's shutdown of businesses. I would have rather seen money go to the landlords that the government forced to give free rent to their tenants.
Yes, there are all sorts of creative ways to help people. The federal government didn't do that but opted for the lazy way of just giving everyone (except a few of us) free money.

 

But the government has long since been doing that. If you are a landlord and have a sick tenant under medical care, evicting that person is far more difficult than evicting someone else, and in the interim, the government has, indeed, 'mandated your services' for free.

My view, however, if the Government is going to do that, they should have a program in place to compensate you for your loss.

 

So-called squatters rights, seem to violate private property rights.

That being said certain States where they put everyone on the house arrest cuz they were scared of the sniffles seem to be the problem. We wouldn't need squatters rights if we didn't have state-level dictators. For the people in these states need to rise up against these so called leaders

 

Now you're making **** up, how rich.

 

You can't honestly say that those that depend on rental income are not the ones hurting. Government interference created the problem and more government interference is making it worse. Based on the known risk factors, unless one is sick or elderly, there is no reason to put them out of work. Many employees were provided with safe working conditions and work at home options, but declined due to the additional money they made sitting at home.

The psychology is simple. It is human nature to choose the path of least resistance. Instead of a safety net, the government gave them a hammock.

 

Absolutley.

Unfunded mandates by authoritarian entities is wholly unfair. Nobody should have to work for another person's benefit by force. That's called slavery.

 

1) The solution IS personal. It's our individual personal responsibility, to adapt to whatever the larger context is. The State cannot do it for you - because the State is only as strong as its people. All effort must come from the ground. Further, a State deciding who is worthy is a breach of public trust, when not predicated purely upon need (as in bonafide need, not poverty arising out of refusal to adapt).

2) I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Hard Leftist. But in answer to your comment regarding human nature - you couldn't possibly be more wrong. It's the Left which refuses to work with the reality of our nature. It's the Left which imagines throwing money will magically provide a path out of poverty. Conservatives understand that the opposite is true .. and therefore try to create policy accordingly. I'm actually stunned that you got this so wrong .. TBH. Wow.

3) You misunderstand. It's about caring ENOUGH to do the hard yards - ie, tough love. Those who throw money do it purely to ease their own consciences - they don't give a **** how damaging it is.

4) The good welfare of the country is best realised by putting an end to the Welfare State. The sooner First World nations restore a far more human-friendly 'work to eat' ethic, the sooner they will return to the thriving societies they enjoyed last century.

 

Then let's move this renters into your house and your property. You have as much responsibilty for them as the landlord you are saying does.

 

How about the people go back to work and pay their rent? Why does that seem to escape you. And this idea that oh they have lots of apartments so they can just let people live in them for free is more utter nonsense. Even large property management companies can operate on slim margins and it's private citizens private money invested in those and they suffer loses.

 

I say too bad you have not invested in rental properties. Then you might have more compassion for people who have had their property stolen. It would be great if the Government could quarter some homeless people in your house.

 

In spirit it violates the 3rd Amendment.

 

This should have never been allowed to begin with. I did not read the text of the usual directive but if the Goverment did not have to reimburse landlord's then that is bull. Especially when they had no problem giving Fine Arts in New York and other states Billions of dollars.
The Government should allow businesses that made it through the pandemic to subtract their losses from future income tax owed. I could go on. Democrats are going too far and I believe they will lose the next 2 elections.

 

You're definitely not a 'hard leftist'. AOC is a hard leftist, Bernie Sanders is a hard leftist. Unless, you are thinking you are more like Noam Chomsky, but you don't sound at all like Noam Chomsky, whose farther to the left with his 'anarcho-syndicalism'. I'm not seeing much depth in your approach to the subject, as what I'd see from Chomsky. No, you sound a lot more like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and the neoliberals. In fact, you are even farther to the right than he is as he recommended a negative income tax for those in poverty, you, apparently, are more in the Ayn Rand school of thinking, eh?

Your 'throwing money" "tought love" etc, frame of references are that of a conservative, libertarian, or neoliberal.

If you are a neoliberal, that's not on the left, that is on the extreme right, it's literally to the right of, you guessed it, 'Atilla The Hun'.

No one suggests that poverty programs 'cure poverty', curing poverty is something to aim for, but it, like crime, will always exist, and with crime, the best we can do is put a dent in it. With poverty, the best we can do is relieve suffering. My view is that poverty, on one hand, thinking of it more simply, is a lack of cash afforded by a lack of opportunity afforded by a lack of education. But, that's half of the equation, state of mind is the other, and, in my view, it MUST start within. Individuals have to change how they see themselves. One could argue it's a self esteem problem, and it is, but for many, the lack of self esteem arises merely from a lack of cash, for others, it's more deeper of a problem. We must attack it at all angles. Tough love for those who are very able, kid gloves for those who are not, you can't just say one size fits all, that doesn't equal 'caring'.

That being said, 'tough love' mentality doesn't work as policy, though perhaps it could work on a real localized, one on one community level, where humans are involved with humans, some kind of local social program, but at the federal level, no, because that's a parenting frame of reference, governments cannot do 'tough love', the government is not a sentient being. Government programs are needed. Are they perfect? No. Nothing big in this world is perfect. Big business has as many faults as big government, and it's misguided merely to point one's finger at just one or the other. It's easy to say 'government is bad', but the absence of government is anarchy, and that's worse.

So, the point is, if you say you 'care', well, in my book, simplistic solutions are rarely solutions, and rarely achieve anything.

I gave a more in depth essay on my views on politics, here

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

There's a pendulum in politics. Swing too far to the left, it rebounds, and swings too far to the right. and vice versa, in a never ending going from one extreme to the other, and back again only to repeat.

But where does the pendulum rest? Well, an actual pendulum, it rests upon arrival at the center. I feel this is a great metaphor for the political forces of the right and the left.

But, to reach the center, once we figure out where that center is, I believe we must do it deliberately, as, without deliberation, the pendulum will continue to swing. There is disharmony and disfunction when the pendulum never rests. The trick is to put it to rest, in the center. in Russia and China it has swung too far to the right. With Trump, it was swinging far to the right, but the electorate said NO, and chose Biden. But, we have to be wary of swinging too far to the left, as well. So, let's define things.

So, the place where the equilibrium of both forces are achieved is in the center.

Now, this is not to be confused with 'centrism' as a political ideology, so what it is is the right balance of socialism and capitalism. So let me define what I mean by these things. I mean a government run enterprise is a socialistic enterprise, and a privately run enterprise is a capitalistic enterprise. Most western nations ( if not all of them ) are mixed economies, various ratios of both.

That's how I am defining them here. There are other definitions, and the wiki entry on socialism is 150 pages long, so let's keep it simple. Many on the right accuse democrats of being 'socialist' in the hope people will associate this with the totalitarian countries, and thus reject it and vote for republicans, This is not being truthful, of course, because no democrat favors anything to do with totalitarianism, contrary to what many on the right are asserting. But, that's another argument.

Now then. I'm going to make some opinionated declarations, based on my empirical observation of history.

Socialism, without capitalism, will collapse.

Capitalism, without socialism, will devour itself.

So the trick is to understand what each does the best, and let each do just that.

It's a public enterprise versus private enterprise thing.

A public enterprise works better for what I will call, 'the negative markets'.

What do I mean by that?

These are things we need, and needs are things we absolutely must have, though we may, or may not want them.

Okay, you don't want your house to be on fire, so we need a fire department to deal with it

You don't want someone to steal or rob you or murder you, so we need to have a \ police, sheriff, and FBI to deal with such things.

We don't want foreign countries to attack us, so we need a military to deal with it.

Now, there are a few areas that can be done by both government and private, such as education.

Public education is the guarantee that everyone will be educated, poor or affluent. Private education is not denied for anyone who can pay for it.

So, it's mostly things we do not want, but need someone to deal with it, or public service for those who cannot afford the service, but which service is needed for everyone in order to achieve a literate, educated, nourished and healthy citizenry. This could include health care, food and housing, though all of these will have a large private counterpart.

And, on the other side of the equation, we have what I will call 'the positive markets' these are things we want, such as shoes, clothes, cars, cars washed, carpets cleaned, lawns mowed, toys, goodies, food, boats, jewelry stuff we want and desire for our happiness, etc.

So, public enterprise, negative markets ( mostly), things we need (socialism)
private enterprise, positive markets ( mostly ) things we want. (capitalism)

In short:

Socialism for needs,
Capitalism for wants.

Note that there are shades of grey, and options for one or the other. The concept of 'socialism for needs, and capitalism for wants' is not a rigid concept, adjustments can be made, depending on the wants of the electorate. It is a starting point, a guiding principle, a point of reference for clarity when things get foggy.

One country might favor government run critical and strategic services, such as post, railroad, and banking, healthcare, and another country these privately run, noting that in the vast majority of the 50 or so western countries, the health care model is some variant of universal health care.

And the dynamics of public enterprises are quite different than a private enterprise.

With a private enterprise, you must reward productivity and penalize non-productivity, and you must do this or go out of business.

But, with a nation, a public enterprise, the dynamics are different. If you penalize the poor, and overly reward the rich too much, and penalize the poor too much for too log, whereupon the government becomes oppressive and caters to the rich, you could wind up with masses of people with pitchforks marching Washington, you could wind up with revolutions, and the outcomes of revolutions are never good. We demand, much more so, accountability and transparency of our public servants much more so than of our private entrepeneurs. Try doing a FOIA request on a corporation. Now, nothing is perfect, as it is written, the Declaration of Independence did not declare America to be a perfect union, only that we try and be a more perfect union. And yes, there is corruption, but it knows no borders between the public and private, and this is a subject for a nother thread, I'm dealing with philosophical concepts here.

( there is the grey area of the non -profit corporation, which is a hybrid, but I will not get into this here )

You've never heard these terms (negative and positive markets ) because I just made them up, to illustrate a concept. So, don't hark back and say you've never heard of them. Of course you haven't, I've coined the ideas to illustrate my political philosophy.

So, the idea is, socialism for individual needs and needs of society, and capitalism for individual wants, and wants of society.

So, the idea isn't a centrist philosophy, the idea is the right balance of socialism
( government run enterprises ) and capitalism, ( privately run enterprises, and this includes corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and sole proprietorships, independent contractors), i.e., the idea is NOT to do away with either side of the pendulum, but achieve an equilibrium of both political forces. Finding the sweet spot, is what it is all about ( for me, anyway ) and that is the eternal struggle between the right and left, and there yes yet to be one leader who understands it fully, let alone explain it well to the electorate, so that everyone can agree on it.


That is the general idea of my political philosophy, and, as such, it is not really a socialist philosophy, because true socialism is the pendulum too far to the left, where it will ultimately fail. All the way to the right is total anarchy which will never be anarchy, it will be a plutocracy/oligarchy because, in a libertarian/neoliberal world, capital will concentrate to fewer and fewer hands, and power controlled by fewer and fewer people. So, this is why I don't agree with conservatives and libertarians and neoliberals.

This can be true, (centralized power afforded by authoritarianism/totalitarianism) in a different way, in terms of central control, with communism/socialism and too far to the left, as evidenced by Soviet Russia, Cuba, N Korea, etc.

However, in my view, the farthest and safest place away from both extremes is the most inert point, and that is the center. Because that is the ONLY place the pendulum can rest.

The trick is, where, exactly, is the center? That is where the real debate is.

For me, America will not achieve it without universal health care, allowing for private insurance for those who prefer it.

 

Yes. That is my point. The lockdowns were the worst government action I have ever seen in my lifetime. Even war pales in comparison for me. I hate when it throws freedom under the bus. It should be protecting freedom. I have no use for a government that fails to protect freedom.

 

I don't believe they are trying to fix the mess. I believe this policy is meant to bankrupt small landholders to allow billionaires to swoop in and buy that property. Whenever politicians make insane decisions, always think who benefits? Every decision made by Democrats in the past year has been made to benefit their corporate donors at the expense of the middle class..... EVERY SINGLE ONE.




Bill Whittle has pointed out that all of this wokeness invading every facet of a life has a purpose.... the elites are trying to provoke a hate attack from the right so they can use it as a pretext to strip rights. Look at the response to January 6th for your evidence.

 

It should be pointed out that the eviction mandate started under the Republican, not the Democrats.

But then again some of us realize that both parties only do things that benefit their corporate donors at the expense of the middle class

 

I thought about that too.

 

AOS, Chomsky, and Bernie et all are nowhere near being hard Left .. or even Left. All are flaming capitalists. Hard Left means basically collectivist (aka, communist). The 'socialism' spruiked by the people you mention is antithetical to collectivism, because it opposes the most fundamental philosophy of work-to-eat.

A tough love environment does not give rise to the indulgence of 'feelings', that's the freaking point. You should be too busy working and producing to know or care whether your self-esteem is low. But you should care enough about where your next meal is coming from, not to allow yourself the luxury of indulging 'dysfunction'. And of course it works. China is living proof on the grandest scale possible. That's why they'll be our masters in due course - while the First World drowns in a soup of self-indulgence.

The solution is very simple. Remember that you could be starving tomorrow, and act accordingly.

 

You do understand that very often safety means limits, right?

Those who ignore danger and do their freedom dance at the wrong time and place, expire early .. sometimes taking the herd with them.