Message me
The Poverty to Opportunity Campaign blogs argues that housing is a right, and that for many that right has been violated by anti-homeless laws and a lack of affordable housing. What do you think?
Is housing a right or a privilege?
povertytoopportunity.blogspot.com - 17 weeks ago - 338 views
15 Comments Have your say. Vote up the best responses. ↓
Reactions on the web
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/wdcg)
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/wdcg)
Invite your friends
Top Politics Stories This Week
1
Comments
It's a privilege. Not everything in this country is a right. It's unfortunate that there are homeless people but that is the way it goes.
But saying "that is the way it goes" makes it sound inevitable and that is how nothing changes. There might always be a homeless population, but it should be dwindling, not growing, and they deserve not to be harassed.
Home ownership is certainly a privilege that has to be worked for, but what about the basic need of shelter?
Aggressive home lending got this country's two leading home lenders--Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae--nationalized.
However noble the goal might be that everyone should own a home or have a place to call home, it takes two parties to realize this dream. Purchasing a home requires sobriety, maturity, self-discipline & the willingness to defer today's gratification in favor of realizing the American Dream of home ownership.
let's not continue blaming victims please. there's a big difference between home ownership and basic shelter. it's completely criminal that in a society with as many resources as ours has folks still have to sleep on the street and be harassed by the cops for doing so. this tough nosed attitude that housing is a privilege can only come from those that have that privilege and have no clue what circumstances can throw someone into a situation where they are living on the street.
you all don't know why people end up where they are, and in fairness, i don't know everyone's story either. but the reality is that everyone deserves, at minimum, basic shelter and that is a basic human right.
How do you figure that basic shelter is a basic human right?
I'm sick of "positive" rights — the "right" to food, the "right" to shelter, the "right" to a minimum wage, and so forth. Whenever you hear talk of a right, realize that a "right" is really a responsibility *for someone else*. I'm all for "negative" rights, as they merely entail the responsibility to *not* violently harm someone or steal from them. I'm against "positive" rights, as they entail a responsibility to actively provide for someone else. If you want shelter, you should convince someone to give it to you in exchange for something they want; if you can't or won't do that, go convince a charity to give it to you. *I'm* not a charity.
negative rights work really well for those in power, then you don't have to confront the fact that our system of government and our economy create massive inequalities. fight to maintain your privilege man, because those hordes want to take away your precious things.
You have a choice: equality of *opportunity* (which I support) or equality of *outcome* (which you seem to support). You can't have both, as equality of one sort creates inequality of the other. I accept that people are not equally made, do not have equal abilities, and therefore will have different outcomes. You seem to want everyone to have the same outcome, meaning that you will have to continually hobble a *lot* of people to reduce everyone to your lowest common denominator.
As for those "in power" — politically speaking, there shouldn't *be* people "in power" over others, and I oppose the corrupt politicians who are continually stealing from others. Economically speaking, you *can't* be "in power" over someone else; you can only offer an exchange, not force one.
As for those hordes who want something for nothing? To hell with them.
Not treating the homeless like criminals does not hobble lots of people or reduce the population to any lowest common denominator. It simply provides a little dignity to people who are on the lowest rung of the social ladder.
Providing shelter as a basic right is a matter of equality of opportunity. It is meant to provide a base for people to make their own outcomes, not as a final destination. Without shelter, getting every other part of a productive life together is extremely difficult.
You don't get it. *Who* has to provide these people with shelter? You're more than welcome to open up your own home to them if you want, but paying for it from public funds is effectively forcing other people to provide this shelter — but hidden under the mask of taxes. These people should not have the right to force other people to provide them with shelter, *period*, just like no one should be able to force you to work to provide *someone else* with food or medical care, regardless of whether other people claim they have a "right" because they are hungry or sick. If you want to be charitable, go ahead! No one will stop you; in fact, there are plenty of charities more than happy for a check or a helping hand. But no — you want to *force other people* to be charitable, and I consider that wrong.
Excellent comment. That's exactly how I feel also and you put it so well. It's not a matter of greed either.
I'm not sure why this is being talked about as a philosophical question. As if attempts to provide housing to those who cannot provide it for themselves haven't already been made. For example, we've had public housing in this city for how many years now? Andre, you say housing provides people with the means to make their own outcomes. Should one of the outcomes not be getting out of public housing then? How has that gone? Not so well I believe. I suppose if public housing was really wonderful, we could at least say that we're housing people in a great, safe environment. But we know that to not be true either. And then what about those that abuse the system? As with any public provision, not all the services go to those most in need of them.
One of the outcomes of giving people housing should certainly be that they are able to get out of public housing and into the private market. The Chicago public housing system is deeply, deeply flawed and has failed many of its residents. There have been many abuses of the Chicago public housing system by both the residents of public housing and the officials at CHA.
But the article is about homelessness, not public housing, and I think there is a big difference between those two populations. In the current economy, many homeless people are newly homeless after losing their jobs as houses, whereas in public housing, especially in Chicago, families have lived in public housing for generations and have lived with all the inherent disadvantages that come with living in public housing. The debate over the merits and goals of public housing is a seperate one.
I agree with the article in that it calls for ending laws that treat the homeless like criminals and that as a society we should work to reduce the ranks of the homeless.
I too don't think the homeless should be treated like criminals unless they are doing something criminal of course.
But if public housing isn't the answer, what is?
a system of public housing that doesn't have segregation as its reason for being might be a start. public housing as it exists in chicago can't be taken seriously as an attempt to combat homelessness or poverty
Post new comment