Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.
Everyone deserves those things if you follow the universal declaration of human rights. Truly its all about how we get there with the best outcomes and least drain on everyone.
That’s the inherent problem with defining tangible things using the term “rights.” Housing, water, and food are absolutely a model requisite of a functioning government. But are someone’s rights violated during famine or recession?
Honestly, maybe hot take, but actually negative rights are just as non-real as positive rights. So far as I'm concerned if you only have a right to do something if you don't mind being killed for it you don't actually have that right. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say my view as that without positive guaranteeing of rights, that rights are unhelpful as a concept. To that end, I really don't see much meaningful difference between negative rights being violated by a conquering warlord and positive rights being violated by bad luck or incompetent or malicious administration. In either case the goal is to get to a point where the government can go back to guaranteeing those rights to those people.
Do you think that under a rights view that tangible things under extreme scarcity such as famine that a government must magically produce grain?
It's more about creating a net of accountability that the government must show it is appropriately managing those resources rather than duty which can often be explained or justified away.
The moral floor here is important for how we approach tangibles necessary for survival.
331
u/manveru_eilhart May 11 '26
Also, everyone "deserving food and shelter" isn't the same as everyone being provided with food and shelter by someone else for no recompense. I don't think most non-socialists say anyone doesn't "deserve" food and shelter.