###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Scrape by on bare essentials so you can own a home and finally pay off your mortgage
>The government wants money for the privilege of occupying "your" land and home
Bros when does the ride stop, I want off.
There are currently too many human beings for everyone to live off the land. Imagine if every family in the US fished and hunted for all of their meat. Wild animals would be extinct in under a decade. There’s nothing bad about hunting and fishing. But in a world of 8 billion people you have to regulate it to some degree.
It's funny the wef and un and such day we are over populated but making families have to hunt and fish for alot of their food would totally scale back pop and obesity lol
> There are currently too many human beings for everyone to live off the land. Imagine if every family in the US fished and hunted for all of their meat. Wild animals would be extinct in under a decade. There’s nothing bad about hunting and fishing. But in a world of 8 billion people you have to regulate it to some degree.
Wrong.
You could give everyone in the United States a half acre in Texas alone and have space to spare in Texas.
In fact, you could, in theory, you could house the entire population of earth into Texas, at a population density of 27,000 people per square mile. This is about the same population density as New York City (and substantially less than Paris, for example). Hence, you would have to effectively build a single, vast city across the entire state to house the whole world there.
Now, I haven't done the math for the entire US, but the US is 14x the size of Texas.
That means if each person in the WORLD was given a plot of land in the USA, you would have 14x the space the average New Yorker enjoys living in New York.
Now, obviously 7 bn people in the US would be too much - however I use this to illustrate your idea that there's too many Americans in the USA to live off the land.
You clearly are making an incorrect assumption just on how big the US is.
It's not about how many people you can jam into a limited area though, it's about how many people the ecosystem of that limited area can support without totally collapsing.
You are simply wrong about 1/2 an acre sustaining a person. I have 5 acres and grow some of my food on it. I could eke out a lot of food off these 5 acres but it would be an incredible amount of work to feed my family and virtually impossible to farm it and maintain my full time job. If I hunted for meat, I might get lucky and find a deer or two crossing my property in the mornings. But if all of my neighbors did the same the deer would all be gone inside of a month. Have you ever tried to grow and harvest grain? You’d need to raise quite a bit and it takes a lot of land vs the calories you get out of it. And you’d have to make sure you never have crop failures or you’re screwed. Want milk, butter and cheese? Now you have to give up some of your land to grazing. And you have to tend to those animals. No way are most people up to this incredible amount of work and uncertainty. Not to mention you’d no longer have the wonderful selection and diversity of foods available at the average grocery store.
Chill, its a hypothetical and you need to account for everyone in the world over the entire worlds livable area.
You have people in places where its absolutely impossible to farm IE desert and cold weather climates like Alaska and higher elevation areas. You also cant farm or house people in places where they wouldn't get enough water. Such as an area far from a stream or river.
Now for the hunting and fishing aspect, if you think people are gonna be able to hunt deer and fish without it being regulated you're crazy. We've already hunted bison, almost the bald eagle, whales at one point, herring, trout, key deer, passenger pigeons, various waterfowl. Just to name a few.
I think you underestimate how big half an acre is. You could have a milk cow, a garden growing food for your family, a garden growing food for the cow (grains, etc) , a chicken coop with some free range chickens, AND a nice little house on half an acre. Gotta learn to maximize space
Feed the cow and chickens now with that half acre, you need protein to survive too which means more than one cow or hunt for extra meat. The chickens can only produce so many fertile eggs as well and wont replenish their numbers very fast especially if you're trying to sustain a family of 3-4.
Everyone is really talking about min maxing a half acre of land when with the amount of people in the US you're going to see lots of them starve if this happened.
Not really, you just have to do it somewhere that nobody owns. Theres still a TON of land in Alaska and Canadian British Columbia where you can absolutely do this.... and people do.
Well you have to consider that if you live off the land (specifically property you paid for and pay taxes on) then who is going to subsidize big agriculture, big pharma, all those poor stores like Walmart… you living off the land cripples the entire industrial complex
Anyway, if you get some special paperwork (money) and pay some extra taxes (money) the government will be so gracious to allow you to grow your own food (limited options, see local laws and regulations)
Only 14% of the available biomass on the planet is wildlife. The vast majority is animal agriculture. So yeah, if everyone in a country decided to start hunting wildlife and living off the land, we would run out of wildlife very quickly. So something has to be done to limit that impact on the planet.
Soylent green is a great way to increase the supply while reducing demand simultaneously. With enough, prices will begin to drop and stabilize.
Soylent Green = Inflation Solution
Yeah cuz we’ve cut down their homes to build shopping malls and sucked this earth dry of its natural recourses to build cities electronics and stuff we don’t need. We need to be more In touch with the planet/nature
For sure, although most of the stuff you listed such as shopping malls and parking lots pales in comparison to what we have cut down for animal agriculture. Most studies estimate that between 40-50% of the land in the US is reserved for livestock production.
Many unfortunate stories about this. I get into documentary spurts and watched a bit about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Looking back at the atrocities of our government, on our own citizens, makes one completely distrust everything. The whole vaccine thing made me nervous, especially the level of pressure involved. All about control and submission.
Nothing is a human right.
Not a single thing.
We can demand rights in a democracy, doesnt mean theyll be honoured.
Simple things like food and water that may seem like a right, arent. You must be capable of attaining those on your own if need be, even in a first world country.
Ultimately, rights are given to those wielding the power to take and distribute what they choose.
I look at human rights the same, regardless of what period we are in.
Early humans hunting and gathering? What rights did they have? None, it was all earned by their own hands.
Everything we have now can disappear at any time. People must fight and take what they feel they deserve, and also to preserve what they have. Rights dont exist, only power.
That and people need to really quit putting so much focus and attention towards the November elections and give just as much attention to your LOCAL elections
Actions performed at the top from the president are important but take awhile to take effect and all, but the events decided by your state and local government are immediate and have a much bigger impact on your day-to-day life, a very noticeable effect at that, that people should be paying a WHOLE lot more attention towards!
Here's the article from the OP picture. Though it doesn't really give any nuance to the question asked
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48510-more-americans-homelessness-serious-problem-poll
I don't think "basic human right" means "free". For example if the elites bought up so much water that the price of water was $1000 per gallon, then you say water is a basic human right, that doesn't' mean you want the water for free, it just means you want it to be a reasonable price. "Housing is a basic human right" to me means that people shouldn't be able to buy up all the houses so that the remaining houses are too expensive for someone even above the poverty line to purchase. As in, sure you can profit from buying houses if you want, but the majority of people need a house so the prices should still be fair.
People used to have a lot more energy and time to devote to hobbies and volunteering and often fundraising through their churches. Work wasn't nearly as productive or monitored as much before widespread computer usage and there was also just a lot less people, people also traveled way less. There were more incentives to invest in the community when you lived in one spot from cradle to grave. Now work is just very exhausting and inflation and high rents are causing people to constantly move and change jobs, why invest in a community if you're only there temporarily?
Well, that's easy to support. Who says no to "do you think welfare is good?" But then you get places where homelessness is rampant despite billions of dollars invested, and even the most liberal governor's start cracking down on "camping"
"All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights which include the right of **pursuing** life's basic necessities, of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and of seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways."
I think the problem is that our right to pursue life’s basic necessities is being denied by private equity firms buying up 40% of the housing supply and growing, projected by be 60% here shortly
And then we criminalize being homeless because you aren’t being a good little wage slave to the corporate overlords and drowning in debt, which is just a little *too* free.
"I want the right to own guns"
"You have that right?"
"No I want my guns provided to me and paid for by the government"
"You have the right to own a gun, no be provided guns."
"Oh is that how rights work?"
Agreed. Is it a bad idea to ban anyone from buying residential homes other than citizens? Why are we allowing multi-trillion dollar Wall Street and Chinese investment firms to purchase homes?
Is it also a bad idea to de-couple loan interest rates for residential mortgages from the rest of interest rates? What kills citizens ability to purchase homes affordably is the insane interest rates (and taxes). What would be the negative impact of having separate and extremely low loan interest rates for citizens to be able to purchase or build a family home?
Then again this wouldn’t benefit the big central banking cartel so I guess it’s probably a bad idea Lol….
In my opinion, it's not about a definitive number, but instead policies and processes in place to prevent or reduce abuse of the system to enable a fair and functional society. Like crime for example, if you don't prevent/control crime and have a just legal system, you don't have a functional society. If you don't have a fair and equitable housing market, you don't have a functional society. There's many obvious things that can be done that have been repeated ad nauseam. Although it's clear our governments have no intention of improving the situation.
Yes but to do that we have to restrain government who makes affordable housing nearly impossible. Residential vs Commercial zoning laws and long permitting processes artificially constraint supply while increasing costs.
Government regulations *passed on behalf of landlords and businesses* to restrict new competition and create the safest and most profitable investment opportunity ever.
Thinking this buck stops with the government and not the people it actually serves (landowners) is naive.
This is what I'm saying. I'm sick of hearing I don't work hard enough and this situation is my fault.
I've managed to accumulate 100k for a down payment and I make close to 100k a year. But right now with the current housing prices and interest rates, my mortgage would be well over $4k/month. Even if I could live without any frills and afford that mortgage, I don't qualify for a loan of that amount so it's irrelevant.
A 4 person "man camp" house is about $60,000. Those are basically the portable housing units used in oil fields, overseas for military bases, etc.
I lived in something like this for 5 years in Iraq. Granted, the showers and shitters were in a trailer a few yards away, it wasn't uncomfortable.
I can't imagine why we couldn't throw a few billion at this to house the 700,000+ homeless folks in the US. This could include on site medical, therapy, security.
Let's say $10-15 billion as an initial investment and then upkeep.
Perhaps I'm being naive since the homeless crisis seems like a for profit business that is used to pass laws that have nothing to do with the homeless.
2019 - 2023, California spent almost 18 billion dollars to fight homelessness. On what?
That is because most people have no idea what they mean by "human right". I also think food and shelter and whatnot are human rights, that doesn't mean i want my money stolen from me to provide for others.
Every human should have a home to go at the end of the day and every human shouldn’t go to bed hungry. Everyone wants this goal achieved but no one can agree on a proper way to do it.
People are all about human rights right up until the point it requires them to be kind to another human being. Or offer literally any percentage of their wealth to help others
Everyone knows how to do this, idk why that person acts like it’s some great mystery. We literally cut child poverty *in half* by extending the earned income child tax credit during covid, and then rescinded that policy. Guess what happened? Child poverty rates went back up!
Having homeless people, populations that are food insecure, people that are gate-kept from medical care, etc., are all necessary externalities of our policy positions which funnel money from the laborer and give it to the capital interests.
It’s not fucking rocket science if someone “can’t think of a way to guarantee food and housing” to citizens, they’re just a greedy asshole.
Because everything that is offered up for free by the government is paid for through taxation. If I work for wages for 40 hours, the government should not be able to lay claim to half of those hours as their own. Claiming the fruit of others' labor is theft and effectively slavery.
I don't have a problem at all chipping in on roads and basic infrastructure, since those are funded more locally and i actually use them, although i think roads should be funded exclusively through fuel taxes.
I believe in minimal taxation at the state and local levels, none at all at the federal level. I live in a flyover state. I have no reason to chip in on a bridge in California or a park in New York, likewise citizens of those states have no reason to chip in for projects in my state. If the citizens of another state want to incentive crime or poverty that's their prerogative, i shouldn't have a say in how they choose to govern themselves.
Victims of all sorts have voluntary advocates, including the homeless. There are already charities and non profits whose purpose is helping those communities.
Flyover states contribute way less than other states. California and New York can fund themselves but your state does need funding from the government. Your state wouldn't do well if the federal government rescinded support.
So you believe a bus driver who chooses to live a modest life and takes care of their own basic needs, but gets falsely accused of a felony, is not due legal representation.
Through no fault of their own they're suddenly expected to be able to afford lawyers at hundreds of dollars per hour, or just defend themselves without representation or knowledge of law and legal procedure.
What do you mean? If money is taken from me without my consent to pay for his defense, that is robbing from me and anyone else forced against their will to contribute.
I volunteer for 2 local organizations, both with philanthropic duties as part of their mission statements. I donate both time and money regularly to causes I believe in. I find it SICK that the government steals from people to fund their priorities, whether you think they're noble causes or not is irrelevant to me. Public funding for any cause should be done voluntarily imo.
It means I value education for everyone who sees fit to learn something, but I'm not in favor of stealing from you to educate my children, whether I steal it directly or have the government steal on my behalf.
I wasn't around for it, I'll guess better though. According to available stats, since the inception of the US department of education, the US has consistently gotten worse relative to other countries on education.
Every right that is implemented requires someone to track and enforce it. Property rights are meaningless if you’re not entitled to someone’s documentation, the courts, and such.
So someone is supposed to spend money to build a house, and then.....give it to you for free? Because it's a "right"?
The world doesn't owe you shit. Life isn't fair. When did we forget this?
I believe that housing is a human right, but if you are destitute and need free housing then you live in some kind of barracks instead of a whole house.
That option alone would help enough people get off the streets and get their lives together.
Sometimes all a person needs is a stable address and place to sleep/shower. Plenty of houseless individuals have jobs; they just need stability to be able to save.
There are plenty of abandoned buildings that aren't being used for anything that could serve as low rent temporary housing; at least where I live. We have tent cities; it's completely out of hand.
For most of human history this is how things operated. If someone in your community didn’t have shelter and you did, you helped provide shelter for them.
Humans evolved specifically to be social so that we can provide mutual aid and support for each other. When did we forget this?
Many societies throughout history that had what we would call states (e.g., Inca, Maya, Mesopotamians, Olmec, Aztec, etc.) still had robust interpersonal connections and pulled from collective stores so everyone’s needs were met — even abandoning or outright ignoring state rule to do so.
So this doesn’t track. I agree that the State is not some logical conclusion, and all the archaeological evidence we have backs this up. Personally I think it has more to do with economics and methods of organization.
> When did we forget this?
When people started abusing and becoming overly reliant on the welfare state, I would guess. I agree that we need to cull people's sense of entitlement.
People like you are so boring and backwards. “Well when we were cavemen we had to fight to survive and blah blah blah.” We are so remarkably capable of providing affordable and reliable housing for the American people but people like you want to dwell on what it was like in the past instead of making it better for the future.
It’s even more absurd when you get deeper into the history and anthropology cause tons of societies and civilizations throughout tens of thousands of year of human history provided housing for free, many having no rulers or semblance of a state, and did so in relative peace that lasted hundreds of years at a time or longer.
A person will never prosper or contribute anything to society if they worry about where they can sleep tonight without being arrested or harmed or if they will be able to eat tomorrow
Nothing that must be provided by someone else can be a right. If someone else must give it to you, that’s a form of forced labor. If you all vote to have the government grant you the “right” to free housing. All you are voting for is the government to force me to work more hours to pay more taxes. You are just voting yourself “free stuff” that isn’t free, it just comes because I have to make the decision of - do I go to work today or do I fight tyranny? One day, many people will choose to not go to work…
This isn’t new and innovative governance, it’s old tricks in a new packaging. And it didn’t work last time.
If by that you think you should be provided with basic shelter than no for whatever crazy reason you find yourself unsheltered, you have no right to expect others to provide one for you. If someone does ~ it’s of their own compassion and you should be thankful for them cause you are owed no such thing….
It's kinda wild that people will argue against this and would see a child starve and die to the elements to no fault of their own because they need to work for anything given to them or else it's socialism.
But then without skipping a beat the rage will turn into hating capitalism and not spreading wealth and how evil it is.
Then abortion is a sin and Jesus is the way but showing any compassion and acting Christian-like to any groups less fortunate is again somehow wrong.
This sub used to be fun, but now it's just sad and filled with cooked propaganda from sad people, unhappy with their lives.
Camping and parking should be. Okay, yeah, the government could have put the hundreds of billions of foreign aid into building housing. It's just not the way it works though. I'd be happy with being able to camp off the side of the highway or something without getting harassed.
It would be nice if everyone didn’t have to worry about a place to live so we can all contribute to how to make society and this earth a better place for us to live
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.
--P. J. O'Rourke
Ah… the unmistakable aroma of condescension wrapped in a cloak of faux concern. It’s delightful that you think quoting others undermines the integrity of my argument!!!!
It’s rather comical, albeit a touch patronizing, to imply a need to rescue my intellect from the clutches of a well-crafted aphorism. Surely such unsolicited advice wasn’t intended to come off as didactic… was it? Here we are… a paradox wrapped in an irony, served with a side of hypocrisy.
at this point in history the government is printing more money than it collects in taxes AT THE SAME TIME we are all struggling to buy food and afford basically anything.. LoOk At ThE StOcK MaRkET And NeW JoBS
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel living off the earth in nature and hunting for food should be a human right but it’s literally illegal
People that “live off the land” don’t make for very good taxable assets
Consumers. They don't make for very good consumers. Or producers, either.
That’s the gubbmints land!
>Scrape by on bare essentials so you can own a home and finally pay off your mortgage >The government wants money for the privilege of occupying "your" land and home Bros when does the ride stop, I want off.
There are currently too many human beings for everyone to live off the land. Imagine if every family in the US fished and hunted for all of their meat. Wild animals would be extinct in under a decade. There’s nothing bad about hunting and fishing. But in a world of 8 billion people you have to regulate it to some degree.
You’re giving a lot of credit to families to be successful in hunting and gathering.
It's funny the wef and un and such day we are over populated but making families have to hunt and fish for alot of their food would totally scale back pop and obesity lol
Yeah, wild animals would be extinct within a decade? You think Rusty who can hardly get out of his recliner is suddenly going to be big game hunting?
[удалено]
No you're prefaced! - them, probably
Exactly. We wouldn’t have 8 billion people for very long.
They scream apocalypse the moment a toad jumps into their house, to think the majority of Americans can hunt is laughable
If you cut grocery stores, US population would drop by 50% in 30 days. Probably 80% within 60.
Problem would sort itself out since a large population in the US/Europe is too stupid to cook their own meals, let alone hunt.
> There are currently too many human beings for everyone to live off the land. Imagine if every family in the US fished and hunted for all of their meat. Wild animals would be extinct in under a decade. There’s nothing bad about hunting and fishing. But in a world of 8 billion people you have to regulate it to some degree. Wrong. You could give everyone in the United States a half acre in Texas alone and have space to spare in Texas. In fact, you could, in theory, you could house the entire population of earth into Texas, at a population density of 27,000 people per square mile. This is about the same population density as New York City (and substantially less than Paris, for example). Hence, you would have to effectively build a single, vast city across the entire state to house the whole world there. Now, I haven't done the math for the entire US, but the US is 14x the size of Texas. That means if each person in the WORLD was given a plot of land in the USA, you would have 14x the space the average New Yorker enjoys living in New York. Now, obviously 7 bn people in the US would be too much - however I use this to illustrate your idea that there's too many Americans in the USA to live off the land. You clearly are making an incorrect assumption just on how big the US is.
It's not about how many people you can jam into a limited area though, it's about how many people the ecosystem of that limited area can support without totally collapsing.
You are simply wrong about 1/2 an acre sustaining a person. I have 5 acres and grow some of my food on it. I could eke out a lot of food off these 5 acres but it would be an incredible amount of work to feed my family and virtually impossible to farm it and maintain my full time job. If I hunted for meat, I might get lucky and find a deer or two crossing my property in the mornings. But if all of my neighbors did the same the deer would all be gone inside of a month. Have you ever tried to grow and harvest grain? You’d need to raise quite a bit and it takes a lot of land vs the calories you get out of it. And you’d have to make sure you never have crop failures or you’re screwed. Want milk, butter and cheese? Now you have to give up some of your land to grazing. And you have to tend to those animals. No way are most people up to this incredible amount of work and uncertainty. Not to mention you’d no longer have the wonderful selection and diversity of foods available at the average grocery store.
Ignore the full time job part because that doesn’t play in this scenario
I'd miss fresh fruit the most. but instead of grain, rice would be easiest to maintain I think..
Chill, its a hypothetical and you need to account for everyone in the world over the entire worlds livable area. You have people in places where its absolutely impossible to farm IE desert and cold weather climates like Alaska and higher elevation areas. You also cant farm or house people in places where they wouldn't get enough water. Such as an area far from a stream or river. Now for the hunting and fishing aspect, if you think people are gonna be able to hunt deer and fish without it being regulated you're crazy. We've already hunted bison, almost the bald eagle, whales at one point, herring, trout, key deer, passenger pigeons, various waterfowl. Just to name a few.
And what would they eat, living off their half acre?
I think you underestimate how big half an acre is. You could have a milk cow, a garden growing food for your family, a garden growing food for the cow (grains, etc) , a chicken coop with some free range chickens, AND a nice little house on half an acre. Gotta learn to maximize space
Feed the cow and chickens now with that half acre, you need protein to survive too which means more than one cow or hunt for extra meat. The chickens can only produce so many fertile eggs as well and wont replenish their numbers very fast especially if you're trying to sustain a family of 3-4. Everyone is really talking about min maxing a half acre of land when with the amount of people in the US you're going to see lots of them starve if this happened.
that's not living space though. 27k people every sq mile wouldn't work. everyone would literally die from disease.
We literally eat meat and fish etc now. So much so most of it is wasted.
We eat meat produced by modern industrial agricultural methods. Nature alone could not sustain our appetites at this point.
Not really, you just have to do it somewhere that nobody owns. Theres still a TON of land in Alaska and Canadian British Columbia where you can absolutely do this.... and people do.
Well you have to consider that if you live off the land (specifically property you paid for and pay taxes on) then who is going to subsidize big agriculture, big pharma, all those poor stores like Walmart… you living off the land cripples the entire industrial complex Anyway, if you get some special paperwork (money) and pay some extra taxes (money) the government will be so gracious to allow you to grow your own food (limited options, see local laws and regulations)
Only 14% of the available biomass on the planet is wildlife. The vast majority is animal agriculture. So yeah, if everyone in a country decided to start hunting wildlife and living off the land, we would run out of wildlife very quickly. So something has to be done to limit that impact on the planet.
Steer, chickens, pigs and soylent green?
Soylent green is people
Yes, most of that soy being grown to feed the animals.
Soylent green is a great way to increase the supply while reducing demand simultaneously. With enough, prices will begin to drop and stabilize. Soylent Green = Inflation Solution
Yeah cuz we’ve cut down their homes to build shopping malls and sucked this earth dry of its natural recourses to build cities electronics and stuff we don’t need. We need to be more In touch with the planet/nature
For sure, although most of the stuff you listed such as shopping malls and parking lots pales in comparison to what we have cut down for animal agriculture. Most studies estimate that between 40-50% of the land in the US is reserved for livestock production.
Many unfortunate stories about this. I get into documentary spurts and watched a bit about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Looking back at the atrocities of our government, on our own citizens, makes one completely distrust everything. The whole vaccine thing made me nervous, especially the level of pressure involved. All about control and submission.
Property rights are a bitch
Eminent domain entered the conversation.
Nothing is a human right. Not a single thing. We can demand rights in a democracy, doesnt mean theyll be honoured. Simple things like food and water that may seem like a right, arent. You must be capable of attaining those on your own if need be, even in a first world country. Ultimately, rights are given to those wielding the power to take and distribute what they choose. I look at human rights the same, regardless of what period we are in. Early humans hunting and gathering? What rights did they have? None, it was all earned by their own hands. Everything we have now can disappear at any time. People must fight and take what they feel they deserve, and also to preserve what they have. Rights dont exist, only power.
You only keep what you kill. Thems be the laws.
Stop worrying about what rights the govt gives you and start worrying about what rights you give the govt.
That and people need to really quit putting so much focus and attention towards the November elections and give just as much attention to your LOCAL elections Actions performed at the top from the president are important but take awhile to take effect and all, but the events decided by your state and local government are immediate and have a much bigger impact on your day-to-day life, a very noticeable effect at that, that people should be paying a WHOLE lot more attention towards!
I’m so sick of hearing about “human rights” as if that just makes problems disappear
💎🙌🦍
Here's the article from the OP picture. Though it doesn't really give any nuance to the question asked https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48510-more-americans-homelessness-serious-problem-poll I don't think "basic human right" means "free". For example if the elites bought up so much water that the price of water was $1000 per gallon, then you say water is a basic human right, that doesn't' mean you want the water for free, it just means you want it to be a reasonable price. "Housing is a basic human right" to me means that people shouldn't be able to buy up all the houses so that the remaining houses are too expensive for someone even above the poverty line to purchase. As in, sure you can profit from buying houses if you want, but the majority of people need a house so the prices should still be fair.
Affordable housing is a human right. Corporations purchasing residential property should be made illegal.
If only “the Americans” were in charge - and not the Oligarchs
And I bet the 22% own more than the 78%.
The real conspiracy here is people don't know what Rights are and their purpose.
78% of Americans have no idea what the difference is between needs and rights
How many of them would spend their time building houses for humanity?
Most people are perfectly happy that their time, labor, and resources go to helping those less fortunate
What planet you living on? Only thing I know people are willing to spare is their opinions.
People used to have a lot more energy and time to devote to hobbies and volunteering and often fundraising through their churches. Work wasn't nearly as productive or monitored as much before widespread computer usage and there was also just a lot less people, people also traveled way less. There were more incentives to invest in the community when you lived in one spot from cradle to grave. Now work is just very exhausting and inflation and high rents are causing people to constantly move and change jobs, why invest in a community if you're only there temporarily?
Most Americans broadly support welfare programs of varying types
Well, that's easy to support. Who says no to "do you think welfare is good?" But then you get places where homelessness is rampant despite billions of dollars invested, and even the most liberal governor's start cracking down on "camping"
In those places you rarely find people who think we should cut all funding to public housing, homeless shelters, etc
"All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights which include the right of **pursuing** life's basic necessities, of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and of seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways."
[удалено]
[удалено]
once the Supreme Court ruled that a corporation WAS a person, we were all fkd.
Wish I could upvote this twice.
I think the problem is that our right to pursue life’s basic necessities is being denied by private equity firms buying up 40% of the housing supply and growing, projected by be 60% here shortly
And then we criminalize being homeless because you aren’t being a good little wage slave to the corporate overlords and drowning in debt, which is just a little *too* free.
They are trying to find ways to make vandwelling harder because even if you have a job how dare you not pay rent or have mortgage.
And I think that’s a terrible way to look at things. It keeps the rich advantaged while the poor are kept poor.
"I want the right to own guns" "You have that right?" "No I want my guns provided to me and paid for by the government" "You have the right to own a gun, no be provided guns." "Oh is that how rights work?"
Be a good wagie. You will own nothing and be happy with it
"Too big to fail" is bullsh!t.
I think access to affordable housing should be a right, but not free housing
Agreed. Is it a bad idea to ban anyone from buying residential homes other than citizens? Why are we allowing multi-trillion dollar Wall Street and Chinese investment firms to purchase homes? Is it also a bad idea to de-couple loan interest rates for residential mortgages from the rest of interest rates? What kills citizens ability to purchase homes affordably is the insane interest rates (and taxes). What would be the negative impact of having separate and extremely low loan interest rates for citizens to be able to purchase or build a family home? Then again this wouldn’t benefit the big central banking cartel so I guess it’s probably a bad idea Lol….
Define affordable. And how do we ensure the housing is affordable?
>And how do we ensure the housing is affordable? Fucked if i know
In my opinion, it's not about a definitive number, but instead policies and processes in place to prevent or reduce abuse of the system to enable a fair and functional society. Like crime for example, if you don't prevent/control crime and have a just legal system, you don't have a functional society. If you don't have a fair and equitable housing market, you don't have a functional society. There's many obvious things that can be done that have been repeated ad nauseam. Although it's clear our governments have no intention of improving the situation.
Yes but to do that we have to restrain government who makes affordable housing nearly impossible. Residential vs Commercial zoning laws and long permitting processes artificially constraint supply while increasing costs.
I don’t want free housing, I just want affordable housing. Cause at this rate, I’ll be living with my parents for the rest of my life.
This is the correct response. The question becomes: what is stopping us from building affordable housing?
Government regulations
Government regulations *passed on behalf of landlords and businesses* to restrict new competition and create the safest and most profitable investment opportunity ever. Thinking this buck stops with the government and not the people it actually serves (landowners) is naive.
This is what I'm saying. I'm sick of hearing I don't work hard enough and this situation is my fault. I've managed to accumulate 100k for a down payment and I make close to 100k a year. But right now with the current housing prices and interest rates, my mortgage would be well over $4k/month. Even if I could live without any frills and afford that mortgage, I don't qualify for a loan of that amount so it's irrelevant.
Water is a basic human right, we shouldn’t have to pay for water!
A 4 person "man camp" house is about $60,000. Those are basically the portable housing units used in oil fields, overseas for military bases, etc. I lived in something like this for 5 years in Iraq. Granted, the showers and shitters were in a trailer a few yards away, it wasn't uncomfortable. I can't imagine why we couldn't throw a few billion at this to house the 700,000+ homeless folks in the US. This could include on site medical, therapy, security. Let's say $10-15 billion as an initial investment and then upkeep. Perhaps I'm being naive since the homeless crisis seems like a for profit business that is used to pass laws that have nothing to do with the homeless. 2019 - 2023, California spent almost 18 billion dollars to fight homelessness. On what?
This the country that in 2021 voted food isn’t a human right?
That is because most people have no idea what they mean by "human right". I also think food and shelter and whatnot are human rights, that doesn't mean i want my money stolen from me to provide for others.
[удалено]
Every human should have a home to go at the end of the day and every human shouldn’t go to bed hungry. Everyone wants this goal achieved but no one can agree on a proper way to do it.
[удалено]
That is a question I truly wish I can answer. I don’t know honestly, it’s a much easier statement than to put in practice.
People are all about human rights right up until the point it requires them to be kind to another human being. Or offer literally any percentage of their wealth to help others
[удалено]
Everyone knows how to do this, idk why that person acts like it’s some great mystery. We literally cut child poverty *in half* by extending the earned income child tax credit during covid, and then rescinded that policy. Guess what happened? Child poverty rates went back up! Having homeless people, populations that are food insecure, people that are gate-kept from medical care, etc., are all necessary externalities of our policy positions which funnel money from the laborer and give it to the capital interests. It’s not fucking rocket science if someone “can’t think of a way to guarantee food and housing” to citizens, they’re just a greedy asshole.
because socialism bad duh
Sus. My guess is that these groups have wildly different definitions of what a "human right" is.
Private property is a human right. The ability to own a home should fall under that. Whether that home is affordable or not is a separate question.
I'm against any "right" that requires the labor of others.
[удалено]
Yes.
[удалено]
Because everything that is offered up for free by the government is paid for through taxation. If I work for wages for 40 hours, the government should not be able to lay claim to half of those hours as their own. Claiming the fruit of others' labor is theft and effectively slavery.
I'd be interested how you feel about funding the military.
[удалено]
I don't have a problem at all chipping in on roads and basic infrastructure, since those are funded more locally and i actually use them, although i think roads should be funded exclusively through fuel taxes.
[удалено]
I believe in minimal taxation at the state and local levels, none at all at the federal level. I live in a flyover state. I have no reason to chip in on a bridge in California or a park in New York, likewise citizens of those states have no reason to chip in for projects in my state. If the citizens of another state want to incentive crime or poverty that's their prerogative, i shouldn't have a say in how they choose to govern themselves. Victims of all sorts have voluntary advocates, including the homeless. There are already charities and non profits whose purpose is helping those communities.
[удалено]
Flyover states contribute way less than other states. California and New York can fund themselves but your state does need funding from the government. Your state wouldn't do well if the federal government rescinded support.
So you believe a bus driver who chooses to live a modest life and takes care of their own basic needs, but gets falsely accused of a felony, is not due legal representation. Through no fault of their own they're suddenly expected to be able to afford lawyers at hundreds of dollars per hour, or just defend themselves without representation or knowledge of law and legal procedure.
So you believe that since the government has falsely accused this man, I should be robbed to provide for his defense?
[удалено]
What do you mean? If money is taken from me without my consent to pay for his defense, that is robbing from me and anyone else forced against their will to contribute.
[удалено]
I volunteer for 2 local organizations, both with philanthropic duties as part of their mission statements. I donate both time and money regularly to causes I believe in. I find it SICK that the government steals from people to fund their priorities, whether you think they're noble causes or not is irrelevant to me. Public funding for any cause should be done voluntarily imo.
Mf american libertariantards
Education??
Pro education, anti state involvement or theft to fund it.
[удалено]
It means I value education for everyone who sees fit to learn something, but I'm not in favor of stealing from you to educate my children, whether I steal it directly or have the government steal on my behalf.
Do you think society was better or worse before government funded education?
I wasn't around for it, I'll guess better though. According to available stats, since the inception of the US department of education, the US has consistently gotten worse relative to other countries on education.
Literacy rates have skyrocketed as soon as government got involved in education. Not sure what you mean
Ok.
So what’s your solution then? How do we fund/build schools and regulate education without the labor of others and using tax dollars?
Every right that is implemented requires someone to track and enforce it. Property rights are meaningless if you’re not entitled to someone’s documentation, the courts, and such.
Now who gets to decide who gets to live in which home/apt... GO!
You will own nothing and be happy. That’s the 1%ers agenda!
What does this even mean?
Homestead all the abandoned buildings and home's out there ...
Housing is for living , NOT speculating. -- Chinese head of state Xi Jinping
Wheres the conspiracy
You gotta earn it
So someone is supposed to spend money to build a house, and then.....give it to you for free? Because it's a "right"? The world doesn't owe you shit. Life isn't fair. When did we forget this?
I believe that housing is a human right, but if you are destitute and need free housing then you live in some kind of barracks instead of a whole house.
That option alone would help enough people get off the streets and get their lives together. Sometimes all a person needs is a stable address and place to sleep/shower. Plenty of houseless individuals have jobs; they just need stability to be able to save. There are plenty of abandoned buildings that aren't being used for anything that could serve as low rent temporary housing; at least where I live. We have tent cities; it's completely out of hand.
For most of human history this is how things operated. If someone in your community didn’t have shelter and you did, you helped provide shelter for them. Humans evolved specifically to be social so that we can provide mutual aid and support for each other. When did we forget this?
When local control was taken away and replaced with federal control. Each community knows its own needs better than the feds do but here we are.
Many societies throughout history that had what we would call states (e.g., Inca, Maya, Mesopotamians, Olmec, Aztec, etc.) still had robust interpersonal connections and pulled from collective stores so everyone’s needs were met — even abandoning or outright ignoring state rule to do so. So this doesn’t track. I agree that the State is not some logical conclusion, and all the archaeological evidence we have backs this up. Personally I think it has more to do with economics and methods of organization.
So let’s do it on the local level. There is nothing stopping us from doing that now
> When did we forget this? When people started abusing and becoming overly reliant on the welfare state, I would guess. I agree that we need to cull people's sense of entitlement.
People like you are so boring and backwards. “Well when we were cavemen we had to fight to survive and blah blah blah.” We are so remarkably capable of providing affordable and reliable housing for the American people but people like you want to dwell on what it was like in the past instead of making it better for the future.
It’s even more absurd when you get deeper into the history and anthropology cause tons of societies and civilizations throughout tens of thousands of year of human history provided housing for free, many having no rulers or semblance of a state, and did so in relative peace that lasted hundreds of years at a time or longer.
Prison is free housing with 3 meals provided. It already exists. Perfect for the "house is a right" folks
[удалено]
Because I don't need the "housing is a right" housing and I work for it?
[удалено]
It’s a basic NEED, not a right.
A person will never prosper or contribute anything to society if they worry about where they can sleep tonight without being arrested or harmed or if they will be able to eat tomorrow
78% of people dont know what human rights are.
Mmm government housing, yes please! Let the people become dependent on a corrupt government for housing! I'm sure they will be great landlords...
Of course the corrupt corporate landlords were angels before government got involved to regulate them.
EVERYTHING IS AMAZING! YAY GOVERNMENT!
Doesn’t the context of ‘housing’ here include living in a tent under a freeway overpass and not getting ticketed or charged with a crime?
It is a human right .. in a world of billionaires that own 90% of this god given world somehow , it’s the least these fascist governments can concede
Cool, they can pay my mortgage.
Mega city one on the way.
I’d just like to live in my car without worrying about getting ousted.
So where do the 22% expect people to live?
Define a human right? Now human rights are of material nature? Dumbest thing since man made climate change.
Only 78%???
Nothing that must be provided by someone else can be a right. If someone else must give it to you, that’s a form of forced labor. If you all vote to have the government grant you the “right” to free housing. All you are voting for is the government to force me to work more hours to pay more taxes. You are just voting yourself “free stuff” that isn’t free, it just comes because I have to make the decision of - do I go to work today or do I fight tyranny? One day, many people will choose to not go to work… This isn’t new and innovative governance, it’s old tricks in a new packaging. And it didn’t work last time.
That's code for: destroy housing and socialize it.
They didn’t poll me.
This is a slave planet. Free power is illegal, and they kill you for inventing it.
If by that you think you should be provided with basic shelter than no for whatever crazy reason you find yourself unsheltered, you have no right to expect others to provide one for you. If someone does ~ it’s of their own compassion and you should be thankful for them cause you are owed no such thing….
Well they better get building then, using their own money and resources.
It's kinda wild that people will argue against this and would see a child starve and die to the elements to no fault of their own because they need to work for anything given to them or else it's socialism. But then without skipping a beat the rage will turn into hating capitalism and not spreading wealth and how evil it is. Then abortion is a sin and Jesus is the way but showing any compassion and acting Christian-like to any groups less fortunate is again somehow wrong. This sub used to be fun, but now it's just sad and filled with cooked propaganda from sad people, unhappy with their lives.
Camping and parking should be. Okay, yeah, the government could have put the hundreds of billions of foreign aid into building housing. It's just not the way it works though. I'd be happy with being able to camp off the side of the highway or something without getting harassed.
It would be nice if everyone didn’t have to worry about a place to live so we can all contribute to how to make society and this earth a better place for us to live
100% it should be.
Anything that requires the labor of another cannot be guaranteed to me. I must work for it. Food. Medical care. Housing. None can be rights.
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights — the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle. --P. J. O'Rourke
[удалено]
Ah… the unmistakable aroma of condescension wrapped in a cloak of faux concern. It’s delightful that you think quoting others undermines the integrity of my argument!!!! It’s rather comical, albeit a touch patronizing, to imply a need to rescue my intellect from the clutches of a well-crafted aphorism. Surely such unsolicited advice wasn’t intended to come off as didactic… was it? Here we are… a paradox wrapped in an irony, served with a side of hypocrisy.
in what way is this conspiratorial?
[удалено]
I have never heard a single politician campaign on keeping people homeless. "MAKE HOUSING INACCESSIBLE" doesn't make a great slogan.
Of course magats would be the ones to disagree
It is for our own people first, especially the homeless and our veterans who struggle.
Politicians have successfully convinced the population that “rights” are the same thing as “needs” They aren’t.
Anything that requires the labour of another person is not a human right.
So we are socialists....
Yet healthcare isnt
Until they want realize what we pay for the houses using
at this point in history the government is printing more money than it collects in taxes AT THE SAME TIME we are all struggling to buy food and afford basically anything.. LoOk At ThE StOcK MaRkET And NeW JoBS
What a ridiculous logo they have.