“Housing is A Human Right!” (EP.101)

Housing Rights

Summary

We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, who will work–and why?

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for all of us and our futures as individuals and as a Republic.

Transcript

We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than without food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, who will work–and why?

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this means for all of us and our futures as individuals and as a Republic.

Today’s Key Point: Housing, healthcare, food, shelter and clothing, among other things, are not human rights to be guaranteed to everyone. Our communities, our nation, should–must–provide reasonable access to all the necessities of life to everyone. At its core, reasonable access means that anyone who works hard over time should have access to all of these products and services for themselves and for all of those for whom they are responsible. If someone can’t do for themselves, then the necessities should be provided. If someone won’t do for themselves, they properly and by their own choice are on their own.

We make huge progress by merely bringing up the can’t vs won’t  choice. The many and growing taxpayer-funded programs all ignore this question, and focus only on perceived need.  All regardless of whether that need was generated by an honest inability, after working hard over time, to provide for themselves, or if the need was generated from something less than that level of effort. Or from something that did not look like at all like an honest, hard-fought desire to make it on their own.

Life is hard, and it is correctly meant to be that way. Don’t we all learn far more from the hard times that we work through, than the easy times? Of course we do. And I am exactly the same way. The good news is that while life is hard, once we understand that, the truth of the statement that life is hard, life gets a lot easier. Once the expectation has been set and understood, it’s not so bad. In fact it’s pretty good.

Pause for a definition. By “hard”, I do not mean going to work, picking the kids up from school and doing the dishes. That may be boring and repetitive, and, perhaps, not what you’d like to do with each and every day, but it is not hard. Hard is working while putting yourself through undergraduate and graduate school. Signing for student loans is not hard. Hard is going to night school while working in a dead end job. Seeking taxpayer support because your job is being threatened by technology is not hard. You get the idea.

Does this sound hard-hearted to you? It doesn’t to me. At all. It does not even sound like “tough love” to me. It is a necessary observation about how the world, with us in it, is correctly designed to allow us, you and me, to take advantage of the hard parts in our lives by learning from those experiences. And by learning to be tough enough to keep on keeping on. In exactly the same way that your body repairs or replaces damaged muscle fibers after a workout, making you stronger. No workout, no muscle growth. No hard experiences in life, no growth.

Key Point No. 2 (Do I get two today?): If we as individuals and a society protect others from “hard”, we are doing them a great disservice. Most conversation about providing welfare focuses on the burden placed on the taxpayers. As true as that is, it’s not my point here. The great disservice is to those from whom the opportunity to learn from hardship, to learn to prosper from gritting it out, has been stolen. Yes, stolen. Stolen by the cruel fiction that life should not be hard, and if it is hard, it means that it is unfair. Q.E.D. And “unfair” is presented in many ways, including victimhood, identity politics and the like.

Let’s test Revolution 2.0’s two main tenets on today’s principles:

  1. Tenet no. 1. Personal Responsibility. Take it. Teach it. This is an easy application. Life is hard. Don’t just “deal with it”, embrace it. Thrive in spite of it all. And model that behavior for others.
  2. Tenet no. 2. Be Your Brother’s Keeper. This is a little less obvious in today’s application. Here, you, the Keeper, are not there simply to supply cash and other necessities for your Brother; you are there to supply learning and motivation. Remember the lesson about giving a man a fish, as opposed to teaching him how to fish? Well, teaching him how to fish is not useful unless he wants to fish for himself after the lessons. If all he gets from you is learning how to fish, and not the importance of–the dignity that comes from–fishing for himself, not much has been accomplished. I’ll go a step further here: to the extent that people are not teaching this principle, they do everyone a disservice. And to the extent that they teach the opposite, teaching that dignity and worth can be derived from victimhood-based entitlements, instead of teaching that dignity and worth are derived–and derived only–from hard work over time, they are perpetuating an injustice bordering on evil on all of us–and our nation.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

  1. Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
  2. Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

If we apply those two core principles simultaneously, never only one or the other, we will always be on the right path. Depending upon what we face, one principle or the other may appropriately be given more emphasis, but they are always acted upon together.

The Founders, Revolution 1.0,  were declared traitors by the British Crown, and their lives were forfeit if caught. We risk very little by stepping up and participating in Revolution 2.0™. . In fact, we risk our futures if we don’t. I am inviting you, recruiting you, to join Revolution 2.0™ today. Join with me in using what we know how to do–what we know we must do–to everyone’s advantage. Let’s practice thinking well of others as we seek common goals, research the facts that apply to those goals, and use non agenda-based reasoning to achieve those goals together. Practice personal responsibility and be your brother’s keeper.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

  • Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
  • Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
  • Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
  • Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
  • From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

Join me. Join the others. Let’s grow this together.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Links and References

Can’t or Won’t?

Money and Dignity

Life is Hard

Housing is a Human Right

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the blog with comments or questions about this podcast or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Now it is time for our usual parting thought. It is not enough to be informed. It is not enough to be a well informed voter. We need to act.  And if we, you and I, don’t do something, then the others who are doing something, will continue to run the show

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

Will Luden
Follow Me

Will Luden

I am your host, Will Luden, former long-time high-tech CEO and Board Chair. I had no idea when I started this podcast that it would become the highest calling of my professional career. Lincoln famously hoped that a government, “…of the people, by the people and for the people…”, would not perish from this earth. My hope, the reason for Revolution 2.0 ”A Booster Shot”, is that a government based on common goals, achieved by applying non agenda-based reasoning to core facts, will allow us to continue to build on our mutual inheritance of a legacy of dedication to seemingly impossible ideals, a legacy that also includes a history of achieving them.
Will Luden
Follow Me
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

2 Responses

  1. Charles Cabral Reply

    You touched on a basic question of “What is a human right, and how should society guarantee it?” The Declaration of Independence declares three general rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Clearly, government or society in general cannot provide any of those, only suppress them. It was the intent of the founding fathers that government should not stand in their way. The Bill of Rights got more specific in that regard laying out our rights to speak our minds, be armed, have privacy in our homes, etc. without government interference. Making jump to the requirement that government is obligated to provide those things has no logical basis. In fact, it seems that most government policies can only restrict one’s ability to achieve them. Here in Hawai’i, it’s clear that governmental pro-growth policies have contributed to the inability of many to afford a home and resulted in the highest homeless rate in the nation.
    If, in fact, society develops a consensus (note that I say consensus, not just winning an election by a plurality) that the best way to help those in need is through government action, rather than by individual, religious or NGO action, so be it, but that should be the end point of the discussion, rather than the starting assumption.

    • Will Luden Reply

      Charlie, wish I had said that. Any Rand said something along these lines, but wandered off in too many directions. More personal responsibility, and less government responsibility. And many see the latter as other people’s responsibility, not mine.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Revolution 2.0

* indicates required

Recent Posts

Scroll to top
X
Skip to content