4 ms·
That is a matter of ideology. The natural rights doctrine you're using to claim rights cannot have limits up to the right of someone else is mostly an artifact
by sudosysgen 4y ago
That is a matter of ideology. The natural rights doctrine you're using to claim rights cannot have limits up to the right of someone else is mostly an artifact of Abrahamic religions and is not founded by much in the way of logic.
There is no hard reason why socially adequate housing cannot be considered a right.
- landemva 4y agoPost your address so we can all visit your pad and exercise our right to housing. Maybe there is also a right to a job at Google.
- sudosysgen 4y agoThat's not a hard argument, it's a soft argument. But generally these rights are backed by a responsibility to society in general as a collective.
- landemva 4y agoI'm not part of your collective nor social contract. I do pay use taxes and fees for public goods such as roads. When did society get the responsibility to bail out the high-paid bankers who failed in 2008/9? Occupy wall street didn't think we should bail them out. Soft vs hard means what? More like a slippery slope until too big to fail bankers are rescued by the working class collective. Rights are endowed by our creator (higher power or whatever your words may be). Rights are not backed by a responsibility.