• Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Appeal to nature fallacy. Just because something is a certain way in nature doesn’t automatically mean it’s good because nature has no concept of good or bad. Living in “the wild” has a far higher mortality rate than any of us should accept today. By your logic nothing should be a human right because we can always just die if we don’t have it, just as nature intended.

      Also, humans originated in the African savannah, which is much warmer than the places most humans now live. And even in the savannah at the dawn of our species we were nest building animals that instinctively would make shelters for ourselves. Housing is as natural to humanity as hives are to bees.

    • arbitrary_sarcasm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      By that logic, nothing is a human right since you can find food, water and shelter in the wild.

      The problem with that logic is that you assume everyone to be physically able and knowledgeable to live off the land.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well, it takes some time to grow up to be able to find food and water. How long until we can walk even?

        Food, water and means to provide an upbringing until offspring can care for themselves, those could be considered basic rights.

        Housing is so far into the technological advancements, building up on so many other systems, I fail to see how that can be a right.

        Air and food on the other hand, and sensible means to acquiring those. Well. There certainly is room for discussion. When people start owning land, keeping others to effectively do those things, they should have to provide alternatives. Or we have to abolish ownership of natural resources at all. Both can’t work together. That’s ineffective, of course, and makes planning and advancement difficult.

        The price of capitalism and ownership of nature should be compensation. Nothing natural about social structures. If they want to continue those money games, they need to play by the rules of nature. Or they’ll go down with chopped-off heads at some point.

      • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s right. Nothing is a human right. Many humans have rights outlined in their countries constitutions but even those are easily stomped on with usually little consequence

        • arbitrary_sarcasm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          And you’re saying that shouldn’t be the case right ? Right ?

          I’d insert that Anakin Padme meme here if I had one ready.

          • Sagifurius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            I’m just saying what is. If you want what I think should be, I’m a non Randian libertarian. Big on personal responsibility and the risk of consequences and consequences of risk, less on being a whiny bitch about everything.

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Article 25 of the declararion of himan rights: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family

      Seriously, do you think human rights are somehow just a feeling what should be? They are written down and you can look them up.

    • iquanyin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      it’s illegal. the blm will come with guns and force you out. i know this for a fact. not can i just find some land and grow my food and raise animals. it’s either owned by someone or it’s govt land.

      • NotJustForMe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Absolutely. So instead of building up on that, declaring everyone may own something, making them mini billionaires in principle; yeah, make owning land illegal. That would be the natural conclusion.

        You are basically saying: other people owning things and keeping me from building a house and a live should be illegal. Your solution: Make everyone own something, so they can build a house! Houses for everyone, hurray! But hey, my family is twice as big as yours, my house should, by right, be bigger. And hey, my farm supplies for ten families, it should, by right, be bigger. You don’t want to farm, let me buy your land and provide for you. And so the circle begins.

        I’d say, that thinking is what got us here in the first place.

        • iquanyin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          i’m pretty sure that native americans were able to not own land and work this out. i do think owning land is absurd. also, all i need to do is look around to know that how we are doing things has to change if our species wants to keep living. i don’t mean what you think but it’s the wee hours here, the key word being “wee” as that’s why i got up for a sec. so…back to sleep it is.