right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...Housing?

In another thread, it was mentioned that the Constitution of the United States garantees a RIGHT to housing for all people because of the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

web page

Thoughts?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Those who are lazy and refuse to work...do they have a right to a house, and if so, then who should pay for it?

Joseph Botwinick

 

No. But then...how do you define lazy?</font>[/QUOTE]I define lazy as someone who refuses to work. I even put that in my original question. There are some people in the world who do refuse to work, you know?

Is someone who has to work four part time jobs because they are trying to survive and don't have the skills for any decent full time job, nor are there many in the area, lazy? [/QUOTE]

Of course not. A person who refuses to work is lazy.

So...Habitat for Humanity is a bad thing eh?[/QUOTE]

Although I don't care for its founder, all in all, HFH is a good thing.

BTW: "I've taken a few breaths and calmed down. I am not a conservative and I apologize for my anger. I put myself on the line, trying to share a tad of my circumstances to find out what I should do and I felt mocked and degraded. I apologize for how I handled it. That's all I have to say...no need to respond." [/QUOTE]

I didn't see you get angry, so no need to apologize.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Exactly! But some people don't get the opportunity to.

Did you earn your salvation? </font>[/QUOTE]Our salvation is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore, not relevant to this political, not theological, discussion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No.</font>[/QUOTE]If your response is correct, then the Constitution of the United States does not guarantee a right to have a house, because not everyone gets it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Gold,

I could imagine a society that did as you wish they would do. I imagine a society where the majority (much larger percentage than we have in America) lives in squaller and doesn't take care of what they do have because it has no real meaning to them. Those who can work, and don't, but are given everything, are spoiled. That is not human rights. That is not dignity. That is saying, here is the lowest standard in which you can live and still survive, and that is all you are worth. Now enjoy your miserable little life while the rest of us go and find true dignity by working for what we have and living a better life.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Wow. So those who wish food and shelter for all of mankind are miserable and lazy with no dignity for others. I see, thanks for your enlightenment. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Those who wish the very lowest standard of living for those who are not willing to work while they find true dignity by earning a better life are calloused and uncaring about those who have less. It is really a very elitist attitude that says here is the very least we can give you while we go and live in our cushy homes. Instead of educating them and convincing them that laziness is not the way to go, we throw them the crumbs from our table and actually make them think they should be grateful for it. That is not dignity. That is not human rights. That is calloused elitism.

And, your welcome for the enlightenment. Hopoefully, you will actually think about it and consider the attitude that says it promotes the idea of human rights and dignity to give others the very minimum standards of life instead of trying to help them improve their lives, while we sit in our cushy homes, enjoying the excesses of life.


Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes, I have. I was bitter for a while. But, through God's grace, I moved on, and found a better job.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I am quite sure that liberal and conservative bosses alike are guilty of this.

Joseph Botwinick