5 ms·

No that was never the case. You are making a universal assumption about how the e.g. US was founded. This idea of government not getting in the way of citizens

No that was never the case. You are making a universal assumption about how the e.g. US was founded. This idea of government not getting in the way of citizens is an American idea. It does not apply to every country. And the US, Canada and Australia are also outliers in this respect. In these cases one had vast amounts of land and resources and relatively few people. Anyone could in principle make it by working the land. In most other countries civilization has existed for thousands of years and all land is taken. Without government working with people, there really is not opportunity in these cases. If one takes the European experience, common people have a history of having been exploited by the rich, pushed into tiny plots of land. It was only through democratic control of government that the common man could start to get the government to work for his/her benefit.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
In Europe as well it used to be mostly about rights in the sense of freedom to do things without obstruction and about limiting state/monarch power. See the English Bill of Rights or the French Revolution. America was founded on the same principles. Housing as a human right may be classically interpreted as being free to buy, rent, build your house, etc. but the widespread modern interpretation is that individuals are entitled to be provided housing.
- bildung 7y ago
  The consequentialist philosophy of justice (which is the base of the Finnish reasoning) goes a bit like this: * People should have a right to housing. * Yet we see many people how apparently can't obtain housing. * Assuming they don't just all prefer to live on the streets, some forces are hindering them to get housing. * It is therefore the responsibiliy of society to remove this discrimination, so that people don't just have the right on paper, but also factually. So this isn't about entitlement in the negative sense. The constitutionalist view more common in the US: * People should have a right to housing (I know, not per the consitution, but this is the right this article is about) * If nobody is discriminated by law, based on race, gender or something else, from practicing this right (e.g. buying property, or signing a contract for renting a flat), then all is fine. So the core difference is that the consequentialist view looks at empirical evidence to decide whether there is discrimination or not. The institutional view just looks at the law etc. ( = the institutions).
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    As mentioned, the key here is that "right to..." classically means (in both Europe and US) that one cannot prevented or banned. This is more fundamental because it indeed used to be that whole parts of society were banned from doing things or owning things. We now take this fundamental right for granted, which might explain the shift to interpreting "right" as "being entitled to". There is another aspect in your comment, which to conflate "not being to obtain" with "discrimination". I think this is going a step too far.
    - yters 7y ago
      My concern in the original comment is that 'being entitled to' can end up eroding the more fundamental right.
- socialdemocrat 7y ago
  You can pick any time period to fit your ideological beliefs. The point is that modern day Europe has developed in an entirely different direction from the US, in large part because Europeans have not had access to an abundance of cheap resources and land. Opportunities and a sensible standard of living has thus depended on government guaranteeing them. It makes no sense to talk about government being in the way of pursuit of happiness when most people are dirty poor renting some land all owned by a small elite, and there being no free land elsewhere. That is why in Europe the purpose of governments is to a larger degree to guarantee rights of people. You can see that also in the different way free speech is understood in many European countries compared to the US. In the US free speech is about government getting out of the way, but other entities obstructing your free speech is far more accepted in the US. While in Europe government to a larger degree seeks to protect your right to free speech in a wider variety of settings. That is why e.g. US company rules often restrict speech, while the same would usually be illegal in many European countries. As your speech is protected by government even inside companies. People can have their preference on what they prefer. But I think the European model makes more sense for European history and society. It may make more sense in modern day America as well, since there the freedom to just find some land in the wilderness and do whatever is basically gone today. The US is in many ways recreating the old rich elite of Europe of old. The US is in many ways developing into an oligarchy and starts to mimic how Europe was in the early 1800s.
  - mytailorisrich 7y ago
    > You can pick any time period to fit your ideological beliefs. Can you remind me what are my ideological beliefs? Picking an overly political username and being aggressive isn't very conducive to discussion.
jacobush 7y ago
It used to be that you could wander far off into the woods, chop down some trees and start building a house. The government won't let you do this. There didn't even use to be a government. It's only fair I think that if there is a government which stops us from doing these things, it could help provide housing some other way instead. Super simplified, but just to give a nuance between "right to have" vs "right to not being hindered".
- yters 7y ago
  Or, the government should not stop us from doing these things. The government is for the people, by the people, not some overlord we need to ask permission from.
  - loco5niner 7y ago
    I agree with your previous post, but I do think it's good that the government puts limits on where you build. And honestly, if we don't like it, it's the government we elected, and we can elect a new government. But it seems we are ok with that so far. > The government is ... not some overlord we need to ask permission from. I see it as the government is restricting certain people from trodding on the rights of other people. Otherwise you get things like chemical companies dumping waste straight into rivers, etc.
    - yters 7y ago
      Yes, it makes sense to stop corporations poisoning people by dumping toxins into rivers. But, generally stopping people from building on land is more in the government's interest than the people's interest.
      - loco5niner 7y ago
        I don't know all the details, but I'm certainly glad people can't just randomly build things wherever they want. I can imagine lot's of some people rights being trampled by selfish people.
      - 7y ago
Torches70 7y ago
How was Marxism 101 this morning? Did your peers remember to do your homework?

mytailorisrich 7y ago

In Europe as well it used to be mostly about rights in the sense of freedom to do things without obstruction and about limiting state/monarch power. See the English Bill of Rights or the French Revolution. America was founded on the same principles. Housing as a human right may be classically interpreted as being free to buy, rent, build your house, etc. but the widespread modern interpretation is that individuals are entitled to be provided housing.

bildung 7y ago
The consequentialist philosophy of justice (which is the base of the Finnish reasoning) goes a bit like this: * People should have a right to housing. * Yet we see many people how apparently can't obtain housing. * Assuming they don't just all prefer to live on the streets, some forces are hindering them to get housing. * It is therefore the responsibiliy of society to remove this discrimination, so that people don't just have the right on paper, but also factually. So this isn't about entitlement in the negative sense. The constitutionalist view more common in the US: * People should have a right to housing (I know, not per the consitution, but this is the right this article is about) * If nobody is discriminated by law, based on race, gender or something else, from practicing this right (e.g. buying property, or signing a contract for renting a flat), then all is fine. So the core difference is that the consequentialist view looks at empirical evidence to decide whether there is discrimination or not. The institutional view just looks at the law etc. ( = the institutions).
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  As mentioned, the key here is that "right to..." classically means (in both Europe and US) that one cannot prevented or banned. This is more fundamental because it indeed used to be that whole parts of society were banned from doing things or owning things. We now take this fundamental right for granted, which might explain the shift to interpreting "right" as "being entitled to". There is another aspect in your comment, which to conflate "not being to obtain" with "discrimination". I think this is going a step too far.
  - yters 7y ago
    My concern in the original comment is that 'being entitled to' can end up eroding the more fundamental right.
socialdemocrat 7y ago
You can pick any time period to fit your ideological beliefs. The point is that modern day Europe has developed in an entirely different direction from the US, in large part because Europeans have not had access to an abundance of cheap resources and land. Opportunities and a sensible standard of living has thus depended on government guaranteeing them. It makes no sense to talk about government being in the way of pursuit of happiness when most people are dirty poor renting some land all owned by a small elite, and there being no free land elsewhere. That is why in Europe the purpose of governments is to a larger degree to guarantee rights of people. You can see that also in the different way free speech is understood in many European countries compared to the US. In the US free speech is about government getting out of the way, but other entities obstructing your free speech is far more accepted in the US. While in Europe government to a larger degree seeks to protect your right to free speech in a wider variety of settings. That is why e.g. US company rules often restrict speech, while the same would usually be illegal in many European countries. As your speech is protected by government even inside companies. People can have their preference on what they prefer. But I think the European model makes more sense for European history and society. It may make more sense in modern day America as well, since there the freedom to just find some land in the wilderness and do whatever is basically gone today. The US is in many ways recreating the old rich elite of Europe of old. The US is in many ways developing into an oligarchy and starts to mimic how Europe was in the early 1800s.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > You can pick any time period to fit your ideological beliefs. Can you remind me what are my ideological beliefs? Picking an overly political username and being aggressive isn't very conducive to discussion.

jacobush 7y ago

It used to be that you could wander far off into the woods, chop down some trees and start building a house. The government won't let you do this. There didn't even use to be a government. It's only fair I think that if there is a government which stops us from doing these things, it could help provide housing some other way instead. Super simplified, but just to give a nuance between "right to have" vs "right to not being hindered".

yters 7y ago
Or, the government should not stop us from doing these things. The government is for the people, by the people, not some overlord we need to ask permission from.
- loco5niner 7y ago
  I agree with your previous post, but I do think it's good that the government puts limits on where you build. And honestly, if we don't like it, it's the government we elected, and we can elect a new government. But it seems we are ok with that so far. > The government is ... not some overlord we need to ask permission from. I see it as the government is restricting certain people from trodding on the rights of other people. Otherwise you get things like chemical companies dumping waste straight into rivers, etc.
  - yters 7y ago
    Yes, it makes sense to stop corporations poisoning people by dumping toxins into rivers. But, generally stopping people from building on land is more in the government's interest than the people's interest.
    - loco5niner 7y ago
      I don't know all the details, but I'm certainly glad people can't just randomly build things wherever they want. I can imagine lot's of some people rights being trampled by selfish people.
    - 7y ago

Torches70 7y ago

How was Marxism 101 this morning? Did your peers remember to do your homework?