I see your point. Except in this case the renter is an organized criminal enterprise. Do my property rights include the freedom to lease mine to a known criminal for the purpose of conducting his crime in the area? Would that not make me complicit in the aggression?
---------------------------------- Except in this case it is the owner of the property being rented that get to decide. Not Code Pink, not the Berkley City Council, not the other people in Berkley, not me and not anyone on this list. Party A goes to Party B and says "I need space - how much?" Party B says "This much". They agree on a price, on a time frame, on very much other things and Party B moves in and conducts business. BWS --- ma ni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You seem to be equating the "rights" of govt with > the rights of > private entities. The govt has no real rights. They > only have > "powers". And since they are powers which we (the > people) > granted, WE have the right to take them away. I > would say that > refusing to rent to them would fall under that > right; and in this > particular case, the smaller city govt would be more > representative of the people - and the larger > federal govt, less > representative. > > --------------------------- > > They have rights as tenants to negotiate a rental > contract with > the > landlord. Just like any other tenant-landlord > arrangement. It's > not a role > of government (Berserkley here) to interfere in that > contract of > mutual > consent. > > Where do you see a lack of rights? Would you deny > the property > owner the > right to rent? >
