31–40 of 71 posts
It almost as if housing is a human right and not an investment opportunity for the wealthy to exploit.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
There is a school of thought that says the latter is not really valid, since it may (or eventually will) be that some negative rights be violated to make it happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25: > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. https:/…
I understand wanting to protect Hawaii's heritage, etc. but landowners should be free to sell the property to whosoever they deem fit, at whatever price.
It's become a philosophical kind of question, eh? What is Hawaii, what should Hawaii be in the future. One vision is that it stays the way it is forever, becoming a "nature preserve" of a human settlement. Another vision which I suspect they're trying to avoid is "a limited resource monopolized entirely by the rich". The 2nd vision may well have happened over a longer time scale as families slowly get priced out and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
It's important to distinguish negative rights (the state cannot do X to you) from positive rights (the state is required to have X happen for you). There is a school of thought that says the latter is not really valid, since it may (or eventually will) be that some negative rights be violated to make it happen.
For the state to enforce a citizen's philanthropic right to some stuff, the have to dispossess someone else of it - after all, the state can't produce anything, it can only expropriate what's been produced.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
Legal rights can be created by passing laws. It’s possible to pass a law giving people a right to payment by the government (for example, a pension). Such payments can be used to buy goods and services that take labor as an input.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25: > Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. https:/…
Read about the recent Chilean constitution reform for what happens when people try to write a constitution based on things that would be nice to have, without seriously considering all of the nth-degree complexities that would result if those nice things were to actually be put into reality with the might of the state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not democracy when Governor decides, it would be democracy if citizens of burned city vote.
You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy > Representative democracy, also known as indirect democracy, is a type of democracy where elected people represent a group of people, in contrast to direct democracy. Nearly all modern Western-style democracies function as some type of representative democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
It's hard to say that surplus wealth generated by the labor of others should be directed towards investor/owner profits, but not towards housing for workers. The difference between these two outcomes is a policy decision.
This, too, is a policy decision, and fixing this one is both easier and would result in a more sustainable long-term wealth growth, compared to the state forcing the direction of the "surplus wealth" of economic endeavors.
[0]: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/onesheet/...
[1]: https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2022/04/uhero-hawai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing that requires the labor of others is a human right. That's not how rights work.
It's important to distinguish negative rights (the state cannot do X to you) from positive rights (the state is required to have X happen for you). There is a school of thought that says the latter is not really valid, since it may (or eventually will) be that some negative rights be violated to make it happen.