Pretty much what the title says, do you think humans have an inalienable right to some form of shelter? If you think so would you want it added to the constitution? If you think it’s not a right, why do you think so?
EDIT: I don’t mean everyone has the right to own their own single family home, but simply a place to live. An apartment, duplex, government housing, etc.
32 comments
No. You cannot force people to give up their property for others to live in.
Its not a right because shelter requires property to be on,labor to build it and maintain it and of course materials. Those have to come from somewhere.
Does someone else have to build that house?
If so, no.
I don’t believe in adding things to the Constitution that can’t be guaranteed.
It can be a goal of ours to provide as many people as possible with adequate housing, but I think calling it a “right” is a bridge too far.
What does this even mean?
Is someone supposed to give one lodging and ensure it is being kept up for that person?
I’m not for it because I can’t comprehend how it would even be applied.
Rights aren’t contingent on someone else providing a service to someone.
If you dropped someone in the woods, nothing is stopping them from being able to practice their religion and they are still not allowed to be unlawfully searched and their property seized.
But if you drop them in the woods and a cabin does not fall out of the sky, are their human rights being violated? Who is even violating their rights at this point?
Most of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not rights that must be provided by the government. They are simply things that the government is not allowed to take away from you. I would argue that this is already covered by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. I don’t see a purpose of an Amendment specifically stating that housing cannot be taken away and I don’t see an Amendment stating that the government must provide housing as being practical.
>Pretty much what the title says, do you think humans have an inalienable right to some form of shelter?
No. Without substantial government action, that “right” would be alienated all the time. A single person working alone can alienate themselves from that right even while people try to help them.
The rights outlined in the Constitution generally guarantee the absence of government intervention to deprive us of rights. Adding a positive right that compelled government to provide a service universally at the expense of taxpayers would be wholly unprecedented and unworkable.
I mean, sure, but who is going to build homes for you to have the right to someone else’s work and effort.
If you have the right to be an unproductive member of society, then why should you rightfully be owed housing?
Sure, the barriers to getting housing (i.e. large security deposits, 3x income requirements, rental and credit history, etc) should be lower. But no one is “owed” anything just for being alive.
Even if you offered free shelter to everyone that wanted it, that would not eliminate homelessness. If it would, then governments would have done it already.
Everyone has the right to shelter, clean water and food. Those are human rights for the simple reason humans need those in order to survive.
As in – no one has the right to deny those things to others.
But those things cost money and while I think there needs to be help for the poor, with food stamps and subsidized housing, actually making it a right like how you’re describing it isn’t a workable idea
I’m all for helping homeless people, but there’s an adage that applies here:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him stop masturbating in a public park.
I don’t think it’s possible especially taking into consideration the financial backing needed for housing especially in such a matter
No, I do not think it is a right. Philosophically, I think shelter must be earned, to say nothing of the slippery slope enumerating such a right would create (what if someone doesn’t with to be housed?).
I don’t believe in positive rights as a concept. If it has to be given to you it isn’t a right.
You can’t make a commodity a right
If everyone had a house that they owned society as we know it would collapse. If we had no rent to pay most people would be happy living on either unemployment or 1-2 days of work to pay for food and netflix
I mean what do you define by a right? Free? Accessible?
Free, probably not since there is a purpose in making people pay for things (allocation, repairs, opportunity costs, ect.).
Accessible essentially comes down to the fact that no municipality is explicitly required that more housing exists than demanded. My solution is that every municipality should be required to make it legal to have 10% more housing added in some way/form at any moment. Whether that means duplex legalization, conversion of commercial spaces, or apartments is up to them.
I have difficulty with positive rights.
I think we should work to make sure everyone is housed, within the limits they’ll go along with it, but that’s not the same thing.
Then again I also have issues with the idea of inalienable rights in general. Ultimately any of it can be taken and “inalienable” is aspirational. That’s why we need laws protecting what we view as rights.
Meh. I don’t like seeing people without, but nothing on this planet is guaranteed shelter. We have to do some things for ourselves and provide for ourselves, and that’s healthy and keeps up learning and growing. I do think that in our society, it should be way easier to do, but that’s a whole different conversation.
I do not believe that humans have an inalienable right to some form of shelter. I also would not want that to be added to the constitution. Housing is a commodity that is to be earned and if it has to be given by the government it is no longer a right.
Why should others have their property taken and or have to build that home? Ultimately, I do not believe in positive rights.
Housing, food, water, and electricity should all be at least available to all without gouging and artificial scarcity.
Is it a right? No. Should we work to end homelessness as a society? Yes.
No. Slavery is wrong.
I would argue that it is not a *human* right. Hundreds of years ago, we simply didn’t have the *ability* to guarantee housing, regardless of how much people wanted it. However, in the modern day US, we do, so I believe it should be guaranteed as a right of American citizens or something. Now, the problem is that writing it down on a piece of paper doesn’t magically give everyone a house, so I believe the more important measures would be to ensure adequate supply of housing, which is going to involve zoning and permitting reform to prevent NIMBYs from pulling all their bullshit.
Anything that is the product of someone else’s labor can not be a right.
Rights are what the government can not take from you, not what should be provided to you in a perfect world.
You do not deserve a right to someone else’s labor.
The right thing would be to start by rounding up the homeless that are mentally Ill and disabled and get them in The programs they need. Everyone else needs to earn their right like the rest of the housed ppl of this country.
Things that other people have to do for you can’t be a right. For housing to be a right someone has to make a house. I would be for everyone having at least a barracks-like shelter and as many as possible having decent conditions. But treating it as a right is simply making a right over other people’s property or labor. Magnanimity is different from justice and one cannot be mistaken for another.
For shelter to be given to everyone either someone’s land has to be nationalized or someones labor conscripted or someone’s tax money used. Using tax money for this is a reasonable thing and will probably come off better than a lot of forms of welfare. The problem is the abstract notion of calling it a right.
Housing *is* a right. You cannot be denied housing because of race, sex, religion, sexuality, or anything else.
Oh, you mean, “Should taxpayers be required to provide you with housing for free?” No.
How would that be a right in any way? You can’t just force someone at gunpoint to build you a house.
No, I don’t. I think you should have the right to have property and whatever that entails but compelling someone else to provide something for you against their own free will is not a right.