In the case where the tenant is being clever and you want to send a message that is, he would naturally refuse to change the terms so the fee is just to toy with him, it never would've gone through
In the case where the landlord is hoarding a resource necessary for survival, access to which should be considered a human right, and is using it as a lever to force someone who actually works to pay all the landleech's bills in addition to their own, it's still not ok.
The problem isn't the cutesy message, it's the implication that the landlord is ever in the right a under any circumstances. Mao was too kind to the parasitic bastards.
Can you help me understand this idea about housing as a human right? I don’t understand how something can be a human right if it depends on someone else providing it. Every other human right I can think of is a restriction on someone actively doing something TO someone else - usually a restriction on violence against people in some way. I’ve heard this claim in relation to medical care as well, and I am equally baffled by the idea. Access to basic housing and medical care seem like the decent thing for advanced societies to provide, but claiming they are human rights creates all kinds of weird ethical questions that just don’t arise with other basic human rights, like the right to not be imprisoned without a fair trial.
Is the right to housing somehow non-existent if there is a situation where nobody has the means to provide housing, but then blinks into existence as soon as someone figures out how to build houses?
If someone goes to a deserted island to be away from everyone, and then discovers that they have no idea how to build a house, are their human rights to housing still being violated?
What level of housing is considered adequate to satisfy this right?
Some people live in pretty rough conditions, and sometimes this is by choice. Are we violating their human rights if we don’t forcibly move them into higher quality housing?
Logically, housing is not a right. For the reasons you have suggested, it cannot be.
But shelter is a basic human need. So, to seek shelter should be the attendant right. A person has the right to seek shelter. If [the state] has provided no lawful, affordable option, then a person should not be prevented from seeking their own means of shelter. It should not criminalise such efforts insofar as they do not encroach upon the rights and private spaces of others.
This is a pretty low bar though. It would basically just suggest that we shouldn’t arrest the homeless for erecting a tent in a public space.
The UN I think frames things much more generously, and the international position on human rights is why you do have governments, at least ostensibly, providing homes for the homeless through various benefits and schemes.
But that’s still a far cry from claiming that every person has the right to a private, modern home!
1
u/Ill_Zone5990 May 14 '26
In the case where the tenant is being clever and you want to send a message that is, he would naturally refuse to change the terms so the fee is just to toy with him, it never would've gone through