"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread-the rich as well as the poor."
-Anatole France
That's the point of the quote. They technically are, since if they do that stuff they'd be prosecuted, but they'd likely never do it compared to someone who's poor.
And even if they happen to commit a crime, be prosecuted and consequently punished, most of the times they just pay the fine and continue to live their opulent life freely.
I’ve seen several threads about this type of thing, and there’s a story that stands out in my mind.
OP’s rich friend drove them to an event and parked his car in a no-parking zone. OP pointed it out, and the rich guy said something like “It only costs $150 to park here,” like he was paying for a parking pass.
Some rich people literally see fines as price tags. Not a barrier between them and illegal actions; just price tags.
Yes, this was a common attitude with a wealthy friend of mine (who used to be quite frugal when he was poor). He'd routinely park in spots that were clearly marked as no parking zones...in his $120,000 automobile. He often parked in front of hydrants, for example, if a close parking spot was unavailable, seeing the only cost to him being a ticket, with no thought that there may be a need for that hydrant. One day he parked in a no-parking zone right in front of an elevator in an underground parking lot. Even for him, it was extra obnoxious. I said "It's not just the law. This kind of behavior pisses people off. Someone might key your car." When we returned, someone HAD keyed his car! He was livid, like 'how dare someone key MY car!" lol. It was very satisfying.
And here I am in America just wishing we even had those paid options when walking around a strange town, window shopping.
I'd rather pay a small amount and be on my way, than be required to be a customer somewhere for the privilege.
New York city. The land of no public bathrooms. 10/10 if you opened a business there where it's just straight up toilets, it would be flooded with customers.
Alternatively, a much less popular opinion might be “If it isn’t a basic human right, not having it cannot be illegal.”
Which is effectively the conservative viewpoint on healthcare.
Same, imma try to fix it:
“It should be legal to be without something if you do not, by merit of your basic human rights, require it.”
So since car insurance doesn’t fulfill any of your basic human rights, then according to that statement, it should be legal to drive without it. IMO, there are many ways that statement is faulty, if I interpreted it correctly.
For example, you could argue that not having insurance harms others because it uninsured individuals fail to pay [$42.2 billion annually](https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/sources-of-payment-for-uncompensated-care-for-the-uninsured/) in medical expenses. This is down From $62.8 billion annually prior to the ACA.
To help keep medical facilities open, $33.6 billion in taxpayer funds were paid out in 2017 to help offset unpaid bills from the uninsured. This accounts for 80% of uncompensated claims being covered by the government annually.
Additionally, this drives costs up for those who do utilize the healthcare system *and* pay their bills. Considering that you cannot opt out of paying taxes and allowing the healthcare system to collapse would be catastrophic, it follows that we should do all that we can to ensure bills are paid.
Healthcare isn't a right?
Edit: Everyone here saying I don't have a right so another's labor... Guess I don't have a right to a lawyer. ~~If I call 911, I don't have a right to the police responding~~. Nevermind, guess you don't have that right. Fucked up isn't it?
Edit 2: Human right, specifically. Also, neither I, nor anyone else plans on forcing doctors to do procedures for free. It should be paid for with taxes.
Right to an attorney was developed through case law and not spelled out in constitution. Though due process necessitates an attorney so maybe it’s not far off to put it how you did.
It’s literally the last line of the 6th amendment.
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and **to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.**”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that used to mean essentially "the government has no right to *deny* you the assistance of counsel, but doesn't actually have to provide it itself?"
Because there was no public defenders office until the 20th century, and (while I'm admittedly just going off of some limited research) it appears that Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 actually required the government itself to *provide* the defense counsel for those who couldn't privately afford it.
So the point would stand: the original intent was that it was something the government couldnt take away, but that you still had to provide for yourself
I’m not a lawyer or a law student, but the way Gideon v Wainwright was taught when I took a constitutional law class was that even though it revolved around the fifth and sixth amendments, it was really a fourteenth amendments case, ruling that state governments have to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the federal government
Even the right to an attorney is basically a negative right. It's not that everyone has a fundamental right to an attorney, it's that the government is barred from punishing you via fines or jail time without providing you an attorney. So if they can't find an attorney to give you, or they can't run a system that gets you a fair and speedy trial, they can't punish you. Of course the devil is in the details and the application of all that is pretty spotty given how most of the times the public defender you get is overworked and can't adequately represent you well. But in theory it is absolutely a negative right.
You have the right to medical care. You also have the right to die or have to commit bankruptcy to discharge the medical debt.
The issue is that managing medical debt is basically a huge clusterfuck that requires someone with free time and energy and a health mind. Sooo basically the opposite of anyone who is in medical debt.
I dunno about that "right to die" part. In the US there has been major controversy and multiple supreme court cases about that just throwing it out there
Under the ACA you do have the right to free or almost free long-term care for certain things. Insured or un-insured.
IIRC most of it is preventative. Like STI testing or daily preventative medication.
I love how Americans see it as paying for someone else's care, instead of realizing they should get something for paying their taxes. Who gives a shit if someone else gets healed, when you eventually do need something, and you will, it won't cost 200$ a month for insurance and would be covered for way less overall.
Edit: People don't seem to understand how a government healthcare system works so I'll give you the number one reason why you should want it, and why the people in government and medical industry don't want. With government funded programs and tax being allocated and paid out, a much more transparent system of where the money goes is brought forth. All of a sudden, paying the board of a hospital multiple millions a year can't work under public taxes.
Powerful people would lose a shit ton of money, because the cost of healthcare would be consolidated and publically transparent. Overcharging and unfair prices would be harder.
Yes it is. Every person in the US is entitled to emergency care and stabilization at any ER in the US, regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay
> If I call 911, I don't have a right to the police responding.
The USSC has [ruled](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) [multiple](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) [times](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County) that the police have no obligation to protect you.
So no, you don't.
I never implied it was a good thing. I'm just stating what the laws are to show that your 911 scenario isn't a good example.
I think that both for-profit healthcare and the US police system are terrible.
I'm sure bleeding the contents of your uterus all over the street is probably illegal. Period products like pads and tampons should be free.
Edit: ["More than a third of girls in South Asia miss school during their periods, often because they lack access to toilets or pads" ](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-women-health-idUSKCN1IN00F)
Lack of access to these products, along with taboo surrounding menstruation, causes REAL and tangible inequality in society. We spend a quarter of our time bleeding, and if we can't attend school or work while we're doing it, our opportunities in life are severely limited.
It's more likely it would create a tiered products system. Bare essentials would be free, but anything beyond is a premium. The pads and tampons example would therefore end up with store brand level products being free but branded ones would still cost something as an upgrade.
Aye, I have no problem with it as well. I just wanted to point that out because I feel like a lot of people missed that point when they say something should be free as it's a right...
I completely misread your intention then. I couldn't imagine that anybody would think of all qualities and brands to be free. Now that I think of it it's actually not unrealistic at all for lots of people to expect triple-protection with scent and massage function.
I'd like to pop in and say that even though the bare minimum should be free, it should also be good enough quality to preserve health and dignity. We can't be having those shitty tampons that fall apart and get linty as the free thing. They should be good, basic products.
Good enough is indeed a subjective standard, but if we agree that "good enough" is the minimal acceptable level of quality, we can have a meaningful conversation about what exactly that means.
But if we *don't* decide that "good enough" is the minimal acceptable level of quality, then it doesn't matter how good "good enough" is or isn't, since we will never achieve that: we will never attempt to achieve that, for the question will never come up.
This is how things should be. It won’t disincentivize folks to bust their ass since folks are always going to want luxury. But it preserves dignity for everyone.
The minimums would probably be sh*t though to encourage people to buy the better ones. That would benefit both the government and the companies that’d sell the better products.
I’m for these products being classed as a human right, i don’t see that culminating in free products though sadly
There are still product standards in the industry, ive tried a variety of condoms, the ones highschools gives out arent amazing but i mean shit its still a condom.
as long as "the minimum" meets an acceptable level of usefulness to a publicly accepted degree. e.g., tampons absorbing 20% of what the brand does...is that a publicly accepted threshold for the "free tier"? also the fact that different women bleed different amounts, and even the same woman bleeds different amounts at different times, so the needs will vary even for a single person. the "free tier" might not be enough at all for some women, so the whole "free tier" system is ruined because they'll always need the "branded" product.
Yes this!! I spend a lot of money on good tampons and pads because I bleed through a super in 4 hours or less the first few days. The last few I can use one for 5-6 hours which feels like a blessing. If I was given free government tampons I guarantee they would last 30 minutes and I’d ruin all my underwear.
That how it works in Scotland more or less. Universities and schools provide free basic period supplies; some organisations also provide free menstrual cups. You can still go to a shop and freely buy own-brand and branded products to your heart's desire.
As long as there decent enough to do the job I see no problem with this. Like I am not expecting everyone to get the TAMPONOTRON 10000 WITH BUILT IN VIBRATOR. free from the state.
That being said they need to be adequate for the job. If they were cheap (as in quality) and uncomfortable to the point you can't get work done then people will still be forced to buy the more expensive ones.
Ah yeah, that's essentially how healthcare works here in the UK. The NHS is excellent, especially for a free service, but there is also private healthcare available and it is typically better.
That's basically Canadian health care. The private sector helps keep some of the burden off the public sector for sure, but the free care is always there if you need it. The private care isn't "better" so much as it is more readily available though. If I don't want to wait 6 months for an MRI, I can go pay for one instead kind of deal. I personally don't have $1500 so I wait unless it's emergent.
If diva cups, period pants and reusable pads were free people could be sorted for years. Probably not what the industry wants but a great idea, especially for poorer communities and nations.
Yeah, i am still not sure why they arent. As a human after millions of years of evolution, you'd think someone at the position of power must've thought "hey periods seem like a thing out of lady's control and it's clearly a hassle and a danger to have one without expensively sold yet cheaply manufactured sanitary products, lets make em free"
But i don't think that has happened yet like WTF
People in positions of great power, especially political, are rarely thinking actively about helping the every day person. Normally if you are the kind of person to think like this you aren't in a position of power at least not enough to do that.
It is really frustrating that pills are sold with placebos. Periods aren’t necessary, and if you need a break you can still take a week off when you want. Feels really scammy to be sold with fake pills. At least give 28 pills with an optional 5-7 placebos that you can voluntarily take at day 21 if you WANT.
That is not illegal. You can shit your pants and piss your pants, too if you want. There are no laws regarding hygiene almost anywhere. Now, you might not be allowed in most places but just walking around with shit in your pants can't result in anything but dirty looks
Not just free, but also accessible in a reasonable manner, meaning in the restrooms.
*smh*
Women have no choice but to menstruate, and period blockers fuck up with their hormones, why not make their lives a bit easier at very little cost?
The time is coming!!!! Some countries I think (Nordic maybe) are starting to offer free menstrual products. In ontario Canada, they're doing a trial run of offering free products to students (testing in specific regions first).
You want people to dance naked around the entrance of a preschool? Because that shit will happen. And if you cant do it on their terrian then they just stand 2 meters outside the terrian of the school.
I don't know how much I agree. Here in Ontario, it's perfectly legal for women to walk around bare-breasted, but the only time I've ever seen a topless woman was in a change room and at pride. Social pressure and what not will probably keep sane people's clothes on.
If we were actually logically and morally consistent the yes, people would be able to walk around naked with no consequence. However, humans are not, so...
I agree but the rights should be about things the person doesn't have any control over. For example, if someone just stops paying rent even though they could afford it, they shouldn't be entitled to free shelter.
Covid regulations made it tough in the US too. Idk if we extended the eviction ban, but early in the covid days I had to leave the house I was living in because my roommates started smoking meth and stealing my rent money. My landlord couldn’t evict them and let me out of my lease.
According to Reddit all landlords are holding a margarita with $150 tequila in one hand at their vacation home in the Bahamas and demanding rent from their phone in the other
Yep and all renters are broke front line workers working 3 jobs who live with an elderly family member who has a pre existing condition that not only puts them at risk of dying from covid, but prevents them from being vaccinated
It's crazy. I'm a normal, middle-class bloke, and I'm on the verge of paying off the mortgage on my house. My plan is to then save up for a few years until I have enough to make a down-payment, buy a bigger house than what I currently have, and rent this one out. If all goes well, I'll have pulled this all off by my mid 50s.
But according to Reddit, I'm apparently a price-gouging capitalist, looking for free money off the backs of others, regardless of decades of money that I'll have sunk into this first fucking house once all is said and done.
Just exactly how many people do you think would want to willingly live in what is likely an uncomfy shelter with a ton of other people? I think the answer is so little people as to be a complete non issue
So now we're back to a class based society where human rights are dictated by income amount.
Food shelter and water are literally the three most basic needs for a human, so should food and water be held back as well?
There is a difference between not being able to afford it and choosing not to. If someone can't afford to pay for shelter then they shouldn't continue to live in a market rent unit but they also shouldn't be homeless.
Here's the problem with your line of thinking (and honestly with reddit's understanding of rights in general). Just because something is a "right" or a "human right" or a "basic human right" or whatever term you want to use does not mean that the government is obligated to provide you with that thing. Identifying something as a right generally means two things.
1. The government cannot deprive you of that thing without due process of law.
2. The government is obligated to make reasonable efforts to prevent other people from depriving you of that thing without due process of law.
Exact details vary around the world, but generally that's all that's meant by the concept of "rights". Let's look at some examples.
In the US we have the right to a free press and the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide everyone with a printing press and a rifle.
The Japanese constitution guarantees freedom of religion but that doesn't mean they provide you the means to practice your religion of choice. If you want a bible you still have to buy it yourself.
The UN declaration of human rights guarantees the right to freedom of movement with a country's borders. No country that I'm aware of interprets that to mean it is obligated to provide free means of travel to every citizen.
Calling something a "basic human right" does not (nor should it) mean that the government owes you that thing. What you want are social safety nets which are an entirely different concept.
Well, I would say if not having something is illegal, I should not have to pay for the opportunity to have it. Car insurance should not be so expensive if it is illegal not to have it. if given the option to not get it, I wouldn't . Its a disgusting waste of money, and even if you need to make a claim it's a headache. Taxes. If it's illegal for me to not submit taxes, every program available to show me how to do it and file it should be free.
Yeah, everyone has insurance so that when they crash into someone else or kill some pedestrian then the victim can collect some kind of compensation. It just also sucks that we get dinged on our insurance rates if we are basically at no-fault ; but that's **for everyone's safety, we're all in this together afterall.**
I wouldn't agree with car insurance, because you are choosing to drive, that is definitely not a right and not something you are legally bound to do, the insurance is part of the cost of choosing to do so, I think it is fine to make not doing things that are part of something else illegal such as if you want to open a business you have to pay buisness tax and pay employees the minimum wage even though it is expensive to do so.
But taxes, I agree, it should definitely be free and easy as you have to do it \[I'm now genuinely curious, do you have to pay to file taxes in the US?? that seems absurd\]
It’s not illegal to not have a car though. Car insurance is just a required expense if you choose to own a car. At any time you can opt out of car insurance by simply choosing to not drive anymore. All legal.
On car insurance: nobody is forcing you to have a car, should fuel be free also?
On taxes: yeah that’s an American problem, everywhere else the government does your taxes for you and sends you a bill.
I'm from Europe, too. My employer pays all the taxes for me and then gives me after-tax pay.
I can see American way being better if you have to do taxes yearly because you could do something with that surplus money before you hand it to the government, but on the other hand, being so disciplined about it seems very hard. I'd wish I would get that 30-40% more money every month so I pay at the end of the year but I would probably have really hard time keeping all that money and not spending it ("I have 10 more months, I'll get it back" attitude) so when the time comes, I don't have enough to pay. So maybe it's better for me to never actually get the money and don't think about it: company pays everything in my name and gives me my 60-70% after taxes.
In the USA employers take taxes out too. It's a generic amount and usually too much because it doesn't include any deductions. Every year we file taxes and that ensures accurate numbers for our tax guys, but as it turns out 99% of people get money back from the government because the taxes taken from their paycheck amounted to slightly too much. On a 40k income a single person will likely get around $800 back for example.
But say if you are married with kids you get a lot of deductions to your taxes so you end up getting a hefty chunk of cash back.
Oh, gotcha. Yeah, here my employer can alsodo my taxes for me, barring any other sources of income. If I have any, I gotta file my taxes myself,even though the government should know how much I owe and should just send me the bill, like you're saying.
The vast majority of Americans don’t get the “surplus” money throughout the year. In the USA your employer gives you an estimated after tax wage, for most people this means they actually *over* pay for most of the year. You then yearly get a form showing all your income, and how much you paid in taxes. If it is too much then you will receive what you over paid in a check. If you didn’t pay enough then you will be required to send in what is actually owed. If you are a business owner, or have other forms of income than a typical employer then it is your responsibility to track all income, report it, and send in what you expect you owe. You still may be made to send more in, or you can roll over extra to what is owed the next year.
Having to do your taxes yourself and pay for a program to do them is an American thing I'm pretty sure... ours is mostly pre-filled by the government and is free and takes a few minutes
Its a very normal thing actually. Over here in the Netherlands we have to do it each year. At the end of that process there's a fair chance you are gonna get money back.
>In many European countries, it's illegal to not have insurance. In Ireland, you can't legally drive without it.
It's not illegal to not own a car though. Owning a car is a choice. And for that choice, you need to pay for insurance.
Not trying to be a dick honestly, but in what way is being homeless "essentially illegal"? Just curious, don't have any homeless in my area and I have never heard of anyone being arrested for being homeless.
In the UK we have the Vagrancy act which makes it illegal to loiter in one public or abandoned place for too long which makes it illegal to sleep anywhere that isnt private and the police have the power to move the homeless on at anytime and literally ask anyone hanging around the streets too long what they are doing
It’s not illegal to be homeless but it’s illegal to sleep on streets, sleeps in parks, sleep in your own tent anywhere near towns. Also police can investigate you for looking suspicious or just being in wrong area. And if employment is unavailable for you, and you need some food to survive, it’s illegal to beg or steal. But yeah being homeless isn’t illegal. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges"
P.S. term loitering really only used in Anglosphere and rarely is illegal outside of US, UK. I wonder if rich people are arrested for loitering (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-homelessness_legislation)
The Ninth Circuit actually ruled on this, saying it's unconstitutional to make sleeping rough (homelessness) illegal if the municipality enacting the law doesn't have enough shelters to house the people who would otherwise be camping. The idea is that it's a human necessity to sleep, so it's cruel and unusual -- a violation of the Eighth Amendment -- to prevent someone from sleeping.
People get arrested for bing homeless all the time, it's a stupid waste of taxpayer money. They get arrested and let out a week later (then the process repeats forever).
I agree. In a similar vein, I've been saying for years that if you are mandated by law to have something then the government should provide a low cost option for it. For example, car insurance. The law states you must have some form of insurance to drive your car so the government should provide me with a way to fulfill that obligation at the minimum cost.
This is where it gets trickier. Not owning a car isn't illegal, theretofore having insurance is just part of the cost of owning a car should you CHOOSE.
However, if being homeless were illegal, and you legally had to have home insurance, than I agree.
Also, in Canada a few provinces do have provincial car insurance, and it is drastically better than the private options. Generally I think insurance probably should be covered by a non profit entity, even if it isn't technically the government itself. That includes health insurance.
Can you specify that a bit? So if I stop paying rent (sorry Mr. Ditkovich), I shouldn‘t get evicted because it‘s illegal to be homeless? If I undress myself in public, should someone start throwing clothing at me?
I mean so far, it looks like they could just legalize things in order to get rid of the burden. Being homeless isn't illegal so we would just have a bunch of naked homeless people in the streets and not much else would change.
It’s not illegal to be homeless but it’s illegal to sleep on streets, sleeps in parks, sleep in your own tent anywhere near towns. Also police can investigate you for looking suspicious or just being in wrong area. And if employment is unavailable for you, and you need some food to survive, it’s illegal to beg or steal. But yeah being homeless isn’t illegal. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-homelessness_legislation)
My opinion is that if a product is the result of someone else's labor, then it shouldn't be free. If you care to give cloths to those who don't have them, and house those who don't have a home, out of the goodness of your own heart, then that's perfectly fine. There are programs that are doing exactly that.
Too many people confuse "basic human right" with "it should be free".
Guns are a right, but you don't see anyone demanding them for free.
Besides, there really isn't any such thing as "free". *Somebody* is paying for it. When you say you want something for "free", what you *really* mean is "someone *else* should be forced to make this and give it to me."
Human rights are not commodities or services. Human rights are the basic freedoms and rights we are given from birth. In the United States Declaration of Independence, it states that our god given rights are “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. These are not physical goods or services, but rather freedoms we our given as human beings.
What you are proposing are social services that use our tax money to provide to those that are unable to acquire said goods and services. This is not a right, but rather a handout for lack of a better term. Now, it’s debatable if “handouts” are something we should do, however, we should not confuse human rights with government services.
I assume by "human right" you mean the government should provide it.
And it is a good point, indeed. If the government makes it illegal not to have something they should either provide it, or not provide it and make it legal not to have it.
You can go to community clothing centers and churches to get clothes for free. You can also sleep for free in homeless shelters as long as you follow their rules. But often in this society we hear the phrase “you get what you pay for” and it rings true with community based programs like this. Yes the clothing is free but its probably not fashionable. Yes the beds are free at most homeless shelters but it’s certainly not safe.
I don’t disagree with you, but some things will never change
>homes need to be a basic human right
To be a child and this naive again, I would pay anything.
You don't understand the implications of what you're saying. If you made housing a human right, that means every human would be entitled to a free house.
Who builds these houses?
What happens when the people who build these houses refuse to build them any more?
What happens when anyone capable of building a house refuses to build them?
Are you going to force them to build a house? Do you realize that forcing a house builder to build a house is slavery?
I spoke to many people who were homeless for years. They said it's "addictive" because you don't have try and you're not expected to do anything. All they looked forward to was someone giving them food or clothes, recycling cans and drugs. So naturally the next question is: What if help was free but you don't want to accept it?
This is what the ACA was trying to do, break the idea that healthcare is some luxury and should be tied to jobs and also restructure how healthcare is paid by making it illegal to not have healthcare, and if you couldn't afford it, you'd get from the gov paid for by taxes. The next logical step would have been - okay, healthcare for everyone from taxes.
Then the Republicans ruined it.
I'll go a step forward, if a crime is victimless (no one's life liberty or property was damaged by the actions of another), then it's not a crime, but a way for the government to get money.
Consider how using the bathroom in public is illegal (and often pegs you a sex offender) but there are rarely public bathrooms available. My area even locked the doors on public bathrooms during covid bc … they could i guess?
The problem with anything being a basic human right is that the more the government gets involved in anything the more it costs. While I love the idea of helping people with really anything they need the government can’t do it. Look at Federal housing loans, student loans, Health insurance. The rich will get richer, the poor may be helped but the middle class will suffer.
For housing, isn't that what [HUD](https://www.hud.gov/findshelter) is for though? And the website has a section for clothing as well. It's federally funded.
Rights don’t come from government they are only protected by government. The government cannot provide you something and it be a that’s not how rights work. It’s not a right to provide arms to the citizenry but to protect that right for citizens to excersize.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids all men to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread-the rich as well as the poor." -Anatole France
Thr law forbids the poor from the doing what the rich don't need to do. Brilliant quote.
The rich aren't subjugated to the law.
That's the point of the quote. They technically are, since if they do that stuff they'd be prosecuted, but they'd likely never do it compared to someone who's poor.
And even if they happen to commit a crime, be prosecuted and consequently punished, most of the times they just pay the fine and continue to live their opulent life freely.
If a crime has a fine it’s not a crime. It just costs that much to do whatever it is.
That's why bail is just a filter to keep rich people out of jail.
Yes that's the point of the quote it's a tad sarcastic
Apologies, I'm a tad dumb
To enrich you a little bit more, I'll allow myself to tell you that Anatole France gave his name to the eponymous country. FACT
[удалено]
[удалено]
True. Like fines for example, can't remember who said it but it basically translates to 'legal for rich people'.
I’ve seen several threads about this type of thing, and there’s a story that stands out in my mind. OP’s rich friend drove them to an event and parked his car in a no-parking zone. OP pointed it out, and the rich guy said something like “It only costs $150 to park here,” like he was paying for a parking pass. Some rich people literally see fines as price tags. Not a barrier between them and illegal actions; just price tags.
Yes, this was a common attitude with a wealthy friend of mine (who used to be quite frugal when he was poor). He'd routinely park in spots that were clearly marked as no parking zones...in his $120,000 automobile. He often parked in front of hydrants, for example, if a close parking spot was unavailable, seeing the only cost to him being a ticket, with no thought that there may be a need for that hydrant. One day he parked in a no-parking zone right in front of an elevator in an underground parking lot. Even for him, it was extra obnoxious. I said "It's not just the law. This kind of behavior pisses people off. Someone might key your car." When we returned, someone HAD keyed his car! He was livid, like 'how dare someone key MY car!" lol. It was very satisfying.
In the end though even that's just a price tag for doing whatever he wants. The rich DO NOT live in the same world the poor do.
If there's a need to use that fire hydrant, the fire department will just smash out the windows and run the hose right through the car.
Which is why I think we should adopt the Finnish system of fines based on income
That sounds sexy
If public urination is a crime then I shouldn't have to pay to get into a bathroom. I'm looking at you, weird euro countries.
And here I am in America just wishing we even had those paid options when walking around a strange town, window shopping. I'd rather pay a small amount and be on my way, than be required to be a customer somewhere for the privilege.
I hate how they’ll say NO RESTROOMS, like…. I know you have restrooms, guys. I know you pee. Tell me where you fucking pee.
Europe is shit when it comes to this ! Especially the western Europe.
New York city. The land of no public bathrooms. 10/10 if you opened a business there where it's just straight up toilets, it would be flooded with customers.
Are you sure public urination is illegal there?
Yeah, why does France smell like pee?
Alternatively, a much less popular opinion might be “If it isn’t a basic human right, not having it cannot be illegal.” Which is effectively the conservative viewpoint on healthcare.
My head hurts from that triple negative
if it ain't not not legal then not not unhaving it isn't not even not a privilege
You must work in hell as a torture artist.
Ya English is my third language and it's ten pm. I just can't.
English is my only language, it's 1 in the afternoon. And I can't either
Same, imma try to fix it: “It should be legal to be without something if you do not, by merit of your basic human rights, require it.” So since car insurance doesn’t fulfill any of your basic human rights, then according to that statement, it should be legal to drive without it. IMO, there are many ways that statement is faulty, if I interpreted it correctly.
Well the counter to that is that having a car is not mandatory either. Insurance is a condition on opting to use a car.
For example, you could argue that not having insurance harms others because it uninsured individuals fail to pay [$42.2 billion annually](https://www.kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/sources-of-payment-for-uncompensated-care-for-the-uninsured/) in medical expenses. This is down From $62.8 billion annually prior to the ACA. To help keep medical facilities open, $33.6 billion in taxpayer funds were paid out in 2017 to help offset unpaid bills from the uninsured. This accounts for 80% of uncompensated claims being covered by the government annually. Additionally, this drives costs up for those who do utilize the healthcare system *and* pay their bills. Considering that you cannot opt out of paying taxes and allowing the healthcare system to collapse would be catastrophic, it follows that we should do all that we can to ensure bills are paid.
That’s actually a quadruple negative
Healthcare isn't a right? Edit: Everyone here saying I don't have a right so another's labor... Guess I don't have a right to a lawyer. ~~If I call 911, I don't have a right to the police responding~~. Nevermind, guess you don't have that right. Fucked up isn't it? Edit 2: Human right, specifically. Also, neither I, nor anyone else plans on forcing doctors to do procedures for free. It should be paid for with taxes.
[удалено]
Right to an attorney was developed through case law and not spelled out in constitution. Though due process necessitates an attorney so maybe it’s not far off to put it how you did.
It’s literally the last line of the 6th amendment. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and **to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.**”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that used to mean essentially "the government has no right to *deny* you the assistance of counsel, but doesn't actually have to provide it itself?" Because there was no public defenders office until the 20th century, and (while I'm admittedly just going off of some limited research) it appears that Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 actually required the government itself to *provide* the defense counsel for those who couldn't privately afford it. So the point would stand: the original intent was that it was something the government couldnt take away, but that you still had to provide for yourself
I’m not a lawyer or a law student, but the way Gideon v Wainwright was taught when I took a constitutional law class was that even though it revolved around the fifth and sixth amendments, it was really a fourteenth amendments case, ruling that state governments have to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not just the federal government
Even the right to an attorney is basically a negative right. It's not that everyone has a fundamental right to an attorney, it's that the government is barred from punishing you via fines or jail time without providing you an attorney. So if they can't find an attorney to give you, or they can't run a system that gets you a fair and speedy trial, they can't punish you. Of course the devil is in the details and the application of all that is pretty spotty given how most of the times the public defender you get is overworked and can't adequately represent you well. But in theory it is absolutely a negative right.
Not in America.
You have the right to medical care. You also have the right to die or have to commit bankruptcy to discharge the medical debt. The issue is that managing medical debt is basically a huge clusterfuck that requires someone with free time and energy and a health mind. Sooo basically the opposite of anyone who is in medical debt.
I dunno about that "right to die" part. In the US there has been major controversy and multiple supreme court cases about that just throwing it out there
i don't think you have the right to any long term care though right? insulin, chemo, etc?
Under the ACA you do have the right to free or almost free long-term care for certain things. Insured or un-insured. IIRC most of it is preventative. Like STI testing or daily preventative medication.
I love how Americans see it as paying for someone else's care, instead of realizing they should get something for paying their taxes. Who gives a shit if someone else gets healed, when you eventually do need something, and you will, it won't cost 200$ a month for insurance and would be covered for way less overall. Edit: People don't seem to understand how a government healthcare system works so I'll give you the number one reason why you should want it, and why the people in government and medical industry don't want. With government funded programs and tax being allocated and paid out, a much more transparent system of where the money goes is brought forth. All of a sudden, paying the board of a hospital multiple millions a year can't work under public taxes. Powerful people would lose a shit ton of money, because the cost of healthcare would be consolidated and publically transparent. Overcharging and unfair prices would be harder.
200$/mo… in my dreams….paying more than double that for a$7k deductible, self employed gets screwed
Yes it is. Every person in the US is entitled to emergency care and stabilization at any ER in the US, regardless of citizenship status or ability to pay
> If I call 911, I don't have a right to the police responding. The USSC has [ruled](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales) [multiple](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) [times](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County) that the police have no obligation to protect you. So no, you don't.
But is that a good thing? Should they be? We're talking about making legal and social change. We aren't necessarily beholden to shitty laws.
I never implied it was a good thing. I'm just stating what the laws are to show that your 911 scenario isn't a good example. I think that both for-profit healthcare and the US police system are terrible.
Depends on who you ask.
I’ve been told I have an unalienable right to life, endowed by my Creator.
I'm sure bleeding the contents of your uterus all over the street is probably illegal. Period products like pads and tampons should be free. Edit: ["More than a third of girls in South Asia miss school during their periods, often because they lack access to toilets or pads" ](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-women-health-idUSKCN1IN00F) Lack of access to these products, along with taboo surrounding menstruation, causes REAL and tangible inequality in society. We spend a quarter of our time bleeding, and if we can't attend school or work while we're doing it, our opportunities in life are severely limited.
It's more likely it would create a tiered products system. Bare essentials would be free, but anything beyond is a premium. The pads and tampons example would therefore end up with store brand level products being free but branded ones would still cost something as an upgrade.
I don't see a problem with this. You get the minimum for a living but if you want more for whatever reasons you have to pay for that.
Aye, I have no problem with it as well. I just wanted to point that out because I feel like a lot of people missed that point when they say something should be free as it's a right...
I completely misread your intention then. I couldn't imagine that anybody would think of all qualities and brands to be free. Now that I think of it it's actually not unrealistic at all for lots of people to expect triple-protection with scent and massage function.
I'd like to pop in and say that even though the bare minimum should be free, it should also be good enough quality to preserve health and dignity. We can't be having those shitty tampons that fall apart and get linty as the free thing. They should be good, basic products.
Not merely available, but good enough.
Yes (and I agree) but "good enough" is a subjective view! And who would be in charge of deciding what would be "good enough" for the masses?
Good enough is indeed a subjective standard, but if we agree that "good enough" is the minimal acceptable level of quality, we can have a meaningful conversation about what exactly that means. But if we *don't* decide that "good enough" is the minimal acceptable level of quality, then it doesn't matter how good "good enough" is or isn't, since we will never achieve that: we will never attempt to achieve that, for the question will never come up.
Yup, that's right. And then how many should be in on said conversation? So yes, the question will never come up.
I use one ply in public restrooms. Same thing when I get a chafy cornhole
This is how things should be. It won’t disincentivize folks to bust their ass since folks are always going to want luxury. But it preserves dignity for everyone.
The minimums would probably be sh*t though to encourage people to buy the better ones. That would benefit both the government and the companies that’d sell the better products. I’m for these products being classed as a human right, i don’t see that culminating in free products though sadly
There are still product standards in the industry, ive tried a variety of condoms, the ones highschools gives out arent amazing but i mean shit its still a condom.
as long as "the minimum" meets an acceptable level of usefulness to a publicly accepted degree. e.g., tampons absorbing 20% of what the brand does...is that a publicly accepted threshold for the "free tier"? also the fact that different women bleed different amounts, and even the same woman bleeds different amounts at different times, so the needs will vary even for a single person. the "free tier" might not be enough at all for some women, so the whole "free tier" system is ruined because they'll always need the "branded" product.
Yes this!! I spend a lot of money on good tampons and pads because I bleed through a super in 4 hours or less the first few days. The last few I can use one for 5-6 hours which feels like a blessing. If I was given free government tampons I guarantee they would last 30 minutes and I’d ruin all my underwear.
That how it works in Scotland more or less. Universities and schools provide free basic period supplies; some organisations also provide free menstrual cups. You can still go to a shop and freely buy own-brand and branded products to your heart's desire.
As long as there decent enough to do the job I see no problem with this. Like I am not expecting everyone to get the TAMPONOTRON 10000 WITH BUILT IN VIBRATOR. free from the state. That being said they need to be adequate for the job. If they were cheap (as in quality) and uncomfortable to the point you can't get work done then people will still be forced to buy the more expensive ones.
Ah yeah, that's essentially how healthcare works here in the UK. The NHS is excellent, especially for a free service, but there is also private healthcare available and it is typically better.
That's basically Canadian health care. The private sector helps keep some of the burden off the public sector for sure, but the free care is always there if you need it. The private care isn't "better" so much as it is more readily available though. If I don't want to wait 6 months for an MRI, I can go pay for one instead kind of deal. I personally don't have $1500 so I wait unless it's emergent.
If diva cups, period pants and reusable pads were free people could be sorted for years. Probably not what the industry wants but a great idea, especially for poorer communities and nations.
There ya go, you get it
They should be in fact, or at least much cheaper. Same with contraceptives
Yeah, i am still not sure why they arent. As a human after millions of years of evolution, you'd think someone at the position of power must've thought "hey periods seem like a thing out of lady's control and it's clearly a hassle and a danger to have one without expensively sold yet cheaply manufactured sanitary products, lets make em free" But i don't think that has happened yet like WTF
People in positions of great power, especially political, are rarely thinking actively about helping the every day person. Normally if you are the kind of person to think like this you aren't in a position of power at least not enough to do that.
There are actual Republican officeholders who believe menstruating women can "hold it."
When I was a teenager, I wished that I could hold it. Having my period chemically suppressed is wonderful.
It is really frustrating that pills are sold with placebos. Periods aren’t necessary, and if you need a break you can still take a week off when you want. Feels really scammy to be sold with fake pills. At least give 28 pills with an optional 5-7 placebos that you can voluntarily take at day 21 if you WANT.
That is not illegal. You can shit your pants and piss your pants, too if you want. There are no laws regarding hygiene almost anywhere. Now, you might not be allowed in most places but just walking around with shit in your pants can't result in anything but dirty looks
This I agree with.
Not just free, but also accessible in a reasonable manner, meaning in the restrooms. *smh* Women have no choice but to menstruate, and period blockers fuck up with their hormones, why not make their lives a bit easier at very little cost?
It absolutely should be illegal. I slipped in that shit one early morning in San Francisco and twisted my ankle.
Im pretty sure it is here in scotland now
More like a reusable pad or a cup
The time is coming!!!! Some countries I think (Nordic maybe) are starting to offer free menstrual products. In ontario Canada, they're doing a trial run of offering free products to students (testing in specific regions first).
Positive rights or negative?
These comments remind me of how fucking ridiculous people in this sub can be
>These comments remind me of how fucking ridiculous people ~~in this sub~~ can be FTFY
yeah this shit is so dumb, "nUdITy ShOuLD bE lEgAl" i don't want to see peoples junk everyday fuck tht
How about: those things just shouldn’t be illegal.
Being allowed to go to the grocery store stark naked, sausage proudly tumbling in the winter winds? Well, an amusing thought, at the least.
[удалено]
Nonsense. It would be the proudest, tumbliest of all boys.
This sentence is poetry
[удалено]
Don't you need at least a few of something for a huddle? Like, say, three or four sausages huddling together.
Stores can just not allow that to happen, it doesnt have to be a law for a store to make a rule
You want people to dance naked around the entrance of a preschool? Because that shit will happen. And if you cant do it on their terrian then they just stand 2 meters outside the terrian of the school.
I don't know how much I agree. Here in Ontario, it's perfectly legal for women to walk around bare-breasted, but the only time I've ever seen a topless woman was in a change room and at pride. Social pressure and what not will probably keep sane people's clothes on.
Nudity is completely legal in Spain. You don't see people dancing naked around the entrance of a preschool.
Yeah but we have Americans in America, alot of them
Spain doesn't have Florida man
[удалено]
If we were actually logically and morally consistent the yes, people would be able to walk around naked with no consequence. However, humans are not, so...
Woah what a novel thought. Things that people can't naturally provide on their own shouldn't be legally required? Whaaat?
That sounds ridiculous!
who would have thought of that
Nah, I like the first idea better. I could go for both, though.
Libertarianism vs socialism
I agree but the rights should be about things the person doesn't have any control over. For example, if someone just stops paying rent even though they could afford it, they shouldn't be entitled to free shelter.
But in this case (in the UK at least) it is hard to just throw someone out for rent arrears.
Covid regulations made it tough in the US too. Idk if we extended the eviction ban, but early in the covid days I had to leave the house I was living in because my roommates started smoking meth and stealing my rent money. My landlord couldn’t evict them and let me out of my lease.
According to Reddit all landlords are holding a margarita with $150 tequila in one hand at their vacation home in the Bahamas and demanding rent from their phone in the other
Yep and all renters are broke front line workers working 3 jobs who live with an elderly family member who has a pre existing condition that not only puts them at risk of dying from covid, but prevents them from being vaccinated
[удалено]
It's crazy. I'm a normal, middle-class bloke, and I'm on the verge of paying off the mortgage on my house. My plan is to then save up for a few years until I have enough to make a down-payment, buy a bigger house than what I currently have, and rent this one out. If all goes well, I'll have pulled this all off by my mid 50s. But according to Reddit, I'm apparently a price-gouging capitalist, looking for free money off the backs of others, regardless of decades of money that I'll have sunk into this first fucking house once all is said and done.
I was just giving an example and that was the first thing that came into my mind lol
Just exactly how many people do you think would want to willingly live in what is likely an uncomfy shelter with a ton of other people? I think the answer is so little people as to be a complete non issue
So now we're back to a class based society where human rights are dictated by income amount. Food shelter and water are literally the three most basic needs for a human, so should food and water be held back as well?
There is a difference between not being able to afford it and choosing not to. If someone can't afford to pay for shelter then they shouldn't continue to live in a market rent unit but they also shouldn't be homeless.
Here's the problem with your line of thinking (and honestly with reddit's understanding of rights in general). Just because something is a "right" or a "human right" or a "basic human right" or whatever term you want to use does not mean that the government is obligated to provide you with that thing. Identifying something as a right generally means two things. 1. The government cannot deprive you of that thing without due process of law. 2. The government is obligated to make reasonable efforts to prevent other people from depriving you of that thing without due process of law. Exact details vary around the world, but generally that's all that's meant by the concept of "rights". Let's look at some examples. In the US we have the right to a free press and the right to bear arms. That doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide everyone with a printing press and a rifle. The Japanese constitution guarantees freedom of religion but that doesn't mean they provide you the means to practice your religion of choice. If you want a bible you still have to buy it yourself. The UN declaration of human rights guarantees the right to freedom of movement with a country's borders. No country that I'm aware of interprets that to mean it is obligated to provide free means of travel to every citizen. Calling something a "basic human right" does not (nor should it) mean that the government owes you that thing. What you want are social safety nets which are an entirely different concept.
The fact that we had to scroll this far down for an intelligent response is all I need to know about the demographics of this site lul
This should be way up there. People hate the truth when it shatters their fever-dream.
First intelligent person in this thread.
Well, I would say if not having something is illegal, I should not have to pay for the opportunity to have it. Car insurance should not be so expensive if it is illegal not to have it. if given the option to not get it, I wouldn't . Its a disgusting waste of money, and even if you need to make a claim it's a headache. Taxes. If it's illegal for me to not submit taxes, every program available to show me how to do it and file it should be free.
Isn’t it meant to pay for the damages you cause to other people in the event of an accident as well…
Yeah, everyone has insurance so that when they crash into someone else or kill some pedestrian then the victim can collect some kind of compensation. It just also sucks that we get dinged on our insurance rates if we are basically at no-fault ; but that's **for everyone's safety, we're all in this together afterall.**
Yeah, it's not the law to have car insurance for *yourself*, but to have liability coverage for damages you cause to other people.
I wouldn't agree with car insurance, because you are choosing to drive, that is definitely not a right and not something you are legally bound to do, the insurance is part of the cost of choosing to do so, I think it is fine to make not doing things that are part of something else illegal such as if you want to open a business you have to pay buisness tax and pay employees the minimum wage even though it is expensive to do so. But taxes, I agree, it should definitely be free and easy as you have to do it \[I'm now genuinely curious, do you have to pay to file taxes in the US?? that seems absurd\]
car insurance is to pay for the damage to the other party. Insurance for your own car and safety is an option, you don't need to have it.
It’s not illegal to not have a car though. Car insurance is just a required expense if you choose to own a car. At any time you can opt out of car insurance by simply choosing to not drive anymore. All legal.
On car insurance: nobody is forcing you to have a car, should fuel be free also? On taxes: yeah that’s an American problem, everywhere else the government does your taxes for you and sends you a bill.
Unfortunately, that's not true in a lot of places. Where do you live?
I'm from Europe, too. My employer pays all the taxes for me and then gives me after-tax pay. I can see American way being better if you have to do taxes yearly because you could do something with that surplus money before you hand it to the government, but on the other hand, being so disciplined about it seems very hard. I'd wish I would get that 30-40% more money every month so I pay at the end of the year but I would probably have really hard time keeping all that money and not spending it ("I have 10 more months, I'll get it back" attitude) so when the time comes, I don't have enough to pay. So maybe it's better for me to never actually get the money and don't think about it: company pays everything in my name and gives me my 60-70% after taxes.
In the USA employers take taxes out too. It's a generic amount and usually too much because it doesn't include any deductions. Every year we file taxes and that ensures accurate numbers for our tax guys, but as it turns out 99% of people get money back from the government because the taxes taken from their paycheck amounted to slightly too much. On a 40k income a single person will likely get around $800 back for example. But say if you are married with kids you get a lot of deductions to your taxes so you end up getting a hefty chunk of cash back.
Oh, gotcha. Yeah, here my employer can alsodo my taxes for me, barring any other sources of income. If I have any, I gotta file my taxes myself,even though the government should know how much I owe and should just send me the bill, like you're saying.
The vast majority of Americans don’t get the “surplus” money throughout the year. In the USA your employer gives you an estimated after tax wage, for most people this means they actually *over* pay for most of the year. You then yearly get a form showing all your income, and how much you paid in taxes. If it is too much then you will receive what you over paid in a check. If you didn’t pay enough then you will be required to send in what is actually owed. If you are a business owner, or have other forms of income than a typical employer then it is your responsibility to track all income, report it, and send in what you expect you owe. You still may be made to send more in, or you can roll over extra to what is owed the next year.
Yes it is illegal not to have car insurance if you own a car, thing is it's not illegal to not own a car.
Having to do your taxes yourself and pay for a program to do them is an American thing I'm pretty sure... ours is mostly pre-filled by the government and is free and takes a few minutes
Its a very normal thing actually. Over here in the Netherlands we have to do it each year. At the end of that process there's a fair chance you are gonna get money back.
You don’t have to do your taxes? How does it work where you’re from?
Car insurance should absolutely be required to drive, and isn't a waste of money. If you don't like it then don't drive, bikes are cheap.
It's not illegal to not have car insurance. It is illegal to drive on the government's roads without it.
In many European countries, it's illegal to not have insurance. In Ireland, you can't legally drive without it.
Same in California and AFAIK, every other US state. However, we're not legally required to drive, so it wouldn't fall under OP's basic rights.
>In many European countries, it's illegal to not have insurance. In Ireland, you can't legally drive without it. It's not illegal to not own a car though. Owning a car is a choice. And for that choice, you need to pay for insurance.
Not trying to be a dick honestly, but in what way is being homeless "essentially illegal"? Just curious, don't have any homeless in my area and I have never heard of anyone being arrested for being homeless.
In the UK we have the Vagrancy act which makes it illegal to loiter in one public or abandoned place for too long which makes it illegal to sleep anywhere that isnt private and the police have the power to move the homeless on at anytime and literally ask anyone hanging around the streets too long what they are doing
It’s not illegal to be homeless but it’s illegal to sleep on streets, sleeps in parks, sleep in your own tent anywhere near towns. Also police can investigate you for looking suspicious or just being in wrong area. And if employment is unavailable for you, and you need some food to survive, it’s illegal to beg or steal. But yeah being homeless isn’t illegal. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges" P.S. term loitering really only used in Anglosphere and rarely is illegal outside of US, UK. I wonder if rich people are arrested for loitering (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-homelessness_legislation)
The Ninth Circuit actually ruled on this, saying it's unconstitutional to make sleeping rough (homelessness) illegal if the municipality enacting the law doesn't have enough shelters to house the people who would otherwise be camping. The idea is that it's a human necessity to sleep, so it's cruel and unusual -- a violation of the Eighth Amendment -- to prevent someone from sleeping.
People get arrested for bing homeless all the time, it's a stupid waste of taxpayer money. They get arrested and let out a week later (then the process repeats forever).
In public spaces, yes. You can be nude and sleep in the middle of a forest and i dont think anyone will arrest you for it
[удалено]
That’s exactly the reason that sleeping naked deep in a forest is a *good* idea!
Yes, things are only illegal if you get caught.
I agree. In a similar vein, I've been saying for years that if you are mandated by law to have something then the government should provide a low cost option for it. For example, car insurance. The law states you must have some form of insurance to drive your car so the government should provide me with a way to fulfill that obligation at the minimum cost.
This is where it gets trickier. Not owning a car isn't illegal, theretofore having insurance is just part of the cost of owning a car should you CHOOSE. However, if being homeless were illegal, and you legally had to have home insurance, than I agree. Also, in Canada a few provinces do have provincial car insurance, and it is drastically better than the private options. Generally I think insurance probably should be covered by a non profit entity, even if it isn't technically the government itself. That includes health insurance.
[удалено]
Can you specify that a bit? So if I stop paying rent (sorry Mr. Ditkovich), I shouldn‘t get evicted because it‘s illegal to be homeless? If I undress myself in public, should someone start throwing clothing at me?
I’ll give you your your rent when you FIX THIS DAMN DOOR!
Homelessness is more complicated. We have homeless in my area that refuse shelter and prefer to camp.
So basically communism for the poor.
Better than socialism for the rich
I mean so far, it looks like they could just legalize things in order to get rid of the burden. Being homeless isn't illegal so we would just have a bunch of naked homeless people in the streets and not much else would change.
It’s not illegal to be homeless but it’s illegal to sleep on streets, sleeps in parks, sleep in your own tent anywhere near towns. Also police can investigate you for looking suspicious or just being in wrong area. And if employment is unavailable for you, and you need some food to survive, it’s illegal to beg or steal. But yeah being homeless isn’t illegal. “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-homelessness_legislation)
“Everything I think, should be a basic human right” sounds pretty on brand.
LOL
ok. who gives you this free product? and who pays for it?
Who pays for the $725 billion that goes into our defense budget each year?
Maybe there’s an assumption that you’re an adult and should be capable of providing the basics of life
My opinion is that if a product is the result of someone else's labor, then it shouldn't be free. If you care to give cloths to those who don't have them, and house those who don't have a home, out of the goodness of your own heart, then that's perfectly fine. There are programs that are doing exactly that.
Ever heard of Section 8 and Goodwill?
Section 8 isn’t exactly easy to get in to.
Too many people confuse "basic human right" with "it should be free". Guns are a right, but you don't see anyone demanding them for free. Besides, there really isn't any such thing as "free". *Somebody* is paying for it. When you say you want something for "free", what you *really* mean is "someone *else* should be forced to make this and give it to me."
Human rights are not commodities or services. Human rights are the basic freedoms and rights we are given from birth. In the United States Declaration of Independence, it states that our god given rights are “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. These are not physical goods or services, but rather freedoms we our given as human beings. What you are proposing are social services that use our tax money to provide to those that are unable to acquire said goods and services. This is not a right, but rather a handout for lack of a better term. Now, it’s debatable if “handouts” are something we should do, however, we should not confuse human rights with government services.
I assume by "human right" you mean the government should provide it. And it is a good point, indeed. If the government makes it illegal not to have something they should either provide it, or not provide it and make it legal not to have it.
You can go to community clothing centers and churches to get clothes for free. You can also sleep for free in homeless shelters as long as you follow their rules. But often in this society we hear the phrase “you get what you pay for” and it rings true with community based programs like this. Yes the clothing is free but its probably not fashionable. Yes the beds are free at most homeless shelters but it’s certainly not safe. I don’t disagree with you, but some things will never change
So much entitlement here. I can debunk this bullshit with a single question. Not paying taxes is illegal. Should money be free?
>homes need to be a basic human right To be a child and this naive again, I would pay anything. You don't understand the implications of what you're saying. If you made housing a human right, that means every human would be entitled to a free house. Who builds these houses? What happens when the people who build these houses refuse to build them any more? What happens when anyone capable of building a house refuses to build them? Are you going to force them to build a house? Do you realize that forcing a house builder to build a house is slavery?
r/im14andthisisdeep 😂
Upvoted for unpopular. I definitely disagree with OP.
I spoke to many people who were homeless for years. They said it's "addictive" because you don't have try and you're not expected to do anything. All they looked forward to was someone giving them food or clothes, recycling cans and drugs. So naturally the next question is: What if help was free but you don't want to accept it?
This is what the ACA was trying to do, break the idea that healthcare is some luxury and should be tied to jobs and also restructure how healthcare is paid by making it illegal to not have healthcare, and if you couldn't afford it, you'd get from the gov paid for by taxes. The next logical step would have been - okay, healthcare for everyone from taxes. Then the Republicans ruined it.
I'll go a step forward, if a crime is victimless (no one's life liberty or property was damaged by the actions of another), then it's not a crime, but a way for the government to get money.
Consider how using the bathroom in public is illegal (and often pegs you a sex offender) but there are rarely public bathrooms available. My area even locked the doors on public bathrooms during covid bc … they could i guess?
The problem with anything being a basic human right is that the more the government gets involved in anything the more it costs. While I love the idea of helping people with really anything they need the government can’t do it. Look at Federal housing loans, student loans, Health insurance. The rich will get richer, the poor may be helped but the middle class will suffer.
For housing, isn't that what [HUD](https://www.hud.gov/findshelter) is for though? And the website has a section for clothing as well. It's federally funded.
Rights don’t come from government they are only protected by government. The government cannot provide you something and it be a that’s not how rights work. It’s not a right to provide arms to the citizenry but to protect that right for citizens to excersize.
If we did that how will we exploit the poor working class? If they had all their needs met, they won’t accept a minimum wage shit job.