Rich people should be able to live in any home they can afford.

To be honest, your points are not seeming very logical. I will expand mine to show this. Governments are no more intelligent then anyone else. The government, therefore, cannot make decisions for anyone else. What makes you so certain, that the minds of the politicians and staff in a group in power, are superior enough that they can make decisions for everyone else? Why do they get to decide weather a decrepit house is bad for me? Because it is obvious? What if, in my mind, under my circumstances and in my POV, it is obvious that living in such is the best option? Why should anyone stop me then? If people should be able to, like you say, should they also be allowed to decide if an abortion is bad for me, because it 'obviously is'? Or maybe, if I should be forced to vote, because it's 'obviously the best thing to do'? Shall I be threatened into selling my hard-worked on products for a set price as well, because it is 'obviously morally right'? Back when the constitution was created, people knew that the government was no smarter then the people. Yet, people knew it still had the strength to control them. This is why people wrote the constitution. This is why it was written not to protect the governments right to control people, but protect the people from that control. Why do you think it begins with 'We the People', and not 'We the Authorities'? In fact, beliefs that people in control are superior then everyone else were common in many parts of our history, resulting in catastrophe at many times. One of the most disturbing times in our past, in fact, the Dark Ages, were caused by a direct result of people giving their control of thought to someone else. During the time, almost every part of everyones lives were given to the church, mostly because they thought that the pope and the priests were better then them, and had a closer connection to 'god'. I can list some of the results of this below: -People were being led often into utterly illogical wars for 'religion' (Although the rich religious rulers normally had other motives). These were called crusades. -The Black Death was spread rapidly, and nobody had incentive to work or try to find a cure, as the people of the world were made to believe that death was irrelevant, because 'heaven' would welcome them with open arms. In addition, because so much control was given to the churches, 'god' was overly praised, overly credited, and used as an explanation for everything. So, people just thought 'god' would take care of the plague. -The richest people in the world, as well as the most powerful, were people that were supposed to be selfless, such as bishops, the pope, and priests. They could also, because of the status that people gave to them, get away with almost anything. *Sources for above in comments* I know what I have written may seem like a few extreme examples, but I decided to go to this extreme for a reason. Clearly, if a large unnecessary amount of control was given to authority figures in the past with disaster resulting, a small amount of unnecessary control would do nothing positive either. Earlier, I responded to something in the third round, by questioning weather I really keep my individuality if the government starts to decide whats right for me, and if its really a democracy still if parts of my life are not allowed to be in my control anymore. Considering it's still not clear why control or force is needed in anyone's life unless they are affecting someone elses, I would like you to address these points. I hope my example of the dark ages will give you the kick you need to do this. To address your naive argument about these theoretical people likely having theoretical mental illness, I will merely restate the fact that it's impossible to know the circumstances of a theoretical person, and it's impossible to test them for mental illness, like you could with an actually existent hoarder.