To think that a decent home is a basic human right, not a privilege

[0pheliaBalls]

I rented absolute hovels in London for years, paying vastly over the odds for flats which variously had slugs in the shower/condmned gas appliances the landlord refused to fix in the depths of winter/2ft wide holes in the ceiling through which I could see the upstairs flat caused by water damage which again the landlord refused to fix and so on. The last straw came when I went into DD's room when she was a few days old and found a rat in her carrycot with her.

I now live in another part of the country in social housing and have lived here for 10 years. DH works (for a housing charity, actually) but there was a scary bit a few years ago when he was made redundant - thankfully we qualified for housing benefit so we didn't lose our lovely home.

We feel so fortunate to have a safe, secure, pleasant home for which we pay a very reasonable rent. We're all too aware that not everyone is as fortunate, both from my previous experience (I've also been briefly homeless, slept rough and in a hostel) and DH's work. But shouldn't everyone have the right to a decent roof over their heads, at an affordable cost?

Wanted to put this to you because when I mentioned it elsewhere I was flamed and told that people have too great a sense of entitlement these days. Sorry, but I believe everyone IS entitled to a secure, decent home.

I am older than I used to be! You start to lost the rose coloured spectacles. And understand how the world works better.

But more importantly you realise that human beings are flawed. You could go further and say that a lot of people in Governments around the world, particularly the poorer ones, but quite frankly all of them, have little to massive corruption.

And the people in power have ideals that fall far short of abiding by the law for example.

Then you start to realise that that is who we are working with.

You become a realist rather than an idealist.

Nothing wrong with starting out as an idealist.

Caroldecker your wallet stealing scenario would not happen.

There is a human right to family life - are single, childless people allowed to force others to be in a relationship with them to fulfill this right?

I'm not sure whether it would come under the definition of "human right" but certainly in a fairly wealthy country such as the UK, people should not be living in substandard accommodation. Not particularly horrified by the fact that rats and slugs existed in your accommodation in London though. Anyone can have those problems however nice the accommodation is...

Op said: shouldn't everyone have the right to a decent place to live at an affordable cost.

That seems not unreasonable to me.

On the wider point of shelter, it is included in the human rights declaration thing as others have posted. The idea that all people should have adequate shelter, food, children should be educated etc are aspirational but I see no reason to leave shelter off the list.

Lastly lol to the person who decided to redefine human rights as only being allowed if they are cost free :D

whoslooking - why not? Who decides whether my right not to be robbed trumps someones right to shelter?
lovesardines My point is precisely that a right for one person that imposes an obligation on another is inherently unresolvable as who decides which trumps which.
There is a lot of discussion around whether disabled people have a right to sex using prostitutes and mnay argue (as do I) that this is not a right as it imposes an obligation on the woman.
I agree we should aim to make the world fairer, but no-one on here has suggested how this is done - lots of comments on different ways to do things, but no concrete suggestions on what

link to discussion on amnesty international stance on the sex workers thing mentioned above

Rights in law tend to follow obligations ie its a quid pro quo. That's the difficulty with animal rights - animals have no obligations, but humans can and do (with the exception of completely disenabling conditions) have obligations as well as rights. For example, parents have obligations towards their children.

How would you ensure a decent home (as opposed to safe shelter) for those who self-sabotage their own accommodation? Take a look round some of the less salubrious social housing developments and you will see from the outside they are litter strewn, with abandoned furniture, despite the local authority offering a free uplift service if arranged.

I had a mouse infestation in my house. So I bought some rat traps (more effective than mouse traps) and solved the problem. They cost a couple of pounds, plus a few squares of chocolate. I also blocked up some holes they were coming through, plus made sure I didn't leave uneaten food out.

Perhaps we are getting to the dangerous situation where we are encouraging people to think they cannot do anything for themselves and it should be someone else's responsibility. And that is always going to lead to worse and worse problems, particularly for the children of people who think like that.

"My point is precisely that a right for one person that imposes an obligation on another is inherently unresolvable as who decides which trumps which"

Erm no.

For example. One of the rights written into the universal declararion is teh right of all children to receive an education (you can google for detail if you want). Clearly education costs money. That does not mean it should be removed from the list.

The idea that only things that should be considered as human rights if they are free is ludicrous.

For example, it costs money to have the rule of law, a fair court system. Should these things be dropped because they cost money. Of course not.

The declaration is an internationally agreed shopping list of items that countries should aim for.

Your idea would have a whole bunch of really funadamental things dropped (safe drinking water costs money, for example) and would also result in different lists for poor countries as for rich. So a person in the west might have a human right to freedom from torture, while a person in another country would not. That is clearly a ridiculous state of affairs.

Reading some of the posts on this threads leaves me at a bit of a loss as to the state of humanity (or lack of it) of some people in our society.

lovesardines I have no problem with these as an ideal scenario, but not a right. To make it fair to the person paying, the reciever must have an equivalent obligation, or you are putting one person's right above another - how do you square that circle?
In order to have a house, it must be built, so we need a bricklayer. What does the bricklayer get and from whom for the house to be built?

What?

I know you views are extreme though having seen your posts on other threads and on this so maybe won't bother engaging.

I personally do not think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be discarded. I do not think that people should considered to have rights or not based on affordability.

And I'm not going to change my view

I am not sure which of my views you regard as extreme - as I posted above, I agree the UK should provide a decent standard of housing.
I am merely asking how one affords this across the globe?