Rantman

3

We all talk a lot about human rights, but it is strange that the fundamental, basic right to live and exist hasn't been granted yet. Its nothing but a disgrace that people still die from lacking basic necessities such as food and water. Why aren't these basic amenities provided for free, at a rationed level, to those who need it? 

What, suddenly it's very hard to provide the right to live to fellow members of your species? What year is this, 10000 BC?

Yes, I agree its an economic nightmare. The budget required would be colossal, and even with private citizen contributions it would require curtailing of many other government expenses, both unnecessary and less necessary. Should the means of production be state-owned, they are bound to fall to corruption, and should they be private, inefficiencies and huge government costs would prevail. Its a very tricky, difficult matter.

Yet, I have a bone to pick with the moral side of the counterargument. The argument made is that should people be provided food, water, and other necessities such as housing, electricity etc., they would not work. And, I ask, what's so bad about that? A society that prioritizes the right to work over the right to live is a devolved society, if you ask me.

Besides, its not like providing people with basic sustenance and facilities makes them go 'ah yes, time to be a lazy useless burden on the government for eternity'. You'd be surprised with the tendency of humans to eventually get dissatisfied and bored with anything. The basic, standard provisions won't keep anybody satisfied for too long, and work just changes from necessity-driven to luxury/want-driven. Even rich people like Jeff Besoz and Musk still work, I don't see why you or I wouldn't. The extra financial security provided by not having to scrape a living would help people pursue their passion rather than get into minimum wage jobs, which will increase productivity and satisfaction with one's work life.

Why are houses so costly? If adequate shelter is a basic need, then why isn't it accessible for more people? Even capitalistic policies support intervention government in the case of market failures, wherein actions by buyers and/or sellers prevent the market from reaching its ideal outcome, such as in the case of a monopoly. In the property market, often properties are withheld from the market, since the prices would inevitably rise as a country's economy grows, and there is no penalty for holding empty, unused houses. Or a property owner simply doesn't want to rent out his properties for various random reasons. This leads to a contraction in supply, which allows artificial raising of price despite there existing the same demand. 

Perhaps a law which prevents properties from staying unleased and removed from the market, for more than 5 years, may help alleviate this problem. Or a minimum 50 percent occupancy for apartments. I still can't believe land is costly due to demand generated from housing, when efficient land-saving housing systems (i.e. tall buildings) have already been discovered and are within our construction capabilities but not being fully implemented. I'm not saying they should ban individual housing or something, however an extra cost could be imposed while apartments should be drastically cheaper due to cost-savings gained from operating at their increased capacity (economies of scale).

And we haven't even discussed the right to progress yet. Shouldn't everyone have equal opportunities to grow and succeed in life, if they are putting the effort in? Yet it's a true saying that 'money helps make more money', and a regressive system with inequality at its core is bound to favor the rich in every aspect of life. The least governments can do is provide education, not just till school but also university level, at rates that are affordable to almost all. Some universities need to rationalize their cost structure, for either they are making too much profit or have too high costs, both of which are financially detrimental to their students.

People say that minimum wage is good enough pay for most, but they fail to recognize that everyone has different financial needs. Some have greater number of dependents to support on their income, some have medical conditions, others have debt and EMIs for essential goods and services, some of which may be required to be able to work in the first place, such as a car or bike for transport, or initial investment such as in work tools or education. Or housing of course.