At The Hill Erich J. Prince wonders whether property rights are under attack:
Although certain requirements of landlords are surely reasonable, this recent spate of policies goes too far in restricting homeowners’ ability to do as they wish with the properties that are theirs.
When it comes to eviction moratoriums, there are horror stories, such as were covered in The New York Times last month, of being unable to evict disruptive and abusive tenants residing in a landlord’s own home. All the while, much of the rhetoric desperately calling for an extended eviction ban shares the same assumption as the New Jersey law and the proposed Philadelphia ordinance: that government ought to be considerably involved in the arrangements made between landlords and tenants.
At some point the question becomes: Is this house I own even mine?
to which I can only respond that the concern shouldn’t be limited to property rights. It extends to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, religious freedom, and others. The pretext is bringing COVID-19 under control but is the actual reason just a desire for control?
I think for renters vs property owners, it becomes a self-correcting system. For the other things, not so much IMO.
Control of what? What would you get out of controlling whatever it is you are controlling?
Steve
The will to power—der Wille zur Macht. It’s a fundamental drive.
“The pretext is bringing COVID-19 under control but is the actual reason just a desire for control?”
Seriously? Public health concerns have already been invoked as the predicate for gun control. (Andrew Cuomo) Its only a matter of time until environmental policies will be justified as a public health issue. We’ve already been through the sugary drinks fiasco.
This is Joeseph Califano redux. I’ve previously cited the old political cartoon: “And now, here is Secy Califano to speak to you about his decision to give up sex and how it will affect you.”
Let your mind wander.
Sigh. I guess you can use that explanation for anything you like or dont like. At least find some instances of people talking about how they want to do stuff like this just so they can have power over everything. Looks more to me like they think it will please some of their voters. Now if you want to claim that they are pleasing their voters out of a desire for power then i guess we have to say everything is done for control. It becomes essentially meaningless.
Gun control? Why yes. A pediatrician is now not allowed in some states (maybe all?) to ask parents if they have guns and if they keep them locked up if they do. Those pediatricians really want to have power over those poor gun owners.
Steve
“I guess you can use that explanation for anything you like or dont like.”
Sigh, only government has the power to enforce.
“Those pediatricians really want to have power over those poor gun owners.”
And exactly what do you think they want to do with that questioning? Just idle intellectual interest? I go to a pediatrician for medical issues. I go to a gun range for safety counseling. I go to a credit counselor for excessive use of debt. Next thing you are going to tell me is that we need present papers as proof of vaccination. For the public good, of course. Of course.
“Gun control? Why yes. A pediatrician is now not allowed in some states (maybe all?) to ask parents if they have guns and if they keep them locked up if they do. Those pediatricians really want to have power over those poor gun owners.”
Well yes, that is dumb. It’s no secret that Republicans are also dumb about many things and have their own set of control issues. That doesn’t make the dumb things Democrats do any less dumb or the penchant for centralized authority by Democrats any less worrying.
The problem I have is that the classical liberal ideals that promote both individual autonomy and responsibility are, to put it charitably, out of fashion.
Accidental death is by far the leading cause of death among children. Pediatricians talk about locking up household cleaning products that kill kids. No one complains. Talk about guns which also accidentally kill kids and you guys go berserk.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001915.htm
Steve
Steve,
As best as I can tell, the law that forbade pediatricians from talking about guns was only passed in Florida and those provisions were struck down by the 11th circuit on 1st amendment grounds.
So it doesn’t appear that Pediatricians – in any state – are legally prohibited from talking about guns in the home. Maybe it’s different where you live, but I don’t see anyone going “berzerk” over that.
Yes, that’s my point.