3 ms·

> depriving them of their inalienable human right to life (by tolerating their lack of food and shelter and sanitary conditions) Do you believe it's a human ri

by badpun 7y ago

> depriving them of their inalienable human right to life (by tolerating their lack of food and shelter and sanitary conditions) Do you believe it's a human right to receive food, shelter and sanitary conditions? I don't. For me, people have a right to work for (or otherwise pursue) those and if unfairly prevented by other people (and not by circumstances outside human control, such as mental illness), their rights are violated. But that's as far as the human rights go.

yellowapple 7y ago
> Do you believe it's a human right to receive food, shelter and sanitary conditions? Yes. > I don't. Then I'm assuming you're not American, or if you are, then you're a traitor (not that I'd necessarily judge you for that; a staggeringly large number of Americans are traitors by this metric): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That is: our very founding principles forbid us from denying our fellow Americans food or water or shelter or sanitation or healthcare or the other things that are necessary to achieve those three fundamental inalienable God-given rights¹. It is our duty - our imperative - as a nation and people to do what we can to provide those things to those unable to provide them for themselves. > and if unfairly prevented by other people (and not by circumstances outside human control, such as mental illness), their rights are violated. But that's as far as the human rights go. I can't tell which one of these you're saying: - People who are able to work toward obtaining those things, but are prevented from doing so, forfeit their rights to those things - People who are unable to work toward obtaining those things (due to e.g. mental illness) forfeit their rights to those things I mean, both viewpoints are pretty reprehensible, but it'd be interesting to get some clarity on which one you believe, since the way you've worded that makes it sound a lot like you believe only one of those two groups are worth helping. ---- ¹: Feel free to substitute "God" here for your deity or deities of choice, or the lack thereof; you don't have to believe in God to be a decent human being.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood the DOI. Freedom and welfare are two different things and the US has always valued individualism. I think we can do a lot better however.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    I think, on the contrary, I'm among the few who do understand the DOI (though I'm obviously biased in my favor). Freedom is meaningless if you cannot exercise that freedom, and being without basic needs like food or shelter would certainly prevent that exercise. Nothing about homeless shelters or food stamps compromises individualism, either. On the contrary, it enables it for those who lack those necessities. At the absolute bare minimum, if it's really so much trouble to build more homeless shelters, we could and should designate more places for homeless people to take shelter into their own hands (e.g. tents or cars) without fear of some jack-booted badge-wearing thugs kicking them out and confiscating what little personal possessions they had. As long as they ain't committing other crimes, I fail to see what the problem is.
    - mixmastamyk 7y ago
      Freedom ends at the other persons nose. That includes forcing others to work for you. That said the mentally ill should definitely be supervised, and it should be an article in the constitution that enough housing be built for the rest of us, without restriction. So, I think we mostly agree, just a different way of getting there.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - yellowapple 7y ago
        > Freedom ends at the other persons nose. That includes forcing others to work for you. True. I'd argue that includes depriving others of food or shelter, too.

by badpun 7y ago

yellowapple 7y ago

> Do you believe it's a human right to receive food, shelter and sanitary conditions? Yes. > I don't. Then I'm assuming you're not American, or if you are, then you're a traitor (not that I'd necessarily judge you for that; a staggeringly large number of Americans are traitors by this metric): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That is: our very founding principles forbid us from denying our fellow Americans food or water or shelter or sanitation or healthcare or the other things that are necessary to achieve those three fundamental inalienable God-given rights¹. It is our duty - our imperative - as a nation and people to do what we can to provide those things to those unable to provide them for themselves. > and if unfairly prevented by other people (and not by circumstances outside human control, such as mental illness), their rights are violated. But that's as far as the human rights go. I can't tell which one of these you're saying: - People who are able to work toward obtaining those things, but are prevented from doing so, forfeit their rights to those things - People who are unable to work toward obtaining those things (due to e.g. mental illness) forfeit their rights to those things I mean, both viewpoints are pretty reprehensible, but it'd be interesting to get some clarity on which one you believe, since the way you've worded that makes it sound a lot like you believe only one of those two groups are worth helping. ---- ¹: Feel free to substitute "God" here for your deity or deities of choice, or the lack thereof; you don't have to believe in God to be a decent human being.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
You seem to have misunderstood the DOI. Freedom and welfare are two different things and the US has always valued individualism. I think we can do a lot better however.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  I think, on the contrary, I'm among the few who do understand the DOI (though I'm obviously biased in my favor). Freedom is meaningless if you cannot exercise that freedom, and being without basic needs like food or shelter would certainly prevent that exercise. Nothing about homeless shelters or food stamps compromises individualism, either. On the contrary, it enables it for those who lack those necessities. At the absolute bare minimum, if it's really so much trouble to build more homeless shelters, we could and should designate more places for homeless people to take shelter into their own hands (e.g. tents or cars) without fear of some jack-booted badge-wearing thugs kicking them out and confiscating what little personal possessions they had. As long as they ain't committing other crimes, I fail to see what the problem is.
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    Freedom ends at the other persons nose. That includes forcing others to work for you. That said the mentally ill should definitely be supervised, and it should be an article in the constitution that enough housing be built for the rest of us, without restriction. So, I think we mostly agree, just a different way of getting there.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      > Freedom ends at the other persons nose. That includes forcing others to work for you. True. I'd argue that includes depriving others of food or shelter, too.