4 ms·

Slavery is not a human right

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
diputsmonro 5y ago
Those who work to produce housing would still be compensated, as are all government employees. The money would come from taxes, and taxes would be increased on those who are obscenely wealthy in excess of their needs or realistic aspirations. To make it more apt, if a commodity such as housing is declared to be a human right, perhaps all those who own the commodity in excess of their needs should be taxed heavily to pay for homes/shelters for the unsheltered. It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  You're describing a public good, not a right. If housing was a right, the government would be compelled to provide it for everyone, not matter their income or wealth, as it would have to be nonexcludable.
  - WitCanStain 5y ago
    This is what Finland has effectively done, and everyone is better off for it. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-january-26-2020-1.5429251/housing-is-a-human-right-how-finland-is-eradicating-homelessness-1.5437402 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-janua...
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      They're calling it a "right", but it does not meet the US definition of a right as it is, definitively, a positive right whereas the US only defines negative rights as human rights. If the US wants to adopt this model as a social program, I would respect the implementation of a strings-free service much more than the strings-attached approach that currently exists. As the article says, eradicating homelessness is more about getting a roof over someone's head than prequalifying them on "good behavior" before doing so. The outcome of the Finnish program is not surprising to me in the least. Regarding the Finnish "right" of housing, I do have this question... I cannot find the actual program documentation. My question is as follows: if I'm Finnish and make $14 billion euros a year, will the gov still provide me free housing?
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      Yes, we should all strive to emulate tiny, culturally homogeneous de facto ethnostates. Their policies will surely work in gigantic, culturally hyper-heterogeneous nations that already struggle with bureaucratic bloat, public service abuse, and horrid quality of public goods and services.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  So then it's not a right. It requires compelled labor of yourself or someone else, not something you are granted simply for existing that can be taken away. Chattel slaves were compensated with a roof over their head, food, facilities. All their needs were met at the hands of the wealthy. All they had to do in return was work. After all, their owner was entitled to their labor by virtue of paying for them and meeting their needs. Surely the state would never utilize this same reasoning on a populace that's wholly dependent on its provisions. Who determines need? Who determines excess? We don't need restaurants, entertainment, video games, etc. We should just eat nutritionally complete kibble for humans, and all work solely to ensure everyone else's needs are met. > It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with. Prove it. Spoiler: you can't.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Those who work to produce housing would still be compensated, as are all government employees. The money would come from taxes, and taxes would be increased on those who are obscenely wealthy in excess of their needs or realistic aspirations. To make it more apt, if a commodity such as housing is declared to be a human right, perhaps all those who own the commodity in excess of their needs should be taxed heavily to pay for homes/shelters for the unsheltered. It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with.

hellojesus 5y ago
You're describing a public good, not a right. If housing was a right, the government would be compelled to provide it for everyone, not matter their income or wealth, as it would have to be nonexcludable.
- WitCanStain 5y ago
  This is what Finland has effectively done, and everyone is better off for it. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-january-26-2020-1.5429251/housing-is-a-human-right-how-finland-is-eradicating-homelessness-1.5437402 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-janua...
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    They're calling it a "right", but it does not meet the US definition of a right as it is, definitively, a positive right whereas the US only defines negative rights as human rights. If the US wants to adopt this model as a social program, I would respect the implementation of a strings-free service much more than the strings-attached approach that currently exists. As the article says, eradicating homelessness is more about getting a roof over someone's head than prequalifying them on "good behavior" before doing so. The outcome of the Finnish program is not surprising to me in the least. Regarding the Finnish "right" of housing, I do have this question... I cannot find the actual program documentation. My question is as follows: if I'm Finnish and make $14 billion euros a year, will the gov still provide me free housing?
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    Yes, we should all strive to emulate tiny, culturally homogeneous de facto ethnostates. Their policies will surely work in gigantic, culturally hyper-heterogeneous nations that already struggle with bureaucratic bloat, public service abuse, and horrid quality of public goods and services.
defaultprimate 5y ago
So then it's not a right. It requires compelled labor of yourself or someone else, not something you are granted simply for existing that can be taken away. Chattel slaves were compensated with a roof over their head, food, facilities. All their needs were met at the hands of the wealthy. All they had to do in return was work. After all, their owner was entitled to their labor by virtue of paying for them and meeting their needs. Surely the state would never utilize this same reasoning on a populace that's wholly dependent on its provisions. Who determines need? Who determines excess? We don't need restaurants, entertainment, video games, etc. We should just eat nutritionally complete kibble for humans, and all work solely to ensure everyone else's needs are met. > It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with. Prove it. Spoiler: you can't.