Do you believe people have a "right" to housing?

Article 25(a) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), a founding U.N. document signed by the United States, says:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Do you think the U.N. is correct that housing is a human right? Or are you under the belief that housing is actually a privilege?

@Prince_RehteStroC: No but I feel it is until you reach an age of self sufficiency, in the US that age is 18.

@icysloth said:

@Prince_RehteStroC: No but I feel it is until you reach an age of self sufficiency, in the US that age is 18.

Why do you say 18? :]

@Xanni15: BEcause I am in college now mostly on loans, grants, and scholarships. Softmore and junior year I was an RA to have housing. I am speaking strickly in the developed world where I believe if you work hard you can find housing and do well for yourself.

@icysloth said:

@Xanni15: BEcause I am in college now mostly on loans, grants, and scholarships. Softmore and junior year I was an RA to have housing. I am speaking strickly in the developed world where I believe if you work hard you can find housing and do well for yourself.

Just curious. :]

Absolutely.

if they work

ya lazy bums

If someone is actually working and trying their best to get by then I have no problem with the government helping out a bit with things like section 8, which I have been on before and they do actually make you pay rent its just rent that is manageable with your income. Without that help I'd have probably ended up homeless despite working 8 hours a day 5 to 6 days a week depending on my schedule. Now if it was some junkie who refuses to get a job then they can go rot for all I care.

People have a right to the pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law.

Everything else is a matter of personal responsibility.

@lykopis said:

Absolutely.

TRUTH.

@Hawkeye446 said:

@lykopis said:

Absolutely.

TRUTH.

-_-

@lykopis said:

Absolutely.

This.

It was in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote what John Locke originally wrote differently but under the same concept, just more vague IMO.

John Locke : "Natural rights to life, liberty and property."

Thomas Jefferson: "Natural rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness."

@god_spawn: property means that you own it. I buy property, it shouldn't be given to me.

What do You think? I think see should be able to build our on homes too.

@Edamame: It is a long list, it was pure luck I got on it at all.

I do. It doesn't have to be great housing; in fact, it should probably be the kind that motivates people to get back on their feet and find a better place to live, but it should at least provide a place to sleep that's protected from the elements.

I think everyone ought to be able to have a shelter of sorts that offers them basic living arrangements and is comfortable. I do believe owning a bigger, more extravagant living space is a privilege, but one that can be worked for.

Without a doubt.

Of course they do.

Eh. People have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to make sure everyone has a house though I guess. But like . . . Prioritize. Children over ex-con crack heads and the like.

This question has been posted before.

It is obvious that in 1948 nobody meant that your are owed a house. Nobody was giving away homes for free. I would assume they are talking about everyone having equal access to buy a home if they could afford it. This doesn't mean that you are given a home, or that all homes cost the same and look alike. Nor does this mean you get a house if you can't afford it.

It is best not to confuse rights with wishes.

Considering the fact that there are more abandoned houses than homeless people in this country, I have no problem with property being a right.

Eh? Sure.

I work in social housing, so the short answer is yes.

Yeah, a right to have access to it, not have it handed over. We have a right to have sex right? Well you need a consenting partner, same with housing.

Housing should be a basic human right, because it is arguably critical in order to allow people to use certain basic rights.

For example, the right to security. Obviously people who live in houses are 10000 times more secure and safe than homeless people.

I tend to think that people should be able to have their basic needs fulfilled: food, clothing and shelter. As is the case with all of these, the shelter doesn't have be high-quality but just do it's job of keeping you protected from weather, give you security, etc.

For sure! Since the government has stakin' a claim to every last undeveloped wilderness in America, they sure as funkin' hell better provide housing if they're going to try & dictate where you can & can not live.

I believe people should have a right to affordable housing, if they are A. Employed B. Are in a situation where they are unable to be employed (as opposed to choosing to not be employed) C. They are under the age of 18 (in the United States at least). However, no I don't believe people have a right to housing simply because they exist.

As far as John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson, right or wrong (and I'm not overly impressed with the idea, though I generally think our...still very human...but brilliant) Founding Fathers were very much of the opinion that people should own property, not have it given to them.

You know, If we wanna be righteous, No one should own anything.

If I were in charge of my own country I would give people who choose not to work an option other than homelessness.

They would be provided with basic housing, clothing, and food, but they wouldn't be given any luxuries. They would essentially live in accommodations similar to a very safe and comfortable prison that they are allowed to leave at any time as though it were a giant apartment complex. They could even work just a little so they could buy the things they want and aren't provided with by the government.

@heroup2112: What do you think of how I'd handle it?

No. Rights don't exist.

No. They've tried project housing before, and the end result is trashed homes and communities full of crime and drugs.

Besides, don't forget that "free housing" means "housing that comes at the expense of tax payers." In terms of government, nothing is free. If you don't believe me, watch it be explained by Nobel Prize Winning Economist Milton Friedman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

@racob8: In your country, nobody would chose to work. Think about it; why would anyone in your country chose to get a job if they knew they could live in your tax payer funded housing and get all their needs for free.

@mrmonster: I don't think the majority of people would choose living a life of subsistence.

Interesting idea...but who would be paying for these "prison apartments"? Honestly, I can see your argument. Actual criminals have better "housing" arrangements than most homeless people, however let me assure you (as a former corrections officer) that even the dangers of living on the street, that living in prisons are many times more dangerous than living homeless.

It's actually cheaper to house the homeless then to just leave them out on the street.

@heroup2112: You misunderstood. It isn't a prison, it's only similar in that the non-working citizens living there don't have much choice regarding what they eat, wear, or how they live. They are entitled to three meals a day, but the food isn't going to be great. If you want better food you work and eat at a nice restaurant. You get to pick your clothes but they are all government provided clothes that aren't high quality. Want better clothes? Get a job and buy them. You live in a small dorm room sized living space. It's clean, has all the necessities, hell you even get a computer, but you're going to have to work if you want better.

It's not a prison, it's just a sort of giant government funded apartment building.

I've always been of the opinion that work, in some capacity, should be required even when one is serving time. Type of work may vary.

It would give convicts something to do, it would let them acquire skills, and they would be helping to support the prisons - which are a financial drain.

@racob8: I think you're vastly underestimating how lazy the average person is. But, for the sake of argument, I'll say that no, the majority would still work. But even if the majority don't chose life in your hotel, think about all those who do. Those people are choosing to just mooch off society like parasites, and those who actually do chose to work have to pay insanely high taxes to make it happen. Your country's economy would crash. Trust me dude, I'm in studying business and economics in college.

Oh, I understood what you mean. You even said they could come and go as they pleased, i was just using the term you used. I just went a little further with the "prison" analogy, kind of off topic from what your point was, sorry. :)

While I see where you're coming from, I still have to raise the question. Who's paying for all this? Especially the computers, I can see them possibly being provided at a central location to look for work, but I certainly see no reason for personal computers of any sort.

@jedixman:

I can't speak to other states, or even federal prisons, but in Texas this is exactly how it works.

Nah.

Yep. People should have the freedom to acquire adequate housing.