chem1st Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 It is accepted that people need water, food, shelter to live. It is a human right to have these things, or at least be allowed to produce your own. If one holds a man against his will, you must feed and water him and provide shelter till he is brought before judgement. Prisoners are housed and fed. The state cannot hold and starve people in outdoor camps. Yet, it controls and manipulates the housing market and land market (food production) with various subsidies and restrictions. So many are left without the ability to house and feed themselves, for they are denied to right to build/grow your own, and the state doesn't house/feed them. Increasing amounts are no longer able to access housing and food markets due to the concentrated ownership (which is enforced by state policies), and this manifests itself in increasing housing and food poverty. Homelessness has increased and so has the need for people to access food banks. A million workers are now on housing benefit. The state no longer houses people, so it must address the humans rights issues that are arising. If it will not house people, then it must allow all men the right to build their own housing, without regulation. The UK needs a right to build or council housing, ideally both. UK people have a right to a decent house. What do you think? What type of housing do UK people deserve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 It is accepted that people need water, food, shelter to live. It is a human right to have these things, or at least be allowed to produce your own. If one holds a man against his will, you must feed and water him and provide shelter till he is brought before judgement. Prisoners are housed and fed. The state cannot hold and starve people in outdoor camps. Yet, it controls and manipulates the housing market and land market (food production) with various subsidies and restrictions. So many are left without the ability to house and feed themselves, for they are denied to right to build/grow your own, and the state doesn't house/feed them. Increasing amounts are no longer able to access housing and food markets due to the concentrated ownership (which is enforced by state policies), and this manifests itself in increasing housing and food poverty. Homelessness has increased and so has the need for people to access food banks. A million workers are now on housing benefit. The state no longer houses people, so it must address the humans rights issues that are arising. If it will not house people, then it must allow all men the right to build their own housing, without regulation. The UK needs a right to build or council housing, ideally both. UK people have a right to a decent house. What do you think? What type of housing do UK people deserve? It needs to be clean, comfortable and affordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 It only needs to be the bare minimum that is required. Warm, dry, sanitary and secure. All else is secondary to need. For most people that means that bedsit type accommodation is perfectly adequate. If fact in reality dormitory style accommodation would be sufficient for many, with shared bathrooms, common living areas etc. A private room to store belongings and sleep. Students do it whilst at University because it's the only affordable option in most cases. We do it with prisons because it's the most cost-effective method. We have millions of square feet of waste 'urban' space in the form of empty warehousing in Sheffield alone. With relatively small investment (given returns over a long period afterwards) why can't we re-claim that wasted space and turn it into something useful rather than build new buildings on green land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 It only needs to be the bare minimum that is required. Warm, dry, sanitary and secure. All else is secondary to need. For most people that means that bedsit type accommodation is perfectly adequate. If fact in reality dormitory style accommodation would be sufficient for many, with shared bathrooms, common living areas etc. A private room to store belongings and sleep. Students do it whilst at University because it's the only affordable option in most cases. We do it with prisons because it's the most cost-effective method. We have millions of square feet of waste 'urban' space in the form of empty warehousing in Sheffield alone. With relatively small investment (given returns over a long period afterwards) why can't we re-claim that wasted space and turn it into something useful rather than build new buildings on green land. Why should people be forced into sub standard accommodation if they are capable of building better quality accommodation of their own? Why shouldn't people be allowed to build on greenbelt, especially when others have done so, and the greenbelt has doubled in size since introduction? If those who have houses upon greenbelt are permitted to live in such housing tax free, whilst others are denied to build such housing and compete, then surely we have a system that is grossly unfair, and in order to level the playing field, we must tax those in housing above the minimum provided to others with the intention of forcing them into the bare minimum style of accommodation, so that their houses can be demolished and returned to nature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Why should people be forced into sub standard accommodation if they are capable of building better quality accommodation of their own?With what resources? As you're talking about people housed in shelter/social housing, therefore at society's expense (nothing wrong with that btw, just humour my logic), shouldn't such capable people work to build such houses and get paid for their labour, instead of remaining society's dependents? If those who have houses upon greenbelt are permitted to live in such housing tax free Me no understand the bit in bold. Substantiate that, please. Meanwhile, elsewhere, some thinking outside the box yields this. Clean, comfortable and affordable; warm, dry, sanitary and secure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Why should people be forced into sub standard accommodation if they are capable of building better quality accommodation of their own? Why shouldn't people be allowed to build on greenbelt, especially when others have done so, and the greenbelt has doubled in size since introduction? If those who have houses upon greenbelt are permitted to live in such housing tax free, whilst others are denied to build such housing and compete, then surely we have a system that is grossly unfair, and in order to level the playing field, we must tax those in housing above the minimum provided to others with the intention of forcing them into the bare minimum style of accommodation, so that their houses can be demolished and returned to nature... We back to subsistance-farming-shanty-towns again? I know there are housing issues but is unregulated dangerous self builds really the best idea on offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Nobody needs to be homeless the last resort is a tent ! Available at many stores for under thirty quid ! You dont have a right to anything ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Instead of banging on about "Rights" why are you not questioning what peoples responsibilities are? People have a responsibility to support themselves and their dependents. that's a better place to start the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 Instead of banging on about "Rights" why are you not questioning what peoples responsibilities are? People have a responsibility to support themselves and their dependents. that's a better place to start the debate. How can people support themselves if they are denied the right to house and feed themselves... ---------- Post added 12-09-2013 at 17:07 ---------- With what resources? And there lies the problem. People are banned from utiliing the land to their own advantage. if they could utilise the land, then we would soon be rid of grotesque inequalities and poverty. As you're talking about people housed in shelter/social housing, therefore at society's expense (nothing wrong with that btw, just humour my logic), shouldn't such capable people work to build such houses and get paid for their labour, instead of remaining society's dependents? Me no understand the bit in bold. Substantiate that, please. Social housing isn't really at societies expense. It is good for society. The problem is that society denies people housing, so it is forced to provide it, as people are effectively banned from providing their own. To own something one did not create whilst depriving others of access is violence, and puts one at a significant advantage to those deprived of access. To not have to pay tax (compensation) for doing this, tilts the odds firmly in ones favour. They live somewhere tax free, whilst others must be forced to pay a tax if they wish to do so, be it to the state or to private individuals. Meanwhile, elsewhere, some thinking outside the box yields this. Clean, comfortable and affordable; warm, dry, sanitary and secure. We could have shipping container homes for very little. What we need is a right for people to occupy a small proportion of their native land, without paying tax to private landholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Why should people be forced into sub standard accommodation if they are capable of building better quality accommodation of their own? Who said anything about sub-standard accommodation? You've stated that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. If the accommodation is adequate for the needs of that person under the terms I put above then it's not substandard & the "right to shelter" is fulfilled. Will you not be happy till we're all in 17 bedroom palatial mansions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.