4 ms·

A place to live is not only a positive but a natural right.

SllX 3y ago
If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.
- ttonkytonk 3y ago
  I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.
  - SllX 3y ago
    Ah, this part: > but hey, one [o]f the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :) This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them. > it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.
    - atoav 3y ago
      Sure, going elswhere is something you can do, if you can afford it. But: A) There are societies, in which the circumstances which would make it reasonable for you to leave are the reason why you cannot. E.g. if you are living in slavery or quasi-slavery moving somewhere else would be good, but the ones profiting from your labour wouldn't like that, so they make it hard. And the reason why you ended up in that position e.g. lack of funds, lack of education might also make it hard or impossible to move somewhere else. B) We are discussing human rights. I would think they should apply universally. That is of course not the reality of the world, but we should aim for those rights to be defended in each part of the world. Human rights are a thing that has to be defended by those that are able defend them — and those people are typically not the victim of such violations, but precisely the opposite in terms of social, economic and education capital than the people that would benefit from moving away. That means just move away as an answer from the standpoint of the affected people is just profoundly naive, as if one would say to "just get rich" when someone isn't or "just get healthy" when someone is ill. On top of that it is an answer that hurts the society of those that give it, as the society as a while accumulates injustices it fails to answer. So why give thwt answer? Because it has one benefit: It is a simple cure for the nagging feeling of cognitive dissonance that each good person has to get, when they see that the society they are part of produces injustices. It is the answer that allows them to move on and change nothing. "It must be their own fault then".
- atoav 3y ago
  Rights be it positive or negative have to be weighed against each other. This is where societies tend to differ. Does your law side with the property owner or with the humanitarian rights of people who would need access to that property? Typically, because those creating the laws are property owners themselves the law makers side with the property owners. Now if you are lucky you live in a society where the law makers recognized the crisis needs to be addressed and they usually find a way of throwing money at the problem (if you are less lucky, they do it corruptly by supporting their own property or that of their pals). That means systemically we live in a society where those with power tend to accumulate more power, a phenomenom which leads to suffering and instability, which is why societies need certain guardrails against such accumulation of power (e.g. term limits, ethical frameworks, anti-corruption laws, taxation that doesn't tax poor people a bigger fraction of their money than rich people etc.) But on the topic of the conversation: yes, you can claim a right that is not universally agreed uppon. That doesn't make it so, but throughout every progressive movement there ever was, this was a strategy. E.g. women claiming that voting is a universal right (in a context where they are barred from doing precisely that) is not stupid, it is clever. By appealing to the universality of a right you are also including those who already excercise that right on your side. In the example of women protesting for the right to vote framing it as an universal right includes men as well, this way a women issue becomes one of universal rights and will be discussed differently.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Everyone needs a place to live, but how would you begin to figure out who needs to live where? Seems like an impossibly complex challenge to sort out without either private or state ownership of property.

SllX 3y ago

If you want to argue against homelessness, I’m not the one you need to convince, but as stated above you cannot effectively conjecture a positive right into existence merely by claiming that it is a right. Positive rights are lawfully agreed upon, even public education has its own basis in statutes or written constitutional laws.

ttonkytonk 3y ago
I was basically just responding to your flippant suggestion that someone just "go somewhere else" if they don't like it where they're at.
- SllX 3y ago
  Ah, this part: > but hey, one [o]f the nicer things about the world we live in is if you find a place you like more, it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals and there’s nothing wrong with that. :) This wasn’t flippant, nor limited to just Americans moving elsewhere. I actually took a small look into the difficulty of migrating to Denmark from America before I wrote that to see if there were any special difficulties and near as I can tell, the bar is much much lower than I was expecting, but it should be noted that if more people took advantage of that, then it’s probable Denmark would raise the requirements and immigration has at least somewhat recently been a political issue for them. > it’s often possible to just go live there, provided you subject yourself to the requirements of the locals It is often possible, but what I did not claim was that it was universally so and that’s because it’s not universally possible for all people. That was intentional. It requires the ability to actually meet the requirements of the host country, the ability to cover the travel and moving expenses for yourself and them accepting you into their country, at least if they have solid immigration controls, or the ability to live within their society without going through the official channels if not, as long as you can get yourself there. Almost all of that should have gone without saying though.
  - atoav 3y ago
    Sure, going elswhere is something you can do, if you can afford it. But: A) There are societies, in which the circumstances which would make it reasonable for you to leave are the reason why you cannot. E.g. if you are living in slavery or quasi-slavery moving somewhere else would be good, but the ones profiting from your labour wouldn't like that, so they make it hard. And the reason why you ended up in that position e.g. lack of funds, lack of education might also make it hard or impossible to move somewhere else. B) We are discussing human rights. I would think they should apply universally. That is of course not the reality of the world, but we should aim for those rights to be defended in each part of the world. Human rights are a thing that has to be defended by those that are able defend them — and those people are typically not the victim of such violations, but precisely the opposite in terms of social, economic and education capital than the people that would benefit from moving away. That means just move away as an answer from the standpoint of the affected people is just profoundly naive, as if one would say to "just get rich" when someone isn't or "just get healthy" when someone is ill. On top of that it is an answer that hurts the society of those that give it, as the society as a while accumulates injustices it fails to answer. So why give thwt answer? Because it has one benefit: It is a simple cure for the nagging feeling of cognitive dissonance that each good person has to get, when they see that the society they are part of produces injustices. It is the answer that allows them to move on and change nothing. "It must be their own fault then".
atoav 3y ago
Rights be it positive or negative have to be weighed against each other. This is where societies tend to differ. Does your law side with the property owner or with the humanitarian rights of people who would need access to that property? Typically, because those creating the laws are property owners themselves the law makers side with the property owners. Now if you are lucky you live in a society where the law makers recognized the crisis needs to be addressed and they usually find a way of throwing money at the problem (if you are less lucky, they do it corruptly by supporting their own property or that of their pals). That means systemically we live in a society where those with power tend to accumulate more power, a phenomenom which leads to suffering and instability, which is why societies need certain guardrails against such accumulation of power (e.g. term limits, ethical frameworks, anti-corruption laws, taxation that doesn't tax poor people a bigger fraction of their money than rich people etc.) But on the topic of the conversation: yes, you can claim a right that is not universally agreed uppon. That doesn't make it so, but throughout every progressive movement there ever was, this was a strategy. E.g. women claiming that voting is a universal right (in a context where they are barred from doing precisely that) is not stupid, it is clever. By appealing to the universality of a right you are also including those who already excercise that right on your side. In the example of women protesting for the right to vote framing it as an universal right includes men as well, this way a women issue becomes one of universal rights and will be discussed differently.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Everyone needs a place to live, but how would you begin to figure out who needs to live where? Seems like an impossibly complex challenge to sort out without either private or state ownership of property.