> but surely it’s worth considering what society should work collectively to provide Agreed! > the mere fact that abject suffering exists in the world should

> but surely it’s worth considering what society should work collectively to provide Agreed! > the mere fact that abject suffering exists in the world should not mean we can’t decide that there are higher order human needs within the effective purview of society Again, agreed! I'm not arguing that we can't talk about universal housing. We can! We should! I'm just arguing against conflating what I see as two distinct types of rights - those that you have because you are a human, and those that governments choose to guarantee to their citizens. > I get the impression that you’re playing pretty fast and loose with the word “innate”, to basically refer to the rights you think are most important I'm not so sure. There's a big difference between a person (or government) taking away something I have by default as part of my humanity (e.g., taking away my life) vs. a person (or government) being required to provide me with something that's not guaranteed by my humanity (e.g., the fact that I will have food is not guaranteed just by virtue of me being a living creature with human DNA). In the end, I can't stress this enough - I'm not saying a social safety net is bad, or that we shouldn't create political rights where the government should be obligated to provide food or shelter or whatever. Maybe those rights should exist! I'm just saying let's not conflate the concepts.