General Question

raum's avatar

Is housing a basic human right?

Asked by raum (13256points) January 11th, 2020 from iPhone

As asked.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

Patty_Melt's avatar

It should be.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And we should strive in this country to make it so.

SergeantQueen's avatar

Yes. And accommodations should be made for those who don’t have housing.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Well. A dwelling. Yes. In the US, at least. We’ve got the money.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

Not yet, but hopefully in the near future.

SEKA's avatar

Yes. It might not need to be a multi-million dollar 10 bedroom, 10 bath house; however, it should offer the basic needs of every person

elbanditoroso's avatar

I agree. It probably should be a human right, but at this point in civilization, it is not.

Inspired_2write's avatar

Of course , its one of the basic needs of all .

“Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid. ... From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.”

kritiper's avatar

No. Cave men lived in caves if they were fortunate enough to find one and even more fortunate to find one that was uninhabited.

Response moderated (Writing Standards)
lucillelucillelucille's avatar

No, because a right is an action which requires no sanction.
If your housing is provided by others, it is a privilege.
Rights are things which require no one’s permission like the right to your own life.

JLeslie's avatar

Probably not a bad idea to think of it that way. Singapore seems to have been very successful providing public housing. At the time that Singapore gained independence the politics at the time was that if everyone had shelter they could focus on being productive.

nightwolf5's avatar

I wished, but you need money for a roof over your head, which is why so many are homeless.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It doesn’t require a mastermind to understand that there is no reasonable excuse for the expanding homeless population in a land with the combined wealth of the United States. Were this situation some passing anomaly, we might attribute it merely to a cyclical effect of predatory capitalism. But our homeless epidemic hás been raging now for nigh on 40 years with the trend moving inexorably in but one direction. We are adjusting to being a limp along society, and doing a piss poor of it.

MrGrimm888's avatar


Patty_Melt's avatar

I love what some cities are doing with the tiny homes for homeless persons.

johnpowell's avatar

I live in Portland. Tons of homeless people here. With all the suburbs and the metro area there are over a million people here. But tons of homeless. And by tons I mean they are really visible and always there.

But in raw numbers there aren’t that many. I lived in a sprawling apartment complex in Southern California for a few years that had something like 4000 units and 10000 bedrooms. Something like that could easily house our “visible homeless”.

You could build a complex out in Tigard that would house everyone for less than we spent on the stupid fucking suspension bike bridge.

Problem is easy to solve. And if you have everyone in the same place it makes it much more efficient to provide the services they need to get back on their feet.

But you have certain horrible people.. Looks up.. That are so very concerned about their precious dollars going to help the needy.. While clutching their stupid cross necklace. Tossers.

raum's avatar

What inspired this question was something that is currently happening in Oakland

SEKA's avatar

That’s sad. I’ve read where homeowners have gone on vacation to return home to a squatter living in their home and it took over 3 years to get them evicted. I guess being homeless with children isn’t considered squatting. Next we’ll be hearing that CPS is taking the kids away from their moms because they don’t have a place to live

johnpowell's avatar

Oh hey…

Yeah people squat. So you arrest them. Which costs a fuckload of money. They just want to be warm.

If only there was some sort of well run place for them to be instead.

They, the lesser humans, wouldn’t need to encroach on your precious property that is not being used.

The Rajneeshpuram tried busing in the homeless. And they actually went along since they were offered a better life. This ended poorly. But my point is that if you offer human backwash the chance for free stuff they will follow you into anything. Bitcoin..

MrGrimm888's avatar

We have a lot of homeless people too. Here in Charleston, SC. It’s just sad. I was homeless, for about 6 months. Luckily, I have lots of people who let me stay in spare rooms, or on their couch… I would have slept in my car, I guess, otherwise…

Now, I live in a 1 bedroom castle. I have very little stuff. So. It feels massive….

I can only afford this place, because there is a cemetery in my back yard…
Rent, is crazy here.
A lot of our homeless, are employed…

Patty_Melt's avatar

A castle AND cemetery??!!??
Make way, I’m moving in with you, and I have lots of stuff. ;-D

Coolhandluke's avatar

Hell no it’s not a right. If you want a home, go out and make it, buy it, earn it!

Candre's avatar

No, a house is something you are supposed to build. Whether you build it with your hands and sticks or with the wealth you build, it is one of the most important aspects of your character.

josie's avatar

If what you want requires somebody else to be to be coerced to pay for it it isn’t a right. It’s a political perk granted by a vote whore.

Sagacious's avatar

@SEKA They should. Parents are legally responsible for providing the basics for their children. That is food, shelter, and clothing. Adults sleeping in gutters and alleys is one thing, but the law actually forbids parents to allow their children to live in such circumstances. That is absolute miscare, neglect, and endangerment.

hosa's avatar

[Previous answer removed by mods because of text speak]

Housing is not a human right because first of all you should’nt depend on a certain party to give you rights and the fact that it costs money. If you look at it the philosophical way, you would realize though that any country you were born in, you are entitled to a piece of land..
Ofcourse any and every government don’t want you to realize that..

stanleybmanly's avatar

So land is a right that takes priority over housing? Explain cities.

hosa's avatar

I am not sure what you mean by that… But people should not be crowded in one area in the first place.. instead decentralized and spread..(for living casually that is)

In fact I am against the concept of buildings unless its for a Work/ Buisness-company enviroment strictly…

stanleybmanly's avatar

The problem is in that expression “living casually” Living casually is a concept perhaps applicable to sheep, but flawed beyond measure in defining the human condition or even the idealized possibility “casual living” for creatures cursed with debilitating ambitions.

hosa's avatar

Its called “off the grid” living…it is the ability to be self sufficient or only depend on surrounding people and ecosystem…
And then one can go to the urban enviroment to work with other partners if they choose to ..

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther