djaburg

Interesting nugget:

(As the United Nations advances its plan for international control of civilian firearms ownership, it is reasonable to investigate exactly who the UN represents, and what to expect from UN-implemented policies. To that end, this two-part article examines the following example.)
Raquel Rolink, United Nations’ special rapporteur on housing, arrived in America to investigate how selfish capitalists created an underclass of homeless victims by ruining the economy.

To address this, she wants to “regulate” private property:
Asked about her mission in the United States, she said she was very happy to have been invited to the United States. Last March, she presented a report to the Human Rights Council on the financial crisis and right to adequate housing which argued that part of the financial crisis had occurred due to a failure in housing policies. There had been a shift in recent decades from understanding housing as a social issue, to understanding it as a commodity, or financial asset, left completely to the whim of unregulated markets. [emphasis added]

Rolink doesn’t cite any sources to support her claim that housing used to be a “social issue” in America. The only countries claiming this are socialist, where private property is officially banned. For example, the Cuban Constitution says “Socialist state property, which is the property of the entire people” includes:

[T]he sugar mills, factories, chief means of transportation and all those enterprises, banks and facilities that have been nationalized and expropriated from the imperialist, landholders and bourgeoisie, as well as the factories, enterprises and economic facilities and scientific, social, cultural and sports centers built, fostered or purchased by the state and those to be built, fostered or purchased by the state in the future.
The state owns all lands “that do not belong to small farmers or to cooperatives formed by them.”

While Cuba “recognizes the right of citizens to inherit legal title to a place of residence,” it also authorizes “expropriation of property for reasons of public benefit or social interest.”

Perhaps Rolink’s allegation of a “shift in understanding” is due to the fact that one of the largest socialist countries (Soviet Union) collapsed “in recent decades”?

When confronted with totalitarian dictators, Rolink says that it is up to each country’s government to do something about human rights violations:
Asked about any follow-up she had done on forced mass evictions in Cambodia, Nigeria and Angola, she said unfortunately, she did not have good news. She had not seen any stop to those activities. Her Office had sent out press releases and raised public awareness but the ultimate decisions were made by the Governments involved. She feared that those situations could be replicated anywhere under the pretext of creating strategies to adapt to climate change.

Instead of investigating those countries, she visits a country she knows will not “disappear” her.
For the People!
How well have socialist countries done for people by destroying private property rights?
The five socialist countries included here are China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam.
The first curious aspect is how these countries fancy themselves “People’s Republics.” (People’s Republic of China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, etc.) Is this truth in advertising, or just another evil, “capitalist” marketing scam?
Socialism versus personal liberty
Freedom House, founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt (wife of Franklin Delano, a president never accused of being an “evil capitalist”) and others “concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy,” is a leading international advocate for personal liberty. Their annual report, Freedom in the World, rates each country’s level of individual political rights and civil liberties, defined as follows:
Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.
Freedom House rates countries on a scale of 1 to 7 for each category, with 1 equating with the most rights. Countries are “Free” if they attain an average of 1 to 2.5 (for both categories). Countries averaging between 2.5 and 5 are “Partly Free;” countries over 5 are “Not Free.”
The average rating for our “regulated housing market” countries is 6.60, towards the bottom end of “Not Free.”