• Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The idea that you should put complete freedom above all else has been a disaster for the human race. No, you cannot do whatever you want. No, it does not mean you are a prisoner.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Human OS is not ready to be without borders unfortunately. One day, after the last smog-filled breath of air is forcefully exhumed, and all the world’s treasures fail the last baron of wealth, we will be ready. As long as our hearts are wholly material, the world will stay the same.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          We literally didn’t have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao

          The human os isn’t ready for a borderless world my entire ass

          • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Humans have built societies with rules for forever.

            And banish people outside their society.

            I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.

              • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally the free movement of people? Borders used to be “the zone of control of a government” and couldnt really exist as checkpoints for people moving back and forth over the border.

  • shastaxc@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t believe so many of you are upvoting a post about murdering homeless people. You monsters!

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Appeal to nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way in nature doesn’t automatically mean it’s good because nature has no concept of good or bad. Living in “the wild” has a far higher mortality rate than any of us should accept today. By your logic nothing should be a human right because we can always just die if we don’t have it, just as nature intended.

      Also, humans originated in the African savannah, which is much warmer than the places most humans now live. And even in the savannah at the dawn of our species we were nest building animals that instinctively would make shelters for ourselves. Housing is as natural to humanity as hives are to bees.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Article 25 of the declararion of himan rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family

      Seriously, do you think human rights are somehow just a feeling what should be? They are written down and you can look them up.

    • iquanyin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      it’s illegal. the blm will come with guns and force you out. i know this for a fact. not can i just find some land and grow my food and raise animals. it’s either owned by someone or it’s govt land.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely. So instead of building up on that, declaring everyone may own something, making them mini billionaires in principle; yeah, make owning land illegal. That would be the natural conclusion.

        You are basically saying: other people owning things and keeping me from building a house and a live should be illegal. Your solution: Make everyone own something, so they can build a house! Houses for everyone, hurray! But hey, my family is twice as big as yours, my house should, by right, be bigger. And hey, my farm supplies for ten families, it should, by right, be bigger. You don’t want to farm, let me buy your land and provide for you. And so the circle begins.

        I’d say, that thinking is what got us here in the first place.

        • iquanyin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          i’m pretty sure that native americans were able to not own land and work this out. i do think owning land is absurd. also, all i need to do is look around to know that how we are doing things has to change if our species wants to keep living. i don’t mean what you think but it’s the wee hours here, the key word being “wee” as that’s why i got up for a sec. so…back to sleep it is.

  • Gerula@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Rights are something that the society you live in and contribute to, grants you!

    There are no inherent human rights to be had! Even being alive is a happening not a right! You’re born because your parents fucked, there was nothing special about it!

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s not forget that the only reason states exist is to serve those within them. If that state should fail to serve its people sufficiently, it’s been common throughout history that they’ve been dismantled by the people.

      You are correct about natural rights. They are fought for. Many rights, such as workers’ rights, were strongly fought for and founded on blood (pretty much all of them in fact). However, when talking about rights, one remember the original meaning of the word: that which is morally good or honorable. The legal entitlement is preceded by the philosophical definition. In a just society legal rights should reflect moral rights as closely as possible.

      Housing is necessary for life, and so depriving an individual of housing when housing is unutilized is equatable to murder, an injustice. This is why the post communicates that housing is a human right.

      • Gerula@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Corect, but if the state is or isn’t serving those within, is a decision to be taken by the same individuals. Up to now those who are considering this are a small subset of the citizens which agrregate in underground forums and not actively trying to change the society and have a positive impact.

        Housing is necessary for life but it was never a right in that society. Also necessary for life are water, clothing, food, medical assistance, etc. None of them are rights of the people within that society. It may not correct but it is what it is.

  • thantik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think housing should be considered a human right, unless being homeless is made illegal. But, being homeless is practically illegal everywhere, so here we are, agreeing with one another.

    I try to think to myself - at what point do we call for things to be considered human rights? At what point in human history did we start considering clean water to be a human right? – Generally once we had massive cheap, clean, unfettered access to it, right?

    Companies and corporations, want their workers healthy, housed, disease free, etc. So – if they want those things, they should be considered ‘rights’ and we should collect taxes on making sure those rights are distributed, shouldn’t we?

    • null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think housing should be considered a human right, unless being homeless is made illegal

      Why not?

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I edited my reply to expound upon my thoughts. But mostly it comes down to – because houses require vast resources to build. You need people in the steel industry, wood/lumber industries, a set of housing standards, architects, etc.

        Unless these things become so cheap that they’re basically costless, ensuring a house for everyone free of charge is a monumentally burdensome task.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Something shouldn’t have to be free to be a human right. That’s an extremely right-wing American point of view, where they only believe in so-called “negative” rights.

          A right to housing wouldn’t mean builders and their suppliers have to work for free. That’s the same kind of nonsense reasoning libertarians and conservatives use to argue against free healthcare.

          A right to housing would impose an obligation on governments to do everything they can to ensure housing is readily available to anyone who wants it. Whether by ensuring that everyone can afford housing (economic policies that lower the cost of housing and/or put more money on people’s pockets) or by directly ensuring the government itself can give people a place to live if they can’t afford it. Ideally a mix of both.

          • thantik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What you described there is not what a human right consists of. Sure, governments should do exactly what you say, but something considered a ‘human right’ has much higher standards. It MUST be met. It’s not an optional strive-to-do-our-best situation.

            • DoYouNot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean healthcare is definitely a human right, but there is always more we could be doing. That’s a kind of arbitrary distinction that I don’t think adds anything to the discussion here.

              Basic human needs are basic human rights. I really do think it’s as simple as that.

              • thantik@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Healthcare is not a human right. It’s a societal right granted to you by those around you.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Umm, no. That’s just not correct. A human right is anything a human should have the right to. End of.

              The practicalities of how we achieve that are a separate concern.

              • thantik@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                A human right is anything a human should have the right to.

                In that case, you have no rights at all. Not even to speech, or the right not to be killed. “Rights” are invented by the society we live in. You have literally none in the natural world. As it exists, “Rights” are a religious idea. (Hence, “God-given rights”)

                The practicalities are of the utmost concern, because those practicalities are governed by the society which recognizes them as rights. As of now, there is no “human right to shelter”.

                • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you have no rights at all

                  Wrong

                  Not even to speech, or the right not to be killed

                  Wrong

                  “Rights” are invented by the society we live in

                  Correct

                  You have literally none in the natural world

                  Correct

                  As it exists, “Rights” are a religious idea

                  Lol what? Where did you even get that idea?

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Because it’s expensive” never stopped us from things we have been motivated about basically ever. All I’m hearing is a fantastic jobs creation program.

          • thantik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Absolutely it is. Because our “rights” are just invented bullshit brought about by the society we’ve created. You don’t have the right for me not to murder you in the lawless nothingness of nature. Therefore, if it’s difficult as a society to supply it – we can, AND DO, reject things as human rights.

            As it is, clean water is not a human right. Housing is not a human right. You WANT it to be, but your feelings here obviously don’t have a speck of reality within them.

            • Taleya@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              What kind of backwards arsed ayn rand bullshit is this.

              You do realise society actually only came into existence in and of itself via a loose collective agreement of behaviours, yes? These behaviours were not determined by whether or not they fit into a too hard basket, but whether or not they ensured the social strucuture remained intact for the good of the collective. Those eventually became codes of laws, and now relatively recently the conceept of human rights.

              No shit housing was never ranked a right or even on the radar until recently, it wasn’t an issue that affected enough of the population that it started to threaten social cohesion. It is now.

              You’re acting like lawless nature should dictate our actions when the sole fuckin’ reason we’re the dominant species is our ability and innate nature that works outside these parameters. It’s laughable

        • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Money is fake. It doesn’t exist. Your labor has value. You can use your labor to make other people’s lives easier. They can use their labor to make your life easier. Like building stuff? Cool. I’ll make your wardrobe if you build my house. No banks or real estate agents necessary.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            A reasonably stable currency is incredibly useful as an abstraction for value. Do you farm potatoes? Do you need a difficult medical procedure? I guarantee you, the surgeon, support staff, and the hospital are not much interested in being paid in a sufficient amount of potatoes.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Being dehydrated isn’t illegal yet we consider it a human right. Not sure I follow your logic.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think housing should be considered a human right, unless being homeless is made illegal.

      Huh? I don’t see how that follows.

      Freedom of speech is widely regarded as a human right. But you still have the right not to express yourself.

      Shelter is literally a human need. It’s like, number 4 on the list after air, water, and food. Maybe before food, even. Being necessary for life should be a sufficient condition to qualify as a human right.

      • thantik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Speech doesn’t require anything tangible though. Big difference. Same with the right to water – it has more to do with not infringing the rights of others (by dumping waste into the water, etc) than it does actually attaining something tangible; mostly due to how widely available it is, causing it to be essentially free as well. That’s why those are already codified rights basically – because they’re easy to attain and ensure.

        • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn’t cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it’s a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.

          Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.

          • thantik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Clean, safe drinking water isn’t cheaply and widely available

            Literally rain. It’s literally free, and literally “widely” available. As I said, water rights have more to do with not polluting fresh water sources than actually attaining physical water.