4 ms·

> I've been told that "housing is a right" An easy reply to these same people is to ask if they think they have a right to wood, brick, concrete, sewer pipes,

> I've been told that "housing is a right" An easy reply to these same people is to ask if they think they have a right to wood, brick, concrete, sewer pipes, electrical wire, all the other materials that go into making a livable house, and, on top of that, if they think they're freely entitled to the labor required to construct a house out of these properties.

thepasswordis 4y ago
Their reply is that the land beneath the house shouldn’t be available for private ownership.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  If the land beneath the house isn't owned by anyone, then how does one build a house on it? A future homebuilder would have to take the land, or rent it from another owner to justify building upon it.
danenania 4y ago
Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. People had natural rights long before the concepts of infrastructure, investment, or labor were ever conceived. > Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new. My point wasn't about expense. It was about a perceived entitlement to resources and help outside oneself. Housing in itself is not a right as it depends on resources and labor that don't belong to you. Such resources and labor are not rights.
  - danenania 4y ago
    We all depend on labor and resources that don’t belong to us. There’s no right to property, speech, or even life itself without institutions like the police, military, and courts. There’s no right to vote without a massive election bureaucracy. There’s no right to education without a school system. Why are we given rights like the ones I mentioned, but not housing or healthcare or basic income? It’s simply because the we haven’t collectively decided that the state should provide them. But it could. There’s no fundamental difference between providing housing and providing police protection, roads, schools, parks, and elections.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      You have a very odd definition of rights and their defense. Rights are something every person is born with. They don't originate from government instituions, resources, or labor. Rather these things, protect or enhance them. There is a right to speech because I have the ability to speak, not because government has the ability to defend it or to take it away. There is a right to vote because people are freely able to form relations and petition for their own interests. While there is a right to learn (i.e. seek and out obtain information), there is however no particular right to a school-based education, as one is not entitled to being taught by others. Police protection exists because the state has a monopoly on violence. Even if the police were never present however, as in the case of very remote areas with small populations, one always has a right to self-defense. Roads and schools are not rights. They're paid for by other people's money and built by the labor of others. Parks are pieces of land the government has almost always wrongfully taken by way of eminent domain. Elections are a complicated case. Individuals have a right to vote, but state legislatures have wide berth to set the terms of voting within their respective jurisdictions. While I would say there is a right to vote, there isn't a right to an election on terms or rules one finds favorable for one's self.
      - danenania 4y ago
        You're just arbitrarily defining some things as rights, and others not. These things aren't etched into sacred tablets--they are decided collectively by a society and its government and are always evolving. There was no right to vote until enough people decided there should be one and made it so. Housing is no different.

thepasswordis 4y ago

Their reply is that the land beneath the house shouldn’t be available for private ownership.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
If the land beneath the house isn't owned by anyone, then how does one build a house on it? A future homebuilder would have to take the land, or rent it from another owner to justify building upon it.

danenania 4y ago

Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Every right requires infrastructure, investment, and labor to ensure. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness aren’t free. People had natural rights long before the concepts of infrastructure, investment, or labor were ever conceived. > Whether or not housing should be a right, rights that are expensive to provide but are nonetheless provided anyway are nothing new. My point wasn't about expense. It was about a perceived entitlement to resources and help outside oneself. Housing in itself is not a right as it depends on resources and labor that don't belong to you. Such resources and labor are not rights.
- danenania 4y ago
  We all depend on labor and resources that don’t belong to us. There’s no right to property, speech, or even life itself without institutions like the police, military, and courts. There’s no right to vote without a massive election bureaucracy. There’s no right to education without a school system. Why are we given rights like the ones I mentioned, but not housing or healthcare or basic income? It’s simply because the we haven’t collectively decided that the state should provide them. But it could. There’s no fundamental difference between providing housing and providing police protection, roads, schools, parks, and elections.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    You have a very odd definition of rights and their defense. Rights are something every person is born with. They don't originate from government instituions, resources, or labor. Rather these things, protect or enhance them. There is a right to speech because I have the ability to speak, not because government has the ability to defend it or to take it away. There is a right to vote because people are freely able to form relations and petition for their own interests. While there is a right to learn (i.e. seek and out obtain information), there is however no particular right to a school-based education, as one is not entitled to being taught by others. Police protection exists because the state has a monopoly on violence. Even if the police were never present however, as in the case of very remote areas with small populations, one always has a right to self-defense. Roads and schools are not rights. They're paid for by other people's money and built by the labor of others. Parks are pieces of land the government has almost always wrongfully taken by way of eminent domain. Elections are a complicated case. Individuals have a right to vote, but state legislatures have wide berth to set the terms of voting within their respective jurisdictions. While I would say there is a right to vote, there isn't a right to an election on terms or rules one finds favorable for one's self.
    - danenania 4y ago
      You're just arbitrarily defining some things as rights, and others not. These things aren't etched into sacred tablets--they are decided collectively by a society and its government and are always evolving. There was no right to vote until enough people decided there should be one and made it so. Housing is no different.