🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3jkn00$lt9@hermes.unt.edu> srt@zaphod.csci.unt.edu Steve Tate writes:

>Mark Brown (mbrown@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
>> > srt@zaphod.csci.unt.edu (Steve Tate) writes:
>> >Mark Brown (mbrown@austin.ibm.com) wrote:

>I think the "probable cause" restrictions on government/police are
>excellent general principles that should be applied to this situtation
>as well.  

This makes no sense at all.  It's a simple case of contract law.  If you
don't like the contract (lease), DON'T SIGN IT.  YOU cannot set the
conditions under which someone else lets you use their property.

>It *IS* their home.  "Home" has nothing to do with who owns the property
>or the building --- it simply has to do with where someone lives.
>Property ownership is totally irrelevant to what "home" means.

But it's certainly not irrelevant to what rights someone should have.
If I declare the Sears Tower to be my 'home', does that mean that I
suddenly have all kinds of rights over it, despite what the folks who
own it might think?

>Look, it basically boils down to this:  You've got a trade-off of
>two sets of rights.  The tenant deserves certain rights because they
>are making the rental their home.  

This is what the lease is for.  You have NO rights because something is
your 'home'.  You have rights if you own it or if you have a contract
agreement with the owner.

>The property owner deserves certain
>rights because they own the property.  Where we disagree is in what
>weight to put on these conflicting things.   My own personal belief is
>that where someone makes their home is one of the most fundamental
>things there is in life, and rights inherent in living somewhere
>(privacy, etc.) should be second to nothing.  

Then don't sign any leases.  I doubt you are going to find someone to
let you use THEIR property under those conditions.

>I've never been
>particularly moved by any rights gained soley because you own a
>piece of property, so that loses out in a big way in my mind.

Great.  Give me all your money.  What?  What do you mean it's yours?  So
what?  I've never been particularly moved by any rights you gain solely
because of ownership.  Give me your car keys, too.

>You disagree, and your view actually seems to be held by quite
>a few people in Texas --- just don't expect me to agree, and do
>expect that I'll be opposed to such ideas when they come up.

Then I suggest you take up living in the street or being independently
wealthy, because you're sure not going to convince anyone to let you use
their property under your conditions.



--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.