• @Sanctus
    link
    English
    895 months 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.

          • @takeda
            link
            -45 months ago

            Is there an anarchistic country that you would love to move to?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              255 months ago

              Lol “anarchistic country” If a people were ever to have anarchy it would require there be no country. You’re like asking them to find an incel that isn’t a misogynist

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                11
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Technically you can have an incel who isn’t a misogynist. Incel just means involuntarily celibate, most incels are misogynists, but some aren’t, and just don’t talk to people at all because of other mental health issues that don’t get treated making that person completely solitary and unable to communicate with others.

                The term incel was coined by a woman who has been involuntarily celibate and saught to create a supportive community for people like her. The problem arrose later.

                Edit: Spelling.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -15 months ago

            Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.

            It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can’t exist.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              15 months ago

              I am not an anarchist and I won’t make their case, but there is a difference between what is and what ought to be. What people have done is a statement about what is. Anarchy, like any other idealogy like it, is about what ought to be.

        • 🐑🇸 🇭 🇪 🇪 🇵 🇱 🇪🐑
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Free to be poor (Includes: Threat of starvation, social shunning, homelessness, your entire life collapsing and you can be sure the state is still gonna put you into even more debt. Then put you into prison because you couldn’t pay up where you are coerced into slave labor)

      • R0cket_M00se
        link
        English
        05 months ago

        Anarchists are their own brand of stupid.

      • @Sanctus
        link
        English
        -55 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -3
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          We literally didn’t have borders as they exist today until a century ago lmao, they literally solidified around the formation of what we consider modern nation-states.

          The human os isn’t ready for a borderless world my entire ass, the issue is the systems currently in place.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            55 months 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              15 months ago

              A light form was tribalism. If you didn’t go with the flow, you were expelled. With enough expelled ones, new tribes were formed. It kinda created human diversity for a while. There was only so much room on the river, so at some point more elaborate systems emerged. And the people with the biggest huts made those rules. Rules were made so that they could keep those huts. Extremely simplified.

              We now don’t have places to banish people to. That’s why the cry for housing is emerging. Someone took the wild away. They should provide an alternative. I believe that’s the whole idea behind wanting the rich to pay. For some reason they were allowed to own everything. Often for centuries.

              It makes little sense to people today. How was anyone allowed to walk somewhere, stake a claim, and own it forever? Even defending it with lethal force? Why aren’t we anymore?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                15 months ago

                We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.

                You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.

                But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.

                Hardly utopia.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  15 months ago

                  Exactly the point I apparently failed to make. It never worked. Yet we are holding on to it. Just with the added caveat that the weapons are now money, and the wilds are gone.

              • @Sanctus
                link
                English
                15 months ago

                Go ahead and remove their states and countries. Most people would explode. Eventually thats the way. But take an honest look around. It wont happen today

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                05 months ago

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

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  15 months 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.

    • @Potatos_are_not_friends
      link
      85 months ago

      “But me not being able to say the N word is literally infringing on my rights!” - people who scream free speech

    • @EvolvedTurtle
      link
      15 months ago

      Not even We have just enough freedom to feel free But not enough to where we have to pay to litterly live

      I can’t even afford van life tbh

  • Collision Resistance
    link
    English
    49
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    They Have Money For War But Can’t Feed The Poor

    -2pac

      • Flying Squid
        link
        35 months ago

        The poor go to war, to fight and die for the delights, riches, and superfluities of others.

        – Plutarch

        CE 45 - ~CE 119

        This has literally been said by people for at least two millennia.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    455 months ago

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

  • @Blackmist
    link
    English
    235 months ago

    Oh don’t worry.

    The billionaires will make sure the homeless don’t exist soon enough.

  • FlashMobOfOne
    link
    95 months ago

    Not in the USA it isn’t.

    Neither party has done a damn thing to address housing scarcity, and in a few months, you’re all going to vote for the same assholes who ignore it.

  • @Aux
    link
    55 months ago

    Compost homeless - get free fuel and fertiliser!

    • @Dehydrated
      link
      25 months ago

      Compost billionaires - get free fuel and fertiliser!

      • @Aux
        link
        35 months ago

        Not enough of them. They also don’t live off benefits, so…

          • @Aux
            link
            05 months ago

            Yeah.

        • @Dehydrated
          link
          -15 months ago

          Maybe they don’t live off of benefits, but they get massive tax benefits. In fact, the government loses way more revenue by not taxing billionaires properly than by helping homeless people.

          • @Aux
            link
            05 months ago

            If the government loses even a penny, all the hell will break loose.

  • @Daft_ish
    link
    55 months ago

    I think homeless people are a little less psyched about it.

  • @hexabs
    link
    15 months ago

    Eat the… poor?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -35 months ago

    I haven’t read up on official human rights. Who made them? Did someone bother to ask most humans?

    This is a Sunday-morning coffee post, not a detailed world-view. Feel free to ask, but refrain from shooting things down. It’s not like I’ve spent hours on this.

    How are they defined, human rights? I’d say anyone in my way to spread my genes keeps me from being a human.

    As a pragmatist, I’d say breathing and eating, and perhaps warmth and caring are human rights. We can’t do any of them on our own after being born, and without them some really crappy humans emerge. Breathing should be top tier. Anyone disturbing that should be under heavy focus. Can’t do anything without air.

    After that, once we are fairly independent, doing things to keep people keeping me from growing up and procreating should be my right.

    Killing someone else would keep them from doing that, so not being killed by other humans seems like one. Killing others would disqualify me from being human, and I would give up my rights by that act. Straightforward stuff.

    Mix in social structures, and it becomes complicated.

    Being homeless? Build a commune somewhere. Why insist on being near that techno-tribe with internet. It’s nothing but a tribe, has nothing to do with survival or being human. Having modern amenities can’t be a right. Other humans invented them at some point.

    Which leads to something no human should have a right to: owning land. Because owning land keeps humans from realizing their purpose and keeps them from being free to be human.

    Housing is a right? That’s ridiculous. That’s a technological achievement from other people. So is monetary wealth. How can those be a right. If nobody came along inventing them, nobody would have them. Can’t be a right. At all. That is just the consequences of capitalism and ownership of natural resources.

    • GrayoxOP
      link
      fedilink
      05 months ago

      Let me spell it out for you bub, i want to: Abolish Private Property

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          25 months ago

          Probably important to point this out: private property is not personal property.

          E.g. An apartment building rented to tenants is the landlords private property. They have exclusive rights to the decisions, especially economic ones, regarding the building and the profits of the rent.

          A car, book, house, pizza, are all your personal property so long as you don’t owe a lender anything for them.

          So no private property might look like:

          The people who live in an apartment building own the building collectively and have the full right therein, but the individual units are each their own personal property.

  • @thantik
    link
    English
    -10
    edit-2
    5 months 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?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      205 months ago

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

      Why not?

      • @thantik
        link
        English
        -7
        edit-2
        5 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          195 months 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
            link
            English
            -5
            edit-2
            5 months 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
              link
              135 months 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
                link
                English
                -85 months ago

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

                • @DoYouNot
                  link
                  35 months ago

                  Deep in that American politique, eh?

            • Zagorath
              link
              fedilink
              75 months 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
                link
                English
                -6
                edit-2
                5 months 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  105 months 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?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  35 months ago

                  Govt. does its best to ensure citizens aren’t murdered, yet it still happens.

                  Shouldn’t housing be similarly considered a right like the right to life?

          • @thantik
            link
            English
            -4
            edit-2
            5 months 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              9
              edit-2
              5 months 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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          45 months 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            75 months 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.

    • Zagorath
      link
      fedilink
      115 months 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
        link
        English
        -8
        edit-2
        5 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          65 months 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
            link
            English
            -7
            edit-2
            5 months 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              75 months ago

              Hahaha awesome, do you get the majority of your clean water via collecting rain? Do you think it’s a viable source for folks living in dense metropolitan areas?

              • @thantik
                link
                English
                -3
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                do you get the majority of your clean water via collecting rain?

                Yes, I do. It’s called a well. Millions of people do the same. You can drill a well almost anywhere, and drink clean rain water. There are some exceptions of course, but as I stated before – “the right to clean water” – has more to do with keeping large corporations, etc from polluting those water sources than it does physically attaining water.

                Do you think it’s a viable source for folks living in dense metropolitan areas?

                No, but that’s their choice to live there. That’s the same reason why it’s illegal to fish in dense populated areas.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  25 months ago

                  My apologies, since wells are hardly “free” to build and maintain I had assumed you were talking about collecting it directly via a harvesting system. I’ve used wells the majority of my life.

                  My general point is that wells or direct capture is not viable for dense urban areas, and while you’re saying it’s a choice, the majority of folks in the USA live in urban areas. Big urban centers aren’t going away any time soon, so we should consider how to meet people where they are, when possible. The larger point I wanted to make though is that we (at least in the USA, and all the Latin American nations I’ve lived in) have good public sanitation and water systems precisely because it’s seen as a right. And those systems aren’t cheap, but we do it. As I argue we should do more for re: housing.

                  That’s the crux of the biscuit: I just think more should be done to help people afford these basic necessities. I think we should (as a nation/planet) fundamentally rethink the way we approach housing, for the same reasons water and food are subsidized (and they should be further subsidized IMHO, but that’s another point entirely). I’m not going to claim I know the answers, or that it would be easy or cheap, but I think it’s something we should all try seriously to solve.

  • @Mellanderthist
    link
    -105 months ago

    Housing is not a human right as humans can exist in the wild without a house.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      5 months 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.

    • @arbitrary_sarcasm
      link
      55 months ago

      By that logic, nothing is a human right since you can find food, water and shelter in the wild.

      The problem with that logic is that you assume everyone to be physically able and knowledgeable to live off the land.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        That’s right. Nothing is a human right. Many humans have rights outlined in their countries constitutions but even those are easily stomped on with usually little consequence

        • @arbitrary_sarcasm
          link
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          And you’re saying that shouldn’t be the case right ? Right ?

          I’d insert that Anakin Padme meme here if I had one ready.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            I’m just saying what is. If you want what I think should be, I’m a non Randian libertarian. Big on personal responsibility and the risk of consequences and consequences of risk, less on being a whiny bitch about everything.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        Well, it takes some time to grow up to be able to find food and water. How long until we can walk even?

        Food, water and means to provide an upbringing until offspring can care for themselves, those could be considered basic rights.

        Housing is so far into the technological advancements, building up on so many other systems, I fail to see how that can be a right.

        Air and food on the other hand, and sensible means to acquiring those. Well. There certainly is room for discussion. When people start owning land, keeping others to effectively do those things, they should have to provide alternatives. Or we have to abolish ownership of natural resources at all. Both can’t work together. That’s ineffective, of course, and makes planning and advancement difficult.

        The price of capitalism and ownership of nature should be compensation. Nothing natural about social structures. If they want to continue those money games, they need to play by the rules of nature. Or they’ll go down with chopped-off heads at some point.

    • @[email protected]
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      45 months 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.

      • @doingless
        link
        25 months ago

        It has also never happened, there has never been a time in all of history. And the declaration of human rights isn’t broadly accepted either.

    • iquanyin
      link
      35 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        15 months 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
          link
          15 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.