The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.
Lol "anarchistic country" If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You're like asking them to find an incel that isn't a misogynist
Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.
It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can't exist.
Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn't pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)
The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world's treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.
We literally didn't have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.
The human os isn't ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.
A light form was tribalism. If you didn't go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.
We now don't have places to banish people to. That's why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that's the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.
It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren't we anymore?
We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.
You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.
But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.
Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.
Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today
Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be "the zone of control of a government" and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.
Maybe they don't live off of benefits, but they get massive tax benefits. In fact, the government loses way more revenue by not taxing billionaires properly than by helping homeless people.
I haven't read up on official human rights. Who made them? Did someone bother to ask most humans?
This is a Sunday-morning coffee post, not a detailed world-view. Feel free to ask, but refrain from shooting things down. It's not like I've spent hours on this.
How are they defined, human rights? I'd say anyone in my way to spread my genes keeps me from being a human.
As a pragmatist, I'd say breathing and eating, and perhaps warmth and caring are human rights. We can't do any of them on our own after being born, and without them some really crappy humans emerge. Breathing should be top tier. Anyone disturbing that should be under heavy focus. Can't do anything without air.
After that, once we are fairly independent, doing things to keep people keeping me from growing up and procreating should be my right.
Killing someone else would keep them from doing that, so not being killed by other humans seems like one. Killing others would disqualify me from being human, and I would give up my rights by that act. Straightforward stuff.
Mix in social structures, and it becomes complicated.
Being homeless? Build a commune somewhere. Why insist on being near that techno-tribe with internet. It's nothing but a tribe, has nothing to do with survival or being human. Having modern amenities can't be a right. Other humans invented them at some point.
Which leads to something no human should have a right to: owning land. Because owning land keeps humans from realizing their purpose and keeps them from being free to be human.
Housing is a right? That's ridiculous. That's a technological achievement from other people. So is monetary wealth. How can those be a right. If nobody came along inventing them, nobody would have them. Can't be a right. At all. That is just the consequences of capitalism and ownership of natural resources.
Probably important to point this out: private property is not personal property.
E.g.
An apartment building rented to tenants is the landlords private property. They have exclusive rights to the decisions, especially economic ones, regarding the building and the profits of the rent.
A car, book, house, pizza, are all your personal property so long as you don't owe a lender anything for them.
So no private property might look like:
The people who live in an apartment building own the building collectively and have the full right therein, but the individual units are each their own personal property.
Appeal to nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way in nature doesn't automatically mean it's good because nature has no concept of good or bad. Living in "the wild" has a far higher mortality rate than any of us should accept today. By your logic nothing should be a human right because we can always just die if we don't have it, just as nature intended.
Also, humans originated in the African savannah, which is much warmer than the places most humans now live. And even in the savannah at the dawn of our species we were nest building animals that instinctively would make shelters for ourselves. Housing is as natural to humanity as hives are to bees.
That's right. Nothing is a human right. Many humans have rights outlined in their countries constitutions but even those are easily stomped on with usually little consequence
I'm just saying what is. If you want what I think should be, I'm a non Randian libertarian. Big on personal responsibility and the risk of consequences and consequences of risk, less on being a whiny bitch about everything.
Well, it takes some time to grow up to be able to find food and water. How long until we can walk even?
Food, water and means to provide an upbringing until offspring can care for themselves, those could be considered basic rights.
Housing is so far into the technological advancements, building up on so many other systems, I fail to see how that can be a right.
Air and food on the other hand, and sensible means to acquiring those. Well. There certainly is room for discussion. When people start owning land, keeping others to effectively do those things, they should have to provide alternatives. Or we have to abolish ownership of natural resources at all. Both can't work together. That's ineffective, of course, and makes planning and advancement difficult.
The price of capitalism and ownership of nature should be compensation. Nothing natural about social structures. If they want to continue those money games, they need to play by the rules of nature. Or they'll go down with chopped-off heads at some point.
Article 25 of the declararion of himan rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family
Seriously, do you think human rights are somehow just a feeling what should be? They are written down and you can look them up.
it’s illegal. the blm will come with guns and force you out. i know this for a fact. not can i just find some land and grow my food and raise animals. it’s either owned by someone or it’s govt land.
Absolutely. So instead of building up on that, declaring everyone may own something, making them mini billionaires in principle; yeah, make owning land illegal. That would be the natural conclusion.
You are basically saying: other people owning things and keeping me from building a house and a live should be illegal. Your solution: Make everyone own something, so they can build a house! Houses for everyone, hurray! But hey, my family is twice as big as yours, my house should, by right, be bigger. And hey, my farm supplies for ten families, it should, by right, be bigger. You don't want to farm, let me buy your land and provide for you. And so the circle begins.
I'd say, that thinking is what got us here in the first place.
i’m pretty sure that native americans were able to not own land and work this out. i do think owning land is absurd. also, all i need to do is look around to know that how we are doing things has to change if our species wants to keep living. i don’t mean what you think but it’s the wee hours here, the key word being “wee” as that’s why i got up for a sec. so…back to sleep it is.
I don't think housing should be considered a human right, unless being homeless is made illegal. But, being homeless is practically illegal everywhere, so here we are, agreeing with one another.
I try to think to myself - at what point do we call for things to be considered human rights? At what point in human history did we start considering clean water to be a human right? -- Generally once we had massive cheap, clean, unfettered access to it, right?
Companies and corporations, want their workers healthy, housed, disease free, etc. So -- if they want those things, they should be considered 'rights' and we should collect taxes on making sure those rights are distributed, shouldn't we?
I edited my reply to expound upon my thoughts. But mostly it comes down to -- because houses require vast resources to build. You need people in the steel industry, wood/lumber industries, a set of housing standards, architects, etc.
Unless these things become so cheap that they're basically costless, ensuring a house for everyone free of charge is a monumentally burdensome task.
Something shouldn't have to be free to be a human right. That's an extremely right-wing American point of view, where they only believe in so-called "negative" rights.
A right to housing wouldn't mean builders and their suppliers have to work for free. That's the same kind of nonsense reasoning libertarians and conservatives use to argue against free healthcare.
A right to housing would impose an obligation on governments to do everything they can to ensure housing is readily available to anyone who wants it. Whether by ensuring that everyone can afford housing (economic policies that lower the cost of housing and/or put more money on people's pockets) or by directly ensuring the government itself can give people a place to live if they can't afford it. Ideally a mix of both.
What you described there is not what a human right consists of. Sure, governments should do exactly what you say, but something considered a 'human right' has much higher standards. It MUST be met. It's not an optional strive-to-do-our-best situation.
I mean healthcare is definitely a human right, but there is always more we could be doing. That's a kind of arbitrary distinction that I don't think adds anything to the discussion here.
Basic human needs are basic human rights. I really do think it's as simple as that.
A human right is anything a human should have the right to.
In that case, you have no rights at all. Not even to speech, or the right not to be killed. "Rights" are invented by the society we live in. You have literally none in the natural world. As it exists, "Rights" are a religious idea. (Hence, "God-given rights")
The practicalities are of the utmost concern, because those practicalities are governed by the society which recognizes them as rights. As of now, there is no "human right to shelter".
Absolutely it is. Because our "rights" are just invented bullshit brought about by the society we've created. You don't have the right for me not to murder you in the lawless nothingness of nature. Therefore, if it's difficult as a society to supply it -- we can, AND DO, reject things as human rights.
As it is, clean water is not a human right. Housing is not a human right. You WANT it to be, but your feelings here obviously don't have a speck of reality within them.
What kind of backwards arsed ayn rand bullshit is this.
You do realise society actually only came into existence in and of itself via a loose collective agreement of behaviours, yes? These behaviours were not determined by whether or not they fit into a too hard basket, but whether or not they ensured the social strucuture remained intact for the good of the collective. Those eventually became codes of laws, and now relatively recently the conceept of human rights.
No shit housing was never ranked a right or even on the radar until recently, it wasn't an issue that affected enough of the population that it started to threaten social cohesion. It is now.
You're acting like lawless nature should dictate our actions when the sole fuckin' reason we're the dominant species is our ability and innate nature that works outside these parameters. It's laughable
Money is fake. It doesn't exist. Your labor has value. You can use your labor to make other people's lives easier. They can use their labor to make your life easier. Like building stuff? Cool. I'll make your wardrobe if you build my house. No banks or real estate agents necessary.
A reasonably stable currency is incredibly useful as an abstraction for value. Do you farm potatoes? Do you need a difficult medical procedure? I guarantee you, the surgeon, support staff, and the hospital are not much interested in being paid in a sufficient amount of potatoes.
I don't think housing should be considered a human right, unless being homeless is made illegal.
Huh? I don't see how that follows.
Freedom of speech is widely regarded as a human right. But you still have the right not to express yourself.
Shelter is literally a human need. It's like, number 4 on the list after air, water, and food. Maybe before food, even. Being necessary for life should be a sufficient condition to qualify as a human right.
Speech doesn't require anything tangible though. Big difference. Same with the right to water -- it has more to do with not infringing the rights of others (by dumping waste into the water, etc) than it does actually attaining something tangible; mostly due to how widely available it is, causing it to be essentially free as well. That's why those are already codified rights basically -- because they're easy to attain and ensure.
Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn't cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it's a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.
Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.
Clean, safe drinking water isn't cheaply and widely available
Literally rain. It's literally free, and literally "widely" available. As I said, water rights have more to do with not polluting fresh water sources than actually attaining physical water.
Hahaha awesome, do you get the majority of your clean water via collecting rain? Do you think it's a viable source for folks living in dense metropolitan areas?
do you get the majority of your clean water via collecting rain?
Yes, I do. It's called a well. Millions of people do the same. You can drill a well almost anywhere, and drink clean rain water. There are some exceptions of course, but as I stated before -- "the right to clean water" -- has more to do with keeping large corporations, etc from polluting those water sources than it does physically attaining water.
Do you think it's a viable source for folks living in dense metropolitan areas?
No, but that's their choice to live there. That's the same reason why it's illegal to fish in dense populated areas.
My apologies, since wells are hardly "free" to build and maintain I had assumed you were talking about collecting it directly via a harvesting system. I've used wells the majority of my life.
My general point is that wells or direct capture is not viable for dense urban areas, and while you're saying it's a choice, the majority of folks in the USA live in urban areas. Big urban centers aren't going away any time soon, so we should consider how to meet people where they are, when possible. The larger point I wanted to make though is that we (at least in the USA, and all the Latin American nations I've lived in) have good public sanitation and water systems precisely because it's seen as a right. And those systems aren't cheap, but we do it. As I argue we should do more for re: housing.
That's the crux of the biscuit: I just think more should be done to help people afford these basic necessities. I think we should (as a nation/planet) fundamentally rethink the way we approach housing, for the same reasons water and food are subsidized (and they should be further subsidized IMHO, but that's another point entirely). I'm not going to claim I know the answers, or that it would be easy or cheap, but I think it's something we should all try seriously to solve.
in feudal times ordinary people would have wanted to be a king or a lord, it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean they didn't want, fought for, and died for a revolution.
Throughout history, plenty of people have sought out and been fine with a life of subsistence and, where possible, peace. It’s actually more telling when someone can NOT conceive of a life that’s completely soaked in foul consumption and exploitation. Not everyone would want to be a king or lord. Lots would NOT.
Rights are something that the society you live in and contribute to, grants you!
There are no inherent human rights to be had! Even being alive is a happening not a right!
You're born because your parents fucked, there was nothing special about it!
L.E. I see a lot of snowflakes are bothered by what I said, good.
Maybe you start thinking once about what you have, instead of whining about what you would like!
Let's not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it's been common throughout history that they've been dismantled by the people.
You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers' rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.
Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.
Corect, but if the state is or isn't serving those within, is a decision to be taken by the same individuals. Up to now those who are considering this are a small subset of the citizens which agrregate in underground forums and not actively trying to change the society and have a positive impact.
Housing is necessary for life but it was never a right in that society. Also necessary for life are water, clothing, food, medical assistance, etc. None of them are rights of the people within that society. It may not correct but it is what it is.
The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.
Capitalism is not freedom anyway. There is a reason we anarchists reject capitalism. We know better
Yes, but they’re also mostly nuts.
Or maybe just don't value the same creature comforts you do.
Is there an anarchistic country that you would love to move to?
Lol "anarchistic country" If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You're like asking them to find an incel that isn't a misogynist
Good point. I didn't know the background or history of the word.
Anarchy isn't synonymous with anti capitalism
Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.
It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can't exist.
It’s free to be poor is what it is
Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn't pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)
Anarchists are their own brand of stupid.
The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world's treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.
We literally didn't have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.
The human os isn't ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.
Humans have built societies with rules for forever.
And banish people outside their society.
I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.
A light form was tribalism. If you didn't go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.
We now don't have places to banish people to. That's why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that's the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.
It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren't we anymore?
We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.
You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.
But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.
Hardly utopia.
Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.
Yeah, and that is not equivalent to modern borders.
Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today
In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?
Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be "the zone of control of a government" and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.
"But me not being able to say the N word is literally infringing on my rights!" - people who scream free speech
Not even We have just enough freedom to feel free But not enough to where we have to pay to litterly live
I can't even afford van life tbh
They Have Money For War But Can't Feed The Poor
-2pac
When the rich wage war its the poor who die.
-Mike Shinoda
-- Plutarch
CE 45 - ~CE 119
This has literally been said by people for at least two millennia.
Preach 🙏
I can't believe so many of you are upvoting a post about murdering homeless people. You monsters!
Would have been a better joke without the "all". Then the meaning is ambiguous.
Still waiting for that to happen...
Oh don't worry.
The billionaires will make sure the homeless don't exist soon enough.
Not in the USA it isn't.
Neither party has done a damn thing to address housing scarcity, and in a few months, you're all going to vote for the same assholes who ignore it.
Power to the people ☭
Compost homeless - get free fuel and fertiliser!
Compost billionaires - get free fuel and fertiliser!
Not enough of them. They also don't live off benefits, so...
Your sure about that?
Yeah.
Maybe they don't live off of benefits, but they get massive tax benefits. In fact, the government loses way more revenue by not taxing billionaires properly than by helping homeless people.
If the government loses even a penny, all the hell will break loose.
I'm pretty sure OP is advocating for limits to these cited rights.
That's a weird take. All rights have limits, why should this be any different?
You're pro-hoarding? Are you a dragon?
I think homeless people are a little less psyched about it.
Bro, billionaires can't be black! (/s omg)
*hoarding
Eat the.. poor?
I haven't read up on official human rights. Who made them? Did someone bother to ask most humans?
This is a Sunday-morning coffee post, not a detailed world-view. Feel free to ask, but refrain from shooting things down. It's not like I've spent hours on this.
How are they defined, human rights? I'd say anyone in my way to spread my genes keeps me from being a human.
As a pragmatist, I'd say breathing and eating, and perhaps warmth and caring are human rights. We can't do any of them on our own after being born, and without them some really crappy humans emerge. Breathing should be top tier. Anyone disturbing that should be under heavy focus. Can't do anything without air.
After that, once we are fairly independent, doing things to keep people keeping me from growing up and procreating should be my right.
Killing someone else would keep them from doing that, so not being killed by other humans seems like one. Killing others would disqualify me from being human, and I would give up my rights by that act. Straightforward stuff.
Mix in social structures, and it becomes complicated.
Being homeless? Build a commune somewhere. Why insist on being near that techno-tribe with internet. It's nothing but a tribe, has nothing to do with survival or being human. Having modern amenities can't be a right. Other humans invented them at some point.
Which leads to something no human should have a right to: owning land. Because owning land keeps humans from realizing their purpose and keeps them from being free to be human.
Housing is a right? That's ridiculous. That's a technological achievement from other people. So is monetary wealth. How can those be a right. If nobody came along inventing them, nobody would have them. Can't be a right. At all. That is just the consequences of capitalism and ownership of natural resources.
Let me spell it out for you bub, i want to: Abolish Private Property
You do? I wonder how that would work. Can't see it, personally.
Probably important to point this out: private property is not personal property.
E.g. An apartment building rented to tenants is the landlords private property. They have exclusive rights to the decisions, especially economic ones, regarding the building and the profits of the rent.
A car, book, house, pizza, are all your personal property so long as you don't owe a lender anything for them.
So no private property might look like:
The people who live in an apartment building own the building collectively and have the full right therein, but the individual units are each their own personal property.
Here's a video breaking it down.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Here's a video breaking it down.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Housing is not a human right as humans can exist in the wild without a house.
Appeal to nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way in nature doesn't automatically mean it's good because nature has no concept of good or bad. Living in "the wild" has a far higher mortality rate than any of us should accept today. By your logic nothing should be a human right because we can always just die if we don't have it, just as nature intended.
Also, humans originated in the African savannah, which is much warmer than the places most humans now live. And even in the savannah at the dawn of our species we were nest building animals that instinctively would make shelters for ourselves. Housing is as natural to humanity as hives are to bees.
Very well put. Thank you. :)
By that logic, nothing is a human right since you can find food, water and shelter in the wild.
The problem with that logic is that you assume everyone to be physically able and knowledgeable to live off the land.
That's right. Nothing is a human right. Many humans have rights outlined in their countries constitutions but even those are easily stomped on with usually little consequence
And you're saying that shouldn't be the case right ? Right ?
I'd insert that Anakin Padme meme here if I had one ready.
I'm just saying what is. If you want what I think should be, I'm a non Randian libertarian. Big on personal responsibility and the risk of consequences and consequences of risk, less on being a whiny bitch about everything.
Well, it takes some time to grow up to be able to find food and water. How long until we can walk even?
Food, water and means to provide an upbringing until offspring can care for themselves, those could be considered basic rights.
Housing is so far into the technological advancements, building up on so many other systems, I fail to see how that can be a right.
Air and food on the other hand, and sensible means to acquiring those. Well. There certainly is room for discussion. When people start owning land, keeping others to effectively do those things, they should have to provide alternatives. Or we have to abolish ownership of natural resources at all. Both can't work together. That's ineffective, of course, and makes planning and advancement difficult.
The price of capitalism and ownership of nature should be compensation. Nothing natural about social structures. If they want to continue those money games, they need to play by the rules of nature. Or they'll go down with chopped-off heads at some point.
Article 25 of the declararion of himan rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family
Seriously, do you think human rights are somehow just a feeling what should be? They are written down and you can look them up.
It has also never happened, there has never been a time in all of history. And the declaration of human rights isn't broadly accepted either.
it’s illegal. the blm will come with guns and force you out. i know this for a fact. not can i just find some land and grow my food and raise animals. it’s either owned by someone or it’s govt land.
Absolutely. So instead of building up on that, declaring everyone may own something, making them mini billionaires in principle; yeah, make owning land illegal. That would be the natural conclusion.
You are basically saying: other people owning things and keeping me from building a house and a live should be illegal. Your solution: Make everyone own something, so they can build a house! Houses for everyone, hurray! But hey, my family is twice as big as yours, my house should, by right, be bigger. And hey, my farm supplies for ten families, it should, by right, be bigger. You don't want to farm, let me buy your land and provide for you. And so the circle begins.
I'd say, that thinking is what got us here in the first place.
i’m pretty sure that native americans were able to not own land and work this out. i do think owning land is absurd. also, all i need to do is look around to know that how we are doing things has to change if our species wants to keep living. i don’t mean what you think but it’s the wee hours here, the key word being “wee” as that’s why i got up for a sec. so…back to sleep it is.
I don't think housing should be considered a human right, unless being homeless is made illegal. But, being homeless is practically illegal everywhere, so here we are, agreeing with one another.
I try to think to myself - at what point do we call for things to be considered human rights? At what point in human history did we start considering clean water to be a human right? -- Generally once we had massive cheap, clean, unfettered access to it, right?
Companies and corporations, want their workers healthy, housed, disease free, etc. So -- if they want those things, they should be considered 'rights' and we should collect taxes on making sure those rights are distributed, shouldn't we?
Why not?
I edited my reply to expound upon my thoughts. But mostly it comes down to -- because houses require vast resources to build. You need people in the steel industry, wood/lumber industries, a set of housing standards, architects, etc.
Unless these things become so cheap that they're basically costless, ensuring a house for everyone free of charge is a monumentally burdensome task.
Something shouldn't have to be free to be a human right. That's an extremely right-wing American point of view, where they only believe in so-called "negative" rights.
A right to housing wouldn't mean builders and their suppliers have to work for free. That's the same kind of nonsense reasoning libertarians and conservatives use to argue against free healthcare.
A right to housing would impose an obligation on governments to do everything they can to ensure housing is readily available to anyone who wants it. Whether by ensuring that everyone can afford housing (economic policies that lower the cost of housing and/or put more money on people's pockets) or by directly ensuring the government itself can give people a place to live if they can't afford it. Ideally a mix of both.
What you described there is not what a human right consists of. Sure, governments should do exactly what you say, but something considered a 'human right' has much higher standards. It MUST be met. It's not an optional strive-to-do-our-best situation.
I mean healthcare is definitely a human right, but there is always more we could be doing. That's a kind of arbitrary distinction that I don't think adds anything to the discussion here.
Basic human needs are basic human rights. I really do think it's as simple as that.
Healthcare is not a human right. It's a societal right granted to you by those around you.
Deep in that American politique, eh?
Umm, no. That's just not correct. A human right is anything a human should have the right to. End of.
The practicalities of how we achieve that are a separate concern.
In that case, you have no rights at all. Not even to speech, or the right not to be killed. "Rights" are invented by the society we live in. You have literally none in the natural world. As it exists, "Rights" are a religious idea. (Hence, "God-given rights")
The practicalities are of the utmost concern, because those practicalities are governed by the society which recognizes them as rights. As of now, there is no "human right to shelter".
Wrong
Wrong
Correct
Correct
Lol what? Where did you even get that idea?
Govt. does its best to ensure citizens aren’t murdered, yet it still happens.
Shouldn’t housing be similarly considered a right like the right to life?
"It's too expensive and too hard" are not good reasons to reject a right
Absolutely it is. Because our "rights" are just invented bullshit brought about by the society we've created. You don't have the right for me not to murder you in the lawless nothingness of nature. Therefore, if it's difficult as a society to supply it -- we can, AND DO, reject things as human rights.
As it is, clean water is not a human right. Housing is not a human right. You WANT it to be, but your feelings here obviously don't have a speck of reality within them.
What kind of backwards arsed ayn rand bullshit is this.
You do realise society actually only came into existence in and of itself via a loose collective agreement of behaviours, yes? These behaviours were not determined by whether or not they fit into a too hard basket, but whether or not they ensured the social strucuture remained intact for the good of the collective. Those eventually became codes of laws, and now relatively recently the conceept of human rights.
No shit housing was never ranked a right or even on the radar until recently, it wasn't an issue that affected enough of the population that it started to threaten social cohesion. It is now.
You're acting like lawless nature should dictate our actions when the sole fuckin' reason we're the dominant species is our ability and innate nature that works outside these parameters. It's laughable
Money is fake. It doesn't exist. Your labor has value. You can use your labor to make other people's lives easier. They can use their labor to make your life easier. Like building stuff? Cool. I'll make your wardrobe if you build my house. No banks or real estate agents necessary.
A reasonably stable currency is incredibly useful as an abstraction for value. Do you farm potatoes? Do you need a difficult medical procedure? I guarantee you, the surgeon, support staff, and the hospital are not much interested in being paid in a sufficient amount of potatoes.
Huh? I don't see how that follows.
Freedom of speech is widely regarded as a human right. But you still have the right not to express yourself.
Shelter is literally a human need. It's like, number 4 on the list after air, water, and food. Maybe before food, even. Being necessary for life should be a sufficient condition to qualify as a human right.
Speech doesn't require anything tangible though. Big difference. Same with the right to water -- it has more to do with not infringing the rights of others (by dumping waste into the water, etc) than it does actually attaining something tangible; mostly due to how widely available it is, causing it to be essentially free as well. That's why those are already codified rights basically -- because they're easy to attain and ensure.
Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn't cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it's a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.
Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.
Literally rain. It's literally free, and literally "widely" available. As I said, water rights have more to do with not polluting fresh water sources than actually attaining physical water.
Hahaha awesome, do you get the majority of your clean water via collecting rain? Do you think it's a viable source for folks living in dense metropolitan areas?
Yes, I do. It's called a well. Millions of people do the same. You can drill a well almost anywhere, and drink clean rain water. There are some exceptions of course, but as I stated before -- "the right to clean water" -- has more to do with keeping large corporations, etc from polluting those water sources than it does physically attaining water.
No, but that's their choice to live there. That's the same reason why it's illegal to fish in dense populated areas.
My apologies, since wells are hardly "free" to build and maintain I had assumed you were talking about collecting it directly via a harvesting system. I've used wells the majority of my life.
My general point is that wells or direct capture is not viable for dense urban areas, and while you're saying it's a choice, the majority of folks in the USA live in urban areas. Big urban centers aren't going away any time soon, so we should consider how to meet people where they are, when possible. The larger point I wanted to make though is that we (at least in the USA, and all the Latin American nations I've lived in) have good public sanitation and water systems precisely because it's seen as a right. And those systems aren't cheap, but we do it. As I argue we should do more for re: housing.
That's the crux of the biscuit: I just think more should be done to help people afford these basic necessities. I think we should (as a nation/planet) fundamentally rethink the way we approach housing, for the same reasons water and food are subsidized (and they should be further subsidized IMHO, but that's another point entirely). I'm not going to claim I know the answers, or that it would be easy or cheap, but I think it's something we should all try seriously to solve.
Prove that OP doesn't wanna be a billionaire.
in feudal times ordinary people would have wanted to be a king or a lord, it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean they didn't want, fought for, and died for a revolution.
EDIT: Abridged for clarity
Throughout history, plenty of people have sought out and been fine with a life of subsistence and, where possible, peace. It’s actually more telling when someone can NOT conceive of a life that’s completely soaked in foul consumption and exploitation. Not everyone would want to be a king or lord. Lots would NOT.
Jesus Christ are you advocating for feudal times or something? What the fuck is this shit.
"This shit" is a sign you need to go back to school
It's time to think beyond personal enrichment. That kind of greed got us into this mess.
Rights are something that the society you live in and contribute to, grants you!
There are no inherent human rights to be had! Even being alive is a happening not a right! You're born because your parents fucked, there was nothing special about it!
L.E. I see a lot of snowflakes are bothered by what I said, good. Maybe you start thinking once about what you have, instead of whining about what you would like!
Let's not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it's been common throughout history that they've been dismantled by the people.
You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers' rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.
Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.
Corect, but if the state is or isn't serving those within, is a decision to be taken by the same individuals. Up to now those who are considering this are a small subset of the citizens which agrregate in underground forums and not actively trying to change the society and have a positive impact.
Housing is necessary for life but it was never a right in that society. Also necessary for life are water, clothing, food, medical assistance, etc. None of them are rights of the people within that society. It may not correct but it is what it is.
I'm starting to think most of lemmy is populated by a bunch of kids who just read Marx and have no actual world experiences cause they're 14.