4 ms·

> Moreover, the courts "have consistently held that there is no constitutional right to housing." I'm still puzzled at how our society affirms our Right to Lif

> Moreover, the courts "have consistently held that there is no constitutional right to housing." I'm still puzzled at how our society affirms our Right to Life, while simultaneously affirming food, water, and shelter as Essential to Life, yet will never make the logical conclusion that food/water/shelter are necessarily included in our right to life. 1. All men are entitled to life. 2. Food, water, and shelter are essential to life. 3. Fuck you, get a job or freeze to death.

tensor_rank_0 9y ago
recognizing the right to life is a lot easier than figuring out how to provide shelter/food/water to everyone without expecting them to pay for it. those resources come from somewhere. that somewhere is other people, and taking food/water/shelter from them could kill them, and forcing them to provide whatever they have in excess of their own necessities is going to cause many of them to become "net consumers" and expect you to find food and housing for them. the nth order effects of these programs need to be considered.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Rights are mainly seen in the US as negative rights. The Bill of Rights Constitutional amendments are all proscriptions on government behavior. A right to life means that I must not kill you. If however, you are choking to death, there is no obligation for me to help you. I think negative rights are the way to go. Once you start having positive rights, then you place obligations on others which ultimately require force or the threat of force to make people do something. In addition, positive rights has a tendency to keep on growing - for example a right to Internet access. The downside of that is that rights then do not become something that is stable across time and space but just a synonym for something someone arbitrarily decided to call a right.
- burkaman 9y ago
  Ok, so the right to housing would mean the government can't deprive you of a home.
- thesimon 9y ago
  >If however, you are choking to death, there is no obligation for me to help you. TIL: There is no concept of "Duty to rescue" in most Common Law countries such as the US. Seems really strange. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue)
- masonic 9y ago
  Rights are mainly seen in the US as negative rights. What you call "negative rights" I would call "limiting government's powers to those specifically granted it by Constitution or by law.".
- kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
  > The Bill of Rights Constitutional amendments are all proscriptions on government behavior. Which the government conveniently forgets.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    I'd argue that it's the citizens who forget (often thinking that the Bill of Rights Constitutional amendments are positive rights). The government is quite aware - and works within the framework established for it. It's up to us as citizens to challenge it (or remove it) if we feel it isn't abiding by the rules. Sadly, most of the populace can't even be bothered to vote, let alone stay engaged on these issues.
  - jdoliner 9y ago
    One of the many pitfalls you run into when the institution enforcing your rights and the institution being enforced against happen to be one and the same.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  I agree. It is the best approach. Your right to not be killed doesn't require that I supply you with anything, except protection of your rights from those that would violate them. I see rights as those things that most people would not give up in order to have their rights protected by society. The right not to be hit for no reason is valued by most people. But having a right to hit anybody you want is not more highly valued by most people, as it also means you will be hit a lot. That doesn't mean people shouldn't help each other or accept help or participate in mutual aid associations. But such voluntary aid has CONDITIONS. You have to be a decent person to get it. A right to help doesn't require good behavior. And compulsory help is not practical either. Eventually, costs of providing it rise until quality has to be sacrificed and options have to be limited and often the opportunity cost of the free help is greater than the cost of paying for it yourself.
  - appleflaxen 9y ago
    > I see rights as those things that most people would not give up in order to have their rights protected by society. Do you see this as the same as the golden rule?
- eganist 9y ago
  > If however, you are choking to death, there is no obligation for me to help you. Mandatory reporting laws throw a crimp in this logic--for various sorts of crimes, some or all people may be obligated to report these crimes depending on state/federal laws as well as their profession. At least 18 states have no restrictions on profession, meaning anyone suspecting crimes such as child abuse is obligated to report. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf#Page=1&view=Fit https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf#Page=1&view=F... Enforceability isn't something I'd know. Just making a point that we have plenty of cases where people are obligated to go out of their way to save someone else's life.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tallanvor 9y ago
Homelessness is often seen as always being due to someone making bad choices. --If you work hard and live a clean life you won't have to worry about this. Until people understand that personal responsibility doesn't stop people from falling into poverty, these issues will continue.
- test6554 9y ago
  Could greater personal responsibility have kept anybody out of homelessness? probably so. Could greater personal responsibility have kept everyone out of homelessness? highly unlikely. For every person who is able to climb up using their bootstraps, as they say, are more resources freed up to help those who truly can't help themselves? Yes!
jdoliner 9y ago
Society affirms our rights to all of these things. You, a member of society, are affirming them right now and many others agree with you. Our (The US's) legal system, on the other hand, doesn't affirm any of these rights. That's because, as others have mentioned, our rights are almost all negative. Proscribe things that the government and other institutions could do to you. The "right to life" is a line from our declaration of independence. Which is, legal speaking, just some nice words someone once wrote, it's not something that will compel a court to rule in your favor. Courts, despite what you say, are actually quite logical on this matter. The right to life is completely illogical, how can you have a right to something which, by it's very nature you must eventually lose?
toasterlovin 9y ago
The fundamental problem with what you're describing is that it creates a moral hazard. The only system that avoids moral hazard is making it each person's responsibility to take care of themselves.
drak0n1c 9y ago
Individual rights protect you from active abuse perpetrated by authorities. That's fair. Why should that extend to enslaving others until your Maslow needs are fulfilled? That's not fair, and is logically opposite to the concept of rights.
onetimemanytime 9y ago
Let's be honest...what % would have an incentive to go out there if "food/water/shelter" were guaranteed? And that money has to come from somewhere. The poor need a lot of helping hands (most people are a few paychecks away from living under a bridge) but a blank guarantee of food, shelter and utilities is not, IMO, the right way. Give fish vs. teach them fishing.
- zbyte64 9y ago
  That's nice and all... for an agrarian society.

tensor_rank_0 9y ago

recognizing the right to life is a lot easier than figuring out how to provide shelter/food/water to everyone without expecting them to pay for it. those resources come from somewhere. that somewhere is other people, and taking food/water/shelter from them could kill them, and forcing them to provide whatever they have in excess of their own necessities is going to cause many of them to become "net consumers" and expect you to find food and housing for them. the nth order effects of these programs need to be considered.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Rights are mainly seen in the US as negative rights. The Bill of Rights Constitutional amendments are all proscriptions on government behavior. A right to life means that I must not kill you. If however, you are choking to death, there is no obligation for me to help you. I think negative rights are the way to go. Once you start having positive rights, then you place obligations on others which ultimately require force or the threat of force to make people do something. In addition, positive rights has a tendency to keep on growing - for example a right to Internet access. The downside of that is that rights then do not become something that is stable across time and space but just a synonym for something someone arbitrarily decided to call a right.

burkaman 9y ago
Ok, so the right to housing would mean the government can't deprive you of a home.
thesimon 9y ago
>If however, you are choking to death, there is no obligation for me to help you. TIL: There is no concept of "Duty to rescue" in most Common Law countries such as the US. Seems really strange. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue)
masonic 9y ago
Rights are mainly seen in the US as negative rights. What you call "negative rights" I would call "limiting government's powers to those specifically granted it by Constitution or by law.".
kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
> The Bill of Rights Constitutional amendments are all proscriptions on government behavior. Which the government conveniently forgets.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  I'd argue that it's the citizens who forget (often thinking that the Bill of Rights Constitutional amendments are positive rights). The government is quite aware - and works within the framework established for it. It's up to us as citizens to challenge it (or remove it) if we feel it isn't abiding by the rules. Sadly, most of the populace can't even be bothered to vote, let alone stay engaged on these issues.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  One of the many pitfalls you run into when the institution enforcing your rights and the institution being enforced against happen to be one and the same.
stretchwithme 9y ago
I agree. It is the best approach. Your right to not be killed doesn't require that I supply you with anything, except protection of your rights from those that would violate them. I see rights as those things that most people would not give up in order to have their rights protected by society. The right not to be hit for no reason is valued by most people. But having a right to hit anybody you want is not more highly valued by most people, as it also means you will be hit a lot. That doesn't mean people shouldn't help each other or accept help or participate in mutual aid associations. But such voluntary aid has CONDITIONS. You have to be a decent person to get it. A right to help doesn't require good behavior. And compulsory help is not practical either. Eventually, costs of providing it rise until quality has to be sacrificed and options have to be limited and often the opportunity cost of the free help is greater than the cost of paying for it yourself.
- appleflaxen 9y ago
  > I see rights as those things that most people would not give up in order to have their rights protected by society. Do you see this as the same as the golden rule?
eganist 9y ago
> If however, you are choking to death, there is no obligation for me to help you. Mandatory reporting laws throw a crimp in this logic--for various sorts of crimes, some or all people may be obligated to report these crimes depending on state/federal laws as well as their profession. At least 18 states have no restrictions on profession, meaning anyone suspecting crimes such as child abuse is obligated to report. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf#Page=1&view=Fit https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf#Page=1&view=F... Enforceability isn't something I'd know. Just making a point that we have plenty of cases where people are obligated to go out of their way to save someone else's life.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tallanvor 9y ago

Homelessness is often seen as always being due to someone making bad choices. --If you work hard and live a clean life you won't have to worry about this. Until people understand that personal responsibility doesn't stop people from falling into poverty, these issues will continue.

test6554 9y ago
Could greater personal responsibility have kept anybody out of homelessness? probably so. Could greater personal responsibility have kept everyone out of homelessness? highly unlikely. For every person who is able to climb up using their bootstraps, as they say, are more resources freed up to help those who truly can't help themselves? Yes!

jdoliner 9y ago

Society affirms our rights to all of these things. You, a member of society, are affirming them right now and many others agree with you. Our (The US's) legal system, on the other hand, doesn't affirm any of these rights. That's because, as others have mentioned, our rights are almost all negative. Proscribe things that the government and other institutions could do to you. The "right to life" is a line from our declaration of independence. Which is, legal speaking, just some nice words someone once wrote, it's not something that will compel a court to rule in your favor. Courts, despite what you say, are actually quite logical on this matter. The right to life is completely illogical, how can you have a right to something which, by it's very nature you must eventually lose?

toasterlovin 9y ago

The fundamental problem with what you're describing is that it creates a moral hazard. The only system that avoids moral hazard is making it each person's responsibility to take care of themselves.

drak0n1c 9y ago

Individual rights protect you from active abuse perpetrated by authorities. That's fair. Why should that extend to enslaving others until your Maslow needs are fulfilled? That's not fair, and is logically opposite to the concept of rights.

onetimemanytime 9y ago

Let's be honest...what % would have an incentive to go out there if "food/water/shelter" were guaranteed? And that money has to come from somewhere. The poor need a lot of helping hands (most people are a few paychecks away from living under a bridge) but a blank guarantee of food, shelter and utilities is not, IMO, the right way. Give fish vs. teach them fishing.

zbyte64 9y ago
That's nice and all... for an agrarian society.