3 ms·

> The same could be said of food, water, and safe shelter. Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their ow

> The same could be said of food, water, and safe shelter. Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I agree that the government stepping in and trying to feed and house all its citizens is a noble goal - but this leads to a discussion around some minimum amount of effort and personal responsibility, or whether you want to live in a society where nothing is ever expected of the people, that it's OK for healthy, capable citizens to simply "opt-out" of work or productive pursuits, knowing the government is responsible for providing food, clothes and housing, seeing that it's a "fundamental right."

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The same could be said of medical care. I don't see how that affects morality today. > The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I still don't see what history has to do with anything here. Is it a "late 20th century concept"? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't affect whether something is morally a fundamental right. It sounds like you fit into the "different morality" bucket I mentioned above, so we should expect you to have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental (and that's okay). And if you have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental, than we should expect you to have differing opinions on what the government should do to guarantee them. Which you appear to (and that's okay).
nothercastle 2y ago
It becomes a fundamental right when the government strips people of the ability to build their own housing or grow their own food. That’s the difference. If people can’t build housing then you kind of have to provide it.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

> Strong disagree. Let's think back 100, 200 years. A huge percentage of the population built their own shelter and grew their own food. The same could be said of medical care. I don't see how that affects morality today. > The idea that the government ought to be required to supply these to everyone (as a "fundamental right") is very much a late 20th century concept. I still don't see what history has to do with anything here. Is it a "late 20th century concept"? Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't affect whether something is morally a fundamental right. It sounds like you fit into the "different morality" bucket I mentioned above, so we should expect you to have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental (and that's okay). And if you have differing opinions on what rights are fundamental, than we should expect you to have differing opinions on what the government should do to guarantee them. Which you appear to (and that's okay).

nothercastle 2y ago

It becomes a fundamental right when the government strips people of the ability to build their own housing or grow their own food. That’s the difference. If people can’t build housing then you kind of have to provide it.