6 ms·

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, childre

by nwenzel 10y ago

Honest question: Do any class or all classes of people (citizens, legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, refugees, criminals, teachers, disabled, adults, children, or any other type of people) have a right to a home or some other minimum level of shelter? Seems like discussion on homelessness would be slightly easier if we started from first principles or at least some place where there is closer to a consensus.

pboutros 10y ago
Morally, yes (IMO), legally, no. Let's get the laws closer to what's right.
daenz 10y ago
What amenities does the legal definition of "home" include? Just a roof and walls? Running water? Electricity?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Redoubts 10y ago
Maybe, but does location of choice count as part of that minimum level?
bufordsharkley 10y ago
It's important to recognize that the problem isn't that shelter is expensive, but that land is expensive. And to reframe the question, do all people have a right not to be excluded from land (without a commensurate payment)? I believe the answer is a resounding yes. Note: I'm a Georgist. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
- internaut 10y ago
  How about the people who decided that they didn't like their land in Nigeria, but decided to move to Dublin, Ireland because they like it there better. What then? Government creates property rights, which is what Land really is about, and there appears to be a limited supply to go around. Thereby only citizens of a country who pay taxes should have the right to own Land. Does this make sense?
  - bufordsharkley 10y ago
    What happens when people in Virginia decide they want to move to California? Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral.
    - internaut 10y ago
      If that literally happened there would be ructions. And those two groups are not that dissimilar. > Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral. Large numbers of Nigerians moved to Dublin. Robbery, fraud, violence shot up immediately and the CSO (gov stats) shows they are mostly not working and are recipients of state aid. I used to believe in open borders once until I started living in some estates with migrants and started seeing the horrendous shit they were up to. Stealing cars, beating people up, probably murdering people judging by some of the awful sounds and continual police visits. I still do, but only for people like me. It might not be based on ethic identity necessarily but it should be based on something. Geekdom perhaps. Otherwise, unwelcome though it is, violence is an inevitability. Those borders were there for a reason. If you remove the borders then you need to remove the reason also. Until then we shall resolve conflict with violence. Calling that immoral solves nothing.
      - bufordsharkley 10y ago
        You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery, and they were just as incoherent at addressing the root moral evil.
        internaut 10y ago
        That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature. I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it was like coming home from a distant journey. I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal battle between the lumpers and splitters. > Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it. > You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders. You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a rhetorical explanation for the motion. > just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that statement because the differences may be too stark by then. A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries, with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable. There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to commute with transports that caused splitting. I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics. What I do know is that historically large population movements of different peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why they won't be once more.
nkurz 10y ago
I don't know the answer, but I'd like to follow it up with the questions "And to what extent should location preference be accommodated? Does one have a right to continue to live where one was born? To live in the city of one's choice? Or is the right (if it exists) just to a safe place somewhere?"
carapace 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... """ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website.[1] """ [1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...
- internaut 10y ago
  Most of the right do not recognize the UN as a moral authority. I view the UN generally as 'not even wrong'. With leftist propaganda, it is not what they say that matters. It is what they leave out. They come up with things that sound to me like this: "Everybody has the right to a chocolate bar, because chocolate bars are delicious and everybody ought to have one" Then I think 'Well, that sounds like a nice thing' but who produces these bars of chocolate. How many bars? What are the limits on this new standard? These kinds of questions are invariably never answered. You just get a bunch of blowhards leaping down your throat shouting about how you don't care about the children who never experienced the joys of chocolate or something.
  - carapace 10y ago
    All I can say is, I hope you don't mind if I go ahead and build the cornucopia machine? I don't give a wet slap about ideology, left or right or anything else, but I do think everyone should have as much chocolate as they want. Bathe in it, why not? If no one stops me there will be floating castles and highways to the stars. ;-P
    - internaut 10y ago
      Don't mind if you do Dr Wonka. > If no one stops me there will be floating castles and highways to the stars. ;-P Why have a highway to the stars when you could have a maglev train to the moon. Check out Sam Hyde's talk at TED.
prostoalex 10y ago
This right is present twice (once as an article on housing, another as a right to own property) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Note that "right" implies that you cannot be denied something arbitrarily, it doesn't mean someone somewhere will go out of their way to supply you with that. Think of it as a call option - you have an undeniable right to exercise it under the terms of contract, but it doesn't mean the brokerage or anyone else have to finance this transaction in case you're low on funds.

by nwenzel 10y ago

pboutros 10y ago

Morally, yes (IMO), legally, no. Let's get the laws closer to what's right.

daenz 10y ago

What amenities does the legal definition of "home" include? Just a roof and walls? Running water? Electricity?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Redoubts 10y ago

Maybe, but does location of choice count as part of that minimum level?

bufordsharkley 10y ago

It's important to recognize that the problem isn't that shelter is expensive, but that land is expensive. And to reframe the question, do all people have a right not to be excluded from land (without a commensurate payment)? I believe the answer is a resounding yes. Note: I'm a Georgist. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

internaut 10y ago
How about the people who decided that they didn't like their land in Nigeria, but decided to move to Dublin, Ireland because they like it there better. What then? Government creates property rights, which is what Land really is about, and there appears to be a limited supply to go around. Thereby only citizens of a country who pay taxes should have the right to own Land. Does this make sense?
- bufordsharkley 10y ago
  What happens when people in Virginia decide they want to move to California? Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral.
  - internaut 10y ago
    If that literally happened there would be ructions. And those two groups are not that dissimilar. > Georgists (including myself) tend to see anything less than open borders as deeply immoral. Large numbers of Nigerians moved to Dublin. Robbery, fraud, violence shot up immediately and the CSO (gov stats) shows they are mostly not working and are recipients of state aid. I used to believe in open borders once until I started living in some estates with migrants and started seeing the horrendous shit they were up to. Stealing cars, beating people up, probably murdering people judging by some of the awful sounds and continual police visits. I still do, but only for people like me. It might not be based on ethic identity necessarily but it should be based on something. Geekdom perhaps. Otherwise, unwelcome though it is, violence is an inevitability. Those borders were there for a reason. If you remove the borders then you need to remove the reason also. Until then we shall resolve conflict with violence. Calling that immoral solves nothing.
    - bufordsharkley 10y ago
      You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery, and they were just as incoherent at addressing the root moral evil.
      - internaut 10y ago
        That's because Mr Sharkley, I am not against people mingling but people clashing. Pushing for open borders is a basic denial of human nature. I think the denizens of this website would get along because regardless of race or class our cultural values are similar. Culture reduced to a single person is a personality, and ours are quite similar. And this is a very recent development yet the distinctions between different groups of people online are well defined. When I first met a large group of computer geeks in person, it was like coming home from a distant journey. I agree that geographical boundaries are somewhat arbitrary but I don't agree that the idea of borders themselves are immoral. They seem more like a natural and organic adaption to the world. Birds of a feather flock together. That is what open borders proponents are up against, they are lumpers in the eternal battle between the lumpers and splitters. > Similar arguments were made against dismantling the institution of slavery I didn't make an argument that some people are intrinsically disposed to being slaves so I'm not sure what similarity you are seeing, perhaps you could develop that into a comparative explanation since I do not see it. > You are doing nothing to argue that closed borders are moral, I made no such claim. It is you who made a claim about morality and borders. You are the one who would be required in a classical debate to give up a rhetorical explanation for the motion. > just that implementing open borders has caused problems in some cases. That is indeed my claim. I think many countries are similar enough that an exchange of citizens would not lead to significant disruptions. The states of California and Texas are quite different but I presume they wouldn't kill each other. However should 500 years pass I would be much less confident about that statement because the differences may be too stark by then. A exaggerated version of this is North Korea and South Korea. Two countries, with a common language, genetics, yet in less than fifty years the differences have become profound. In another fifty years they may be irreconcilable. There is no real reason to believe all groups are destined to become one people, which is what most open borders proponents I've met do believe. The borders mostly exist because of politics, it was never geography or ability to commute with transports that caused splitting. I think we're dealing with something that organically happens with group dynamics, like how a village behaves differently to an urban metropolis, and I don't think open borders people have explanations for these dynamics. What I do know is that historically large population movements of different peoples are a prelude to war. They always have been and I see no reason why they won't be once more.

nkurz 10y ago

I don't know the answer, but I'd like to follow it up with the questions "And to what extent should location preference be accommodated? Does one have a right to continue to live where one was born? To live in the city of one's choice? Or is the right (if it exists) just to a safe place somewhere?"

carapace 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... """ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of what many people believe to be the rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. The full text is published by the United Nations on its website.[1] """ [1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/inde...

internaut 10y ago
Most of the right do not recognize the UN as a moral authority. I view the UN generally as 'not even wrong'. With leftist propaganda, it is not what they say that matters. It is what they leave out. They come up with things that sound to me like this: "Everybody has the right to a chocolate bar, because chocolate bars are delicious and everybody ought to have one" Then I think 'Well, that sounds like a nice thing' but who produces these bars of chocolate. How many bars? What are the limits on this new standard? These kinds of questions are invariably never answered. You just get a bunch of blowhards leaping down your throat shouting about how you don't care about the children who never experienced the joys of chocolate or something.
- carapace 10y ago
  All I can say is, I hope you don't mind if I go ahead and build the cornucopia machine? I don't give a wet slap about ideology, left or right or anything else, but I do think everyone should have as much chocolate as they want. Bathe in it, why not? If no one stops me there will be floating castles and highways to the stars. ;-P
  - internaut 10y ago
    Don't mind if you do Dr Wonka. > If no one stops me there will be floating castles and highways to the stars. ;-P Why have a highway to the stars when you could have a maglev train to the moon. Check out Sam Hyde's talk at TED.

prostoalex 10y ago

This right is present twice (once as an article on housing, another as a right to own property) in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Note that "right" implies that you cannot be denied something arbitrarily, it doesn't mean someone somewhere will go out of their way to supply you with that. Think of it as a call option - you have an undeniable right to exercise it under the terms of contract, but it doesn't mean the brokerage or anyone else have to finance this transaction in case you're low on funds.