Our rights exist in every individual and come at no one else's expense

Ok well again lets start out with the word inalienable. Maybe I didn't really make it clear last time. Inalienable rights are rights that you CANNOT give up. The phrase comes from the Declaration of Independence--"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The life, liberty and property your referring to comes from Thomas Paine, who doesn't call them inalienable. And unfortunately we don't have the inalienable right to property in this country. As you just established, you can give up your right to property making it by definition not inalienable (which again is defined as "unable to be taken away from or GIVEN AWAY by the possessor" by Merriam Webster). Also it can be taken away from you if its in the public interest to do so. A little thing called eminent domain. (but thats not the purpose of this debate) I hope we've cleared that up. Now lets move on to the example I said about discrimination. I really didn't need to set the example up as a housing situation. It wasn't really in reference to the housing part of this argument. I was referring to the statement in your original argument: "If my desire for something imposed a legal obligation on other people, they would have no choice in their lives, and would have no liberty and no right to their property." I am just looking at that sentence. You responded with: NO, I'VE NEVER HEARD OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR APARTMENTS. IN THE REAL WORLD, THE LANDLORD JUST WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE, BUT HE WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO GO WITH THAT PERSON IF ANOTHER PERSON APPLIED. I wouldn't really call it affirmative action for apartments. And why is he not allowed to discriminate, assuming we use your definition of liberty as stated above? Wouldn't saying he's not allowed to discriminate be a "legal obligation" and he "would have no choice in [his] life"? I really just don't think you have thought through that logic. And then you went with this: I DON'T KNOW WHERE I STAND ON ALLOWING PRIVATE PERSONS/ENTITIES TO DISCRIMINATE (IF THEY WOULD DISCRIMINATE AGAINST YOU IF THEY COULD, WOULD YOU WANT TO WORK FOR THEM ANYWAY?), BUT REGARDLESS, NO INCONSISTENCY IN WHAT I HAVE SAID AND SUPPORTING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS First of all, private persons or business can't discriminate. If I am a restaurant owner, and I say oh no you can't eat here if your black, that is illegal. And yes there is a serious inconsistency in what you have said and anti-discrimination laws. You said that, and I'm just gonna copy it again down here, that "If my desire for something imposed a legal obligation on other people, they would have no choice in their lives, and would have no liberty and no right to their property." Anti-discrimination laws are by their very nature IMPOSING A LEGAL OBLIGATION not to discriminate, and essentially those people would HAVE NO LIBERTY to discriminate as they wish. Basically your very wrong in saying that what you have said doesn't go against anti-discrimination laws. But now for the real debate about housing. A rent-control program is a social program designed to allow lower-income families to live in certain parts of cities, the most prominent example being New York City. Rent Control in New York probably has gone away from its original purpose, and thats why there are constantly new regulations about it being imposed on the people living in rent control apartments. For example, in a rent control apartment you can't make any major improvements to it yourself(i.e. w/o landlord permission) without forfeiting rent control status. You can see how that is designed to weed out the undeserving people from the program---the real low income families wont have enough money to make major improvements to their apartments. Also, you must reside in the apartment some amount of days per year in order to qualify for rent control--again weeding out the people taking advantage of the program who might use their rent control apartment as a second home or something of that nature. Rent Control is a good program, it has just gone awry. But that is being fixed. And I don't think you can say social programs are not a right and still you know have a conscience. The one failure of our free-market capital system is that for the number of winners there are, there are also a significant number of losers. In the end, the gains to the winners outweigh the losses to the losers, but there are still losers. If you say social programs are not a right, then if my aunt didn't have help from my family you'd be sending her on to the streets. She didn't control the fact that she has bipolar disorder. She can't work because of it. And your saying she doesn't have the right to be helped out? I mean come on. What did she ever do to you?