NRR: Is housing truly a human right?

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

snoreville wrote:

Yeah man! Just let them die!

If YOU are afraid they will die and don't want them to then YOU are free to provide housing for them with YOUR labor.

Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other.

snoreville wrote:

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

If YOU are afraid they will die and don't want them to then YOU are free to provide housing for them with YOUR labor.

Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other.

I know. You want people to be helped, but only with my money, not your own.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

snoreville wrote:

Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other.

I know. You want people to be helped, but only with my money, not your own.

Not said nor implied. I want society to share the burden of not letting people die without basic necessities. You appear want to just let them die and make up statements from others.

snoreville wrote:

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

I know. You want people to be helped, but only with my money, not your own.

Not said nor implied. I want society to share the burden of not letting people die without basic necessities. You appear want to just let them die and make up statements from others.

Yes, you are selfish and want other people to pay for your charity projects because you don't want to fund them yourself.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

snoreville wrote:

Not said nor implied. I want society to share the burden of not letting people die without basic necessities. You appear want to just let them die and make up statements from others.

Yes, you are selfish and want other people to pay for your charity projects because you don't want to fund them yourself.

I want us all to pay for our charity projects. You don't care about your fellow man.

snoreville wrote:

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Yes, you are selfish and want other people to pay for your charity projects because you don't want to fund them yourself.

I want us all to pay for our charity projects. You don't care about your fellow man.

They're YOUR charity projects. Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, there's no "OUR." How about I help whomever I want to help, and YOU help whomever YOU want to help. No compulsion required.

And we are back to here:

"Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other."

snoreville wrote:

And we are back to here:

"Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other."

Yes, that's well established by now. You don't care about your fellow man and want to rob their money to fund your charity fantasies.

agreed!

should be the government's responsibility to provide jobs and opportunity to shelter all of its citizens.

if the government was their job then we won't have people living on the streets

Government doesn't provide anything, they just take money, repackage it, and then dole it out to buy votes.

Any right that forces an individual to provide for you is immoral and in plain fact, actually evil.

It's easy to ignore the immorality of it when you disguise it through large numbers.

Family example. Single Dad (let's call him Martin) has one kid who is very responsible, incredibly diligent and never asks for anything. Martin has a sibling (call him David) who is lazy, lives off of immediate gratification and manipulates people into providing for him. David figures out how to maximize free income from the government. Martin is compelled by the state to pay for David through taxation. That money could have been used to help his kid pay for college, or buy a book, or something else. If Martin had a choice in the matter do you think he would said to his kid "Sorry, I know you're putting so much effort into bettering yourself but some of the money that I've set aside for you will go to my sibling who needs help."

In essence you're punishing those who work for success and rewarding those who by choice fail.

Yes, there are exceptions, sometimes we have live events that aren't preventable. In that case however most have no problem lending a hand.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

snoreville wrote:

And we are back to here:

"Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other."

Yes, that's well established by now. You don't care about your fellow man and want to rob their money to fund your charity fantasies.

You see everyone pitching in to help provide necessities for society as theft. I do not. I am a part of those pitching in, though you continually try to claim otherwise.

So if I'm in trouble and need help I have a right to get everyone in the village to vote to take away some of your property?

It's also not charity when you're forced to do it.

snoreville wrote:

You see everyone pitching in to help provide necessities for society as theft. I do not. I am a part of those pitching in, though you continually try to claim otherwise.

The issue that those who are arguing with are having is that "everyone pitching in" equates to compelling others to pay for it, others who may or may not share your beliefs.

I'm all for "pitching in" to help my fellow man, but when it is compulsory based on a set of beliefs that are (1) not a part of our constitution and (2) not beliefs that everyone is going to share then it oversteps its bounds.

Remember when your daddy (granddaddy) dodged the draft for WW2???

Instead he bravely supported the troops by posting stupid slogans on a billboard.

Handout Hamilton’s.

I have to go to small claims court every now and then for my clients (it is called JP court for "justice of the peace"). JP court has jurisdiction over evictions. I often have to sit through an eviction docket before my case is called. I would say more than half of the defendants who show up have a similar story of either getting sick or injured and not being able to work. The JP has no choice but to evict. For those who do not have enough money to get into another place and have no friends or family to move in with, the next step is usually living out of their car. That means that they leave behind all their furniture and anything else that does not fit in their car. Th shock of homelessness often leads to mental illness (depression and anxiety are common). And it all goes downhill from there with substance abuse, hospitalization, incarceration and so on.

If housing was truly treated as a human right in this country, we would save billions of dollars net off of all the spending on healthcare, social programs and public safety that are dedicated to dealing with homeless people.

Precious Roy wrote:

If housing was truly treated as a human right in this country, we would save billions of dollars net off of all the spending on healthcare, social programs and public safety that are dedicated to dealing with homeless people.

Possibly.

But there is also the reverse sequence that mental health issues (especially when paired with addiction) can also lead to homelessness. A home isn't going to solve those issues.

We can debate social policies all day. The real issue at hand is that housing, at least in my opinion, is not a human right.

Mencken1976 wrote:

So if I'm in trouble and need help I have a right to get everyone in the village to vote to take away some of your property?

It's also not charity when you're forced to do it.

What kind of trouble?

snoreville wrote:

And we are back to here:

"Because one of the fundamental differences between you and I is that I believe that our society should be compelled to pitch in to provide basic necessities for survival for each other."

There is no such thing as "society." The term represents an abstraction only. In reality there are only human individuals, and humans NEED their freedom to survive. If we cut all taxes and social programs, there will be fewer homeless than there are now because more people will be able to find ways to support themselves. Freedom is compassionate; government control over our lives and property is callous.