Is basic shelter a "right?"

[Disinterested]

How about basic healthcare and adequate nutrition?

[lsbskins1]

It would depend on the context of the question. Does the government have an obligation to house everyone? No. Does the government have an obligation to step in in the midst of a natural disaster or terrorist attack and make sure that anyone displaced by this action or event has some form of shelter during a period where they are in dire straights and have no means or methods available to them as an individual to alter their situation? Absolutely.

[Disinterested]

Here's the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Don't basic shelter and adequate nutrition "promote the general Welfare?"

[oranged]

Quote by: Disinterested Here's the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Don't basic shelter and adequate nutrition "promote the general Welfare?"

I wish they had specified that because I totally agree.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: oranged I wish they had specified that because I totally agree.

They were intentionally vague when they wrote it since there wasn't much precedence on which to base it. I don't believe in "strict constitutionalism" as do Scalia and Thomas.

[Jack]

How about, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? I think basic shelter and health care are covered there, too.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Isherwood How about, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? I think basic shelter and health care are covered there, too.

That was just the declaration of independence which has no legal bearing whatsoever. Did you know the original line was going to be life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, but property was replaced with happiness because some thought property was too pragmatic and not idealistic enough?

[Jack]

I know it has no legal binding, but as a credo for our nation, it does suggest that we should provide for the basic needs of survival for all our citizens.
So by "right" you were only considering whether or not it's guaranteed by existing statute, eithr state or federal?

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Isherwood I know it has no legal binding, but as a credo for our nation, it does suggest that we should provide for the basic needs of survival for all our citizens. So by "right" you were only considering whether or not it's guaranteed by existing statute, eithr state or federal?

Yes. I mean a "right" as defined by codification in statute at the federal, state, or municipal level. I've always found the concept of human rights rather novel, let alone animal rights. As I tell animal rights advocates, as soon as animals can form lobbying groups and political action committees and get laws written on their behalf, then they can have rights. Until then, we humans are at the top of the food chain and they live at our mercy!

[RickSp]

Quote by: Disinterested Don't basic shelter and adequate nutrition "promote the general Welfare?"

Would "promote the General Welfare" include digital or only basic cable? How about satellite?

There is no absolute right to be provided "basic shelter". Following a natural disaster, it is good public policy to help those in need.

[Disinterested]

digital and basic cable are privileges without which you'd be able to subside. Not so without basic shelter, nutrition, and healthcare.

So in your view, it is not government's role to provide shelter for the homeless?

[lsbskins1]

I do not wish to speak for anyone, but perhaps the point that was being made was that the government is not and can not be responsible for housing everyone. The larger issue of whether something makes for good public policy is another issue. I do not think most people who understand our system would argue that it should opperate as a giant collective and the question, as asked, could lead one to the presumption that the questioner believed that to be the case. Is housing the homeless good public policy? Yes. Does the government have the duty to provide housing to all? No. Not in the way it has the duty to provide everyone equal access to the law, or inforce Habius Corpus.

[njlemire87]

Quote by: Disinterested Here's the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Don't basic shelter and adequate nutrition "promote the general Welfare?"

Promote, not guarentee.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I do not wish to speak for anyone, but perhaps the point that was being made was that the government is not and can not be responsible for housing everyone. The larger issue of whether something makes for good public policy is another issue. I do not think most people who understand our system would argue that it should opperate as a giant collective and the question, as asked, could lead one to the presumption that the questioner believed that to be the case. Is housing the homeless good public policy? Yes. Does the government have the duty to provide housing to all? No. Not in the way it has the duty to provide everyone equal access to the law, or inforce Habius Corpus.

Why can't the government be responsible for housing and feeding and providing healthcare for everyone?

We certainly have the means. We lack the will.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: njlemire87 Promote, not guarentee.

The governmental response to hurricane katrina certainly promoted general welfare.

Rights are guaranteed by laws and protected by courts. My question remains should basic shelter, nutrition, and healthcare be a "right?"

[RickSp]

Quote by: Disinterested digital and basic cable are privileges without which you'd be able to subside. Not so without basic shelter, nutrition, and healthcare. So in your view, it is not government's role to provide shelter for the homeless?

A humane society should care for those in need. Government is probably the least effective organization to do so. In today's society government does care for the homeless and should do so until a better alternative comes along.

My sarcastic point about "basic cable" and "basic shelter" is that both, as essentially commodities, are relative measures. What would have been considered "basic shelter" when the Constitution was signed is exactly what folks in NOLA are being evacuated from. Most in Philadelphia in 1891 didn't have electricty nor running water either.

The provision of material commodities is not the same thing as an inalienable right.

[Mia]

Quote by: Disinterested How about basic healthcare and adequate nutrition?

Yes to all three. Don't ask me to defend it on any grounds, it's my opinion.

[Mia]

Quote by: Disinterested Why can't the government be responsible for housing and feeding and providing healthcare for everyone?

Because then we'd be socialists, and all sorts of problems come along with that.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: RickSp A humane society should care for those in need. Government is probably the least effective organization to do so. In today's society government does care for the homeless and should do so until a better alternative comes along. My sarcastic point about "basic cable" and "basic shelter" is that both, as essentially commodities, are relative measures. What would have been considered "basic shelter" when the Constitution was signed is exactly what folks in NOLA are being evacuated from. Most in Philadelphia in 1891 didn't have electricty nor running water either. The provision of material commodities is not the same thing as an inalienable right.

Then in that case, why don't we abandon medicare/medicaid, social security, WIC, unemployment insurance, and many other welfare programs since it's not provided for by the constitution?

If you think the private sector has managed health care adequately in the united states, you're misinformed. We spend 15% of GDP on a private health care system (by far the most of any nation in the world) and 45 million americans remain uncovered.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Disinterested Why can't the government be responsible for housing and feeding and providing healthcare for everyone? We certainly have the means. We lack the will.

I do not want to seem obtuse, but I didn't say it couldn't do it, I just said that it does not have the duty to do it. If we, as citizens, demand that of our government, it is probably within our means. It is probably debatable if it is sound policy. I can see a case being made that it will create a level of dependence on the government that will weaken our economic stregnth and quash innitative. Those arguments can not be dismissed out of hand. But, I certainly believe we can do much better than we do.