Is food and shelter a human right?

[slaughter in the vatican]

This is something I've been thinking about, and I will write a longer post expanding the idea further, but for now I have a few questions to propose. First, do you think that people do indeed have a right to free food and basic shelter? Specifically, in a postmodern, postscarcity society that can easily afford to feed every man, woman, and child - should that society provide food to its citizens?

I suppose another way of stating this is as follows: all of the products produced by our society come from the labor of the people who work in the factories, work on farms, and white-collar employees who work in office buildings. Even if they do not directly produce food or material items, even if what they produce is intellectual in nature, do they not contribute to the welfare of society? To the wealth of that society?

What if this society had such an abundance of food, such an abundance of housing, that the only problem with getting it is that it is all under lock and key - taken by the owning class and sold for profit. For instance, there are many unoccupied houses these days, and also many homeless people. But to occupy one of these houses in order to satisfy a basic human need - shelter, would result in arrest.

The same applies to food, and we saw this after Hurricane Katrina. There is an overabundance of food on store shelves. There is so much food in this country that many are overweight. Yet, hunger is still a widespread problem. Again, due to lack of money. To try to acquire some of this food without money, just to try to stay alive, either because you simply have no money or as a result of a natural disaster, would again result in arrest.

But most people work in this country, have worked in the past, or will work in the future. In essence, we all have contributed to the wealth of the country, have done so in the past, or will do so in the future. Don't we all have a right to some of the wealth we all produce? Shouldn't those who work in construction at least be given clean, basic shelter of their own? Or those who work in agriculture, should they not have the right to at least a little of the food they harvest? In a sense, wouldn't these rights extend to all of us?

Just something to think about. I want to write more about this later. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[Mr. Frostie]

But most people work in this country, have worked in the past, or will work in the future. In essence, we all have contributed to the wealth of the country, have done so in the past, or will do so in the future. Don't we all have a right to some of the wealth we all produce? Shouldn't those who work in construction at least be given clean, basic shelter of their own? Or those who work in agriculture, should they not have the right to at least a little of the food they harvest? In a sense, wouldn't these rights extend to all of us?

I don't know what millennium you've traveled here from, but in the year 2009 we've come up with a solution to this problem. When people work they get pieces of paper called "money" which represent the amount of work they've done. These pieces of paper can then be traded for food and shelter.

[Amocholes]

Food and shelter may be a necessity but they are not a right.

[Micronian]

Originally Posted by slaughter in the vatican

do you think that people do indeed have a right to free food and basic shelter?

Absolutely! All people, wherever they may live, have a right to food, shelter, health, education, and a right to be free from war/violence.

Originally Posted by slaughter in the vatican

Specifically, in a postmodern, postscarcity society that can easily afford to feed every man, woman, and child - should that society provide food to its citizens?

I suppose another way of stating this is as follows: all of the products produced by our society come from the labor of the people who work in the factories, work on farms, and white-collar employees who work in office buildings. Even if they do not directly produce food or material items, even if what they produce is intellectual in nature, do they not contribute to the welfare of society? To the wealth of that society?

What if this society had such an abundance of food, such an abundance of housing, that the only problem with getting it is that it is all under lock and key - taken by the owning class and sold for profit. For instance, there are many unoccupied houses these days, and also many homeless people. But to occupy one of these houses in order to satisfy a basic human need - shelter, would result in arrest.

Karl Marx and the rest of the super left-wingers (of which I consider myself a member) have pondered on the same dilemma. The dilemma draws explicitly from the concept of private property. In our 2009 postmodern world, private property, is a given and pretty much all nations' constitutions are derived from it. So the "lock & key" that you speak of will exist pretty much until our society implodes on itself.

However, it may also be dependent of what you consider a "right". In my case, what I mean by "right" is that people should never have zero access to any kind of food/shelter; should never be denied access to a school classroom; should never be forced to live in an environment detrimental to their health; and should never be forced to wage in war when they don't want to. In the modern western world, this isn't a problem. everyone has access to all of this, and access to upward mobility if they wish to move forward.

The problem is more in facilitating this acess, which isn't going to happen because as the powerless get more power they will revolt and turn the tide on the rich people who kicked them (which is what Marx predicts), and it wouldn't be very smart for the controllers to do that.

[Hoth]

Originally Posted by Mr. Frostie

When people work they get pieces of paper called "money" which represent the amount of work they've done.

So rich people work harder than poor people? Seems the opposite to me, in general the minimum wage jobs are the really hard horrid ones.

Anyhow, I believe some basic form of food and shelter is a right. So does my government, since there are food stamps and homeless shelters.

[LoneLioness]

Its a right everyone should have, with the exception of violent criminals that should just be put to death or tortured.

[ivankaramazov]

Originally Posted by Mr. Frostie

I don't know what millennium you've traveled here from, but in the year 2009 we've come up with a solution to this problem. When people work they get pieces of paper called "money" which represent the amount of work they've done. These pieces of paper can then be traded for food and shelter.

I laughed. Well done.

[ivankaramazov]

Originally Posted by Hoth

Anyhow, I believe some basic form of food and shelter is a right. So does my government, since there are food stamps and homeless shelters.

Programs like that don't exist because government thinks everyone should eat, they exist to curb the violence that breeds in people that have nothing.

[max4225]

I do think it's a basic right to have comfortable shelter, food, medical care, access to books and art. There's too many crazy traditionalist workaholics playing a giant monopoly game. I believe capitalism without any upper and lower limits is unstable long-term. Taken to the extreme without bounds you'll end up back with feudalism and tyranny. No individual, government, or religion really owns this planet or the natural resources. Money is only real as much as the people believe it's real. I believe we have the potential to be a much better and fairer civilization. There's a lot of room for improvement..

[WineKitty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Frostie

I don't know what millennium you've traveled here from, but in the year 2009 we've come up with a solution to this problem. When people work they get pieces of paper called "money" which represent the amount of work they've done. These pieces of paper can then be traded for food and shelter.

While I agree with the essence of what you are saying, this line jumped out at me as that is rarely the case.

[Tangent]

No, of course they are not a human right! They are products to be bought and sold, to make profit for oneself and one's shareholders.

[millenniumman75]

It's a privilege we have to work for in the long run. I don't think it is a "right" per sé. We have the right to live the way we see fit, but we have to put effort into getting there.

[nubly]

Originally Posted by Hoth

Anyhow, I believe some basic form of food and shelter is a right. So does my government, since there are food stamps and homeless shelters.

not really. various jobs in the medical field have to go through years of education even after graduating. some work more than 40 hours a week. lawyers are known to work long hours as well. if someone chooses not to educate themselves then they should not complain about not having the luxuries they can have if they made different choices in their lives.

[huh]

Originally Posted by nubly

if someone chooses not to educate themselves then they should not complain about not having the luxuries they can have if they made different choices in their lives.

It's often not a choice. Wealth and opportunity are more often than not inherited and not earned. Some people are simply just much worse off, through no fault of their own. Inequality is inherited just as much as wealth and opportunity.

[BeNice]

I didn't know food and shelter were luxuries.

What a cut-throat society. I can't see things getting much better.

[nubly]

Originally Posted by huh

It's often not a choice. Wealth and opportunity are more often than not inherited and not earned. Some people are simply just much worse off, through no fault of their own. Inequality is inherited just as much as wealth and opportunity.

how is getting an education not a choice in this country? you can get a loan, apply for grants or you can work while going to college. you dont even need a vehicle. theres public transporation to get you around on a bicycle. yes some people are much worse off. these people have a choice to stay there or work their way out of there.

[nubly]

dude i make $30k a year. i wish i were rich.

[IHeartSteveMcQueen]

epic post.

[Mr. Frostie]

Modern society is not always fair. Some people are able to get wealthy without contributing much to society. Its significantly better than feudalism, indentured servitude or the tribal societies that our ancestors had to deal with, though. Don't you think?

I don't think its necessarily true that the most difficult jobs are the lowest paying. Most laborers and skilled trade workers make more money than at any white collar job I've ever had. The lines between white collar, blue collar, lower class, and upper class are very blurry in modern day America.

You work, you get paid for it, and you buy your basic necessities and most people in western countries even have some left over for luxury items. We even have minimum wage laws to make sure all people who work earn enough to live off of. What is the alternative? A welfare state?

The OP is complaining about a problem that I don't think exists.

[DitzyDreamer]

Wow. So basically, being able to eat and having a simple roof (not an apartment or anything luxurious as people seem to be imagining) should be considered a priviledge? So people who are less fortunate and didn't have the opportunities in life like the kid from the suburbs should be forced to starve to death or die out in the streets?

Where is your sense of humanity?